Top 10 Nuclear Disasters

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters

Nuclear

The long term effects of Nuclear disasters can often spread over thousands of years. It is estimated that Chernobyl wont be inhabited for at least another 20,000 years.

Despite the threat of  Nuclear disasters, believe it or not, Nuclear Power Plants are prominent and provide approximately 5.7% of the world’s energy and 13% of the world’s electricity.

With 437 Nuclear Power Plants worldwide, there are bound to be incidents every now and again. Small incidents occur and can be rectified, but when there are large incidents, the impact can often be catastrophic.

Each Nuclear disaster has been given a level on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

Click on the header of each nuclear disaster for a detailed look at each event.

Process Industry Forum have scrawled the web and created a Top 10 for the worst Nuclear disasters of all time:

Japan

10. Tokaimura, Japan 1999 – Level 4

When a group of unqualified workers decided to put more highly enriched uranium in a precipitation tank than was permitted, disaster struck. Two of the workers eventually died with another fifty six plant workers also being exposed to high levels of radiation. To make matters worse, 21 civilians were also exposed to high doses of radiation and residents within a thousand feet of the plant were evacuated.

argentina-flag

9. Buenos Aires, Argentina 1983 – Level 4

An operator’s errors during a fuel plate reconfiguration lead to him dying two days later. There was an excursion of 3×10 fissions at the RA-2 facility with the operator absorbing 2000 rad of gamma and 1700 rad of neutron radiation. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad to less than 1 rad.

france_flag5

8. Saint- Laurent, France 1969 – Level 4

On the 17th October, 1969 50 kg of uranium in one of the gas cooled reactors began to melt. This was classified as Level 4 on the INES and to this day remains the most serious civil Nuclear disaster in French history.

american-flag1

7. SL-1 Experimental Power Station, Idaho USA 1961 – Level 4

On 3rd January, 1961 a USA army experimental nuclear power reactor underwent a steam explosion and meltdown killing its three operators. The cause of this was because of improper removal of the control rod, responsible for absorbing neutrons in the reactor core. This event is the only known fatal reactor accident in the USA. The accident released about 80 curies of iodine -131.

BRASILflag

6. Goiania Accident, Brazil 1987 – Level 5

On 13th September, 1987 a radioactive contamination accident occurred in the Brazilian state of Goais. An old radiotherapy source was stolen from an abandoned hospital site in the city. Subsequently it was handled by many people, killing four people. 112,000 people were examined for radioactive contamination’s with 249 having significant levels of radioactive material in or on their body.

american-flag1

5. Three Mile Island Accident, Pennsylvania USA 1979 – Level 5

28th March saw two nuclear reactors meltdown. It was subsequently the worst disaster in commercial nuclear power plant history. Small amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine were released into the environment. Luckily, epidemiology studies have not linked a single cancer with the accident.

UNITEDKINGDOM

4. Windscale Fire (Sellafield), UK 1957 – Level 5

The worst nuclear disaster in Great Britain’s history occurred on the 10th October, 1957 and ranked at level 5 on the INES scale, The Windscale Fire. The two piles had been hurriedly built as part of the British atomic bomb project. The first pile was active from October 1950 with the second close behind in June 1951. The accident occurred when the core of Unit 1’s reactor caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. 240 cancer cases have since been linked to the fire. All of the milk from within about 500km of nearby countryside was diluted and destroyed for about a month.

russian_flag

3. Kyshtym, Russia 1957 – Level 6

The Kyshtym Nuclear disaster was a radiation contamination incident that occurred on 29 September 1957 at Mayak, a Nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Soviet Union. It measured as a Level 6 disaster on the INES, making it the third most serious Nuclear disaster ever recorded behind the Chernobyl Disaster and Fukushima Daiichi Disaster. The event occurred in the town of Ozyorsk, a closed city built around the Mayak plant. Since Ozyorsk/Mayak was not marked on maps, the disaster was named after Kyshtym, the nearest known town.

Japan

2. Fukushima, Japan 2011 – Level 7

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima, Nuclear Power Plant, following the Tohoku Tsunami on 11 March, 2011.  It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and only the second disaster (along with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the INES.

ukraine_flag

1. Chernobyl, Ukraine 1986 – Level 7

The Chernobyl Nuclear disaster is widely considered to have been the worst power plant accident in history, and is one of only two classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale (the other being the Fukushima, Daiichi disaster in 2011). The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles.  The official Soviet casualty count of 31 deaths has been disputed and long-term effects such as cancers and deformities are still being accounted for.

chernobyl

 

 

Alex Wall

Engineering & Manufacturing Blogger & Writer.

Visit Author Profile
  • Pingback: Fukushima Workers Discover Deadly Spike in Radiation()

  • Pingback: TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Fukushima Workers Discover Deadly Spike in Radiation()

  • jared

    cool page

  • jared

    nice page

  • jared

    hi jake

  • bledi

    Thanks very much. It helped me alot.

  • Pingback: Nuke’s for Nuts | CollTales()

  • Pingback: Annotated Biblography | Nuclear Energy: Economy or Enviornment()

  • Pingback: Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World | Nuclear...()

  • russp

    If you add up all the deaths that resulted or will result from all of these nuclear “disasters” combined (excluding Chernobyl), it will be less than the number of deaths that occur EVERY SINGLE DAY from coal-fired power. Stop falling for this ridiculous lack of perspective when it comes to nuclear power.

    • Daniel B.

      What about the sections of our planet that become useless for thousands of years after these disasters occur? Does coal do that as well?

      • MrL0g1c

        So coal and nuclear are the only forms of energy generation, that’s funny, I could have swore there were more.

        • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

          There are, especially the clean, safe, reliable and renewable sources of energy, including–and not limited to–solar power and wind power. All of which are available for successful use NOW.

          Coal, oil, and lethally radioactive materials are definitely not clean nor safe.

          • SA Kiteman

            But nuclear is cleaner, safer, MORE reliable and more affordable than any renewable source able to replace the petro-carbon fuels.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Goodness gracious, you are anti-science.

            Dangerously radioactive material is neither clean, safe, reliable, affordable nor renewable.

            Energy sources which are clean, safe, reliable, affordable and renewable–including, and not limited to, solar power and wind power–are already available for successful use NOW.

          • SA Kiteman

            Harharharhar.
            CleanER, safER, MORE reliable. They are all comparatives. Surely you know English well enough to understand those?

            The “dangerously radioactive material” is well stored away from people and presents no plausible harm.

            The dangerous, dirty, deadly effluents from wind and solar manufactury are just spewed out into the environment. Just how many hundred square miles of Chinese farmland do you want to poison to make your windmills?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            In order to be “CleanER”, safER”, “MORE reliable” and “more affordable”, lethally dangerous radioactive material would have to be clean, safe, reliable and affordable.

            Lethally dangerous radioactive material is neither clean, safe, reliable nor affordable.

            As for your CLAIM that dangerously radioactive material “is well stored away from people and presents no plausible harm”, get real!

            “The dangerous, dirty, deadly effluents from wind and solar manufactury are just spewed out into the environment.”

            Yeah, you who constantly advocate against using safe, clean, reliable and renewable energy sources–including, and not limited to, solar power and wind power–are very fond of CLAIMING that clean, safe, reliable sources of energy are very, very bad and dangerous. Never a surprise.

          • SA Kiteman

            But …SciencDnier., No rational person is talking about “lethally dangerous radioactive material”. So your entire dogma is moot. Taataa.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So,”rational” people say that dangerously radioactive materials from radioactive disasters are completely safe, “probably” even beneficial.

            “Rational” people also say stuff like, “The dangerous, dirty, deadly effluents from wind and solar manufactury
            are just spewed out into the environment. Just how many hundred square
            miles of Chinese farmland do you want to poison to make your windmills?”

            Wow, many hundreds of square
            miles of Chinese farmland poisoned by wind power? How many hundreds of square miles of Chinese farmland are poisoned by solar power? And it happens only in China?

            Talk about desperate attempts by puppets of the Big Polluters to badmouth all clean, safe, reliable, renewable sources of energy.

          • SA Kiteman

            Nope. Rational people say that most of the area around Chernobyl does not have “dangerously radioactive material. The areas have either innocuous radioactive material or beneficial radioactive material. Only irrational people cannot undertand the long known dictum:
            “The dose makes the poison” {Paracelsus}

            Again, strawman much do you?
            Missed the word “manufactury” did you? Seems so. Only in China? Well almost only in China because they have cornered the world market on REE by basically screwing the local farmers.

            Seems that HeWhoIsDisgusting doesn’t realize that HE is the tool of the big polluters from the Big Petro-Carbon Industries. He seems to be under their influence to combat the only real competition to their energy domination. He keeps touting unsafe, dirty, unREliable sources that require petro-carbon fueled bck-up power. Too bad. So sad. He’s mad.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, cesium–with its half-life making it dangerously radioactive for 300 years, added to the fact that leaching won’t carry cesium to the nearest ocean–is “either innocuous radioactive material or beneficial radioactive material.”

            In and around Chernobyl, how many people have been benefited by all that cesium?

            Oh, and what a surprise! More CLAIMS that safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy–including wind power–are “unsafe, dirty, unREliable”.

            That’s what all puppets for the Big Polluters–which includes Big Lethally Dangerous Radioactive Materials–say against safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy. Never a surprise.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            Again, HeWhoIsDisgusting is unable to comprehend a simple statement. Cesium137 is only “dangerous” above a certain level. So saying “dangerously radioactive for 300 years is an asinine statement unless you define a level. And since it decays to nothingness in ~300 years, even if it STARTED out at a dangerous level, it wouldn’t stay there for the entire 300 years.

            Well, the Babushkas seem to be living longer healthier lives, so THEY seen to be getting some benefit. Also, the cancer rates in the affected areas are LOWER than in unaffected areas with similar demographics, so THEY seem to be benefiting.

            Wind kills at least 3 times as many people per TWh generated as does nuclear, perhaps as high as 150 times as many. So compared to nuclear, it _is_ unsafe. Making wind turbines pollutes far more people per kWh generated that nuclear so by comparison it IS dirty. And anyone who says that wind power is reliable is just plain cracked.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, well, excuse me all to heck!

            At what “level” does dangerously radioactive cesium cease to be dangerously radioactive?

            Take into account the fact that its half-life makes it dangerously radioactive for 300 years. And leaching does not carry cesium to the nearest ocean.

            So, the Babushkas only SEEM to be benefiting from all that cesium. If there ACTUALLY were beneficial effects from all that cesium, how come nobody else has moved back to that radioactive area?

            So, still CLAIMING that wind power is deadly dangerous, I see. Those who CLAIM that safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy are neither safe nor clean nor reliable, is just plain shilling for the Big Polluters.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            Typically at ~25µSv/h, provided you aren’t eating or drinking it.

            Seems that HeWhoIsDisgusting cannot understand the concept, well known in the field of toxicology, stated many years ago by the father of toxicology,

            “The dose makes the poison” {Paracelsus}

            The Babushkas HAVE moved back. Guess you can’t quite grasp that fact. And they are living longer than their neighbors who were evacuated and did NOT move back. Whether that is due to the radiation or the fact they aren’t living in cities is not established. But they are NOT showing the effects the Linear No-Threashold (LNT) Model would predict they show.

            Tis SCIENCE and arithmatic that shows that wind is less safe and dirtier than nuclear and totally unreliable. And the big polluters (Big Petro-Carbon (BPC)) support subsidies for the unREliables because they know that we will need to have a fast responding back-up to cover for the unREliables intermittancy. This will assure that BPC stays in buisiness, polluting the world. Too bad HeWhoIsDisgusting cannot grasp that simple point. Thus he supports the big polluters with his every post.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, so at ~25µSv/h, radioactive cesium remains lethally radioactive when you ingest it. At what dose does radioactive cesium stop killing everyone who ingests it?

            Fact? I’ve seen NO facts regarding the Babushkas moving back to the dangerous radioactive areas in and around Chernobyl. All I’ve seen are the CLAIMS made by you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials folks. The same goes for your CLAIMS that the Babushkas are living longer and healthier than the people who have not moved back to the radioactive hazards in and around Chernobyl.

            ‘Tis science, actual construction, and actual usage of safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy–including wind power and solar power–which PROVE that these sources of energy are efficient and cost-effective.

            From where do you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials fools get the ridiculous idea that safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy need a filthy fossil fuel back up?

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Readers:
            The monomaniacal quoter of the irrational “lethally dangerous, yadayada, is bback again with more jabber from his indiscriminate mind.

            They fact that his irrational mind cannot see facts about Babuskas does not mean YOU will not be able to find them. “Babushkas of Chernobyl”. Watch it. Look them up in the browser of your choice. The data is simple to find.

            The scientific facts are that nuclear power is cleaner and safer than any other source. If you have quetions about that, ask. I’ve already given HWID the data but his mental infection does not allow him to perceive it.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, SA, having no facts to back up your mere CLAIMS, all you can think of to do is make weak attempts at lame insults. Along with your CLAIM–UNPROVEN, of course–that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are clean and safe, cleaner and safer even than solar power and wind power.

            Oh, by the way, you still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            I presume by now you have detected that HWID is purely an anti-NuPow troll. He also fits into the fourth line of that old arab wisdom, the one that says,

            “He who knows not, yet knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him.”

            If he ever actually says something that is not juvenile taunt, I will correct any of his misstatements for you. But as to his juvenile taunts, ha!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            It is unfortunate that HWID’s infection prevents him from recognizing answers. Well, for YOUR edification, you can find out a lot of stuff here.
            http://radiationeffects.org

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Müller’s Mendacity Meme, the “disease” of people who know that SA is always wrong [according to SA, of course].

            Oh, by the way, you are still unable to PROVE your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA. Never a surprise.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Readers:
            The interesting thing about those who are infected by Müller’s Mendacity is that the meme seems to cause them too much pain when they try to learn about the true nature of low-dose response. It make the pain so great the infectees cannot read and understnd rebuttals to their accusations. It also makes them unable to truthfully ask a question. But YOU good reader have the opportunity to learn about low dose response science. Start here:
            http://radiationeffects.org
            To delve deeply into the hard science, find the link to their Journal here:
            http://dose-response.org

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, my stars and garters! You’re still attempting to CLAIM that those who disagree with you don’t have honest thoughts. Instead, you yet again make reference to the nonexistent Müller’s Mendacity Meme.

            The true nature of low-dose radioactivity response is, basically, there is no safe dose.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Need I say more? The Müller’s Mendacity Meme victim has been given sufficient data to prove my assertions to any functioning intellect, but his infection will not even allow him to LOOK at the proof let alone read and comprehend it.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Land o’ Goshen! Your Müller’s Mendacity Meme has you believing that you have proven one or more of your CLAIMS.

            Worse, your raging infection has you believing that only you can see proof of your pro-radioactives nonsense.

            You poor dear.

            You’re still unable to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA. Never a surprise.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            See? His infection has him seeing backwards. Sad. Truly sad.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, you poor, poor darling. Your Müller’s Mendacity Meme has already gotten so much worse that you’re seeing things backwards.

            So sad, truly sad.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA.

          • SA Kiteman

            Wow, Good Reader: seems the MMM has the added oddity with HWID of giving him mirror vision!

            I wonder if he even know what Müller’s Mendacity was.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, I know what is Müller’s Mendacity Meme, you’ve been repeatedly displaying the effects of this dreaded disease.

            It’ll be interesting to see whether or not SA’s recovery from this infection is possible.

            In the meme time, you’re still unable to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Answer, no, he hasn’t got a clue.
            But then, the meme does limit the infectee’s curiosity regarding things nuclear.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Need I say more? The infection (MMM) has the infectee (HWID) seeing himself in twisted visions. My, my.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “Need I say more?” More? Before you can actually say something more, you must first have actually said something. You haven’t said a thing.

            You still haven’t even PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Seems that HWID wants to waste all of our time.

          • Sam Gilman

            Here’s some evidence.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?client=safari#769c060f49d2

            You really need to learn distinguish between when you don’t understand a topic (such as energy) and when there is actually no evidence.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh my goodness, Sam, you actually refer to a Forbes article!

          • Sam Gilman

            Which is well-sourced.

            Do you have a problem with the sources used? If not, then accept the findings. If you do, explain your problem.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Sam, a Forbes article is “well-sourced”. Also, the Forbes article is not to be questioned because . . . well . . . Forbes articles are Forbes articles, and arrogance dictates that Forbes articles are unquestionable. Rrrrrriiiiigghhttttt!

          • Michael Mann

            LOL, Just because you are incapable of researching an article, don’t assume Sam is as incompetent and arrogant as you are….

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            It’s no surprise at all that you also consider a Forbes article to be a source of knowledge, Mike.

            You still refuse to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”. I can imagine the intense embarrassment you feel for not being able to PROVE any of your CLAIMS.

          • Sam Gilman

            So you are telling the world you reject the following sources:

            P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, Externalities of Energy, European Union Report EUR 21951, Luxembourg (2005).

            A. J. Cohen et al., The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 68: 1301-1307 (2005)

            NAS, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; Nat. Res. Council, Wash., D.C. ISBN: 0-309-14641-0 (2010).

            C. A. Pope et al., Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the AMA, 287 (9): 1132-1141 (2002).

            J. Scott et al., The Clean Air Act at 35, Environmental Defense, New York, http://www.environmentaldefense.org. (2005).

            WHO, Health effects of chronic exposure to smoke from Biomass Fuel burning in rural areas, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (2007) cnci.academia.edu/1123846/

            You’re denying science.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, Sam, I’m denying Forbes and YOU.

            You’re still refusing to PROVE any of your CLAIMS regarding “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Yes, you are denying the validity of those sources. You’re denying the science. Those are the sources provided by Conca, and those are sources which provide you with the evidence you keep claiming isn’t there. Here they are again:

            P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, Externalities of Energy, European Union Report EUR 21951, Luxembourg (2005).

            A. J. Cohen et al., The global burden of disease due to outdoor air pollution, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 68: 1301-1307 (2005)

            NAS, Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; Nat. Res. Council, Wash., D.C. ISBN: 0-309-14641-0 (2010).

            C. A. Pope et al., Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the AMA, 287 (9): 1132-1141 (2002).

            J. Scott et al., The Clean Air Act at 35, Environmental Defense, New York, http://www.environmentaldefense.org. (2005).

            WHO, Health effects of chronic exposure to smoke from Biomass Fuel burning in rural areas, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (2007) cnci.academia.edu/1123846/

            Here too is James Hansen, the father of modern climate science and whonhas done more than almost anyone else to warn the world about climate change. A man whose work you reject:

            Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental science & technology, 47(9), 4889-4895.

            Tell me, do you also reject the science of global warming? How about the science of vaccines? What have you got against the World Health Organisation?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, by denying Forbes and YOU, O arrogant One, I’m denying science.

            Wrong, yet again, Sam.

            The “sources” you list say NOTHING regarding lethally dangerous radioactive materials being completely safe and harmless.

            Your final paragraph asks questions not related to lethally dangerous radioactive materials:
            “Tell me, do you also reject the science of global warming?”
            As you should already know by now, I loath all who deny climate science, climate scientists, and the realities of anthropogenic global warming.

            Because of his warnings regarding anthropogenic global warming, James Hansen is one of my heroes.

            “How about the science of vaccines?”
            I concur that most vaccines are harmless, and protect people from a huge range of disease.

            “What have you got against the World Health Organization?”
            Are you talking about the WHO, or the WHO’s attempts to CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are completely safe and harmless?

            You’re still refusing to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, you don’t believe in global warming.

            Through our conversations, it’s become clear that you don’t believe in the IPCC, you don’t believe in James Hansen, you don’t believe in the World Health Organisation, and you don’t believe in peer-reviewed science.

            What you believe in is your own massive ego. The planet can get f***ed for all you care.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh wow, Sam, your gross incompetence makes you assume that–because I disagree with your foolish assumption that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless–I reject the realities of anthropogenic global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, James Hansen, the World Health Organization, and peer-reviewed science.

            There’s also your belief in your massive ego and hat size. It’s not Earth about which I feel that way.

          • Sam Gilman

            But you’ve rejected these people and these institutions in other areas of science. Completely rejected them. Dismissed them with shouting.

            Therefore you must also dismiss the science of climate change. After all, what kind of person picks and chooses when to believe the science?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, my goodness gracious! When I demand that you PROVE your CLAIMS regarding the complete harmlessness of lethally dangerous radioactive materials, you ASSUME that I reject all science. Are you sure that your brain functions?

            Why must I dismiss the realities of climate science and the realities of anthropogenic global warming? Is there some law written somewhere saying that I must do so?

            Or, is this yet another of YOUR “laws”, Sam?

          • Sam Gilman

            I haven’t made any claims of harmlessness, so we can all ignore that part of your post.

            You need to explain why you reject the IPCC on the bits of science you don’t like. You need to explain why you reject the WHO on the bits of science you don’t like. You need to explain why you reject James Hansen’s work on the bits of science you don’t like. You need to explain why you reject the ExternE project.

            If you can’t explain that, then you’re a poor witness to global warming. You don’t believe in global warming, you just pretend for the sake of appearances. You’re not worth listening to.

            For people like me, who just go with the science regardless of personal feelings, there isn’t that problem.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            All of you pro-radioactives have made religious CLAIMS regarding the safety and harmlessness of lethally dangerous radioactive materials. Your religious devotion to lethally dangerous radioactive materials is such that you even condemn current solar power, wind power, and storage cells technology. You can ignore yourselves, but I won’t.

            Ah, and here’s more examples of your religious devotion to lethally dangerous radioactive materials: Because I recognize the fact that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are neither safe nor harmless, you make the CLAIMS that I reject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Health Organization, and James Hansen.

            Your religious devotion to lethally dangerous radioactive materials is such that you also CLAIM that I don’t acknowledge nor accept the realities of climate science and anthropogenic global warming.

            As you pro-radioactives make your CLAIMS against me, you pro-radioactives attack all non-radioactive sources of energy. You especially hate current solar power, wind power and storage cells technology. So much for your CLAIMS that you “just go with the science regardless of personal feelings”.

            You’re still refusing to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Quote me where I’ve described highly radioactive materials as always harmless.

            Quote me where I have condemned wind and solar and told people not to build them. Particularly wind is a clearly false claim, as anyone can find out by checking my feed. Unlike you, I keep my commenting history open. I have nothing to hide. You plainly do.

            You do reject the work of the WHO, and the IPCC, and James Hansen in this area. You’re trying to pick and choose your science like an anti-vaccinist and like a climate science denier.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            All you need do is read your own stuff, Sam. Unless, of course, your Dunning-Kruger has already caused you to forget your own stuff.

            And you, of course, continue to yammer on with your false accusation that I reject the World Health Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and James Hansen. I plainly don’t.

            And you have the utter audacity to call me a global warming science denier.

            You’re still refusing to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            So, basically, you’ve lied about me.

            Why do you need to do that? Doesn’t it even register in your conscience that you needed to tell lies about me?

            On the other hand, I haven’t lied about you. You have indeed rejected James Hansen, the IPCC and the World Health Organisation’s work in this area.

            How so? Because they all broadly agree with each other, and disagree quite dramatically with you. You don’t appear to understand that the WHO (2006) summarises mainstream science, the IPCC summarises mainstream science (WGIII:7), and James Hansen (Kharecha & Hansen 2013) is a mainstream scientist who bases his view on these kinds of mainstream authorities. By continuing to support the claims of junk science in your support for Yablokov, Mangano, Sherman et al, you have decided – and not in ignorance, but as a deliberate choice – to walk away from mainstream science.

            So I’m telling the truth, and I can back it up with sources, and you’re lying: you can’t back up what you say about me.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Gosh and golly, Sam, have you bothered to read your own stuff yet?

            Disagreeing with you is not disagreeing with science [unless, of course, you consider yourself Science Incarnate].

            Nothing you say will convince me that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            http://www.ibtimes.com/fukushima-news-unimaginable-nuclear-reactor-radiation-so-destructive-not-even-robots-2489802?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=most_read&utm_medium=most_read2
            “Fukushima News: ‘Unimaginable’ Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can Survive”
            By Juliana Rose Pignataro – 02/10/17 11:20 AM

            You’re still refusing to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Hello weirdo.

            Would you like to list those claims you think I’ve made?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Hello, O Obnoxious Liar,

            My goodness gracious, O Liar, your Freddie-Kruger Syndrome continues to get ever worse.

            Are you still able to read?
            http://www.ibtimes.com/fukushima-news-unimaginable-nuclear-reactor-radiation-so-destructive-not-even-robots-2489802?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=most_read&utm_medium=most_read2
            “Fukushima News: ‘Unimaginable’ Nuclear Reactor Radiation So Destructive, Not Even Robots Can Survive”
            By Juliana Rose Pignataro – 02/10/17 AT 11:20 AM

          • Sam Gilman

            Are you saying that this story is one of my claims? I didn’t write it.

          • Michael Mann

            Sam, everyone can see this Disgustigscience denier is attempting to promote irrational fear and is not interested in learning anything, just repeating memes he doesn’t even understand.

          • Sam Gilman

            He’s very odd. He shouts a lot and doesn’t like science.

          • Michael Mann

            Luckily I don’t know anyone gullible enough to believe him. He actually does a good job of showing how irrational the anti-science people really are…

          • Sam Gilman

            That actually is the point of interacting with him.

          • Michael Mann

            Ironically, in this case you are the science denier and SA Kiteman is correct! You should do more research into nuclear science before making such anti-science statements.

          • Mehar Ali

            i totally stands by his statements and hes 100% correct! u guys need to research on what yearly nuclear incidents are gonna cost a country versus the toll of death by coal method.

          • Michael Mann

            Sorry coal use kills millions, the use of nuclear power could save millions of lives, reduce CO2 emissions, and save the environment. THE USE OF NUCLEAR power instead of fossil fuelled power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths and over 60 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 1971 and 2009. We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimise the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning. http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/06/03/3772092.htm

          • Mehar Ali

            there is no sense in arguing with this idiot lol , i have gone through his baseless bullshit above , hes is an anti-science 😀 just ignore him

        • SA Kiteman

          Remember the iron rule of 24/7.

          To replace a 24/7 source (coal) you need a 24/7 source.

          The only 24/7 source that can grow big enough to replace coal and has a Carbon Intensity Per Kilowatthour (CIPK) less that the IPCC goal of 50g/kWh is nuclear. So, yes, the only two that really count ARE coal and nuclear.

      • SA Kiteman

        So far, there has never been a section of the planet rendered useless for thousands of years due to a nuclear power plant accident except the area covered by the Chernobyl sarcophogus itself. And that was due to an epically bad decision by the Soviets.

        Except small areas, Chernobyl is habitable now.

        Fukushima will be ~100% habitable in about 50 years, even if they stopped cleaning up. If they used appropriate phyto-remdiation it would be closer to 15 years.

        • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

          “So far, there has never been a section of the planet rendered useless
          for thousands of years due to a nuclear power plant accident” . . . Whoops! Strike that, can’t say never.

          • SA Kiteman

            Nope, don’t strike that. Can say “never” since it refers to PAST activities as in “HAS never BEEN”. Duh.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Like I said, not even you can say “never”.

            “So far, there has never been a section of the planet rendered useless
            for thousands of years due to a nuclear power plant accident except the
            area covered by the Chernobyl sarcophogus itself.”

          • SA Kiteman

            I said “has never been” correctly.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Indeed? Is that before or after you said “except”?

            “Never” is an absolute. Absolutes have no exceptions.

          • SA Kiteman

            Never is an absolute except when there is an exception. Duh.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            An absolute has NO exceptions, that’s what makes it an absolute.

          • SA Kiteman

            An absolute has an exception when written with it. Duh!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Absolutes have NO exceptions. If there’s an exception, it’s no absolute.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            Then I guess by your twisted definition it wasn’t an absolute. Feel better now do you?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “Twisted” definition? I guess you don’t read the dictionary much, SA.

            Yes, your statement–“So far, there has never been a section of the planet rendered useless
            for thousands of years due to a nuclear power plant accident except the area covered by the Chernobyl sarcophogus itself.”–is not an absolute.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            So you figured that out, did you? Only took you a load of malarky to do it.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I am the one who pointed out to you that your CLAIM is not an absolute. You kept CLAIMING otherwise.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            You have a true odd way of looking at things.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yeah, SA, I have this terrible tendency to tell the truth.

          • SA Kiteman

            Well, perhaps the “truth” as you see it but it is quite apparent that your “truth” is twisted by your infection by Müller’s Mendacity Meme. Seek help. Find it here:
            http://radiationeffects.org

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, SA, not the “truth” as I see it, it’s the truth. Like it or not.

            I notice that you shills for radioactive garbage get very upset by the truth being told, and you constantly PROVE that you cannot support any of your mere CLAIMS by doing the only thing you can think of to do: Respond only with weak attempts at lame insults.

            You’re the ones who need to seek help for your very unhealthy obsessions.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Again the infectee doesn’t seek to cure himself. To bad. All he needs to do is realize that “No safe dose” is “not the truth” and visit the site I linked for him. But, no, he is too sick. YOU however, good reader, can still learn from experts.
            http://radiationeffects.org

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            The arrogant SA makes yet another reference to the nonexistent Müller’s Mendacity Meme, the “disease” of people who know that SA is always wrong [according to SA, of course].

            When it comes to lethally dangerous radioactivity, “No safe dose” is always the truth.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, SA.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            You have the opportunity to determine FOR YOURSELF who is correct by a little bit of borowsing at:
            http://radiationeffects.org
            If you want to dig deep into the science of low dose response science and find out for yourself whether “No Safe Dose” (aka Müller’s Mendacity) it true or false, find the link to the Journal here:
            http://dose-response.org

      • greenthinker2012

        Yes coal and the other fossil fuels are killing our planet.
        Scientists expect 1/3 of all species to go extinct as a result of our fossil fuel burning.
        Expected human deaths from climate change number in the hundreds of millions.
        Our coastal cities are expected to be flooded.
        So yes indeed coal is many many times worse than nuclear power.

    • SA Kiteman

      Let us compare nuclear to carbon fueled deaths.
      The WHO claims ~7,000,000 deaths/a from carbon based enery use. That means about 20,000/d. That is more than all the deaths expected from all commercial nuclear power plant accidents, incidents, and activities, EVER. Get tat? We could have a Chernobyl every day and not kill as many as carbon fuels.

      • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

        So, is that one Chernobyl every day?

        One Chernobyl each in the towns and cities in one county every day?

        One Chernobyl each in the cities and towns in every county in one state every day?

        One Chernobyl each in all the cities and towns in every county of one state every day?

        One Chernobyl each in all the cities and towns in every county in all 50 states every day?

        What if we add a Chernobyl in the District of Columbia every day?

        Plus one Chernobyl each in all cities and towns in Puerto Rico?

        . . . in Guam?

        . . . in American Samoa?

        . . . in U.S. Virgin Islands?

        . . . in Northern Mariana Islands?

        Wow, lethally dangerous radioactives are safe to use in the middle of every inhabited area in every continent on Earth?

        I am so impressed!

        C’mon, let’s dig up all the lethally dangerous radioactive materials on which we can get our hands!

        With a Chernobyl happening everyday in all the Chernobyls on Earth, we’ll all survive long enough to be killed the same ways by which all the people in the original Chernobyl were killed!

        Oh, that would be so cool, Brewster!

        • SA Kiteman

          So the disgusting science denier can’t parse a simple sentence. Too bad it is so confused by simple English.

          And apparently it doesn’t know the difference between lethally dangerous and MORE lethally dangerous. What a dingleberry!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “What a dingleberry!”

            I don’t know what you have against a person who lives in a dell and eats small fruit with lots of small seeds, but don’t take it out on me.

            I do know how to parse a sentence. I am thoroughly disgusted by science deniers who try to paint nuclear disasters as being harmless incidents which do not make the disaster area dangerously radioactive for decades afterwards.

            Lethally dangerous is lethally dangerous, no matter how you try to present it as otherwise.

            “We could have a Chernobyl every day and not kill as many as carbon fuels.”

            Well, that’s true. A Chernobyl everyday would kill a much larger number of people.

          • SA Kiteman

            And I am disgusted by the anti-science Anti-NuPow agents of Big Petro-Carbon (BPC) who try to terrify the public about accidents that in fact are much less harmful than portrayed by themselves.

            In Fukushima, the Anti-NuPow fearmongery has resulted in about 1700 deaths. The maximum plausible death toll from the radioactivity is in the low dozens.

            We have known for cenuries that:
            “The dose makes the poison” {Paracelsus}
            So in fact “lethally dangerous” is only part of the scale from no effect thru potentially beneficial effect to no observable adverse effect to stochasticlly harmful to lethally dangerous. Implying that lethally dangerous is all there is is a filty, rotten, MURDEROUS lie.

            A Chernobyl a day wouldn’t kill as many as coal does currently. Do the math yourself if you don’t trust mine. Use corrent models.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “And I am disgusted by the anti-science Anti-NuPow agents of Big Petro-Carbon (BPC) who try to terrify the public about accidents that in fact are much less harmful than portrayed by themselves.”

            So, you think that the Big Polluters don’t include the Big Lethally Dangerous Radioactive Material crowd?

            And, yes, radioactive disasters must never be looked upon as a whole very dangerous problem. After all, no individual radioactive disaster causes harm of any kind. Correct?

            “In Fukushima, the Anti-NuPow fearmongery has resulted in about 1700 deaths. The maximum plausible death toll from the radioactivity is in the low dozens.”

            Yep, the air is completely safe to breath, the water is completely safe to drink, the food is completely safe to eat. If more than low dozens of people are killed by the disaster, it’s only because someone scared them to death.

            “A Chernobyl a day wouldn’t kill as many as coal does currently.”

            That’s true. A Chernobyl a day would kill a much larger number of people.

            I am thoroughly disgusted by science deniers who continually try to paint nuclear disasters as being harmless incidents which do not kill people, do not harm those who weren’t killed immediately, and do not make the disaster
            area dangerously radioactive for decades afterwards.

            So, what are the beneficial effects of lethally dangerous radioactive contamination?

          • SA Kiteman

            Why do Anti-NuPow yack-tivists always go for reductio ad absurdum? Don’t they realize it shows themselves to be absurd?

            Whenever they lose a comparative contest they reply with absurd absolutes. Quite being a jackass, …sciencedenier..

            To answer “absurdum”‘s final question, there are no benefits to lethally dangerous radioactive contamination (LDRC). But LDRC is EXTREMELY difficult to find among the civilian areas, even after a nuclear accident. Most of what is there is probably in the hormetic range, though caution is always advised until real knowledge of the groundshine rate is available.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Why do pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials idiots always try to downplay the hazards of radioactive disasters?

            “But LDRC is EXTREMELY difficult to find among the civilian areas, even
            after a nuclear accident. Most of what is there is probably in the
            hormetic range . . . ”

            So, you’re saying that lethally dangerous radioactive materials “probably” produce beneficial effects from all of the dangerous radioactive materials that are spread over very large areas by radioactive disasters. Well, then, in how many areas contaminated by dangerously radioactive materials have people experienced beneficial effects?

          • SA Kiteman

            Jeez, you just can’t educate some people.
            What I am saying is that low dose radiation is not “lethally dangerous radioactive material”. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/61b629896afc194c40b3b81e4431a9d6c1bc9d1c6bc629433e72bec7b275237b.jpg

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow! That colorful graph doesn’t mean a thing.

            I repeat my unanswered question: So, you’re saying that lethally dangerous radioactive materials “probably” produce beneficial effects from all of the dangerous radioactive materials that are spread over very large areas by
            radioactive disasters. Well, then, in how many areas contaminated by dangerously radioactive materials have people experienced beneficial
            effects?

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            And I repeat my many times given answer to your false question.

            I am saying that at low doses and dose rates, radioactive mterials are NOT “lethally dangerous”.

            To bad you DON’T “#StandUpForScience”

          • Michael Mann

            Hewhoisdisgustedbyhimself doesn’t have the capability to understand the science, but there are many third party “lurkers” who can understand.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You’re still avoiding the question, SA:

            So, you’re saying that lethally dangerous radioactive materials “probably” produce beneficial effects from all of the dangerous
            radioactive materials that are spread over very large areas by radioactive disasters. Well, then, in how many areas contaminated by dangerously radioactive materials have people experienced beneficial effects?

            Cesium, for example. Its half-life makes it dangerously radioactive for 300 years. Leaching does not carry cesium to the nearest ocean.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            You are still avoiding the answer, HeWhoIsDisgusting.

            I am saying that low levels of radioactivity, levels typically found on land after nuclear power accidents, are NOT “lethally dangerous radioactive materials”. Indeed, the NON dangerous radioactive materials may actually be BENEFICIAL radioactive materials. Consider them “Vitamin R!

            Cesium at levels typically found after an accident is not dangerous after about 50 years, even if it started out a bit into the stochastic risk level. This is due to both decay an erosion.

            Erosion carries cesium downstream, to the ocean eventually, or to a salt lake or landlocked sea, or wherever the water runoff from the land finally winds up, usually the ocean.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, SA, still with the tales that radioactive disasters don’t spread lethally dangerous radioactive materials over wide areas, including the areas in and around Chernobyl.

            Oh, and let’s not forget your invention of Vitamin R! Lethally dangerous radioactive materials “may actually be BENEFICIAL radioactive materials.”

            Ah, and another tale about radioactive cesium. From a half-life that keeps cesium dangerously radioactive for 300 years, you suddenly CLAIM that cesium ceases to be dangerously radioactive after only 50 years.

            And the tale of how the wonders of erosion completely cleans away all lethally dangerous radioactive materials by washing it to the nearest ocean; you’ve also added “a salt lake or landlocked sea, or wherever the water runoff from the land finally winds up”. Including drinking water. [Well, we’ve also been told that drinking water is much more dangerous than lethally dangerous radioactive waste, so I guess extra radioactive pollution wouldn’t cause much more extra danger.]

            You keep leaving out leaching, and how it wouldn’t carry anything away to the nearest ocean or salt lake.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Readers:
            It is truly amazing how HWID insists on misreading things, even things he quotes. Truly odd.

            Haven’t so far. The “lethally dangerous” area around Chernobyl is quite small, and next to non-existant at Fukushima. And it is unlikely that they ever will.

            Odd he cannot understand that after ~50 years, the combination of decay and erosion would have taken Fukushima to backgound levels, even without clean-up activity. With it many places are @ background effective now.

            He seems to have a fixation with the term “lethally dangerous readioactive material”. It makes him unable to discriminate between real dangerous levels and innocuous, even beneficial levels. This renders him quite irrational. Too bad.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, SA, so now you CLAIM that cesium doesn’t have a half-life that keeps it lethally radioactive for 300 years.

            Are you lying about the 300 years, or the 50 years?

            And again with your tale that lethally dangerous radioactive materials have beneficial effects.

            Then, there’s your tale regarding the lack of radioactivity in and around Chernobyl and Fukushima.

            Oh, my, without their beneficial radioactivity, does this mean that the people in and around Chernobyl will cease to live longer, healthier lives?

            Say, that reminds me, you still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            I presume by now you have detected that HWID is purely an anti-NuPow troll. He also fits into the fourth line of that old arab wisdom, the one that says,

            “He who knows not, yet knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him.”

            If he ever actually says something that is not juvenile taunt, I will correct any of his misstatements for you. But as to his juvenile taunts, ha!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, SA, you cannot answer any questions, you engage in juvenile attempts at insults, and you shill for radioactive garbage.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Readers:
            The infectee is still unable to read and understand the answers he has been given. You however can still find out that basically everything the infectee is saying is quite wrong. Go here to learn:
            http://radiationeffects.org

          • Michael Mann

            When they play the “shill” card, you know they have nothing of substance. If you look at his posts you can see all he does is repeat his lame propaganda with capital letters! Thank you for posting a link to a reputable site so people can learn more and not be fooled by hype and fear.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, you’re even less intelligent than I originally thought. PROVEN and CLAIMS are propaganda?

            Playing the “shill” card means that “they” have nothing of substance? Does this include when your kind play the “shill” card?

            My goodness gracious! http://radiationeffects.org is a “reputable” site only because it presents stuff that meet with your personal approval.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, x-spurt.

          • David McFarland

            It’s actually a pretty good metric. When antinuclear fearmongering say you’re paying paid to say what you’re saying, it usually means they’re on their last legs or always were. Usually happens after you explain they don’t know basic terminology.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            When telling the truth about lethally dangerous radioactive materials, why should I pay paid? Who is paid; human, animal, vegetable, mineral, fungus?

            So, paid is usually having difficulty standing or walking.

            Is this why paid doesn’t know basic terminology?

          • David McFarland

            “Truth” is usually backed up by facts and figures not fearmongering buzzwords. People who tell the truth about things like this usually understand that numbers are important to reference, and that context is likewise important. Fearmongers could state that Fukushima is putting radiation all over, someone telling the truth would inform you that living in a concrete building in Japan would give you more exposure than Fukushima would.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Dave, you’re saying that living in a concrete building in Japan is worse than living in a malfunctioning radioactive reactor. Wow, what are the numbers?

            Also, do you have real estate in a Florida swamp that you’d like me to buy?

          • David McFarland

            I see where the misunderstanding lies. That

            I was not intending at all for that to sound like “living in Fukushima,” rather, “living in a concrete building in Japan” would give you more exposure than living in Japan, in that same building, but instead the measured exposure being from Fukushima. That is, radiation exposure living where you are from Fukushima is, than you would get by living in a concrete building, as you will be exposed to natural radon from said building.
            Not actually living at Fukushima. I see where my phrasing caused confusion though, so I apologize for that.

            I am literally getting more radiation from concrete at my work right now, as we have ongoing construction, than I am by doing my work.
            And I work on nuclear reactors.

            Odd that you’re fine arguing with multiple nuclear operators but yet you have the username “HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers.” You’re literally arguing with me and Mann, who practice (or have practiced, in Mann’s case, I don’t recall if he is currently operating nuclear reactor plants, but he obviously has more education in the matter than you, by far, as is plainly evident by your poor understanding of the matter) the science we’re debating. Each of us have just over 8 years of experience operating nuclear reactors, and my experience is ongoing. I literally teach the stuff right now, and I literally patrolled the Pacific for 5 years post-Fukushima. I was in Japan when Fukushima went down; I was near Tokyo. I took surveys. I know hundreds of other nuclear operators, some of whom were far closer. My department helped coordinate response to the accident as it was ongoing.
            I don’t have the risk of being spoonfed information by an perceived Hive-minded, unnammed, Illuminati-like Government organization because I a and my coworkers collected the data firsthand. Not at Fukushima itself, but near Tokyo, so we actually collected the data that would determine what the risks of cancer to the largest chunk of the general populace would be.

            So why are you denying science? That’s what you’re doing in your arguments. You’re denying the experts in the field and trusting fearmongering reporters who can’t tell the difference between radiation and contamination. You are denying the evidence gathered by 600+ nuclear operators. You are denying a collective of ~2,000 YEARS of experience in Fukushima-Radiation-Matters, between the lot of us. How many years do you have in patroling the Pacific and Japan, studying this matter? I myself have 5, specifically regarding Fukushima’s contamination (closer to 8 or 9 years if you base “years of experience” on a 40 hour work week.) Many of my buddies have 4-6, now.
            I’m going to guess the answer to that last question is a big fat “zero.” And I’m going to guess you’re STILL going to have the gall to argue against hundreds – HUNDREDS – of testimonies of nuclear operators, many of whom legally meet the requirement now (5 years experience at a field with a standard 40-hour work week) to testify in a court of law as a subject matter expert.
            I hate to break it to you. You’re a science denier.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “I hate to break it to you. You’re a science denier.”

            Aww, don’t fret about it, Dave. Anyone who claims that living in a concrete building is more dangerous than living in a zone of radioactivity, has nothing to say.

            As for the testimonies of hundreds–HUNDREDS–of radioactive operators, their claims are as valid as all the lead pipe guys who try to say that the water in Flint, Michigan is safe to drink.

            And you mention Mike, the guy who ripped-off the name of a famous climatologist, and who can support his claims only with numerous LOLs.

            Yep, with guys like you, the world is a dangerous place.

          • David McFarland

            You’re quite well aware that’s not what I meant. If you aren’t I’ve horribly overestimated your understanding of the matter, because anyone with a tenth of a brain would know what a nuclear operator isn’t going to state that living in a reactor plant with a corium-pile emitting a proven 530 Sv/Hr radiation field is going to be less than a concrete building. Do you have a tenth of a brain? Perhaps not if you’re such a vehement science denier. Worse, you might have convinced yourself I did intend as you first interpreted as a defense mechanism to try to keep some presumed dignity so you don’t have to admit to yourself that you are exactly what you are. A science denier. You’ve become the thing you hate.
            You’re quite well aware I had a poor choice of sentence structure, and I’ve admitted as much; if you had the slightest bit of sense you’d accept that and disconsider anything further on the subject, but I have a feeling you’ve not the slightest bit of debating skill. You’re not admitting that because it’s the only way you can feel superior and come to grips with the fact that you’re a science denier. Instead of arguing the fact I did intend, you’re going to press on, murder context, and try to make it seem like I intended as I did because it’s the only fact you CAN argue, because as it turns out, it’s hard for someone with so little education in nuclear power as you, such a vehement, egregious science denier, to contend in a battle of Nuclear Wits with someone who not only has been to school, does it for a living, and now teaches the stuff. So instead you bow out of the real argument you can’t hope to win and erect strawmen.

            You deny the claims of experts because they don’t fit your confirmation bias. We’re more than lead-pipe layers. People who lay lead pipes don’t have the world’s best Safety Culture. People who lay lead pipes don’t have to go through the equivalent of 5 years of Ivy League College – crammed into just under 2 years.
            You’re denying experts, and are arrogant enough to think your knowledge equal to reactor operators.
            You know who denies the claims of experts? Science deniers.

            You’ve made a mistake. A mistake, if you truly hate science deniers, you’ve seen before and hated on them for: You made an argument out of nothing but assumption. You discounted experts not for logic and reason, not because you’ve truly found facts that they can’t argue against or real flaws in things they’ve said, but pure assumption:
            “As for the testimonies of hundreds–HUNDREDS–of radioactive operators, their claims are as valid as all the lead pipe guys who try to say that the water in Flint, Michigan is safe to drink.”
            YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT US. Flat out. You can’t say we’re anything like lead pipe guys.

            I mention Mike because I know him. I mention the hundreds of other nuclear operators I work with because they all individually know more than you.

            I’ve actually asked my students some of the things you’ve said. They stood, mouth ajar, unable to speak until a few of them just flat out said, “Wow, there are people actually that stupid?” It was a good mark to show them how far they’ve come in such a short time, being more educated in nuclear power than laymen – it showed them just how much they really know, when they usually feel like they know so little compared to us instructors. They do, but their knowledge is nothing to scoff at. (Yours is with how you tout yourself so knowledgable, yet the youngest of nuclear operators can run circles around you.)
            So thank you for being such a wonderful example and confidence booster.

            And if my knowledge means less than a lead-pipe layer, what does yours mean? What credentials do you have that make you so much wiser than I? How many surveys have you done in Japan? How many reactors have you started up? What’s the highest amount of counts you’ve seen on a GM radiac? How many internal dose surveys have you done? How many total-body-dose survey radiacs have you stood in?

          • Michael Mann

            http://radiationeffects.org is a “reputable” site because it is founded in science, written by scientists with integrity. I agree with science.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Mike, the site is one that meets with your personal approval because it is founded in science of which you personally approve, written by scientists of whom you personally approve.

            I also agree with science, when it’s not being used to call dangerously radioactive materials completely safe and harmless. Even safer and less harmful than plain water, solar power, wind power, and storage cells.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            You are still trying to build that strawman argument, even knowing my profile is open and people can see I never said anything was “completely safe or harmless”. It’s easy to argue with statements I never made, it’s a lot harder to discuss the actual comments I did make. You are not the arbiter of what is or is not science, you blithely dismiss mainstream science because it doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived notions. Anyone can see you are a science denier from your comments despite your ironic moniker…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “You are not the arbiter of what is or is not science”. Oddly enough, Mike, neither are you.

            As for things you supposedly don’t say, you pro-radioactives love to state and repeat various lies; most by implication, the rest by flat-out statements.

            Basically, you like to bad-keyboard me because I remind you that radioactive materials are neither safe nor harmless. This is especially true about the tons of radioactive materials used in lethally dangerous radioactive reactors, and the tons of radioactive waste–liquid, and solid–which are placed around the reactors in pits.

            You and the other pro-radioactives don’t like that. To show your displeasure, you do a number of rude and stupid things.

            You, Mike, like to proclaim that I deny science–even climate science–even though you are not the authority on what is and is not science. SA Kiteman, as another example, likes to proclaim that disagreeing with her is some sort of fictional disease.

            As for lethally dangerous radioactive materials, your basic claims amount to the proclamation that radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            Spouting such nonsense, you then wonder why I don’t believe what you claim. I’ll put it this way: Those who tell the truth don’t engage in coercion.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            No, you actually deny science and instead rely on innuendo, disparaging labels, slogans, lies and fear. I respect science and the truth. I invite people to understand, you attempt to manipulate people and cause fear

          • Michael Mann

            Please copy and paste where I said any of the things you attribute to me, your idiotic attempts at a “strawman” argument are disgusting and easily disproven as my history is open, not hidden like yours. You seem to have no respect for anyone reading your propaganda and lies. They can click on my avatar and see your lying. I never made an CLAIMS against the top ten nuclear disasters … which makes your statement rather silly don’t you think?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You remain unable to answer any questions raised by your ridiculous CLAIMS. Including . . .
            “Wow, SA, so now you CLAIM that cesium doesn’t have a half-life that keeps it lethally radioactive for 300 years.

            “Are you lying about the 300 years, or the 50 years?”

            . . . and . . .

            “Oh, my, without their beneficial radioactivity, does this mean that the people in and around Chernobyl will cease to live longer, healthier lives?”

            Say, that reminds me, you still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • David McFarland

            You’re making ridiculous claims.
            The radiation levels that give a beneficial effect serve only as an “immune system kickstarter,” as the body works to clean up damaged cells the higher white blood cell count winds up getting rid of things it missed or is more readily able to fight off new issues.

            And you might want to look up the levels of people that returned to Pripyat against government order. They’re perfectly fine. I might suggest watching Pandoras Promise.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            SA Kiteman

            HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            16 days ago

            I am saying that low levels of radioactivity, levels typically found on land after nuclear power accidents, are NOT “lethally dangerous
            radioactive materials”. Indeed, the NON dangerous radioactive materials may actually be BENEFICIAL radioactive materials. Consider them “Vitamin R!

            HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            SA Kiteman

            15 days ago

            So, SA, still with the tales that radioactive disasters don’t spread lethally dangerous radioactive materials over wide areas, including the areas in and around Chernobyl.

            Oh, and let’s not forget your invention of Vitamin R! Lethally dangerous radioactive materials “may actually be BENEFICIAL radioactive materials.”

            Ah, and another tale about radioactive cesium. From a half-life that keeps cesium
            dangerously radioactive for 300 years, you suddenly CLAIM that cesium ceases to be dangerously radioactive after only 50 years.

            And the tale of how the wonders of erosion completely cleans away all lethally
            dangerous radioactive materials by washing it to the nearest ocean . . . You keep leaving out leaching, and how it wouldn’t carry anything away to the nearest ocean or salt lake.

            As for any benefits from radioactive materials, that CLAIM is made by a number of pro-radioactives. Their CLAIM includes the tale that the people in and around the radioactive area of Chernobyl live longer and have healthier lives than people who don’t live in radioactive regions.

          • Corey Barcus

            Cesium-137 has a half-life of around 30 years, and after 10 half-lives, almost all of it has disintegrated. Strontium-90 has a similar half-life.

          • Michael Mann

            Did you even research Cesium? It’s not hard, there are different isotopes with different half lives, the longer the half life, the less radioactive something is, as a thumb rule, usually 5 half-lives is enough to say the sample is no longer that isotope, in 10 half-lives it is pretty much gone. You really should learn something before you post your lethally dangerous toxic messages. Thank you again for showing people the level of your knowledge. And you still have not PROVEN or even LISTED anyone’s CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”. because they haven’t made any such claims.

          • David McFarland

            Actually, there is good reason to suspect that low levels of exposure, below 1 R.E.M., have a hormesis effect on individuals with a healthy immune system, as in attempting to repair the damage the body also fixes other issues.
            LNT is often mistaken taken far too seriously – it’s an operational theory, that is, for companies to employ to ensure their workers (like me and Michael Mann) are safe, not necessarily a true theory, but we don’t have an accurate one including the Hormesis effect. But by the very nature than humans have an immune system automatically means that LNT is more accurate.

            And you do know that the levels of cesium in the Pacific are only 0.3bq/m3, right? That’s ~240 gallons.
            You’d have to drink 170 gallons (do the math) to give yourself he same exposure as eating one banana presuming that all of the potassium is in excess and doesnt remain in your body.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            I see you.
            David McFarland
            Nuclear Electronics Technician, Navy
            US Navy Thomas Edison State University
            Worden, Illinois

          • David McFarland

            All right Doctor God.
            Teach me something.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Awwww…you had to report me to the “Discuss cops”? And delete my comments? What does that say? It says you lose.

          • David McFarland

            You mean the comments that violated their terms of service but displayed no proof that you actually have knowledge of the subject matter? How is that losing?
            I don’t consent to you spreading my personal information. It’s as simple as that.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Why is it as threat to your livelihood? Are your views not consistent with Navy policy? If they are, you wouldn’t have anything to worry about. I was just asking if your CO would approve. I was just curious if you spoke for the entire Navy on this matter?

          • David McFarland

            You posted both my work location and I take that as a threat. Why else would you post it if not to threaten? I do not treat threats lightly.
            I’ve stated my views and opinions are not necessarily those of the US Navy, as required when it as been openly stated that I am under employ of the US Navy when on a public forum, so I’m clean. I am not a Public Affairs Officer, who are the only individuals who can speak for the US Navy. I have never claimed to speak for the US Navy, and I never will.
            Provided I am not displaying confidential information – meaning I pretty much can only talk about my nuclear reactors with what you can find online, and even then there are things I cannot confirm or deny – I can share my experiences, however. Like how I did hundreds of internal dose surveys during Fukushima that all came back clean, that I know how much radiation exposure the Tokyo Area got, that I’ve known the Pacific to be hardly affected by the nuclear disaster because I’ve seen the samples and seen them analyzed.
            Which is what I’m doing.
            My CO would probably ask “why the heck are you continuing conversation with this [fill in whatever expletives you want]? He obviously is just an idiot, liar, and an troll.”

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            You’ve posted your OWN work location. Online, for the world to see. By your logic, does this make you a “threat to yourself”? Bizarre. Maybe take some law courses too? Do they offer that to you? Or are you operating on the bizarre principals of military law?

          • David McFarland

            You posted it on a media I did not choose to share it on.

            Now, are you going to continue this strawman argument, or do you actually want to debate the subject at hand? Can you, even? Can you even debate nuclear power? Or is ad hominem all you’ve got? It sounds suspiciously like you’ve lost.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            When it’s on the internet, it becomes public domain. You lose control over “where and when”. Just trying to help you here. Nuclear power? I don’t even think I care about that argument anymore…..this has been too much fun.

          • David McFarland

            Ya lost and you’re a lying creepy stalker, got it.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            I went to bed last night laughing hysterically, and you were sweating it out. No, that’s a big win. Trouncing A-holes like you who puff their chest out online, and spew their garbage when they only have a bachelors degree, and train swabs, it’s what I do.

          • David McFarland

            Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            You know what keeps me up though? Someone who has in depth knowledge of United States military nuclear propulsion, out here spewing their credentials etc etc. Unbelievable. And you aren’t even secure about it. It took me all of 10 minutes to find out who you were.

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Jesus man….are you sure you’re fit to run a reactor? You can’t even run a GD LinkedIn page!

          • I am God ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            Hey I just read the part about “divulging personal information”, and “against the law”. That was hysterical. Your info, as you know, is publicly available on the internet. So, good luck with your case. Too funny. Stick to swabbing.

          • Sam Gilman

            The future health consequences from Fukushima releases are estimated by the WHO to be so low as to be undetectable. If one runs the figures, it’s a handful of people over the next seventy years who may have shortened lives. No death is good, but more people will fall off roofs and die from installing solar panels over the same period. That still won’t be many and is not a reason to stop solar (solar is good), but it puts it in perspective.

            Why do you think the WHO is wrong? Do you think the WHO is a science denying organisation?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Please be so kind as to PROVE your mere CLAIMS about the supposed WHO estimates.

          • Sam Gilman
          • Mehar Ali

            are you a retard?? did you even know what is a nuclear reaction?

            this dumbass is comparing number of deaths to the level of threat of danger, do u really think because death toll of chernobyl and other incident combined is less than any other disaster/accident than it is not harmful or any kind of loss and lethaly dangerous? MOFO what about the evacuations a government have to carry out of million of people from several hundred miles and ban entry to that area for decades? what about billion of dollars of losses due to these small events (as per you because number of deaths was small? )., and the dollars losses on containing that small deaths event??
            and you have nerve to fool around this blog and bad mouth others??

            i guess people nowadays really need to go to school rather than fool round in bars all days.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good morning, Mehar Ali, nice to see you blathering on the web.

            I wish you could write as clearly as you think you can.

            I THINK what you are trying to point out is that the death toll is not the only measure of badness for a technology. And in that you would be correct. But then you go and try to blame nuclear power for the adverse effects of fearmongering, and that just isn’t reasonable. Further, if you compare nuclear power to other reliable sources, nuclear is better than them in all sorts of ways, including being removed from homes, land laid waste, illnesses, etc.

            So, what you have done is blather and present yourself as a fool.

            Good day to you, Mehar.

          • Mercky Waters

            Granted, the unmeasurable and the non-existent are not the same thing; but they do look the same. Treating them the same for risk assessment is the only is the only evidence-based course of action.

        • bean420

          Damn this thread is fucked up. Not only are you saying that a nuclear disaster a day isn’t nearly as bad as energy resources already in play, but that it could even be good for us! WTF.

          Thanks, I’ll stick with moving towards renewable energy… WOW.

          Science in and of itself is not a virtue. It’s how you use it. And it seems most of you have decided to shove it up your own asses…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            SA Kiteman

            a year ago

            So, is that one Chernobyl every day?

            One Chernobyl each in the towns and cities in one county every day?

            One Chernobyl each in the cities and towns in every county in one state every day?

            One Chernobyl each in all the cities and towns in every county of one state every day?

            One Chernobyl each in all the cities and towns in every county in all 50 states every day?

            What if we add a Chernobyl in the District of Columbia every day?

            Plus one Chernobyl each in all cities and towns in Puerto Rico?

            . . . in Guam?

            . . . in American Samoa?

            . . . in U.S. Virgin Islands?

            . . . in Northern Mariana Islands?

            Wow, lethally dangerous radioactives are safe to use in the middle of every inhabited area in every continent on Earth?

            I am so impressed!

            C’mon, let’s dig up all the lethally dangerous radioactive materials on which we can get our hands!

            With a Chernobyl happening everyday in all the Chernobyls on Earth, we’ll all survive long enough to be killed the same ways by which all the people in the original Chernobyl were killed!

            Oh, that would be so cool, Brewster!

            I was commenting on an entry from the very self-important SA Kiteman. He is a pro-nuclear who likes to claim that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless, so safe and harmless that we could have a Chernobyl each and every day and suffer no harm of any kind.

            That’s why he hangs around here. He hates the article, he hates the very title of this article: “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

      • Brian

        the Pro nuclear IAEA nuclear power promoting, that’s their charter, folks write the reports of the hazard of nuclear power and it’s accidents.

        You really believe nuclear pr agencies?

        No one is suggesting coal or fossils. Solar and wind are cheaper and faster to build.

        • SA Kiteman

          The IAEA is anti nuclear weapon proliferation and pro nuclear power safety. Sounds like a good thing to me. And where do you get your data? Anti-NuPow PR groups? Do you really believe those shills for petro-carbon sellers?

          The problem with wind and solar is that they are unreliable and need a lot of petro-carbon like coal or gas to keep the system going. So the system, which needs effectively two complete sources to make do, still costs a lot more than nuclear. And by the way, over a 15 year period, the greatest increases in generating capacity have come from nuclear… by far. The ratio is about 5 to 1.

          • Brian

            Of course it sounds good to all your professional nuclear pr industry people. what a surprise.

            Did you know we can trust big industry and advertising, all they care about is our health and safety.

            wow, how naive do you have to be to believe that. Only the pro nuclear folks are faving you.

          • SA Kiteman

            I guess naivete is your strong point since you don’t even realize you are being sock-puppeted by Big Petro-Carbon (BPC).
            How does it feel to be dumber than a parrot?

    • http://progchik.com/ ProgChik

      How about we just shift the argument to sustainable energy vs. nuclear & coal instead of coal vs. nuclear.

      • Michael Mann

        Nuclear energy is sustainable….

        • Mehar Ali

          and when nuclear accidents happen , the loss and abnormality caused by these accidents ( natural accidents or deliberate nuclear terrorism ) either way we are gonna have a billions of dollars loss (in evacuation process, relief process, rehabilation and building of another plant process, sustaining the waste process )..

          this is the reason they are called lethaly harmful materal ( doesnt matter sustainable or not because losses are far greater once accident occur )

          • Michael Mann

            You should really try to educate yourself on the levels of radioactivity required to cause health risks, even with 3 meltdowns in Fukushima, no member of the public received enough radiation for any significant additional health risk. Learn the science! Don’t deny science! http://hps.org/

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, “even with 3 meltdowns in Fukushima, no member of the public received
            enough radiation for any significant additional health risk.”

            Please be so kind as to PROVE your CLAIM that radioactive disasters are safe.

            Hmmmmmm, “additional health risk.” In addition to death, what are the additional health risks of living (as it were) in a radioactive area?

    • MrL0g1c

      If you add up all of the deaths from the production of toffee, it will be less than then number of deaths that occur mining iron ore for steel production every month. I hereby propose we make all cars out of toffee because it’s safer.

    • Brian

      Only if your deny LNT and refuse to read the science that says over a willing will die from Chernobyl and 400k from Fukushima. Not to mention wastes for 100,000 years that will make their way into the environment and people and the mining which has killed., mutated and sicked 10’s of thousands.
      BTW no one is suggesting coal.

      Solar and wind are 4 times cheaper, with infinity free fuel, forever.

    • Scott Richmond

      Granted, however disposal of the by-product is where the two means differ. If all of the worlds energy was produced through nuclear fission, the rate of radioactive waste generation would eventually exceed the current maximum possible rate of disposal (meaning the capacity for safe storage until safe levels of radioctivity are met). That, my friends, is the conundrum.

      • Michael Mann

        Except that many of the advanced reactor designs actually use the “waste” from current reactors to make power! The total amount of waste even discounting recycling/reprocessing is still a tiny fraction of that produced by fossil fuels today.

  • Dr. A. Cannara

    Amazing how some folks personally benefitting from science and democracies committed to fact, pump out misinformation as well as the Kochs, when they’re ignorant of, yet biased against, something for personal pique or profit.

    There
    was an excursion of 3×10 fissions at the RA-2 facility – See more at:
    http://www.processindustryforum.com/hottopics/nucleardisasters#sthash.A8AVpxK2.dpufThe Argentinian example reveals the writer’s malicious ignorance: “excursion of 3 x10 fissions”

    There were 30 fissions? There were actually a gazillion fissions.

    But, as the writer tries to hide, none of these, except Three Mile Island, were commercial, regulated, nuclear accidents. And in TMI. no one was hurt. No containment breached, etc.

    The event led to establishment of industry co-operation on training & safety procedures, and WANO, and all that raised the uptime of nuclear plants from ~65% to today’s ~90%. Think of all the coal plant obviated by that — thank you TMI!

    Anyone, using Fukushima or Chernobyl against nuclear power is just fibbing. Chernobyl’s RBMK reactors were/are illegal everywhere outside the Soviet Union. They were known to be unstable and were simply intended for making weapons Plutonium. Anyone, like this author, listing Chernobyl as equal to a western, nuclear accident is simply ignorant and/or lying. If someone want facts, go to knowledgeable, honest writers like Mahaffey and his “Atomic Accidents”.

    The other way this author demonstrates his untrustworthiness is by omitting basic facts, such as that the SL-1 accident was at a small Army reactor manned by a poorly trained individual. It was in no way a part of commercial nuclear power.

    Then we have Fukushima. Why does this author not explain that despite the greatest quake recorded in Japan, all Fukushima reactors shut down properly and were cooling properly until after the tsunami arrived? Remember, TEPCO had about 17 reactors in the region, yet could only ruin 3. And why does this author hide the reality of Fukishima Dai-Ini and Onagawa? Those all properly reached safe shutdown and Onagawa actually housed hundreds of tsunami refugees… http://tinyurl.com/o852xg5

    The ~18,000 dead and billions in property losses weren’t due to nuclear power. They were due to something simple: poor govt. land-use policy in a known tsunami zone. Why no discussion of the largest tragedy wrought by the Japanese own govt? Doesn’t have the scare mongering value of nuclear?

    Why no mention of Onagawa, TEPCO corruption and govt. collusion here? Too inconvenient a truth? This piece is modelled on the same ploys climate deniers use — avoidance of facts.

    But, at least we now know this forum can’t be trusted. As Mark Twain said: “A lie gets half way around the world before the truth can get its boots on”. The fibbery here has gone around several times.

    Shame, The graphic shows the facts of nuclear power safety, even including the accidents mentioned above. This author apparently likes coal diseases & deaths, oil-transport destruction, gas explosions, wind workers’ deaths, etc. Shame.

    Dr. A. Cannara
    650 400 3071

    • Dr. A. Cannara

      What… phony name — My “agenda” is facts. Yours?

      Do you not know why folks like Koch, Aussie coal groups & the Oil Heating Institute… have supported anti-nuclear protesters over the years? You really don’t know?

      Check out the ads paid for by the combustion industry attached…

      Now, check out the facts about nuclear safety being better even than windmills…

      And maybe that the cause of Fukushima Dai-Ichi’s failure was known even before it started up, years ago…
      http://tinyurl.com/o852xg5

      Yet, its reactors, and all others in Japan, shut down properly upon the record Tohoku quake.

      And Chernobyl — you must have carefully studied it and learned that it’s RBMK reactor design is/was illegal everywhere outside the old Soviet Union, right “What…”?

      So, thanks for bringing up “Nuclear Disasters”. They all show the safety of properly-regulated nuclear power.
      ;]

      • WhateverDunce

        So, Koch prefers fossil fuels. He may have an agenda, but you still do, as well. Everyone does. I don’t think it’s relevant to the ‘greatest nuclear disasters of all time’ list, though. Koch didn’t cause any of these. You should push your politics in a different forum.

        • Dr. A. Cannara

          Sigh. “Whatever” I don’t “push politics”. I convey facts, unlike you.

          What “greatest nuclear disasters”? You mean the disasters created by the combustion folks and the naive anti-nukes like you, who have kept coal alive & well for decades, despite emissions of ‘minor’ pollutants like Arsenic, thallium, Mercury… that never decay away?

          You mean the oil/gas/coal industries your naivete aids that are allowed to emit more radiation than all nuke plants put together, because combustion folks lobbied for their NORM Exemption?

          Is hiding from that what your “agenda” is, “What”?

          Are you contributing to our environment & descendants by not studying the facts about energy sources, “What”? Maybe you picked the right gumptionless name, ending in “dunce”?
          ;]
          But, keep it up. Like climate deniers, you simply provide opportunities for others to get the facts you fear.

          • WhateverDunce

            I’m not the one penning an agenda on a fluff piece here.

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            ” penning an agenda ” — how metaphorical!

          • Dr. A. Cannara

            “WhateverDunce” is not of an “agenda”? Maybe showing gumption to use a real name would give reason to think otherwise, eh?
            ;]

          • WhateverDunce ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ

            Responding to me 10 months later? I can’t believe that. I owe you almost a year’s rent for the time I spent in your head. hahahaaa…

          • Please_enter_your_name

            and this draws the difference between smart and smart-@$$… you should be able to come across as intelligent without having to stoop low enough to give attitude… come on i mean this is shallow. You’re comments are unprofessional and immature

            ugh

            ;]

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Can, you CLAIM to have studied the facts about energy sources, but you never mention any safe, clean, reliable and renewable sources of energy, including wind power and solar power.

            Have you forgotten that such energy sources exist, and can be used efficiently and cost effectively, NOW?

      • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

        Ooooooh, even more colorful pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials graphs, none of them current.

        • Michael Mann

          LOL You are responding to a comment 2 years old and complaining his graphs are not current? Why do you try so hard to deny science?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, the graphs weren’t even current in 2015. Know about what you’re talking before making an idiot of yourself.

            Why do you try so hard to pretend that you know anything about science?

            I notice that your kind have a problem with acknowledging, and responding to, comments which have been posted. Why is that?

          • Michael Mann

            I have a job, and a life I can’t spend all day on the internet. What are you having difficulty understanding? Discussing things with you is like talking to a two year old, except a two year old is open to learning. Have you taken the time to read any of the links I posted or made any attempt at researching actual science? I can try to explain things to you, but it is difficult without you having the prerequisite knowledge.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, what a load!

            You can’t support anything you say, so you CLAIM that “a job, and a life” make it impossible for you to answer questions. Yet, I notice that you have more than enough time to make lame statements which are your attempts at insults.

            “I can try to explain things to you, but it is difficult without you having the prerequisite knowledge.”

            Oh, “prerequisite knowledge”. Didn’t you just make the lame CLAIM that “a job, and a life” make it impossible for you to PROVE anything? Now, your lame CLAIM is that I don’t have “prerequisite knowledge”.

            I do have prerequisite knowledge, Mike. Knowledge that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are not good to have around. Knowledge that radioactive disasters are radioactive disasters, not mere inconveniences which pose no danger. Knowledge that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is NOT safer than plain water. Knowledge that radioactive areas–such as in and around Chernobyl–are NOT safe places in which to live.

            Knowledge that safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy are NOT dangerous. Knowledge that these sources of energy are efficient and cost-effective NOW.

            Where’s your prerequisite knowledge?

          • Michael Mann

            You post under an alias, I use my real name, my profile is open honest, your profile is private, hidden… Hmm who should people believe?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Um . . . people should believe a guy who can’t answer questions, can’t PROVE any of your CLAIMS, is dishonest and unintelligent, and is ripping-off the name of a famous climatologist?

          • Michael Mann

            I have support for everything I post and over 35 years of hands on experience, you have fear mongering propaganda, people with good decision making skills will be skeptical, do the research and find out that I’m telling the truth,

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Hmmmm, so you CLAIM that you have “over 35 years of hands on experience”. Hands on whom?

            You keep CLAIMING that you can support everything you CLAIM. If that’s true, why don’t you do it?

            ” . . . people with good decision making skills will be skeptical, do the research and find out that I’m telling the truth,”

            Oh, I see, your CLAIMS are automatically the truth, regardless of what you CLAIM. Such as lethally dangerous radioactive waste–be it solid or liquid–is safer than clean water.

          • Michael Mann

            Funny I claim such things because they are true, I joined the US NAVY in 1978, I qualified for the Navy Nuclear Power Program after boot camp in Orlando Fl. I went to ET “A” School in Great Lakes, then I went to Nuclear Power School in Orlando and Prototype in Ballston Spa NY where I graduated with class 8001 as a qualified Reactor Operator. I re-enlisted in the “STAR” program obligating me for 4 more years of duty. I proceeded to the USS Grayling, where I spent almost 3 years as a Reactor Operator and Technician and earned my Dolphins I then went to “C” School in San Diego from there to the USS Skipjack in New London Conn. until I got out of the Navy in 1986 I worked for a year at Coulter Electronics where I built blood analysis machines for a year, until the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant hired me as an I&C Technician, I have been there ever since as a technician and INPO qualified Instructor. Maybe you can do the math, 1980 when I first qualified to now, 2017, is greater than 35 years. Now what is your story? Explain to me how your vast experience with nuclear waste / probable risk analysis or other related field qualifies you to judge me. Do you deny that thousands of people die every year from H2O, or have you found thousands of unreported deaths every year from once used commercial nuclear power plant fuel that no-one else ever noticed, no mothers, brothers or sisters noticed these people missing and told someone about?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Funny, you still have not given me any reason to believe any of your mere CLAIMS, Mike, especially your CLAIMS that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless, and have never done anyone any harm anywhere at anytime.

            I notice that you’re still assuming that nobody has ever been killed by solid nor liquid lethally dangerous radioactive waste. Yet, you can’t PROVE it.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            People with brains can make their own determination, I tell the truth, you spout propaganda, vitriol and nonsense, your equivalent of a two year old’s tantrum isn’t going to change anyone’s mind… Thank you for illustrating the anti-nuclear propaganda machine methods, it will go a long ways to having people distance themselves from you and your compatriots and more likely to listen to real scientists and engineers. My profile is open, it’s easy to find all my comments by clicking on my name.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You still have not given me any reason to believe any of your mere
            CLAIMS, Mike, especially your CLAIMS that lethally dangerous radioactive
            materials are safe and harmless, and have never done anyone any harm
            anywhere at anytime.

            Thank you for demonstrating the propaganda methods used by you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials tools.

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL,I answered all your questions, and I have no control over what my parents named me. You do realize that people can just click on my name/avatar and see all of my posts on DISQUS to confirm I’m telling the truth, don’t you?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, Mike, you still haven’t answered all of my questions, including: What are conditions like in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

            Yes, like everyone else, I can click on “your” name and read all of your mere CLAIMS, along with your many attempts at insults.

            You still have PROVEN none of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            I’m sorry if you personally are unable to verify my posts, but I have confidence that any competent researcher CAN verify my posts, because they are true and based in science and real facts.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, you still have not answered the question: What are conditions like in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

            Yes, typically, you DECREE that a researcher is competent if their findings meet with your personal approval.

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            By the way he was born in 1965, I was born in 1960 so technically his parents copied mine, not the other way around and the producer was born in 1943, so he had it first….This is another example of your poor grasp of the truth.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yeah, Mike, so you like to CLAIM.

            Speaking of your CLAIMS, you still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Like all of my claims, it is the truth and you just look more and more foolish trying to claim otherwise….Thank you, it’s commenters like you that show third party “lurkers” whom to believe!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, you still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            I hope that people who may have listened to your bilge water in the past will re-examine anything you may have said that they believed, In light of your recent rants and illogical posting, you obviously have difficulty with truth and logic. You deserve no credibility.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Says the guy who can’t answer questions; hates doubt, but loves skepticism; CLAIMS to be an expert, but speaks of lethally dangerous radioactive materials as being completely safe and harmless; gets very indignant when his mere CLAIMS are questioned; arrogantly DECREES that those who question his CLAIMS are ranting, illogical folks who have problems with truth and logic.

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            So your knowledge states that something which there is no evidence of killing anyone in over 50 years is more dangerous than something which has been documented to have killed thousands of people every year. Can you please explain how you’ve come to that conclusion? Please show me your objective, logical steps, and the data you used.

          • Michael Mann

            I can support everything I say, you on the other hand have yet to disprove anything which I have said.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, even IF you could support your CLAIMS–such as your ridiculous CLAIM that safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective sources of energy, including wind power and solar power, are deadly dangerous–“a job, and a life” make it impossible for you to do so.

          • Michael Mann

            No, not impossible, just delayed. I have now answered all your questions. The comment thread is easy to follow and since my profile is open and public, very easy to find. I like all safe, clean, reliable energy sources, especially nuclear power, which in most locations leads each of those categories. All forms of energy can be dangerous, recognizing and mitigating those dangers is required for solar and wind as well as atomic energy.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, yeah, wind and sunshine are so very deadly and dangerous! Even more deadly than lethally dangerous radioactive materials, because wind power and solar power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, and cost-effective sources of energy! Oh, woe!

            The only thing you have correct is that this comments thread is very easy to follow.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

    • takrim abrez

      Congratulations, you just won largest reply ever…

    • MrL0g1c

      Doesn’t change the fact that conventional nuclear is expensive and every other type is more expensive and reprocessing fuel is hideously expensive, without which uranium won’t last long. Ocean reclamation of uranium also hideously expensive and requires vast amounts of oil be used.

    • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

      Wow, those colorful pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials charts look very well made for charts without sources that aren’t current.

      http://www.processindustryforum.com/hottopics/nucleardisasters
      “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”

      You certainly do hate this article and the truth it relates regarding radioactive disasters.

  • Tim Johnston

    Fukushima measures 7, but the toll might be much larger than Chernobyl, when all is said and done.

  • Michael Constable
  • ladonichais

    All you who are saying no problem with nuclear power, tell that to the little children who each year are sent to countries all around the world for a month to help the bodies with fresh air. These children were not even alive when Chernobyl happened but they are suffering and many of them die prematurely of cancer. Compare that with solar energy which will harm nobody and will not damage the earth. I would make all those who think Nuclear is o.k to go to one of those countries and live there. Can just imagine what they would be saying if one was going to be built close to your home.

    • Michael Mann

      The solar panels are not as benign as you seem to think, and nuclear power plants are nowhere near as dangerous as you think! Knowledge is better than fear!

      • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

        So, Mike, where is your knowledge regarding the dangers of solar power, and the safety of radioactive materials?

        • Michael Mann

          I have been a qualified radiation worker since 1980, I calibrate and maintain radiation monitors, reactor protection equipment, nuclear instrumentation and control equipment. The anti-nuclear propaganda which has led to your radiophobia and poor estimation of risk makes you look silly, so ironic considering your chosen name. Knowledge is better than fear!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            It’s very easy for you to CLAIM to be an expert regarding lethally dangerous radioactive materials, Mike, but you give me no reason to believe you. Especially when you throw about terms like “anti-nuclear propaganda”, “radiophobia” and “poor estimation of risk”. There’s also your CLAIM that solar power is dangerous without, of course, providing any PROOF.

            “Knowledge is better than fear!” You, however, provide no knowledge, only pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda. A true expert doesn’t do that.

            A true expert doesn’t try to brush away, as if unimportant, statements like those presented by ladonichais.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            I’m sorry, maybe I overestimated your background in science, start simply and learn from there, sometimes I forget there are people with little to no scientific education. I’ve been teaching about radiation, nuclear reactor basics and instrumentation so long, sometimes it’s difficult to find the language everyone can understand. The proof is everywhere, its not hiding.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Let’s see, Mike, you still provide NO PROOF for your CLAIM that solar power is dangerous. You still ignore ladonichais, who points out the fact that the areas in and around Chernobyl are not healthy places to be.

            And, of course, everyone who disagrees with you are merely “people with little to no scientific education.” A standard response from x-spurts.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann
          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/
            “Solar Companies Creating Millions Of Pounds Of Polluted Sludge, Contaminated Water”
            February 11, 2013 8:23 AM

            Hmmmmmmm, a CBS article from 4 years ago, a time during which the Big Polluters began their ever more desperate efforts to smear safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy.

            Included, of course, are mentions of Solyndra and President Barack Obama.

            Pathetic.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            You fail to ask ladonichais for PROOF yet he is the one making outrageous CLAIMS, There were birth defects and cancer long before Chernobyl and I DO live next to the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA and spent 8 years as a reactor operator on submarines sharing a metal tube with an operating reactor underwater for months at a time with no ill effects. Why are you not critical of the anti-nuclear propaganda? It seems your evaluation and validation skills are lacking as well as risk perception..

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Standard pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda, Mike.

            You make noises meant to make you sound scientific. Yet, attacking ladonichais shows that you know nothing about the many hazards of living in and around radioactive areas such as Chernobyl.

            Are you aware of what is still happening in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

            Why do you, an x-spurt, try to label all who disagree with you as being those who engage in “anti-nuclear propaganda”?

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            In other words you have no PROOF, just like the other science deniers.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You truly are an x-spurt, Mike. You pretend to be intelligent, even as you admit that you know nothing about what happens to people who live in radioactive areas such as Chernobyl.

            You still haven’t answered my question: Why do you, supposedly an expert, try to label all who disagree with you as being those who engage in “anti-nuclear propaganda”?

          • Michael Mann

            I try to educate those misguided people, it just turns out most are not capable of learning. I’m still waiting for anything intelligent from you. Time distance and shielding are used to work safely around radiation. The once used fuel is safely contained and monitored, it’s not some scary boogieman. You don’t disagree with my opinion, you are making up/ passing on false memes which disagree with science and can hurt people with increased fear and anxiety.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            By churning out anti-science nonsense with which you CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safer than plain water; that radioactive disasters are neither radioactive nor disasters; that radioactive areas–such as in and around Chernobyl–are safe areas in which people live longer and healthier lives than do people who live in actual safe areas; etc. etc. etc. and ,of course, etc., you constantly show yourself to be an idiot.

            Since you present NO FACTS, Mike, I do disagree with your mere opinions and phony memes.

            The information in “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” is true and accurate. Like it or not.

          • Michael Mann

            It’s anti-science propaganda meant to scare people who don’t know any better.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, you now make a CLAIM against the entire article [“Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”]. Yet, you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials puppets still can’t PROVE your mere CLAIMS.

            Your constant attacks against FACTS of SCIENCE are desperate exercises in stupidity.

          • Michael Mann

            Your failure to recognize the FACTS OF SCIENCE is very discouraging.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Your continued attempts to spread pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda is very inexcusable.

            PROVE your mere CLAIMS that “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” is anti-science propaganda.

          • Michael Mann

            Please identify ANY anti-science nonsense passages in any of my posts, I believe it’s probably just something you don’t understand, I would be happy to teach you

          • hyperzombie

            I noticed that it took you 14 hours to respond to this comment. Did it take you that long to stop laughing?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I’ve already identified your anti-science nonsense, Mike.

            “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” remains true and accurate.

          • Michael Mann

            You do know that people can follow this comment thread, don’t you? So you admit you couldn’t locate a single anti-science comment, otherwise you would have posted it. Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, Mike, I am aware that people can follow this comment thread. Are you?

            As I said, I’ve already identified your anti-science nonsense, including your CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safe, safer even than plain water.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            I’m still waiting for the data showing all those deaths from the “spent” fuel which is not really spent. Why would it be so difficult for you to provide, if they existed they would be headline news.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Since you CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safer than plain water, are you talking about death by drowning in lethally dangerous radioactive waste?

          • Michael Mann

            Any method, radiation, dropped on your head, whatever… I think you will find many more people killed by di-hydrogen monoxide through all /any methods. Please show your work explaining how a substance which killed no-one is deadlier than one which kills thousands every year. Maybe I don’t understand what “lethal” means.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, please be so kind as to PROVE your CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste has never killed anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

          • Michael Mann

            I didn’t make that claim… Nice job of trying to create a “strawman” argument, it is a favorite tactic of you science deniers. I just asked you to name anyone who has ever been killed by once used commercial nuclear fuel, commonly referred to as “nuclear waste” It seems that you may have jumped to the conclusion that no-one ever at any time has been killed by it, since you were unable to find anyone, anytime who has been killed by your erroneously termed lethally dangerous waste by any method. I admit that even studying nuclear power extensively and having over 35 years experience working with nuclear power, I have never heard of anyone being killed by once used commercial nuclear fuel either.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, you have most certainly indicated that nobody has ever been killed–at any time, anywhere, in any way–by lethally dangerous radioactive waste [you use the denial term “once used commercial nuclear fuel”; no reference to lethal radioactivity]. And you’ve done it yet again in this entry of yours.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            You seem to have a lot of difficulty discerning the truth and no science background, you must know someone with actual knowledge, try a college nuclear engineering professor or a health physicist or even a radiologist or oncologist….not tv shows, cartoons or anti-nuclear conspiracy sites they are not real.

          • Michael Mann

            I never said I was an expert in lethal anything. I do work with radiation and radiation monitors on a daily basis. Your fear mongering hype is disheartening.. someone has really messed up your perception. In reality once used nuclear fuel has been safely handled for decades without any major incident, let alone a lethal accident. Comparatively dihydrogen monoxide is much more deserving of the “lethally dangerous” moniker as it kills thousands every year and has for as long as I can remember.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, more pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda. In this case, you actually try to make lethally dangerous radioactive waste seem far less dangerous than plain water!

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            Only because it’s true. Please show me PROOF of anyone ever injured by once used commercial nuclear fuel… anyone, if it is so deadly you should be able to find thousands, I am asking for you to find one.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Mike, you request proof that anyone has been harmed by what you CLAIM is far less dangerous than plain water.

            You definitely know nothing about lethally dangerous radioactive waste.

          • Michael Mann

            Except for the fact I have worked with/around radioactive material nearly every day for over 35 years.. So you weren’t able to locate any casualties from your scary once used nuclear fuel. Hint because there haven’t been any… on the other hand how many people drown every year?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “Except for the fact I have worked with/around radioactive material nearly every day for over 35 years..” Yeah, Mike, so you’ve CLAIMED before.

            Where is your PROOF that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safe?

            CLAIMING that no one has drowned in lethally dangerous radioactive waste does not make radioactive waste safe.

            None of your lame statements you attempt to make insults also don’t make lethally dangerous radioactive materials safe.

            The information in “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” is true and accurate. NONE of you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials has PROVEN otherwise.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL, I’m alive, where is your proof it killed me? I don’t think I’m dead.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            That’s it? You can’t PROVE your CLAIMS that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe. But, you want me to prove that you’re not dead.

            Well, I don’t know that you’re not dead. You’ve shown that you are dishonest and unintelligent. You can’t answer questions. You can’t PROVE any of your CLAIMS. You’re ripping off the name of a famous climatologist. You CLAIM that you live right next door to the oldest radioactive plant in the U.S.

            Is yours a fictional character you hide behind? When you die, will someone else inherit the identity of the unintelligent man with the ripped-off name?

          • Michael Mann

            You believe the wildest anti-nuclear propaganda from anonymous posters and you don’t believe me when I cite vetted data from US government agencies that have consequences for falsifying data.. I would say you have difficulty with the terms proof and truth or you have other motivations for continuing to post FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) propaganda

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Mike, you hate doubt, but you love skepticism. Fascinating!

            I’m skeptical of anyone who tries to present lethally dangerous radioactive materials as being safe. I don’t believe any pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda.

            You continue to give me NO reason to believe you, x-spurt.

          • Michael Mann

            I understand, you will believe the fear mongering propaganda no matter what evidence you are given to the contrary, just like all the other science deniers.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            If you weren’t lying, your condescending comment might mean something. But, you are lying about “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, so your comment doesn’t mean a thing.

          • Michael Mann

            See, that’s where you are wrong and it’s wrong because make up your mind first and then twist your data to fit your pre-conceived notions. The way it is supposed to work is; you make a hypothesis, then gather data to prove or disprove your hypothesis and come to a logical conclusion based on the data.. I try to help people learn and I abhor lying. I am telling the truth, that’s why I post under my real name, allow people to see my profile history and do my best to vet any information I post, based on my experience, training and knowledge.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            If you truly abhor lying, Mike, why do you keep doing it?

            And ripping off the name of a famous climatologist makes his your name? Yeah,right!

            Hmmmmm, “you make a hypothesis, then gather data to prove or disprove your
            hypothesis and come to a logical conclusion based on the data.” Really?

            What is the basis for your “hypothesis” that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safer than clean water? What “data” have you collected to “prove” that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is completely safe? Is your very lame CLAIM that nobody has ever drowned in radioactive waste all ya got? Why do you always CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is liquid? Because it’s very difficult to drown in solid radioactive waste?

            Your lame attempts at insults also call your CLAIMS into question. You’ve never made any effort to “vet” any of your numerous attacks against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

            What little experience, training and knowledge you might have obviously don’t amount to much, if anything.

            All things considered, you give me NO reason to believe you. I’ll stay with science.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL, You don’t even recognize science when it’s spelled out for you, why don’t you look up the definition of science, scientific method and proof, then come back and apologize for your previous comments. You really are making yourself look very foolish.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You still have not given me any reason to believe any of your mere CLAIMS, including your lame attempts at weak insults.

            As for science, you still CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Definition of science for English Language Learners. : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, you can recognize a dictionary, Mike, but you still CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe, and have never done any harm of any kind to anyone at any time anywhere on the planet.

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Still trying to build that strawman? Show me where I said that, you really seem to have a problem with the English language. I just asked you to name anyone who has ever been killed by once used commercial nuclear fuel, commonly referred to as “nuclear waste” It seems that you may have jumped to the conclusion that no-one ever at any time has been killed by it, since YOU were unable to find anyone, anytime who has been killed by your erroneously termed lethally dangerous waste by any method. I admit that even studying nuclear power extensively and having over 35 years experience working with nuclear power, I have never heard of anyone being killed by once used commercial nuclear fuel either. You are welcome to prove me wrong if you can.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I point out your CLAIM every time you make it, Mike.

            Is your problem with the word “anywhere”? Are you unaware of the fact that “anywhere” means anywhere on the planet, not just a tiny area?

            Speaking of language, why do you keep using the denial phrase “once used commercial nuclear fuel” (having added the word “commercial” to your phrase)?

            And you repeat your CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste has never harmed anyone in any way at any time anywhere on the planet. Wow!

            By the way, you still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Again, show me anyone, anywhere who has been injured from the storage of once used commercial nuclear fuel, I have given you every opportunity and you have failed miserably. You contribute nothing to the discussion.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “You contribute nothing to the discussion.”

            Neither do you, Mike. You refuse to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS. When your mere CLAIMS are questioned, you respond only with weak attempts at lame insults.

            You still use the denial phrase “once used commercial nuclear fuel” instead of the accurate “radioactive waste”.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Science Denier, Still don’t have anyone?… crickets….

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Jiminy Cricket?

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            Still nothing…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            That’s what I said, Mike.

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            HeWhoisaScienceDenier, You do know now that science is not a belief system, it is knowledge learned through experience, which is experiments and observation. You do know that anyone who wants to can click on my avatar or name and see all of my posts.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            YouWhoCan’tProveAnyofYourMereClaims, I have always known that science is not religion. How come you don’t know that?

            Yes, I know that clicking on “your” name allows people to see your entries. This includes your entries in which you repeatedly try to paint lethally dangerous radioactive materials as being safe and harmless.

            People can also see your entries in which you repeatedly attempt to portray solar power and wind power–safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective sources of energy– as being deadly dangerous.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            They can click on your name and see the information you are willing to share or hide…….. I tall the truth I’m open and honest while you are secretive hidden and provide no data, just like your posts. It illustrates the contrast between us. People can see all your propaganda and spin by going to my replies to you and “view in discussion”

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, I know that clicking on “your” name allows people to see your entries. This includes your entries in which you repeatedly try to paint lethally dangerous radioactive materials as being safe and harmless.

            People can also see your entries in which you repeatedly attempt to portray solar power and wind power–safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective sources of energy–as being deadly dangerous.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            I never said it was deadly dangerous, just more dangerous than nuclear power has been per unit energy produced. It was YOU who claimed it was deadly and dangerous.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Never say “Never”, Mike.

            Also, don’t lie about my position regarding solar power and wind power; safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective sources of energy.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            May I remind you, my profile is open people can go back as far as they want with DISQUS and see all of my posts and in so doing also see your posts, which makes your statements look really silly.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            My goodness gracious, Mike. You still keep forgetting that people can click “your” name and read your entries full of weak attempts at lame insults. Is your Alzheimer’s getting worse?

          • Michael Mann

            Never is a perfectly good word to use, if you understand the English language and tense, it is only incorrect when referring to the future. You trying to create a strawman by arguing against things I never said only works if people don’t have the capability to research my comments using DISQUS.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            It doesn’t matter the period of time–past, present, future–“Never say never” always applies.

            Your Alzheimer’s is getting worse, poor guy. You can’t remember any of the statements you make, nor can you even think to search your comments for your statements.

            You also keep forgetting to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, x-spurt, you still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Corey Barcus

            HeWhoIs…

            Would you mind clarifying your exact claim? Certainly industry handles many dangerous materials that require special procedures for safety. For instance, spent nuclear fuel might be stored in above ground concrete containers limiting exposure to background levels. Alternatively, it could be buried via deep borehole disposal, secure for perhaps billions of years within continental basement rock. Even though cesium-137 is on the order of 100 million times more active than the gamma-emitting potassium in your body, if it was diluted 100 million times as much, its health impact would be similar, because what matters for risk is the dose rate.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I’ve already made my position on lethally dangerous radioactive materials quite clear, Corey.

          • Corey Barcus

            So, in your mind, renewables are entirely sufficient for rapid decarbonization? No risk? No reason to improve nuclear technology? You seem to believe that renewables do not involve major compromises.

            The advice that I have seen from the scientific and engineering communities is that we need to safeguard current nuclear production, deploy more nuclear power plants, and rapidly develop the next generation to improve deployment rates.

            We appear to be close if not past multiple tipping points and there is no guarantee that civilization will survive. Why summarily dismiss one the most powerful source of energy we have available, especially considering the scale of improvements that are possible? Certainly, the science does not support your claim that radioactive materials cannot be safely handled.

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170103152452.htm (Tenfold jump in green tech needed)

            http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567863/climate-change-ambitious-cuts (The decarbonization challenge)

            Here is what is already happening with the coral reefs:

            http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/29/13781434/great-barrier-reef-coral-dead

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Answering the questions in your first paragraph: Yes. That’s correct. That is correct. Renewables do not involve major compromises.

            I have seen no such advice.

            A much more powerful source of energy is the sun and current solar power technology. There’s also wind and current wind power technology.

            Lethally dangerous radioactive materials cannot be safely handled. They are neither safe nor harmless.

          • Corey Barcus

            You are assuming quite a lot. Solar and wind are inherently intermittent. This can be compensated for by adding storage, but this is not an ideal solution. For instance, solar’s output depends significantly on insolation, which can vary by over an order of magnitude. And it is impractical to time shift production seasonally. This limitation can somewhat be addressed with very extensive transmission, but again, this is not remotely ideal.

            Our risk is dependent upon the rate at which we can decarbonize, which requires an optimum use of resources. The energy density of nuclear materials has incredible potential in this regard, and cannot be overlooked.

            Another issue to consider is what happens when a continent’s solar arrays are buried in ash from a large volcanic eruption?

            “Lethally dangerous radioactive materials cannot be safely handled.”

            This is complete nonsense. Intensely radioactive isotopes are regularly handled safely within industry today, so your claim defies reality. You are merely spewing unconvincing rhetoric.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Pro-radioactives always regard the truth as “nonsense” . . . “unconvincing rhetoric”. Your mere opinions mean nothing.

            As for current solar power and current wind power and current storage cells technology, I assume nothing. You pro-radioactives trolls continue to assume that solar power and wind power and storage cells are somehow unreliable. Afraid that your assumptions will be proven wrong, you pro-radioactives still haven’t done any reading regarding current wind power nor current solar power nor current storage cells technology. Assumptions mean nothing.

            “Another issue to consider is what happens when a continent’s solar arrays are buried in ash from a large volcanic eruption?”

            Wow, Corey, an entire continent buried under ash from a single, large volcanic eruption! That would take out ALL energy sources on that continent.

          • Corey Barcus

            “Wow, Corey, an entire continent buried under ash from a single, large volcanic eruption!”

            Super volcanoes like Toba and Yellowstone have spewed out hundreds, if not thousands, of cubic miles of ash, and some power systems are far more vulnerable than others. A very small eruption (only a couple cubic miles) from Mount St. Helens in the 80s covered eastern Washington in ash, and would have disabled any solar arrays located there. This is not merely hypothetical.

            You are heavily politicizing this discussion with your labeling of scientific opinion as being ‘pro-radioactive’. Not in the least surprising as you have not even remotely considered the scale of the challenge civilization faces this century. I suppose you completely ignored my links as well. Too bad really. We are going to need the general populace to show a lot more respect for scientific thought if we are to have any hope.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You’re CLAIMING, then, that no other sources of energy would be taken out by an entire continent buried under ash from a single, large volcanic eruption?

            “A very small eruption (only a couple cubic miles) from Mount St. Helens in the 80s covered eastern Washington in ash, and would have disabled any solar arrays located there. This is not merely hypothetical.”

            Actually, Corey, it is merely assumption. As you admit, it’s never happened.

            Further proving that you know nothing about current solar power and storage cells technology, you keep referring only to “solar arrays”.

            Speaking of assumptions and politicizing discussions, you repeat your lie that I “have not even remotely considered the scale of the challenge civilization faces this century.”

          • Corey Barcus

            “You’re CLAIMING, then, that no other sources of energy would be taken out by an entire continent buried under ash from a single, large volcanic eruption?”

            No I did not. I specifically said that solar generation would be lost, and that is quite enough if it represents a third or half of a region’s power.

            “Actually, Corey, it is merely assumption. As you admit, it’s never happened.”

            Of course this has not happened on any scale yet, but the eruptions are inevitable and it is not difficult to imagine the problem created by a few inches, or even feet, burying a region’s solar panels, even with extensive storage.

            ‘Speaking of assumptions and politicizing discussions, you repeat your lie that I “have not even remotely considered the scale of the challenge civilization faces this century.”‘

            How is this a lie? That you do not grasp how difficult the decarbonization challenge is, is quite evident from your attitude and your frequent politicization of the discussion. The reason that the Obama administration has had the policy of ‘all of the above’ is because we do not yet have a solution. Did you read that science article that we need at least a 10x improvement in the deployment of green technology? And that is just for 2 degrees C, which will surely still cause us lots of problems.

            Consider that over 7 billion people today use on the order of around 14 terawatts of power at around 2 kW per capita. In France, per capita power is around 5 kW, and in the US it is closer to 10. If we are to account for population growth and raise the global population out of poverty, we will need to raise global power production by at least 2 to 3 times.

            What you have been suggesting is total hubris.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, you CLAIM that we must decarbonize the entire atmosphere of Earth right now.

            You also CLAIM that no other sources of energy would be taken out by an entire continent buried under ash from a single, large volcanic eruption. Only solar power would be affected by being buried under a continent full of volcanic ash. There’s your additional CLAIM that volcanic eruptions large enough to bury entire continents are “inevitable”. Wow.

            “The reason that the Obama administration has had the policy of ‘all of the above’ is because we do not yet have a solution.”

            Corey, “all of the above” is the solution.

            Immediate decarbonization of Earth’s entire atmosphere is sheer hubris.

          • Corey Barcus

            “So, you CLAIM that we must decarbonize the entire atmosphere of Earth right now.”

            As many others have pointed out, you seem to have major problems with comprehension. CO2 is absolutely necessary for our survival, the problem is that we are rapidly increasing its atmospheric concentration. Lowering CO2 to below 350 ppm may be possible with advanced nuclear technology, and it is certainly desirable for managing risk.

            “There’s your additional CLAIM that volcanic eruptions large enough to bury entire continents are “inevitable”. ”

            Volcanic eruptions of course happen all of the time, and the larger they are, the rarer they are. But large eruptions are an inevitability as the geologic record makes abundantly clear. The last major eruption from the Yellowstone caldera was less than 1 million years ago, and it is due to erupt again. Whether that is this century or another million years is anyone’s guess, but it is inevitable.

            Unless we intervene, asteroid impacts are also inevitable, do you wish to challenge that as well?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, Corey, you pro-radioactives have huge problems with comprehension.

            Then, there’s your constant obsession with lethally dangerous radioactive materials, and the constant efforts to get me to believe that dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            And decarbonizing the entire atmosphere of Earth. With “advanced” radioactive technology, no less. Heaven forbid that we just stop dumping tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

            As for your claim that one eruption of a single volcano can bury an entire continent–taking out only solar power, nothing else–is an “inevitability”. Did even the Yellowstone caldera bury the entire continent with only one eruption?

            For your fear of asteroids, feed it by watching “Meteor” and its rip-off, “Armageddon”.

          • Corey Barcus

            “Decarbonization” refers to industry, not the atmosphere.

            http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/US-Deep-Decarbonization-Report.pdf

            Current CO2 concentration is around 400 ppm. This presents us with many risks, which may be mitigated via energy-intensive active capture. What does 400 ppm look like?

            “Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/

            How difficult will it be to limit warming below 2 C?

            http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567863/climate-change-ambitious-cuts

            Tenfold jump in green tech needed just to meet emission targets:

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170103152452.htm

            How serious can a caldera eruption be? It can blanket the entire continent with ash, but even a far smaller eruption could be devastating for PV energy production:

            https://www.sciencenews.org/article/supervolcano-blast-would-blanket-us-ash

            Here is a talk about the risk of an asteroid impact and a plan to survey potential impactors:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efz8c3ijD_A

          • Michael Mann

            Corey you are wasting your time with hewhodoesnotbelieveiscience

          • Corey Barcus

            I believe you are right.

          • Michael Mann

            If you could disprove any of my posts you would have done so, since you did not, you are indirectly admitting that I was correct, thank you!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Mike, you still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Just like a 2 year old repeating.. Why? Why? It’s a pretty childish refrain, I get it, you don’t believe anything but your anti-nuclear, anti-science, talking points. I have proven everything I have posted, it’s up to you to dispute it, obviously you cannot, so instead you post buzz words in capitol letters in hopes that people will infer that you know something.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You have PROVEN nothing, Mike. Except that you hate the word “Why”. Why is that?

            Also, for whatever non-reason, you hate words in ALL-CAPS. Why is that?

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters.”

          • Michael Mann

            It’s not the word “Why” that I hate it’s the fact that it can be used as a tactic to waste someone’s time, with no thought process, don’t even need to read the reply, just paste the same question to every reply, the kind hearted knowledgeable person does the research and gives the proof only to have that person paste the same question over and over without any thought process. It wastes everyone’s time.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Mike, you do hate the word “Why”. To you, being asked questions is a waste of time. To you–a person who refuses to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS–I can see how you would regard questions about your mere CLAIMS as being wastes of time.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            So, let’s go down your list of CLAIMS: You claim I am not really me, if I am not me please tell me who I am and why you think I am not who I say I am. You CLAIM people have died from once used commercial nuclear fuel, show me PROOF You CLAIM once used nuclear fuel is liquid, I said it was solid ceramic in zirconium alloy tubes. You CLAIM I have no experience this is related to your CLAIM I am not who I say I am.. agaim show me PROOF that I am not Michael Mann ET1 (SS) former reactor operator on the US Navy, .currently an I&C technician at the R. E. Ginna nuclear power plant.. Judging from your comments YOU don’t even know what SCIENCE is and do your best to deny it.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Arrogant as well, Mike.

            Because I know that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is NOT safe and harmless, you CLAIM that I “don’t even know what SCIENCE is”.

            As for “your” name, you keep giving me no reason to believe anything you say.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            I am 5 years older than the climatologist who happens to also be named Michael Mann, so it’s very difficult to believe I ripped off his name. Are you trying to imply that I used some sort of time travel machine to go back to the time of my birth and told my parents to name me Michael?…Do you really expect anyone to believe that?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, if I believed your CLAIM, I would also find it difficult to believe that you ripped off the name of a famous climatologist.

            When it comes to ripping off a person’s name to use it as your username, no time machine is needed.

            You’re still unable to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Why do you think anyone cares what you believe? You obviously don’t believe in science, it’s interesting that you chose such an ironic nickname, like a 7ft 350lb man whose nickname is “Tiny” I get it now, you are funny!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, wow, Mike. Your Freddie-Kruger is even worse than I thought.

            Because I disagree with your warped notions of science–such as lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless–you ASSUME that I don’t believe in science.

            You’ve also forgotten what happens when you assume.

            You still cannot PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Your comments PROVE that either you don’t believe in science or you are intentionally posting comments you don’t believe to be true.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, wow, the guy who can’t PROVE any of his mere CLAIMS now CLAIMS that I either don’t believe in science and/or I intentionally make comments that I don’t believe to be true.

            Are you now the Authority on What Is and Is Not Science?

            Are you now the Authority on what I do and do not believe?

            And you base your lies on my not accepting your ridiculous CLAIMS that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are completely safe and harmless?

            You’re still unable to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            As I pointed out, science is a method of discovering the world around you and how it works, not a belief system. You really are embarrassing yourself.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            With the religious devotion you pro-radioactives express for lethally dangerous radioactive materials, you should be reminding yourselves that science is not religion.

            Oh, by the way, you still cannot PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            This is classic Dunning-Kruger. In spite of the fact that it’s very easy to establish that Michael Mann is indeed a trained nuclear technician in real life, you are unable to recognise that there may just be a gulf in competence between the two of you on issues relating to nuclear energy in his favour.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, Sam, your case of Dunning-Kruger is quite severe. You actually think that what has not been proven is, nonetheless, “very easy to establish”.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Can you list what you think my claims are, supported by quotes from my comments?

            Thanks in advance.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Your Dunning-Kruger is so severe that you can’t remember even what YOU have written? You poor, poor fellow.

            If you’ve also forgotten how to read your own stuff, just click your name.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, that’s not how rational people discuss things. If you make an accusation, you need to be able to back it up.

            You can’t.

            Still, it’s fun to see a crazy man shout lots on the Internet.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “No, that’s not how rational people discuss things.”

            What do you know about rational people, Sam? You continually make CLAIMS which you never PROVE. What you do, instead, is to make CLAIMS which are supposedly insults. That’s all you ever do.

            It is truly disgusting to watch a pro-radioactive lie constantly. Speaking of which, you still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            What do you know about rational people, Sam?

            At last, there is a chink of light. You’re interested in how we operate.

            Well, the first thing to do is make sure that you look at the best quality evidence. This is why I keep stressing the importance of consensus-summarising and high level expert institutions such as the IPCC and and WHO, and why your denigration of their work in areas where you are politically biased is a problem.

            It’s also why I would like you to provide evidence for what you think my claims are. You’ve repeated over and over again that I haven’t provided evidence for my claims, but given that as far as I can see, everything substantive I have said on the topic has been accompanied by sources, it’s not clear what you’re talking about.

            When a rational, evidence-based person is asked for evidence for, and clarification of, what they say, they can provide it. You’re failing that test rather majorly right now.

            Also, rational people stay calm. You shout a lot, which suggests an emotional incontinence that needs addressing.

            Hope this helps.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “‘What do you know about rational people, Sam?’

            “At last, there is a chink of light. You’re interested in how we operate.”

            Well, Sam, I see that you’re still inflating your hat size. As for how you pro-radioactives operate, you’ve already made that abundantly clear: Deny that sources of radioactivity are dangerous. Proclaim that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are actually safe and harmless.

            Oooooh, and under all else, ignore all that is written in “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Kindly post my comment where I said radioactive materials can never harm people.

            Thanks.

            Either that or admit you’re just making things up because you’re fundamentally weird.

          • Michael Mann

            Hewhoisasciencedenier seems to have a script he keeps repeating without thought…”You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” same reply no matter the comment. he is obviously not capable of independent thought as anyone who is can plainly see!

          • Sam Gilman

            Yes – the “I will shout the same thing over and over again” tactic. I think he needs to shout to drown out the roar of his own cognitive dissonance.

            I do find science denial fascinating.

          • Sparafucile

            You still cannot seem to tell science from propaganda, when it conflicts with (or merely doesn’t advance) your other agendas.

          • Sam Gilman

            Ooh look it’s my stalker!

            For everyone else, this is Sparafucile, who follows me around on the Internet.

            He’s a bit weird.

          • Sparafucile

            Ease off the meds. They’re giving you a false sense of self-worth.

          • Michael Mann

            You still fail to understand that anyone reading your comment can just click on my name and see all of my comments, when they do they can see that you are lying about what I have said. I have only posted the truth, I made no comment about liquid waste. I did not say it was completely safe, I just said it was safer than other things, based on the fact that very few people (I haven’t heard of anyone) have ever been injured from used commercial nuclear fuel in over 50 years of storage. That makes your hysterical hype inappropriate, if not pure fiction. I guess over 35 years of hands on experience as a qualified radiation worker, verifiable with my NRC form 4 doesn’t count in your world?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, you can’t answer any of my questions, yet you still think that you are an Authority on lethally dangerous radioactive materials, and how safe and harmless they are.

            Yes, I’m still aware that anyone can click on “your” name. So what? You still CLAIM that you have 35 years of experience with lethally dangerous radioactive materials, that you’re a qualified radiation worker, which can be verified by a document which you never show.

            Oh, yeah, I’m quite impressed by invisible NRC form 4s.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            What question did I not answer, be specific.
            How about YOU proving anything that I said was false instead?…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            ALL of my questions to you. Including . . .
            If you truly abhor lying, Mike, why do you keep doing it?

            And ripping off the name of a famous climatologist makes his your name? Yeah,right!

            Hmmmmm, “you make a hypothesis, then gather data to prove or disprove your
            hypothesis and come to a logical conclusion based on the data.” Really?

            What is the basis for your “hypothesis” that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is safer than clean water?

            What “data” have you collected to “prove” that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is completely safe?

            Is your very lame CLAIM that nobody has ever drowned in radioactive waste all ya got?

            Why do you always CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive waste is liquid? Because it’s very difficult to drown in solid radioactive waste?

            Yes, I’m still aware that anyone can click on “your” name. So what? You still CLAIM that you have 35 years of experience with lethally
            dangerous radioactive materials, that you’re a qualified radiation worker, which can be verified by a document which you never show.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Yes, when they look at my posts, they will see that I never said the things you attribute to me.. that PROVES that you are not to be trusted.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            That you constantly try to deny saying what you have said, PROVES that you are completely untrustworthy.

            You still can’t PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            I’m not denying anything I said, I’m denying what YOU said… Comrade is English your second language? I instruct people who have any doubt as to which of us is truthful to go back and read my actual posts, I think that PROVES you are not only untrustworthy, but also not very smart.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            As is always no surprise, Mike, you still refuse to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS.

            “I instruct people who have any doubt as to which of us is truthful to go back and read my actual posts”.

            So, the entries on your Profile page are not copies of your ACTUAL entries. A shocking revelation, Mike.

            You still refuse to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.
            Never a surprise.

          • Michael Mann

            Are you an idiot? Of course the entries on my profile page are linked to the actual original posts, where did you think they came from? Don’t you even understand how DISQUS even works? Just because you are afraid to allow people to see your posts doesn’t mean people can’t use my history to find the truth… You think everyone is as inept or lazy as you are? You should give people more credit.

          • Sam Gilman

            That is the weirdest damn claim I’ve seen online in ages. And I deal with a lot of cranks.

            Does he think that web pages are physical documents? Does he think that every time you load a webpage it gets printed out somewhere?

            He was denying a few days ago that a PDF of a book was not the same as a physical copy of a book in terms of content. I just thought he was trying to wriggle out of a corner, but it looks like he genuinely doesn’t understand the digital age.

            Does he go to cinemas and complain that he hasn’t been shown a movie if it’s projected digitally rather than from celluloid? Does he shout at the TV because the people on it aren’t real?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow! All of those words used to say nothing.

            I give pro-radioactives no credit at all. You constantly lie about how safe and harmless dangerously radioactive materials are.

            Do I think that everyone is inept or lazy?
            No, only pro-radioactives.

            And how could I possibly be afraid to allow people to read my entries? They’re all right here in the Comments Section. If you have trouble reading words, just follow the jack-o-lanterns. Odds are that an entry with a jack-o-lantern is one of my entries.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL! Ironic, just like your name, you complain about that which you do.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I’ve read my entry again and I disagree with you, Mike: In no place do I call myself a pro-radioactive.

          • Sam Gilman

            So, the entries on your Profile page are not copies of your ACTUAL entries. A shocking revelation, Mike.

            Woah. Grandad, how long have you been allowed to play on the Internet?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Call 911! Something terrible has happened to Mike! He now looks and sounds like that obnoxious Sam Gilman! Oh, Mike, we hardly knew ye!!

          • Mercky Waters

            @Michael Mann Your patience and willingness to engage is commendable. Thank you for the considerable effort you devote to public outreach.
            @HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers:disqus Science is the singular tool we have to separate truth from neuroticism. It does not exist to provide a cudgel for any idea you wish to belabor. If you have an honest interest in radiation or energy then there are many expert bodies–such as UNSCEAR–which provide accurate information about how the world actually works. Truth is beauty.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            And radioactivity is still deadly, Mercky.

            I do have an HONEST interest in energy, which is why I support such sources as current solar power, wind power and storage cell technology.

            “Science is the singular tool we have to separate truth from neuroticism. It does not exist to provide a cudgel for any idea you wish to belabor.”
            I agree. Tell your fellow pro-radioactives to stop trying to beat me into accepting your way of “thinking”.

          • Michael Mann

            You’re quite welcome, I feel it’s my duty not to stand Idly by while this false and possibly injurious information is spread.

          • Michael Mann

            LOL, You seem to have a serious problem understanding simple English, I never said anything about drowning in nuclear waste, no understanding and following proper handling techniques is what makes once used fuel (what you call waste) safe.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You can’t even say what is lethally dangerous radioactive waste. Instead, you use a denial phrase–“once used fuel”–which, of course, even omits the word “nuclear”. Never a surprise, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            You are correct, I use correct terminology, not your infantile labels, it is once used nuclear fuel and it still contains over 90% of it’s potential energy, and properly handled, it has not lethal. Why would I use your made up propaganda terminology? You are entertaining! Thank you again for demonstrating how your anti-nuclear propaganda attempts to create fear, uncertainty and doubt through emotional buzzwords and outright lies.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, Mike, your lame attempts at insults do not help your case.

            Like it or not, “once used nuclear fuel” is radioactive waste, and radioactive waste is lethally dangerous.

            You and your kind are both disgusting and entertaining. The mental and semantic gymnastics in which you engage–trying desperately to paint lethally dangerous radioactive materials as being completely safe and harmless–are blatant. Your lies are utterly repulsive. And your double-think, wow!

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Show me the numbers or the names… For an anonymous poster with no accountability, no knowledge and no facts, you seem to post a lot. Why should anyone listen to you?

        • Michael Mann

          It’s interesting to see you use the exact same techniques as climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO people in your anti-nuclear posts… it seems like you may need to change your avatar name.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, by asking you to PROVE your CLAIMS against safe, clean, reliable and renewable sources of energy–such as solar power–you CLAIM that I’m using a technique.

            As I’ve said, you give me no reason to believe any of your CLAIMS.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            Hewhoisdisgustedbyhimself Why are you so scared of learning the truth? Study, learn the science use approved text from any college, use the Health Physics Society, use the NRC, the scientific community is easy to find and educate yourself, pretty much anything but the conspiracy websites where you seem to be getting your information from. They are not my CLAIMS, it is science, specifically health physics, nuclear engineering, nuclear physics, etc. Why is the cancer rate in high dose areas like Denver not higher than the low dose areas around New Orleans? I stand up for science, I have no idea what you stand for…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Why are you so afraid to answer questions, Mike? CLAIMING to be an expert, answering questions should be no problem for you.

            Yet, you still haven’t given an honest response to ladonichais. You still haven’t PROVEN your CLAIMS that solar power is dangerous, and radioactive steam generators are safe. And you tried to insult me by calling me a global warming science denier.

            Being an x-spurt, you do attempt to sound scientific, but you favor only science that meets with your personal approval. Everything else is part of a dreaded conspiracy.

            As for your second question, PROVE your CLAIMS regarding Denver and New Orleans.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Ahmed Shaker
          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, wow, yet another pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials graph with no source and no context. That is so underwhelming!

            Solar power is safe, clean, reliable and renewable. Like it or not.

          • Ahmed Shaker

            http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source

            Multiple sources.

            You can chose not to believe the truth, but it makes you the stupid one.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Forbes is your multiple sources for your CLAIM that solar power is 10 times more dangerous than lethally dangerous radioactive materials. My stars and garters!

            I will continue to go by science, which says that solar power and wind power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, and cost-effective.

          • Ahmed Shaker

            It seems you lack reading comprehension skills, as that is clearly not Forbes.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2013/03/25/oil-gas-isnt-just-one-of-the-richest-industries-its-also-one-of-the-safest/#2239c13f592b
            “Oil & Gas Isn’t Just One Of The Richest Industries, It’s Also One Of The Safest”
            by Robert Bradley Jr. – Mar 25, 2013 @ 08:00 AM

            Sure looks like Forbes to me.

            http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source
            “What’s the Deadliest Power Source?”
            by Brian Merchant – March 29, 2013 // 02:00 PM EST

            “This week, an influential oil and gas advocate, Robert Bradley, Jr., claimed that wind power is too dangerous. Comparatively, he argued, the oil and gas industry was ‘one of the safest’ out there. This is a pretty ludicrous claim. . .

            “Bradley claimed that 133 people had been killed in the wind power industry since the 70s, ‘a high figure considering the relatively small size of the wind sector.’ But Bradley counted every single person who ever died while being even tangentially related to the industry—Media Matters [ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/27/forbes-reaches-to-find-wind-power-fatalities/193299 ] points out that he counted suicides, deaths during wind power protests, even vagrants who died on the premises of wind farms. The more widely-accepted statistic is 12 fatalities in total. Yes, twelve. Over four decades.

            “That is only one more than the number of people that were killed by the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig alone. And eight of those ‘wind deaths’ occurred in China, where workplace regulations are lax.
            Meanwhile, there are no adverse effects to operating wind farms, beyond the extremely rare event that a turbine malfunctions to the point that its blades fall back to the earth. So we can confidently rule out wind power as a dangerous energy source. There are no ‘wind spills’ as one viral meme humorously
            pointed out, and no polluting emissions. . .

            “There are very few deaths in the utility-scale solar industry, but there are some in the rooftop solar panel installation industry. There have been at least three deaths of rooftop solar installers in California
            since 2009, where the industry is booming. Most construction and roofing deaths result from falls, and the same is true of the solar
            installation industry. . .

            “Once the panels are up and running, there are no emissions or harmful side-effects beyond occasional maintenance.”

            I will continue to go by science, which says that solar power and wind power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, and
            cost-effective sources of energy.

          • Ahmed Shaker

            Do you even understand what deaths/TWh means? Or are you going to give me more of this drivel?

            Deaths over total TWh generated.

            Even with twelve fatalities, the fact that wind does not generate much energy means that the deaths/TWh is higher than nuclear, same for solar.

            Or is this too difficult to understand?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, you now CLAIM that the article YOU mentioned [ http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/whats-the-deadliest-power-source ], which states that wind power and solar power are not dangerous, is mere drivel. Typical.

            Also no surprise at all is your CLAIM that wind power and solar power do not generate much energy.

            I will continue to go by science, which says that solar power and wind power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, and cost-effective sources of energy.

          • Ahmed Shaker

            That wasn’t the drivel I was referring too, this recurring statement is.

            I will continue to go by science, which says that solar power and wind power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, and
            cost-effective sources of energy.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Ah, you’re a science denier. Never a surprise.

            No matter how much you hate science, Ahmed, solar power and wind power remain safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient and cost-effective.

          • Ahmed Shaker

            And there it is again. No use trying to show you the truth.

          • Michael Mann

            We have to remember when replying to people like science denier that we are not going to change his mind, just prevent him from misguiding the third party readers who may never actually comment, but do follow the thread.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No matter how much you hate science, Ahmed, solar power and wind power
            remain safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient and cost-effective.

          • Sam Gilman

            Here are a couple of major studies summarised by David MacKay in his well-received book Without the Hot Air on the safety of different energy sources:

            https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml

            Wind and solar can’t decarbonise a system alone. The NREL 2014 renewable futures study shows this for the renewable-rich US system.

          • Sam Gilman

            Solar is relatively pretty safe, pretty clean (although it can lock in natural gas to a system for balancing and the mining for materials isn’t pretty), and certainly renewable, all of which is commendable.

            But it certainly isn’t reliable. It’s intermittent. That’s the huge challenge for solar, and the reason why mature markets are facing a serious challenge expanding beyond the low single digit percentages for supply of electricity. German solar has basically stalled at around 5% or so of electricity despite massive investment. California should do better as it has better insolation, and will likely show the upper limits of what is possible given the right climate. But that’s still going to be limited. In 2014 it was 5% of in-state supply, and 3.3% of demand. So there should be some room for growth.

            If you’re serious about climate change, rather than, as is sadly the case for so many commenters, merely keen to exploit the idea of climate change as good for the solar business (which is in reality still a minor low carbon source compared to nuclear, hydro and wind, but the recipient of ridiculous amounts of free advertising) or pseudo-green ideologies, it’s really worth taking your username seriously and examining a role for nuclear in addition to solar, wind etc. You might want to start with the work of the IPCC on climate change mitigation, and James Hansen (yes, the same one who brought climate change to the attention of congress; I hope you can trust him) on the role of nuclear in preventing climate change.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Your entry, Sam, is a standard example of pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda.

            You advocate the use of lethally dangerous radioactive materials with your nonsense against solar power; “it certainly isn’t reliable. It’s intermittent. That’s the huge
            challenge for solar, and the reason why mature markets are facing a
            serious challenge expanding beyond the low single digit percentages for
            supply of electricity. German solar has basically stalled at around 5%
            or so of electricity despite massive investment. California should do
            better as it has better insolation, and will likely show the upper
            limits of what is possible given the right climate. But that’s still
            going to be limited. In 2014 it was 5% of in-state supply, and 3.3% of
            demand. So there should be some room for growth.”

            2014 is a long time ago, technologically speaking. Solar power–in, and outside, the United States (including Germany)–has grown quite a bit. It is fully reliable, not intermittent. It provides more energy over larger areas for more people. There has been plenty of growth, and it keeps growing. Like it or not, its use is not limited by climate type.

            This is why, world wide, solar power gets a lot of free advertising from people who know that it works.

            I am very serious about anthropogenic global warming, and I am against pseudo-green ideologies, especially advocating the use of lethally dangerous radioactive materials.

            Solar power and wind power are safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective sources of energy. And they are available for use NOW.

          • Sam Gilman

            You say:

            “I am very serious about anthropogenic global warming”

            No, you’re not. If you were serious, you wouldn’t be bulls***ting made up stuff. You know you’re making stuff up, but I’m going to go through the main points of what you’re making up so as you can get better at this topic.

            One, you mistakenly claim that solar power isn’t intermittent. It’s plain that you don’t actually know what intermittent means, but that doesn’t stop you trying to deny solar power is intermittent, even though it’s an entirely non-controversial fact. HWIDBSD, sweetheart, intermittency is a technical attribution. Solar and wind are both intermittent power sources because it’s not sunny all the time and it’s not windy all the time. We cannot turn the sun and wind on with a switch when we decide to. Conversely, geothermal, gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, and hydro (ignoring water shortages) are known as dispatchable sources, because they go on when we decide they go on, and they can be on 24/7. That’s just a fact of energy systems, and denying it only shows you’re trying to bluff your way inexpertly.

            Two you clean invent a claim that German solar has expanded substantially since 2014. I actually didn’t give you German figures for 2014, but here’s some fresh data for 2016, where you can see that solar output is actually down on 2015.

            http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/01/03/is-germanys-renewable-power-boom-stalling/

            If you’re having to make things up to defend your position, then there is something wrong with your position. There are reasons why German solar is stalling, some of which are explained by the third point of your bluff:

            Three, you claim that solar isn’t limited by climate. This is, frankly, a surreal claim. Solar panels get their energy from the sun. Some climates have a lot more sun than others. Plainly, climate has an impact on how much solar power one can generate. But it gets worse. If you don’t get much sun, and you try to compensate by building lots of panels, you just get very sharp peaks when the sun does come out. That is the result of having what is called a low “capacity factor”, that is, a panel that on average produces at a low percentage of its full capacity due to inadequate sun. The kicker is this: all electricity is generated as it is used, whether it’s made from gas, solar, nuclear, wood, or in storage, such as gravitational potential energy in pumped storage or the chemical potential energy of a battery. Storing large amounts of such peaky electricity for later use by converting it to a different form of energy to smooth things out is a mammoth task currently beyond us technically, and economically makes absolutely zero sense given how electricity markets work.

            Four, despite claiming to care about climate change, you have chosen to dismiss the work of the IPCC, and of the climate scientist James Hansen (the father of modern climate science) on what to do about it, which address both the effectiveness of nuclear as a low carbon energy and its relatively low risk compared to other energy sources. If you cared about global warming, you’d listen to climate scientists. If you cared about science, you wouldn’t dismiss the work of the European ExternE project into the relative risks of different energy sources. You wouldn’t dismiss the work of the Paul Scherrer Institute, one of the leading bodies in energy research. If you don’t know where you dismissed ExternE and the PSI, it would be because you’d didn’t check the links I gave you as scientific evidence. Or didn’t understand them. Whichever.

            So, it looks like you’re just pretending to care about global warming, and only pretending to be disgusted by science deniers.

            If you’d like to start caring, I’m happy to help. But it comes with one condition: you need to start being disgusted by science deniers for real.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Sam, I am very disgusted by you science deniers. Condition met.

            “If you were serious, you wouldn’t be bulls***ting made up stuff. You know you’re making stuff up, but I’m going to go through the main points of what you’re making up so as you can get better at this topic.”

            You know nothing about current wind power and solar power technology, so you can only parrot what others of your kind merely CLAIM.

            “One”: You’ve actually never heard of storage cells, dear? Nor about the efficiency of current solar panels, sweetheart?

            http://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/06/NYC-virtual-solar-power-plant.png

            https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/14/nyc-gets-monster-sized-virtual-solar-power-plant/
            “Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”
            by Tina Casey – June 14th, 2016

            “Two”: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/01/03/is-germanys-renewable-power-boom-stalling/
            “Is Germany’s renewable power boom stalling?”

            That is a question, Sam, not a statement.

            “I actually didn’t give you German figures for 2014, but here’s some fresh data for 2016, where you can see that solar output is actually down on 2015.”

            Hmmmmmmm, data from 2015 is still fresh in 2017?

            Why are you concentrating on Germany? Are they the only country on Earth that uses solar power?

            “Three”: You know even less about solar power technology than the ignorance you display in “One”.

            “Four”: And here we see you; as is sadly the case for commenters like yourself, you merely attempt to exploit the facts of anthropogenic global warming as if they’re good for the lethally dangerous radioactive materials business.

            I care very much about the realities of anthropogenic global warming, which is why I’m not impressed by those who attempt to use the names of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ http://ipcc.ch/ ] and James Hansen to shill radioactive garbage.

          • Sam Gilman

            You’re an odd fish. You make a false claim, and then pretend you made a different claim, and demand figures for 2017 solar in Germany when it’s January 10th. The figures for 2017 aren’t out yet.

            You’re still bluffing. Efficiency of solar panels has very little to do with capacity factor. Capacity factor is basically a function of insolation and positioning of the panel.

            Current batteries are nowhere near appropriate for grid scale storage. Again, you’re bluffing. They can shift demand a bit. Nice picture though.

            This is why I can say you don’t care about climate change. You pretend you do for a lifestyle image thing, or to sound hip with your friends. You don’t pause and think “hold on, I’d better get my facts right because climate change is serious”.

            You’re a fraud.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You’re a fraudulent, stinky fish, Sam. You make a CLAIM [which you never PROVE, of course], then you make another CLAIM, and another, and another, and another. You know nothing about current solar power nor wind power technology, so you spew forth the same pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda, which is always anti-clean-safe-reliable-renewable sources of energy.

            You’re still merely attempting to exploit the facts of anthropogenic global warming as if they’re good for the lethally dangerous radioactive materials business.

            “You make a false claim, and then pretend you made a different claim, and demand figures for 2017 solar in Germany when it’s January 10th. The figures for 2017 aren’t out yet.”

            Wrong, yet again, Sam. Based on what YOU said about Germany–always Germany, as if Germany is the only country on Earth that uses solar power–I made the comment, “Hmmmmmmm, data from 2015 is still fresh in 2017?” And they aren’t; the supposed 2015 data was already foul smelling in 2016.

            It’ll be interesting to see what CLAIM you make when the supposed Germany 2017 data is presented.

          • Sam Gilman

            You really need to stop being so angry at everyone else. People here are trying to help you understand what the science is, and all you do is abuse them.

            Now, you’re currently asking me to “prove” in big shouty letters that the amount of electricity generated by a solar panel varies with how much the sun shines on it.

            Do I need to prove in big shouty letters that the Earth spins and tilts and elliptically orbits the sun, leading to day and night, and seasons? Is this the level of science you need to work at?

            Usually cranks think they are Galileo. You’re the first one I’ve met who wants to put him back on trial.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Why should I not be angry at fools who can’t answer questions, nor PROVE any of their CLAIMS [especially their mere CLAIMS that solar power and wind power are deadly dangerous], and make weak attempts at lame insults?

            “Now, you’re currently asking me to ‘prove’ in big shouty letters that the amount of electricity generated by a solar panel varies with how much the sun shines on it.”
            Wrong, yet again, Sam.

            I said, “You know nothing about current solar power nor wind power technology, so you spew forth the same pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials propaganda, which is always anti-clean-safe-reliable-renewable sources of energy.

            “You’re still merely attempting to exploit the facts of anthropogenic global warming as if they’re good for the lethally dangerous radioactive materials business.”

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

            It’s when someone cannot judge that they are bad at something because the ability to judge whether or not you are bad at something is essentially the same skill as the one you’re trying to judge.

            Here, you made a basic error: you confused solar panel efficiency (how well it translates solar energy into electricity) with solar panel capacity factor (how much of its full capacity is used over a period of time). Normally, someone on an upward learning curve would stop, consider the error, and put it right. The problem I have here is that you don’t have the competence to recognise the error you’ve made, and what’s worse about the Dunning-Kruger effect, is that it inspires overconfidence in the incompetent. Hence your shoutiness.

            We have a further problem in that your incompetence extends to judging what is and isn’t mainstream scientific opinion. So even though I and others have given you links to material that confirms what we are trying to explain to you about these topics, you lack the cognitive set up to understand that’s what you’ve been given.

            I recommend a deep breath, and some time spent reading the links people have given you.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Freddie-Kruger says that accurate information about the safety and full reliability of current solar power technology is to be considered errors, and “corrected” to hide the facts.

            And, of course, those who continue to mention the safety and full reliability of current solar power technology are to be considered incompetent, lacking the “skills” needed to see the truth as being lies.

            Well, Sam, you can play your game of self-deception and deliberate ignorance if it makes you feel comfortable. I choose not to play your game.

            Oh, what’s the deal with the word “We”? Is it the royal We, the editorial We, or the liars’ We?

            Solar power continues to be a safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective source of energy. Like it or not.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, it’s not Freddie Kruger, it’s Dunning-Kruger and it’s a genuine piece of psychological research.

          • Michael Mann

            The Dunning-Kruger effect is a slightly more specific case of the bias known as illusory superiority, where people tend to overestimate their good points in comparison to others around them, while concurrently underestimating their negative points. The effect has been shown by experiment in several ways, but in this case Dunning and Kruger tested students on a series of criteria such as humour, grammar, and logic and compared the actual test results with each student’s own estimation of their performance.
            Those who scored well on these tests were shown, consistently, to underestimate their performance. This is not terribly surprising and can be explained as a form of psychological projection: those who found the tasks easy (and thus scored highly) mistakenly thought that they would also be easy for others. This is similar to the aforementioned “impostor syndrome” — found notably in graduate students and high-achieving women — whereby high achievers fail to recognise their talents as they think that others must be equally good.
            More interestingly, and the subject of what became known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who scored lowest on the test were found to have “grossly overestimated” their scores. And what about the underachievers who overestimated their performance? In the words of Dunning and Kruger:
            This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
            Those who think they know never learn.
            —from the Tao Te Ching

          • Sam Gilman

            Dunning and Kruger were inspired to research this by the story of a bank robber who covered his face in lemon juice to disguise himself, on the grounds that because lemon juice makes writing invisible, it should make faces invisible to security cameras.

            They were fascinated by how someone who by all accounts wasn’t delusional, just very mistaken, could not realise how daft an idea this was.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Dunning-Kruger is “a genuine piece of psychological research.”

            By your own admission, Dunning-Kruger has nothing whatsoever to do with current solar power technology.

            Like it or not, pro-radioactive, solar power continues to be a safe, clean, reliable, renewable, efficient, cost-effective source of energy.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            While the Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing specifically to do with solar power, it has absolutely everything to do with why you continue to believe no one here has provided you with evidence against your anti-science views or against your weird views on solar power.

            To repeat the point: Dunning and Kruger discovered that incompetent people are unable to realise they are incompetent because their incompetence itself disables them from judging their incompetence,m.

            When you insist that solar power is reliable, i.e. can be on all the time, neglecting day and night, there is not much anyone can do to disabuse you. You’re simply too incompetent to realise that the existence of nighttime has an impact on solar energy. You can’t see that nighttime means solar panels don’t produce.

            With regard to climate change, you’re simply too incompetent to recognise the IPCC as representing mainstream science. Despite all the battles fought by scientists for the importance of peer reviewed science, you’re not able to see its value.

            With regard to the risks of nuclear power, you are simply too incompetent to recognise the World Health Organisation as an authority on health issues.

            Your user name could have been thought up by Donald Trump. I assume you’re delighted at the head of Exxon being in charge of America’s international climate commitments.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yeah, Sam, I can see how your Dunning-Kruger makes it impossible for you to see your incompetence.

            For example, you know nothing about current solar power technology nor current storage cell technology, but you get upset when your ignorance is pointed out to you.

            In regard to anthropogenic global warming, your incompetence prevents you from seeing that I acknowledge and accept climate science and the realities of anthropogenic global warming.

            In regard to lethally dangerous radioactive materials, your incompetence prevents you from seeing that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are neither safe nor harmless.

            No, The Man With the Hideous Orange Hair would not have been able to come up with my username, because he is a global warming science denier, and proud of it.

            In regard to your assumption that I’m delighted by the Exxon oily man being in charge of America’s international climate commitments, your incompetence prevents you from knowing what happens when you assume.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            I think I know more than someone who thinks the time of day has no impact on solar energy.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Which confirms, Sam, that you know nothing about current solar power nor current storage cells technology.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            There are solar panels that produce the same regardless of whether or not the sun is shining?

            Link please.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, current solar panels, teamed with current storage cells, do provide electricity 24 hours a day.

            I’ve already provided a link, and you didn’t bother to read any of it.

            Let’s see if you’re as smart as you like to believe you are, look it up.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, the energy generating part is still intermittent. That’s the bit where you’ve been continuously wrong.

            Adding storage doesn’t make solar power itselfless intermittent. It actually shows the opposite – that storage is needed because solar power isn’t dispatchable. The storage isn’t free and adds significantly to the cost, and the problem of poor weather and of seasons in more northern zones isn’t overcome with batteries. If you try to use batteries to overcome seasonal variation and any kind of prolonged poor weather, you’d have enormous costs.

            And that’s quite apart from the fact that your link doesn’t look at industrial and large grid scale electricity.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            With your carrying on against current solar power and storage cells technology, you continue to show that you know nothing about current solar power nor storage cells technology.

            “And that’s quite apart from the fact that your link doesn’t look at industrial and large grid scale electricity.”

            https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/14/nyc-gets-monster-sized-virtual-solar-power-plant/
            “Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”
            by Tina Casey – June 14th, 2016

            And that means that you have done no research; the linked article is the only one you’ve bothered to read, much less look up.

            And, of course, you continue to yammer on against current solar power and storage cells technology. Never a surprise.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Simple question: Over the course of a sunny week in June, and an overcast week in December, will this system produce the same amount of electricity?

            A simple yes or no will do.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/14/nyc-gets-monster-sized-virtual-solar-power-plant/

            I take it, then, that you have not bothered to read:
            “Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”
            by Tina Casey – June 14th, 2016

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            Hello weirdo,

            Would you like to list those claims you think I’ve made?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, you still can’t remember what you write.

            Can you read?
            https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/14/nyc-gets-monster-sized-virtual-solar-power-plant/
            “Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”
            by Tina Casey – June 14th, 2016

          • Sam Gilman

            As in another conversation just now where you posted a different article when I asked you to explain what claims you thought I had made, I also didn’t write the article you link to here.

            It’s also by a different person to the article you just linked to in the other conversation.

            Do you think the two writers of these articles, Tina Casey and Juliana Rose Pignataro, are the same person?

          • Michael Mann

            You have not stated what claims you think he made…very odd, almost like you are a bot…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, I’ve been called a bot before, Mike, always by people like you.

            If you can read with comprehension . . .
            https://cleantechnica.com/2016/06/14/nyc-gets-monster-sized-virtual-solar-power-plant/
            “Forget Godzilla, NYC Gets Monster-Sized ‘Virtual’ Solar Power Plant”
            by Tina Casey – June 14th, 2016

          • Michael Mann

            https://nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/ I only have official data from the US government. https://nccd.cdc.gov/DCPC_INCA/

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, your official data stops at 2013. How are things in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

            You still haven’t PROVEN your CLAIMS that solar power is dangerous, and lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe.

            Nor have you given an honest response to ladonichais’ entry.

          • Michael Mann

            My data? LOL My honest response to ladonichais’ entry is that not only would I like to have one built near where I live, I DO live next to a nuclear power plant, I moved here on purpose . So it was a stupid question, meant to be rhetorical and scary, instead of nonsensical.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            In other words, Mike, you still have given no honest response to ladonichais’ entry regarding the dangers of trying to live in and around such radioactive areas as Chernobyl. Never a surprise.

          • Michael Mann

            I just did, what “honest” response do you want? Please state your question in the form of a question and be specific. I read some vague accusation that I wouldn’t want a nuclear power plant to be built in my neighborhood, I debunked his false statement, just by the fact I live next to the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA and would openly support building a new nuclear power plant in my community. What “question” do you feel I was avoiding?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, Mike, you still have given no honest response to ladonichais’ entry.

            ” . . . I live next to the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA and
            would openly support building a new nuclear power plant in my community.” Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you’ve CLAIMED before.

            ladonichais’ entry made no “vague accusation” against you, he was making an observation about the terrible results in and around Chernobyl from the meltdown. You didn’t debunk anything.

          • Michael Mann

            Because I am telling the truth, I can’t change my “CLAIM” the truth is funny that way. I can’t help it if you don’t have the capability to understand, that is on you.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, Mike, you still have given no honest response to ladonichais’ entry.

          • Michael Mann

            Chernobyl was an abomination at the time, no commercial plant would be built like that outside the Soviet Block. It was operated poorly, they had to disable several safety features to get it to fail.. it has nothing to do with todays or future reactors. Keep mentioning Chernobyl like it means no nuclear power plant can be safely built and operated is like saying no commercial aircraft should be flown, because an experimental jet crashed 30 years ago… it doesn’t make sense.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Even though you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials puppets are serious detriments to society and completely without integrity, you still think that you can successfully paint the use of lethally dangerous radioactive materials as safe and harmless.

            “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” doesn’t list only Chernobyl. Yet, the Chernobyl segment is the one you puppets keep attacking and attacking and attacking. It’s as if you pro-radioactives think that you can make Chernobyl go away, followed by the other nine.

          • Michael Mann

            You can deny science all you like, but the facts are the facts, you can find them yourself. I gave you the truth. If you don’t believe them there is nothing I can do.

          • Michael Mann

            Contact the federal government and complain that the latest figures are not recent enough for you.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            How would that do any good? Donald McRonald would merely sneer, grab another cat, and ignore science.

          • Michael Mann

            One person is NOT the US Government.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Not according to The Man With the Hideous Orange Hair and the very inflated ego.

          • Michael Mann

            Complaining about people answering a question when you failed to ask a legitimate question is science denier 101, next appeal to authority then when they tell you their background, training and education then claim they can’t be trusted. Then you try and paint everything as a conspiracy theory. No, the anti-nuclear propaganda is not as credible as government websites, professional organizations and college textbooks. The climate deniers do the same things with climatologists.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, Mike, a question is legitimate only if you DECREE it to be. Such arrogance is always interesting.

            Why is it that you science deniers hate “appeals to authority”? Are you saying that there is only ONE legitimate authority? This fits in with your CLAIM that those who disagree with you are part of a dreaded conspiracy with anti-nuclear propaganda.

            Oh, I don’t complain about you answering questions, Mike, I point out the fact that you won’t answer questions. I guess that’s part of being an x-spurt.

            It’s interesting that you attempt to insult me by calling me a global warming science denier.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            What question did you ask which was not answered?

          • Michael Mann

            You ARE a SCIENCE DENIER! You USE the same methods of other science deniers, anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer, and climate deniers you all use the same techniques. I’m just trying to get you to see the truth. The science is clear.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, the science is clear, Mike: Lethally dangerous radioactive materials are not safe. Lethally dangerous radioactive waste isn’t safe, and it’s definitely not safer than plain water. Radioactive disasters–like the 10 listed in the article–are radioactive and disasters, and not safe.

            There’s no way that you can get anyone to see the truth by constantly lying. Singing the praises of lethally dangerous radioactive materials and how great and wonderful they are. How radioactive disasters are so safe that they cause no harm; it’s not even necessary to evacuate endangered areas because people die only if someone scares them. Lethally dangerous radioactive waste is so safe–safer than plain water–that you can drink it and swim in it; the only possible danger is drowning in it. Oh, and the joys of setting up a home in a radioactive area, such as in and around Chernobyl. Why, you’ll live longer and healthier than people who don’t live in radioactive areas!

            You filthy science denier. While singing the praises of lethally dangerous radioactive materials, you also declare that safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy–especially wind power and solar power–are evil, bad, and nasty.

            Oh, and stop attempting to insult me by calling me a global warming science denier.

          • Michael Mann

            I promote safe, clean reliable power production.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            No, Mike, you don’t. Lethally dangerous radioactive materials are neither safe, clean, nor reliable.

            #StandUpForScience

    • Michael Mann

      I live next to the longest running nuclear power plant in the USA, I would love for them to build a new nuclear power plant in my town.

  • Pingback: The burning sun is out! Edition of 23 July 2015 | Conspiracy Video Media Co Home()

  • BillyRay999

    as usual most commenters (on both sides) don’t let the REAL FACTS get in the way of their opinions.

  • nab

    there’s a recurring theme here……..I know why don’t we build another in Britain……..dopey prats

  • Pingback: The Problems with Polling, part 2 - PeopleCount.org BlogPeopleCount.org Blog()

  • Lyudmila Zatsepa

    I totally agree with the statement that hazardous radioactive materials, may impose a negative impact on their residents. Moreover the result of this may cause a variety of diseases from exposure to harmful substances and even death. Heads of the enterprises should be concerned about the safety of operation of its plants. There are various ways to protect human health from radiation exposure, such as radiation monitoring equipment – http://ecotest.ua/. As I know, Its a wireless equipment for measuring radiation with ISO Quality Management System certificate. They are the newest types of ionizing radiation detectors with high-tech and ergonomic solutions. And these instruments contain no radioactive elements and are not hazardous to health.And, as for me, its very important for plants.

  • SA Kiteman

    How ridiculous: Chernobyl is hbitable NOW. Chernobyl is a small town near Pripyat after which the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station is named. Chernobyl is habitable now.

    • Brian

      Move there, you will get cancer and die. Over a million deaths from Chernobyl. Did the IAEA tell you it was 4000? Wrong. The IAEA’s charter is to promote nuclear power. They didn’t say there won’t be a million deaths, they said it won’t be provable using epidemiology. Lawyer and pr talk. They wrote the UN reports for WHO also.

      Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl
      Consequences of the Catastrophe for
      People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences
      Big paper with over a thousand references to peer reviewed data. Estimates over a million deaths

      • SA Kiteman

        Are you really that fµ£&ing stupid? Do you not know thaat a goodly number of people moved back 30 years ago and are still living healthful lives? Indeed, they are living longer than their neighbors who remained evacuated.

        Anyone who thinks Yablokov has done a good study needs to have their head examined. That travesty is just about the worst simultaneous case of cherry picking AND selection bias ever published. And no, the data was NOT peer reviewed. Horrible “science”. A publication by confidence tricksterism. The NYAS now denies its validity.

        • Aaron Oakley

          I tried to show Brian some reviews in the scientific literature that were critical of the Yablokov book. His response? Dismiss them as nuclear industry PR.

          • SA Kiteman

            Since the most damning reviews come from NYAS members which printed the tripe in the first place, is he trying to have it both ways? Was it printed by industry PR too?
            Bonkers!

        • Brian

          Anyone who trusts the Nuclear pr industry commercials is so foolish, it’s a wonder they remember to breath.

          • SA Kiteman

            Whoever trusts the Anti-NuPow shills for Big Petro-Carbon (BPC) are so foolish they make good parrots for their shill masters.
            Squawk! Brian want a cracker?

          • Dylan

            I support nuclear power, and believe it is the most effective way to create electricity. But you are pathetic, mentally troubled, low level trash for trying to misinform people about the effects of radiation. I hope you get aids on your job as a gay male prostitute dick sucker you dumb bitch

          • SA Kiteman

            Yawn.
            For those who want to know about the effects of radiation, read this:
            http://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Coping-with-Low-Dose-Radiation-in-Fukushima.pdf
            Then you can find similar documents written by scentists for the generally educated individual here:
            http://radiationeffects.org
            Then, if you want to get into the deep science, find and read the Journal here:
            http://dose-response.org

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Goodness gracious! Be sure to give that cracker to SA, who parrots the pro-nuclear garbage spewed forth by the Big Polluters.

          • SA Kiteman

            Woe, HeWhoIsDisgusting really sees the world thru an invertoscope. He shills for the big polluters (fossil fuels) and accuses people who try to educate others about the realities of radioactivity of being what he really is! Isn’t that precious!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            The quote is, “Well, isn’t that SPE-CIAL?!” If you’re going to imitate Dana Carvey, do it correctly.

            Speaking of getting it correct, SA, the Big Polluters include Big Lethally Dangerous Radioactive Materials.

            SA want another cracker?

            #StandUpForScience

        • Ashley

          I don’t know if you know this but Chernobyl happened 30 years ago so if they moved back there then, then they would have died from the radiation. Please go back to school.

          • SA Kiteman

            The facts are:
            Chernobyl happened ~30 years ago.
            The Babushkas returned ~29 years ago.
            They have been living longer, healthier lives than the equivalent demographics that remained evacuated.
            YOU need to start reading real science.
            start here:
            http://radiationeffects.org
            Then delve deeply here:
            http://dose-response.org

          • Dylan

            No one has actually moved there, kid. The Babushkas was A MOVIE, AND NOTHING MORE. You obviously do not understand how the half life of Cs-137 works, you fucking retard. The entire area of Chernobyl is, and will be uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years because of that. If you’re honestly so confident in your uneducated, moronic bullshit, then move there yourself. You will be doing the world a favor by getting cancer and dying you communist piece of shit.

          • SA Kiteman

            The movie is a documentary about the people who either refused to evacuate in the first place or moved back quite quickly. They do indeed live there quite safely.

            Wow, quite a bit of foul language from one so obviously bereft of knowledge on the sciences. The general rule of thumb is that after 10 half-lives, there in nothing much left. Thus, even if decay was the ONLY thing that happens, the land would be fine after 300 years (10×30, since Cesium137 has a 30 year half life). HOWEVER, there is this little thing called erosion. What happens is that rain falls (ever heard of rain, buddy-boy?), it dissolves some of the cesium salts/minerals, and carries the cesium away to the ocean where it is dilluted quite thin. So the general area around the accident is expected to be habitable in less than 100 years, even by their ridiculously conservative limits. But the point REALLY is that it is quite habitable now. The babuskas prove it.

            I have always offered to go to either Chernobyl or Fukushima and join any volunteer clean-up crew that will have me provide the challenger (you Dylan) pays the way. If you provide all expenses (T, R, B, PD, & E) I am SOOOO there. Since the Ukraine is not somewhere I would like to live, I am only willing to spend a few years there.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, you’ll move there, but only if someone not a fellow pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials moron pays for it.

            Wow, so that’s how afraid you pro-radioactives are of living in a dangerously radioactive area.

            How far away from the nearest ocean is Chernobyl? Along all that way, how much Cs-137 is leached into the ground and doesn’t continue on to the nearest ocean?

          • SA Kiteman

            I would LOVE to have you send me there. Provide expenses and I will go and join any volunteer clean-up crew that will have me. What I need from you is simple expenses, (T, R, B, PD, & E). I’m sure that if you provide expenses for others, I can find quite a few that will come with me. How about you put your money where your fat trap is?

            Why don’t you just up and live and work on a farm around the REE mills in Bautuo, China where they mine and refine the materials for making windmills? You pay my way, I’ll pay yours.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Confirmed. You who CLAIM that radioactive areas are safe, are afraid to pay your own way to move to those “safe” areas.

            And, of course, more CLAIMS that wind power is evil, bad and nasty. Still with NO PROOF presented to support your mere CLAIMS. Never a surprise.

            #StandUpForScience

          • Mehar Ali

            ahhh i love it, he is indeed a fucking retard….ignorant and anti-science…so dumb not to unerstand there was a fucking good reason to declare the lethaly harmful sybstance no matter how good they are sustained

          • Michael Mann

            Excellent references! Science over fear and fantasy!

        • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

          Hmmmm, fascinating.

          “Do you not know thaat a goodly number of people moved back 30 years ago and are still living healthful lives?”

          No, but if you hum a few bars, I can fake it.

          A song would make more sense than your nonsense about how great it is for a goodly number of people to live in a radioactive area for 30 years.

          “Do you not know thaat a goodly number of people moved back 30 years ago and are still living healthful lives? Indeed, they are living longer than their neighbors who remained evacuated.”

          Where is PROOF for your MERE CLAIM?

          The same question for your MERE CLAIMS against . . .
          “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
          by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus) – December 2009

          • SA Kiteman
          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Hmmmmmm, “The Babushkas of Chernobyl”.

            Oh, yeah, that movie, supposedly a documentary.

            And, as always, no PROOF for your CLAIM that people who supposedly moved back to Chernobyl are “living longer than their neighbors who remained evacuated.” Never a surprise.

            #StandUpForScience

          • SA Kiteman

            Watch a “few bars” of the documentary “Babushkas of Chernobyl”.

            RE Yablockov:
            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=611011869053299&set=pb.100004334741337.-2207520000.1457907707.&type=3&theater
            Go to the New York Acadamy of Sciences and read comments by real scientists about his work.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Ah, the “Babushkas of Chernobyl”, supposedly a documentary.

            Now, about the book by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of
            Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus), do the favorable comments made by real scientists automatically turn the real scientists into phony scientists?

            #StandUpForScience

          • Michael Mann

            I have, the comments are much better than the propaganda book.

          • Sam Gilman

            That Yablokov book makes fatality claims on an annualised basis somewhere between 400 and 950 times higher than the international Chernobyl Forum involving the WHO and UNSCEAR.

            Given that the WHO reports are taken as the best mainstream estimate, and Yablokov’s book has been massacred in published reviews by established scientists, why do you choose to believe Yablokov and not the WHO?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So far, Sam, you still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS about the book, the WHO, nor UNSCEAR.

            Why your reluctance?

          • Sam Gilman
          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I’m not going to judge the book until after I have a chance to actually read an actual copy of the book.

          • Sam Gilman

            A chance which you’ve stymied because you don’t believe digital copies of books count as copies of books.

        • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

          Are you referring to . . .
          “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
          by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus).
          Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan) – December 2009?

          Please be so kind as to PROVE your CLAIM that the people who moved back to the radioactive area of Chernobyl “are still living healthful lives . . . Indeed, they are living longer than their neighbors who remained evacuated.”

          As for your other CLAIM: The book was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. Did they not know that they were publishing an “invalid” book AT THAT TIME?

          • SA Kiteman

            Watch the documentary “Babushkas of Chernobyl” and review THEIR documentation.

            The NYAS did not “publish” the book, their printing house printed it under a program where any member could cause “a paper” from what was the Soviet sphere at the time the policy was started to be printed to promote open discussion. The papers were not reviewed or approved by the editorial board of the NYAS. In other words, they were HAD.

            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=611011869053299&set=pb.100004334741337.-2207520000.1457907707.&type=3&theater

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, you actually claim that the New York Academy of Science was bamboozled into publishing what they knew to be an “invalid” book AT THAT TIME.

            Goodness gracious! You pro-radioactives are sure working overtime to give the NYAS a very bad name.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            HeWhoIsDisgusting really can’t read very well, can he.
            The NYAS had nothing to do with “publishing” the book.
            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=611011869053299&set=pb.100004334741337.-2207520000.1457907707.&type=3&theater

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Seems HeWhoIsDisgusting cannot read very well. So, here is the NYAS in their very own words from their very own website.
            https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=611011869053299&set=pb.100004334741337.-2207520000.1457907707.&type=3&theater

          • Michael Mann

            You complain that I sent you to the latest data published by the government and you cite this collection of propaganda from 2009, which was instantly debunked by real scientists at the time? You don’t see any hypocrisy?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            What is it about being puppets for the Big Polluters that makes you unable to read with comprehension? My comments regarding that “latest data published by the government”–supposedly showing current conditions in Denver and New Orleans–are that it isn’t current; it stops at 2013, four years ago.

            I even asked a question which you still can’t answer: What are the conditions in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

            As for “this collection of propaganda from 2009, which was instantly debunked by real scientists at the time”, are you referring to . . .
            “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
            by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus).
            Consulting Editor Janette D.
            Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan) – December 2009?

            Instantly “debunked” by real scientists at the time, eh? Were they “real” scientists because they didn’t like the book?

            The English edition of the book was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. Did their real scientists not know that they were publishing an “invalid” book AT THAT TIME?

          • Michael Mann

            In short, yes they accepted funds to publish the book and attempted to put a disclaimer on the publication to avoid legal ramifications. review by Mona Dreicer was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.[15] It was highly critical of the book’s methodology:
            … by discounting the widely accepted scientific method for associating cause and effect (while taking into account the uncertainties of dose assessment and measurement of impacts), the authors leave us with only with their assertion that the data in this volume “document the true scale of the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe.”
            The New York Academy of Sciences published a fourth review, by M. I. Balonov of Institute of Radiation Hygiene, St. Petersburg, Russia. The reviewer condemned the book for completely discounting dosimetry and radiation dose reconstruction, relying instead on inferior, simplistic methodologies, such as ecological and geographical techniques and tracking health indicators over time, which are known to give erroneous conclusions. He also noted the inexplicable selection of publications for analysis, which included media reports, websites of public organizations and even unidentified persons. At the same time, a lot of respected, peer-reviewed work from Russian-language authors was ignored. Balonov’s review concludes that the value of the report is negative, because it has very little scientific merit while being highly misleading to the lay reader. It also characterized the estimate of nearly a million deaths as more in the realm of science fiction than science.
            A fifth review, by Sergei V. Jargin, was published in the journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics which described Consequences as overestimating the health impacts and containing “poorly substantiated information”.[18] A reply to this by Yablokov and A. Nesterenko was also published in the same issue. Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published Jargin, S.V. Radiat Environ Biophys (2010) 49: 743. doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0313-1

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            And you still can’t answer the question, Mike: What are the conditions in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

            As for your attack against . . .

            “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
            by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus).
            Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan) – December 2009

            . . . it seems that you don’t like the book because it takes a broad look at the Chernobyl radioactive disaster, including the effects ecological and geographical, and their biggest sin, tracking health indicators over time!

            Oh, land o’ Goshen! They also included actual news reports of the disaster from media reports and Web sites of public organizations! Oh, I wonder who those evil public organizations are!?

            And because lethally dangerous radioactive materials are completely safe, even when spread over large areas, there’s no way that at least 1,000,000 people have been killed, so far.

          • Michael Mann

            I gave you a link to the most current data, if that is not good enough you are just wasting everyone’s time.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            And you still can’t answer the question, Mike: What are the conditions in Denver and New Orleans CURRENTLY?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Merely because you claim that it’s the most current data doesn’t mean that it is. Neither does it mean that it’s correct.

          • Michael Mann

            I have had enough of your propaganda and lies about me and others, responding to your lies is not worth my time, or aggravation, I am banning you.

          • Michael Mann

            I am blocking you, so I will no longer waste my time reading your worthless comments.

          • Michael Mann

            I believe it is snowing currently.in Denver and not in New Orleans…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            What about the CURRENT radiation levels in Denver and New Orleans, Mike?

            You still have not PROVEN your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Background Radiation Total (Colorado Plateau)
            90 mrem/year
            nominally ranging from 75-140 mrem/year
            Background Radiation Total (Atlantic and Gulf in US)
            23 mrem/year
            nominally ranging from 15-35 mrem/year

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, finally!

            Now, how about your CLAIM regarding the lack of cancers in those cities?

            You still have not PROVEN any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Mike.

          • Michael Mann

            You have plenty of time to retype you idiotic buzzwords and propaganda, but no time to do actual research? I’ve shown you dozens of times.. Pull up your big boy panties and google it yourself, try the American Cancer Society web page.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            By “actual research”, you refer–as always–only to stuff that meets with your personal approval, Mike.

            As for your mere CLAIMS, you still have not given me any reason to trust anything you CLAIM.

            You even still refuse to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            You failed to provide anything but insults and buzzwords, you would think you would be able to find something…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You still refuse to PROVE any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Michael Mann

            Thank you for showing the truth of my statement.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            The truth of what statement, Mike? You still continue to refuse to PROVE any of your CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, “insults and buzzwords”.

            Do you consider them insults because you consider them buzzwords? Or, do you consider them buzzwords because you consider them insults?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You’re the one making the claims, Mike, it’s your responsibility to prove your claims. You still refuse to do so. Never a surprise.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, Mike, such a large number of words which you try to pass off as being an actual copy of the book.

            No pdfs, no literary reviews, anything that is not an actual copy of the book is not the book.

            So, no actual scientists with the New York Academy of Science ever peer-reviewed the actual book. They didn’t know that they were publishing an invalid book AT THAT TIME. Yeah, right!

          • Sam Gilman

            He’s subsequently admitted that he hasn’t even read the book.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh my, your condition is getting worse, Sam. Now, you’re forgetting what other people write.

            In regard to the book you pro-radioactives so desperately want me to condemn without reading it first, I’ve made my position quite clear:
            Without an actual copy of the book–which means no pdfs, no literary reviews, no anything that is not an actual copy of the book–I’m not going to condemn the book merely because you pro-radioactives don’t like the book.

          • Sam Gilman

            If digital copies of books aren’t copies of books, how does Amazon sell books for the Kindle?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yes, you pro-radioactives are constantly displaying hypocrisy.

            That’s why I don’t believe anything you say.

          • Sam Gilman

            The NYAS withdrew the book from print, released a statement that the book was never subject to peer review, returned the rights to the authors and put up links to damning reviews of the book by proper scientists.

            If that isn’t enough for you to see the book is junk, I suggest you change your username.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, the “proper scientists” with the New York Academy of Sciences did not know that they were publishing an “invalid” book AT THAT TIME.

            Why should I trust their judgement now?

          • Sam Gilman

            You shouldn’t. And you don’t need to. As they themselves said, they did not review it properly before publication.

            Instead, you should trust the judgement of the scientists who wrote the reviews after it was published.

            Simple.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            So, the “proper scientists” did not even bother to look at the manuscript before giving the OK to publish it.

            I find that nonsense difficult to believe.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, the NYAS isn’t a full professional scientific outfit. Anyone can join. It’s not the National Academies of Science. Ah – sorry, did you think it was? Did you fail to check the source?

            It certainly looks like you didn’t bother to check the NYAS website to see the reviews. If you want people to trust you, you have to do better than that.

            On the NYAS site you will find links to reviews done by scientists not attached to the NYAS.

            http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1

            Here’s what the site says:

            Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
            Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

            Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
            Volume 1181, December 2009
            335 Pages

            Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.

            This collection of papers, originally published in Russian, was written by scientists who state that they have summarized the information about the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster from several hundreds of papers previously published in Slavic language publications. In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication does the Academy validate the claims made in the original Slavic language publications cited in the translated papers. Importantly, the translated volume has not been formally peer‐reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else.

            Under the editorial practices of Annals at the time, some projects, such as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for discussion of scientific questions, rather than to present original scientific studies or Academy positions. The content of these projects, conceived as one-off book projects, were not vetted by standard peer review.

            Below are reviews of and commentaries on the science presented in the volume. If received by the Academy, additional scientific evaluations of the volume will be posted.
            Posted 1/30/2012

            Review of Volume 1181 by S.V. Jargin

            Reply to S.V. Jargin by Alexey Yablokov and Alexey Nesterenko

            Posted 9/1/2011

            Review of Volume 1181 by M. I. BALONOV.pdf

            Also see: http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/32/2/181/pdf/0952-4746_32_2_181.pdf

            Happy reading!

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yeah, Sam, I’ve read those literary reviews before. A literary review presents only the personal opinion of the person writing the review.

            The only statement that counts is . . .
            “Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.”

            No full text means that there’s nothing for anyone looking for information about the book to find. Literary reviews–presenting only the personal opinion of the person writing the review–do not include the full text of the book.

            As for your insinuation that “Academy” is a fraudulent term, you’re CLAIMING that the New York Academy of Science is not an academy, and has nothing at all to do with science. Your CLAIM includes as a lie that the New York Academy of Science formally peer‐reviews the books they publish.

            So, how many of your lies are trustworthy?

          • Sam Gilman

            So you don’t believe in peer review. Brilliant. The cornerstone of modern science as an institution, the mechanism which allows us to defend climate science against corporate interference – you reject it as meaningless opinion.

            I don’t claim that the NYAS peer reviews books before publication. I think they obviously have had a problem with review procedures. That’s why reviews were necessary afterwardsZ

            You’ve also just admitted that you’ve not even read the Yablokov book you are so keen for everyone else to believe. Well done you. Because the thing is, the book is actually widely available on the Internet because someone among the activists who tricked the NYAS into publishing it appears to have leaked a proof copy onto the Internet.

            You really ought to change your username. How about “Trumplover”, or “IHeartJunk”?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Sam, a mere opinion about a book is not peer-review.

            You again repeat your lie about “someone among the activists who tricked the NYAS into publishing” the book. Some shill for radioactive garbage tricked the New York Academy of Science into publishing the book?

            It doesn’t matter what you CLAIM, the main statement about the book says that the New York Academy of Science does formally peer-review books they are going to publish.

            You state that you merely “think” that the New York Academy of Science “obviously have had a problem with review procedures.”

            Yes, as I’ve already said, I have not had the opportunity to read the actual book because . . .
            “Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.”

            You can talk about literary reviews, and a leaked copy of the book on the Internet, but neither literary reviews, nor leaked copies of the book that–according to you–the New York Academy of Science was tricked into publishing, are the actual book.

            There’s no need for me to change my username. I despise Donald McRonald, and I don’t Heart radioactive junk.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            So your defence is that you don’t know what peer review actually is.

            A review by an expert in the field is peer review. “Peer” means “another specialist in the same field”.

            Whether it is done before publication to ensure journal quality, or after publication, a review by a specialist is still a form of peer review. Pre-publication is usually kept confidential, post-publication is usually done in public. Some journals are now even systematising post-publication review.

            Literary reviews look at fiction. I have no idea why you keep talking about them.

            Given that you know nothing about this book, are you sure it’s sensible to have such strong opinions about it, especially when you’re talking to someone who plainly knows a lot more about it and its provenance? The book was put together with the help of an anti-nuclear organisation in Russia, recommended by an anti-nuclear activist to the person who ended up editing it, an author associated with crank anti-nuclear researcher Joseph Mangano.

            Why are you ignoring the World Health Organisation on this matter?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Well, let’s see, Sam. Your basic problems are your ignorance regarding lethally dangerous radioactive materials, and your arrogance.

            You actually believe that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            In regard to literary reviews, they look at both fiction, and non-fiction. Literary reviews are not scientific peer-reviews. I have no idea why you think that literary reviews are anything other than literary reviews.

            As I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t had an opportunity to read the actual book because . . .
            “Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.”

            This means that the actual book is not available. Literary reviews and “leaked” copies of the book are NOT the actual book.

            The Chernobyl radioactive disaster actually happened. Denying this fact, along with spinning stories about lethally dangerous radioactive materials being safe and harmless and have never harmed anyone anywhere in any way at anytime, make one’s reliability and trustworthiness disappear.

            There’s also your arrogant CLAIM that you are not to be questioned when you merely CLAIM that radioactive materials are safe and harmless.

            Why do you CLAIM that Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger is “an author associated with crank anti-nuclear researcher Joseph Mangano”? Why do you CLAIM that Joseph Mangano is a grouchy fellow? How does being grouchy make Mangano unreliable?

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            This is getting comical.

            Seriously, “literary reviews” are not what the NYAS put up. These reviews do not discuss the literary quality of the book you haven’t read but still want to believe. They discuss its merits as a scientific work from the standpoint of a scientific expert: a peer review. It’s clear you haven’t read the reviews.

            You’ve confused crank with cranky. I have no idea why you’ve done that.

            You’ve asked why Sherman and Mangano are connected when putting the two names into google would have made plain that they wrote together. Can you not use a search engine?

            You said I’ve denied the Chernobyl disaster happened when I’ve actually provided you with the WHO summary of the disaster, indicating that you aren’t even able to recognise the most straightforward of scientific documents.

            As for your bizarre excuse that pdfs of a book available online are not the actual book just indicates an unsurprising fear of the written word.

            We can carry on like this, but it’s just going to be bad for your blood pressure.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “This is getting comical.”

            You are so right, Sam. You and the other pro-radioactives always give me reasons to laugh at you every time you CLAIM that lethally dangerous radioactive materials are completely safe and harmless.

            As for the literary reviews of “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”, until I’m able to get an actual copy of the book, the literary reviews of the book are merely the opinions of the people writing the literary reviews.

            Like the literary reviews, “leaked” copies of the book are not the actual book.

            “You’ve confused crank with cranky. I have no idea why you’ve done that.”

            I haven’t confused “crank” with “cranky”, I’m making fun of the people who want me to condemn the book without first being able to read an ACTUAL copy of the book. I’ve never been impressed by literary reviews.

            I’m also not impressed by mere attacks against writers and editors. Your mere attacks against Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger and the grouchy scientist Joseph Mangano mean nothing without an actual copy of the book to read.

            As I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t had an opportunity to read the actual book because . . .
            “Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.”

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, you haven’t read the book because you choose not to. It’s now freely available online. Not only, as I have told you, was a copy leaked onto the Internet, after the scandal of the publication broke, the NYAS gave the copyright back to Sherman and Mousseau, and they’ve allowed other anti-nuclear organisations to put it up for free download. Here’s a link to a PDF:

            http://www.foejapan.org/energy/evt/pdf/121214.pdf

            So you’re lying to people when you say the book is unavailable. Why do you need to lie about this? What does it say about the strength of your case?

            You’re also lying when you say I’ve said radiation is completely harmless. To repeat the point, I’ve already given you a link to the WHO report on Chernobyl. Is this a deliberate lie, or did you find the WHO document too difficult to understand?

            You’re also lying to people when you claim the reviews put up by the NYAS that condemn the book they had published are literary reviews. They’re not. They’re reviews by scientists. Is this a deliberate lie, or are you unfamiliar with scientific articles in general?

            Mangano’s reputation with mainstream scientists “hovers near zero” according to the New York Times. Is the NYT, like the climate scientist James Hansen, and like the World Health Organisation, and like the IPCC which recommends nuclear as part of climate change action, all part of some nefarious anti-science collaboration?

            Or is it you that’s got the problem with science?

            Why do you dismiss the world health organisation?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Oh, I haven’t read the book because I choose not to. On what do you base your lie?

            As I have told you, several times, without an actual copy of the book to read, neither literary reviews, nor “leaked” copies, matter because none of them are ACTUAL copies of the book.

            “Full Text
            This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy.”

            The actual book is not available. You make mention of “leaked” copies and literary reviews, never any ACTUAL copies of the book.

            Do you deliberately lie? Of course you do, you’re a pro-radioactive.

            You still want me to believe–sight unseen–that literary reviews of the book are scientific reviews. Too bad, bro, without an ACTUAL copy of the book to read, those reviews remain literary reviews.

            Now, we come to yet another attack against the grouchy Joseph Mangano, with no mention of Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger. You say that the attack comes from an unspecified edition of The New York Times. Which SPECIFIC edition of The New York Times?

            You ask if the unspecified edition of The New York Times is part of a conspiracy against the grouchy Joseph Mangano. I don’t know; I can’t read the attack because you haven’t specified in which edition of the paper is the article.

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”.

          • Sam Gilman

            People can see you’re refusing to read the book despite being given a link to a copy.

            Here’s the NYT. I should correct myself – the quote about Mangano’s reputation is that it “hovers near zero”.

            https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/nyregion/baby-teeth-test-fallout-long-shot-search-for-nuclear-peril-molars-cuspids.html

            And you still don’t know the difference between a literary review and a scientific one.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Wow, so your lie is based on the use of x-ray and/or telescopic vision by mysterious unnamed Kryptonians.

            Did you confirm their IDs before having them “see”?

            All that you have given me is a link to a “leaked” copy of the book, not the ACTUAL copy of the book. You also think that literary reviews of the book are the book.

            The ACTUAL book is the only one that counts.

            As for . . .
            https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/nyregion/baby-teeth-test-fallout-long-shot-search-for-nuclear-peril-molars-cuspids.html
            “In Baby Teeth, a Test of Fallout; A Long-Shot Search for Nuclear Peril in Molars and Cuspids”
            By ANDY NEWMAN – November 11, 2003

            . . . You actually want me to believe that an article from 2003 gives current information about the cranky Joseph J. Mangano and his reputation?

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            If you want more current information about how bad Mangano and Sherman’s work is, you need only have asked. There really is not need to shout.

            This is from Scientific American in 2011:

            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/

            I look forward to your excuse for why you’re backing Mangano’s junk science.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            2011 also isn’t current.

            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/
            “Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study”
            By Michael Moyer – December 20, 2011

            This is a critique of . . .
            http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
            “AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?”
            by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman – 2012

            “Mangano’s junk science” is your phrase. I refuse to condemn Mangano merely because pro-radioactives CLAIM that the works of Mangano and Sherman are bad.

            Speaking of the CLAIMS made by pro-radioactives, you still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            I asked you to provide quotes from me to establish what you think my claims are. You’ve failed to do this. I think we can safely assume you’re trying b****hit your way past your own fictions.

            As for Mangano, if you have more up-to-date information where suddenly the scientific community changes its mind and doesn’t think he’s a crank who does bad science, provide it. Put up or shut up.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            There are no safe assumptions, Sam. There are only assumptions, and when you assume . . .

            As for Mangano and Sherman, I’ve already stated that I won’t condemn them merely because they are condemned by pro-radioactives.

            Speaking of the CLAIMS made by pro-radioactives, you still have not
            PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            Let’s put your understanding of science and research to the test:

            Mangano and Sherman claim that 14,000 children died in America over a few months after March 2011 because of the Fukushima disaster.

            Is this a junk science claim or a valid one?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Your claim, Sam, is invalid.

            http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
            “AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?”
            by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman – 2012

            “We recently reported on an unusual rise in infant deaths in the northwestern United States for the 10-week period following the arrival of the airborne radioactive plume from the meltdowns at the Fukushima plants in northern Japan.

            “This result suggested that radiation from Japan may have harmed Americans, thus meriting more research. We noted in the report that the results were preliminary, and the importance of updating the analysis as more health status data become available (1).

            “Shortly after the report was issued, officials from British Columbia, Canada, proximate to the northwestern United States, announced that 21 residents had died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in the first half of 2011, compared with 16 SIDS deaths in all of the prior year. Moreover, the number of deaths from SIDS rose from 1 to 10 in the months of March, April, May, and June 2011,
            after Fukushima fallout arrived, compared with the same period in 2010 (2). While officials could not offer any explanation for the abrupt increase, it coincides with our findings in the Pacific Northwest.

            “Any comparison of potential effects of radiation exposure must attempt to examine the dose-response relationship of the exposure of a population. In the United States, the principal source of dose data (i.e., environmental radiation levels) is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Health data are the responsibility of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which provides weekly reports on mortality in 122 U.S. cities. These are
            preliminary data, but are the most useful at a date so soon after an event such as Fukushima.

            “The goal of this report is to evaluate any potential changes in U.S. mortality resulting from exposure to the Fukushima plume, using EPA and CDC data.”

            You still have not PROVEN any of your mere CLAIMS against “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”, Sam.

          • Sam Gilman

            Mangano is a crank and that study has been debunked many times.

            You still haven’t listed what you think my claims are.

            You’re like one of those people who stands around at bus stops shouting at strangers.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            At the rate that you forget what you’ve written, it’s a good thing that people shout at you from bus stops.

            Things will get a little easier when you get a pair of those GPS shoes.

          • Sam Gilman

            I can’t forget writing what I haven’t written, but thank you for accepting that you are actually mad.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            As I’ve said before, Sam, your claim is invalid.

            http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf
            “AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN
            THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION?”
            by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman

            You desperately need those people at bus stops shouting at you.

          • Sam Gilman

            You’ve cited the same debunked study to show that this debunked study hasn’t been debunked.

            Run the whole time logic of that by me.

          • Michael Mann
          • Sam Gilman

            Well, yes, I know that you know it’s junk. 😜

            The idea is that this HwiDbSD person actually has to say something concrete.

            Instead he keeps going on vaguely about claims he says I’ve made, but in keeping with his generally bizarre approach to human interaction, he’s keeping exactly what those claims are supposed to be a very closely guarded secret.

          • Michael Mann

            He used the exact same phrase about nebulous claims in interactions with me, not very innovative…

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Yeah, I remember that you also have no memory of anything you write.

            You might consider getting a pair of those GPS shoes, which help people find you when you forget where you live.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Goodness gracious, Sam, your brain fog is so severe that you don’t remember anything you write. You poor fellow.

          • Sam Gilman

            For anyone else reading, the person I’m replying to spends his entire time interacting with me by insisting in capitals letters that I haven’t proven something.

            When I ask what that something is, he won’t tell me.

            He’s like an appallingly incompetent but slightly sinister flirt. Only about energy policy.

            It’s all a bit weird.

          • Michael Mann

            Mangano and Sherman tallied the number of deaths in about 100 U.S. cities in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima accident, compared with the same time period from the year before. Projected across the entire U.S., the difference amounted to thousands of “excess” deaths. The study was titled “An Unexpected Mortality Increase in the United States Follows Arrival of the Radioactive Plume from Fukushima: Is There a Correlation?”
            “I read the thing and was taken aback,” says Emery, who has a doctorate in public health and is a licensed medical health physicist. The study implied fallout from Fukushima caused 484 deaths in Houston. If there had been radiation-related deaths in Texas, Emery was well-positioned to know about them. Following the disaster in Japan, he supervised the effort to set up extra air-sampling stations and Geiger counters throughout Houston to monitor any increase in radioactivity; elevated levels were not found.
            Radiation from Fukushima did reach some parts of the U.S., but Emery says the doses were so low that there is no way they could have caused the immediate fatalities the study claimed. Even at Fukushima, where workers absorbed radiation doses thousands of times higher than Americans on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, no one died from acute exposure.
            The paper’s conclusions were based on a remarkably simplistic correlation that didn’t stand up to further scrutiny; at least one scientist pointed out that RPHP saw an increase only because it counted deaths from 119 cities in the year after Fukushima versus 104 cities in the year before. (The authors say the disparity was due to incomplete data for some cities.)

            The Mangano and Sherman paper is a prime example of a troubling new trend in which junk science is becoming harder to distinguish from rigorous research. It is an example of activists using the trappings of science to influence public opinion and policy. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a10329/what-can-we-do-about-junk-science-16674140/

      • Brian

        The pro nuclear trolls expect us to believe the IAEA. DO you all know that the IAEA is chartered to PROMOTE nuclear power?

        Kiteman thinks that’s great. She wants us all to think it’s great.

        So there is the group of pro nuclear trolls that travel together and co fav their own messages. They’re probably in the same small basement room being paid peanuts to sell death.

        Here’s some of the errors the IAEA/WHO report claiming 4000 deaths made.

        Remember kids and fools: pr is all true. You can trust industry pr.

      • Brian

        Please list the people, the exact location where they live, the expected radiation dose external, and interall particulate on a yearly basis.

        It’s habitable now if you don’t want to live long.

        The same pro nuclear industry pr folks all love you, isn’t that great?

        • Michael Mann

          Why do you ask yourself questions?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Hmmmmm, Brian asks his readers questions, Mike. A smart guy like you claim to be would already know that.

        • Brian

          Notice the pro nuclear need for replies. Paid by the reply is my guess.

          • Michael Mann

            Do you ask yourself questions because you think you have all the answers? or is it because you think if you reply to yourself, no one will notice and correct your lies? Do you have a memory problem, I have told you many many times I m NOT paid to post, yet you still make idiotic comments about being paid per reply, is that because you ARE paid to post and just assume everyone else is on your same pay for post deal? I still feel sorry for you, but I feel worse for anyone who may unwittingly believe one of your posts.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            You have said many things that aren’t true, Mike. Why, then, should anyone believe your claims that you don’t have a paymaster?

            Anyone who wishes to may also read my entries. They’re all right here, out in the open. All you gotta do is follow the jack-o-lanterns.

          • Brian

            Isn’t it funny that the pro nuclear pr folks lie to us all right in public and expects us to believe them. It’s almost funny if the consequences were not so dire.

    • Mehar Ali

      how about you shut_the_F_UP ? lethaly harmful means lethaly harmful…thats it…any accident ( try guessing an accident every month wether by nature or deliberate terrorism) is gonna cost shit lots of dollars n efforts every freaking month and nobdy is gonna give a shit about chernobyl being habitable…now u got it or still a dumshit???

      • SA Kiteman

        How about you stop trolling?

        And how about you actually respond to the statement you are replying to.

        So you don’t care that your data sources LIE to you regularly? Well, that explains a lot! Maybe you should stop simply reacting and THINK. But first get the rel data.

        But of course, then you couldn’t troll, could you?

        • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

          Ah, yes, the rel data! Of course, rel data–as opposed to real data–says that radioactive disasters are completely safe, cause no harm, does no damage, no inconvenience. Land o’ Goshen! Radioactive disasters are so safe that they can’t even be called radioactive disasters.

          YOU are the troll, SA.

          Typically, you denounce all science that doesn’t meet with your personal approval as being LIES. You never THINK.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Wow, HeWhoIsDisgusting fixates on a typo. A typo! Yup, that sure is a big win! SMH.

            I wonder if he knows he is lying. Or is it that his mind is so warped by Müller’s Mendacious Meme that he actually CANNOT think rationally? He does not seem to understand the concept of dose. I wonder if he takes a whole bottle of aspirin when he has a headache? After all, by his illogic, just because a doctor tells him that taking 1 or 2 is perfectly safe, he can therefore take the whole bottle cuz the doctor said any dose is perfectly safe. That is the stupidity he ascribes (falsely) to me.

            Well, he is invited to make that equivalency next time he takes aspirin.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            I hope your inability to read was temporary, SA.

            Ah, yes, the rel data! Of course, rel data–as opposed to real
            data–says that radioactive disasters are completely safe, cause no
            harm, does no damage, no inconvenience. Land o’ Goshen! Radioactive
            disasters are so safe that they can’t even be called radioactive
            disasters.

            That, basically, is how you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials morons describe the nature of radioactive disasters and their aftermath. Even the “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters” article gets you into a lather.

            And, of course, everyone who questions your lies are denounced as being stooges for the other members of the Big Polluters.

            As if that wasn’t bad enough, you actually try to include safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy–especially wind power and solar power–as being a member of the Big Polluters. The puppets of the other Big Polluters attack safe, clean, reliable, renewable sources of energy using the exact same language used by you pro-lethally-dangerous-radioactive-materials tools.

            Are your minds [and I use the term loosely] so warped that you tools for the Big Polluters are incapable of individual and intelligent thought?

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            Good [as opposed to pro-radioactive] Readers:
            SA doesn’t know that over-dosing on any med is definitely not a smart thing to do.

            He also doesn’t know that radioactive garbage has no safe dose.

            With his Müller’s Mendacious Meme, SA’s ability to think is gone. May his brain rust in peace.

          • SA Kiteman

            Good Reader:
            Seems that HeWhoIsDisgusting doesn’t even read his OWN writing.
            Yes, an OVER dose is dangerous, but that implies there is a condition that is NOT an over dose.
            And by the way, the “no safe dose” meme has shown wrong since before it started, but when Big Petro-Carbon Industries want you to be afraid of nuclear, they can make it happen. The BPCI pay people to think up lies for parrots like HeWhoIsDisgusting, and have the parrots lie continuously.

    • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

      SA, you’ve lost the ability to read again.

      Jakub Bee wrote about the Church Rock uranium mill spill. Your response says nothing about Church Rock.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill
      “Church Rock uranium mill spill”

      Jakub wrote about the vast amount of harm caused by the more than 1,000 tons of solid radioactive mill waste and 93,000,000 gallons of acidic, radioactive tailings solution.

      Your response says nothing about Church Rock.

      As always, you are the ridiculous one, SA.

      Oh, Chernobyl might be inhabited, but it’s still not habitable.

      • SA Kiteman

        Wow, 10 months ago I commented on an article about the top TEN nuclear disasters. One of those top TEN was about Chernobyl and made a totally STUPID statement about not being habitable for some absurd amount of time.

        Now, 10 months later, HeWhoIsDisgusting condemns me for not talking about something else. Is he always that idiotic?

        • Michael Mann

          Yes, that is why I blocked him, he was wasting my time and raising my blood pressure.

  • SA Kiteman

    An interesting factoid re coal. Because Japan shuttered their NPPs after Fukushima, they have spent ~4X as much on the coal as they have on the clean-up. AND that coal has (or will soon) cause more deaths than the Fukuhima and Chernobyl accidents together.
    Japan used to get more than 300TWh of electricity from nuclear every year. That has been replaced by Petro-Carbon (PC) fuels. Averaging the deaths/TWH for PC fuels is ~10 for western style emission controls. So, ~3000 deaths per year, ~4 years = ~12,000 deaths. Fukushima effectively zero. Chernobyl ≤9000. The PC (mostly coal) in normal operation is deadlier than nuclear accidents.

    Japan should just turn on their NPPs NOW and use the money saved, half to hurry the certification process and half to hurry up the clean-up.

  • Jakub Bee

    Hey you forgot about the Church Rock uranium mill spill it released 1,100 tons of radioactive acid waste into the Navajo reservation and released at least 3 times as much radiation as Three Mile Island

  • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

    Due to the fact that radioactive materials are dangerous, very dirty, and the most expensive sources of dirty energy, radioactive materials are definitely not the way to go for energy sources.

    Nature has given us energy sources that are safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective and renewable, including wind power and solar power. These sources of energy are the way to go.

  • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

    And where, PRECISELY, is this “safe depository” for radioactive land and other lethally dangerous radioactive waste?

    • Alan Pennock

      why, back to where it came from. Deep in the earth

      Sent from Outlook

      • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

        Wow, so dangerous radioactive land and other lethally dangerous radioactive waste are buried in the ground.

        Are the radioactive burial sites well marked, at all four compass points, with full notification regarding the types and the amounts of the lethally dangerous radioactive waste?

        • Michael Mann

          Research the Oklo reactor, a natural reactor which ran 2 billion years ago, where nature did a good job handling the “waste” but it was not very well marked. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf
            “THE NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTOR AT OKLO: A COMPARISON WITH MODERN NUCLEAR REACTORS”
            By Dr. Andrew Karam – 4/16/05

            Oh, wow, a 2,000,000,000 years old nuclear reactor! And you say that it did a good job of handling the lethally dangerous radioactive waste? You say that the radioactive reactor was not at all well marked. How many life-forms were killed during the past 2,000,000,000 years? Is the natural reactor finally well marked, at all four compass points, with full notification
            of the lethal levels of radioactivity present?

          • Michael Mann

            LOL, You are funny, look around, is all plant and animal life dead? A remarkable thing about the Oklo reactors is that the highly radioactive waste products stayed put without the elaborate containment we use today on nuclear power plant waste. More than a billion years later, everything is contained within a few meters of its source.

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            LOL, you are such a card, Mike, a Joker.

            “LOL, You are funny, look around, is all plant and animal life dead?”

            Are you talking about the entire planet, or Gabon, West Africa?

            “A remarkable thing about the Oklo reactors is that the highly radioactive waste products stayed put without the elaborate containment
            we use today on nuclear power plant waste.”

            Highly radioactive waste, with no containment, eh? You’re saying, then, that no life-form in that area survived.

            Is that radioactive region still dead?

  • TimS
  • Brian

    Nuclear industry denies deaths from cancer because you can’t tell what caused a cancer. But we know radiation causes cancer and how much. LNT is proven correct, from 1 cell to the largest studies ever done. The IAEA is in charge of emergeyce response, measuring and studies on how many people die from disaster. The IAEA charter is to promote nuclear power. They vet ALL the UN reports on radiation deaths from nuclear power. it’s like having the tobacco companies in charge of tobacco safety report and studies.

    Independent reports show the expected millions of cancer deaths from the two disasters so far.
    Gov have also covered up huge nuclear accidents like the LA sodium reactor disaster.

    Nor are the ongoing waste and mining pollution disasters deaths being counted at all. Uranrium mining is the dirties mining on earth.

    Over a million deaths from Chernobyl:
    http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl
    Consequences of the Catastrophe for
    People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences
    Big paper with over a thousand references to peer reviewed data. Estimates over a million deaths
    “From 112,000
    to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of
    the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe
    has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of
    several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by
    the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future
    generations.
    “According to evaluations based on detailed
    analyses of official demographic statistics
    in the contaminated territories of Belarus,
    Ukraine, and European Russia, the additional
    Chernobyl death toll for the first 15 years after
    the catastrophe amounted to nearly 237,000
    people. It is safe to assume that the total Chernobyl
    death toll for the period from 1987
    to 2004 has reached nearly 417,000 in other
    parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and nearly
    170,000 in North America, accounting for
    nearly 824,000 deaths worldwide.
    The numbers of Chernobyl victims will continue to increase for several generations.”
    Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko,
    and Alexey V. Nesterenko p232
    http://www.euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf Chernobyl European Committee on Radiation Risk review of studies, as many as 2.4M cancer total, over a million deaths.

    • TimS

      Well-succeed strategy used by antinuclear(pro-fossil fuels) fearmongers:
      First scare them, and then sell them the solution: intermittent/unreliable bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers backed up by coal and/or natural gas/fracking (without inform the taxpayers that cost-effective batteries/energy storage does not exist or is prohibitively expensive), tell them all that is cheap(almost for free) if heavily subsided with taxpayers’ hard-earned money, also obviously do not inform the public that it causes more fatalities and ecological impacts per unit of energy produced than carbon-free nuclear power.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/69a890443aff5eb8a5056315cab4023addf90c6050e76df7cff99ca851d0a1f1.jpg?w=800&h=244
      “Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power”
      “Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollutants and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced”
      http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1c47d62e86d5eff00dcea3a40d4573282192a36011216a57d501fe8211383b7.jpg
      “How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment” – Michael Shellenberger (Environmentalist)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w
      “How Fear of Nuclear Ends”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI6IzPCmIW8

    • Brian

      TIMS uses ever pr tactic in the book.

      TIMS loves to plaster the top of the site with pictures so he can force all other comments off the thread. He does it all the time.

      Solar and wind are easily backed up with fuel from waste in existing reserve generators. They VERY SAME generators the inflexible baseload nuclear and cola need. Nuclear actually needs storage as well, and that’s why pumped hydro was built right alongside nuclear. Nuclear threaten to meltdown if it has to throttle.

      Germany and Denmark grid is 5 times more reliable than France’s. So I guess it’s nuclear that has reliability problems.

      Look up a pic of a uranium mine, and birth defect cause by them Look at the giants carbon spewing trucks nuclear needs for mining.

    • TimS

      Brian is ever repeating the same set of lies in a hope it becomes true.
      wind/solar takes “zero land”, cheap(if subsidized), replace fossil fuels everywhere(maybe in fairyland), reliable carbon-free energy is not necessary, billion cancers(with no peer-reviewed evidences).
      http://theamericanfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/latinos-for-trump-6124.jpg
      Brian believes in his own lies.
      http://s3.postimg.org/pq2craotf/1390317499099.jpg

      • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

        So, Tim, Three Mile Island never happened.

        On, my, you’re not going to be like the pro-radioactive morons who claimed that Three Mile Island was a stunt disaster to advertise the release of “The China Syndrome (1979)”.

        Being a pro-radioactive, you also lie about wind power and solar power. Well, no matter how many times you pro-radioactives lie–even more than 100 times–against clean, safe, reliable, renewable sources of energy, your lies will never become truth.

        • TimS

          Three Mile Island and Fukushima caused zero deaths by radiation exposure.
          If wind and solar are so good, why isn’t Greenpeace using windmill generators and solar panels to propel their ship and motorboats instead of diesel?
          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6FR1fJWAAAKPqS.jpg
          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6FR3YFXMAERStP.jpg

          • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

            “Three Mile Island and Fukushima caused zero deaths by radiation exposure.”
            Yet another pro-radioactives lie.

            Even if you repeat your lies over 100 times, your lies will never become truth.

            According to the second picture, their claim was written way back in 2013. It goes on to say that Greenpeace hates LEGOs and hating LEGOs makes them hypocrites. Wow, I wonder how much LEGO paid the pro-radioactives to make that claim?

            According to the middle bar in the picture, the Akademic Lazarev has two tiny radioactive reactors that use only a dime’s worth of radioactive garbage to run the ship for 11 days. Wow, 11 days with just a radioactive dime!

            Hey, wait a minute! Since radioactive dimes are so much better than marine diesel fuel, why is the Lazarev looking for oil instead of looking for more radioactive dimes?

            Making dimes radioactive is not a substitute, seeings how it’s illegal to mess around with U.S. coins.

          • TimS

            “Yet another pro-radioactives lie.”
            So you should prove your point, where are the bodies to confirm the deaths? Perhaps the bodies were abducted by aliens or eaten by radioactive Godzilla or chupacabras.

    • Sparafucile

      ^^ Fake news ^^

      Very very OLD fake news. Long-ago and soundly debunked.

      • Brian

        Oh, please, remind us of the debunking.

        • Sparafucile

          You’re too willfully ignorant to bother teaching.

          • Brian

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Michael Mann

    Knowledge is better than fear, don’t be fooled by the science deniers who are trying to scare you with anti-nuclear propaganda, do the research instead.

  • Michael Mann

    The top ten Nuclear “Disasters” How many happened in this century? Answer: one, Fukushima, the result of a record Tsunami, how many people died or are expected to die from radiation from this “disaster” … too few to be measurable, if any. How many of the ten were commercial nuclear power plants? Three and one of those was designed for duel use. Seems like the nuclear industry is much safer than most industry… Do the research!

    • HeWhoIsDisgustedBySciencDniers

      Yes, Mike, “Top 10 Nuclear Disasters”. How many radioactive disasters have occurred during the past 17 years, you ask?

      One of which I’m aware, so far. 2017 is still a young year, and the 21st Century is still a young century.

      Another radioactive disaster is just a matter of time.

  • Shuryon

    Oh Brazil.. Ranking by robbing..

  • Scott Richmond

    The primary issue at present is disposal and management of the by-product. If the entirety of the worlds energy was produced through nuclear fission, the rate of radioactive waste generation would eventually exceed the current maximum possible rate of disposal (rather the capacity for safe storage until safe levels of radioctivity are met and disposal can occur). That, my friends, is the conundrum.

    • Joffan

      The amount of waste from fission is rather small and is handled with extreme forethought and care. It is a solid mineral that could easily be disposed of back underground where it came from. It really is a non-problem, particularly compared to the many other waste streams of our society which are not required to defend against unrealistic scenarios.