I think we need to set survival of our society as a baseline and obviously it would be desirable to exceed that without threatening our existence further. It is odd you want me to avoid an appeal to consequences when consequences is what we always have to live with. There is only one question...how will we respond to this emergency and what will be as a result of our response...goes by the name of consequence. That MUST be considered in any discussion of this or any matter of this nature.
Fair enough; but as that is the consequence we ALL want, it does nothing to help us choose between your preferred approach and Loren's (or mine, or indeed, anyone's).
The appeal to consequences is meaningless when everyone wants the same outcome. Where we differ is in how to achieve that outcome.
So, again, what evidence do you have, other than ad-hominem attacks, and the fact that he is wrong on unrelated topics, to convince anyone that they should accept your approach and reject his?
Only logic and reason applied to reliable evidence will do; so drop the irrelevant appeals to consequence and present that evidence - if you have it.
No--I don't think we even have the same objective here. There's a trend that's widespread amongst the greens that small is good, anything large is inherently bad. I think he holds to this position--and isn't aware that it's basically a suicide position.
Speculation about un-stated motives isn't helpful; IF that is what
arkirk thinks, then when and if he says so, I will address it.
What he said was "I think we need to set survival of our society as a baseline and obviously it would be desirable to exceed that without threatening our existence further." That's pretty much exactly the same as my goal, and as yours - clearly we must put survival first, and equally clearly we want to have more than just the minimum needed to survive.
The weird thing is that
arkirk seems to honestly believe that this goal somehow sets him apart from a large fraction of humanity - that our goals do not include survival. Which is, I suspect, a flawed conclusion caused by the flawed premise that anyone who cared about survival would have to agree with him on the question of nuclear safety. The idea that he might be wrong - that nuclear power plants might NOT comprise an existential threat to humanity - just seems to be something he cannot accept, regardless of the evidence. Reason, logic and evidence cannot win against deeply held belief; When you have spent decades basing your every action on a belief system, it is close to impossible to change your mind, because that would entail admitting that you made a huge and long-term mistake.
Everyone hates admitting their mistakes. Particularly when they have led us to the brink of disaster. A world without anti-nuclear power protesters would be a world without a climate change problem. But for an anti-nuclear protester to admit that would mean accepting that he, and not his political opponents, was responsible for the current crisis. It's a very tough pill to swallow, and mere evidence will make little dent in that amount of cognitive dissonance.
This thread is about COP not "
arkirk's insanity and fear of perfectly safe nuclear plants." This thread was to be a discussion of COP and whether it would be a success or not, not a promotional for dangerous nuclear power.
Then you shouldn't have mentioned it in the OP.
If you thought you could just have a free swipe at a technology you irrationally fear, and not get called on it, then you don't understand this board very well at all.
Of course, if you didn't want to talk about nuclear power, you could have just ignored my rebuttal; but you didn't. It seems you want to talk about nuclear power, but you don't want anyone to contradict you, or point out your errors.
Of course, you can talk about something else if you like; but you can't shut down dissent by talking about the topic yourself and then claiming that rebuttals of your comments are off-topic.
Just this morning I watched a Globe Trecker show where they toured the area around Chernobyl. The containment is falling apart and leaking radiation. The sarcophagus was supposed to be enclosed by a larger one six years ago but they didn't have the money to do the project so the hot spot remains and there remains the danger of dispersion of large amounts of high level radioactive wastes. There goes your safety idea right out the window...also what about having a massive hazard you can't afford to cope with? It takes very few nuclear accidents to play absolute havoc with a nation's economy.
See, you SAY you want to talk about something else; but then you talk about nuclear power.
And you continue to bash the 'it's not perfectly safe' strawman. Nobody is suggesting that it is perfectly safe. But you have to attack a strawman, because you cannot refute the actual argument - that it is FAR SAFER than the alternatives.
You can bang on about Chernobyl all you like: nobody is suggesting that it wasn't a bad accident. But the fact remains that it is the ONLY fatal accident in sixty years. Countries couldn't afford many accidents like that, but as they don't have to - because such accidents are observably less common than one in sixty years worldwide - your point is meaningless.
The goal of zero hazard is unattainable for ANY technology; so no sane person requires that level of safety for anything. The target for any new technology is to be as safe as, or safer than, the technology it replaces. And nuclear power easily meets that goal.
Loren's thought that because I am concerned about low level waste I am a nut demonstrates his lack of understanding of the relationship between low level non fatal radioactive exposures and neoplasms. This relationship is clearly understood and is statistical and reliably statistical. His objection to my objection is an indication he does not understand the nature of the threat....not radiation poisoning or high level exposure, but rather a continuously repeating roulette wheel of minor exposures leading to genetic damage, birth defects, and cancer. He wants to tell you it is okay to exist in close quarters with low level nuclear waste when low level exposure is one of the prime triggers for cancer...especially when low level nuclides incorporate themselves in our bone, our thyroid, our liver, etc. This stuff remains dangerous regardless of what Loren or Bilby might tell you. There are actual health standards for exposure to these elements and nuclear accidents and disposal sites that leak are on the increase...just like CO2.
Yes, yes, you can tell horror stories all day. I get it. But those are just distractions, unless backed by some hard data to show that low level nuclear waste is more dangerous than the waste and emissions from coal plants - and you don't have that data, because it doesn't exist.
Just from a radiological exposure perspective, coal power plants are worse than nukes - you are exposed to more low level radioactivity due to coal power than due to nuclear power, so IF low level radiation exposure were the desperate problem you paint it to be, moving from coal to nuclear would be a vey good idea.
The real question of this thread was whether or not this Paris meeting was going to make a significant dent in man made climate change. This is day 12 and the negotiators appear to perhaps want to extend the conference another day maybe two. Depending on if you are from one of the heavy CO2 producers or third world currently insignificant polluters, there are different takes on the likelihood of success. I include a link to the Guardian coverage of the event:
http://view.mail.theguardian.com/?j...utm_term=143154&subid=15003538&CMP=ema-60&r=0
Well I hope that they can agree on some pretty aggressive targets.
But I also hope you can understand that hitting such targets will likely entail the building of a lot of new nuclear power plants.
