51–60 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC, isn't it also, chemically, extremely toxic?
Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity only describes radiation poisoning.
This disaster has caused me to revisit my concerns regarding nuclear energy. # One of the most challenging technologies ever developed, is under the control of politicians and bankers. A recipe in itself for technical disaster. # Public concerns, under this regime, end up being counter-productive. "No new nukes" means extending the life of the oldest, most vulnerable technology. # Human society has demonstrated no st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"yet air travel remains one of the safest forms of transportation available" Doesn't that depend on how you measure it, like accidents per miles or accidents per hours? Even if it would be safest by miles, I don't think it would follow that the safest way to get to work every morning would be by plane. It only works because airplanes go long distances, and accidents most frequently happen during starting or landing.…
Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively safe (1/4th as many fatalities per hour and 1/60th as many fatalities per mile, compared to automobiles).
inherently, 99.9% of people will die if plane was to collide with another plane or ground. That number is inherently much lower for car collisions.
so if we talk about nuclear safety, yes it is very safe compared to some other energy sources. But it also so much more dangerous when nuclear accidents happen than anything else.
A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"yet air travel remains one of the safest forms of transportation available" Doesn't that depend on how you measure it, like accidents per miles or accidents per hours? Even if it would be safest by miles, I don't think it would follow that the safest way to get to work every morning would be by plane. It only works because airplanes go long distances, and accidents most frequently happen during starting or landing.…
Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively safe (1/4th as many fatalities per hour and 1/60th as many fatalities per mile, compared to automobiles).
The problem with that measure is that air accidents don't correlate with either hours or miles, but with takeoffs and landings.
The comparable incident for cars is probably intersections.
Yes, each plane trip involves only one takeoff and landing while each car trip usually involves multiple intersections, but that just means that simple comparisons don't tell us very much.
A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…
It actually worries me. When I know something about the topic, I find his writing awful and full of problems and obviously dumb. Then, in another area where I know nothing, it seems decent. Is this because it is actually similarly dumb in this other area also, and I just don't know enough to spot it?
This disaster has caused me to revisit my concerns regarding nuclear energy. # One of the most challenging technologies ever developed, is under the control of politicians and bankers. A recipe in itself for technical disaster. # Public concerns, under this regime, end up being counter-productive. "No new nukes" means extending the life of the oldest, most vulnerable technology. # Human society has demonstrated no st…
However: Nuclear resources on this planet are limited, and unique in their performance profile. There may come a time when we need them...
You're falling prey to the Malthusian fallacy (read up about him and Paul Ehrlich). This logic is constantly being invoked, but history shows that it simply doesn't work this way. The best way to guarantee our future is to ensure that there are plenty of minds around to work on it, and to be sure that the "invisible hand" will guide them so that their greed will be rewarded when they put their effort into solving our problems.
A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…
It actually worries me. When I know something about the topic, I find his writing awful and full of problems and obviously dumb. Then, in another area where I know nothing, it seems decent. Is this because it is actually similarly dumb in this other area also, and I just don't know enough to spot it?
A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…
1. Japan did ask for our help. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was dispatched the day after the Tsunami at Japan's request. Further they've been working with U.S. experts through the entire situation (not the ones you see on TV but those guys aren't real experts)
2. The idea that the TEPCO plant manager is causing trouble because he's "more concerned about his job than his reactor" is absurd. I GUARANTEE the Japanese government took control of this situation the second it became critical. The local plant management is AT BEST serving a support role.
3. Plutonium Contamination water is only a big deal if it seeps into the water supply which it hasn't yet. Otherwise its just more stuff to be buried in cement for thousands of years.
So in the end he's still being an alarmist with this just like he is with everything else (this is a guy who predicted internet video was going to cause the internet to collapse in 2010)
Something to be aware of: The fact that a radioactive material "is around forever" also implies that it is not very radioactive. You can't make a material that is both intensely radioactive and stays around forever, because it's the radioactivity itself that makes it go away.