Great Barrier Reef "cooked" to death

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by weavis

There is a lot of fudging regarding nuclear energy.

Wow, man...

I am also sure that Tokyo is going to have years and years of strange birth defects and cancers due to the release recently. No one in authority will acknowledge it.

Japan is one of the most organized and technically capable countries in the world. Extensive measurements were made at and around Fukushima, all workers in proximity had dosimeters, etc etc. Lots of links. Start here.

SO deep burying nuclear waste is safe? Last time I checked the Concrete starts to break down in certain time frames. The earth does not like to keep its contents especially when it seeps and burns. As a sailor I often wonder about the runoff water into cooling reservoirs and the entry to the sea. No one will tell you if something can be hidden.

The best way to store radioactive waste is deep in geologically stable ground, but still accessible. It's a longterm commitment to protect and monitor the waste, and to replace containers if they are damaged or decay.

France has about 115 nuclear reactors, many of the same design as Chernobyl and about the same age. So does the US.

Can't find anything quickly to verify that, but I personally doubt that the French reactors are as problematic as Chernobyl. By the way, you do know that Chernobyl was caused by human error and bad procedure? It wasn't a design flaw or age that caused it.

...and
US nuclear reactors can't melt down like Chernobyl - Business Insider

I simply cannot believe the information regarding nuclear being safe. It is a cheap energy and therefore politically viable, but not safe. The truth of incidents are often suppressed.

It's pretty damn hard to suppress a radioactive incident, both the atmospheric radiation and the clustering of effects. They can detect atmospheric radiation levels lower than what you or I experience from a chest x-ray or a trans-Atlantic flight.

We are lied to every day. Even the medical authorities covering mistakes and not admitting to known issues all the time. The Editor of the Lancet magasine confirmed that over 50% of submitted medical research was falsified, either for personal fame and glory or for a pharmaceutical company.

So no, I dont believe nuclear energy is safe.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...%2960696-1.pdf

It's curious that you don't fear the effects of climate change, though the best people have said you should. You fear nuclear power, when the statistics say you really shouldn't.

While I take the point that there's lying in some medical research, they usually get the big stuff right, don't they? AIDS treatment, cardio-vascular, ulcers, many cancers... they're solving these. You're a physician, right? You must get emphysema and all sorts of breathing-related ailments... caused or exacerbated by air pollution. How many cases of radiation-poisoning do you get?

[kmacdonald]

Shall we try people credits. Each Nation gets a portion of the sustainable fossil fuel usage based on its population. Then each nation can ration that fuel how they see fit. They can save fossil fuel by using nuclear energy, solar, wind, hydroelectric, whatever but they only get x amount of fossil fuel. They must cut population if necessary. I know, it's a dirty game but it's going to have to be played sooner or later. Now grow a little backbone and come up with some ideas. Weavis thinks we should eliminate more people instead of using nuclear energy..........I disagree.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Weavis thinks we should eliminate more people instead of using nuclear energy..........I disagree.

weavis never said that.
weavis said to look at other forms of energy other than nuclear. Its not the only option.

[kmacdonald]

Quote:
France has about 115 nuclear reactors, many of the same design as Chernobyl and about the same age. So does the US.

No. The US and Frances nuclear plants have containment vessels around them. Chernobyl did not. They had to build one around it after it melted down. Three mile island was a total meltdown of one of the reacters. It was already contained so little radiation was vented off.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Quote:
France has about 115 nuclear reactors, many of the same design as Chernobyl and about the same age. So does the US.

No. The US and Frances nuclear plants have containment vessels around them. Chernobyl did not. They had to build one around it after it melted down. Three mile island was a total meltdown of one of the reacters. It was already contained so little radiation was vented off.

Yes.
The information i had was removed from circulation and I can no longer find it.
It was Russian designed for the production of weapon materials and adapted.

I withdraw my statement as erroneous.

one might ask why anyone would build a Chernobyl-type reactor. The reason is that Chernobyl-type reactors are designed to produce plutonium for bombs while they generate electricity. This type of reactor has two big advantages for this application.1 One is that the quantity of plutonium produced varies inversely with the ratio of U-238 to U-235, which means that much more plutonium is produced in Chernobyl-type reactors than in U.S. reactors. The other is that in producing plutonium for bombs, it is important that the fuel be left in the reactor no more than 30 days, and a Chernobyl-type reactor is much better adapted for that purpose.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by weavis

weavis never said that.
weavis said to look at other forms of energy other than nuclear. Its not the only option.

Sorry, you implied it.
It's the only viable option with todays technology.

Lets look at solar. If you put solar on your house it produces excess energy during the day that you sell back to the power company. At night you buy back electricity produced by fossil fuel. The electricity you sell to the power company during the day reduces fossil fuel burned by the power company during the day only. If everyone had solar that model no longer works. There would be an excess of electricity during the day but fossil fuel is still needed to produce all electricity at night. So yes it would save fossil fuel but it wouldn't eliminate the need for it. Nuclear eliminates the need 24X7X365
Like I said you could eliminate about 6 out of 7 people and get away with solar if you want.

[kmacdonald]

Chernobyl didn't have a containment vessel around it because they didn't consider safety as that important and the extra cost involved. They knew the risk because no one else in the world built nuclear plants without containment vessels.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Sorry, you implied it.
It's the only viable option with todays technology.

weavis never implied it.

I never implied that removing 6 billion people was the answer to mans problems either.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by weavis

weavis never implied it.

I never implied that removing 6 billion people was the answer to mans problems either.

Anyone believing in GW indirectly has to acknowledge that the only viable solution is to reduce the worlds population. The elimination of 6.4 billion people today is based on the speculation of some scientist that the earth can support about 1 billion people with the sustainable fossil fuel consumption. It's a tough pill to swallow.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Anyone believing in GW indirectly has to acknowledge that the only viable solution is to reduce the worlds population.

Um, no we don't.

The first world countries need to

• continue to improve efficiency and cleanliness of energy generation
• get serious about conservation
• take the lead in developing the next generation of clean and renewable energy technologies
• wean themselves off of fossil fuel dependence
• assist the less developed countries to develop and reach their potential without creating as big a mess as we did

Development, food security and education reduce birthrate.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, no we don't.

The first world countries need to

• continue to improve efficiency and cleanliness of energy generation
• get serious about conservation
• take the lead in developing the next generation of clean and renewable energy technologies
• wean themselves off of fossil fuel dependence
• assist the less developed countries to develop and reach their potential without creating as big a mess as we did

Development, food security and education reduce birthrate.

You're pissing on a forest fire.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, no we don't.

The first world countries need to

• continue to improve efficiency and cleanliness of energy generation
• get serious about conservation
• take the lead in developing the next generation of clean and renewable energy technologies
• wean themselves off of fossil fuel dependence
• assist the less developed countries to develop and reach their potential without creating as big a mess as we did

Development, food security and education reduce birthrate.

Efficiency and cleanliness is happening naturally as technology improves largely because it leads to greater profits for energy producers/sellers. This has always been true.

Taking the lead in conservation really means asking people to use less energy. Technological advances make it easier to do that because it allows us to get the same result we expect and are accustomed while using less energy. Things like improved insulation of homes also helps. But if by "conservation" you mean asking people to do without things they are accustomed to having, the masses will never embrace that, especially when they can clearly see those asking them do to it using WAY more energy than themselves.

We already have naturally "taken the lead" in pretty much all kinds of technology, including energy, because developed countries have companies that are always striving do things better/cheaper and that leads to technological innovation in order to accomplish that.

We will "wean" ourselves off fossil fuel dependence when other sources of energy become less expensive than fossil fuels and not until. That's reality and AGW worriers attempts to synthetically make fossil fuels more expensive via carbon tax schemes ultimately have been and will be rejected when the masses of people realize that it's they who ultimately will have to come up with the $$$ and they can't afford it. Telling them that you are only carbon taxing those evil big corporations only works until folks realize that evil big corporations ALWAYS pass on their increased costs to consumers. Ultimately, big corporations pay NO taxes and consumers pay ALL taxes and consumers also vote, at least as long as we live in a democracy. Few voters who are struggling to provide for themselves and their families (that's almost everybody) will opt for a tax increase on themselves when they don't see a direct benefit that outweighs the cost to them. You've already tried scaring them into doing it by talking about points of no return and weather catastrophes, etc. but folks have noticed that your frightening predictions didn't come true, so that scaremongering approach hasn't worked. Now its time to wait until climate science catches up with the AGW rhetoric and eventually it will become clear, and pretty obvious to everyone what must be done, if anything. We're not even close to there yet. Patience, my son...

Of course we share technology with less developed countries and that means they don't have to go through every step that we did or make the same mistakes. But what we cannot do is to ask them to for forgo development in order to comply with standards that may make sense to (some of) us but they see as preventing them from progressing towards a similar standard of living that we currently enjoy.

We can all talk about this until we're all blue in the face but the majority of people on earth will not embrace changes you say we need to make until it's obvious to them that it's in their own self interest to do so. Increasingly, the trend towards one world government run by the "elites" that might dictate changes to us (for our own good, of course) but that may make no sense to us, is being roundly rejected (Brexit, Trump, etc.) in favor of doing things the old fashioned way, and that will take time.

[Exile]

JT speaks some important truths & provides a needed dose of reality. No, it doesn't reveal a lack of knowledge, provide an excuse not to do anything, suggest a lack of caring, play into the hands of the evil oil cos., or provide any fodder for our gang of (mostly) well-intended but ineffectual virtue-signalers on this forum.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by weavis

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?

Certainly it's viable, it's exactly the way (minus the electricity of course) that humans have lived and prospered for (pick a number) 2 million, 200,000 or 40,000 years. So it seems kinda provincial to assume, as many appear to be doing, that we, or 'civilization' can't do without the excessive use of cheap energy available for the last 150 years...

Plus it's a hell of a lot more fun, in the old fashioned sense of the word. Like deriving pleasure from a job well done, maybe accomplished with the help of some close, well liked and understood friends, companions and like-minded people.

As far as it being sustainable, it depends on how many people are doing it. If the current 7+ billion people on the planet tried to do it, probably not, just from numbers alone. There are about 3.5 billion acres of arable land on Earth, so it seems unlikely that .47 acre (3.5 billion/7.4 billion) per person will allow anything close to the standard of living fossil fuels have made possible for the current population. Vacation homes are definitely out...

I would imagine, if we (and the Earth as we know it now) make it out the other side of the quickly approaching bottleneck relatively unscathed, that which you describe is something like what civilization will settle down into. No, we won't forget electricity, or conveniences or medicine, but we'll be forced by economics (and I'm not talking about money), to realize the difference in "I want" and "I need".

And yes the population will be a billion or so, and not by government decree, or genocide, or even a conscious decision by a rational population, but by a the same simple law that limited population in the past; availability and use of resources...

I know this sounds a little utopian, but it, or something reasonably like it, will be far better than the almost certain dystopia being forced on us by the followers of Freud's nephew...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The ubiquitous "they."

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

"They" did...

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who told you that?

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

... The population projections from the UN is 7.4 billion now and about 11.2 billion by 2100.

In the interest of accuracy:
It was not the ubiquitous they, but the UN themselves.

The UN Report ➥ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

An Excellent Analysis ➥ http://www.economist.com/news/intern...ced-dont-panic