Nuclear fusion reactor in South Korea runs at 100 million degrees C for a record-breaking 48 seconds

[NNadir]

8. My "shot" is neither cheap nor is it really all that personal.

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2024, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

It's generic in the sense that this statement, "Certainly the scale of nuclear fission energy production can be scaled up, but itself faces severe challenges..." is also generic.

Then there's the rote "problem" of so called "nuclear waste."

We have two kinds of antinukes here at DU:

The first is honest straight up antinukes, who openly say "I'm an antinuke." They're awful people but are honestly awful. They of course kill people much like antivaxxers kill people, although antivaxxers could never aspire to killing 19,000 people per day for decades as straight up antinukes do. Antivaxxers are small potatoes in comparison to antinukes.

The second kind is dishonest "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes who claim to have open minds but then choose to drag out every nonsensical objection nuclear power and to boot, want me to worry if they think I should be taken seriously.

In many ways the second kind is, in my view, worse than the first, because the first are honest about being ignorant, and the second are dishonest about ignorant.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what antinukes of either the first or second kind like me, respect me, or take me seriously.

With regard to the either, it's very clear that they cannot take anything seriously, not climate change, not human health, not even making simple comparisons.

First comparison, a subset of all possible comparisons:

Here's what I ask antinukes of the first and second kind whenever they carry on about so called "nuclear waste." I ask them, effectively, with slight variations in the wording to demonstrate something about the nuclear industry which is now approaching 70 years old. Specifically, I ask them which has killed more people over different periods of time, the storage of used nuclear fuel, *waste" in their dishonest rhetoric) in its entire 70 year history, or fossil fuel waste, also known as "air pollution," in some shorter period of time, usually around6 or 8 or 12 hours, but in this case I'll extend it to two weeks.

The requirement I attach to this question is that it come from a reputable source in the primary scientific literature.

I often an example I frequently post of a reputable source for the death toll from air pollution, the highly respected medical journal Lancet.

It is here: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

I keep this text handy for whenever someone wants to whine and cry about so called "nuclear waste."

I note that climate change is also a product of fossil fuel waste, not that I expect anyone whining about so called "nuclear waste" to give a rat's ass about climate change or to take it seriously.

As for this clap trap about "more accidents" I have produced in this intellectually dubious exchange, a reference from the primary scientific literature showing that radiation deaths from the big, big, big, big, big bogey man at Fukushima is reported to be ZERO as of 2022. This means it takes only a few gasoline fires or gas explosions to have a much higher death toll than the death toll from radiation from the Sendai/Fukushima earthquake that people have no problem firing up their computers, generally powered by fossil fuel powered electricity.

Here from a website easy to which one can easily Google, is a chart of the death toll from vehicle fires:



Statistica, US Vehicle Fires

I am not going to waste time chasing the source of the data, but it would be fair to ask any "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke to assert which has killed more people in the last half a century, vehicle fires specifically or gasoline started fires in general, or nuclear accidents. Any and all antinukes of the first or second kind should feel free to answer. An account of the death toll from all nuclear accidents, the big bogey man at Fukushima, the bigger bogey man at Chernobyl (which changed me from a dumb shit antinuke into a vociferous believer in nuclear energy) or even more silly, "Three Mile Island," would also be required to refer to reputable scientific literature as opposed to junk from the circle jerk of badly educated antinukes.

We could go on forever about this, for example I could post some numbers because numbers don't lie, even if people lie to themselves and each other. For example I could post the numbers for energy production from the multi-trillion dollar solar and wind industry - which has failed miserably to address climate change - and nuclear energy which has labored under the specious objections of people whining about waste and accidents, but only nuclear accidents, clearly not giving a rat's ass about fossil fuel waste (air pollution and climate change) or fossil fuel accidents. Let me do so:

The numbers are here: 2023 World Energy Outlook published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), Table A.1a on Page 264.



By the way, I don't take the soothsaying in this chart seriously; I've been downloading annual World Nuclear Outlook for too many years, about 20 years, to do so. On the other hand, the historical numbers can be taken seriously, they represent data, not fortune telling.

As for taking me seriously, I'm not really bothered by antinukes of the first kind or those of the second kind not taking me seriously. From my perspective they can't take climate change seriously, the vast wildfires, the vanishing glaciers, the droughts, the extreme storms, none of it. (Which is more expensive, climate change or nuclear power?) They can't take air pollution deaths seriously. Why should I fret if they don't take me seriously? If I am described as wanting to be taken seriously under these conditions, I assure anyone who asks that I am being misrepresented, not that I care particularly about that either.

An now, for all these "objections" to nuclear energy, I'd like to return to my previous analogy about the Titanic.

First a few more remarks that are easily verified.

The nuclear industry is, again, nearly 70 years old. In less than 25 years, between 1960 and 1985 the United States, the country where I live, built more than 100 commercial reactors and a large number of research reactors, many of both kinds which continue to save lives. They did so while providing the cheapest electricity in the Industrial World. They did in a world without serious computer power, without an internet, without portable phones, without sophisticate modern tools we no take for granted. It is a commercial industry in the United States, and is also used internationally. In this century, China built 53 nuclear reactors which now operate, along with the three built in the 20th century. They have 26 more under construction. They are experts at building nuclear reactors, which we here in the United States might have been had we not destroyed our nuclear construction at the behest of people who cannot take either air pollution mortality or climate change seriously.

To me, with a planet on fire, the food supply threatened by extreme weather, someone whining - with obvious selective attention - about the alleged "risks" of nuclear power strike me as people on the Titanic as it was sinking who refused to get into the lifeboats because they weren't heated, not stocked with food and wine, and there was a risk of dying of exposure in an open boat, the latter being a very real risk because they had no assurance of rescue.

Our planet has no assurance of rescue.

People waiting for the fusion miracle to take place are rather like people waiting for the invention of the helicopter to act on trying to save themselves from sinking with the Titanic into the North Atlantic Ocean.

They are, in a word, absurd.

As to whether my comments are personal or generic, true, there are some specifics for this case, reference to the Science Fiction writer for example, but it's similar to other cases, for example a recent one where an antinuke posted a reference to an antinuke sociologist/conspiracy theorist who claimed that the world's media is "covering up" Fukushima. (In my opinion, the media can't stop talking about Fukushima, which, given the scale of the fossil fuel disaster is clearly trivial.) Trust me, my anger, at this awful nonsense is indeed generic, references to specific points notwithstanding.

To close, I really, really, really, really neither want nor expect to be taken seriously by anyone who clearly can't take far more important things than my personality seriously, specifically, fossil fuel waste, fossil fuel accidents, and climate change.

Have a pleasant evening, whether you believe I wish it or not.