Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We should stop running away from radiation

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#71

Post by VladRussian »

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about:

>Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... :

"Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over. They vary by the part of your body that was treated and the dose of radiation you received. Late side effects may include infertility, joint problems, lymphedema, mouth problems, and secondary cancer."

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#73

Post by lispm »

DennisP wrote: post #70
lispm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of reactors which are much more dangerous than the one in Chernobyl. The ones using Plutonium, the breeders, the ones with large storage sites full of spent fuel, etc. The Thorium reactor has a lot of problems. Engineering problems that are not solved. Remember the German Thorium reactor, the HTR 300. It died with a whimper. What we really don't need is giving nuclear engineers more money to create hu…

Well that is definitely a minority viewpoint. Chernobyl is widely considered to be a ridiculously bad design by modern standards. For one thing, it had no containment dome at all. For another, the design caused the reaction to speed up as the fuel got hotter. All modern designs do the opposite: as fuel gets hotter, the reaction slows. For current production reactors, that's enough to buy time but not enough to comple…

The fast breeders are dead. Nobody is building them anymore here. In Germany the attempt to build one cost several billions and it is now an amusement park.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#74

Post by lispm »

JanezStupar wrote: post #69
lispm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of reactors which are much more dangerous than the one in Chernobyl. The ones using Plutonium, the breeders, the ones with large storage sites full of spent fuel, etc. The Thorium reactor has a lot of problems. Engineering problems that are not solved. Remember the German Thorium reactor, the HTR 300. It died with a whimper. What we really don't need is giving nuclear engineers more money to create hu…

We don't need storage sites. If we unstuck our heads from our asses we can just burn most of the waste. And you're talking like nuclear engineers are some sort of freaks just waiting to unleash the next horror upon the world. The fact is that if we want to realize UN millennium goals we need more energy. If we want to help poor asians and africans, we need more energy. If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a…

Nuclear engineers are technocrats powered by corrupt politicians and corporations.

The US does not need more energy. The US needs to start thinking about using less energy. About every country in the industrialized world uses MUCH MUCH less energy.

If you think the US lifestyle is sustainable, then you are dreaming.

Renewable will fully power us here in Germany in 40 years or less. We have started a decade ago working on that. Checkout the progress renewable energy has made here in the last decade. This is combined with energy saving based on more efficient industrial processes, higher standards, and so on.

If you guys sit on your ass, it is not my problem.

I have for example no car. I use public transport. I live in a city where already experimental fully hydrogen powered busses are being tested in regular use. I'm also sitting in a winter garden right now which is 25 degrees celsius in March - powered by the sun...

not everybody is fucking lazy like you guys.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#75

Post by bjelkeman-again »

Often the argument about whether nuclear power represents an acceptable risk or not is then used to argue that nuclear power is a key solution to get rid of fossil fuel (a straw man argument?), as if there are no other parts of nuclear power which should be questioned.

This particular article doesn't say so explicitly, but has links in the margin to: "Nuclear power: Energy solution or evil curse?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12730473

Key aspects of the discussion really is whether nuclear power is safe (for people and environment) and economical. A good discussion about the economic aspects can be found at: "Cost, not Japan crisis, should scrub nuclear power" http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-17-cost-not-japan-crisi...

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#76

Post by mohawk »

Lets talk money.

I think it is only reasonable to ask that avoidable civilian technology be insured against harm done by it. So: how much would this insurance cost? Cleanup, health care costs, disability payments, loss of property?

Given just a slight increase in illness rate for the sheer number of people involved can give a hard to detect but significant cost. An insurer will have to set aside enough money for the expected amount of payout. What would Warren Buffett's premiums be? Some claims will be excluded by the insurer, and the rest of the population will probably be called to for economic assistance: how much will that be? What is the opportunity cost of having half a million people cleaning up the place instead of being productive?

Feel free to peruse the [IAEA report about Chernobyl](http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernoby...). What is the total economic cost? Maybe "hundreds of billions of dollars"? See the report for estimates.

So yes, we shouldn't run away from radiation. We should clean it up safely, then come to our senses and stop dispersing any more of it. This technology is a dead-end for normal energy production.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#77

Post by shadowsun7 »

VladRussian wrote: post #71

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment. From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... : "Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over…

That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford.

From the HN comment guidelines:

  When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of
  calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 
  1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than you do providing arguments.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#78

Post by DennisP »

lispm wrote: post #73
DennisP wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that is definitely a minority viewpoint. Chernobyl is widely considered to be a ridiculously bad design by modern standards. For one thing, it had no containment dome at all. For another, the design caused the reaction to speed up as the fuel got hotter. All modern designs do the opposite: as fuel gets hotter, the reaction slows. For current production reactors, that's enough to buy time but not enough to comple…

The fast breeders are dead. Nobody is building them anymore here. In Germany the attempt to build one cost several billions and it is now an amusement park.

Yes, people like you killed them.

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#79

Post by VladRussian »

shadowsun7 wrote: post #77
VladRussian wrote: post #71

the moron who wrote the article doesn't know what he's talking about: >Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment. From http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/coping/radiation-therapy-... : "Late side effects may first occur 6 or more months after radiation therapy is over…

That moron who wrote the article is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford. From the HN comment guidelines: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Judging from your comment history, you seem to enjoy calling names more than you do providing arguments.

your post didn't provide any contra argument, instead you went for personal attack and "karma-bombing".

Re: We should stop running away from radiation

#80

Post by Tichy »

Stopped reading at "more people have died from the Tsunami", which unfortunately was line one. if you want to make an argument about radiation, make it - Tsunamis have nothing to do with it, I don't think they are radioactive.
Post reply on HN