Exploring Facts about Liquified Natural Gas

[Astronuc]

Going back the original post, for information on LNG, see - http://www.naturalgas.org/lng/lng.asp

Basically, any technology has risk, and those involved in a technology are aware of the risks and follow guidelines, regulations and standards that are designed to ensure safety.

LNG is simply natural gas (mostly methane), which many people use in their homes. It is most often transmitted in pipelines and distributed through networks of pipes in the ground. It is very rare that someone's house blows up, but it can happen if there is a gas leak, or in the case of some equipment operator damaging a pipeline. However, the history of gas is generally that it is safely used.

There is also a lot of LPG (liquid petroleum gas - primarily mixtures of butane and propane) transported by rail. If one lives near a rail line (e.g. CP or CN railroads), particularly in Alberta, chances are that large quantities of LPG are traveling by one's house on a daily basis. LPG tank cars generally hold 33,000 gallons.

As for nuclear power plants, most of the people I know who work at such facilities are very conscientious about their work. They have families, friends and neighbors, who live near the plants. In addition, being out in the country side (Indian Point once was until people started building suburban communities around it), many people who work there tend to be rather strong on the environment, i.e. there are many people who enjoy outdoor activities, such as camping, fishing and hunting. They have a vested interest in maintaining safe and economical nuclear power.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well let's just have it then: what direct evidence is there that it harmed someone? You can't simply assume that it did. You're asking us to prove a negative, BT. That's impossible and unscientific. Look at it from the other direction: there is no evidence that nuclear power has ever harmed anyone not associated with its production (besides Chernobyl). No, there is no reasonable doubt: there simply is no evidence that anyone has been hurt.

I should stress once again that people have been undeniably hurt, and undeniably civilians too, and even undeniably non-workers, at Chernobyl. Mention that every time; you can't say "people have not been hurt." "Non-workers except at Chernobyl" is your claim.

Your link to the trial:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

I should also stress that what the three-mile-island case was about was whether the illnesses of ten particular people were directly caused by the radiation they were established to have been exposed to. Direct cause can be very difficult to establish even when it is present; take the example of cigarettes.

When the cause is more likely to be indirect, and the radiation likely only one of several contributing factors to a cancer, and the sample size is that small, the link is that much more difficult to establish even though harm has been done.

Take the example of food. Many foods are claimed to be detrimental to people's health, but how do you separate the good from the bad? Some foods are clearly unhealthy but for others we are not so sure. But to claim on that basis that no foods (except the obvious ones) are unhealthy and the whole idea of such unhealthy foods is baseless, would obviously be unwarranted.

So you shouldn't assert the negative merely because of a lack of proof for the positive. The amount of harm that has to be done by a nuclear power plant accident for it to be firmly established that harm has been done, is pretty large; much could slip beneath the "radar" of our detection procedures for harm from nuclear power plants. Argument ad ignorantiam is a fallacy whether it asserts the positive or the negative.

Therefore, neither position should be asserted.


Edit: some evidence for reasonable doubt is the fact that accidents have happened at nuclear power plants besides Chernobyl, that radiation has been released, and from the trial (to pick two things) that tree damage that may have been caused by radiation was observed and that some plaintiffs were observed as having elevated levels of digentric chromosomes. Things like these prove nothing but they are suggestive enough to create reasonable doubt.

 

[russ_watters]

I should stress once again that people have been undeniably hurt, and undeniably civilians too, and even undeniably non-workers, at Chernobyl. Mention that every time; you can't say "people have not been hurt." "Non-workers except at Chernobyl" is your claim.

How is that helpful? My claim is except Chernobly and I've been very open/specific about that - so how is it useful to point out that my claim is except Chernobyl?

But more than that, you seem to be implying that that's a bad thing. Why? Why is it relevant if Chernobyl hurt people? Chernobyl proves that if you try really hard and screw up very badly, you can kill people with nuclear power. So what? All that proves is how much better American nuclear power is.

I should also stress that what the three-mile-island case was about was whether the illnesses of ten particular people were directly caused by the radiation they were established to have been exposed to. Direct cause can be very difficult to establish even when it is present; take the example of cigarettes.

Certainly - but presumably these were good candidates. They must have thought they had a chance of winning the case, otherwise they wouldn't have sued.

When the cause is more likely to be indirect, and the radiation likely only one of several contributing factors to a cancer, and the sample size is that small, the link is that much more difficult to establish even though harm has been done.

Regardless, its not my problem: if the assertion is to be made that TMI caused deaths, then there needs to be direct evidence that TMI caused deaths. Its as simple as that. Now, that evidence does not need to be on an individual basis - yes, obviously its tough to prove the origin of a single cancer. But you can study the nearby cancer rate. And the rate was, of course studied, and no anomaly was found. That's direct evidence that TMI did not harm people.

Take the example of food. Many foods are claimed to be detrimental to people's health, but how do you separate the good from the bad? Some foods are clearly unhealthy but for others we are not so sure. But to claim on that basis that no foods (except the obvious ones) are unhealthy and the whole idea of such unhealthy foods is baseless, would obviously be unwarranted.

Good analogy, but you apparently don't see the difference: with food, you can show an association between, say, eating too much fatty food and getting heart disease. With nucelar power, no such association exists.

So you shouldn't assert the negative merely because of a lack of proof for the positive.

Why not? That's how science works!

The amount of harm that has to be done by a nuclear power plant accident for it to be firmly established that harm has been done, is pretty large; much could slip beneath the "radar" of our detection procedures for harm from nuclear power plants.

How much? Tell me how many people TMI had to kill before it would have been detectable. 10? 100? 1000? And don't think that scientists don't know the answer to that question.

Argument ad ignorantiam is a fallacy whether it asserts the positive or the negative.

Therefore, neither position should be asserted.

Nonsense. You assume the negative until the positive is proven. That's how science works.

 

[Moonbear]

Regardless, its not my problem: if the assertion is to be made that TMI caused deaths, then there needs to be direct evidence that TMI caused deaths. Its as simple as that. Now, that evidence does not need to be on an individual basis - yes, obviously its tough to prove the origin of a single cancer. But you can study the nearby cancer rate. And the rate was, of course studied, and no anomaly was found. That's direct evidence that TMI did not harm people.

Getting back to the original topic of the thread, the claim made by those spreading about pamphlets on LNG was:

It says that the only thing more dangerous is a Nuclear Power Plant

The entire purpose of the discussion about Nuclear Power here is to demonstrate it isn't terribly dangerous, so that something even less dangerous (i.e., LNG) is not something to worry about. The question relates to the community surrounding the facility, not to the workers within it.

While there is no proven harm to those 10 people from TMI, even if we argue based on the assumption that it may have harmed those 10 people, over the lifetime of nuclear power in the U.S., and also relative to other forms of power production in the U.S., that is an incredibly low risk. Indeed, when a risk is so low that you cannot even detect it above incident rates of those same illnesses in a similar population nowhere near a nuclear power plant, while you can never say there is no risk, you can pretty confidently say the risk is incredibly small, so low as to be unquantifiable. Thus, something that is less dangerous than something with an unquantifiably low risk would be little cause for alarm.

 

[Moonbear]

So you shouldn't assert the negative merely because of a lack of proof for the positive.

Why not? That's how science works!

Erm, Russ, actually, in this case, BT is correct...sort of. In the absence of evidence for the existence of something, we can never say with 100% certainty that something does not happen, we can only assert that in the cases we have tested, it does not happen. For example, there is nothing to say that a week from now, some horrible disaster couldn't happen at a nuclear plant that would harm people in the surrounding community, as unlikely as it seems to us now. In other words, you can make the assertion, but it needs to be qualified, such as "to the best of our knowledge" or "based on evidence to date."

On the other hand, if the question is one of risk assessment, you can also claim something is safe until you can disprove the safety with evidence of something harmful occurring. Risk is determined by probabilities, not yes or no answers. What constitutes "safe" is also somewhat ambiguous, so someone could argue something is safe only if there has never been any instance of harm, while someone else might argue safe means something that is less harmful than other comparable alternatives, while someone else might put an arbitrary dividing point between safe and unsafe, such as a certain number of incidents in a certain period of time, or a certain percentage of incidents above the population average.