Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I did say there was little evidence for adults, did I not? It's a contested issue.

[Zrk2]

Okay, that makes more sense. You previously sounded rather more convinced, or I just read it wrong.

[Gamerlord]

I did say there was little evidence for adults, did I not? It's a contested issue.

Another way of saying: it's just another bloody theory.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I did say there was little evidence for adults, did I not? It's a contested issue.

Another way of saying: it's just another bloody theory.

What exactly are you on about? The studies have thus far found no link in adults, but a rather significant link in children. While it is not impossible that the extra cancer threat of a nuclear plant is not significant enough to affect adults but can greatly affect children, that would be a strange thing indeed. "Another bloody theory" doesn't say anything other than that you want to dismiss everyone's knowledge.

[Gamerlord]

I did say there was little evidence for adults, did I not? It's a contested issue.

Another way of saying: it's just another bloody theory.

What exactly are you on about? The studies have thus far found no link in adults, but a rather significant link in children. While it is not impossible that the extra cancer threat of a nuclear plant is not significant enough to affect adults but can greatly affect children, that would be a strange thing indeed. "Another bloody theory" doesn't say anything other than that you want to dismiss everyone's knowledge.

Did they check prevalence of other possible reasons for increased cancer rates? Genetic, proximity to other radiation-emitting institutions, drugs taken, etc?

[mainiac]

I want to prove that the best "green" power source is, in fact, nuclear power, rather than solar or wind.

http://xkcd.com/701/

Read the mouseover text.

[PTTG??]

Not doin' science. Doin' art.

[Zrk2]

There is an XKCD for everything.

[Frumple]

There is an XKCD for everything.

Even that whole energy density thing. Which, if you've got the paper and ink to do, PTTG, you should totally do.

[kaenneth]

There was an interesting article about cancer and power lines/cell towers.

Turns out, many of the herbicides used to clear areas for construction is known to be carcinogenic, and while it's supposed to be limited use, nobody monitors the construction companies as they hose down job sites with them.

So, if you're looking for cancer near a power plant; from which tons of power lines branch out in different directions...

[misko27]

Still. There is a nuclear reactor right next to NYC. If that went, It's would literally be the worst disaster in american history. An ENTIRE CITY. Evaced until further notice. 911 ain't got nothing on that. And there is a faultline there, as has been proved recently.
 
I'm not saying it's bad. I actually am generally ambivalent if not supportive. It's just that It's high reward, low risk, but if it does happen, it'd be a massive fucking shitstorm.
 
It's like playing russian roulette with a million manequins, but with a nuke instead of a gun. The odds are long, but do you really want to risk it?

[Doomblade187]

On a sidenote, what Fukushima currently gets (post-accident) is not too much more than Denver's natural background radiation in most spots. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html)

Denver, by some standards, should be evacuated. And they have a low cancer rate compared to many states.

Fukushima did get some bad radiation areas, though, it is true- nuclear accidents are still bad.

[PanH]

The main thing to consider is that, until revolutionnary discoveries in wind and solar, their power output is just too ridiculous (and expensive) to be considered as a large scale energy production.

For example, a solar pannel wouldn't be rentable (in money) over the course of his life if it wasn't subsidized.

As said, there's also the fact that they can't deliver a constant flow of energy, which makes them mostly useless for network. And there is no way to store large amounts of energy.

There is an XKCD for everything.

Even that whole energy density thing. Which, if you've got the paper and ink to do, PTTG, you should totally do.

It's not exactly the energy used though. We don't have 100% transformation to electricity.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The main thing to consider is that, until revolutionnary discoveries in wind and solar, their power output is just too ridiculous (and expensive) to be considered as a large scale energy production.

Untrue, both have entered an exponential growth curve and are going to be major players by 2020.

For example, a solar pannel wouldn't be rentable (in money) over the course of his life if it wasn't subsidized.

People wouldn't pay for oil and coal if they weren't subsidized far more than they wouldn't do so for renewables. Oil and Coal get 60 billion a year in subsidized costs in the US, all renewables get 4 billion a year. Anyway, subsidization is not a bad thing if it works out well.

As said, there's also the fact that they can't deliver a constant flow of energy, which makes them mostly useless for network. And there is no way to store large amounts of energy.

Wrong and wrong. An electric network needs both a constant baseline and a temporary spike in order to deal with fluctuating power demands. And as it just so happens, the times when solar produces the most power is the time when people use the most power. You can store large amounts of energy, not just through capacitors, but also through gravitational energy storage (using the power to move a volume of water and then releasing it onto a hydroelectric generator with a weight). The latter is already in wide use.

Wind power in particular is also not susceptible to the "but it isn't constant" argument, as the best locations for it are ones in which wind is effectively constant (ridgelines, shorelines, ect). Solar is more vulnerable to that argument, but this is offset by it being able to generate power in the morning (when it isn't being greatly used and thus can be diverted to a storage mechanism for later). Newer solar panels are also capable of generating power during cloudy weather and in moonlight.

[Frumple]

It's not exactly the energy used though. We don't have 100% transformation to electricity.

... wasn't talking about anything particularly serious, PH. Just meant PTTG should totes come into the room with that graph. Stack of paper as tall as PTTG is would seriously liven up the discussion.

Capstone the event by kicking the tower of paper into the front row of the audience. If this is to be art, not science, it needs a raised platform to perform appropriately.

As for solar, from what I recall one of the major design methods is, like. Nothing. It's just a frak-off huge mirror out in a clear area pointed at something you want to heat up. Relatively cheap, clean, not heavy on the rare metals or whatev'. Biggest problem would be transportation of the generated energy, but that's an issue with everything and not particularly unique to solar. That and getting people off their arse to go build it. There's someone else on the forum that's got a better handle on that stuff... I want to say Nadaka, but my memory's as spotty as ever. There's older posts laying around in one of the threads. Maybe in a couple.