New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Japan tragedy - Page 2

post #51 of 188

The fact that Coulter is hawking this dog-eared theory (which has had a LOT of money thrown at it by the pro-nuclear lobby and nuclear industry) comes as no surprise. Here's a woman who seems to have a pathological hunger for self-immolation and would shill for a penny. 

 

Whenever I listen to Coulter (along with all the other American shock jocks) I'm reminded of the truckload of self-important sophists in Plato's dialogues who, when confronted with the reason of good natured Socrates, resort to mind-boggling fictions meant to leave their opponent not knowing which way is up. Bill O'Reilly is no Socrates - but I'm sure the old Greek would have approved of his performance in that exchange. 

 

Of course, the theory of "Radiation Hornesis" is a joke. It has almost no support in the scientific community and even the various nuclear regulatory bodies (who are notorious for setting "safe" radiation limits well above those considered so by physicians just so that people can actually work at atomic facilities) think it's a crock of shit. The idea that "Radon gas is good for smokers" is absolutely crazy. Smokers ALREADY receive significantly higher doses of radiation than non-smokers. Indeed, it's the REASON they develop cancer. It's a little-known fact that the tobacco plant functions as a natural receptacle for the radioactive element Polonium (which cannot do any serious harm outside the body as human skin acts as a secure barrier, but once inside in begins wreaking havoc with cell replication leading to tumors) and it remains tightly bound to the leaves throughout the manufacturing process (the tobacco companies have been trying to neutralise it without success for decades).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Ann Coulter to Bill O’Reilly: ‘Radiation Is Actually Good for You’ 

 

Wow, I never thought I'd see O'Reilly being the voice of reason.



 

post #52 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Foster View Post
Of course, the theory of "Radiation Hornesis" is a joke. It has almost no support in the scientific community and even the various nuclear regulatory bodies (who are notorious for setting "safe" radiation limits well above those considered so by physicians just so that people can actually work at atomic facilities) think it's a crock of shit.

Might want to check your facts, buddy.  Coulter's representation of it is massively distorted (to the point of outright falsehood), but hormesis is a real thing.  But it's not 'a little radiation is good for you' as Coulter was saying, so much as 'a little radiation can, potentially, trigger a disproportionate immune response that can be beneficial.'  The body overcompensates for the damaged cells and overall health goes up, but prolonged exposure and even slightly higher doses will eventually wear the effect down and then you're fucked.
 

 

post #53 of 188


My response was aimed at Coulter's explanation of afforded beneficial effects, not the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post



Might want to check your facts, buddy.  Coulter's representation of it is massively distorted (to the point of outright falsehood), but hormesis is a real thing.  But it's not 'a little radiation is good for you' as Coulter was saying, so much as 'a little radiation can, potentially, trigger a disproportionate immune response that can be beneficial.'  The body overcompensates for the damaged cells and overall health goes up, but prolonged exposure and even slightly higher doses will eventually wear the effect down and then you're fucked.
 

 



 

post #54 of 188

Rush... just listen to what your saying...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/rush-limbaugh-mocks-japan-refugees_n_836384.html

 

 

I've never been a fan of someone getting killed in a horrible fashion, but Rush continues to challenge my stance.

 

post #55 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph P. Brenner View Post

http://www.unitedatheistfront.com/GodBlessAmerica.jpg


One of the post was so stupid I couldn't get angry. In his words he is still pissed at the "krauts" for " 'nuking" Pearl Harbor.

 

post #56 of 188

Fingers crossed everywhere for a swift recovery for Nuclear Boy

 

 

PSA provided by a friend in the Japanese news industry. As awesomely silly as it is to US ears, please get crazy generous with Red Cross donations, thanks.

 

Nobody wants Nuclear Boy poo.

post #57 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

And there's good ol' Frank, in the thick of things. Stay safe, fella, and give our regards to all our forces over there.



Thanks.  We're working our collective ass off, flying hundreds of tons of food, blankets, and support equipment up to help the people of Miyagi Prefecture.  Morale is super-high, too - if there's one thing people love doing, it's helping other people.

post #58 of 188

The Wall Street Journal did a write up about the differences between how the Japanese media and foreign media are covering the nuclear plants.

 

And, for good measure, a chart comparing the levels of radiation dosages a person can get from various sources.


Edited by PMR - 3/20/11 at 6:08am
post #59 of 188

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post



Might want to check your facts, buddy.  Coulter's representation of it is massively distorted (to the point of outright falsehood), but hormesis is a real thing.  But it's not 'a little radiation is good for you' as Coulter was saying, so much as 'a little radiation can, potentially, trigger a disproportionate immune response that can be beneficial.'  The body overcompensates for the damaged cells and overall health goes up, but prolonged exposure and even slightly higher doses will eventually wear the effect down and then you're fucked.

 

Well technically, it is not the radiation you have to worry about. It the chemical toxicity of the heavy metal isotopes, that give off the radiation, that will even in very, very, microscopic amounts slowly kill you. Think lead or mercury poisoning, but taken to level 11!

post #60 of 188

It's not guns that kill people, people kill people.

 

...well that, and the bullets ripping through peoples bodies.

post #61 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti View Post

Thanks.  We're working our collective ass off, flying hundreds of tons of food, blankets, and support equipment up to help the people of Miyagi Prefecture.  Morale is super-high, too - if there's one thing people love doing, it's helping other people.


What you and your mates are doing is awesome, FC.  These kinds of missions make me so proud to be a citizen of a country that can do this!

 

post #62 of 188

Breaking News. This happened 35 minutes ago...

 

 

A magnitude 6.5 earthquake has struck north-eastern Japan, the Japan Meteorological Agency reported on its website.

The agency issued a tsunami advisory after the undersea earthquake, which struck at 7.24am local time (9.24am Melbourne time) near the east coast of Honshu

 

post #63 of 188
Hopefully it's too deep (and weak) to cause a tsnumai.
post #64 of 188

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEn0vnq1PVI&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Tsunamis have always scared the bejesus outta me.  This video is pure nightmare fuel:

post #65 of 188

I watched that earlier today. Jesus Christ.

post #66 of 188

This video tops that easily. I was watching this live and it's not often that something makes my jaw drop.

post #67 of 188
Thread Starter 

All of these videos are heart-breaking, mind-numbing and extremely humbling (the Closer, I too have had lifelong recurring nightmares about being at the half-way point between the shore and a giant wave so nightmare fuel is indeed what this is).  We are like the builders of the Titanic with so much of the crap we are doing as a species, including nuclear power plants. 

post #68 of 188

The solution is to genetically create giant hamsters and put them in giant metals wheels that will create all the power we need.

post #69 of 188

Another quake. 7.4 this time. They aren't catching a break.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/japan.quake/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

 

 

Quote:
Workers evacuated the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant following the quake, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. Tokyo Electric said it has communication with the plant and the power is still on. There were no immediate reports of damage, it said.

 

post #70 of 188

God dammit, Mother Nature, knock this shit off!

post #71 of 188

Sheeyit... 2012's not that far away. After watching some of that footage, I'm going to have trouble sleeping.

 

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE: "One little change has a ripple effect and it effects everything else. Like a butterfly floats its wings and Tokyo explodes or there's a tsunami, in like, you know, somewhere."

post #72 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post

Sheeyit... 2012's not that far away. After watching some of that footage, I'm going to have trouble sleeping.

 

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE: "One little change has a ripple effect and it effects everything else. Like a butterfly floats its wings and Tokyo explodes or there's a tsunami, in like, you know, somewhere."

I've heard lots of people saying the "end is nigh" and all that jazz, and to be fair we have had a crazy last couple years for earthquakes. But on the plus side. The big quake that kicked this whole thing off was "only" the 5th largest in the last 100 years, and it wasn't long prior to that where records weren't even kept, so I think it's safe to say we'll keep on truckin'(until we pollute ourselves to death, anyway).

 

What's really scary are the religious nuts who WANT the end to come. Gah I hate those people.
 

 

post #73 of 188
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 View Post

... nuts who WANT the end to come.

No thanks. Got too many movies in my to-watch pile. ;)
 

 

post #74 of 188

Gahhh speak of the devil.

 

Some breaking news posted by one of my probably soon to be former facebook friends...

 

 

Quote:
‎7.1 earthquake just hit Japan again. Waiting for it to detach. Wish I could have seen it before disaster struck. My thoughts? People get ready, Jesus is coming.

I like how the same quake hit Japan again, like it smacked Japan in the head, then circled around the pacific only to come back and swat it again. And Japan is multiple Islands, I'm not sure it's going to "detach" in quite the same way we think of, say, Cali breaking off into the sea. Oh yeah, and the Jesus stuff.

post #75 of 188

It's interesting to see how many people think that before Jesus returns, He's just gonna murder the shit out of thousands of people.

post #76 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post

It's interesting to see how many people think that before Jesus returns, He's just gonna murder the shit out of thousands of people.



Fear is a great motivator

post #77 of 188

Also, Jesus spreading love and understanding around the world couldn't happen if he wasn't, at some point, allowed to bring down the heavenly wrath upon our mortal bodies.  He's Jesus, not some dirty, free-loving hippy.

post #78 of 188
Thread Starter 

Four hundred aftershocks. And the accident has been raised to a level 7.  I think all of Japan must be having PTSD.  This is some f***ed up f***ing sh**. 

 

ps. I was anti-nuke before this but I think you have to be crazy or in severe denial to not see what a blight we humans are to ourselves and this Earth. 

 

post #79 of 188

Yeah, this is such a sad, sad, disaster.  Nuclear anything sucks.  It's sad about how we're in denial we are in this country.  This shit will happen to us sooner or later, but we won't learn from what's happening in Japan first.  We'll have to wait until something similar happening here to even discuss it.

post #80 of 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

ps. I was anti-nuke before this but I think you have to be crazy or in severe denial to not see what a blight we humans are to ourselves and this Earth. 


I'm not pro-nuclear and don't want to diminish the shittiness of the current crisis, but it also seems a bit odd to me to lament how evil and dangerous humans are considering the tsunami itself caused far more death and damage and was beyond anyone's control. I'm also wary of seeing this crisis used to demonstrate the inherent danger of nuclear power given that realistically most of them don't even face the possibility of a natural disaster on this scale.

post #81 of 188

how many lives have been lost due to nuclear energy accidents?

 

how many lives have been lost due to oil, and coal accidents?  I don't see the entire eco-system in the gulf getting fucked up due to nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy has it's risk, but lets not make it the villian.

post #82 of 188
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post


I'm not pro-nuclear and don't want to diminish the shittiness of the current crisis, but it also seems a bit odd to me to lament how evil and dangerous humans are considering the tsunami itself caused far more death and damage and was beyond anyone's control. I'm also wary of seeing this crisis used to demonstrate the inherent danger of nuclear power given that realistically most of them don't even face the possibility of a natural disaster on this scale.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickP View Post

how many lives have been lost due to nuclear energy accidents?

 

how many lives have been lost due to oil, and coal accidents?  I don't see the entire eco-system in the gulf getting fucked up due to nuclear energy.  Nuclear energy has it's risk, but lets not make it the villian.


 

Let's not make it the villain?  Natural disasters on this scale are unlikely?  I hate to rain on your parade but to the first point, wait twenty years and take a look at the effects this accident will have on the population, or better yet, take a look at Chernobyl and the horrible congenital defects, diseases and death it has caused.  And to the second point, welcome to the era of global climate change.  I know the earthquake/tsunami wasn't (at least that we know) the direct result of global climate change, but that phenomenon is increasing the severity of virtually every kind of weather condition, the spin and speed of hurricanes, tornadoes, severity of drought, etc.  When you cut off the power on a nuclear reactor, this is what happens, so we have to babysit these rods with no interruption in power for the next, what, half a million years?  I'm sorry for the snarky tone but both of your posts sound like denial to me, and oil and coal are a false alternative.  With investment, we could eliminate all of these dirty and dangerous systems with solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power. 

 

ETA: And by the way, they're dumping radioactive water into the Pacific ocean.  The sea around Japan will be potentially poisoned for God knows how long, all those animals will die horrible deaths, and do you think that radioactive material will stay in one place?  No.  It will move around and up the food chain.  You can't downplay what's happening over there.

 

ETA Pt. II:  On Three Mile Island, of the 2000 people who filed lawsuits, 200 have died of cancer and a disproportionate number of children have been born with congenital irregularities, including Down Syndrome, not just in the immediate area but in the outlying areas.  Just because the nuclear industry can manage to have the discomfiting facts about hazards censored doesn't mean they don't happen. 


Edited by yt - 4/12/11 at 11:29am
post #83 of 188

...and within the context of yt's post above, more good news.

 

Disaster at Fukushima now as bad as Chernobyl

 

Quote:
JAPAN has raised its assessment of the accident at the Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant from 5 to the worst rating of 7 on an international scale, putting the disaster on par with the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.
 
The Japanese nuclear regulatory agency's decision, announced yesterday, to raise the alert level amounts to an admission that the accident, brought on by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, is likely to have long-lasting consequences for health and the environment.
 
Some in the nuclear industry have been saying for weeks that the accident released large amounts of radiation. But Japanese officials had played down this possibility.
 
According to the International Nuclear Event Scale, a level 7 accident involves ''widespread health and environmental effects'' and the ''external release of a significant fraction of the reactor core inventory''.
 
Japan's previous assessment put the accident at level 5 on the scale, the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979. Level 7 has been previously applied only to Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union.
 
The scale, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and countries that use nuclear energy, requires the nuclear agency of the country where the accident occurs to calculate a rating based on complicated criteria.
 
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said at a news conference yesterday that the rating resulted from new estimates by the country's Nuclear Safety Commission that suggest some 10,000 terabecquerels (a terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels) of radiation per hour was released for several hours in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.
 
The measurement refers to the amount of radioactive material emitted, not the dose absorbed by living things.
 
The new estimates suggest that the radioactive material released so far is equal to about 10 per cent of that released in the Chernobyl accident, said Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director-general of Japan's nuclear regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
 
He stressed that unlike at Chernobyl, where the reactor itself exploded and fire fanned the release of radioactive material, the containments at the four troubled reactors at Fukushima remained intact overall.
 
But at a separate news conference, an official from the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric and Power, said, ''The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl.''
 
''This is an admission by the Japanese government that the amount of radiation released into the environment has reached a new order of magnitude,'' said Tetsuo Iguchi, a professor in quantum engineering at Nagoya University.
 
''The fact that we have now confirmed the world's second-ever level 7 accident will have huge consequences for the global nuclear industry. It shows that current safety standards are woefully inadequate.''

 

 

Not much to say really. Fucking hell.

post #84 of 188

I'm going to leave this mentioning of a scientific study and its rather incendiary implications here - seem as good a place as any...

 

 

 

Quote:
Long-term climate change could be responsible for moving the Earth's tectonic plates.
 
A team of scientists based in Australia, France and Germany has established a link between monsoons in India over the past 10 million years and the motion of the Indian plate.
 
The scientists have found that, as monsoons in the area increased, the plate moved by almost one centimetre a year.
 
The researchers say it's the first time climate change has been recognised as having the potential to influence the motion of tectonic plates.
 
"It is known that certain geologic events caused by plate motions have the ability to influence climate patterns over a period of a million years," Dr Giampiero Iaffaldano from the Australian National University said in a statement.
 
"Now we know that the opposite holds as well.
 
"Long-term climate change, or the natural changes in climate patterns over millions of years, can modify the motion of plates in a feedback mechanism."
 
Dr Iaffaldano said the findings could help to reveal more information about the cause of earthquakes.
 
"Ultimately, we aim at understanding what caused plate motions to change and which regions are currently more prone to large earthquakes," he said.
 
"To that end, we may also have to consider the history of climate over the past million years."
 

 

post #85 of 188

Climate change compared to the super moon activity or the sunspots?

 

Where does it fall in those regards?

post #86 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post


 


 


 

Let's not make it the villain?  Natural disasters on this scale are unlikely?  I hate to rain on your parade but to the first point, wait twenty years and take a look at the effects this accident will have on the population, or better yet, take a look at Chernobyl and the horrible congenital defects, diseases and death it has caused.  And to the second point, welcome to the era of global climate change.  I know the earthquake/tsunami wasn't (at least that we know) the direct result of global climate change, but that phenomenon is increasing the severity of virtually every kind of weather condition, the spin and speed of hurricanes, tornadoes, severity of drought, etc.  When you cut off the power on a nuclear reactor, this is what happens, so we have to babysit these rods with no interruption in power for the next, what, half a million years?  I'm sorry for the snarky tone but both of your posts sound like denial to me, and oil and coal are a false alternative.  With investment, we could eliminate all of these dirty and dangerous systems with solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power. 

 

ETA: And by the way, they're dumping radioactive water into the Pacific ocean.  The sea around Japan will be potentially poisoned for God knows how long, all those animals will die horrible deaths, and do you think that radioactive material will stay in one place?  No.  It will move around and up the food chain.  You can't downplay what's happening over there.

 

ETA Pt. II:  On Three Mile Island, of the 2000 people who filed lawsuits, 200 have died of cancer and a disproportionate number of children have been born with congenital irregularities, including Down Syndrome, not just in the immediate area but in the outlying areas.  Just because the nuclear industry can manage to have the discomfiting facts about hazards censored doesn't mean they don't happen. 



 

A power outage in a given regain for say 3 to 5 day will cause a meltdown. What happen in Japan was the best case scenario, as it happen in a east cost in the northern hemisphere. A west cost event would be the worse cast scenario. A Solar flare could cause more then one nuclear plant in a given regain.

 

 

Sorry, but solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power cant even come close to replacing fossil fuels. Orbital solar or maybe helium-3 fusion can, but that is about it, and they are decades away. You are talking about a lot of power.

 

post #87 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hill View Post

Sorry, but solar, wind, geothermal and biomass power cant even come close to replacing fossil fuels. Orbital solar or maybe helium-3 fusion can, but that is about it, and they are decades away. You are talking about a lot of power.

 



What makes you say that?  Is there a study on the subject?  Why are you so sure of this "fact"?

post #88 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post





What makes you say that?  Is there a study on the subject?  Why are you so sure of this "fact"?



yes

 

I have posted this before. this a speach give by Dr. Smalley before he died on energy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpYTVMhPUzc this will give you all the info you will need in about an hour.

 

post #89 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hill View Post

yes

 

I have posted this before. this a speach give by Dr. Smalley before he died on energy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpYTVMhPUzc this will give you all the info you will need in about an hour.

 

 

He's clearly brilliant and that's an incredibly fascinating speech, but he's not the only scientist and his conclusions aren't empirical truth.  He's hypothesizing from his own perspective (a Republican perspective, I might add, and his admiration for oil seems blind to the political muscle of the oil industrialists, seeing only the "perfection" of the resource).  I wish more people would speak up for the need for an Apollo program for energy though--this country hasn't had an energy policy since Jimmy Carter! 

 

With science, investment and a sense of urgency, that resource could be found and solar/wind/geothermal/biomass could be improved in the meantime. 

 

It's completely defeatist to say that just because we don't have the ability to fulfill the current energy needs now (not even taking conservation into consideration), we shouldn't immediately start transitioning to cleaner power.  The point is, it's an urgent question and nuclear power is NOT a viable solution.  No amount of innovation could change our fate if a meltdown ends up poisoning all life on the planet. 

post #90 of 188

Really the elephant in the room is that yes, replacements for fossil fuels and nuclear power aren't enough to sustain the world at it's current population density. The fact is the population of the world has spiked to an unprecedented level in the last 110 years all thanks to a finite resource. When looked at within the context of all of human history, these population figures are a complete abnormality. Once the resources that have bolstered this abnormal growth are gone, we're going to have to revert to more traditional world population numbers to cope. It won't be pretty, but it will be necessary.

post #91 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post



 

He's clearly brilliant and that's an incredibly fascinating speech, but he's not the only scientist and his conclusions aren't empirical truth.  He's hypothesizing from his own perspective (a Republican perspective, I might add, and his admiration for oil seems blind to the political muscle of the oil industrialists, seeing only the "perfection" of the resource).  I wish more people would speak up for the need for an Apollo program for energy though--this country hasn't had an energy policy since Jimmy Carter! 

 

With science, investment and a sense of urgency, that resource could be found and solar/wind/geothermal/biomass could be improved in the meantime. 

 

It's completely defeatist to say that just because we don't have the ability to fulfill the current energy needs now (not even taking conservation into consideration), we shouldn't immediately start transitioning to cleaner power.  The point is, it's an urgent question and nuclear power is NOT a viable solution.  No amount of innovation could change our fate if a meltdown ends up poisoning all life on the planet. 


 

but we need a minimal of 10 Terrawatts of power by 2050, more likely 20 to 30 Terrawatts of power. the only reason he talking a right side to his view point is that is the side that need to be convinced. Wind/geothermal/biomass, can't do it, in theory Solar could, but grown base is only good for ½ of the day, this mean you will have to quadruple the price. To make it affordable for everyone it will have to be a lot cheaper then coal is. Maybe as much as 10% the cost, at 30 Terrawatts of power, which is almost 10 time the power out put we have today. We also are going to need in about 40 to 50 years. He talking about the energy density of gasoline, which is very hard to beat. The man work in the oil industry before he won his noble. He know energy very well, and is simply telling you what it will take.


 

post #92 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

Really the elephant in the room is that yes, replacements for fossil fuels and nuclear power aren't enough to sustain the world at it's current population density. The fact is the population of the world has spiked to an unprecedented level in the last 110 years all thanks to a finite resource. When looked at within the context of all of human history, these population figures are a complete abnormality. Once the resources that have bolstered this abnormal growth are gone, we're going to have to revert to more traditional world population numbers to cope. It won't be pretty, but it will be necessary.

 

True, but I read an interesting factoid--that fertility is down and population models are actually leveling off. 
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hill View Post

but we need a minimal of 10 Terrawatts of power by 2050, more likely 20 to 30 Terrawatts of power. the only reason he talking a right side to his view point is that is the side that need to be convinced. Wind/geothermal/biomass, can't do it, in theory Solar could, but grown base is only good for ½ of the day, this mean you will have to quadruple the price. To make it affordable for everyone it will have to be a lot cheaper then coal is. Maybe as much as 10% the cost, at 30 Terrawatts of power, which is almost 10 time the power out put we have today. We also are going to need in about 40 to 50 years. He talking about the energy density of gasoline, which is very hard to beat. The man work in the oil industry before he won his noble. He know energy very well, and is simply telling you what it will take.

 

Yeah, but science is perfect because it recognizes the imperfection of conclusions.  I have seen with my own eyes what pouring money into research can accomplish.  The fact that US taxpayers and those of many other countries are essentially subsidizing toxic, destructive and finite energy (and the a-holes that run them) is a huge part of our dearth of capital for an Apollo project in clean energy.  There is no limit to what can be accomplished, and to take one expert's word for what's possible and what isn't is to completely misunderstand the function of scientists.  One scientist can be right until someone else comes along and proves him wrong.  Just ask Einstein. 

 

I'm more interested in constructive strategies for solutions than hand-wringing about what might seem impossible in 2011.  But what Dr. Smalley gets and articulates beautifully is that this is the urgent issue of today and pretty much trumps every other looming crisis, yet that's not how it's being treated because the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy have used their awesome financial muscle to create just enough confusion and disinformation to soothe the people in the US and some other industrialized countries back into complacence. 
 

 

post #93 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

True, but I read an interesting factoid--that fertility is down and population models are actually leveling off. 

 


Maybe so, but unfortunately 'levelling off' doesn't change the fact that we have a completely unsustainable population on this planet right now. Be it by war, famine or disease, when the resources run dry the population has to be seriously (and some may use the word 'catastrophically') reduced back to levels much more akin to before the industrial revolution for us to continue on as a species.

 

Let's not kid ourselves about the future, even if our governments were doing everything they could to combat climate change at this point in history (ha!), there would still be serious and traumatic changes that would need to take place for the continuation of what we consider civilisation. It's not a simply matter of 'if we simply went green everything will be okay and stay the same'. Incredibly serious and species altering change has to happen for our survival regardless of what we do now. All we can do is try and minimize that change as much as possible. The last century has been an anomaly and those times will not return. Not based on the resources we use now anyway.

 

post #94 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnInHell View Post

The solution is to genetically create giant hamsters and put them in giant metals wheels that will create all the power we need.



And how are we supposed to feed these giant hamsters? You obviously haven't thought the implications of this all the way through, have you?

post #95 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post

And how are we supposed to feed these giant hamsters? You obviously haven't thought the implications of this all the way through, have you?



...and what happens when those hamsters break free of their servitude and run amock with killing and the biting and the gnashing teeth??

 

hamstergeddon.jpg

post #96 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post





...and what happens when those hamsters break free of their servitude and run amock with killing and the biting and the gnashing teeth??

 

hamstergeddon.jpg



now I have the doom song in my head:)

 

post #97 of 188
Thread Starter 

Well, here's some nightmare fuel on nuclear fallout from Dr. Helen Caldicott:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE&feature=player_embedded

 

Warning: she is very blunt on the devastating effects of Chernobyl.  This is some scary s*** and she's a pedigreed doctor and researcher. (http://www.helencaldicott.com/about/)

post #98 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Well, here's some nightmare fuel on nuclear fallout from Dr. Helen Caldicott:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE&feature=player_embedded

 

Warning: she is very blunt on the devastating effects of Chernobyl.  This is some scary s*** and she's a pedigreed doctor and researcher. (http://www.helencaldicott.com/about/)


A counter argument to Helen Caldicott:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world?INTCMP=SRCH

 

A counter argument to that counter argument to Helen Caldicott:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation?INTCMP=SRCH

 

post #99 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post




A counter argument to Helen Caldicott:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world?INTCMP=SRCH

 

A counter argument to that counter argument to Helen Caldicott:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation?INTCMP=SRCH

 



Hilarious!  But don't forget that where there's a lot of money to be made (i.e. nuclear, coal, oil), all the given industry's law firms and PR firms and fake scientists and internet sock puppets have to do is confuse the issue just enough that you don't know what's true and what isn't.  It's a strategy that has worked quite successfully for a long time. 

post #100 of 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post





Hilarious!  But don't forget that where there's a lot of money to be made (i.e. nuclear, coal, oil), all the given industry's law firms and PR firms and fake scientists and internet sock puppets have to do is confuse the issue just enough that you don't know what's true and what isn't.  It's a strategy that has worked quite successfully for a long time. 


That can work against them as much as for them though. Perception is everything and at the moment, perception of nuclear power is especially bad because of this disaster in Japan. Even before this disaster, I don't think a new nuclear plant had been built in the US for decades, possibly not since Three Mile Island or even before.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse