Thousands protest against nuclear power in Japan

Here you can follow the daily decay of a Fukushima blogger's teeth, nails and hair falling out: http://fukushima-...ustream/

This is like the protest in "Bonfires of the Vanities" by Wolfe.

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.

Here you can follow the daily decay of a Fukushima blogger's teeth, nails and hair falling out: http://fukushima-...ustream/

I smell BS, no link with Fukushima can be inferred.

Critical value of hot fusion? Get real.

This is like the protest in "Bonfires of the Vanities" by Wolfe.

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

Radiation exposure can be a serious health issue but one has to weigh the danger to benefits to society as a whole. No risks no benefits.

What a jerk. Your health is the most important thing you have. The cost of treating radiation cancers of the population in and around Fukushima will grow exponentially as time goes on. The projected numbers of radiation related illness won't be contained to a handful of "rabble rousers". In the U.S., there will be deaths due to radioactive particulates carried by the wind from Fukushima. This "bottom line" doublespeak of yours is vile. What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?

What benefits?

I smell BS, no link with the scientific method can be inferred from your post. You believe in effects without causes.

What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?

A relatively insignificant number of people blown out of proportion by the media in order to make money.

There is a thousandfold bigger chance that they will become ill due to coal-fired power plants,

False dichotomy. Shutting down a nuclear reactor does not mean that you must build a COAL power plant to replace it.

In 2008 energy supply by power source was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8% (fossil 81%), renewable (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal power and biofuels) 12.9%, nuclear 5.8% and other 4%. Oil was the most popular energy fuel.

It does mean that:

I think you missed that germany has upped it's electricity from renewables/alternative energy sources to 17% in 2010.

Nuclear furnishes ONLY electricity

uclear is such a small part of the energy mix thatits impact is negligible in the short, medium, or long term. Especially if we want to look at the 'bang per buck' as we go green.

Not one additional coal power plant will have to be built (although there are still a few for which old contracts have been signed)[q/]

Yeah, right. Even if true, its too little too late. We should be REPLACING coal and fossil fuels. Painting stagnation as success is laughable.

Nuclear furnishes ONLY electricity

As for this claim, a time when all our energy (not just electricity) needs will have to be supplied by non-carbon sources is approaching. Renewables alone will not cut it. Not in Germany, and not around the globe. 3 % interminent energy is too little, too impractical and too late.

Yet 17 % is too little and too late.

It can also supply heat.

Yeah, right. Even if true, its too little too late. We should be REPLACING coal and fossil fuels. Painting stagnation as success is laughable.

What if your child, niece, or nephew became ill? Would you step over them to benefit your society?

There is a thousandfold bigger chance that they will become ill due to coal-fired power plants, and there is a comparable chance they would become ill due to ice from a wind turbine falling on their head. The chance is insignificant. Peak oil or climate change will be a much much bigger threat for my family than nuclear will ever be.

Thousandfold chance? Where do you get these numbers? These aren't statistics, they're the product of nuclear industry doublespeak sucked up by the uneducated.

Is that supposed to be an argument that it shouldn't be done at all?

It isn't used for that.

And the realy question is: why isn't everyone doing it?

Who is saying that it needs to stop once nuclear has been replaced? We just decided to get rid of nuclear first. Coal will follow - never fear.

And with the changeover to cars which run on either electricity or some sort of generated fuel (artificial hydrocarbons or hydrogen) then the dependence on oil imports can be reduced.

there's no tehnical hurdle. There's no economic hurdle. We're doing it, and up until now it's working.

I would rather breathe soot than radiation.

nuclear is completely UNSAFE.

Then there's the problem of spent fuel rods. How about you storing them in your backyard?

Radiation inflicts irreversible damage to your DNA, the very blueprints of what we are.

And the lobbyists from your beloved nuclear industry keep yammering into the ears of legislators that it's too costly to do anything but nuclear.

And the lobbyists from your beloved nuclear industry keep yammering into the ears of legislators that it's too costly to do anything but nuclear.

Coal is going to run out LONG before nuclear fuels. In the long run nuclear is far cheaper.

"It is relatively very safe"- Shotman

Not for me and my relatives. I'm of the generation that drank strontium-90 tainted milk from cows grazing on grass that had radioactive fallout from atomic bomb tests. Incidence of human cancers increased as a result.

And the cost of human lives? Is that far cheaper, too?

@Deathclock:
There are new environmental laws on the books that penalize contractors for the mishandling of lead dust in old paint and asbestos on pipes and old floor tiles. The fines for exposing the dwellers is $5,000 to the contractor and another $5,000 to the owner. When there are multiple exposures, the fines now run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Lead and asbestos are innocuous toxins compared to radiation poisoning. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab not only to clean up a nuclear disaster site, but also the multi-millions of dollars the government will be sued for in a class action suit filed by radiation victims. Still the cheapest way to go?

There have been 31 fatalities directly caused by Nuclear power accidents. Compare that to 6400 from Coal plant accidents.

Um...have you got the numbers for cumulative years of coal power plant operations and kWh produced (since the industrial revolution)? That's ORDERS of magnitude higher.

and really: No one is arguing that coal power plants are a good alternative to nuclear power plants. You're arguing a false dichotomy here.

Remember Three Mile Island?

8 deaths per TWyr? I call bullshit.
It is very hard to link cancer/mutation/infant deaths with nuclear disasters plus the secretive and banned reports by governments.

these lists are small there is more but i cant find atm. plus char limit.