tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post2281770890371694627..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Nuclear Power, Yes PleaseIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51889887937324192182008-01-16T08:56:00.000+00:002008-01-16T08:56:00.000+00:00Tim, don't be so immature. You should be aware, i...Tim, don't be so immature. You should be aware, if you profess to be in this debate as anything other than a troll, that engineering data is long winded and very dull. Most of it is numbers that even others engineers wouldn't understand until it was explained what they represent. Videos suitable and useful for general public consumption are few are far between.<BR/><BR/>This is very reminiscent of a common Apollohoax conspiracist tactic. They always want us to provide the full body of engineering expertise on the Saturn V or the LM in the form of a neat and tidy webpage, and when we can't provide that, because the detailed engineering paperwork took up warehouses and cannot be transposed so readily into hypertext, they say that our machine are therefore make believe.<BR/><BR/>There expectation is of course based on their ignorance of engineering. When the reality fails to match their expectation, they blame the reality (ie conclude Apollo was a fake) rather than their own ignorant expectations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12359465786843379242008-01-15T20:52:00.000+00:002008-01-15T20:52:00.000+00:00So just the one, then.So just the one, then.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-29336024747641835572008-01-15T16:21:00.000+00:002008-01-15T16:21:00.000+00:00There's a particular one I'm thinking of that is q...There's a particular one I'm thinking of that is quite well known that got released by LANL(remember a lot of this stuff is classified). It's always a good one to show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75218338724154208972008-01-15T15:39:00.000+00:002008-01-15T15:39:00.000+00:00Surely you mean 'damn videoS', as if they've done ...Surely you mean 'damn videoS', as if they've done thousands of tests, there must be more than one involving aircraft.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-81981693908234258982008-01-15T14:34:00.000+00:002008-01-15T14:34:00.000+00:00These indestructible containment structures of you...<B>These indestructible containment structures of yours have been tested in the field using genuine reactors thousands of times? Really? Documentation, please.</B><BR/><BR/>I'm still trying to find that damn video of the aircraft strike test. I'm sure it's buried in LANL somewhere, but I can't find it.<BR/><BR/>Of course though they didn't use actual working reactors in the impact testing. Those things are expensive. They tested them with more calibrated tools that produce more meaningful results.<BR/><BR/><B>Also, you tried to give the impression that you had won a point over Chernobyl when in fact I had no mentioned it at all.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>So you didn't. It's hard to keep track of who said what. It's also hard to interpret what you say since on the surface it's just innuendo and FUD rather than substantive argument about why you think nuclear reactors are unsafe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15816130627425953652008-01-15T10:20:00.000+00:002008-01-15T10:20:00.000+00:00These indestructible containment structures of you...These indestructible containment structures of yours have been tested in the field using genuine reactors thousands of times? Really? Documentation, please.<BR/><BR/>Also, you tried to give the impression that you had won a point over Chernobyl when in fact I had no mentioned it at all.<BR/><BR/>Your dishonest approach to debate undermines anything of substance you have to offer. It's a waste of your expertise.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25111003859224517262008-01-15T09:47:00.000+00:002008-01-15T09:47:00.000+00:00So what you're telling me is that these indestruct...<B>So what you're telling me is that these indestructible containment structures of yours have been tested in the field using genuine reactors thousands of times?</B><BR/><BR/>Yes. We're engineers, you see. We test things.<BR/><BR/><B>Tell me, is concrete 100% reliable? </B><BR/><BR/>Your <A HREF="http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/deb/irrational.html#fud" REL="nofollow">FUD</A> is becoming tiresome. There is no credible scenario that will cause a catastrophic failure of containment, at least none where we care (eg asteroid collision, but in that case we're already SOL). Yet you cling to the one in a billion chance that some chain of events, which you cannot even specify, will lead to such a scenario.<BR/><BR/>You evidently won't be satisfied until I prove that the risk is a deterministic 0. I don't know how it works in the marketing industry, but in mine, we cannot think your way. We don't play mind games. We don't obsess over billionths.<BR/><BR/>If you want deterministically zero risk, then go home and be satisfied that you will never be satisfied (and remember to look both ways when crossing those dangerous roads). In the mean time, the rest of us with think rationally and recognise that the risk from nuclear power is negligible and be satisfied that there are far more important things to worry about, eg trip hazards or rotten shellfish (never buy Asda prawns btw).<BR/><BR/><B>(e.g. When we're burying truckloads of nuclear waste for future generations to worry about.)</B><BR/><BR/>ROTFLMAO! Truckloads exactly. Do you have any idea how small a truckload is on the industrial scale? You need to get out of tertiary industry more often.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34178233968927282642008-01-15T09:30:00.000+00:002008-01-15T09:30:00.000+00:00An interesting opinion. Care to put your name to i...An interesting opinion. Care to put your name to it?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21574066586051527632008-01-15T08:48:00.000+00:002008-01-15T08:48:00.000+00:00You're wasting your time Josh.The man's a fool and...You're wasting your time Josh.<BR/><BR/>The man's a fool and you've already more than proved your case to the satisfaction of any rational person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-30288471495900436592008-01-14T23:14:00.000+00:002008-01-14T23:14:00.000+00:001. Bring forth one mention of Chernobyl from me in...1. Bring forth one mention of Chernobyl from me in this thread.<BR/><BR/>2. <I>"With TMI there are no other cases of containment not working when a reactor destructs itself"</I><BR/><BR/>So what you're telling me is that these indestructible containment structures of yours have been tested in the field using genuine reactors thousands of times?<BR/><BR/>3. <I>The 0.01% of failures only proves that it is not 100% reliable.</I><BR/><BR/>Tell me, is concrete 100% reliable? <BR/>Oh, and are human beings and their grand designs infallible? Or are we instead so impossibly arrogant that we like to think so? (e.g. When we're burying truckloads of nuclear waste for future generations to worry about.)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75881620178239092672008-01-14T22:38:00.000+00:002008-01-14T22:38:00.000+00:00Who said that a reactor malfunction would be the c...<B> Who said that a reactor malfunction would be the cause of any breach?</B><BR/><BR/>Ah, so we're agreed that a Chernobyl type disaster is not a credible scenario in a Generation III+ reactor.<BR/><BR/><B>Using your logic (i.e. what Three Mile island 'proved') Kim Phuk is living proof that napalm isn't fatal.</B><BR/><BR/>Rubbish! Napalm is designed to kill and it has had a very high success rate. The 0.01% of failures only proves that it is not 100% reliable.<BR/><BR/>But with TMI, containment are designed for, you guessed it, containment. When crunch time came, it did its job. Now where as a containment structure ever had a catastrophic failure showing TMI to be the exception rather than the rule?<BR/><BR/>Your napalm example is stupid because it would require ignoring all the thousands of other cases where napalm was fatal, whereas with TMI there are no other cases of containment not working when a reactor destructs itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-47495299588108504002008-01-14T19:12:00.000+00:002008-01-14T19:12:00.000+00:00PS - Using your logic (i.e. what Three Mile island...PS - Using your logic (i.e. what Three Mile island 'proved') Kim Phuk is living proof that napalm isn't fatal.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-77016363976945581232008-01-14T19:06:00.000+00:002008-01-14T19:06:00.000+00:00There you go again. Who said that a reactor malfun...There you go again. Who said that a reactor malfunction would be the cause of any breach?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-21611946315866669222008-01-14T17:38:00.000+00:002008-01-14T17:38:00.000+00:00You appear to have a firm belief that once somethi...<B>You appear to have a firm belief that once something is sealed, it cannot be broken.</B><BR/><BR/>The containment structure cannot be breached by any credible reactor malfunction. Three Mile Island proved that.<BR/><BR/>Just because you choose to disbelieve it doesn't make it false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-33041512748391428122008-01-14T16:46:00.000+00:002008-01-14T16:46:00.000+00:00Sorry Josh, but that just doesn't cut the mustard....Sorry Josh, but that just doesn't cut the mustard. You appear to have a firm belief that once something is sealed, it cannot be broken. Yet in the same breath you're trying to portray me as some sort of fantasist... <A HREF="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-power-yes-please.html#c4339294440385629996" REL="nofollow">and not for the first time in this conversation</A>.<BR/><BR/>Added to that, Iain has ignored my quite straightforward question and instead has opted to play the man and not the ball (while in the same breath claiming it is me trying to change the terms of the debate).<BR/><BR/>Please excuse me for not taking either of you seriously.<BR/><BR/>(PS: Iain, I just caught you - again - telling an outright lie. Have you no response?)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-48462578032396385862008-01-14T09:36:00.000+00:002008-01-14T09:36:00.000+00:00Interesting debate being had here. If anyone wish...Interesting debate being had here. If anyone wishes to speak in favour of nuclear power as a solution to climate change at a debate being hosted at Goldsmiths, University of London, tomorrow (Tuesday 15th) at 5pm, in Lewisham, please e-mail me at orlockAThotmail.com. The Politics Society, which has organised the debate, has also invited speakers from the green movement to argue against nuclear power, so the debate will be a chance to definitively settle the issue once and for all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35221481712428515202008-01-14T06:13:00.000+00:002008-01-14T06:13:00.000+00:00Something that doesn't involve magical unbreakable...<B>Something that doesn't involve magical unbreakable seals or radioactive clouds that are good for the environment, I would imagine.</B><BR/><BR/>You talk about seals like the seals on a wellhead. Do you actually understand how a nuclear power station is built?<BR/><BR/><B>Now, if it's not too much trouble, could you please point to the passage where I'm being hysterical or touting apocalyptic visions?</B><BR/><BR/>See the quotation above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61756370728179516752008-01-13T11:28:00.000+00:002008-01-13T11:28:00.000+00:00"What scenario would not result in your accusing m...<I>"What scenario would not result in your accusing me of holding blind faith?"</I><BR/><BR/>Something that doesn't involve magical unbreakable seals or radioactive clouds that are good for the environment, I would imagine.<BR/><BR/>Now, if it's not too much trouble, could you please point to the passage where I'm being hysterical or touting apocalyptic visions?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56158965586571502502008-01-13T11:06:00.000+00:002008-01-13T11:06:00.000+00:00No, you simply claimed to support free speech. Eff...No, you simply claimed to support free speech. Effectively calling someone an obsessive liar is not supporting them, but I do apologise for not thanking you for this:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-support-of-tim-ireland-and-craig.html" REL="nofollow">Iain Dale</A>: "<I>Despite the fact that a large part of his front page is taken up with wholly unjustified smears against me, I defend his right to say what he wants about me. It's called freedom of speech.</I>"<BR/><BR/>(PS - Please don't lie. <A HREF="http://b-heads.blogspot.com/2007/09/list-of-supporters.html" REL="nofollow">You got acknowledged just like everyone else did.</A>)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46900782117352080212008-01-13T11:02:00.000+00:002008-01-13T11:02:00.000+00:00Josh, I find it most ironic that yours is a faith ...<B>Josh, I find it most ironic that yours is a faith that could move mountains.</B><BR/><BR/>What scenario would not result in your accusing me of holding blind faith?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-54964567256763378372008-01-13T10:55:00.000+00:002008-01-13T10:55:00.000+00:00Oh here we go again. Just for the record Josh, cli...Oh here we go again. <BR/><BR/>Just for the record Josh, click on this link http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-support-of-tim-ireland-and-craig.html<BR/><BR/>I actually supported him, something he has never even acknowledged. <BR/><BR/>I must have been mad.Iain Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42934938160811651052008-01-13T08:27:00.000+00:002008-01-13T08:27:00.000+00:00Re: unbreakable seals, not-quite-worst-case scenar...Re: unbreakable seals, not-quite-worst-case scenarios and unique methods of creating wilderness parks.<BR/><BR/>Josh, I find it most ironic that yours is a faith that could move mountains.<BR/><BR/>(Oh, and you must have missed this bit; Do me a favour and point to one passage where I'm being hysterical or touting apocalyptic visions.)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-5025816187398306712008-01-13T08:17:00.000+00:002008-01-13T08:17:00.000+00:00"Weren't you and he somehow connected to some laws...<I>"Weren't you and he somehow connected to some lawsuit or something?"</I><BR/><BR/>Fleetingly. While I was effectively silenced by an Uzbek billionaire *and* banned from making comments on this website (for reasons that Iain still hasn't explained), Iain took the opportunity to call me a liar.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-68290218571628015082008-01-13T00:56:00.000+00:002008-01-13T00:56:00.000+00:00So, in your worst-case scenario, concrete is imper...<B>So, in your worst-case scenario, concrete is impervious to all forms of stress.</B><BR/><BR/>Steel reinforced concrete has its limits like anything else. However, nothing that could possibly go wrong in the reactor could cause the kind of stress that would result in failure.<BR/><BR/>It's can also take aircraft strikes too.<BR/><BR/>If a large portion of the reactor contents was emptied into the environment somehow, someway, well <A HREF="http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/acc/chernobyl.html" REL="nofollow">we've already seen that happen.</A> The results were underwhelming as far as major ecological catastrophes go. (In fact some will argue it was an ecological u-catastrophe since the creation and evacuation of the exclusion zone has resulted in a thriving wilderness. I hope to visit it in the Summer.)<BR/><BR/>I am satisfied that when those consequences and the probability are multiplied, it produces a risk so low that rationality demands I start worrying about other things... like choking on my chicken... or trip hazards... of drunken Aberdonians looking for trouble on the back streets of Cults.<BR/><BR/>But when you asked for a worst case scenario and since an aircraft strike would only damage surrounding non-nuclear components, I opted to select a scenario where the reactor destroys itself. In that case, we have emperical evidence from Three Mile Island that it's easily containable.<BR/><BR/><B>Josh, you have obviously never encountered Tim Ireland before.</B><BR/><BR/>Oh is that the infamous Tim Ireland? Weren't you and he somehow connected to some lawsuit or something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34532935934904255142008-01-12T22:38:00.000+00:002008-01-12T22:38:00.000+00:001. Iain, I do apologise for deviating from my orig...1. Iain, I do apologise for deviating from <A HREF="http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-power-yes-please.html#c1909226514741416447" REL="nofollow">my original question</A> (that you still haven't answered). In your absence, Josh has made a few claims. I'm challenging a primary one (concrete is impervious to stress, apparently), and making every effort to keep to the subject and keep things sensible. If there's any variation on my part, it is due to these efforts and/or the need to deal with a claim raised by another party that is questionable or false.<BR/><BR/>2. Regarding your claims, you have also insisted that Grants Shapps' password was '1234'. What's your word on sock-puppetry worth?<BR/><BR/>3. It is you with the track record of reliance on and tolerance of sock-puppets (used by those on your side), not me. I'd link to a perfect example, but I'm not allowed. That in itself does little to support your case.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292436411579226284noreply@blogger.com