Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

But you're talking nonsense. Obviously it's more dangerous to stand next to a radiation source than next to a road, because you're comparing one case where the risk has transpired, and one case where the risk is nothing more than a probability. Similarly it is more dangerous to stand in front of a car about to hit you than next to a nuclear power station.

It is safer to stand next to a nuclear plant than it is to stand on the side of a main road. The probability of accident is higher on the main road, and the probability of harm due to pollution is higher on the main road.

You don't understand risk, and honestly you'd be far better off making emotive points (think of the children!) than trying to sustain unsustainable arguments. Risk reduction is about reducing the probability of an event by taking particular measures which may include multiple redundant safety systems, interlocks, what have you, and it's become extremely important in recent years not least because of the rise of health and safety regulation and associated litigation. And because nuclear plant technicians also tend to live near to the plants are are rightly concerned about their own families.

It's not perfect, but most of what you do every day is more dangerous than nuclear power by many orders of magnitude.

it's not just the likelihood of an accident but the consequences of the accident though. to compare the risks associated with fulfilling one need (power generation) with the risks associated with another (transportation) is a bit erroneous imho. we have to go with our best solution to each individual problem. for transport our best solution (flawed though it is) is currently the private car. i happen to think that nuclear isn't our best solution for power generation - the risks are not outweighed by the benefits imho.

julieq

The car is warming the planet and causing massive pollution. And being killed by a car has the same impact as being killed by radiation, the outcome is the same. So your logic is twisted.

That's not surprising, most people think like that. The more dramatic or horrific an outcome, the more it's feared and the higher its rated as a risk regardless of how likely it is. It's an emotional entanglement.

But emotion isn't a good guide to risk. End of. And it's a horrendously poor way to run a society. If you follow your ideas, the end point is that people don't have children just because you're irrationally scared of nuclear power generation way beyond the level of risk. Which is utterly crazy.

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

The car is warming the planet and causing massive pollution. And being killed by a car has the same impact as being killed by radiation, the outcome is the same. So your logic is twisted.

That's not surprising, most people think like that. The more dramatic or horrific an outcome, the more it's feared and the higher its rated as a risk regardless of how likely it is. It's an emotional entanglement.

But emotion isn't a good guide to risk. End of. And it's a horrendously poor way to run a society. If you follow your ideas, the end point is that people don't have children just because you're irrationally scared of nuclear power generation way beyond the level of risk. Which is utterly crazy.

i agree cars aren't great either. but two wrongs don't make a right.

the problem with nuclear power is it is like the 'welfare state' of energy. just as if you reward people for having children without adequate resources by giving them a council house and benefits and therefore end up with more demands on resources, if you create infinite energy supply for people they tend to think great we can continue with our lifestyles AND population growth. trouble is you then have more strain on resources - land / food etc. this means more unpalatable technological solutions.

i'm not a luddite. i love science and technology. however i also think it should enrich our lives nor merely put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

julieq

You're mad.

Energy usage isn't about OUR lifestyle. We use proportionately less energy now than we did 20 or 30 years ago. It's about the rest of the world using more energy because of development.

Like I said, you start by having no power for 12 hours a day so 6 rural Chinese can have 2 hours each of your electricity. Then we'll figure out who is allowed to have children and who isn't so you can keep most of your 12 hours and you don't have to be scared of nuclear power.

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

You're mad.

.

i think you meant "you're wrong". or are personal insults a part of your debating artillery?

where did i refer to "our lifetyle" in terms of uk lifestyle specifically? my use of "our" refers to humanity as a global whole. just as my reference to population reduction refers to global population.

DervProf

ninky wrote: »

get real. can you link to how many deaths solar panel manufacture has caused? or the risk to the public posed by an accident at said solar panel factory?

I suspect that the number of deaths caused by the need for oil is significant, and a small quantity of that oil will have been used to manufacture solar panels.

We need to reduce our relliance on oil, and the sooner we do it, the easier it will be to kick the habit.

ninky_2

DervProf wrote: »

I suspect that the number of deaths caused by the need for oil is significant, and a small quantity of that oil will have been used to manufacture solar panels.

We need to reduce our relliance on oil, and the sooner we do it, the easier it will be to kick the habit.

the manufacture of nuclear power also requires oil. and glass manufacture for that matter.

Element47

Generali wrote: »

Japan is a big holder of US treasuries (second biggest behind China). I'm not sure that they're big buyers these days though. The big buyers I think at present are oil state sovereign wealth funds AIUI.

Gen do you remeber the last round of Japanese QE several months ago was it something like Y100 trillion?

I thought they most put this into US bonds and treasuries?

What will be the fallout if they have to start selling these to pay for the nuke fallout?

DervProf

ninky wrote: »

the manufacture of nuclear power also requires oil. and glass manufacture for that matter.

It certainly does, but I guess that the amount of oil required to create a Kw of electricity from nuclear power is a lot less than creating a Kw from burning oil.

Again, if electricity from nuclear power stations is used to run electric vehicles rather than running petrol/diesel powered vehicles, the amount of oil used is far less (I would have thought).

Better to develop non oil burning methods of running motor vehicles now, rather than wait until we have to.

And while we're on the subject of producing energy, and man's drain on natural resources - would it be better for us to control population growth now, or let population growth control itself (future mass food shortage, future disease outbreak, future energy shortage ?).

ninky_2

DervProf wrote: »

It certainly does, but I guess that the amount of oil required to create a Kw of electricity from nuclear power is a lot less than creating a Kw from burning oil.

Again, if electricity from nuclear power stations is used to run electric vehicles rather than running petrol/diesel powered vehicles, the amount of oil used is far less (I would have thought).

Better to develop non oil burning methods of running motor vehicles now, rather than wait until we have to.

And while we're on the subject of producing energy, and man's drain on natural resources - would it be better for us to control population growth now, or let population growth control itself (future mass food shortage, future disease outbreak, future energy shortage ?).

obviously far better for us to control population growth now. ideally through awareness, availability of birth control and voluntary measures.

that idea makes me a crazed eugenicist apparently though.