Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Besides that, what you're saying is actually:

If the results of the examination into the Fukushima accident in some years will be, that there hasn't been a major impact om health and/or environment, you'll automatically assume, that there's been a cover up. As you do with Chernobyl. Only if the results are, that it has had a serious effect, you'll believe it. Am I getting this right..?

Really, you're making my points in this debate better, than I can do myself.

I think your suffering from short memory loss. Please read back the posts and you see how many posts I've did. That I haven't been posting that much to you anymore I already explained a couple of pages back.

I've also noticed the same patern with you, Charles, that Monty has. You simply ignore every strong point someone makes that doesn't fit with your theory. Monty here was most of the time very patient and dedicated to adressing every single strong point of your theory. Whenever he or someone else writes something really argumented, you just pretend like he wrote nothing and move onto your next point.

I was personally most concerned about what you wrote about increased diseases near nuclear power plants as I currently perceive them far more environment and people friendly than thermo or hydro power plants. You posted links to 2 studies which I took the time to analyse but you simply ingored my reasonable objections to their methodology and my key question - what is causing this and why are we not able to measure that. Why do you ignore? Probably when you have no answers that you like and surely because you have an insulting attitude to people with opinions different than yours however reasonable they might be.

I strongly disagree with curses and insults used here. It is not necessary to use bad language to prove a point. Hypocryts show their character better by themselves. Insults are only shading this clear picture very visible to a keen observer.
(edited)

ok so what is conclusion/summary of last 10 pages in max 5 simple sentences :-D ??

Am I getting this right..?

Apparently not. I won't start a lesson of logic with you now though.

1. We are currently relying mostly on thermo, hydro and nuclear power to produce electricity.
2. None of the above is healthy energy but nuclear is the healthiest.
3. Alternative options using renewable sources are currently not able to satisfy entire civilization's energy needs but should be invested in to replace or supplement current options wherever and whenever possible.
4. People should use valid and reliable scientific information when forming opinions and having discussions.
5. People should not insult other people.
;)

I totally agree.... do agree also opponents here ?

I know a saying, 'every person that died, specially a child, is 1 to many', but not for you obviously :S That's really sad you know. In war people die unfortunatly, but is this also normal when it's about generating our electricity?

I had to get back to this quote showing your apsurdly idealistic worldview. Does this mean we should also stop driving cars? Do you know how many people die in traffic?

Charles: Hey, people, wake up! Today someone will get killed in a car crash! Stop pro-car agitators who want people to die in car accidents. We should all ride horses. They are only 1 horse power but very friendly and eat only straw. No, wait, I was just informed by someone who usually agrees with me, a recent study by "Pedestrian Association" shows an increase in people getting killed falling of a horse. OK, you just all walk then and watch your step. The pro-car and pro-horse agitators will probably try to trip you. ;)

I appologize for my strong language. I agree that it should not be necessary. My only defence is, that I've only used strong language when responding to strong language or unfounded accusations against myself personally - as far as I remember.

I don't like beeing called neither a no-brainer or a part of some fact-denying lobby for my beliefs. I have read more into this subject than probably anyone else in this thread. Hell, I've probably interviewed more people on the subject, than anyone has ever read articles. And I have no connections to anyone making or losing money on any sort of energy production, and I have no special interrest but the health of humans and our environment.

On that basis I think some of the words uttered by Charles Hill and Gallifax are pretty damn insultning. But I'll try to make an effort to make that the last curse word from me. :)

That's true, the number of causes of leukemia went up but a link to nuclear power stations nearby is controversial, but more studies are done, Radiation and Public Health Project, it aren't just 2 studies. Keeping it controversial can mean a lot for those who earn a lot of money in this industry I guess. I don't really know how aggressive the nuclear lobby is. Smoking till the 70's also didn't cause any cancer (but the tabac industry knew of cancer already in the 50's) ... Maybe that's the problem of longterm concequenses, how to prove it, and who to listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_and_Public_Health_Project

I'll just snap a few quotes from the article:

According to a 2003 article in The New York Times, the group's work has been controversial, and had little credibility with the scientific establishment.

Several methodological problems in the study were found by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear industry groups.[10] Among the errors were: small sample sizes used to draw far-reaching conclusions; no control populations; no other cancer risk factors considered; no environmental sampling and analysis; cherry-picking of data to fit the conclusion; and an incorrect half-life used for strontium-90. As such, the results have not impacted the current scientific consensus that there is no excess cancer risk from living near nuclear facilities

My impressions exactly when I saw worried Alec Baldwin's face. Why doesn't he go about saving some pandas or something and leave the science to scientists? This reminds me of Al Gore's "Unpleasant Truth" which is basically a docummentary about Al Gore and not the global warming issue so at least he got the title right. ;)

Research should not be conducted by persons or institutions who are actually stakeholders in the issue. What would this institution do if by any accident there were no radiation to worry about? Who would they raise their funds from and what would that lady who studied philosophy (instead of e.g. nuclear science or medicine) do if it would become apparent that nuclear power plants are not as scary as it might seem just based on information that there is radiation inside a reactor?

We need studies from scientists working for institutions not having a side chosen already in its name and who care only about how professional, scientific and well-balanced their analyses are and not about purposes for which thier studies' would be best suited. This kind of professional lobbysts are only making things worse with their cherrypicking "studies". There are real problems that need our attention and this kind of unprofessional "science" creates only an obsolete obstacle.

An interresting (and a bit funny, actually) follow up has been made to the "Simple explanation" posted on the first page of this thread. The original author discusses the trustworthiness of his own piece:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/29/would-i-have-believed-myself/

That's the other way you can look at it :)

They are only 1 horse power but very friendly

Not all horses are friendly. Trust me, I had one that played dumb for a while and when you were distracted he will quickly turn around and make you fall. In fact, I can't confirm this, but most of the times that bastard did that turn in the proximity of a big pile of poo.

So you are actually being pro-horse and thus make me wonder how valid are all the other arguments you made in the last pages.

Also Charles and Monty, please no insults, treat all responses with respect.