John Oliver set straight by a real Nuclear Scientist

[Rastlin]

Fun fact most people don't realise, that there is no safe radiation dose limit, no one knows what it is, and all the numbers are basically pulled out straight form a hat. Also, there are places on earth where background radiation is greater than in Thernobyl, and yet those zones are not quarantined.

Besides all the waste discussion seems to be centred around weapon grade or some prehistoric reactor designs. Modern ractors produces fraction of a waste, and almost all of it can be reprocessed.

Tidal is an untapped source that is only just being looked into that would provide much more energy (and cleaner) than Nuclear.

Yes, I mentioned water being runner up with nuclear. However, how about the countries with no access to see? There ale few places on earth where, if solar power plan has been installed there, it could supply energy to ENTIRE world. The problem of energy transportation and storage makes those site as unsuitable for such investment. This is exactly problem with Tidal. It can be an alternative source, never strategic one.

[Deleted]

oliver's a pompous cuck that i'd love to see get punched in the face.

i say we should always listen to scientists on these issues. whatever the majority of scientists say should be what we do.

I love how he's basically failed as a British Comedian, so he needs to go over to America and Parrot for Liberal Californians, the people with literally no sense of humour.

[Sevyvia]

It basically doesn't matter what someone writes in an article, or even if it employs the many good arguments in favor of nuclear power, or misses them as well. Left-leaning people are interested in what makes them feel good, not what's real, or realistic.

[ingsve]

Hasn't it had quite an effect on life expectancy in the area tho?

Not dramatically. Overall there could perhaps be an increase in the cancer rate by a couple percent but that includes people dieing of cancer 30 years down the line etc. and epidemiologically it's very hard to tie something like that to a specific event. Most of the people in the area got only low doses of radiation and there is no real evidence that low levels of radiation is dangerous. In the 1950s radiation safety regulations adopted what is called the linear no threshold model which basically assumed that there is no threshold under which radiation stops being harmful. This was based on the fact that even small levels of radiation causes small levels of damage to DNA. We now know that this model is false since it doesn't take into account our bodies defences against damage. DNA gets damaged all the time even by things in our own bodies and there are constant mechanisms that repair this damage.

The problem with adopting that early model was that it fueled a fear against radiation that is not in proportion to the actual fear. When something like Chernobyl happens it becomes a huge media event that is fueled by this irrational fear but the fact that things like coal power kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide each year is easily overlooked since it's not tied to a specific event and there is not the same irrational fear associated with it.

[Draco-Onis]

Left-leaning people are interested in what makes them feel good, not what's real, or realistic.

Yea left leaning people were the ones who elected a president who lives in another reality /s.

[Deleted]

Uh. I've no clue how you can to such a narrow understanding of what I said.

In reality errors with nuclear waste happen a lot more often than they do not. Some people who work in the industry, or have family doing so, have already pointed that out in this very thread.

There is really no point in glorifying nuclear waste.

And no. I don't think science is scary nor do I have an issue with nuclear power. But it would be dishonest to pretend the nuclear waste isn't a huge issue and that the industry itself is constantly trying to skim costs by trying to store it less and less properly.

It's not a huge issue though, pointing out stupid Anectodal evidence in a thread on MMO-Champion, doesn't do shit.

Fact remains it's probably the safest most cost efficent method of modern energy generation we have. And don't give me that meme of Solar or Wind.

[Vash The Stampede]

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 gazillion deaths every day from mines/oil/whatever else.
50 deaths in 2017 years from nuclear.
I wonder which one is safer .

How many from solar and wind power?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a huge issue though, pointing out stupid Anectodal evidence in a thread on MMO-Champion, doesn't do shit.

Fact remains it's probably the safest most cost efficent method of modern energy generation we have. And don't give me that meme of Solar or Wind.

What about what Elon Musk said that you can power American with this much surface area? What about that one time Denmark produces 140% of the power they needed? Or how 98% of Norways energy comes from Hydro? What about California producing 80% of its energy from renewable?

Which one of these "memes" is incorrect?

[Deleted]

What about what Elon Musk said that you can power American with this much surface area? What about that one time Denmark produces 140% of the power they needed? Or how 98% of Norways energy comes from Hydro? [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-renewable-energy-record-80-per-cent-state-power-green-methods-water-hydro-wind-solar-a7748956.html]What about California producing 80% of its energy from renewable?

Which one of these "memes" is incorrect?

None, Because Elon Musk is a Moron of the highest Degree. And Denmark and Norway are fucking tiny places. You sound like a Green nut, so let me educate you.


Mercury Mining is one of, if not, the most destructive substance to be mined EVER. Guess what We use in Solar Panels? Mercury.

Guess what Tidal Generators do? Displaced and destroy large tracts of Environment to build their power plants. The exact same thing Wind power does. See, here in Britain we sort of pride ourselves on NOT killing off all our offshore whales and Dolphins, which if we built Tidal Turbines, we most definitely will.

"Green Energy" is a spook.

[Deleted]

Uh. I've no clue how you can to such a narrow understanding of what I said.

Because your entire contribution to this thread is ridiculously narrow.
Starting with your "Nuclear waste is perfectly healthy" response.

following with this other equaly ridiculous misrepresentation:
"no point in glorifying nuclear waste."

Or this other one
"it would be dishonest to pretend the nuclear waste isn't a huge issue"

Neither OP, or any nuclear advocate, thinks that waste is perfectly safe, glorifies it, or pretends it not to be an issue.

So yes: yours are the big ifs. And your particular brand of scaremongering is exactly the one that demonizes science and technology: from antivaxers, to anti-gmo, to climate change deniers and flatearthers..

[Tiwack]

None, Because Elon Musk is a Moron of the highest Degree. And Denmark and Norway are fucking tiny places. You sound like a Green nut, so let me educate you.


Mercury Mining is one of, if not, the most destructive substance to be mined EVER. Guess what We use in Solar Panels? Mercury.

Guess what Tidal Generators do? Displaced and destroy large tracts of Environment to build their power plants. The exact same thing Wind power does. See, here in Britain we sort of pride ourselves on NOT killing off all our offshore whales and Dolphins, which if we built Tidal Turbines, we most definitely will.

"Green Energy" is a spook.

When was the last time you traveled? Methods working in "tiny" places can be extrapolated to work in larger places as well.
I'm curious what makes you think so about Elon Musk? I doubt a moron of the highest degree would be where Musk is today even if lady luck took a big shit on em.
All progress comes at a cost. It's the nature of evolving as everything has to balance out. Nonrenewable energy won't last forever so we should transition to more sustainable alternatives while it is an option rather than a necessity. If we get something working it's a start and we'll tackle unforeseen problems as they come. Pulling resources out of nature, it being power or elements, is never pretty but it's definitely possible to leave it in a state in which the environment and nature can recover and remedy the scars on the land if the operation follows regulations. If tidal generators ever take off I don't see how they can't be fenced off from wildlife with nets just like some beaches have nets to keep sharks out. Where there's a will there's a way.

[PL-Cibo]

A friend of mine from highschool used to wax lyrical about how Belarus was "basically fucked" from the Chernobyl disaster and that it had massive increased amounts of sickness and lower life expectancy as a result of being "upwind" of the disaster. Now all of this information is second or third hand (her mum runs (or used to) a charity that arranged holidays in the UK for Belarus school children) and I haven't really paid it any attention until this thread; are you saying that that is mostly exaggerated; or is there some truth to this?

Hmm it was a long time ago, can't exactly remember the winds or the situation with the wind-directions or zones of influence. But in any European country at this time almost every household had Iod tabs and similar radiation defenses (It was still cold war at this time) and i can't really remember many disaster zones. The only ones were directly around Chernobyl and were also mostly evacuated. So no direct impact. Main problem would be contaminated water and dust transported there which poisons groundwater and soil. this can fuck you up for generations. There are some sites on the internet which claim to have numbers, but i didn't see something official from the country itself(and i wouldn't speak the language anyway :/)

[Super Kami Dende]

Fun fact: Jon Oliver is a COMEDIAN/SATIRIST - not a scientist or a reporter
Fun fact: Jon Oliver is a PRESENTER/PRODUCER - others do the research and writing

If you get facts from a comedy/satirical show - then you are doing it wrong.

Yet so many people use John Oliver as a good point of reference unfortunately.

That being said Nuclear Power is actually one of the safest and cleanest of current Powers. People think Nuclear Energy and in their head they go "OMG NUKES!! OMG RADIATION!! OMG CHERNOBYL!!!" and whip themselves up in a dumbfuck frenzy without any real research into the Power.

[Rastlin]

None, Because Elon Musk is a Moron of the highest Degree. And Denmark and Norway are fucking tiny places. You sound like a Green nut, so let me educate you.


Mercury Mining is one of, if not, the most destructive substance to be mined EVER. Guess what We use in Solar Panels? Mercury.

Guess what Tidal Generators do? Displaced and destroy large tracts of Environment to build their power plants. The exact same thing Wind power does. See, here in Britain we sort of pride ourselves on NOT killing off all our offshore whales and Dolphins, which if we built Tidal Turbines, we most definitely will.

"Green Energy" is a spook.

Great post!

Just quick google search reveals those facts:
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar...te-2013-2?IR=T
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-clean-energy

Solar is not "green"! Tho I think Tidal might be made less intrusive, but with less efficiency.

[cubby]

I'm aware of the natural background radiation, but that doesn't justify getting more of it. It's obviously not healthy. That's like saying Apple seeds have cyanide, so what's a little extra cyanide?

I didn't say it wasn't healthy - I was trying to point out that the addition was next to negligible.



[/QUOTE]Yea and? The point I'm making is that anything bad that can happen will happen. There are people who live near these waste dumps that have been affected. To the honest anything involved that's all about making money isn't exactly brimming with confidence that the highest level of care was done to properly dispose the nuclear waste. I live in NJ and tell me they did not throw waste off the shore? Tell me they didn't shoot at barrels that were floating? Cause if they did, fuck your nuclear power. [/QUOTE]

Well, I'm just trying to keep you focused on the issue at hand. And of course people are affected - people are always negatively affected by power generation to some extent or another.

Why support nuclear power when we know renewable energy works? To keep capitalistic companies within their profit margins? Seriously fuck em. If profits are the reason for all this then socialize our power.

Most renewable energy solutions for large countries like the U.S. include nuclear as a backup. You should really look into the details - the information and reasoning are good reads.

[Blamblam41]

He's not particularly wrong but he's not entirely right either. Nuclear waste even commercial is a danger if its handled poorly is all. As it stands we have good methods of "disposing" of it. Well just burying it really.

The problem is the disposal, and the fact that a minute amount of highly radioactive waste can seep into the ground and cause extremely devastating local environmental problems. Not to mention containment structures aren't graded to last forever. Eventually we will have to build new containers to house the waste underground.

So "handling it poorly" might as well be "handling it like it isn't nuclear waste."

- - - Updated - - -

The guy talks about how we don't have bad effects at nuclear sites? And he talks about John Oliver forgetting history?

I'm just concerned that a "scientist" can deflate someones rather well sourced 22 minute argument in an interview of less than a thousand words without any sources or credential backing other than "scientist".

Might as well get last weeks weather with John Oliver.

[cubby]

The problem is the disposal, and the fact that a minute amount of highly radioactive waste can seep into the ground and cause extremely devastating local environmental problems. Not to mention containment structures aren't graded to last forever. Eventually we will have to build new containers to house the waste underground.

So "handling it poorly" might as well be "handling it like it isn't nuclear waste."

But disposal isn't really a problem, not any more. And the amount is so relatively small as to be almost insignificant (the total amount of nuclear waste generated ever can fit inside a football field stadium).

And disposal/containment methods are turning out solutions that are set to last hundreds of thousands of years.

[Nadiru]

The problem is the disposal, and the fact that a minute amount of highly radioactive waste can seep into the ground and cause extremely devastating local environmental problems. Not to mention containment structures aren't graded to last forever. Eventually we will have to build new containers to house the waste underground.

So "handling it poorly" might as well be "handling it like it isn't nuclear waste."

- - - Updated - - -

The guy talks about how we don't have bad effects at nuclear sites? And he talks about John Oliver forgetting history?

I'm just concerned that a "scientist" can deflate someones rather well sourced 22 minute argument in an interview of less than a thousand words without any sources or credential backing other than "scientist".

It's well-sourced, it just happens to be advocating incredibly suboptimal behavior. We don't have to worry about containing nuclear waste indefinitely because we can use it in reactors to generate electricity (which is what we were doing that made the waste in the first place) and not have to worry about containing it indefinitely.

[Aquinan]

Fun fact most people don't realise, that there is no safe radiation dose limit, no one knows what it is, and all the numbers are basically pulled out straight form a hat. Also, there are places on earth where background radiation is greater than in Thernobyl, and yet those zones are not quarantined.

Besides all the waste discussion seems to be centred around weapon grade or some prehistoric reactor designs. Modern ractors produces fraction of a waste, and almost all of it can be reprocessed.



Yes, I mentioned water being runner up with nuclear. However, how about the countries with no access to see? There ale few places on earth where, if solar power plan has been installed there, it could supply energy to ENTIRE world. The problem of energy transportation and storage makes those site as unsuitable for such investment. This is exactly problem with Tidal. It can be an alternative source, never strategic one.

Countries w/o access to tidal can do wind/solar/hydro combos. I think there was an article about research into clean cold fusion taking a step closer to being able to make a viable reactor a while back. If they finally crack that and it is actually clean then that would be great.

[Deleted]

Someone generalized something and another says "UNTRUE" on the basis that 5% of the whole statement needs to be differentiated...

[HumbleDuck]

Oh, the real scientist, the ones that I can qoute them to further my agenda.
Classic independent stuff.