News How much for a nuclear power plant?

[JaredJames]

Americans and their guns!

 

[Cyrus]

Americans and their guns!

Brits and their opinions!

 

[mugaliens]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of renewable energy, and I don't mind wind turbines, I think they're quite pleasing to watch (calming). I was all for the offshore farms.

I think at times they can be majestic. However, seeing entire hillsides which were clean and beautiful 20 years ago now dotted with white structures, I am not pleased to see them.

I also consider myself something of a realist. These renewable sources just can't match the output of a power plant facility on a realistic scale.

Good to hear it!

Americans and their guns!

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

 

[JaredJames]

I think at times they can be majestic. However, seeing entire hillsides which were clean and beautiful 20 years ago now dotted with white structures, I am not pleased to see them.

Which is why i like the idea of offshore.

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

Cant say i do, then again, I live in country where it was decided 'people + high speed projectile device = bad idea' and so defense against them isn't really an issue for me.

 

[russ_watters]

No almost about it.

The total radiation release was 600,000 Sv. It takes about 6 Sv to kill a person. So if you gathered up all the radioactive material, and carefully packaged it in exactly the lethal doses, and the lined up people to administer these doses, you could only kill 100,000 people.

It's like claiming you've shot 10 people with only one bullet.

[separate post] It looks to be approximately equal to the total number of deaths in all of Kiev Oblast since Chernobyl.

Several flaws in your logic; you need to learn to think like an anti-nuclear crackpot (silly scientist!). I can help:

1. You're not casting a wide enough net. Half the world's population was exposed to radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, which gives you a pool of about a billion deaths to work with. Was this level of exposure above the background noise...?
2. ...Anti-nuclear crackpots do not buy into the "minimum safe dosage" theory. They hypothesize that any dosage of radiation has a non-zero chance of causing cancer. The fact that the dosage received by people thousands of miles from the accident site can't be separated from the background radiation is unconcerning.
3. Signal to noise ratio? Never heard of it. If you have a big enough sample and detect *any* increase in any cancer rate, you can attribute it to Chernobyl, regardless of if it is statitically relevant or lacks any causal link.
4. Cancer care is completely stagnant. That means that an increase in reported cancers must be from Chernobyl, not due to the fact that medicine has advanced so that more cancers can be detected that previously went undetected. Ie, in Belarus, there has been a 40% increase in the incidences of all cancers. Nevermind that that increase has resulted in the incidences coming up to equal the incidences in western countries.

A google reveals that the number comes from a brand-new book by an author who is a Russian scientist and formerly primary author on a study for Greenpeace. The number has gone up since the Greenpeace study. It's easy to find the study and a synopsys of the book on Google, but I'm not giving either free advertising by linking them. That number, by the way, is actual deaths as of 2004, so it figures to keep climbing. The IAEA's 4,000 to 9,000 is predicted total deaths.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

When you come from a country where guns are by far the exeption rather than the rule, the argument becomes a non issue.

It's only very occasionally someone goes nuts with a gun over here, it does happen but it'd certainly happen more if guns were freely available. The current ratio of nutters without guns to nutters with guns is a ratio i'd like to keep.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this country with a tin of beans, let alone a lethal weapon.

 

[nismaratwork]

Several flaws in your logic; you need to learn to think like an anti-nuclear crackpot (silly scientist!). I can help:

1. You're not casting a wide enough net. Half the world's population was exposed to radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, which gives you a pool of about a billion deaths to work with. Was this level of exposure above the background noise...?
2. ...Anti-nuclear crackpots do not buy into the "minimum safe dosage" theory. They hypothesize that any dosage of radiation has a non-zero chance of causing cancer. The fact that the dosage received by people thousands of miles from the accident site can't be separated from the background radiation is unconcerning.
3. Signal to noise ratio? Never heard of it. If you have a big enough sample and detect *any* increase in any cancer rate, you can attribute it to Chernobyl, regardless of if it is statitically relevant or lacks any causal link.
4. Cancer care is completely stagnant. That means that an increase in reported cancers must be from Chernobyl, not due to the fact that medicine has advanced so that more cancers can be detected that previously went undetected. Ie, in Belarus, there has been a 40% increase in the incidences of all cancers. Nevermind that that increase has resulted in the incidences coming up to equal the incidences in western countries.

A google reveals that the number comes from a brand-new book by an author who is a Russian scientist and formerly primary author on a study for Greenpeace. The number has gone up since the Greenpeace study. It's easy to find the study and a synopsys of the book on Google, but I'm not giving either free advertising by linking them. That number, by the way, is actual deaths as of 2004, so it figures to keep climbing. The IAEA's 4,000 to 9,000 is predicted total deaths.

Wow, that made blood pour out of my nose, ears, and eyes! You definitely have a lock on kook "logic", but it's disturbing to see it all in one place, even if the source isn't trying to sell it. I just wonder how you can educate these people; their preconceptions protect them from anything even close to reality.

 

[nismaratwork]

When you come from a country where guns are by far the exeption rather than the rule, the argument becomes a non issue.

It's only very occasionally someone goes nuts with a gun over here, it does happen but it'd certainly happen more if guns were freely available. The current ratio of nutters without guns to nutters with guns is a ratio i'd like to keep.

I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this country with a tin of beans, let alone a lethal weapon.

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.

 

[FlexGunship]

Know of a better defense against criminals and their guns?

He's just angry because if it weren't for "us Americans and our guns" we'd still be a British colony.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's just angry because if it weren't for "us Americans and our guns" we'd still be a British colony.

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.

 

[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...

(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...

(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...