Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We trust earthquake scientists, we trust brain surgeons, WHY can't Nuke Science be trusted?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:20 PM
Original message
We trust earthquake scientists, we trust brain surgeons, WHY can't Nuke Science be trusted?
And we all just take it for granted. "They're telling us this, so it must mean that it's really not what they say it's actually way worse."

Drilling and mining science is the same cheesy way.

I know it's about the influence of the big money. But we can't have this bifurcated thinking in our fields of science. Political blather is one thing, but there are diseases to be cured, devices as yet developed to change our energy usage. Work has to be done, lives to be saved, and this hooey just gets in the way. These predictable phony declarations are all spread out in this tragic saga in "Kabuki Theater" style so even the back rows can understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Brain surgery is not exactly an exploitable commodity like fossil fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You're at 999 posts!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'd say that it was.
It's gotta cost six figures, easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Mostly because mistakes in nuclear energy have extremely
long lasting consequences because the half life of some of the ingredients runs into thousands of years. Longer lasting than most other mistakes.
You can't just blindly trust what is said, it can be deadly, particularly if you live near the plant.

What to do with the waste by-products is still being debated and has been since the 1970s at least. They thought Yucca mountain would make a good storage facility until they found out that the data about seepage and ground water was fudged and it could end up in the environment.

Another problem encountered in nuclear waste, is if a suitable storage site IS found, how to permanently mark it for future generations so they would know that what is there is lethal. I'm talking future in the thousands of years time frame.

At one time the authorities thought they knew until people who also knew enough to frame the proper questions, then the authorities found out they didn't know as much as they thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. because nuclear energy and radiation is such a scary issue to most people.
few understand it so they just dismiss it as evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I may not understand it fully, but I DO know that some forms of radiation
last waaaaaaay longer than when the unicorns, griffins, and dragons missed the Ark 6,000 years ago, so that's way too long for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Do you also know there are natural forms of radiation that last for thousands for years?
You are most certainly being hit by natural radiation at this moment but it is at such low level it has little to no effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, I do know that.
But I also appreciate the fact that "it is such a low level that it has little or no effect".

Why do you ask if I know that or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Because your previous post said somehting about 6000 years was too long.
It does not necessarily matter how long radiation lasts, its the level the source is emitting and level of exposure to susceptible living creatures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Bob,
You completely ignored the unicorn, griffin, dragon thingy in my post.

Sarcasm obviously isn't your 'cuppa tea'.

I hope that you are a brilliant scientist, cause lord knows, we need brilliant, dedicated, knowledgable, courageous people right now....

Peace and :-)

(I DO understand quite a bit about radiation & how long it lasts, etc.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Oh dear!
Sorry about that. I just got back from a flight from Asia so that my excuse.

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillyJack Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. It's okay. I'm probably not as good at sarcasm as I think I am.....
haha! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Incitatus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes, I heard Ann Coulter say something like that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. meaning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. Yes, saying that there are natural sources of radiation is exactly the same
as saying that the levels of radiation that Fukushima is putting out is good for us and we should be traveling to Japan to bask in the beneficial radiation. Some people are just terrible at seeing shades of gray.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. I suspect that they're making up the answers as they go along.
They know how to smash the atoms, but that's about the sum of what they know. There are too many problems they've chosen to ignore (waste disposal and containment to name two).

What couldn't possibly happen has happened, and that makes the discipline suspect in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yes, Murphy's Law, on a global scale!
The truth is stranger than fiction. Is that their problem with honesty? It's already FUBAR, they might as well get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
14. Lies are being spread by anti-nuclear environmentalist communist hippies.
They've been doing this ever since Reagan took the solar panels off the WH.

When companies stop lying to us, maybe we'll stop telling the truth about them.

Nukes are simply not safe. The random destructive power of nature can crumble anything human beings build in a heartbeat.
All the scientists in the world can't stop it.

Anyone that has not already learned this lesson from observing natural phenomena, and then Fukushima, obviously does not fully understand how predictable results are obtained through using the scientific method.

Science is truly awesome. Concentrating on employing and improving safe methods of energy production would be an excellent path for science to take at this point in history


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
16. It's because I trust "nuke science" that I oppose nuclear power.
QUOTE:

Dr. Janette Sherman who edited the translated 5,000 European studies said:

SNIP

"On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl."
(Sherman, 2011)


Just how does the United Nations IAEA manage to ignore half a million to a million dead Eurasians? It just so happens I've been going through some of the aforementioned excluded studies, and I found some interesting commentary pertaining to just that question.

"These findings indicate that the spectrum of developmental defects generated by incorporated radioactivity in humans may be much greater than derived by international radiation committees from the follow-up of Japanese A-bomb survivors. The findings are compatible with a particularly high radiosensitivity of the fetus... In contrast to this, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP has postulated a threshold dose as high as 100 mSv in Publication 90 of 2003 for effects after prenatal exposure. They and other committees exclude radiation effects by Chernobyl fallout referring to the very low doses which were derived for the population."
(Wolfgang Hoffmann, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake: Malformations, Perinatal Deaths and Childhood Morbidity after In Utero Exposure by Chernobyl Fallout. Observations in Europe and Turkey, Institut fr Community Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitt, Greifswald and Universitt Bremen, Fachbereich Physik und Elektrotechnik (i.R.), 2006)


etc. etc.

From http://counterpunch.org/giambrone04012011.html

If 100 brain surgeons employed by the frontal lobotomy industry were on television arguing for the benefits of frontal lobotomy, but thousands of others were publishing findings critical of frontal lobotomy, which group would you trust?

Apparently you trust the nuclear scientists who speak for the industry, but not the greater number who have studied and published on the horrific consequences and unacceptable risks of that industry.

Apparently you trust the ones who get the nicer treatment from the TV.

Apparently you trust that your generalized sophistry about experts (your experts but not mine) and progress is going to fool anyone who doesn't already share your obvious pro-nuke bias.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Whoah, Jack. Me the OP? I am an old Anti-Nuker from way Back!!
OLD SCHOOL!! Getting doors slammed in or faces in Pacifica California when we were going door to door to stop the building of N.E. Plant in that town.

I bet they are glad we fought for them NOW!!!


I am just disgusted with the complacency regarding science and industry. You give a great example with the pro-lobotomy Brain Surgeons.
(Shades of "Suddenly Last Summer," Elizabeth Taylor's brain as a trade for Katherine Hepburn's money and the new wing on the hospital.)

I am sick to death (maybe so) of this paid-for science.

I am tired of the glossing over of the facts that line some guys pocket with money and some poor kid's lungs, bloodstream. water source, playground...... with WHO KNOWS what!

I'm sorry my OP did not make it clear that I hate Nuke anything and I'm done, I'm up to here, with the glossing over.

We have REAL work to help our world along and these BOZOs are playing hide-a-fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. Earthquake scientists have no vested financial interest in erathquakes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I know! No body makes $$$$ on EarthQuake science, they save LIVES
The MOST precious commodities on earth!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. Don't be naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. I think you get actual scientists and the govts they work for confused.
I understand what you are saying, but what exactly are we not trusting about 'nuke' science? It can kill you? Yes. It can provide a lot of energy at high risk. Yes. Really I think at this point the charade by Big Business over the abuse of science has become pathetic if not weak by now. Why even try anymore? It is sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Let the world's eyes be opened like yours!!! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
20. what a brain surgeon does isn't constrained by bean-counter decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Like I said, I know it's about the money..............
But jezze, after Fukushima, that Nuke Shit Has Got to GOOO!

Even the 1%'ers will be poisoned, we have been kindergartners playing with fireworks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
21. Maybe because they get big bucks from the industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. "nuke" science is literally entwined with the industry that brung it
already we've heard many conflicting reports from the scientists involved at Fukushima...is that because they don't know or are they being pressured about what they say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
23. That is not the issue- nukes have a huge potential of causing global harm, so....we scrutize it more
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 06:35 AM by The Straight Story
and instead of trusting one scientist we like to get second/third opinions. Plus, we don't trust mechanical things, and how often have we heard 'there is nothing to worry about, trust us' and then something goes wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. This is why there has to be a new embracing of Scientific Honesty.
The rich and poor, all of lives depend on us knowing the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiranon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-09-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
32. Earthquake scientists do not create new earthquakes; brain surgeons
do not create new tumors to operate on; nuke scientists call for the building of more nuclear plants. Financial considerations are at the forefront for many nuke scientists. The cost of decommissioning a nuke plant is overwhelming expensive and needs to be included when pricing power from a nuke plant plus that annoying detail of nuclear waste disposal worldwide needs to be included. It won't do much good if the U.S. disposes of its nuclear waste in a safe manner if the rest of the world doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 03rd 2014, 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC