Talk:Nuclear power/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 19, 2005 and May 22, 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Nuclear power/Archive03. Thank you. Benjamin Gatti 02:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Nuclear reactors directly contribute radioactive gases - that can be sourced.
they require processing which could be done from cleaner power but isn't i suggest the article ought to confine itself to what is.
and processed fuel is intrinsic to nuclear power.
mining etc requires vehicles usually diesel, and very big ones. this is intrisic. perhaps it requires less than coal - this is comparative and addresses the unstated question - what is the carbon budget of nuclear v. coal.
what doesn't matter is how the energy is consumed - unless, as in the case of wind, so much transport is required that much energy is simply lost as heat. - so transport is primary, consumption is not chargable to the producer.
Benjamin Gatti 18:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary and tertiary pollution

message: I quickly counted the occurences of pro and con opinions as prefixed:
11 instances Proponents Argue, Also Claim, Maintain, Argue, They Argue, Also claim, contend, contend, point out, point out, point out
3 instances Critics assert, point out, Opponents claim
Yes this is clearly unbalanced but thats not the point.
This article should be about facts rather than stakeholders opinion for or against.
Maybe we could create a new article titled 'Nuclear Power Proponents and Opponents Points of View'.
This is "one of those articles" that has absolutely no chance on ever converging on text that is acceptable to all partisans. There are some pro-nuclear people (NOTE WELL: I did not say "all pro-nuclear people"!) who can't accept any criticism of their favorite technology (and, prehaps, livelihood). And there are some anti-nuclear people (same note!) who can't accept that there are any situations where nuclear power might ever emerge as the best possible answer from among a set of unpallatable alternatives.
So the article will continue to swing wildly back-and-forth as the partisans on either side alternately impose their POV and are reverted by partisans from the other side.
I suspect the only way this would ever settle is if Wiki, for certain topics, simply supported two articles. For example: Nuclear power (as described by pro-nuclear partisans) and Nuclear power (as described by anti-nuclear partisans); if these both existed, then there might be hope that an article with a neutral point of view could also exist.
:I agree with you but many of the websites, used in the past as a citations, are not facts but 100% marketing and advocacy.  Since the facts are in dispute we need to state clearly who is alleging what, and even more basically, convey which facts are actually in dispute.  For example I just removed "proven technology" from the intro since that can't be true and is marketing phraseology regardless. zen master    T  16:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I do not agree to any of the article splitting or framing that you propose.  Neutral point of view means including all sides.  zen master    T  16:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia infact has a specific polocy against POV forking, and it can be grounds for deleting an article on VFD.  The point here is to write a single article which represents all sides of a contraversial subject (see WP:NPOV). Dalf | Talk 21:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't get too discouraged.  There are many issues more contentious and more intractable than this one that have over time developed into decent articles.  Though I do admit that it is frustrating.  On the other hand I have learned a lot about several such issues by reading the talk pages in question.  You would be amazed at the coverage you can get on the various points of view on some issues by reading through how the debates have progressed over time. Dalf | Talk 23:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: http://www.oprit.rug.nl/deenen/
http://www.afeas.org/greenhouse_gases.html
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:gVNRnsSRKK8J:www.nuclearpolicy.org/NewsArticle.cfm%3FNewsID%3D2268+%22Nicholas+Kristof%27s+article+%22Nukes+are+Green%22+is+incorrect%22&hl=en
Various sources associated with info on the following link
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12835747^12332,00.html
nuclear power produces only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
:-In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.
:You could use the same argument for solar enenrgy not being green energy: to make those solar panels from plastic and silicone required energy from some possibly coal power plant as well as water, and other resources. But this is going into a gray area. I think if we start counting all indirect relations the list could go on and on infinitely. --Berkut 06:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, the argumet that Nuclear power uses fossil power by proxy is a bit weak.  If the power stations that powered the mines were Nuclear as well for example.  Also the electricity created by the plant could be used to produce greenhouse gasses.  However, neither of these thigns are intrensic to Nuclear power.  That is they are not necessarry for it to work, and ideal could be eliminated.  Dalf | Talk 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear power greenhouse emissions 

message: I've reinstated this, as I only posted it TODAY, so I don't consider it ready for archiving just yet --Sgkay 21:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read. That point and link is in the article. The problem with your POV is that you have very little facts but many emotions. Do not complain when claims without any bases are removed. Ultramarine 16:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So given the UK government consider Nuclear Power too expensive to use, and I quoted a link to the UK government news article about this, in what way was this a claim without base? Sgkay 21:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to say? I have not removed this link or statement. Ultramarine 21:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section of this article 

message: ::Actually the pebble bed reactors have something of a history (one was operated in Germany for long enough to be decommissioned).  South Africa which in terms of energy economics could be called developing is doing some of the most research and new developments in this area and is hardly authoritarian.  As far as I know the Indian government does not operate on a caste system (though I could be wrong), and I have not heard of any references to the caste system in India being used to suppress opposition to nuclear power. Dalf | Talk 07:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental Status

message: My contribution in the 'Risks' section, where I highlighted the confirmed risk of Leukemia by living near to a nuclear power station (see Wikipedia note at Leukemia#Radiation), has been removed by user Ultramarine and replaced with links to World Nuclear Association  and an outdated (and since retracted) conclusion from scientist Richard Doll 
Faced with growing evidence of the scientific untenability of his virtual dismissal of causes of cancer other than smoking and lifestyle, coupled with damaging revelations of conflicts of interest, Doll has suddenly retracted his long-standing dismissal of environmental causes of cancer.
:Actually, virus is an environmental cause of cancer. Ultramarine 16:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a summary of studies  Ultramarine 16:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risks of Leukemia from proximity to nuclear power plants 

message: Am I wrong in my thinking that the paragraph above the TOC should be an abstract of the article?
:No, you're not wrong. And it would be nice if we could at least settle on that text. :-(
:Atlant 19:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction paragraph 

message: For reasons stated throughout - this article is a mishmash of comparisons and opinions. It ought to properly named as such and this space used to describe the characteristics of nuclear power alone. a page on Churchill is not the place to describe Hitler.
Benjamin Gatti 21:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A new article for the controversy sounds nice. --Yath 21:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This is just another attempt by opponents of nuclear power to censor this article since they have little real arguments. An article that only states risks but is not allowed to mention comparative benefits like economic costs is ridiculous. Similarly, it can be argued that all articles about renewable eneryg should remove all statements that they pollute less than than fossil fuels since this is a comparison. Neither should any article about renewable energy be allowed to compare alternative fuels with gasoline, or compare waste issues or accident risk with nuclear, or state that renewables contribute less to global warming. Ultramarine 22:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the move is for purposes of isolating the parties - coal should not be peppered through a page on Nuclear except perhaps to point out that coal is burned to power the processing of the required uraniam. 'Opponents' as you say - who probably call themselves 'parents' who happen to care more about the health of their kids than providing enough power so Bush and Schatzanegger can drive around in strtch hummers - are being censored in this article already - look at the history - every mention of the radioactive offgassing is purged - actual science is being deleted by the irrationally exhuberent. Benjamin Gatti 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: An article about Churchill that does not mention Hitler would be strange indeed. Ultramarine 22:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention would be appropriate - but this page is pepper with coal this and fossils that.Benjamin Gatti 22:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Observe that votes like this has no power. Wikipedia requires consensus on issues like this. Ultramarine 22:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This just looks like an end run around no POV forking.  I do agree that an article such as Nuclear controversy would probably be worth making.  There is a lot of history here especially if you include the last few years where a number of environmental groups such as The Sierra club changing their stances on the issue.  However moving or re-directing this article would need a consensus perhaps even a VfD.  The fact of the matter is that an article on Nuclear power is a not an article on Nuclear reactors and also an article on nuclear power would be incomplete without discussing the controversy. Dalf | Talk 04:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Moving this article to Nuclear Debate

message: Perhaps a bit drastic, but those parts of the page which are NPOV are redundat and the POV stuff belogs in a debate page.
:Another amazing tactics, after spamming the article with statements without sources and censoring the talk page. I have notified the administrators. Ultramarine 22:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don’t agree with describing you as a vandal or spammer, I am going to have to agree with Ultramarine here, your edits to the article were for the most part one piece of fact three pieces of editorial declaring what the fact meant (usually in place of actual content describing the fact).  Your behavior on this talk page has also been to do everything in your power to avoid actually defending your position with facts but instead to try and censor myself and other editors (even one who appears to agree with you on a number of issues).  I do not actually think you did this in malice I suspect that you are just new so it is not as bad.  However, at the same time you are proving VERY resistant to acknowledging that deleting arguments you can’t effectively respond too is not ok.  Instead of trying to remove the comments about talk page etiquette I will just ask you to read them carefully.  I don't think you are a vandal or a spammer and I don't think using either of those words is helpful but I do think that you should really re-read the complaints about how you are conducting yourself with a mind open to the possibility that the complaints were made in good faith. Dalf | Talk 04:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Completed 

message: I agree with those who have pointed out that "proponents" is not a source.
This subject being highly researched - there is little excuse for including 'original research' which is unverified. The opinions of "proponents" amounts to original research.
I propose to strip out all claims attributed to undefined parties.
Any objections?
Benjamin Gatti 02:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-defined groups? Are you trying to say that only environmental groups should be allowed? No group should be allowed to state something as facts without scientific studies. Changing and selectively archiving the comments of others on talk page is considered vandalism. I have been lenient until now, but if you continue I will and must to protect Wikipedia ask the "higher ups" to intervene.  Ultramarine 04:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I think you Ben are missing the point.  The nouns proponents and critics in the article are NOT sources.  Go read the abortion article, or any of the longer articles on [Category:NPOV_disputes], that construct is used when proving something as fact is not possible.  There are reputable sources that say Nuclear power is pollution free, there are others that claim that it pollutes on comparable levels to coal or some such.  In such a case saying one or the other (which you seem to support as long as the one that is being said is what you agree with) is POV.  Saying that supporters of the technology claim one thing and opponents another is a fact, and in a case like this sometimes it is the best we can do.  For some details we can agree on compromise wording.  If you look back in the history the line in the opening paragraph about air pollution use to say that nuclear power caused NO air pollution, someone 2 weeks ago changed it claiming that it actually polluted to the same levels as coal.  After they were unable to support their claim on the talk page other than a few arguments about secondary and 3rd or 4th order effects we changed it to the more moderate wording as a compromise.  That is how these things work its a discussion, give and take, your simply deleting peoples arguments in this context is abusive and it is vandalism, at first it was done in ignorance and we were patient about it.  But, now you know and you really do need to stop. Dalf | Talk 04:53, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon (Dalf), Do we agree this page in not currently NPOV? I think it is no small group which believes in the cannon of research - including real historic events like cherny and TMI - that nuclear has a substantial and negative impact - it may occur over time in large and rare bursts - but it is there are it is substantial. Others want a source of power which is clean, safe, and free, and because they cannot find that with something else, they have latched unto nuclear with the full conviction of a true believer. I am interested in the truth. a few months ago i would have been nearer the later category - maybe its ok, now i'm more in the let's really explore the alternatives first category. as you say i have not been one-sided about anything. And as for drastic - if an article is NPOV - it deserves drastic - no apologies.
Benjamin Gatti 19:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proponents vs Real Sourcing