tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6710404572379591934..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Understanding Nuclear Power, Part I: Whirlwind Nuclear PhysicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78410514439876534282012-05-20T01:23:09.340-04:002012-05-20T01:23:09.340-04:00thorium thorium thorimthorium thorium thorimBlack River Darkwaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00494266558165833067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90837191218088986262012-05-09T14:12:54.586-04:002012-05-09T14:12:54.586-04:00He said that it is trivially true that expanding t...He said that it is trivially true that expanding the use of any energy generation method would increase the number of accidents involving that method. You questioned that initially, but have since agreed that that is trivially true in the sense that he (probably) meant it. In so doing, you have cut off the root of the argumentative tack whose leaves and branches you are still trying to pursue.<br /><br />It's not that the relative merits and demerits of power generation methods don't warrant concern, but rather that the ground on which you initiated your specific argument predicated upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of what Ian said. In other words, you are attempting to confront him on ground that he does not appear to occupy.<br /><br />I can't speak for Ian, of course, but that's how it appears to me.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86649630436563131932012-05-08T14:51:14.602-04:002012-05-08T14:51:14.602-04:00Thanks Perspicio,
It may be trivial in the sense ...Thanks Perspicio,<br /><br />It may be trivial in the sense that the conclusion follows very easily from the premise in terms of logical reasoning, but it is *not* trivial in the sense that it is a matter of no importance.<br /><br />If I said, “it is trivially true that the more cigarettes you smoke, the more likely you are to get cancer”, the logic is trivial but the ramifications of the conclusion are not.<br /><br />I am still awaiting Ian Pollack’s elaboration on how accidents more serious than a sunburn can occur at a solar collection facility. Remember, he said ANY generation method. I chose “solar” as one of the ANY. So, don’t let him start talking about accidents at coal/oil facilities – that would SOME generation methods, not ANY generation method.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36275111988913722782012-05-06T02:49:16.750-04:002012-05-06T02:49:16.750-04:00In my experience the phrase "trivially true&q...In my experience the phrase "trivially true" means that a thing is recognized as true, but it is almost a tautology. In other words, an obvious truth that, in itself, adds little if anything to our understanding.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14704274370638125712012-04-29T12:35:32.217-04:002012-04-29T12:35:32.217-04:00You are being evasive.
In addition to the "...You are being evasive. <br /><br />In addition to the "low hanging fruit" sentence. You also wrote:<br /><br />"Indeed, the idea of a nuclear plant blowing up like an atom bomb is a straw man if we are talking about the beliefs of sophisticated nuclear-skeptical folks... on the other hand, it is downright pervasive among the general public." <br /><br />What evidence do you have that the idea of a nuclear plant blowing up like an atom bomb is pervasive among the general public?Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42860492300827638092012-04-29T12:19:56.544-04:002012-04-29T12:19:56.544-04:00The basketball-in-the-steampipe incident was repor...The basketball-in-the-steampipe incident was reported by the Los Angeles Times, page 1, "Managing Atom Plants <br />Scrutinized", 05/22/83, by Times Staff Writer <br />Doyle McManus. <br /><br />NRC records show that such incidents are rather <br />commonplace, not "extraordinary".Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32302620634111701482012-04-28T20:28:07.371-04:002012-04-28T20:28:07.371-04:00I said: "I will try to address the sophistica...I said: "I will try to address the sophisticated objections, but I will not leave low-hanging fruit like that unpicked, given that it is the source of much of the public's opposition."<br /><br />I suppose that technically this sentence is grammatically ambiguous, but I meant the 'it' here to refer to 'low-hanging fruit like that' (i.e., unsophisticated objections), not to that specific idea.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31796175570607752762012-04-28T13:38:03.103-04:002012-04-28T13:38:03.103-04:00I'll provide the reference soon.I'll provide the reference soon.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91159733229711446212012-04-28T13:35:46.391-04:002012-04-28T13:35:46.391-04:00I've seen a lot of things written attempting t...I've seen a lot of things written attempting to <br />defend nuclear power, so forgive me if I anticipate<br />the old arguments! <br /><br />I've noticed that you ignored my challenge for you to provide evidence that fear of a mushroom cloud explosion "is the source of much of the public's opposition".Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23238361982384040722012-04-28T13:30:15.325-04:002012-04-28T13:30:15.325-04:00Please elaborate.Please elaborate.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63724378897851872662012-04-27T20:59:52.774-04:002012-04-27T20:59:52.774-04:00If you have a reference for that I'd be intere...If you have a reference for that I'd be interested to see it, that's extraordinary.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2372932025683422262012-04-27T20:58:33.021-04:002012-04-27T20:58:33.021-04:00"ANY generation method? TRIVIAL truth?"
..."ANY generation method? TRIVIAL truth?"<br /><br />Yes on both counts. No, more serious than a sunburn.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10249726127214371822012-04-27T20:53:19.199-04:002012-04-27T20:53:19.199-04:00Point of order: it would be nice to actually *make...Point of order: it would be nice to actually *make* an elementary reasoning fallacy before being accused of one.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51342406091503488052012-04-25T09:43:54.784-04:002012-04-25T09:43:54.784-04:00Chernobyl archaic? You mean, as opposed to the mo...Chernobyl archaic? You mean, as opposed to the modern sophisticated methods that we use here the United States? <br /><br />Item: <br />At an unidentified nuclear plant, workers altering a large steam pipe needed to close off one end -- so they wrapped an ordinary basketball in electrical tape and wedged it in. That worked fine, until pressure built up behind the basketball. Then the ball shot out of the pipe and 14,000 gallons of radioactive water leaked out.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82519102570705264172012-04-25T09:02:49.931-04:002012-04-25T09:02:49.931-04:00Ian writes, "[More plants equals more acciden...Ian writes, "[More plants equals more accidents]is a trivial truth, of course, for expanding use of any generation method will obviously increase the number of accidents involving that method."<br /><br />ANY generation method? TRIVIAL truth? So, you believe that increasing the number of solar-collecting plants is equally or more likely to contaminate an area the size of the state of Connecticut -- as at Fukushima? <br /><br />Or, do the "accidents" you envision for the alternative methods consist of a maintenance man getting a sunburn while cleaning the collector panels?Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11008941121695418852012-04-24T09:19:39.452-04:002012-04-24T09:19:39.452-04:00Ian,
You admit that you favor nuclear power, but ...Ian, <br />You admit that you favor nuclear power, but you seem to be approaching this whole question in a very unfair way, before you have even reached the contentious points. <br /><br />For example, what evidence do you have that fear of a mushroom cloud explosion "is the source of much of the public's opposition" (as opposed to fears about contamination, health concerns and waste disposal)? <br /><br />Also, you write:<br />"The relative absence of radioactive materials in the world around us is due, not to non-radioactive material being 'more natural' than radioactive material, but rather to survivorship. Radioactive materials have decayed into non-radioactive ones — our (mostly) non-radioactive world is what’s left after everything else has decayed."<br /><br />But, the decay into non-radioactvie material IS a natural process, hence the predominence of non-radioactive material IS a natural result. It seems like poor reasoning to me on your part. A super-nova is also natural, but one doesn't expect to find a super-nova in one's backyard. Likewise, one would prefer not to find radioactive material in one's backyard, even if it is "natural" under your strange definition. <br /><br />You seem to already be laying the groundwork for a straw-man argument (which includes the naturalistic fallacy): radioactive material can't be all that bad because it is "natural". Any aversion people have of radioactive material must be due to an irrational misunderstanding of its "natural" qualities.Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65305542000866563872012-04-24T04:23:08.745-04:002012-04-24T04:23:08.745-04:00I'm sorry I haven't had much time to comme...I'm sorry I haven't had much time to comment lately, but I've still been reading as I can and I just wanted to say I've been very happy with the quality of the articles that have been appearing here lately. I look forward to the rest of your series, Ian, as I'm undecided on the issue.Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04338789669131796827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56433689437318883902012-04-24T00:22:31.483-04:002012-04-24T00:22:31.483-04:00Fukushima isn't over, they can't inspect b...<a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120329a1.html" rel="nofollow">Fukushima isn't over</a>, they can't inspect breached reactors 1 and 3 and radiation in 2 is so high equipment doesn't last long enough to provide adequate information. Japan still has no plan to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-alvarez/the-fukushima-nuclear-dis_b_1444146.html" rel="nofollow">deal with the spent fuel rods</a>, especially at reactor 4. No-one has any idea what the ultimate health and environmental impact will be, the site is regularly leaking contaminated water.<br /><br />Your linked NY Times piece is a good example of the problem for advocates. Articles like it regularly paint a rosy description of conditions in Fukushima, raising unrealistic expectations, which are then flatly contradicted by events on the ground and reports like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/world/asia/inquiry-suggests-worse-damage-at-japan-nuclear-plant.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a>, also in the Times. People won't be returning to most of the exclusion zones for decades due to dangerous radiation levels, <a href="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120423x2.html" rel="nofollow">according to the Japanese government</a>, so it is hard to take the article's claim of no measurable health impact seriously. In contrast, areas hit by the tsunami are well on their way to recovery.<br /><br />In any case, I look forward to reading Ian's argument.TIBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15967106597175042077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87513791759979734242012-04-23T21:19:59.285-04:002012-04-23T21:19:59.285-04:00Indeed, the idea of a nuclear plant blowing up lik...Indeed, the idea of a nuclear plant blowing up like an atom bomb is a straw man if we are talking about the beliefs of sophisticated nuclear-skeptical folks... on the other hand, it is downright pervasive among the general public & contributes to a general background distrust of nuclear.<br /><br />I will try to address the sophisticated objections, but I will not leave low-hanging fruit like that unpicked, given that it is the source of much of the public's opposition.<br /><br />"Arguing that we will have fewer accidents with more plants is not credible."<br /><br />I agree, if we expand nuclear generation there will obviously be more accidents. That is a trivial truth, of course, for expanding use of any generation method will obviously increase the number of accidents involving that method. The question will become, how does that compare to the alternatives? But I am getting ahead of myself, let us save this debate for later.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60033994949140956082012-04-23T13:49:26.437-04:002012-04-23T13:49:26.437-04:00Anything that provides a rational look at nuclear ...Anything that provides a rational look at nuclear is fine by me. "Archaic" is a good description of Chernobyl.<br /><br />FYI: another perspective, in a fun format.........<br /><br />I've worked in the US nuclear industry well over twenty years but am not a "true believer". Awhile back I wrote the novel "Rad Decision" providing an inside look at how a nuclear plant works in good and bad times. It turned out the plant profiled and the bad times bear a strong resemblance to Fukushima. Rad Decision is available free online (just google the title). There are no advertisements and no sponsors. It includes a comparison of Chernobyl and US reactors, and a look at TMI.<br /><br />The book has garnered a lot of positive reviews from readers but no attention from the media - they're busy, I guess.James Aachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762006792617588325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23150509911375177712012-04-23T11:11:10.561-04:002012-04-23T11:11:10.561-04:00Fukushima wasn't so bad. The most significant ...<a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/sizing-up-health-impacts-a-year-after-fukushima/?partner=rss&emc=rss" rel="nofollow">Fukushima wasn't so bad.</a> The most significant impact was economic. And another Chernobyl isn't possible because it was largely the result of a design that is now archaic, and even then it was below acceptable standards. Also, I doubt the misconception that a nuclear power plant can explode like a nuclear bomb is a strawman. But I do agree with the thrust of your comment: I hope that Luke attacks a steel man instead of the lowest common denominator.JoshJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13232627951659106765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6250978972152031012012-04-23T10:29:04.886-04:002012-04-23T10:29:04.886-04:00I hope you'll steer clear of straw-men like &q...I hope you'll steer clear of straw-men like "mushroom clouds" and address the actual risks of nuclear power. Often advocates claim that this or that technology can only fail once every thousand years, or that it is not possible for such and such a design to melt through containment.<br /><br />The real question is if we build more nuclear power plants how much more often will we have catastrophic accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl, and what will be the cost in lives and property. Arguing that we will have fewer accidents with more plants is not credible. Present the real world, with real people who forget things, make mistakes, and cut corners, not the ideal world.TIBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15967106597175042077noreply@blogger.com