At the end of the article, the incident is described as a rail accident.
If that train was carrying yellowcake, and derailed without killing anyone (yellowcake is a much less dangerous cargo), would the incident be described as a rail accident, Or a nuclear accident?
In response to Rod's questions:
Does your local media consider a large LPG explosion in a populated neighborhood causing significant property destruction and a resulting in a double digit death toll to be newsworthy?
Yes, but only if it happens locally.
Are they still providing any updated reports three days after the accident?
Yes, but only if it is local.
Do you think such an accident will result in any major effort to reroute trains carrying LPG away from populated areas, add safety features to LPG rail cars, or alter plans to build new homes with appliances that burn LPG?
No.
Do you think there will be any widespread effort to remind people of the obvious hazard of trains pulling cars full of flammable, volatile liquids through an annual series of news stories every June 29th?
No way.
How many long-term cancer deaths could be attributed to this accident? Did any of the rail cars have asbestos? Did any of the paint in the burning rail cars contain lead? Did any diesel fuel burn releasing particulate matter?
Could this accident cause a thousand deaths world wide? I thinks so. But I am not a Doctor. I do play one on the internet.
Funny, the Tobacco industry says that you can not prove that cigarette smoke caused cancer. The coal industy says coal is clean. The oil industry says diesel is good for the earth.
Nobuddy questions the thousands of concealed cancer deaths from Chernobyl.
Rod,
I really appreciate the point you are making here.
I have often wondered about the 'mechanics' of belief: why do people hold certain opinions, what affects perception of the truth and reality, and what makes people believe certain things to be true and others false when readily available evidence disproves their assertions?
The disconnect between popular belief in the evils of nuclear power and the facts, and the apparent obliviousness to the dangers of fossil-fuel systems despite the proven significant risks to health, safety and the environment, is stunning. So stunning in fact that it makes me wonder how on earth this state of affairs has come about in the minds of so many people. I'm sure there are several PhDs worth of material in this question...
"... popular belief in the evils of nuclear power ..."
The first thing to ask when you hear a phrase like that is, does the speaker get his oil and money as dividends, or through the tax man.
Unless, that is, you are hearing directly from the whole populace. If you are hearing their vox through someone, the question stands.
Rod,
#1 and #2 Yes it would take over the news cycles for several days. Unless of course Michael Jackson manages to find a way to come back to life and then die again.
#3 NO The news media would accept the storyline from the railroads and the LP companies that it would be too costly to move the rail lines or move the people away from the rail lines since a buffer zone makes the most sense in this type of situation.
Safety of the cars themselves would be a blip on the news cycle. That specific subject would last one question or may even end up on the cutting room floor since once again the reporters would accept the response from the railroad or car owners that they met DOT standards. There would be no outrage to change the standards; there would be no protests or people threatening to lay down on the tracks. Come on it is only 17 people, why should we pay to change a whole industry for 17 people who had the bad luck of living too close to rail lines that carry dangerous, flammable and toxic chemicals every day?
#4 No, this will fade away as do all industrial accidents do UNLESS it can be used to deem transport of nuclear materials unsafe then the anti-nuke crowd will trot out those 17+ people and use them every chance they get. But instead of 17 the number will automatically be inflated to hundreds because it COULD HAVE BEEN A NUCLEAR TRAIN CARRYING RADIOACTIVE , INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS NUCLEAR MATERIAL and we all know that if nuclear material gets loose hundreds will die. That is what the internet and NIRS tells us. Right?
Apologize to everyone, my cynicism is showing through today. Too much arguing with people who believe utopia is in the wind and the sun. Glad it is a long weekend.
@G.R.L. Cowan: I have asserted the "popular belief" from reading comments by and having interactions with people on liberal blogs such as DailyKos over the past two years at least. Discourse tends to be dominated by reflexively negative comments, repetition of complete falsehoods and specious arguments such as:
- power plants = nuclear bomb kits
- there is only enough U for 50-60 years
- plants can't scale fast enough as it takes too long to build them
- plants are waaaaaaaaay to expensive to contemplate
- waste is an intractable problem that damns any nuclear expansion
- waste is deadly for millions of years which makes the whole technology immoral
These widely repeated assertions seem to be accepted as truth by many, and anyone (like me) who points out that these 'facts' are anti-nuclear misinformation and propaganda gets shouted down almost immediately as a "shill for the industry". So, yes, based on my direct experience with dKos, one of the biggest political left-leaning sites on the Net, many people seem to have been indoctrinated with a litany of falsehoods and conditioned with a reflexive bias against nuclear technology.
Methinks part of the problem is that there is essentially no part of the established nuclear industry that feels independent of the fossil fuel industry and large portions of the fossil fuel and wind energy industry that have no connection at all with the nuclear industry.
After all, fire is simple enough for a child to understand, fission requires a smattering of math and physics.
Peoples beliefs come from:
1. What is past done from their parrents and culture.
2. What they can physically observe around them.
3. What is seen on tv.
Since nuclear is new and complicated, people can only learn about nuclear from tv. While movies spread urban legends and the new carry stories from anti-nuclear activists who is telling the correct side of the story.
Reposted with some typoes fixed.
Peoples beliefs come from:
1. What is passed down from their parrents and culture.
2. What they can physically observe around them.
3. What is seen on tv.
Since nuclear is news and complicated, people can only learn about nuclear from tv. While movies spread urban legends and the news carry stories from anti-nuclear activists who is telling the correct side of the story.
I think you are on to something Rod. The nuclear industry does not have any large independent companies or totally nuclear CEOs (where is the nuclear equivalent of Bill Gates or INTEL?). Most nuclear users are utilities that have mostly fossil units and NSSS vendors that are govt owned or owned by large foreign firms. This has long been a handicap for the advancement of nuclear.
Commenting by HaloScan
