4 ms·

I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

by geff82 10y ago

masklinn 10y ago
What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
- geff82 10y ago
  They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy. Whereas I think humanity has done harm to just about everything by beginning to use fossil energy, and much larger civilian application of atomic energy would have been a significant improvement at pretty much all levels, including (and possibly especially because of, though they've really been much too rare for that) the odd nuclear accident.
    - geff82 10y ago
      Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?
      - masklinn 10y ago
        > Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. Now what are you talking about? > you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right? You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.
      - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
        > Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things. > and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it. Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either. In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better? If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data. For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    If you think that, then of course the responsible thing to do is explore the issue with repeatable experiment and research to determine whether your thoughts reflect reality.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Not really. They're uninhabitable only because of not-always-rational fear of radiation. People were fleeing from Japan because of Fukushima, and when doing so some of my countrymen returned here, where the natural background radiation is higher than in the affected area they ran away from. When coming here, they went to an airplane which was high up in the sky and momentarily gave them an even higher dose of radiation. Fukushima exclusion zone is a social phenomenon created by human fear, not physiological created by radiation.
nkoren 10y ago
While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer that.
- geff82 10y ago
  So then let's drop some atomic bombs and let some reactors explode for the sake of nature! Are you in?
  - collyw 10y ago
    North Korea might give it a try soon.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > animals don't especially seem to mind. They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.
  - csydas 10y ago
    I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine. I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects. This isn't me suggesting that irradiating the land with nuclear waste is good - far from it. But it does seem that nature is pretty resilient to it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI
    - 10y ago

I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

by geff82 10y ago

I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

masklinn 10y ago

What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?

geff82 10y ago
They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy. Whereas I think humanity has done harm to just about everything by beginning to use fossil energy, and much larger civilian application of atomic energy would have been a significant improvement at pretty much all levels, including (and possibly especially because of, though they've really been much too rare for that) the odd nuclear accident.
  - geff82 10y ago
    Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?
    - masklinn 10y ago
      > Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. Now what are you talking about? > you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right? You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.
    - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
      > Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things. > and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it. Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either. In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better? If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data. For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  If you think that, then of course the responsible thing to do is explore the issue with repeatable experiment and research to determine whether your thoughts reflect reality.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Not really. They're uninhabitable only because of not-always-rational fear of radiation. People were fleeing from Japan because of Fukushima, and when doing so some of my countrymen returned here, where the natural background radiation is higher than in the affected area they ran away from. When coming here, they went to an airplane which was high up in the sky and momentarily gave them an even higher dose of radiation. Fukushima exclusion zone is a social phenomenon created by human fear, not physiological created by radiation.

nkoren 10y ago

While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer that.

geff82 10y ago
So then let's drop some atomic bombs and let some reactors explode for the sake of nature! Are you in?
- collyw 10y ago
  North Korea might give it a try soon.
masklinn 10y ago
> animals don't especially seem to mind. They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.
- csydas 10y ago
  I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine. I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects. This isn't me suggesting that irradiating the land with nuclear waste is good - far from it. But it does seem that nature is pretty resilient to it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI
  - 10y ago