A stark gender difference

March 24th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

UMR polled people in January on if they think nuclear powered ships are safe.

The answer should of course be yes, unless you regard every human activity known as unsafe.

A 1996 report found there had been no nuclear events from Western nuclear ships:

However, when it comes to  nuclear events the west has so far had a unique safety record  with no nuclear accidents.

They estimate a serious (but not nuclear) accident involving a nuclear powered ship every 50 years on average.

A more recent report says:

U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 134 million miles safely steamed on , and they have amassed over 5700 reactor-years of safe operation.

So the science is pretty clear on this one. But the poll result was:

  • 38% think they are safe
  • 48% not safe
  • 14% unsure

That shows how ill-informed so many people are. But what I was most interested in was this:

59% of men now believe that nuclear powered vessels are safe, compared with only 18% of women.

That is a massive difference by gender. I can’t recall another issue on which there is such a difference.

If I had to guess, I’d say it is the fear of women that a nuclear accident could interfere with any pregnancies, as in lead to deformed babies. The maternal instinct over-riding risk analysis?

What other reasons do people think might explain the difference? More men study science?

Tags: ,

96 Responses to “A stark gender difference”

  1. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Ignorance is the only explanation and women are more likely to be sucked in by baby crocodiles and scaremongering. That is the only reason I can think that so many of my otherwise intelligent friends are sucked in by socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    Maternal instinct,protecting ones’ pregnacy? Gender differences?

    Surely not! These are all social and cultural constructs.

    We’re all EQUAL. Parliament says there’s no DIFFERENCE.

    And on another note,it may not all be entirely ignorance. In the NZ context the NZ left and media have waged a relentless campaign against US nuclear warships ,so we may be witnessing the fruits of that Soviet inspired campaign.
    Many women may also spend too much time on frivolous things like fashion,shopping,day time TV to actually inform themselves of facts……to think those idiots get to vote!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Harmer (687 comments) says:

    The opinions I would worry about are those of the actuaries. The day an insurance company drops their blanket exclusion of all events related to radiation I will finally believe it is safe. Even the US Navy will not indemnify the ports they visit against adverse events. So what are they afraid of?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,494 comments) says:

    They are probably safe at least within a very large probability. But it surprises me how little rational thought goes into this issue like so many issues involving the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Reason versus emotion.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    I doubt pregnancy comes into it.
    A general distaste for ‘war toys,’ perhaps. Instilled from childhood.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Minnie (98 comments) says:

    I think Mary Rose is on to it. Perhaps if the study had also asked if any naval vessels carrying arms were safe, a conclusion could be reached. Are women more likely to think that armed forces should be restricted to “peace-keeping” than men?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    It was known in the 70s that nuclear energy is a damn sight safer than coal for instance. Of course the whole nuclear, doomsday war concerns of the 60s confused nuclear weapons with nuclear energy in the minds of most.

    http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/risk.htm

    shows deaths by energy generated – haven’t checked the sources but they are very similar to figures I’ve seen several times over the years – funny that solar energy is more dangerous than nuclear. Though nuclear is a lot more expensive than people realise because of storage costs of the left over material. Anecdotally, the high solar power death figure is mainly due to people falling off rooves.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Further compelling evidence that women should not be allowed to vote. It has clearly been a terrible mistake. Most of the failed marxist social policy infecting Western society, has be forced upon us by women.

    I consider women equal and think men and women compliment each other. But women struggle to separate emotion from fact and can often make poor choices when in that state of mind. Giving them the vote was a failed social experiment that should be corrected.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Viking2 (11,552 comments) says:

    Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
    That’s right, women are from another Planet.
    Logic versus emotion.

    Much like or current crop of politicans.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over 134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700 reactor-years of safe operation.

    Likewise we could also say:

    U.S. Nuclear weapons (USNWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years without experiencing any accidental detonation or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health or had an adverse effect on marine life. Nuclear weapons have an outstanding record of over 50 years deployment without serious incident.

    But that doesn’t remove the destructive potential of such weapons does it, they are still extremely dangerous due to their explosive yield and if something does go wrong it’s going to go really wrong.

    Why are nuclear ships any different? the potential for catastrophe in an attack on such a vessel is huge
    and enough of a concern in itself, let alone the fact that the older these ships get the more likely other issues will emerge.

    The potential for catastrophe with a nuclear reactor is always a higher risk than more conventional means of powering a ship, maybe women aren’t as stupid as you think.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    does it make me a misogynist if i go with keas theory…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    What I found fascinating were two facts:
    * navy staff on board a nuclear powered vessel received LESS radiation than Federal staff on-shore (no radon on board)
    * reactors are turned off while moored.

    So touring a nuclear-powered ship probably exposes me to less radiation than visiting the local hospital.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Would the New Zealand economy survive a nuclear accident?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    SPC – would the nz economy survive a labour/greens/mana/united/nz first coalition?

    maybe we should ban them too

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    * reactors are turned off while moored.

    Ha! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Would the New Zealand economy survive a nuclear accident?

    Not a hope in hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Would the economy survive TPP – if we lost Pharmac/parallel importing/loss of economic sovereignty etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    reactors are turned off while moored.

    I am not anti Nuke but that is pure bullshit.

    The folks at Fukushima will tell you what it takes to turn off a reactor. It really is quite a fuss and takes a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    does it make me a misogynist if i go with keas theory…

    Its 50/50 at the moment ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    In theory, the ships are just as safe as a small nuclear powerplant. Under normal conditions, these are absolutely fine. They have small problems when confronted with adverse environments, like, I dunno say, earthquakes and tsunamis. Or in thecase of a warship, a salvo of missles or torpedoes.

    Question, what western nuclear powered warship seen active combat & received incoming fire from heavy enemy munitions?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    The real issue is risk management, while the risk of an event is low, the consequences of one are too high – especially when it is a risk that does not need to be taken.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    “Question, what western nuclear powered warship seen active combat & received incoming fire from heavy enemy munitions?”

    the more scary question would be:

    “what the fuck could get close enough to a US carrier to fire on it?”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    What are your oestregen levels?

    “But that doesn’t remove the destructive potential of such weapons does it, they are still extremely dangerous due to their explosive yield and if something does go wrong it’s going to go really wrong.”

    Is a beautiful example of how little is understood about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. There is no explosive yield in a reactor. It is actually quite difficult to cause a nuclear explosion. Duh!

    You can have a meltdown or an attack – if a nuclear powered vessel is sunk then it ends up underwater – a relatively safe place to be. Reactors on vessels are very small compared to land based ones. You just don’t get the Chernobyl type scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    dime, all US ships are terrorist targets.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dime (10,095 comments) says:

    SPC – really? i thought they would give them a miss.

    if a terrorist can get close enough to launch a torpedo on a carrier id be fuckin impressed

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Would the New Zealand economy survive a nuclear accident?

    SPC, Would you survive a car accident ? Do you ride in cars ?

    Another question would be to ask how nuclear energy would benefit our economy ? That fits in nicely with your AGW/co2 beliefs too.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    dime, all US ships are terrorist targets.

    All terrorists are targets of US ships. Last time I checked the USS Nimitz was winning that one.

    (Of course the black Jesus is mostly targeting goat herders and dirt poor Muslims.)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kowtow (8,733 comments) says:

    The Sun is a huge nuclear reactor.

    Ban the Sun.

    The way so called progressives have got dumb shit voters going on bans the idea would probably get a high proportion of womens’ support.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    @Kea

    You have no idea of the differences between naval reactors and commercial power reactors. The former run at an average of 15% of rated capacity, and can ramp power up (and down) very quickly, to suit propulsion needs. Unlike power stations that run close to 100% and are slower to turn off.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Kea, we don’t have the need for nuclear energy, nor the capacity to manage waste.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    USS Cole was successfully bombed by terrorists in year 2000, admittedly its a destroyer not a carrier, and powered by electric gas turbines not nuclear. Bombing achieved by sailing a small boat alongside packed with 200-300kg of explosives (suicide bomb).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    SPC, the greens oppose the use of:

    1. Wind
    2. Hydro
    3. Thermal
    4. Coal
    5. Tidal
    6. Solar

    So yeah we do need Nuclear.

    They oppose everything. Try tidal, its opposed on marine eco grounds. Solar array, opposed on environmental impact grounds. Wind… ditto.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    “Would the New Zealand economy survive a nuclear accident?”

    Involving a nuclear powered ship or submarine?

    Of course it would – that’s the point.

    We have the scaremongering, tree hugging, s**t in the garden, walk to work, science is evil brigade with no real understanding of the facts and risks talking up non-existent doomsday scenarios on one side and facts on the other

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Grant Michael McKenna (1,160 comments) says:

    Men are far more interested in military matters than are women, and are therefore more likely to have met and assimilated the data that nuclear powered marine vessels are safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Nuclear reactors in warships are designed to go into harms way. Therefore they have multiple redundancy and fail-safe systems designed into them that land-based civilian reactors don’t have because they don’t need them. They also have much more highly trained and attentive operators for precisely the same reason. Officers in a nuclear submarine for example know as much about the propulsion system as any civilian nuclear engineer, even the ones who don’t work in the reactor room.

    All of this adds up to the reason why there has never been and probably never will be an accident on a nuclear warship unless its sabotage.

    None of which makes any difference whatsoever to the profound idiots who base their decision on their approval or otherwise of our anti-nuke policy around this issue. Facts have never had anything to do with it, and they never will. Women support this idiocy in greater proportion than men because women base their decision-making on emotion, men base it on facts. This IS how the two sexes think. Of course everyone is on a spectrum, some men are very emotive thinkers and some women are very rational. But the vast majority of either sex coalesce around the middle as per the standard distribution, and this is why that poll shows the results it does.

    And for this fantasy, the entire country has had to suffer the consequences for almost thirty years. Simply because Hulun wanted to make her commie mates happy. Congratulations, useful idiots (i.e. those who approve of or have ever approved of the policy).

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    What are your oestregen levels?

    You’re the one having a bitch fit.

    “But that doesn’t remove the destructive potential of such weapons does it, they are still extremely dangerous due to their explosive yield and if something does go wrong it’s going to go really wrong.”

    Is a beautiful example of how little is understood about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. There is no explosive yield in a reactor. It is actually quite difficult to cause a nuclear explosion. Duh!

    I understand that fact very well thank you very much. I also understand how those differences result in higher radioactive contamination potential from a reactor than that nuclear weapon due to the difference in how the potential energy is harnessed from each device.

    You can have a meltdown or an attack – if a nuclear powered vessel is sunk then it ends up underwater – a relatively safe place to be. Reactors on vessels are very small compared to land based ones. You just don’t get the Chernobyl type scenarios.

    Well you tell that to our trading partners after an accident, I’m sure they will believe you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    slijmbal>Anecdotally, the high solar power death figure is mainly due to people falling off rooves.

    More people have been killed by the Makara Wind Farm than at Fukushima, even tho Fukushima was hit but an enormous tsunami whereas Makara is just a bit windy.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    When considering an issue women believe that feelings carry the same weight as facts. This may work ok in interpersonal relationships, but you could not build a Jumbo Jet or a hospital using that sort of logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    The Renewable Energy Disaster

    If we have fancy boutique priced energy, we will have fancy boutique priced food!

    by Christopher Calder

    Please support The National Food Security Act

    It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. Hobbits may be able to live poetically, generating energy from the wind, the sun, and the soil. Real human beings living in an industrialized civilization need highly concentrated nonrenewable energy sources to survive. Renewable energy schemes other than hydroelectric and geothermal power are resource hogs that take up huge amounts of space while providing very little usable energy in return. Contrary to popular belief, solar, wind, wave energy, and biofuel schemes are not “energy efficient,” and their ultra-high cost is an accurate measurement of that inherent inefficiency. If they were efficient they would cost less than using fossil fuels, not dramatically more than using fossil fuels.
    EXAMPLE: To satisfy 100% of New York City’s electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut. Solar photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that it would take about 60 square miles of expensive solar panels to generate just one gigawatt of electricity.

    http://renewable.50webs.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. ChardonnayGuy (1,211 comments) says:

    Oh dear. The fact of the matter is that, rightly or wrongly, the Fukushima tragedy revitalised the naysayers in the context of the nuclear energy debate and will continue to do so for a great many years yet. And if you think the result in New Zealand’s opinion polls are resolutely gender differentiated, look at the sharp stimulus and regalvanisation effect that the question of civilian nuclear energy safety had in the context of Germany insofar as the Green voter share goes. Merkel had to abandon and promise to phase out any further civilian nuclear energy development. Added to which, there is still the question of nuclear weapons proliferation. At present, the United States, Russian Republic, Peoples Republic of China, India, Israel and… Pakistan…all have nuclear weapons. Does Pakistan strike you as a notably stable state, David? Added to which, there are questions about Russian nuclear security during the Putin era, and that nutter Ahmadinejad in Iran to contemplate, which puts me in a cold sweat.

    No, I think New Zealand’s current *bipartisan* nuclear-free policy is in our best interests. Opponents of that current stance are heavily concentrated in marginal ACT and when Don Brash put up the flag on behalf of repeal, it backfired on National.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    if you think the result in New Zealand’s opinion polls are resolutely gender differentiated

    It’s the result in THIS opinion poll that IS sharply differentiated that we’re discussing, CG, we’re not discussing all opinion polls, just this one.

    I think New Zealand’s current *bipartisan* nuclear-free policy is in our best interests.

    The question is, why? What benefit has arisen from this idiotic mentalism? Has it ever got rid of a single nuke? No, not a single one. Sure, it did lift NZ’s international profile, but LoTR did that much more effectively and I’m not sure about you CG but I personally didn’t notice a lift in tourism from 1984-on whereas I did notice a lift in tourism after LoTR which shows you what net effect both those events had. At the same time the cost in international relations has been incalculable. The only benefit the anti-nuke mentalism ever gave anyone was a warm feeling in the belly of a few million total fucking morons who hallucinate that it was our “wight” to do it (which was never in question anyway) and it was a weally weally neaty thing to do cos it pwomoted world peace [stamp]. And who gives a fuck if most people support it, that’s not the point, the point is, doing the correct thing, and this wasn’t it. The only reason most people support it is because they’re too stupid to calculate the costs and the benefits, which as soon as you do, you recognise the negative equation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Hay lets build a giant Nuclear reactor in NZ, using female logic :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    I’m with Reid. I’m with the misogynists. I should be the only woman allowed to have the vote. Okay, maybe Mary Rose too.

    “The potential for catastrophe with a nuclear reactor is always a higher risk than more conventional means of powering a ship, maybe women aren’t as stupid as you think.”

    No. any one who thinks in sloganism is stupid. Beliefs simplified to *nuclear powered ships are bad and oil is baaad”.

    Mark of stupidity that.

    That stupid Lucy Lawless is a prime piece of McThick Burger for her dickhead protesting actions.

    Words are far more dangerous than any nuclear powered ship. It’s not weapons that kill in war, it is the words that spark the conflict.

    And Nancy Pelosi said recently at a fundraiser in San Fran that Obama had a mandate to push through the measures that he wanted to advance. I’ll dig up the link. Very dangerous statement in my books.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    I’m with Reid. I’m with the misogynists.

    I’m hoping you’re not equating me with the latter statement Monique.

    If so it’d be good if you could point to something I’ve said that indicates that. Hint: it doesn’t count if it’s true, because telling it like it is is not a denigration, it’s a mere statement of fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ChardonnayGuy (1,211 comments) says:

    Could I suggest that this is one of those non-triangulated quirks of centre-right belief that probably will get excised from the mainstream centre-right manifestos come 2014? Given Fukushima, Germany and France are prudently abandoning civilian nuclear energy, and are entitled to do so. And as for nuclear weapon proliferation, could I once again raise the issue of Pakistan’s nuclear status (shudder), India’s sabre-rattling Bharatiya Janata Party opposition and Iran (cold sweat)? Not only sane liberal democratic states (and Russia) (or stable authoritarian ones like China) have access to nuclear weapons as a ‘deterrent.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Jaffa (97 comments) says:

    If the ships at Pearl Harbour were nuclear powered, Hawaii would be uninhabitable, immediately, and for some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,753 comments) says:

    Jaffa, It’s because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are “Nuclear powered” that Hawaii is habitable, immediately, and for some time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    It’s because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are “Nuclear powered” that Hawaii is habitable, immediately, and for some time.

    No there’s lots of arguments against Truman’s use in WWII. But anyway, what people don’t seem to get is that the anti-nuke was not designed as a protest against nukes but against the US of A. It was disguised as an anti-nuke stance but that’s not what it was. Notwithstanding most people even now haven’t yet figured that out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ed Snack (1,925 comments) says:

    France, abandoning nuclear ? They get around 80% of their power from them, and send quite a bit to the UK and others these days to keep the lights on.

    Nuclear makes sense especially when one uses highly proliferation resistant technologies like Thorium based fuels. What the difference, I think it just goes to show that emotionally based propaganda works and works best with those who rely more on emotion than reason. Facts are irrelevant if you’re not basing you decision on facts but instead you use how you FEEL about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Mistype. I meant I’m with Kea and Dime. The Misogynist Crew. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ChardonnayGuy (1,211 comments) says:

    Nuclear power in New Zealand isn’t electorally viable and any political party who adopts it will be pulverised.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Facts are irrelevant if you’re not basing you decision on facts but instead you use how you FEEL about it.

    Eds onto it ;)

    Women have always had incredible power and influence over men (due to the amazing & magical powers of pussy). Letting them vote, on top of all that inherent power, is stacking the deck unfairly in their favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Reid (16,632 comments) says:

    Nuclear power in New Zealand isn’t electorally viable and any political party who adopts it will be pulverised.

    Yes we all know that CG, duh, but so what, that’s never been the question. The question is, was it correct?

    Monique, no worries.

    “what the fuck could get close enough to a US carrier to fire on it?”

    A German Dolphin class diesel sub. Several of which they’ve given to Israel (as-in, donated, for free). A Chinese Song class sub. An Iranian jet hiding in the Zagros mountains armed with Russian Sunburn missiles which have terminal evasion capability and velocity sufficient to defeat all known countermeasures including CIWS. I haven’t done any research, that list is probably out of date, the Song class probably had a lucky strike when it did it in the middle of a US exercise a few years ago. But it can be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Kea @ 3.03pm
    I am outraged you should portray women in such a sexist, frivolous and completely incorrect fashion
    It’s not pussy that causes the imbalance of power on a daily basis.
    It’s tits.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    I am more of a bum man myself. But your right, it was a shallow treatment of a serious topic. They get all those lovely bits and still want to vote ! Women eh ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Steve in Florida (1 comment) says:

    These ships are built to take battle damage. The oldest nuclear carrier, Enterprise, which has 8 nuclear reactors, in 1969 had a Zuni rocket explode on its deck. The resulting fire set off a chain reaction of explosions from 500 lb bombs on deck. A deep hole was blasted in the deck and resulted in multiple deaths. However, the reactors didn’t, kept working and the ship made it to port under its own power. It was repaired and stayed in service for another 43 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Joseph Carpenter (214 comments) says:

    Funnily enough the NZ Nuclear Free Zone & Disarmament law doesn’t actually prohibit nuclear power inside NZ – it would legal to have a nuclear power station (if you could get Resource Consent). Only nuclear weapons and foreign nuclear powered vessels are prohibited (note the RNZN could legally have nuclear powered warships, in fact we could probably get some good deals from the Russians). Also nuclear armed or powered ships or aircraft can transit our waters. Also some stupid local authorities have declared themselves “nuclear free zones” in bylaws even though wrong in reality and ultra vires in law.

    Also I believe we do in fact have a small nuclear reactor pile in Seaview and two high level radiation sources in Upper Hutt and Seaview for gamma irradiation plus many smaller (but dangerous) radioactive sources in Universities, hospitals, labs, engineering/metalworking workshops, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    “The potential for catastrophe with a nuclear reactor is always a higher risk than more conventional means of powering a ship, maybe women aren’t as stupid as you think.”

    No. any one who thinks in sloganism is stupid. Beliefs simplified to *nuclear powered ships are bad and oil is baaad”.

    Mark of stupidity that.

    What is a mark of stupidity is being complacent about the realities of nuclear reactions and the problems they can cause when they do go wrong.
    Bark and snipe all you like, but there are certain issues with nuclear that simply do not exist with other ways of generating energy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    “what the fuck could get close enough to a US carrier to fire on it?”

    If it doesn’t exist now it certainly will in a few short years.

    The Iranians already have a viable strategy against a carrier group and any conflict with them will almost certainly lead to the loss of a carrier in the Persian gulf.

    The USA is rapidly losing ground on the military hardware front and is simply incapable of addressing that issue in the current political/economic climate.

    Just take a look at the F35 lightning, a great example of the USA losing the plot in a monumental way and being forced to continue with an aircraft that is effectively a complete dud.

    Technological advances will be the undoing of the current military advantage the USA enjoys, it is getting cheaper and easier to produce hi tech weaponry with every passing day, and other countries are beginning to do it much better than the USA is currently able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Whatever, Sharunda. The very nature of generating energy holds that risk is implicit.
    If you generate energy to store then you’ve gotta helluva lot of potential energy to contain and a fuck load of risk mitigation to undertake regardless of the mode of energy generation.
    Nuclear power generation is a lot less culpable than others in deaths directly attributable to energy generation.

    Hydro power generation is right up there in the stats: Displacement of natives (40,000 estimated displacements due to dam construction worldwide) and straight up slaughter of the poor cunts who were killed outright in dam construction (Manapouri) or who were killed later in breaches and outright failure (think Vajont in Italy that wiped out thousands; four villages)

    PS I don’t bark and snipe, I lick and bite.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Hydro power generation is right up there in the stats: Displacement of natives (40,000 estimated displacements due to dam construction worldwide) and straight up slaughter of the poor cunts who were killed outright in dam construction (Manapouri) or who were killed later in breaches and outright failure (think Vajont in Italy that wiped out thousands; four villages)

    A flood from a burst hydro dam doesn’t have a half life of 30years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Shunda is obviously female in how he/she decides opinion thus my question about oestregen.

    The fact that various energy sources and weapons have dangers is obvious.

    The recorded facts around deaths and injuries related to various energy sources is also recorded.

    None of these will ever matter with Shunda as he/she ‘feels’/’believes’ about the inherent dangers involved in splitting the atom but without comparing with other options. Facts are an unfortunate victim of belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    The Iranians already have a viable strategy against a carrier group and any conflict with them will almost certainly lead to the loss of a carrier in the Persian gulf.

    Do you claim to have some inside information regarding Iranian military strategy ?

    For every measure, counter measures are developed. It is the history of warfare. I seriously doubt you know of anything that the Yanks have not got answer to.

    As for Nuclear energy, I am not against it in principle, but at the current time in NZ I think it is not needed. We can make a few more dams and we have coal and oil reserves, plus thermal. The thing driving us towards Nuclear, in NZ, is the out of control green movement. Once we put the greenies (& women) back in their place, all will be sorted ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    slijmbal, when I achieve my goal of ridding women of the vote problem, I see a place for you as the minister of womens affairs. You appear to have a profound understanding of women. Your country needs you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Facts are an unfortunate victim of belief.

    Absolutely, you display that very well.

    If you can’t appreciate the difference in energy potential between a barrel of oil and a chunk of uranium then your belief blinds you very effectively.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. eziryder (15 comments) says:

    Sigh. Shunda, just a sucker for the pathetic protest constituency here in NZ. Nothing is unworthy of your puling uniformed nimbyism and hypocrisy. I was talking to the Peabodys on Friday who are celebrating 10 years of the magnificent Craggy Range here in Hawkes Bay. They nearly gave up with our half baked RMA which gives inordinate scope for the likes of you to F**k them over at no cost. You know nothing about civilian nuclear power (unlikely that we ever are to need it here). The CEO of B&W (who look after the nuclear waste repository in the US, and built then reactors for the US Navy) told me that until Fukeshima (a 14m tsunami is going to cause havoc in any peer plant, believe me) there were nil deaths attributed to civilian nuclear power in the Western World. It has been safer than all other forms of power generation by orders of magnitude.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Correction on the coal deaths per twh for China.

    Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED

    Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
    Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
    Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
    Coal electricity- China 90
    Coal – USA 15
    Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
    Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
    Biofuel/Biomass 12
    Peat 12
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
    Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
    Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
    Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
    Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Proposed new rule: anybody who cites “Fukishima” as a reason not to develop modern nuclear energy resources needs to be reminded that the Fukishima I Power plant was built in 1967.

    Remember that that was 10 years earlier than the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (remembering that the aftermath of that meltdown has claimed less than 50 lives in the past two decades).

    So here we have a plant that was built in the 1960s getting hit by a massive earthquake and then a tsunami and the consequences are so disastrous that the WHO reports that so little radiation was released that any effects on the residents of Fukishima will be so minor as to be undetectible.

    To ChardonnayGuy, the obvious and ‘prudent’ response to this is to abandon the development of better and more efficient nuclear plants which, relative to other energy sources, are both green and sustainable?

    Proposal: if anyone wants to just parrot the sensationalist media line on nuclear power and cite Fukishima as a reason why, they should be banished to only using technology available in 1967. Enjoy your computer, internet and telephone, mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. V (744 comments) says:

    Depends how you compile the stats really, solar energy is extremely dangerous if you factor in all the deaths from malignant melanoma.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Do you claim to have some inside information regarding Iranian military strategy ?

    If the Yanks don’t want to lose a carrier, they would be best to avoid large parts of the Persian gulf in a conflict with Iran.

    Organized large scale asymmetric warfare is not something the USA has ever coped well with.

    Iran couldn’t ultimately win a war with the USA, but they could certainly do a hell of a lot more damage than any adversary since Vietnam.

    The world is a rapidly changing place, technologically advanced weaponry is not something the USA will dominate for much longer. The Iranians already have some very cleaver weapons that give them a fairly potent first strike capability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “Iran couldn’t ultimately win a war with the USA, but they could certainly do a hell of a lot more damage than any adversary since Vietnam.

    The world is a rapidly changing place, technologically advanced weaponry is not something the USA will dominate for much longer. The Iranians already have some very cleaver weapons that give them a fairly potent first strike capability.”

    [citation needed]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    The dam failures killed an estimated 171,000 people;[1] 11 million people lost their homes

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

    Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

    Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

    Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

    Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

    Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

    Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

    Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

    Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

    Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

    Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

    Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @Shunda

    “If you can’t appreciate the difference in energy potential between a barrel of oil and a chunk of uranium then your belief blinds you very effectively.”

    If they have similar mass they have similar energy potential

    congratulations on your trolling – just spotted it – was a bit slow

    maybe you should get a real job

    and a tub of oil has substantially easier energy release than Uranium

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    The most interesting comparison between nuclear and not nuclear positions is that of France and Germany – the latter continues to import large amounts of gas from Russia rather then develop nuclear power.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    Sigh. Shunda, just a sucker for the pathetic protest constituency here in NZ.

    No I am not. I have spent considerable time researching nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and have developed my own morals on the issue.

    Nothing is unworthy of your puling uniformed nimbyism and hypocrisy.

    How am I a hypocrite?

    I was talking to the Peabodys on Friday who are celebrating 10 years of the magnificent Craggy Range here in Hawkes Bay. They nearly gave up with our half baked RMA which gives inordinate scope for the likes of you to F**k them over at no cost.

    You seem to be projecting considerable anger and frustration onto a complete stranger, what the hell are you on about?

    You know nothing about civilian nuclear power (unlikely that we ever are to need it here). The CEO of B&W (who look after the nuclear waste repository in the US, and built then reactors for the US Navy) told me that until Fukeshima (a 14m tsunami is going to cause havoc in any peer plant, believe me) there were nil deaths attributed to civilian nuclear power in the Western World. It has been safer than all other forms of power generation by orders of magnitude.

    You appear to be very ignorant of your own country, which fault line or volcanic field would you like to build your nuclear power station on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Reid, is there any actual evidence that the decision was made because Helen Clark was trying to please her “communist friends”. As I recall she was not even in Cabinet at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Right. Because the German news media is probably the most biased and political in the world. If you listen to Deutsche Welle you will probably have heard them mark the anniversary of the Fukushima earthquake with words along the lines of “16,000 people were estimated following die katastrophe at Fukushima of March 11.”

    Of course, technically that’s true – but how many of those 16,000 were killed by an earthquake and/or tsunami versus those killed by radiation poisoning?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    kea, Greens support the use of

    1. Wind
    2. Hydro
    3. Thermal

    5. Tidal
    6. Solar

    They do oppose use of 4. coal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    America can win High Tech war. Where is loses (badly) is in Low Tech warfare.

    Here is but one example:

    The World’s Deadliest Arms Race

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Shunda barunda (2,985 comments) says:

    “If you can’t appreciate the difference in energy potential between a barrel of oil and a chunk of uranium then your belief blinds you very effectively.”

    If they have similar mass they have similar energy potential

    You’ve figured out how to FUSE carbon atoms? good for you!

    congratulations on your trolling – just spotted it – was a bit slow

    No, the congratulations are all yours! what other exotic nuclear reactions do you have for us?

    maybe you should get a real job

    Well it is Sunday.

    and a tub of oil has substantially easier energy release than Uranium

    Really? you don’t say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Cato, the German position is more based on an awareness that nuclear energy is not cheap and they export enough to cover importing gas.

    Once the gas runs out they will probably use nuclear energy, probably build their own plants and export the technology.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    SPC (2,569) Says:
    March 24th, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    kea, Greens support the use of…

    Bullshit. Try and get resource consent and see what happens. Your confusing there rhetoric with reality.

    They strongly oppose ever single attempt to generate Hydro power.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Kea, I suspect you are

    1. confusing local nimbyism, as occurs in the resource consent process, with those “Green” people.
    2. confusing Green support for the resource consent process for opposition to planned projects.

    A position of requiring a project to meet environment/conservation concerns is not opposition to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Kea re American war power I agree that modern day democracies have very little tolerance for sustained occupations and so are acutely vulnerable to guerilla warfare.

    However, what if the military objective is less nebulous than occupation and nation building? What if it’s simply punitive – Morganthau style? Given that the United States has far more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and given that (I think I read somewhere) that the Illinois Air National Guard would be the biggest airforce in Europe, I don’t think anybody could stop America wanted to go completely Carthage on Iran by simply raizing its citites.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    SPC (2,571) Says:
    March 24th, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    Kea, I suspect you are

    1. confusing local nimbyism, as occurs in the resource consent process, with those “Green” people.
    2. confusing Green support for the resource consent process for opposition to planned projects.

    A position of requiring a project to meet environment/conservation concerns is not opposition to them.

    I am not confused, but I was keeping it simple for arguments sake. The resource consent process is misused by people who oppose all development of natural resources. They are mostly greenies. This cost hundreds of millions of dollars. You probably think BIG BUSINESS pays for that. Well think again. A business passes its costs onto the consumer.

    We have a situation where the generation of new power sources is invariably opposed. At the same time, over zealous clean air regulations prevent the use of alternative heating sources. This is a major health concern that costs countless lives every winter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    Cato (514) Says:
    March 24th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    Kea re American war power I agree that modern day democracies have very little tolerance for sustained occupations and so are acutely vulnerable to guerilla warfare.

    You could have fooled me. (And the Afghan people)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (5,770 comments) says:

    Kea, so you don’t think lack of insulation in our housing is a health problem, just the lack of smog?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    SPC, pull up a chair son, uncle Kea will tell you a story…

    Once upon a time, houses had no insulation. In fact, they drilled holes in the wall cavity to allow air to circulate. None of this was an issue, because there was affordable heating and often more than one fireplace in the house. Also Mum would stay home (where she bloody well belongs, I am sure you agree) with the nice big coal/wood fired stove going.

    Now days people want to clutter their lives with so many “labor saving” devices and junk, Mum has to work full time like a Trojan to pay for them. Then the smart arse greens wade in and ban warmth, so Mum and the kids come home to a damp cold house, illuminated by the stark glacier blue glare of a miserable eco bulb.

    The End.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    SPC, mind you I could be wrong.

    How about we test our theories ?

    1. From a standing start, you get to heat a house using insulation.

    2. I will first attempt to heat it using… heat.

    We will then compare the cost and the total time for our respective projects :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. cha (4,078 comments) says:

    The World’s Deadliest Arms Race

    Syrian style.

    http://www.abload.de/img/2013-03-14t120510z_941yktd.jpg

    http://www.abload.de/img/2013-03-14t120334z_762hjto.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Why? Because they lasted, what? All of ten years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. rog (7 comments) says:

    Nuclear energy is extremely expensive and we don’t need it in NZ. Citizens of hiroshima, nagasaki, three mile island, chernobyl, and fukushima would probably take a different view regarding the safety of nuclear power. Even if there was no risk of reactor meltdowns, human error, earthquakes or tsunamis there is still the issue of what to do with the radioactive nuclear waste. Unless of course you’re going to claim that it too is safe?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kea (13,350 comments) says:

    rog, far more people have died from hydro and coal energy than nuclear. If you believe the AGW alarmists (I do not) then fossil fuels will result in mass extinctions and the deaths of billions of people.

    I suspect your fear of nuclear energy does not come from a very informed position.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. rog (7 comments) says:

    Kea, so you’re happy with disposing of nuclear waste in the Pacific or on land? how many years till its safe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. rog (7 comments) says:

    “Within the first two to four months of the atomic bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness.” Which hydro disaster caused the death of up to 166,000 people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote