bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,279
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I don't think you understand the terminology you're using, if you're applying them to *me*.
Do you know how little this actually amounts to? The average person living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power will receive only 0.1 μSv a year. That's 2600 times LESS than the dose they receive from cosmic background radiation.
The only other emissions from nuclear power plant are those from waste heat, which have a relatively minimal impact on the environment compared to the pollution caused by most other forms of energy generation. Now you may think "AHA! GOTCHA! EMISSIONS!", but no... as a matter of fact, the waste heat emissions generated by nuclear power are actually *below* those of concentrated solar power.
You think the the big circle of exclusion zone around Fukushima and Chernobyl and the cancer clusters surrounding the Santa Susanna nuclear realtor incident in Southern California are there because these were clean and safe.
Once again, you're confusing incidents for the baseline. Air travel is safe, the fact that there's an occasional air crash where lots of people dies doesn't change the fact that it's much safer compared to other forms of travel. In that same vein, nuclear power is clean and safe. The occasional accident does not change the overall numbers.
Quit being so fearful
There's only person being driven by fear here, and that's you.
So why not be environmental when you make your changes?
Because as people have been trying to explain to you, nuclear power *is* the environmentally sound choice.
I think you have a problem with being unable to share things and unable to give a single thing up. That makes you spoiled and addicted and you will yammer on endlessly that your current view of things is a necessity in the future. You quite simply are mistaken.
He said, while refusing to give up his decadently western lifestyle. In what way, exactly, are *you* helping the environment, hmm? Because as I already explained to you, it just won't be enough. You could go completely native, give up all technology and grow all your own food and it *still* wouldn't be enough. Humanity can not be provided for in that way. The only way we can save the environment while at the same time swearing off nuclear fission technology altogether is to either wait until we develop viable fusion, which might be too late; or have two thirds of humanity commit suicide. So, are you willing to kill yourself for the sake of others? Or are you just as spoiled as the rest of us who refuse?
I categorically reject your proposition that I am some sort of energy gobbling bastard that also needs the things you say you need.
Irrelevant, because you ARE an energy gobbling bastard, same as the rest of us. How much energy do you think goes into the act of giving you the opportunity to buy tomatoes at your local supermarket? Not to mention everything else you take for granted? It isn't just in how many things you've got plugged in. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient in every way, you have no right to claim you don't use a lot of energy. And of course, the fact that you're still here, typing away on a bloody computer, suggests you're not really all that serious about it anyway.
You still do not get the fact that coal and nukes require ever expanding sacrifice zones in order to keep going.
And you don't seem to get the fact that the same fucking thing applies to solar and wind. Where do you think the parts to build and maintain these things come from?
My background has always been scientific...possibly like yours. My specialty and the source of most of the income in my life was water pollution control and process fine tuning and process monitoring.
Then you were either utter shite at your job, or don't know how to apply your knowledge outside of your former specialty; because someone with a scientific background, especially in pollution control, should be able to comprehend the difference between incidents and baseline, and should really not be making the kind of arguments you've been making.
I frankly find you annoying and never contributing anything but your prejudices.
There's that irony again.
I will not play tweedledee to your tweedledum on this matter..
Yes, yes, we get it. You're old. I actually had to look up that reference.
It's not so much that I am old. I am just BETTER EDUCATED. You don't seem to know when to stop triangulating and deal with the OP. You just get so involved in denying me any credibility you forget entirely what we are talking about. I think THAT IS RUDE.
A couple of simple facts you ought to concern yourself with: Is COP 20 going to have any effect on global warming. That was the question, not whether or not nuclear power was right for the entire globe. You really are not acknowledging that we have a climate change problem which is descending on mankind and the living things on this planet. I guess you are modern and hip and can dismiss your future a lot more than mine. The denial I see coming out of you is the same crap we used to get when we were working trying to get asbestos removed from general production and distribution. I have seen it before and I definitely am seeing it now...simply laziness. For you personally, I would find that okay for you to simply ignore our social problems. Your type of concern is to treat others like they were defective. I don't understand how you can advocate the things you do. COP 20 is right in your neighborhood. Perhaps you should get over there and put those people right on track. Why don't you admit you are ignorant of what went on there today? And in fact what goes on in all sorts of places.
COP20 isn't in dystopian's neighbourhood. Dystopian is in the Netherlands; COP20 was in Lima, Peru.
Last year.
It's grand being elderly. But if you can't keep up, it's time to leave the hard work to the young'uns.