On Monday 28 November 2011 00:40:22 Dinesh Shah wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sunday 27 November 2011 23:34:27 Binand Sethumadhavan wrote: > >> On 27 November 2011 23:12, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > BTW, far more number of people die in road and rail accidents in India > >> > and around the world than nuclear reactors going bust. > >> > > >> > Should we ban all road and rail travel? after all auto-mobiles and > >> > rail are also considered technology. > >> > >> This particular meme seems to be absolutely standard around the world, > >> to be used in all scenarios where one wants to enforce one's point of > >> view. And of course, it is plain wrong. > >> > >> Road accidents can be certainly reduced by banning road travel, and > >> that is obviously not a decision you want to make. So you will start > >> by identifying particular stretches of roads that seem to be more > >> dangerous than others and (a) ban traffic on those stretches, or (b) > >> improve those stretches to eliminate the accident-causing factors. > >> Since banning is still not an option, you will turn to the latter. > >> > >> If you do that in a structured way, you will also further emerge with > >> metrics like "accidents per 1000 vehicles" or "accidents per 1000 > >> route-km" and so on, that will allow you to meaningfully compare two > >> separate stretches of roads. > >> > >> And then you will attempt to do a similar analysis with a planned > >> nuclear reactor. You will end up realizing that in terms of the metric > >> that can be meaningfully compared - like "deaths per 1000 population" > >> or "deaths per year of operation" - your average nuclear reactor is > >> several orders of magnitude more dangerous that your average state > >> highway. > >> > >> Now you will start factoring in the probability of a failure. At which > >> point, after investigating the geological and other factors, you will > >> hopefully realize the killer legacy our current incumbent in the PMO > >> is hell bent on leaving for our children. > > > > Well said. > > > > There was a similiar strawman argument "more people die of shark bites > > than nuclear accidents''. Ofcourse ofcourse. BUT the death rate is near > > 100% when your boat meets with an accident in shark infested waters. And > > more importantly it stops with you. You see, your wife on the beach does > > not get killed 30 years later automagically. > > It looks like whatever argument put forward here is not convenient to > your, it becomes "strawman argument". :-) > > Since you don't like road accident argument I will change to fire. We > have learned a great deal to use and control fire. Still fire causes > death and destruction. We sure don't want to stop using fire for > current and future gen?
Sure. Read shark part again. Fire stops destruction at the end of fire. Ones kith and kin and random joes walking past the fire site wont die 10 years from now. A nuclear disaster - actually even when not a disaster - does not end with the destruction of the reactor. It continues for a few centuries afterwards. It does not stop at the site. It keeps spreading wider and wider. It concentrates it self in the food chain (read about strontium, cesium, cobalt). > > > Unfortunately one has to deal with these type of factually wrong > > statements all the while. > > Really? I would like to know which are wrong statements? (so I can > learn to make right statements :-) ) Read about radioactivity and half life. Also those readings from Geiger counters tell you less than half a story. In Japan, NGOs took apart car air filters and tested for radioactivity. The radioactivity was 100 times higher in 100% of the cases and 100 times higher in a significant number of cases. How come? You would have to place giger counters and other more sophisticated detectors a few 100 mtrs apart right across the country to get a meaninful reading. The average is sort off ones head in the freezer and legs in the frying pan - very comfortable overall I suppose. Also cancer can be caused by inhalation or ingestion of one, just one radioactive particle. You will know 5, 10, 20 years from now. Comforting thought. > > What I am trying to put forward is simple case - all technology, > including nuclear is inherently neutral in nature. It is not. Nuclear energy is a particularly nasty example. Why? Read about halflife. Several chemical industries have similiar characteristics PCB generating industries for example. Guess where are they located. Zero in the US/Germany/Fr/UK/ etc. > It's the way it's > uses that makes it either branded good or bad. The costs, when black swan events are factored in, makes it completely unviable. Read up black swan events. Again we are condemning nuclear technology commercial use. No body is stopping R&D so that it may be actually useful someday. > > Simple point here - this forum itself is and can be used or/and > misused. Does this make this forum/mailing list bad or evil? Lists are not radioactive. -- http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
