Like I said, you have to change the whole of the developed world's attitude, not just a few people's. And it's good you do get dropped off, but let's face it there's millions who don't.

 

 

 

I wouldn't suggest walking 5 miles by foot and back each day lol! But the times in which you can go, "it's my car, I'll do what I want with it" are fast coming to a close as more pressure mounts. To tackle global warming, you have to actually turn round to people and say that nothing's going to be solved while we still continue to live the lifestyle we live. As part of that change in lifestyle, people will have to give up their liberty in just using car to get them wherever and whenever the feel like it.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that is the only way things are ever going to change for the better.

If you want to have a one child policy in America, and live has a serf than go ahead and follow and support the Rockefeller & Rothschild Global Warming propaganda scam..

 

 

 

It's too late. Siberia is going to be Africa in 50 years. And vice-versa.

 

 

 

Ruuun tooo theeee hiiiills!

Like I said, you have to change the whole of the developed world's attitude, not just a few people's. And it's good you do get dropped off, but let's face it there's millions who don't.

 

 

 

I wouldn't suggest walking 5 miles by foot and back each day lol! But the times in which you can go, "it's my car, I'll do what I want with it" are fast coming to a close as more pressure mounts. To tackle global warming, you have to actually turn round to people and say that nothing's going to be solved while we still continue to live the lifestyle we live. As part of that change in lifestyle, people will have to give up their liberty in just using car to get them wherever and whenever the feel like it.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that is the only way things are ever going to change for the better.

 

 

 

Not neccesarily, whats easier, changing millions of american's attitude, or simpley say "Buy this car that runs on water instead".

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure we have such technology.. however the oil companies are making far to much profit.

 

 

 

Ruuun tooo theeee hiiiills!

 

 

 

That won't work, the hills are now plains :lol:

Like I said, you have to change the whole of the developed world's attitude, not just a few people's. And it's good you do get dropped off, but let's face it there's millions who don't.

 

 

 

I wouldn't suggest walking 5 miles by foot and back each day lol! But the times in which you can go, "it's my car, I'll do what I want with it" are fast coming to a close as more pressure mounts. To tackle global warming, you have to actually turn round to people and say that nothing's going to be solved while we still continue to live the lifestyle we live. As part of that change in lifestyle, people will have to give up their liberty in just using car to get them wherever and whenever the feel like it.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that is the only way things are ever going to change for the better.

 

 

 

Not neccesarily, whats easier, changing millions of american's attitude, or simpley say "Buy this car that runs on water instead".

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure we have such technology.. however the oil companies are making far to much profit.

 

Yes, that solves one aspect of it though. In truth, there's far more things in our lifestyle that contribute to climate change than just vehicles alone, especially since now catalytic convertors are a legal requirement on all newly produced vehicles. Things like the source of power we use (fossil fuels), industrial waste, our own energy consumption - all these have to be considered as well.

 

 

 

That won't work, the hills are now plains

 

Eh? :?

Global warming is just a scam guys. The only thing even close to powerful enough to affect the Earth's climate right now is the Sun, not oil plants.

 

 

 

Well, I do kinda believe that, we can't exactly be helping the environment right now, can we?

 

 

 

No, I suppose not. I'd much rather be on nuclear power than oil. I'm just very irritated that politicians are trying to use global warming as an excuse to tax everyone.

 

 

 

Yea, because it worked out so well on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl... To be honest, I'd rather have global warming than a nuclear meltdown. Both mortgage our souls, but nuclear plants have a higher interest rate.

Global warming is just a scam guys. The only thing even close to powerful enough to affect the Earth's climate right now is the Sun, not oil plants.

 

 

 

Well, I do kinda believe that, we can't exactly be helping the environment right now, can we?

 

 

 

No, I suppose not. I'd much rather be on nuclear power than oil. I'm just very irritated that politicians are trying to use global warming as an excuse to tax everyone.

 

 

 

Yea, because it worked out so well on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl... To be honest, I'd rather have global warming than a nuclear meltdown. Both mortgage our souls, but nuclear plants have a higher interest rate.

 

 

 

Because nuclear technology hasn't advanced at all in the past 20 years - plenty of countries get a large percentage of their energy from nuclear sources safely. I wonder how many fossil fuel plants have exploded over the years.....

The real problem with nuclear energy isn't meltdowns, it's waste which has to be safely handle for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Global warming is just a scam guys. The only thing even close to powerful enough to affect the Earth's climate right now is the Sun, not oil plants.

 

 

 

Well, I do kinda believe that, we can't exactly be helping the environment right now, can we?

 

 

 

No, I suppose not. I'd much rather be on nuclear power than oil. I'm just very irritated that politicians are trying to use global warming as an excuse to tax everyone.

 

 

 

Yea, because it worked out so well on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl... To be honest, I'd rather have global warming than a nuclear meltdown. Both mortgage our souls, but nuclear plants have a higher interest rate.

 

 

 

Because nuclear technology hasn't advanced at all in the past 20 years - plenty of countries get a large percentage of their energy from nuclear sources safely. I wonder how many fossil fuel plants have exploded over the years.....

 

 

 

Yea, but it hasn't advanced enough. One mistake and that city is uninhabitable for tens of billions of years. Not to mention that the waste is just baby sat because no one has any clue what to do with it. :roll:

Yea, but it hasn't advanced enough. One mistake and that city is uninhabitable for tens of billions of years. Not to mention that the waste is just baby sat because no one has any clue what to do with it. :roll:

Yes mate, because a nuclear meltdown causes radioactive pollution that lasts longer than the solar system has. The exagguration train stops here, TYVM.

 

 

 

Apart from significant advantages in technology, the lads at Chernobyl intentionally removed the control rods. They weren't trying to blow the place up, but you don't need to be all that clever to realize removing the control rods is a friggin stupid thing to do while running the reactor. In fact, the soviet night shift who did it, completely missed safety regulations. Poorly educated personnel, coupled with a Soviet design.

 

 

 

And how many people did the Three Mile Island incident kill again?

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear power is the best option availabe to us. Fear of what *might* happen is not better than ignoring what *will* happen if we keep burning coal in coal plants.

Yea, but it hasn't advanced enough. One mistake and that city is uninhabitable for tens of billions of years. Not to mention that the waste is just baby sat because no one has any clue what to do with it. :roll:

Yes mate, because a nuclear meltdown causes radioactive pollution that lasts longer than the solar system has. The exaggeration train stops here, TYVM.

 

 

 

Apart from significant advantages in technology, the lads at Chernobyl intentionally removed the control rods. They weren't trying to blow the place up, but you don't need to be all that clever to realize removing the control rods is a friggin stupid thing to do while running the reactor. In fact, the soviet night shift who did it, completely missed safety regulations. Poorly educated personnel, coupled with a Soviet design.

 

 

 

And how many people did the Three Mile Island incident kill again?

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear power is the best option available to us. Fear of what *might* happen is not better than ignoring what *will* happen if we keep burning coal in coal plants.

 

 

 

The half life of U238 is 4.46 billion years. TYVM. Nuclear power is not the best option for us. I'm not saying we should be completely reliant on coal and oil. What the world should be doing is setting up wind farms, underwater wind turbines, solar plants, etc. But nuclear power is one of the worst options right now. What could happen far outweighs what will happen if we keep using coal.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

I'm all for installing windfarms and other renewable sources of energy. But whenever a council does, we get a load of people protesting 'coz it "spoils the view". Well, having the grassy hill turn into a baron wasteland seems much more of a threat of "spoiling the view" than some windmill ever would, but that's irrelevant. You have to turn around to these people, and tell them that frankly it's the only way. In a democratic system, for obvious reasons, that can be very hard. If you were, for example, Gordon Brown now, on a wave of popular support, would you feel comfortable making such a devastating message?

 

 

 

Then there's also tax. For starters, tax would have to go up to match the price of such renewable energy plants. No government in their right minds would get into power on that manifesto. Then people would whine because there's better things to spend the money on, such as the NHS or inland security, or pensions etc..

 

 

 

You see my point It's very well condoning and supporting renewable energy sources, but public attitude is actualyl very much against them. you have to change that attitude if you're ever going to change anything. Or, of course, the alternative is nuclear. Still not popular, but a lot more feasable than turning round to literally millions of people an saying, "We're gonna increase your tax just to give you clean power. It's the same power as the power you've been getting for the last 150 years, but we'll still make you pay more for it".

a baron wasteland

 

 

 

That was either an intentional jab or one hell of a Freudian slip :lol:

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

I'm all for installing windfarms and other renewable sources of energy. But whenever a council does, we get a load of people protesting 'coz it "spoils the view". Well, having the grassy hill turn into a baron wasteland seems much more of a threat of "spoiling the view" than some windmill ever would, but that's irrelevant. You have to turn around to these people, and tell them that frankly it's the only way. In a democratic system, for obvious reasons, that can be very hard. If you were, for example, Gordon Brown now, on a wave of popular support, would you feel comfortable making such a devastating message?

 

 

 

Then there's also tax. For starters, tax would have to go up to match the price of such renewable energy plants. No government in their right minds would get into power on that manifesto. Then people would whine because there's better things to spend the money on, such as the NHS or inland security, or pensions etc..

 

 

 

You see my point It's very well condoning and supporting renewable energy sources, but public attitude is actualyl very much against them. you have to change that attitude if you're ever going to change anything. Or, of course, the alternative is nuclear. Still not popular, but a lot more feasable than turning round to literally millions of people an saying, "We're gonna increase your tax just to give you clean power. It's the same power as the power you've been getting for the last 150 years, but we'll still make you pay more for it".

 

 

 

 

 

I heard a stastic once, that if America was to fuel its economy with plants, it would take up 97% of its crops to do so, leaving 3% of the rest of the land for food.

 

 

 

That would mean all our food would be imported.. and thats one hell of a security risk. All a nation needs to do is say "I will not give you any food, and if everyone did that, America would starve to death.

 

 

 

I think what we really need is renewable energy but in a Mix. Wind power, solar power, hydrogen power, ect.

 

 

 

Then set up each state into zones which how the power is supplied.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

That's a completely false statistic.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

That's a completely false statistic.

 

 

 

I was going to call the nuclear powered WW2 sub into question as well.

 

 

 

However, American reactors favor Plutonium. One pound of plutonium is radioactive enough to kill every human being on Earth if it were distributed equally. Say in an explosion at a nuclear plant, where dust and smoke would carry it for hundreds of miles?

 

 

 

So he is correct in saying that one submarine could kill all mankind on Earth if it were to meltdown.

 

 

 

Cherynoble was pure luck (Uranium only has a half-life of 600 years) that the Soviets had such "faith" in their reactors that they had pre-made containment units like the Sarcophagus waiting.

 

 

 

I don't have problems with Nuclear power, but I don't want to see it as the norm.

 

 

 

My entire region of Texas recieves 45% of it's power from the wind.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

I'd hate to see that happen to our beautifully flat planet :cry:

 

At least...I heard it was beautiful.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

That's a completely false statistic.

 

 

 

I was going to call the nuclear powered WW2 sub into question as well.

 

 

 

However, American reactors favor Plutonium. One pound of plutonium is radioactive enough to kill every human being on Earth if it were distributed equally. Say in an explosion at a nuclear plant, where dust and smoke would carry it for hundreds of miles?

 

 

 

So he is correct in saying that one submarine could kill all mankind on Earth if it were to meltdown.

 

 

 

That's technically, another false statistic.

 

 

 

Chernobyl was as you said a freak example, safety measures have improved a million-fold since then, so that kind of meltdown is virtually impossible in modern reactors.

Your statistic at the end there sounds a little false to me.

 

 

 

You fail to take into account human error. I would never place 100% trust into a nuclear reactor, ever.

 

 

 

And please paste some of that case study, I can't load the PDF for some reason.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

That's a completely false statistic.

 

 

 

I was going to call the nuclear powered WW2 sub into question as well.

 

 

 

However, American reactors favor Plutonium. One pound of plutonium is radioactive enough to kill every human being on Earth if it were distributed equally. Say in an explosion at a nuclear plant, where dust and smoke would carry it for hundreds of miles?

 

 

 

So he is correct in saying that one submarine could kill all mankind on Earth if it were to meltdown.

 

 

 

That's technically, another false statistic.

 

 

 

Chernobyl was as you said a freak example, safety measures have improved a million-fold since then, so that kind of meltdown is virtually impossible in modern reactors.

 

 

 

And they also said no way in hell could God sink the Titanic..

Your statistic at the end there sounds a little false to me.

 

 

 

You fail to take into account human error. I would never place 100% trust into a nuclear reactor, ever.

 

 

 

And please paste some of that case study, I can't load the PDF for some reason.

 

 

 

Sorry, I appreciate my claims sounded a little over the top, but the fact is that Chernobyl was a poorly maintained, dangerously old reactor. Modern reactors are much, much safer, and although you're right in saying that no reactor is every 100% safe (due to human error), but if I remember correctly even with human error there are now failsafes which would present another kind of meltdown like that. I'm no nuclear physicist though.

 

 

 

The article I linked to is fairly lengthy, and I can't copy and paste it for some reason, so here's a link to I think a book/site by the same author which is pretty interesting. It discusses the danger of plutonium and the lessons learnt from Chernobyl.

 

 

 

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html

 

 

 

From the site:

 

 

 

[hide]

Another property of plutonium unrelated to its use in bombs has attracted a great deal of attention. That is, its toxicity, as exemplified by Ralph Nader's statement that a pound of plutonium could kill 8 billion people.22 Let's look into that question.

 

 

 

In Chapter 11 we showed how to calculate the toxicity of plutonium ingested into the stomach, which is the way it would most probably enter the human body if it is buried deep underground as part of radioactive waste. However, the most important health effects due to plutonium released from nuclear facilities occur when it becomes suspended in the air as a fine dust and is thereby inhaled into the lungs.*

 

 

 

It is straightforward to quantify the risks associated with this problem. When plutonium oxide, the form in which plutonium would be used in the nuclear industry and also its most toxic form, is inhaled as a fine dust, 25% of it deposits in the lung, 38% deposits in the upper respiratory tract, and the remainder is exhaled.23 Within a few hours, all of that deposited in the upper respiratory tract, but only 40% of that deposited in the lung, is cleared out. The other 60% of the latter ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

The half life of U238 is 4.46 billion years. TYVM.

... does a long halflife means something is less, or more, radioactive? Is a long halflife more likely to boil your eyeballs in their sockets than a short halflife?

 

 

 

I'd like to point out that we're on the internet, and when answering a fact based question on the internet when you're not absolutely positive you know the answer, you can use google.

 

Nuclear power is not the best option for us. I'm not saying we should be completely reliant on coal and oil. What the world should be doing is setting up wind farms, underwater wind turbines, solar plants, etc. But nuclear power is one of the worst options right now. What could happen far outweighs what will happen if we keep using coal.

You're going to have to clarify how a potential meltdown - events which are exceptionally rare, and can be avoided through a whole host of preventive actions - are going to kill more people than a worldwide change in climate with effects ranging from sea levels, hurricane intensity, humidity, temperature etcetc. You could start of by comparing them to the casaulty figure for the Three Mile Island incident - that would be zero, I believe? - and the thousands that died at Chernobyl.

Fine, llcoolguy. I'm no supporter of nuclear technology, not after I heard that just one nuclear submarine (and this is during WWII, surely only God knows what this would be like now) has enough energy inside it to completely destroy the planet and rip it asunder.

 

 

 

That's a completely false statistic.

 

That's actually what was said in a video published during the war by the army. I'm not saying I agree with the facts it told me, in fact I highly doubt it could destory the world. However, the point remains I don't like nuclear power for its mass destructive capability.

 

 

 

I heard a stastic once, that if America was to fuel its economy with plants, it would take up 97% of its crops to do so, leaving 3% of the rest of the land for food.

 

Where in that post did I actually refer to using biofuels as an alternative supply of fuel, yet alone claim you could power an entire country on it?

If you want to have a one child policy in America, and live has a serf than go ahead and follow and support the Rockefeller & Rothschild Global Warming propaganda scam..

 

Ok, explain that one to me.

 

In summary:

 

 

 

In summary, a pound of plutonium dispersed in a large city in the most effective way would cause an average of 19 deaths due to inhaling from the dust cloud during the first hour or so, with 7 additional deaths due to resuspension during the first year, and perhaps 1 more death over the remaining tens of thousands of years it remains in the top layers of soil. This gives an ultimate total of 27 eventual fatalities per pound of plutonium dispersed.26

 

 

 

The scientist is correct that plutonium itself is not a danger. I could juggle 1 pound balls of plutonium or play billiards with them, with no danger from the alpha rays (dead skin cells stop those rays). But when plutonium breaks down, it releases Americium-241 which produces powerful gamma rays, real cannon balls compared to the "bird-shot" particle radiation of the original Plutonium.

 

 

 

It takes approximately 14 years for plutonium to begin to break down and release Americium-241. Gamma Rays go through your body like a bazooka shell. Being around it would mean death.

 

 

 

I was mistaken. Smoke would scatter the Plutonium but it would be harmless for 15 years. I was thinking of the uranium smoke.

 

 

 

Plutonium is named after the god of the Underworld for a reason.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionucli ... ricium.htm

 

Here's a link from the EPA describing how it is created, although their warnings as to it's danger are understated, in the least. Their warnings are centered on small scale release (refined industrial Americium which is only present in extremely small amounts). Naturally unrefined Americium is wickedly chock full of gamma radiation.

I'm all for nuclear power as part of the solution. Unfortunately in my country at the moment, as there's a federal election (first time voter :anxious: ) in mere months, politics is getting in the way of progress.