John Oliver set straight by a real Nuclear Scientist

[Vash The Stampede]

Do you have any numbers on the amount released at Fukushima compared with the total amount ever released? Or the amount of background radiation Earth has in general. I mean, we already get plenty of radiation in a wide variety of forms.

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?

Plus, you do get that it was about nuclear waste, not nuclear leaks, right?

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.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice image. You realize YOU are more radioactive than the water spreading from Fukushima right. You're more in danger from the bananas sitting on your counter top.

Regardless it's about amount of total exposure when it comes to assessing risks of radiation exposure. A lot over a little time or a little over a long time. Anyone interested should look at the health outcomes for career airline pilots and flight attendants. There's always going to be poor unlucky schmucks who get cancer, it's law of large numbers. How any of that is worse overall than the cumulative pulmonary and cardiac effects of working in a coal mine to the public consiousness is mind boggling.

I'm not interested in coal or nuclear. I want renewable energy. That photo of the panda is solar panels, not a coal mine that was artistically shaped like a panda. Again, I don't care if you think I'll get more radiation from a Banana than Fukushima. We can't even send robots in there because the radiation is so bad that it even breaks them. There is absolutely no reason to continue to have nuclear & coal power plants in America. Leave that shit someplace else.

Someone get Elon Musk to install solar power on my roof and one of them power wall batteries. That shit works, so why do I need to support nuclear power?

[Aquinan]

And what is your source for that statement? Probably a "scientist" paid to publish said finding by Anti-Nuclear organizations? The corruption of studies and reports goes both ways, friend. And what better solutions would you suggest? Because there is currently nothing that can rival nuclear power in terms of power output capabilities and maintains the seat as the lowest percentage occupational hazard in the energy department.

I've worked with nuclear energy for years. I have first hand experience of the level of pucker factor everybody has in the field because we're not allowed to make mistakes like, say a natural gas or coal plant, can make because of public image.

I could talk for hours on why (In America) the safety precautions taken with Nuclear energy go above and beyond what the uninformed (you) can fathom. But you can remain woefully ignorant because that's what you choose to be. The information is all very readily accessible but you would just dismiss it anyways as dubious at best.

Fear mongering and lack of public knowledge (due to anti-nuclear activists and public ignorance) are the main reasons we're still shackled to coal, which is the real enemy.

1. I never said the studies were clean nosed on the other side either.
2. Tidal (will) outstrip nuclear when they harness it on larger scales.
3. Coal is bad I agree, you shouldn't be using either coal or nuclear.

Better by what standards? Nuclear is only behind geothermal and maybe water in terms of safety and environmental damage.

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

[Charge me Doctor]

Nuclear energy is not popular because it's less profitable (in commercial sense) long-term, but more profitable (in "for humanity" sense) long-term. So, yeah, that's basically it. Not a nuclear scientist but i do visit local nuclear facility, while accidents do happen regularly, there was only one huge outbreak with heavy environmental consequences. But it's the same as fear of plane crashes - they are vocal, big and scary, while almost any other production plant or source of energy deals even more damage, but slowly spread over time.

- - - Updated - - -

Nuclear waste is dangerous, and should be treated with care.
If this scientist thinks it is so safe let him store some in his basement.

Nuclear waste is different from nuclear waste. And also heavily monitored and a lot of it is reused.

- - - Updated - - -

^ Again to anyone who thinks nuclear waste is safe, or being safely stored.

This isn't about nuclear power itself, its about the shitty storage of the waste product.

Because there are shitty drivers we shouldn't ban all the cars i think. While mismanagement surely happens - we shouldn't stop working on nuclear energy and dealing with nuclear waste

- - - Updated - - -

And what is your source for that statement? Probably a "scientist" paid to publish said finding by Anti-Nuclear organizations? The corruption of studies and reports goes both ways, friend. And what better solutions would you suggest? Because there is currently nothing that can rival nuclear power in terms of power output capabilities and maintains the seat as the lowest percentage occupational hazard in the energy department.

I've worked with nuclear energy for years. I have first hand experience of the level of pucker factor everybody has in the field because we're not allowed to make mistakes like, say a natural gas or coal plant, can make because of public image.

I could talk for hours on why (In America) the safety precautions taken with Nuclear energy go above and beyond what the uninformed (you) can fathom. But you can remain woefully ignorant because that's what you choose to be. The information is all very readily accessible but you would just dismiss it anyways as dubious at best.

Fear mongering and lack of public knowledge (due to anti-nuclear activists and public ignorance) are the main reasons we're still shackled to coal, which is the real enemy.

It's funny to me that anyone who ever visited nuclear facility either become pro-nuclear, or respond positively about amount of strict safety control compared to... anything else. Probably brainwashing radiation in action, kappa

[ProfessorTjc]

John Oliver isn't satire. John Oliver's show is about bring things to light that are/could be a problem. Him and his team fact check on the topics they talk about, if not they wouldn't talk about it. He does combine comedy with real world problems because he tries to keep people entertained while staying on topic about issues going on.

I swear the people on MMO Champ are soo ridiculous is actually quite funny and like to think everything is a conspiracy theory.

Edit: When was Forbes ever a reputable website?

[Mormolyce]

I'm sorry but there is no science in that post, it's straight up cherry picked op-ed rubbish.

On the topic of the safety of nuclear waste it entirely begs the question.

But this is really rather irrelevant, nuclear is a dead end.

[purebalance]

ITT: "Nuclear waste is perfectly healthy guys!"

*glows green*

My geology professor last semester is pretty much a somewhat reputable water/soil expert and is called on by a lot of states frequently and while you'd be silly to roll around in it, attests that if stored properly, it's still one of the best ways to go. Solar/wind/water energy have a lot of limitations and can't provide what nuclear can. The halflife on the waste makes it ok.

[zhero]

No one is going to die from nuclear waste. No one ever has.

people are more afraid of what the product can do before its processed into waste. its also going to be dangerous long after the nuclear power plant's desiccated remains are forgotten.

[ingsve]

I'm sure people at Tchernobyl would agree... if they were alive!

Chernobyl wasn't as huge a disaster as people think it was. There were only around 50 direct deaths from the accident itself and that should be compared to the tens of thousands direct deaths that occur each year from coal power for example. Nuclear power is far safer than most other forms of power.

[Karlz0rz]

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

[Ravenblade]

I 100% disagree with this author, John Oliver is neither brilliant or funny.

So this entire thread is about having a bitter go at a satirist by finding someone who's got a bit of authority on matters?

Well, let me tell you from someone who's lived in times when Chernobyl happened and during the height of the Cold War prior nuclear disarmament that having to live with nuclear uncertainty does in some way reflect back into daily lives and politics. And I am saying that with the memory about news about the incident being suppressed and buried while people were a bit puzzled about how it will affect them in long term.
This incident alone triggered a decade-long process of nuclear conscience. Having to dispose nuclear waste of our power plants somewhere caused a lot of riots and unrest along the disposal route here...every year. The difficulty of the necessity however was that it couldn't be left alone (certain laws strictly forbid that here) and therefore an underground site needed to be found and nobody wanted to provide it (understandably, I understand both sides by the way). It doesn't matter whether it's just 7 kg or 70,000,000 kg, in the end radioactive waste isn't just something to be left alone overground and in inhabited zones. I am surprised he's using a relativist approach with coal, yes, coal does in fact do that and is quite dirty while "generating" energy - I know it is really just being transformed - however its waste isn't a security and environmental hazard on many levels. In the end the message of John Oliver was correct, there is no tiptoe-ing around the issue. Nuclear energy is clean during production of energy but not when it comes to getting rid of its waste i.e. the uranium rods, until we found a way to recycle them they are going to be "unpleasant remnants" which need to find a safe and secure home. This "Nothing has happened yet therefore it is safe and non-hazardous." approach is dangerous if not reckless and irresponsible.

[mvaliz]

Opinion peace by a scientist or your shit post, hmm who to believe, who to believe? Oh yeah we should believe a comedian instead. You guys are fucking hilarious.


[Infracted - Trolling/baiting over entire thread]

A Commedian who happens to work with one of America's last venues of a very VERY good team of journalists who source, research and gather information as journalists used to do. John Oliver himself is simply just the deliveryman who paints it wonderfully and ties a funny bow on the entire package.

So, yes, I'll take the "Commedian" and his team of researching journalists over your post.

Also, anybody notice he (the so-called "Woke Indipendent") is strategically attacking John Oliver on the ONE story that Dumbass Donnie Dump isn't somehow involved in?

[Deleted]

Article seems like a bunch of BS..

[AeneasBK]

Chernobyl wasn't as huge a disaster as people think it was. There were only around 50 direct deaths from the accident itself and that should be compared to the tens of thousands direct deaths that occur each year from coal power for example. Nuclear power is far safer than most other forms of power.

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

[PL-Cibo]

I'm sure people at Tchernobyl would agree... if they were alive!

Don't embarrass yourself. There are some people alive. It was not an explosion. Radiation != bomb.

- - - Updated - - -

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

noone knows, as it is quaratined area and noone lives there, well animals do. But humans won't live there for a long time

[Deleted]

Yup.

It's still a pretty big 'if' though. When it isn't the consequences can be catastrophic.

Fact being that it is stored properly.
The issue being that yours is the big if: /if/ it wasn't stored properly. And not happy with that one hypothetical, you mix in another: it /can/ be catastrophic.

Science is scary, and scientists are witches.

[AeneasBK]

noone knows, as it is quaratined area and noone lives there, well animals do. But humans won't live there for a long time

Fair enough, good thing all the radiation was contained to the very direct quarantine zone.

[derpkitteh]

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.

[PL-Cibo]

Fair enough, good thing all the radiation was contained to the very direct quarantine zone.

It wasn't. When i was very young i was not allowed to play outside for a few days after the accident. All mushrooms/berries/etc where contaminated for months and we are talking about being 1200km away from Chernobyl. But the the broad spectrum wasn't very intense so it was over in weeks. Now even chernobyl itself is relatively cool. The problems are pockets and of course the old shielding (I think they are building a new one around right now... hmm)

[AeneasBK]

It wasn't. When i was very young i was not allowed to play outside for a few days after the accident. All mushrooms/berries/etc where contaminated for months and we are talking about being 1200km away from Chernobyl. But the the broad spectrum wasn't very intense so it was over in weeks. Now even chernobyl itself is relatively cool. The problems are pockets and of course the old shielding (I think they are building a new one around right now... hmm)

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?

[Deleted]

So "Ignore him, I am a scientist" is the only argument hes made here? Color me surprised...

Well no, he pointed out specifically going "THERE IS TONS OF WASTE" is pretty funny when it's a super heavy element.