Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[kmacdonald]

Clearly people don't understand the potential scope of the problem and solutions. Some researchers feel we need to eliminate 6.4 billion humans to save the planet. A couple of cases of radiation poisoning and some birth defects don't seem to matter all that much.

[boatman61]

Actually concrete is a thing of the past for Chernobyl.. they've just covered it with a giant hanger construction to keep things contained.

The New Safe Confinement (NSC or New Shelter) is a structure intended to contain the remains of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine, part of which was destroyed by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The primary goal of the NSC is to prevent the reactor complex from leaking radioactive material into the environment and the secondary goal is to allow a future partial demolition of the old structure.

[kmacdonald]

Weavis, Uranium doesn't come from Uranus. Uranium is mined from the earth and can be returned to the earth. Presently the nuclear waste is buried in salt mines in New Mexico several miles deep. It's safe there.
Did you know that there have been cases where old medical x-ray equipment was sold as scrap metal and made into cars? That's right, and the radio active source melted along with the scrap.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Weavis, Uranium doesn't come from Uranus. Uranium is mined from the earth and can be returned to the earth. Presently the nuclear waste is buried in salt mines in New Mexico several miles deep. It's safe there.
Did you know that there have been cases where old medical x-ray equipment was sold as scrap metal and made into cars? That's right, and the radio active source melted along with the scrap.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ine-front-line

Recycling Atomic Waste: Nuclear Materials Stored In Siberian Parking Lots - SPIEGEL ONLINE

[weavis]

[jimbunyard]

Well it only took 400 posts to get to the ultimate source of the problem so I suppose that's progress of a sort...

Which is, as discussed (using the term loosely) in the previous two threads, rapidly escalating consumption on a finite planet.

It is interesting that human population or energy consumption in the 20th (and probably for much of the 21st, at least the first half) century can be used as proxies for each other.





So, whilst it's unwise to make such assumptions (or oversimplifications), let's just say that if you're a human, chances are 5 out of 6 (or so) that you are here because of the (current, relative) ease of energy production and use. Put another way, only about 17 percent of your body is 'really, naturally' yours; the other 85% is a product of (100 year old) technology and energy (mostly fossil fuels) that are either not improving or being consumed at a rate millions of times faster than they were produced; in other words, for tech they are (so far apparently) non-renewing and for energy (in practice) non-renewable.

We can quibble all we want about how long any of these 'excess' energy sources are going to last, but at current rates of consumption/production, all of them, including nuclear (two-headed babies, frogs and fishes be damned), will be used up in (probably) 500 years or so.

So, barring any Star-Wars breakthroughs, the population/consumption/pollution (CO2 and otherwise) problems will solve themselves within that time.

Given some of the responses and apparent attitudes present here and in my sphere of existence, the future of and for humans and, because of human nature, most forms of macroscopic life on the planet, certainly looks very bumpy indeed...

But maybe the GBR will eventually recover after all...

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Clearly people don't understand the potential scope of the problem and solutions. Some researchers feel we need to eliminate 6.4 billion humans to save the planet. A couple of cases of radiation poisoning and some birth defects don't seem to matter all that much.

Given the principle that there is a ratio of body mass to population size (there are a lot more mice than elephants in the world), the most recent number I've heard is the 'natural' population size for a mammal of the average human body mass is around 700,000.

[arsenelupiga]

little birdie told me, clinton will get presidency, piss many us people, and this will be used by russians to start civil war in us.

that should cut number of people a bit.

So, clinton is figthing for greener world.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well it only took 400 posts to get to the ultimate source of the problem so I suppose that's progress of a sort...

So, barring any Star-Wars breakthroughs, the population/consumption/pollution (CO2 and otherwise) problems will solve themselves within that time.

Given some of the responses and apparent attitudes present here and in my sphere of existence, the future of and for humans and, because of human nature, most forms of macroscopic life on the planet, certainly looks very bumpy indeed...

But maybe the GBR will eventually recover after all...

Jim
A question.

Would it be more viable for resource management, if each house or apartment or business maintained its own energy control? They would have to supply their own fuel and manage it according to finances and requirements.

For example. I lived on 5 acres. I grew my vegetables, had chickens, goats for milk, ducks and Geese and had fruit trees and a small copse bordering the property. which were replaced by myself and neighbour. I cut my own wood for heating, cooking and hot water along with the solar.

My electric was supplied by solar, not much, but ran all the basic utilities. I had a generator which I fired up as needed. Low voltage lights etc. My own well.

Here in Seville, a colleague has land and he is considering going self sufficient. He has all the same elements that I had and the only question I have from an observers point of view is if the management of it would be a better system overall and if everyone decentralised, would it be more sustainable?

[kmacdonald]

Sorry Weavis, I said it was burried in New Mexico when in fact it is Yucca Mountain Nevada. I was speaking from ancient memory. All nuclear plants have storage for spent fuel also. I am not privy to their protocol of transferring it to Yucca Mountain though. There are other storage areas for medical nuclear waste, and radio active waste used in other industries. Smoke detectors have a radioactive source also. They are disposed of in land fills.

[kmacdonald]

OK. enough talk. Lets start implementing the solution. We'll start by eliminating 6.4 billion people. How do we do it and who do we pick to die? Do you really want your children to make that decision? Lets do it now, why kick the can down the road? Any volunteers?

[Celestialsailor]

Ok...Uncle!...the mental midgets have come out of the woodwork...I'm outta here.

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

OK. enough talk. Lets start implementing the solution. We'll start by eliminating 6.4 billion people. How do we do it and who do we pick to die? Do you really want your children to make that decision? Lets do it now, why kick the can down the road? Any volunteers?

How about Wall Street for (including the big banks) a start? To be followed by the U.S. Congress?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by outremer

One problem with nuclear that many of its proponents are in denial about,is the centralisation and vulnerability of nuclear facilities fuel transport waste etc to terrorist attack. This means that a state security apparatus with spying on all citizens of one kind or another for generations. Facilities even have to be "protected" after they've passed their use by date. A renewable grid is much less centralised and not as critical to protect. Yes it's a disaster of a solar farm is taken out but it's not an Eco disaster and the renewable based grid is much more decentralised by its nature more robust against natural disaster as well. . For this reason alone apart from many others I find renewables superior and nuclear toxic.

I would love to be on mainly renewables. But so many folks deny there's any problem at all, and scream "Solera!" whenever government investment comes up (despite Solera being a case of corporate fraud, and the whole program, Solera included, netting a positive return for the investment), that they're just not coming onstream fast enough.

Have you noticed that no-one has yet stolen a nuclear missile in the US? It's not that hard to guard something properly if you really want to.

[kmacdonald]

Radiation is really hard to hide.