I’m sorry if you find the shill argument tired! You must get it a lot…

I do wish you would step back and consider for a moment that it is just possible that you are sitting on one end of a very polarized argument, in a very important debate, which is only harmed by this polarization.

I have no idea why you are playing the rather tired “shill” argument. But I do appreciate the effort that you and Ana put into continuing to follow this topic.

By the way, the next update is out:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/04/japan_nuke_news_18_reactor_fac.php

Again, whom do you work for again? Seriously.

By contrast, biological half-life is definitely relevant for considering dose from radioisotopes with longer half-life.

Greg; I don’t think I was misrepresenting anything, in the context of a discussion about releases that affect other countries. The current releases are tiny. On the other hand, you were definitely misrepresenting the link I put up on geological disposal. And my musing on Busby’s motives. And my calculation on I-131 decay. So look to your own eye, brother.

“Levels of radioactivity have risen sharply in seawater near a tsunami-crippled nuclear plant in northern Japan, possibly signaling new leaks at the facility, the government said Saturday.

The announcement came after a magnitude-5.9 earthquake jolted Japan on Saturday morning, hours after the country’s nuclear safety agency ordered plant operators to beef up their quake preparedness systems to prevent a recurrence of the nuclear crisis.”

(from: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/17/japan-plant-owner-at-least-9-months-before-end-to-nuclear-crisis/)

“It would take three months to bring down radiation levels and restore normal cooling systems at the plant, Tsunehisa Katsumata, the chairman of the Tokyo Electric Power Co., told reporters.

An additional three to six months would be needed before the reactors reach their cold shutdown point, he said.”

At least six to nine months until cold shut-down is achieved ( and that’s TEPCO’s estimate, for what that’s worth). Meaning continuous improvised cooling through at least the fall, if not into next year. With no more problems (like not spraying the spent fuel pond at reactor 4 for a day and a half… Oops!). And no more distractions, like aftershocks, power failures, major spikes in radiation levels that force evacuation.

I think Dr. Kaku has a better grasp on the reality of how precarious the situation is than any of the nuclear advocate commenters here.

And yes, Joffan, the radiation levels are increasing beyond 25km. Except in your world. But things are much different in that place, anyway.

I thought it was called free-market capitalism.

If you want to make money from a commodity, you bear the costs and risks up front, and if you can get people to buy it at a price that covers your costs, plus a profit, you’ve got a going concern. If not, you don’t look to hide and offset true costs by getting subsidies from taxpayers.

And if ‘users’ should pay (Ayn Rand just drips from your every pore, doesn’t she?), how about nuclear producers get charged as ‘users’ of water, and the land that will be used to store their waste, at market rates? You know, pay your rent and utilities, like everyone else?

What economic model did you have in mind?

No kidding? 😉 However, you avoided mention of the _biological_ half life of iodine-131…

http://www.lanl.gov/BAER-Conference/BAERCon-46p027.htm

“You want people living near nuclear power plants to accept what ever risk there is now from the indefinite delay until there is a perfect solution.”

Nope, I want people to have realistic sense of what the options are, not idealizations. Perhaps I should be using shorter words.

Store the waste using the technology we have available.

Because that’s what we’ve got.

Don’t offer platitudes and reassurances based on false premises. Geologic disposal does not ensure that people won’t suffer harm from radioactive contamination in the future. It simply doesn’t. The hazards are greater than the industry portrays them.

If we accept that this is the technology we have, but that it is a temporary fix (by temporary I mean a few hundred years), maybe we won’t complacently keep making more highly toxic waste that we can’t do much with, and work on finding a process to render the stuff truly inert. As I said, though, there is no rule that says such a solution actually exists, waiting to be found.

And since this is the fourth time I’ve said use the techonlogy we have (geologic disposal), your argument that I want to ‘prevent’ anything is looking more like a big waving strawman in your anterior cingulate gyrus. (I’ll let you look up why I locate your particular boogeyman there.)

I think at this point you may have forfeited your right to use the terms ‘demagogue’, ‘strawman’, and ‘hyperbole’. You and Joffan are particularly notable in your profligate use of extreme terms, denigration of those that disagree with you, and spurious claims– quite a trifecta.

The think is, there is nothing wrong with being wrong … if you are, well, wrong. But if you know what is going on and you misrepresent, which is very clearly what you are doing, then you are not helping at all. All you are doing is ensuring that an already polarized argument remain polarized. I’m thinking there must be some reason you do that. Who do you work for again?