PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fukushima meltdown hastens decline of nuclear power
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5667
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
I can't show you the numbers! That's why we can't be sure.

It doesn't matter how big the data set is - if it's too noisy the only safe conclusion is that we don't know.
That noise existed prior to the Chernobyl accident and the size of it has not significantly changed since the accident.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course. That's the nature of noise. When there's enough of it and it's not constant, a new signal in undetectable.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5667
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Of course. That's the nature of noise. When there's enough of it and it's not constant, a new signal in undetectable.
Ah yes, but.....

If you get an unpredictable variation in the level of noise in a signal from annual measure to annual measure then it is quite true that you cannot be sure of what element of that noise may or may not be attributable to a new signal or even if there is a new signal.

However, if you take enough samples over time that also contain the noise (In the case, of Chernobyl, enough annual cancer-rate data-sets), then the annual variability in the noise can be averaged out and you end up with a predictable average level of noise as opposed to one that, from individual year to individual year may fluctuate quite widely. When you do that you will still not necessarily be able to discern the cause of the noise in any given year. But, what you can discern is if there has been any underlying structural addition to it and, in turn, discern from this the introduction of a new signal even if the identity of that new signal is not known.

In the case of Chernobyl, no significant additional noise has been detected. Therefore, we can state that the only way Chernobyl could form part of the existing noise if if another source of noise that previously contributed exactly the same level of cancer inducement as Chernobyl has coincidently disappeared at precisely the right time in order for Chernobyl to have not had any discernible effect on the total amount of noise. This is extremely implausible, and that's being polite about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But an unpredictable variation in the level of noise in the signal from annual measure to annual measure is just what we do find. Constant noise isn't really noise at all since, being constant, you know what it is and you can remove it.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm getting bored with this. Go read what others think. Smile

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/ChernobylRadiation

http://chernobyl.cancer.gov/studies.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/chernobyl-still-causing-cancer-in-british-children-475263.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/10/chernobyl-nuclear-deaths-cancers-dispute

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/chernobyl-cancer-death-toll-0536.html

http://phys.org/news/2011-03-chernobyl-cancer.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1615299.stm
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 5667
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2012 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
But an unpredictable variation in the level of noise in the signal from annual measure to annual measure is just what we do find. Constant noise isn't really noise at all since, being constant, you know what it is and you can remove it.
Yes, you can, which is precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned longitudinal averages. When you do that, you find that that what is left is next to nothing. In other words, Chernobyl's contribution to cancer rates, when analyzed in a multi-year overview of cancer rates since the accident, in terms of both signal and noise, is next to nothing

Two things to bear in mind when looking at these so=-called disputes are that (1) the "normal" rate of genetic mutations and cancer are already higher than many people suppose. They just tend (understandably) tend to have been noticed a lot more since the accident. (2), In Ukraine, there have been compensation systems in place such that there has been a massive incentive to misdiagnose every kind of malady going as being somehow related to the accident. In adjacent areas where such compensation schemes have not been in place or are not as generous, the correlation with claims/lack of claims made is striking. I'm not suggesting that people are overtly lying. Though this may occur. I am suggesting that if people get something wrong with them and they are told that a nuclear accident will make you grow two heads, then they are naturally going to ascribe every malady they get to that accident. Particularly if there is a large financial incentive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back on topic Smile

Quote:
Japans prime minister is encountering unexpected opposition to his quest to bring two nuclear reactors back online in the next few weeks: lawmakers from his own party.
More than a third of the legislators from the ruling Democratic Party of Japan submitted to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda a petition Tuesday urging him to exercise greater caution over restarting the No. 3 and 4 reactors at the Oi nuclear plant in western Japan, run by Kansai Electric Power Co.

Most of the public are of the opinion that we should overcome this summers energy needs through conservation and flexibility, the petition said, signed by 117 members of the DPJ.

At issue is what to do with Japans fleet of 50 nuclear reactors, which accounted for around 30% of Japans electricity before the devastating accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant last year. All those reactors are now offline, while the government reviews their safety. Japans nuclear regulators and Prime Minister Noda have said that Ois two reactors are safe, and should be restarted to help head off a shortage of electricity during the sweltering months of July and August, when the country cranks up its air conditioners. Mr. Noda had been widely expected to order the restart as early as this week.

Critics including the popular mayor of Osaka, and the 117 DPJ petitioners have questioned just how safe the reactors are, and how prepared utilities are should another accident happen.

http://paper.li/f-1303664245
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12469
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the "sweltering summer", how are (were) these beasts cooled, I wonder?
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
BLOG
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sea-water? I think most of them are at the sea-side. That appeared to be part of the problem as the sea-side turned out to be a moveable entity.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Chernobyl_Deaths_Top_a_Million.php
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMS



Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:43 am    Post subject: Better alternatives to traditional nuclear plants... Reply with quote

There are better alternatives to traditional nuclear plants: We should be planning to replace all existing (and rapidly-ageing) plants with systems powered by thorium, not plutonium. A power technology article recently (http://www.power-technology.com/features/featureu-turn-thorium-safe-nuclear-power-generation/) describes its superiority to plutonium-powered plants. Maybe we don't need nuclear, but if we are going to continue to use nuclear, thorium-based is a better way to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like Fukushima was the most expensive accident ever:

Quote:
Tepco indicates costs could rise to $120 bln


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/tepco-fukushima-idUSL3E8M77K720121107
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not as much as the UK bank bail out then! Wink
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
Not as much as the UK bank bail out then! Wink


I said 'accident'. The bail-out was deliberate.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1453

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, back in the vicinity of the stricken reactors
Quote:
When a doctor told a Fukushima mother recently that the chance of her child having cancer was only 1 in 100. This mother had let her children evacuate to Yamagata after two of her children had gotten 3 milimeter thyroid cists in their throats had answer to the doctor. For her she said, it is not 1 in 100, but it is 1 in 1.

This epitomizes the continuing nightmare the people of Fukushima face as Tokyo Electric Power Company TEPCO, the Japan and US government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continue a full press campaign to convince people that the three Fukushima nuclear plant meltdowns can be overcome. This was the statement in fact of a politician last year running for parliament in the city of Sendai, which is about 60 miles from the plant meltdowns.....


One Day in Fukushima

_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 3 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group