Chernobyl balance sheet, cost, maps and contamination (France)

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 18/10/15, 11:16

Absolutely, when you have defined what you mean by "sick" (what are your criteria and what are the supporting facts that animals would be sick?), Since that is what my answer.

sick
adjective
(Latin male habitus, which is in poor condition)
Larousse
A disease is only decreed as such after a thorough examination, but limited to the knowledge of the moment. (the imaginary patient illustrates this well)
Have these animals been the subject of clinical examinations? It seems not! So any opinion on this subject is subjective! Only a comparison with other proven cases can possibly make it possible to get an idea: survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, "peaceful" nuclear tests, etc ... However, it seems that certain effects cannot be measured. , in terms of pathology, only in the very long term after exposure and depending on the level of exposure as well. So let's wait for unpaid results from authorities too concerned with their political or economic self-protection.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 18/10/15, 15:39

Janic wrote:... So any opinion on this subject is subjective! Only a comparison with other proven cases can possibly provide an idea: survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, "peaceful" nuclear tests, etc ... However, it seems that certain effects cannot be measured. , in terms of pathology, only in the very long term after exposure and depending on the level of exposure as well. So let's wait for unpaid results from authorities too concerned with their political or economic self-protection.

Any opinion on this subject is subjective, yes, but what subject exactly?
Whoever says that a proliferation of animals can only support if one is in good enough health and to procreate and to become numerous to the point where one sees a "proliferation", it is almost a truism. I'm not saying anything more, and I'm just saying it because not everyone seemed to have noticed the obvious.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 18/10/15, 17:08

Any opinion on this subject is subjective, yes, but what subject exactly?
absolutely! This is why biological measurements would give a more objective picture of the situation.
Whoever says that a proliferation of animals can only support if one is in good enough health and to procreate and to become numerous to the point where one sees a "proliferation", it is almost a truism. I'm not saying anything more, and I'm just saying it because not everyone seemed to have noticed the obvious.
This proliferation indicates, as Obamot points out, only the fact that this place is free from the fear of man, his guns and traps of all kinds and therefore concentrate more easily there.
However, this is an indication of health or illness: it is impossible to answer it from afar. Now accommodation in a hostile environment (or supposedly such) does not provide any information either. The use of DDT has long been considered safe until studies have shown the impact on fertility, on pathologies attributed to other causes, etc. the authorities ended up having it withdrawn late this product, still persistent today, and even prohibiting pregnant women from breastfeeding like Japanese fish because of its too high mercury content, and the examples are not limiting.
Are these animals in this kind of situation? For now the answer is pending!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 18/10/15, 19:34

Janic wrote:... This proliferation only indicates, as Obamot points out, that the fact that this place is free from the fear of man, his guns and traps of all kinds and therefore more easily concentrated there.
...

It would be true if there was no radioactivity.
There are two elements in the analysis. Is it one too many for you? Or are you saying that radioactivity is not an obstacle to teeming animal life ?!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 18/10/15, 20:00

Exnihiloest wrote:It would be true if there was no radioactivity

This shows that this reasoning is all the more false, as already said, animals do not have a geiger counter on their belts! They cannot therefore choose less contaminated areas than others!

Beware of perfidy in reasoning, which can become dangerous, as soon as it is based on fallacies (as much the one that precedes as that which follows):

Exnihiloest wrote:Like what there is still progress

Point which has been fully demonstrated that due to serious shortcomings, it was extremely false since largely unfounded >>> where then the most comical, is born the reflex to reject everything!

In short, starting from a peremptory assertion ("Progress since bordeaux would be" less contaminated "") to arrive at the striking shortcut that "because animal life would swarm, it would be proof that the danger would have been averted ("SINCE IT WOULD THEREFORE ALTHOUGH [...] striking new fallacy ...) that the animals would be in "healthy""! You speak of reasoning!

And so this to force us in stride that you would be right to suggest it ultimately, since that would be supposed to demonstrate "that danger would be averted for man»(New fallacy, but ... the statistics predicting> 1mios of deaths over fifty years having fallen by the wayside in the meantime ...)

Once again, it all looks very much like oratorical blah-blah.

And this in order to try to reduce the chasm between the total aberration of the first reasoning already completely out of the nails, (to make the inconsistencies more easily digestible ...!) With the second even more false and aberrant .

And then I regret to say it, but this type of position borders on unconsciousness and that for what? In order to justify a dangerous technology, which for the moment is not a vector of the expected "progress" ...? Definitely!

Maybe some rest ...
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 19/10/15, 07:50

Janic wrote:
... This proliferation only indicates, as Obamot points out, that the fact that this place is free from the fear of man, his guns and traps of all kinds and therefore more easily concentrated there.
...
It would be true if there was no radioactivity.
There are two elements in the analysis. Is it one too many for you? Or are you saying that radioactivity is not an obstacle to teeming animal life ?!

As you may have noticed if you read my prose calmly, I say nothing, I emphasize that nobody can say anything, biologically, whether residual radioactivity has effects or not. short and long term and that only regular biological analyzes could perhaps answer this question. The only known aspect is that which is observed on humans in current contact with contaminated areas. If it were otherwise, it would be useless to want to cover the power plant with a pretty protective hat, more or less symbolic, and those who work there would do so in shorts and sneakers considering, precisely, that the fauna in question n do not use protective suits.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 19/10/15, 22:55

Janic wrote:... I emphasize that no one can assert anything ...

And as I have shown, you are wrong to affirm it, since on the one hand to affirm it you have seen only half of the problem, and on the other hand we can always affirm something to the within limits, what I had done.
Word "enough"was obviously not understood. It's a complicated word, it is true ... Or it did not please. Also possible, I should have taken a prettier word.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/10/15, 08:01

And as I have shown, you are wrong to affirm it, since on the one hand to affirm it you have seen only half of the problem, and on the other hand we can always affirm something to the within limits, what I had done.

You only said that a fauna re-entered a space left free by humans and there, I think, nobody questions it. (So ​​this is only half the problem) The nuance comes from the fact that except biological analysis, the appearance of health can be only an appearance and therefore to be verified. :D
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 20/10/15, 18:37

Janic wrote:...
You only said that a fauna re-entered a space left free by humans ...

This is not true, it is not me who said that, it is lessdewatt citing an article: "Wildlife re-invests the exclusion zone of the Chernobyl power plant. Wolves, elks, deer, ... all these little people seem to be doing well or even better than before the accident of 1986. But is this really the reality? ... "

Here I am, what I said and only said when answering about the abundance of animals:
"At least it means they're in enough good health to reproduce better than they do in populated areas."

It is time to learn to talk about the subjects yourself and not the people who talk about them. Your idle interpretations of what I say, and that you say that it is I who would say them, begins to constitute in all the threads of discussion, defamatory remarks a little painful, in addition to being false.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 20/10/15, 20:42

It is time to learn to talk about the subjects yourself and not the people who talk about them. Your idle interpretations of what I say, and that you affirm that it is I who would say them, begins to constitute in all the threads of discussion, defamatory remarks a little painful, in addition to being false
It is the hospital which laught at the charity.
To speak of the authority of a subject, it is still necessary to master the different aspects, which I did not even suggest, at most suggested that it is biological studies that decide the question.

defame: Seeking to lose someone's reputation by imputing to him a fact that affects his honor, his consideration.
Same thing: let the moderators decide if there is defamation or not!
NB: do you want me to recite all your idle interpretations?
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 210 guests