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

[Mojeoux]

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.

[Paradoxical]

1. Brain surgery is not exactly an exploitable commodity like fossil fuel.

[gateley]

2. You're at 999 posts!! nt

[TransitJohn]

3. I'd say that it was.

It's gotta cost six figures, easy.

[shraby]

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.

[DCBob]

5. because nuclear energy and radiation is such a scary issue to most people.

few understand it so they just dismiss it as evil.

[BillyJack]

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.

[DCBob]

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.

[BillyJack]

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?

[DCBob]

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.

[BillyJack]

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.)

[DCBob]

19. Oh dear!

Sorry about that. I just got back from a flight from Asia so that my excuse.

:)

[BillyJack]

25. It's okay. I'm probably not as good at sarcasm as I think I am.....

haha! :-)

[Incitatus]

11. Yes, I heard Ann Coulter say something like that. nt

[DCBob]

13. meaning?

[EOTE]

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.

[LiberalAndProud]

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.

[Mojeoux]

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.

[Zorra]

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

[JackRiddler]

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 für Community Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald and Universität 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.

[Mojeoux]

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.

[Bluebear]

17. Earthquake scientists have no vested financial interest in erathquakes?

[Mojeoux]

27. I know! No body makes $$$$ on EarthQuake science, they save LIVES

The MOST precious commodities on earth!

[JVS]

31. Don't be naive.

[Rex]

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.

[Mojeoux]

28. Let the world's eyes be opened like yours!!! nt.

[hobbit709]

20. what a brain surgeon does isn't constrained by bean-counter decisions.

[Mojeoux]

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.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. Maybe because they get big bucks from the industry?

[ReggieVeggie]

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?

[The Straight Story]

23. That is not the issue- nukes have a huge potential of causing global harm, so....we scrutize it more

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?

[Mojeoux]

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.

[kiranon]

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.