tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post5943863794057275640..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Bas Gresnigt. German Energiewende: Reasons, Methods, Results.Meredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-44304199854671578972014-02-06T07:13:59.291-05:002014-02-06T07:13:59.291-05:00Anon
Thank you. The comment stream is hereby over...Anon<br /><br />Thank you. The comment stream is hereby over.<br /><br />I also think this comment stream has gone on long enough. But I thought...well, if I close it after a comment by Bas, then he has the last word, even though people could refute him quite readily. Well, I don't want to do that. That seems unfair.<br /><br />Then I thought...well, if I close it after a comment by someone who refutes Bas, I don't give him a chance to answer. Well, I don't want to do that. That seems unfair.<br /><br />So I began thinking that the only "fair" thing to do is to let the comment stream go on forever, even though I am heartily sick of it. Anon, you broke the logjam in my thinking. It's my blog and I can say...okay....comments are over. <br /><br />I'm saying it. Comments are over. This is the last comment on this post. Future comments will be deleted, not posted.<br /><br />Just a small note from me about Energiewende. As I have gotten tired of the comments, I began to feel that it would be GREAT if Germany continues with full-bore with Energiewende. Really does it, that is, goes for the renewables! By doing this, within perhaps twenty years Germany will become a second-rate economy. They will show the world the consequences of foolish choices. We will all learn from them, but perhaps not the lesson they thought they were teaching.<br /><br />On the other hand, I can say this quite comfortably from Vermont, because I don't live downwind of German coal plants. And alas, Germany actually will not become a second-rate economy: they will just follow the Chinese into a coal-based economy. <br /><br />Goodbye and good luck. Thank you to Bas for his work on the post, and thank you to everyone who commented. <br /><br />It's been a fun experience (part of the time) but it's over.<br />Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-45534438869704561322014-02-06T06:40:41.226-05:002014-02-06T06:40:41.226-05:00Nothing in return, eh? Evidently you place no val...Nothing in return, eh? Evidently you place no value on the tens of thousands of TWHrs of emissions-free electricity generated over the years with essentially zero GHG emissions and very little if any risk to the public. You may place no value on that, but most reasonable, rational people would.<br /><br />I'm not the owner of this blog, so it isn't my call, but if I were, I'd say we've had about enough of this FUD. It's very egalitarian to have allowed an opponent such an open platform to express contrary views, but at some point you have to say enough is enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-38651503570337467982014-02-05T18:16:34.426-05:002014-02-05T18:16:34.426-05:00You hint that fission technology is "old"...You hint that fission technology is "old" yet your preferred technologies (wind and solar) are ancient, primitive technologies. Did you know that in your home country people were using windmills as long ago as the 11th century A.D., and the basics of that technology has not really changed all that much in the time since. You've basically got wind pushing around rotary sails. There were Phoenician sailors circumnavigating Africa in the pre-Christian era using wind power. Solar energy goes back to the pre-Neolithic Age, when our ancestors were using solar energy to warm their caves. So if by your estimate that fission is "old" technology, then by the same measure yours are ancient, ancient, primitive technologies. The fact is that fission technology represents energy extraction in its most advanced state. It taps its basic energy source at a level that is far beyond anything wind and solar can do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-34004720319961378422014-02-05T17:41:45.870-05:002014-02-05T17:41:45.870-05:00> Bas said...
But I feel it is stupid to acc...> Bas said...<br /> But I feel it is stupid to accept unnecessary risks when you get nothing in return. <<br /><br />Do you know what you just slipped out? You just now spat on all the sweat and toil and tears of everyone who has any part designing or building a nuclear plant. You just now as good as said that they are too ignorant and stupid to even care about risking the safety of their own families and environment by the work they do. You pretty much implied that their contribution to power civilization ought be a big fat zero. Think I've read enough between the lines of your rants.Mitchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-19737984056964241872014-02-05T17:35:31.490-05:002014-02-05T17:35:31.490-05:00@Charles,
I believe your statement that wood conta...@Charles,<br />I believe your statement that wood contains those minerals. But that does not change the fact that we have production woods for many centuries already, which do not degrade.<br />May be those minerals are made up via rain or so. <br /><br />We both agree that wood is renewable by Kyoto standards and that we prefer wind+solar (geothermal+hydro). <br /><br />Regarding the death of nuclear; I posted several links in other posts here that show more deaths (estimates up to a million) and other serious harm due to Chernobyl than IAEA/WHO stated. <br />I will spend more attention to the subject in my response to BilloTheWip.<br /><br />Regarding your Gen.IV reactors, there is gossip about MSR and IFR since decades. So let's see if anything materializes.<br /><br />One of the reasons the AP-1000 still has no license in UK seems to be its limited aircraft resistance (though the EPR cannot withstand a 200ton airliner, it can withstand an unarmed F-16 hence also an easy to rent small plane). Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-57474838193313976512014-02-05T16:04:48.730-05:002014-02-05T16:04:48.730-05:00@Mittch
I do not hate nuclear. I'm not afraid ...@Mittch<br />I do not hate nuclear. I'm not afraid to accept big risks if I can get something nice in return (the mountaineering pictures above show me). <br />But I feel it is stupid to accept unnecessary risks when you get nothing in return.<br /><br />This <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-nuclear-prices-itself-out-of-market-93110" rel="nofollow">diagram</a> takes only the strike (=guaranteed) price of the new NPP at Hinkley in UK into account and compares with safer, non-CO2 alternatives.<br /><br />The diagram didn't take into account the value of the other subsidies that this new NPP will get, such as: the loan guarantees (~€50/MWh), the decommission, the waste and accident liability subsidies (~€50/MWh). Still it is more expensive than any other non-CO2 method of electricity generation. <br />So I see only a negative return. <br />A pity for the UK tax- and rate-payers, who will pay far more than the Germans if UK continues.<br /><br />The accident harm is less about lives, more about big exclusion zones which imply that millions may have to leave home and workplace in case of disaster, crippling UK (as major winds at Hinkley pass dense populated areas). <br /><br />And that for a more expensive method of electricity generation which adds a lot of heat to the earth, while the cheaper wind and solar do not and generate a more reliable electricity supply to the customer (as Germany shows). <br /><br />So I do not see the rational of the present fission nuclear reactors?<br />Why use a technology that hardly improved since half a century ago, when there are now cheaper and better technologies available that hardly existed in the sixties?Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-53347008986840818372014-02-05T13:30:05.080-05:002014-02-05T13:30:05.080-05:00Bas, you are quite incorrect to suggestthat wood d...Bas, you are quite incorrect to suggestthat wood does not contain soil minerals derived from the soil. Minerals found in wood include calcium carbonate, potash, phosphate and trace amounts of micro-nutrients such as iron, manganese, boron, copper and zinc. All of these minerals come from the soil. No matter what rules are followed repeated harvests of biomass will hjave effect on soil. The only way to get around this is to return minerals to the soil, and this gets to be expensive.<br /><br />You have ignored the effect cutting forrest fo energy on wild life habitat. This is typical of anti nuclear fanatics, who also ignore the effects of wind generators on birds and bats.<br /><br />You are talking about speculative deaths, while I am referring to real deaths. You have not mentioned what the source of this specul;ation was, but it sounds a lot toi me like Greenpeace propaganda.<br /><br />Finally you claim that Generation IV reactors will produce a lot of waste. In fact at least two Generation IV reactors, the MSR and the IFR have been proposed as Actinide burners. The other elements in nuclear waste are fission products, which will be as safe as Uranium ore in 300 years. Many fission products are valuable, and thus they are not waste at all.<br /><br />Finally you compare the Fukushima reactors to Generation 3+ reactors. The Westinghouse 1000 is an amazing reactor that in all likelihood would have withstood the Fukushima event. Even in the very unlikely event that an AP-1000 undergoes a core meltdown, it is still very unlikely that the outer shells would be breached. Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-89409270117716799302014-02-05T12:26:40.697-05:002014-02-05T12:26:40.697-05:00So Bas,
You found Hansens book "too biased&q...So Bas, <br />You found Hansens book "too biased". Wow! <br />I know some people also think Jim Hansen is "too biased" about Global Warming as well. <br />But that does not make him wrong.<br /><br />Sadly when I cut-pasted in my first comment I lopped off the references at the end. So here are the actual peer reviewed papers. I hope you find then both useful.<br /><br />http://bit.ly/13M8bmz Kharecha & Hansen<br />http://bit.ly/1fuXB68 Markandya & Wilkinson<br /><br />You will notice that Kharecha & Hansen's paper is actually based on earlier work by Markandya & Wilkinson (again peer reviewed - published in the prestigious Lancet medical journal)<br /><br />So, as Hansen builds on this earlier work it is difficult to see how the results can be due to Hansens "bias".<br /><br />All of this work has been subject to the most rigorous peer review scrutiny and has been published in the most authoritive journals in the world.<br /><br />All of these scientists are most highly respected and are regarded as authoritative leaders within their respective fields.<br /><br />They simply do not go around making things up to fit an agenda.<br /><br />Remember Scepticsm is good. Denial is stupid.BilloTheWisphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-3186587285662172232014-02-05T10:52:49.351-05:002014-02-05T10:52:49.351-05:00Airliners, I knew it. Ah, ah, ah, Bas, lemme gues...Airliners, I knew it. Ah, ah, ah, Bas, lemme guess, wait for it, you're going to beat up on...Oyster Creek. Yes, OC and Chornobil, your two favorite whipping boys. Do you really want to spread that FUD to this blog now? Haven't you polluted Atomic Insights enough with that? That and playing whack-a-link. No, thanks, we've debunked all that stuff ad nauseum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-70831630572371772902014-02-05T09:56:51.103-05:002014-02-05T09:56:51.103-05:00@Charles,
“Bas, for example, claims that biomass i...@Charles,<br />“<i>Bas, for example, claims that biomass is a renewable resource ...</i>”<br />I just follow the agreed definitions of renewable (a.o. Kyoto).<br />Agree that there are 'better' renewable, such as wind and solar.<br /><br />Still the picture you paint is not quite correct. Biomass is mostly harvesting wood, which is done for many centuries in W-Europe. If done the right way (in zones and with replant) no harm. The wood gets an FSC certificate. <br />Almost all woods here are production woods.<br /><br />“<i>...Western reactor accidents have never killed anyone ...</i>”<br />Even WHO in their <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78218/1/9789241505130_eng.pdf" rel="nofollow">2013 health assessment</a> now agrees that Fukushima will create cancers and thus kill. Please check also my response to Anonymous.<br /><br />“<i>...even safer and environmental friendly reactors are possible ...</i>”<br />So let's stimulate development of fusion, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER" rel="nofollow">ITER</a>, or at least wait for Generation IV reactors. <br />However, gen.IV reactors still have the disadvantage that they generate a lot of waste that burdens many generations after us. But it may be better than almost all present reactors, which escalate into a Fukushima like event in case of a simple attack by a 200ton airliner That may (or not soon) happen, just like the Fukushima tsunami.Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-1377910993652425362014-02-05T08:43:53.596-05:002014-02-05T08:43:53.596-05:00@Anonymous,
Chernobyl plays an important role in G...@Anonymous,<br />Chernobyl plays an important role in Germany's Energiewende decisions (mushrooms are still not eatable in contaminated woods).<br />And it is long enough ago for evaluation study results. Many contradict the IAEA/WHO statements such as the Ukraine governmental report quoted in this <a href="http://www.save-children-from-radiation.org/2013/02/23/fukushima-the-cnrs-does-not-tell-the-truth-and-indoctrinates-the-masses/" rel="nofollow">overview (below second header)</a>.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much difference whether the radiation comes from an USSR or a US reactor.<br /><br />Fukushima does not harm Germans noticeable. As it is recent, there are hardly any evaluation studies about its harm yet. <br />Although recently the <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/fukushima_report_20130228/en/" rel="nofollow">WHO</a> published some first real predictions about the harm: ~4%-7% more cancers for those exposed as infants, 70% more thyroid cancers. Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-91090074663658975932014-02-05T08:25:02.071-05:002014-02-05T08:25:02.071-05:00I don't think Bas's hate against nuclear h...I don't think Bas's hate against nuclear has anything to do with safety which is a fact and record that can't be beat. I think it's a personal thing. Nothing solves that.Mitchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-30304970506584017702014-02-05T08:08:51.930-05:002014-02-05T08:08:51.930-05:00The most charitable interpretation of Bas's cl...The most charitable interpretation of Bas's claims is that he is poorly informed. Bas, for example, claims that biomass is a renewable resource. Hot true. Harvesting biomass removes non-renewable nutrients and minerals from the soil. This in turn damages soil fertility, so that less biomass will grow back. The use of a second biomass crop will further damage soil fertility. Eventually the soil will be so damaged that natural vegetation will not grow. <br /><br />Mining biomass will also destroy animal habitat. Thus Bas appears ignorant of the basic rules of environmentalism. By the way, nuclear power, even considering Uranium and Thorium mining would have far less impact on soil and animal habitats, than biomass mining. <br /><br />Nor does Bas appear to know anything about the history of nuclear safety. First new reactor designs are much safer than the earlier generation of reactors. Even the early reactors, with the exception of the Chernobyl type reactor have had worse case accidents without producing fatalities. <br /><br />Chernobyl, was a unique case. The Chernobyl type reactor was known to be unsafe in the United States as early as WWII, and the design was not used in the West for civilian nuclear power. <br /><br />Unlike coal and natural gas power generator accidents, Western reactor accidents have never killed anyone. Bas expects nuclear power to be accident free. This is absurd. Wind and solar generators have accidents, and they occasionally kill people. In terms of fatalities all of the forms of energy favored by Bas are more dangerous than nuclear power.<br /><br />Finally, even if Bas is unhappy with the safety of current reactor designs, even safer and environmental friendly reactors are possible, and have been extensively discussed on the Internet.. Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-1373144477964586482014-02-05T07:52:19.601-05:002014-02-05T07:52:19.601-05:00You've really got to get off of this Chornobil...You've really got to get off of this Chornobil obsession. It's bordering on being mentally unhealthy. Since the Western nations do not use RBMK technology, it has little to do with LWR technology as used here and in other Western nations. Any adverse health effects from Chornobil are more correctly classified as casualties from the Soviet-era weapons program, since that reactor design was dual-purpose. It has a positive reactivity feedback over part of its operating range (there's that darn old reactor physics stuff again). LWRs do not. It had no containment structure. Reactors licensed here are required to have them. Bottom line, we don't use them here. So get off that old song once and for all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-84843922822779040712014-02-05T05:54:29.065-05:002014-02-05T05:54:29.065-05:00@jimwg,
“... questionable and uncertifiable and un...@jimwg,<br />“<i>... questionable and uncertifiable and unreachable sources ...</i>”<br />No serious critics found regarding e.g.<br /> <a href="http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/ibb/homepage/hagen.scherb/CongenMalfStillb_0.pdf" rel="nofollow">this study</a> in Germany (1000 miles from Chernobyl), while it generated strong (highly significant) results! Such critics is also nearly impossible due to the rock-solid study design.<br /> <br />Districts in Germany administrate all serious birth defects (Down, malformations, stillbirth, etc) since 1980. After Chernobyl in 1986, some districts got radio-active rainfall (increased radiation ~30% compared to background) and other nearby, similar districts did not. <br /><br />Only districts with radio-active contamination (mainly Cs-137; ~0.2 – 0.5mSv/a) showed a significant jump upwards of ~20% in serious birth defects. The nearby similar districts without that contamination had no change. <br />The jump upwards was bigger the higher the radio-active contamination.<br />No sampling confounding as all birth in those districts were included. <br /><br />This <a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/meta-review-of-42-studies-even-the-lowest-level-radiation-is-damaging-to-human-health.html" rel="nofollow">publication</a> shows other studies that show similar.Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-74541249150947060452014-02-05T04:50:01.860-05:002014-02-05T04:50:01.860-05:00@EP,
“...the steady post-1991 decrease in Germany&...@EP,<br />“<i>...the steady post-1991 decrease in Germany's carbon emissions reversed itself ...</i>”<br />Fluctuations due to cold weather, etc. <br />With renewable increasing 22% (from 23% towards 45% in 2025) while nuclear produce 15%, it is inevitable that CO2 will decrease further.<br /><br />I cannot detect any indication in electricity generation figures that nuclear is replaced by gas (check e.g: <a href="http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/" rel="nofollow">AGEB</a>). <br /><br />The priority list in my previous post is the one of the Energiewende. Not mine.<br />I love skiing, snowboarding and climbing in snow and ice (l am the figure on the pictures).<br /><br />“<i>...not address the conspiratorial aspects of the gas pipeline's capacity ...</i><br />Please read my first response to Rod.<br />That illustrates that:<br /> – the pipeline was urgent due to the threat to cut off existing pipeline;<br /> – the project was running before Schröder came, but met delays due to political issues, which the existing team could not solve;<br /> – A political figure was needed with good relations with the head of states in the Baltic (particular Sweden) and with Putin. Schröder was one of the few that met these specs. <br /><br />If you had done business in former communist states (at that time), you would know that excellent relations are far more important than a good business proposition (I worked some time in Hungary in the 1990s).<br /><br />I can imagine the opposition of USA and Sweden against the pipeline. Such a pipeline delivers good opportunities for hydrophones. So it makes important parts of the Baltic sea forbidden area for subs that want to stay undetected by the Russians. <br /><br />Note that the Washington Post refers to a 'gas war' in E-Europe. That 'gas war' was finished once Nord Stream became operational. The opportunity for black mail by stopping/tapping the gas flow to the west was over.Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-11030367530693677452014-02-04T21:32:49.127-05:002014-02-04T21:32:49.127-05:00Everyone should note this attempt at misdirection ...Everyone should note this attempt at misdirection by Bas:<br /><br />"<i>“delivery capacity of that pipeline is almost exactly as much natural gas as is required to burn to replace the output of 17 large nuclear power plants. “<br />At the start of the Energiewende in 2000 Germany nuclear produced ~170TWh/year. In 2013 the remaining 9 NPP's produced 97TWh.<br />In 2000 renewable produced 38TWh, in 2013 they produced 147TWh.<br />So with the 109TWh increase, renewable overcompensated the loss of 73TWh nuclear production with ~50%!</i>"<br /><br />1) Bas does not address the conspiratorial aspects of the gas pipeline's capacity at all. (He's hoping nobody will notice.)<br />2) Bas claims, perhaps correctly, that RE delivered more raw energy than the lost nuclear generation.<br />3) Bas ignores the only climate-relevant fact, which is that the steady post-1991 decrease in Germany's carbon emissions reversed itself and went upward of late.<br /><br />From this, I am forced to draw 2 conclusions:<br />A) Bas ultimately does not care if the climate warms drastically. If nobody can look over snow-capped Alps 100 or even 50 years from now because it's all a bare-rock desert, <i>he considers this an acceptable collateral loss</i>.<br />B) Bas is all right with a Green/Russian conspiracy to replace domestic German nuclear generation with turbines fired by Russian gas, because <i>eliminating Germany's</i> (but not Russia's) <i>nuclear plants is his highest priority</i>.<br /><br />I see that Bas puts "Less CO2" as the FOURTH priority in his list at 5:50 PM. But is that how it was sold to the German public? For that matter, if Poland, Hungary and the Czechs build hundreds of GW of Russian and Chinese reactors (some of them fast-spectrum breeders) to meet their own needs and sell carbon credits to lignite-burning Germany, will the Germans consider it worthwhile, or feel they've gotten a raw deal?Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-40007435927548448562014-02-04T17:50:11.161-05:002014-02-04T17:50:11.161-05:00@BillTheWisp,
Regarding the extra death toll that...@BillTheWisp, <br />Regarding the extra death toll that coal plants generate; I started to read Hansen's book but found it too biased towards nuclear, to take serious. So I can state little about that.<br /><br />The priorities of the Energiewende are: <br />1. Nuclear out<br />2. Democratize energy<br />3. 80% renewable in 2050 (thereafter 100%)<br />4. Less CO2<br />5. Affordable costs <br />You may argue that coal out should be number one on the list, but it isn't. <br />And I showed why the Germans consider nuclear as far more dangerous. <br /><br />In my response to Rod I showed that the Germans indeed migrate from nuclear towards renewable and also migrate fossil burning to renewable thanks to the overcompensation of 50% (past) – ~25% (until 2023).Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-89258084603729779242014-02-04T17:48:57.101-05:002014-02-04T17:48:57.101-05:00Bas, clearly reactor physics isn't your strong...Bas, clearly reactor physics isn't your strong point. Mr. T's post said nothing about "designed safety mechanisms". He mentioned feedback effects, which are inherent in the physics of the process. If you're going to post on blogs like this and put on airs of some authority on the subject, you'd better be up to snuff on the basics of reactor physics. Obviously, you aren't. That severely damages your credibility.<br /><br />As far as "designed safety mechanisms" go, the primary safety features of TMI and Fukushima (containment and related systems) worked properly, as all or most of the core damage was contained within the RPV and primary containment. You obviously want to beat on the Chornobil dead horse but you were debunked thoroughly on Atomic Insights about that. No need to spread that FUD around here. My impression is Meredith Angwin and Rod Adams, are pretty tolerant about contrary views, but generally take a dim view of purveyors of FUD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-43779271263377336732014-02-04T17:40:25.260-05:002014-02-04T17:40:25.260-05:00Good feature!
There really is a subtle issue goin...Good feature!<br /><br />There really is a subtle issue going on here beyond economics or even politics. It might sound trite and simplistic to call it to some a battle between good and evil, but many times you sense this is the undercurrent; i.e. punish the atom for the somehow uniquely evil sins of Hiroshima and WWII fears by banishing it out of sight and mind, unexaggerated or untainted facts and reality be double damned. Nuclear will never be "safe enough" to such implacable fears and personal beefs so don't even try debating them. It would be almost an amusing academic debate weren't that the very serious casualties involve many lost jobs, shattered careers, jobs that will never be, an environment and natural heritage held hostage to the ravages of good green intentions and an entire nation whose solutions in energy policy and global climate issues are all being hamstring by a relatively few zealously fearful people with nightmares to grind impacting and swaying with unaccountable FUD a large portion of a nuclear unwashed electorate. When I hear the WHO and the Red Cross and major medical and biomedical centers and professionals howling the same "concerns" Bas's questionable and uncertifiable and unreachable sources expresses then I might give them credence. Otherwise it is only right to grill such assertions with the same ardor as Greens have liberally applied against nuclear. It might sound un-PC to voice this but I don't care. Too many good real live people -- not speculated figures -- are being severely hurt by too few others' off-the-wall vaporware fears and peeves right now.<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NYjimwghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06964988758509076556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-81878457832051185292014-02-04T17:22:26.865-05:002014-02-04T17:22:26.865-05:00@BilloTheWhisp,
“One would expect that many (if no...@BilloTheWhisp,<br />“<i>One would expect that many (if not all) of the deaths will have been from readily identifiable diseases associated with radiation poisoning. </i>”<br />The specific asbestos cancer made identifying the harm of low level asbestos fibers in the air easy. But as medical research showed and e.g. the Life Span Studies regarding the Japanese victims of the atomic bombs show, there is no specific radiation cancer or other disease. Low level radiation can cause any cancer, also heart disease, etc. <br /><br />That makes reliable estimations of the number of victims of enhanced low level radiation difficult. One million death in ~60years imply ~16,000 extra death per year under the ~200million people are affected by Chernobyl's low level radiation. That implies a gradual death rate rise of ~0.5% due to different diseases, mostly cancer.<br />Those include raised heredity effects such as enhanced stillbirth levels, etc.<br /><br />I doubt whether any scientists can develop a study design which can proof that small increase, taken into account the slow rise (over ~20years) and the many confounding factors.<br />People are getting older due to other actions such as life style and food improvements, less smoking, less asbestos, etc. <br /><br />One may argue that people in the Chernobyl region lived much shorter after Chernobyl, which is true. But that still is not a proof that radiation is the cause.<br /><br />You find to many publications from serious scientists that show much worse effects than IAEA/WHO, such as: http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/chernob_report_2011_en_web.pdfBashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-53016209356581720222014-02-04T16:48:54.432-05:002014-02-04T16:48:54.432-05:00Anon
Your comment was amusing and I posted it wit...Anon<br /><br />Your comment was amusing and I posted it without thinking about it too much. <br /><br />However, Bas isn't using too many exclamation points. I don't find any in the post itself. One of his two comments has one exclamation point. So we have close to 2000 words (post plus two lengthy comments) and one exclamation point. This doesn't seem excessive. <br /><br />BilloTheWisp: Thank you for commending me about posting this guest post. I had serious misgivings when I decided to do this, but I decided to go ahead anyway. I appreciate your support, and I appreciate everyone who made comments. <br />Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-10049014040932281982014-02-04T16:29:53.375-05:002014-02-04T16:29:53.375-05:00Mr. T
“ Fast reactors are designed to not be small...Mr. T<br />“<i> Fast reactors are designed to not be small atomic bombs. </i><br />Agree. All reactors are designed with a lot of safety mechanisms, incl. those of Fukushima, TMI, Chernobyl.<br /><br />“<i>... Just because people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true. ...</i>”<br />Agree. But the IAEA/WHO statement about ~4000 deaths also not credible. Especially when one finds:<br /> <br />– well designed research that shows with high significance 20% more Down, still birth (=at birth after >8months pregnancy), in regions 1000mile away from Chernobyl: <br />http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/ibb/homepage/hagen.scherb/CongenMalfStillb_0.pdf0<br />And read that all such research (most in W-European countries) is excluded by IAEA/WHO as it is outside the immediate region of Chernobyl. <br /> <br /> – Numerous less well designed research results from many different researchers that show worse in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. Those delivered the conclusion 1 million deaths before 2006. Check at the New York Academy of Science: http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1<br /><br />The controversy about the estimations of IAEA/WHO is shown by the fact that there were two international scientific conferences in April 2006 in Kiev, Ukraine: one by supporters of atomic energy (IAEA/WHO) and the other by a number of international organizations alarmed by the true state of health of those affected by the Chernobyl catastrophe. <br /><br /><br />In line with many Germans, I believe it may become 1 million death. Most deaths still have to come as we know that the harm of low level radiation has a latency of 20-60years before the harm shows (similar as with smoking, asbestos, air-pollution, ...).Bashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554151430472805706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-27557634068275917412014-02-04T16:17:31.746-05:002014-02-04T16:17:31.746-05:00I see we're going to have to issue Bas the sam...I see we're going to have to issue Bas the same warning here as we did on Atomic Insights. Ease off on the exclamation points! It is bad netiquette to use them unnecessarily!! And it adds nothing to your points other than weakness!!! And it makes you look silly!!!! So cut it out!!!!! Please!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-44604869774235850662014-02-04T16:01:55.399-05:002014-02-04T16:01:55.399-05:00Meredith, I commend you on publishing Bas Gesnigt&...Meredith, I commend you on publishing Bas Gesnigt's guest post. <br /><br />I won't comment on the whole thing. Instead I'll limit myself to some of the fanciful claims about deaths from Chernobyl.<br /><br />Bas mentions a startling claim that one million will die by 2100 due to Chernobyl. <br /><br />Scary stuff. If it were true. <br /><br />That would average out at around 10,000 deaths a year. One would expect that there would be peaks and troughs as certain mortalities took hold. So by now according to Bas claim) it would be reasonable that somewhere between 30-60,000 would have died as a direct result of Chernobyl. Perhaps 1 million would be incapacitated or otherwise seriously ill. Basically that is the size of calamity experienced during a medium sized war. One would expect that many (if not all) of the deaths will have been from readily identifiable diseases associated with radiation poisoning.<br /><br />So where are the bodies? <br /><br />Why is there no tracking of the ill and infirm? <br /><br />We can readily identify causes of death and disease from Asbestos, Tobacco and E-Coli through to Obesity Alcohol and Coal based aerosols. So why is there no identification of the mountain of dead and dying from Chernobyl radiation? Especially in Germany with its strong anti-nuclear lobby. Surely the German Green movement could find a few hundred dead or at least seriously ill in their own country from Chernobyl. If not why not?<br /><br />But having said that (and with regret), I have to agree with Bas. There will be a terrible death toll from Chernobyl. But it will not be from some fantastical radioactive toxicity. This mortality can already be tracked through our hospitals and it's causes are known and backed up by peer reviewed data from the finest and most respected scientists in the world today. <br /><br />When reactor four at Chernobyl blew up it immediately removed 1GWe power from the Ukrainian grid. So from then on, each year, around 8TW/hr of electricity had to be found from other sources. Sadly the fuel of choice (even in Germany it seems) is coal/lignite. We know from data produced by (none other than) Dr. Jim Hansen that around 25-32 people die for every 1TW/hr generated from dirty coal. So simply from the removal of reactor four and the subsequent shutting down of reactors one, two and three, we know (from a rigorous statistical analysis) that around 1000 people will die every year from coal aerosols. 10,000 more will endure serious illness and a legion more will have minor though debilitating ailments. All thanks to coal. Every year.<br /><br />My figure for deaths to 2100 due to Chernobyl is somewhat less than Bas's. Mine stands at around 120,000. But rather than being deaths from some bizarre unknown nuclear toxicity they are deaths resulting from NOT having nuclear power - and my figures have a rigorous scientific base.<br /><br />It has to be said that the Chernobyl RBMK-1000 reactors were dreadful. But sadly it appears that Bas is happy to replace reliable, well designed, non polluting German nuclear reactors for dirty lignite burning coal plant. True it may not be as dirty as once was, but you have to ask how many deaths will there still be every year? Maybe they'll halve it. Then only 130 will die each year for each of Bas wonderful one GW Eco-Lignite plants. Is that acceptable? (Not to me.)<br /><br />I'd like to ask Bas, what additional death toll does he find acceptable in order to fulfil his anti-nuclear fashion statement? <br />BilloTheWisphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16221663524948086557noreply@blogger.com