Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Fox News' Bill Hemmer Introduces the New Fox Theme: Nukes Are Safe. Really. They are. | Crooks and Liars

All of us are watching what's happening in Japan with wide-eyed horror. A country hit with a 9.0 earthquake followed by a 30-foot tsunami followed by possible partial meltdowns in more than one reactor is more disaster than any single country deserves.

But while the first two are acts of nature, the third is man's own doing and no one else's. As a Californian, seeing this disaster unfold in real time has been almost too much to bear, especially knowing there's a nuclear power plant about 100 miles or so down the coast in an earthquake-prone state. San Onofre nuclear generating station's operating reactors were built in 1982 and 1983 and took into account the earthquake technology available at the time.

Since Japan's disaster, many Californians are questioning the wisdom and safety of a nuclear reactor on the California coast. Well, let's leave it to Bill Hemmer to reassure us all that it's just perfectly fine because it has a 25-foot seawall and is certified for a 7.0 earthquake. Again, to review Japan's current predicament:

  1. 9.0 earthquake
  2. 30-foot tsunami


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2011 at 04:45:01 PM EST
What is wrong with these people in the right-wing noise machine? Why do they have to deny everything?

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2011 at 04:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
because they're (well) paid to be(d)evil.

you knew that...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Mar 17th, 2011 at 08:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it works.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Mar 18th, 2011 at 11:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They even say that some radiation is good for you, and not only Ann Coulter. Here is National Review:
Think of the panic that the headline "Radiation levels increase by 100 percent" could induce. But in reality, such radiation would be medically beneficial; it would promote "radiation hormesis" -- the exercise of the immune system. "We get one unit of radiation per day. When we double that -- they've done tests with animals -- they show better health. It's like doing pushups," says Gilbert Brown, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. That doesn't prove we shouldn't worry about much higher levels of radiation -- but it indicates how our emotional response does not correspond to reality.
by das monde on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 at 06:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brought to you by the political supporters of arsenic in drinking water...

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 at 06:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would be sending north Pacific sushi to them soon. Hormesize your livers!
by das monde on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 at 07:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the French Academy of Science... Hormesis is not an impossible theory, and the linear threshold theory lacks scientific evidence, IIRC. It is still used because the industry is conservative and prefers safe over sorry.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Mar 23rd, 2011 at 02:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't you mean the linear no-threshold model?

Linear no-threshold model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a method for predicting the long term, biological damage caused by ionizing radiation and is based on the assumption that the risk is directly proportional to the dose at all dose levels. In other words, the sum of several very small exposures have the same effect as one larger exposure. The LNT model therefore predicts higher risks than the threshold model, which assumes that very small exposures are negligible. The radiation hormesis model predicts the least risk by assuming that radiation is beneficial in very low doses, while still recognizing that it is harmful in large doses. Because the current data is inconclusive, scientists disagree on which method should be used.[1]

And yes, the data on low level exposure is inconclusive as far as I understand. Mostly because of the lack of good data. If I remember correctly, the good data on large exposure came from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Mar 24th, 2011 at 05:43:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do mean that one, yes.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Mar 24th, 2011 at 12:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series