How much for a nuclear power plant?

[xxChrisxx]

Take a look at Indonesia and the Philippines, and the damage that can be done with a working knowledge of Kali/Escrima and a couple of sticks or a knife. Unarmed vs. knife or baton is an ugly match-up, and while guns make it EASIER to kill large numbers of people quickly, most people kill one other person; a knife is perfectly serviceable in that regard. Let's not even get into something like machete, or high-end slingshot.

And...?

As far as I can gather your point is, if we are determined enough we can kill each other anyway, so we may as well give everyone guns.

Or was it just an anecdote in response to my post?

 

[JaredJames]

Wasn't our guns, it was our tactics and our allies. We both had guns, we just used them in a more effective fashion; oh, and the British thought a treeline of painted logs were cannons.

We could always bring up the 'not so friendly fire' reputation America has developed.

This made me laugh:

I was curious about the number of friendly fire cases for America and the UK (to compare numbers) so I typed "number of american friendly fire" into google and the first result to come up:

"F***, the Yanks killed more of our troops than the enemy did"

Says it all really...:rofl:

(from: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Friendly_fire if anyones interested)

Anyway, back on topic, certainly a good insight to 'kook thinking' you have there russ. Pity it's all true.

That is an interesting diference, 985,000 deaths when the radiation could only do 100,000.

 

[xxChrisxx]

That is an interesting diference, 985,000 deaths when the radiation could only do 100,000.

Well the numbers are flexible, it just depends on where you draw the line. 100,000 is the radition dose to driectly kill that many people.

Many more people would have breathed in the toxic crap that it spewed out, so if those people then die of cancer, you could at a stretch include them. However the issue with this is, that breathing in only increases risk of cancer, so many people would have been prone to getting it anyway (do you include those who smoked all their lives etc). There is no causal link between the increased cancer rates and Chernobyl.

It's distinctly likely that it's caused a few, but as Russ said when you get better detection equipment you are about to see a leap the detection rates.

It's this 'woolyness' in definitions that causes problems.

 

[nismaratwork]

We could always bring up the 'not so friendly fire' reputation America has developed.

This made me laugh:

I was curious about the number of friendly fire cases for America and the UK (to compare numbers) so I typed "number of american friendly fire" into google and the first result to come up:

"F***, the Yanks killed more of our troops than the enemy did"

Says it all really...:rofl:

(from: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Friendly_fire if anyones interested)

Anyway, back on topic, certainly a good insight to 'kook thinking' you have there russ. Pity it's all true.

That is an interesting diference, 985,000 deaths when the radiation could only do 100,000.

It's really a shame about blue on blue (friendly fire) incidents. When you consider how we fight though, and the range and accuracy of weapons along with silhouette and other reaction-based training, it starts to make sense. In the historical case... well... give a bunch of merchants and farmers muskets and things are going to get ugly; fortunately there was a lot of bayonet combat as well... unfortunately mostly they were British bayonets. Anyway, once again the importance of knives is revealed.

xxChrisxx: I'm saying that violence, especially your average murder, is going to occur with or without a gun. Generally the killer and victim are "nearest and dearest", and bludgeoning and stabbing are often inversely proportional to handgun violence. If you like, I can cite that, the point being that outside of spree killings (Columbine and the like) where guns definitely tend to up the body count, you're not necessarily safer in a gun-free country. I'd rather walk around Detroit at night, than Manila, and I'm not worried about guns in Manila.

 

[JaredJames]

It's really a shame about blue on blue (friendly fire) incidents. When you consider how we fight though, and the range and accuracy of weapons along with silhouette and other reaction-based training, it starts to make sense. In the historical case... well... give a bunch of merchants and farmers muskets and things are going to get ugly; fortunately there was a lot of bayonet combat as well... unfortunately mostly they were British bayonets. Anyway, once again the importance of knives is revealed.

Too true, as sad as it is.

xxChrisxx: I'm saying that violence, especially your average murder, is going to occur with or without a gun. Generally the killer and victim are "nearest and dearest", and bludgeoning and stabbing are often inversely proportional to handgun violence. If you like, I can cite that, the point being that outside of spree killings (Columbine and the like) where guns definitely tend to up the body count, you're not necessarily safer in a gun-free country. I'd rather walk around Detroit at night, than Manila, and I'm not worried about guns in Manila.

I agree, violence will occur regardless. Whether it is with hand guns, knives or baseball bats. The difference is, if you pull a gun on someone (for whatever reason), you endanger the lives of all those around you. The person you aim it at, any passers by who could get hit if you miss the target etc. Whereas I am yet to hear of anyone (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) 'pulling a knife on someone (again for whatever reason) and managing to miss the intended target and wound a passer by'. Sounds comical, but the fact is, knives and bats have limited range, a range easily circumvented via the use of a stun gun or riot shields and in the case of a stand off, a bit of distance. If a person has a gun, they can actively target people from a 'safe' distance or position.

I would also say that it is a lot easy to get hold of knives and blunt instruments for 'bludgeoning and stabbing', so it would seem logical violence with such implements are more common.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder how many people have been killed in hydroelectric dam disasters.

A bunch. For example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

2000ish dead

Or much more recently - at the Sayono-Shusenskay dam in 2009. 79 killed when the operators discovered that yes there is such a thing as hammerlock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano–Shushenskaya_Dam#2009_accident

 

[Cyrus]

Too true, as sad as it is.

I agree, violence will occur regardless. Whether it is with hand guns, knives or baseball bats. The difference is, if you pull a gun on someone (for whatever reason), you endanger the lives of all those around you. The person you aim it at, any passers by who could get hit if you miss the target etc. Whereas I am yet to hear of anyone (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) 'pulling a knife on someone (again for whatever reason) and managing to miss the intended target and wound a passer by'. Sounds comical, but the fact is, knives and bats have limited range, a range easily circumvented via the use of a stun gun or riot shields and in the case of a stand off, a bit of distance. If a person has a gun, they can actively target people from a 'safe' distance or position.

I would also say that it is a lot easy to get hold of knives and blunt instruments for 'bludgeoning and stabbing', so it would seem logical violence with such implements are more common.

...Thats why it's illegal to pull a gun on someone. And unless you live in the Ghetto where drive by shootings occur, this is really a non-issue.

 

[FlexGunship]

...Thats why it's illegal to pull a gun on someone. And unless you live in the Ghetto where drive by shootings occur, this is really a non-issue.

Yeah, so how about that OP... I heard we were talking about the cost of nuclear power at one point.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Yeah, so how about that OP... I heard we were talking about the cost of nuclear power at one point.

Not really much more to comment on that, we're right and greenpeace are wrong as usual.

Now... Ion cannons, personal defence only?

 

[JaredJames]

...Thats why it's illegal to pull a gun on someone. And unless you live in the Ghetto where drive by shootings occur, this is really a non-issue.

Is it not illegal to pull a knife on someone? Or to threaten someone with a baseball bat? Hardly a deterrent regardless of weapon of choice.

You say it's a non-issue, but I'm referring to everyone who carries a gun (police included). The moment the gun is pulled, the threat to target and bystanders (anyone within the guns range) alike is there. You pull a blade, and the threat is only to people at arms length (or slightly further depending on the throwing capability of the knife wielder - nothing like a random knife kill from a blade someone has mindlessly thrown over a building... COD ).

Anyway, I don't think you should (or it's even possible) to include deaths due to low does radiation poisoning. You would have to prove they were in contact with the radiation and then know their life history to ensure they weren't around other carcinogenic materials / threats. Just can't be done. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but you'd be including an unrealistic number of deaths on the grounds they may have been related to the incident.

 

[JaredJames]

Now... Ion cannons, personal defence only?

I personally prefer Gaussian and Rail based projectile weapon systems. Certainly wouldn't allow my home to be without one...

 

[xxChrisxx]

...Thats why it's illegal to pull a gun on someone. And unless you live in the Ghetto where drive by shootings occur, this is really a non-issue.

And being illegal stops innocent bystanders being shot... how?

It's illegal to carry a concealed or any offensive weapon in the UK, doesn't stop people getting stabbed though.

Now if no one carried knives (which won't happen, as to me a knife is a tool not a weapon), I mean they physically couldn't get hold of them, stabbings by knives would plummet. People would just turn to other weapons but still, the point stands.

 

[FlexGunship]

The argument for guns seems simple to me (maybe I'm oversimplifying it).

If guns are illegal, then only criminals will have them. By definition. Would you want to live in a place knowing that only criminals are allowed to have guns? (Well, and local, state, and federal government officials... yikes.)

My neighbor has a shotgun (I'm not a gun owner), and my neighbor and I get along well. That means, when selecting which place to rob, a criminal has a pretty strong deterrent; he doesn't know who has a gun and who doesn't. Perhaps he should just go home instead.

Hypothetically, what if every woman was issued a handgun when she turned (I don't know) 21? Even if only 50% of women chose to carry those handguns, I bet you would see a sharp decline in rape-related crimes without even a shot being fired. Just a thought experiment; I realize that it's impractical, not to mention dangerous, since most people aren't adequately trained to handle firearms.

(Side note: have you noticed how only criminals and liberal government want to take away guns? That seems odd to me.)

 

[mheslep]

Contrary to popular belief, nuclear fuel isn't actually that dangerous in the short term; direct exposure for several hours is hardly a concern. ...

Er, depends. Nuclear fuel that's been used, i.e. in a working reactor and therefore containing radioisotope fission products is highly radioactive and is an extreme hazard if un-contained. It is the fission products that can cause the harm both through high energy radioactivity and chemical similarity to biological compounds, and not so much the uranium itself. Inversely, the half life decay of the products is short (years to decades), unlike the relatively low radioactivity U, which decays over thousands of years. So I expect there'd be little point in stealing new, unused, nuclear fuel for use in a dirty bomb, and stealing waste or used fuel would be extremely hazardous to the thief.

 

[JaredJames]

Women issued guns at 21? Given the nature of people to panic when threatened and overreact to situations, I'm certain you'd also see the number of shootings increase.

As a comparison, as we are all aware, in the US people are allowed to carry guns, in the UK they are not. According to your argument Flex, as there is a strong probability of a woman in the US carrying a firearm, the rape rate should be lower in the US than in the UK.

UK - not allowed guns so anyone is a target.
US - allowed guns, any woman could be carrying one, he doesn't know who is / isn't 'packing heat' so the deterrent is there.

So the number of rapes should be lower in the US then in the UK. (This argument could apply to anything, what about comparing muggings with the same criteria as above, the potential of a firearm being carried by the victim acting as a deterrent?)

I shall have a look for some numbers to see if this is true.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...
Anyway, I don't think you should (or it's even possible) to include deaths due to low does radiation poisoning. You would have to prove they were in contact with the radiation and then know their life history to ensure they weren't around other carcinogenic materials / threats. Just can't be done. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but you'd be including an unrealistic number of deaths on the grounds they may have been related to the incident.

When I first got into studying nuclear power I thought that the adoption and usage of the Radiation hormesis theory was a good idea. Oh boy was I wrong, after getting a bit of biology and physics under my belt the errors of that theory became obvious. The linear no-threshold model ( LNT ) is defiantly the way the NRC should rethink the current batch of regulations. Also people also need to learn that Earth is a hot planet, radiation did not just show up on December 2, 1942

And to add fuel to the side track of this thread. The British should be thankful for American guns, they saved there asses in WWII.

 

[FlexGunship]

Er, depends. Nuclear fuel that's been used, i.e. in a working reactor and therefore containing radioisotope fission products is highly radioactive and is an extreme hazard if un-contained. It is the fission products that can cause the harm both through high energy radioactivity and chemical similarity to biological compounds, and not so much the uranium itself. Inversely, the half life decay of the products is short (years to decades), unlike the relatively low radioactivity U, which decays over thousands of years. So I expect there'd be little point in stealing new, unused, nuclear fuel for use in a dirty bomb, and stealing waste or used fuel would be extremely hazardous to the thief.

Yes, I addressed nuclear waste further along in the same post. Yes, more dangerous. There seems to be an irrational fear of nuclear waste, though. Anyone ever see the rocket train crash video? Where they put a few JATO rockets on a train and crash it into a nuclear waste containment cask?

Then they take the same cask, and burn it in jet fuel for a few hours. When all is said and done, it's still safer than trying to open a new package of razor blades.

Would I lick it? Nope. But I wouldn't worry about it going through my town if it meant a cheaper power bill.

 

[FlexGunship]

UK - not allowed guns so anyone is a target.
US - allowed guns, any woman could be carrying one, he doesn't know who is / isn't 'packing heat' so the deterrent is there.

[...]

I shall have a look for some numbers to see if this is true.

Not fair... American women are much better looking.

EDIT: I clearly posted (originally) that I knew it was a practical assessment or a reasonable idea. Just an example of the line of thought you could follow.

 

[mheslep]

I've been through most of fuel fabrication facilities in the US and Europe, and visited a number of operating power plants. The security is quite good.

I have contrarian view on that statement. While it is no doubt prudent to have good security on existing plants and fab, I think it is bad thing^tm that fab facilities need very good security. 'Good security' must be a limitation on scalability. For new technology like small modular nuke, 'Good Security', if required by regulatory authorities means small 50MW plants can't compete w/ 1GW leviathans.

 

[JaredJames]

Not fair... American women are much better looking.

I know the exact picture you're talking about when you say that too...

 

[JaredJames]

I have contrarian view on that statement. While it is no doubt prudent to have good security on existing plants and fab, I think it is bad thing^tm that fab facilities need very good security. 'Good security' must be a limitation on scalability. For new technology like small modular nuke, 'Good Security', if required by regulatory authorities means small 50MW plants can't compete w/ 1GW leviathans.

Yes because what we need is p*** poorly guarded nuclear materials. Regardless of scale.

Despite how dangerous the material may or may not be, if a terrorist is that determined to gain nuclear material and they see an opportunity, chances are that they'll go for it.

 

[FlexGunship]

I have contrarian view on that statement. While it is no doubt prudent to have good security on existing plants and fab, I think it is bad thing^tm that fab facilities need very good security. 'Good security' must be a limitation on scalability. For new technology like small modular nuke, 'Good Security', if required by regulatory authorities means small 50MW plants can't compete w/ 1GW leviathans.

50MW plants aren't going to need as much security. Nothing worth stealing.

EDIT: "Nuclear Material" is not a boolean. You don't just "have it" or "not have it." There's way more of a spectrum. I would worry much more about 500lbs of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel then I would worry about a few pounds of nuclear material. What's the security look like at the gas station?

 

[JaredJames]

50MW plants aren't going to need as much security. Nothing worth stealing.

EDIT: "Nuclear Material" is not a boolean. You don't just "have it" or "not have it." There's way more of a spectrum. I would worry much more about 500lbs of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel then I would worry about a few pounds of nuclear material. What's the security look like at the gas station?

Yes, but a news report showing nuclear material (unspecific details to help sell the story) would create far more panic than a news report on someone buying ammonium nitrate and a tank of diesel fuel. It's all about psychology. If a terrorist organisation could steal such material and then flaunt the fact, they could create a lot of panic in the population, whether it's truly dangerous or not.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes, but a news report showing nuclear material (unspecific details to help sell the story) would create far more panic than a news report on someone buying ammonium nitrate and a tank of diesel fuel. It's all about psychology. If a terrorist organisation could steal such material and then flaunt the fact, they could create a lot of panic in the population, whether it's truly dangerous or not.

Education problem. In which case, one could argue Greenpeace is aiding and abetting terrorists.

 

[FlexGunship]

Education problem. In which case, one could argue Greenpeace is aiding and abetting terrorists.

Hmm... and I thought I was being original and creative.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172158
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3475218/
http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/Greenpeace/ge-ar-gr.htm
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/594396
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/greenpeace-hp/
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Greenpeace

 

[JaredJames]

It's true though, organisations such as greenpeace operate on a fear basis rely on people not being educated on the subjects. Exploding the facts out of proportion and making 'regular' people panic about problems that just don't exist.

They may not be threatening us with a nuke or some other weapon, but these days a few well placed news reports and you can cause far more panic than they ever would.

But yes, the majority of the problem is people are generally poorly educated on these subjects.

 

[JaredJames]

EDIT: I clearly posted (originally) that I knew it was a practical assessment or a reasonable idea. Just an example of the line of thought you could follow.

I was commenting on the fact I did not find it a reasonable idea and I gave my reasoning as to why (the whole people panicking thing).

I wasn't saying your idea wouldn't work.

I haven't checked any figures yet and so can't say whether my logic shows you right or wrong, I was simply saying you could verify your proposal by looking at real world numbers from the US and UK and seeing if there is a correlation between gun ownership and deterrent.

 

[nismaratwork]

Too true, as sad as it is.



I agree, violence will occur regardless. Whether it is with hand guns, knives or baseball bats. The difference is, if you pull a gun on someone (for whatever reason), you endanger the lives of all those around you. The person you aim it at, any passers by who could get hit if you miss the target etc. Whereas I am yet to hear of anyone (please correct me if I'm wrong on this) 'pulling a knife on someone (again for whatever reason) and managing to miss the intended target and wound a passer by'. Sounds comical, but the fact is, knives and bats have limited range, a range easily circumvented via the use of a stun gun or riot shields and in the case of a stand off, a bit of distance. If a person has a gun, they can actively target people from a 'safe' distance or position.

I would also say that it is a lot easy to get hold of knives and blunt instruments for 'bludgeoning and stabbing', so it would seem logical violence with such implements are more common.

I can't argue with that; bullets can be fired at a high rate speed, over penetrate, and kill many at one go. Knives have to be in the hands of a highly skilled operator to do anything like that much damage. My point is only that most murders are not the result of mass killings (in the USA) nor are they a result of stray gunfire... which is odd given how inaccurate police and others are when firing!

 

[Cyrus]

Is it not illegal to pull a knife on someone? Or to threaten someone with a baseball bat? Hardly a deterrent regardless of weapon of choice.

You say it's a non-issue, but I'm referring to everyone who carries a gun (police included). The moment the gun is pulled, the threat to target and bystanders (anyone within the guns range) alike is there. You pull a blade, and the threat is only to people at arms length (or slightly further depending on the throwing capability of the knife wielder - nothing like a random knife kill from a blade someone has mindlessly thrown over a building... COD ).

Anyway, I don't think you should (or it's even possible) to include deaths due to low does radiation poisoning. You would have to prove they were in contact with the radiation and then know their life history to ensure they weren't around other carcinogenic materials / threats. Just can't be done. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but you'd be including an unrealistic number of deaths on the grounds they may have been related to the incident.

? I never said anything in regards to your last paragraph, I'm not sure if it was directed at me or not. I'm going to ignore the first two because I don't want to drag this thread off topic.

 

[Cyrus]

And being illegal stops innocent bystanders being shot... how?

It's illegal to carry a concealed or any offensive weapon in the UK, doesn't stop people getting stabbed though.

Now if no one carried knives (which won't happen, as to me a knife is a tool not a weapon), I mean they physically couldn't get hold of them, stabbings by knives would plummet. People would just turn to other weapons but still, the point stands.

Ditto on a reply to this.

 

[nismaratwork]

Errr... sorry Cyrus, I was fairly instrumental in the off-topic aside... I think it's resolved now.

 

[JaredJames]

? I never said anything in regards to your last paragraph, I'm not sure if it was directed at me or not. I'm going to ignore the first two because I don't want to drag this thread off topic.

The last paragraph was nothing to do with you. It was an attempt to get back on topic.

 

[mheslep]

No almost about it.

The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person.

That's the lethal dose for direct radiation poisoning. Long term cancer deaths and birth defects attributable to radiation induced DNA changes are measured to a different threshold, if I recall.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's the lethal dose for direct radiation poisoning. Long term cancer deaths and birth defects attributable to radiation induced DNA changes are measured to a different threshold, if I recall.

Those effects are disputable and unpredictable, especially given all that we're exposed to now (coal fired plants for instance). If we're going to talk about radiation poisoning, it's best to stick to known quantities: for that it's about death as a direct result of the exposure and not secondary ailments: that occurs starting at 4-5 Sv, but becomes nearly a certainty at greater than or equal to 6 Sv... or more properly Grays in all of these cases.

The truth is that how fractionated dosing plays a role in deaths (see Goiânia exposures) and overall outcomes, or the relative risk of cancers or other ailments given the range from .5->5Gy or Sv is just a matter of speculation. You can't test this on people, which is why the concept of a linear relationship vs. hormesis debate is still going, and there have been limited examples to turn to.

It makes for a fine debate, albeit one with no conclusion any time soon, but for the purposes of calculating deaths and saying with ANY degree of certainty how they were causes... no, it just doesn't work.

I should add, Gray and Sievert are interchangeable here because the Quality factor is 1. That's not always the case of course... that and I'm more comfortable with the absolute absorbed dose rather than the addition of a quality factor when talking about most sources of ionizing radiation which cause poisoning.

 

[mheslep]

Those effects are disputable and unpredictable, especially given all that we're exposed to now (coal fired plants for instance).

'Those' refers to what? Cancer?

If we're going to talk about radiation poisoning, it's best to stick to known quantities:

First, 'we' are not; I was pointing out the cancer consequences of radiation. Second, why? In what context is it 'best'? Based on what dependencies (is what?) 'best'?