# Unsustainable Technology Versus Unsustable Technology



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

The nuclear problems in Japan have had me thinking about this quite awhile and I guess I'll share with you good folks the product of said thinking.

Nuclear technology is a bad idea.

I believe that in order to sustain constant growth we are turning to more and more dangerous technologies. The truth of the matter is that constant growth is simply an _unsustainable concept._

Nuclear plants will inevitably suffer a major disaster. It might take forty years, or seventy, or a hundred ... but man has never invented any technology which simply _never breaks._ Airplanes fall out of the sky, cars won't start, computers won't boot ... it's an imperfect world. But with nuclear technology, a breakdown has the ability to destroy a vast section of the landscape. _And there's no opt out._

If you don't like or trust cars, then don't drive them. Don't go near a road. If you don't like coal power then unplug from the grid and light candles. Wash your clothes by hand. If a nuclear plant goes, it will not care whether or not you were a proponent of that technology. The physical impact on your body and your land have no bearing on your support or usage of its benefits.

If scientists came out tomorrow and said, "We have a way of generating limitless power from the sun for generations to come but if something goes wrong it will destroy the entire solar system", how many of us would accept it? Would we ever consider that the cost of "modern living and convenience" has simply grown too high to be sustained?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It's a question of scale and what I'll call the scary factor. About 40,000 people die, on average, in automobile accidents each year. Compare that to an average of 200 per year in commercial aviation.

The question now is how many people die each year from nuclear pwer plants? Other than it being a scary thing many don't understand, it's safe. The answer is 0 deaths. Recently we had a highly unusual event in Japan which failed to stop the plant from shutting down safely. The problem started when the loss of fuel caused the diesel generators to stop. That wasn't a nuclear thing. That could potentially happen anywhere a facility relies on diesel generators for backup power, For example the local hospital or even a sewage pumping station.

Because something failed, diesel generators, that's widely used, you feel nuclear power isn't safe. So if the power goes out during a storm, and the backup diesel generators fail to start at a hospital, and people die in surgery, does that mean we need to get rid of hospitals?

Of course you're thinking it's not the same thing. Ernie, it is. The difference is you understand hospitals. You don't undertand how nuclear power plants are designed. that makes it scary. I bet you hospitals kill far more people than nuclear power plants.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Lets say for a minute that TSHTF and theres no one left to maintain the worlds nuclear reactors.
Furthermore lets pretend the reactors all shut down safely.

Within a few months or a couple of years an area at least 50 miles around each plant will be uninhabitable and people will be getting cancer that live within a 100 (or more) mile radius, simply because when the water containment for the spent fuel rods fail, they start spewing radioactivity.

Come up with a failsafe way to store spent fuel rods and I'll go for nuclear.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

But when someone dies in a car crash, the area around the crash is not rendered unusable for hundreds of years. That's the key to me. The downside is basically permanent. Comparing auto crashes and hospital deaths to nuclear contamination is not apples to apples.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Undoubtedly hospitals and cars DO kill more people.

But I can opt out of those things. I cannot opt out of nuclear power. Even if I live in a cave by the side of the stream, the consequences of technical ineptitude or hubris will fall on my shoulders the same as they fall on yours.

As an aside, diesel generators have been around for a _very_ long time. We KNOW they fail. We know they are capable of failing. Yet the nuclear power proponents made them a critical part of their infrastructure and expected them NOT to fail.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Even though we wiped Hiroshima off the map in WW II, people are living there today. So much for that 100 year theory. Ernie, if you want to opt out of nuclear power, move someplace that doesn't have one nearby. Don't forget coal fired power plants emit much more radioactivity than nuclear power plants. By the way, did you know you have radioactive potassium circulating in your blood? The body is naturally radioactive to a very small degree. Stay away from bananas, carrots and white potatoes too.

Actually diesel generators are expected to have potential failures. That's why they are tested frequently and there are backup diesel generators at nuclear power plants. Almost everything inside a nuclear power plant is doubled. If you need one cooling system, you'll have two. If you need two pumps, you'll have four and they'll have different power sources. The incident in Japan was a common mode failure that was thought impossible until a tsunami of unforseen magnitude ocurred. Engineers spend a lot of time investigating potential scenarios that would affect a nuclear power plant. That is why you don't normally hear about nuclear power plants failing.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ha! Well, I'm willing to accept your tolerance of the industry considering you draw youre livelihood from such.

However the examples you are using are misleading and disingenuous. The Hiroshima example keeps coming up. Do you realize the death rate from leukemia and other cancers is still higher today in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or what about the complete dead zone around Chernobyl? 

And to try to tie the radioactivity from a failed nuclear power plant to a carrot or potato I dug up from the ground ... heh ... well, I won't bother with that one.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I kind of came to the same conclusion lately. I was starting to lean that way, and then Herrick Kimball's latest blog post at The Deliberate Agrarian blog pushed me over the edge. Most every other technology, we have a choice of whether or not to accept the risk. But with nuclear power, we have no choice. Even if we go off-grid so we don't have to use it, we still have to share in the consequences with those who do use it.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

There are inklings coming out now that the plant in Japan may spew radioactivity for decades. I will not go into what I have been reading since I cannot link it. If you want, go do some reading. This is turning out much like I initially thought. Independent sources are confirming some bad things, many saying Chernybol is nothing in comparison. That is scarey and I cannot do much to protect myself. I am tired of hearing about back ground radiation, it is not plutonium or cesium, it is not the same thing. No one, due to the lies from TEPCO, knows the degree of this disaster. 
I can see the smoke plume from a reactor from portions of my land. That is one shtf situation I can honestly say there is not much I can do. It would render the garden toxic, animals too. No, cannot see the comparison to hospitals and nuclear power plants.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Ah, Kimball is weighing in on it? I've got to rush over now and see if I'm contradicting him. 

In general, I always stand in opposition to the modern world. Always.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

ernie said:


> the nuclear problems in japan have had me thinking about this quite awhile and i guess i'll share with you good folks the product of said thinking.
> 
> Nuclear technology is a bad idea.
> 
> ...


exactly!!!!!!! I agree 10,000%


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Ernie said:


> In general, I always stand in opposition to the modern world. Always.


Me too..._almost_ always. Kimball's view is very similar to yours on nuclear power.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. That means it takes 48,000 years to break down. Nuclear power relies on future generations to maintain these spent rods...who can say what condition humanity will be in the next hundred years? Never mind 10,000 years!


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Darren said:


> It's a question of scale and what I'll call the scary factor. About 40,000 people die, on average, in automobile accidents each year. Compare that to an average of 200 per year in commercial aviation.
> 
> The question now is how many people die each year from nuclear pwer plants? Other than it being a scary thing many don't understand, it's safe. The answer is 0 deaths. Recently we had a highly unusual event in Japan which failed to stop the plant from shutting down safely. The problem started when the loss of fuel caused the diesel generators to stop. That wasn't a nuclear thing. That could potentially happen anywhere a facility relies on diesel generators for backup power, For example the local hospital or even a sewage pumping station.
> 
> ...



The answer to your question is what is the price you'll pay you stated "how many people die each year from nuclear pwer plants? Other than it being a scary thing many don't understand, it's safe. The answer is 0 deaths."

I believe this video is enough for me to decide:
Warning graphic in Nature.
[ame]http://youtu.be/YpDzYl9Eb8g[/ame]
[ame]http://youtu.be/rvAJ_u3Q0Hw[/ame]


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

kirkmcquest said:


> Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. That means it takes 48,000 years to break down. Nuclear power relies on future generations to maintain these spent rods...who can say what condition humanity will be in the next hundred years? Never mind 10,000 years!


It takes even longer than 48,000 years. At 48,000, 1/4 of it would still be there, then at 72,000 years it would be 1/8 the original.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

yes.....but most people dont give a carp about anything down the road...all they care about is thier comfort RIGHT NOW. They don't think about those who will suffer after them. And that is a sad sad thing.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

"Engineers spend a lot of time investigating potential scenarios that would affect a nuclear power plant. That is why you don't normally hear about nuclear power plants failing. "

This is a partially true statement. The rest of the story is that probabilities are assigned to said scenarios, safety factors and decided upon, and plants are built. The plants in Japan were built near a well-known fault line. It's common knowledge that large earthquakes generate big waves. We can rationalize that "if only they had built the walls a bit higher" etc., but a scenerio will ALWAYS materialize that defeats all the fail-safes put in place. That's why things break down, planes crash, etc. Like Ernie said, the big difference is with a nuke plant the ramifications are much larger in scale and can affect people that had nothing to do with them.


----------



## Pink_Carnation (Apr 21, 2006)

Darren said:


> It's a question of scale and what I'll call the scary factor. About 40,000 people die, on average, in automobile accidents each year. Compare that to an average of 200 per year in commercial aviation.
> 
> The question now is how many people die each year from nuclear pwer plants? Other than it being a scary thing many don't understand, it's safe. The answer is 0 deaths.


What about the 3000-4000 deaths from Chernobyl? That doesn't include the damage to the area around it that increases the rate of cancer for those unable to move away.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Lets say for a minute that TSHTF and theres no one left to maintain the worlds nuclear reactors.
> Furthermore lets pretend the reactors all shut down safely.
> 
> Within a few months or a couple of years an area at least 50 miles around each plant will be uninhabitable and people will be getting cancer that live within a 100 (or more) mile radius, simply because when the water containment for the spent fuel rods fail, they start spewing radioactivity.
> ...


Yep, until then, I don't trust it.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

My main concern with nuclear power is the need for outside grid power. Ten days of diesel for onsite generators (or even a month, whatever) should be a real concern. If the grid goes down for good, unless there's a huge supply of diesel on hand, eventually it'll go critical and then irradiate the region.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia

New report from Arnie.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

NickieL said:


> yes.....but most people dont give a carp about anything down the road...all they care about is thier comfort RIGHT NOW. They don't think about those who will suffer after them. And that is a sad sad thing.


Very true. Long after we are all dead and all the fissionable material in the Earth has been used up folks thousands of years from now will be scratching their heads. I am sure they'll be thinking what sort of selfish society burdens thousands of generations of people for tens of thousands of years just so they can be comfortable for maybe a hundred years at best.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

[YOUTUBE]yp9iJ3pPuL8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Well that was interesting. Wish I understood Japanese but I still got the gist of what they were doing. I'm guessing some of those stray dogs and the abandoned herd of cattle are going to be gonners. Sad for them. Those houses and buildings that are still standing are not small, it looked like it was a fairly affluent farming community. 

.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

texican said:


> My main concern with nuclear power is the need for outside grid power. Ten days of diesel for onsite generators (or even a month, whatever) should be a real concern. If the grid goes down for good, unless there's a huge supply of diesel on hand, eventually it'll go critical and then irradiate the region.


Ten days is wishful thinking - I read an article last week that reported 8 hours worth of diesel was on hand for the backup generators for a large number of reactors located on the eastern seaboard. It was assumed that the grid would be back up within that time .... Scary. One nice solar flare is all it would take!


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

It could never happen here...


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

As I understand it, the evacuation zone in Japan is in effect for at least a generation. I have to think that at some point in time humans will understand you can't keep killing all the customers.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

Correct. Nobody has a right to develop anything that endangers the masses. I've been against them from the start. They are too dangerous to exist. We have no right to develop something that can be toxic to future generations. Someday, long after we are gone, the plants shut down, the "junk" buried and forgotten, what happens if some innocent future generation digs up the "junk" with no knowledge of what it is and how it can destroy them? 

Some people claim we MUST build these dangerous plants to supply power that will be needed in the future. Well, the heck with that idea! IF we can't find a safe way to power growth, then growth will just have to slow down until the knowledge exists to *safely* provide the power. 

I'd love to be pres for a day. I could do so many things using those illegal EO's to write whatever law I want. LOL


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Capitalism demands constant unrelenting growth in the economy.


----------



## halfpint (Jan 24, 2005)

timfromohio said:


> Ten days is wishful thinking - I read an article last week that reported 8 hours worth of diesel was on hand for the backup generators for a large number of reactors located on the eastern seaboard. It was assumed that the grid would be back up within that time .... Scary. One nice solar flare is all it would take!


Reg quide 1.137 in the US requires 7 days of fuel for continuous diesel generator operation. So I doubt that any US facility only has 8 hours worth. The facility I worked on typically kept 14-30 days worth, and that was for all 5 diesels when only two were required to run the facility.

An interesting petition (I'm not sure what ever became of this petition, but I bet it is going to be resurrected) that is fairly accurate in it's prediction of what will happen without power as we've seen in Fukashima: http://www.resilientsocieties.org/images/Petition_For_Rulemaking_Resilient_Societies_Final.pdf

I have not read anything that said the diesels ran out of fuel, all the reports I've read indicate that the diesels shut down when the tsunami hit. Although they have power to the area now, they cannot use it in some areas due to the flooding in the buildings. Some of that is from the water that is currently being dumped on the facilities, but many are surmising that the initial tsunami flooded the buildings also. The two men who died in the plant (basement of one of the units) were said to be killed by the Tsunami, indicating that water got into the facility before the pumping of water started a few days later. 

I don't know how they stored their fuel, many of the tanks are underground in the US. I would suspect underground tanks would be less likely to have been damaged by a tsunami than above ground tanks, as long as all the pipelines stayed intact during the earthquake and tsunami. If damaged by the earthquake or tsunami, they could have lost most of their fuel through a break or if water got in.

The new advanced reactors are supposed to be able to cool without power. Spent fuel is still an issue as well as our older reactors in an emp or total loss of power, and although utilities have been paying the government (DOE) for years to develop a place to store spent fuel, nothing has been done for years since the Yucca Mtn. project was halted. I'm not sure where all that money is going to, but I think it needs to be used to develop spent fuel storage asap.
Dawn


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Bear in mind, that there are different designs for these plants, and different fuel types. Not all of them require cooling pools to circulate either. Some stop their processes without the presence of water I have read.

I'd like to see a move towards nuclear batteries, if we need nuclear (and to my mind, it's pretty clear we do). From the little I know about these, these are completely sealed units, and work off of natural decay-NOT any "combustion" process. 

There are also different substances that can be used, such as Thorium salts (I think that's what I read?) which are multiples safer than the older designs in use in Japan.

Just a couple other ideas to toss out into the mix


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

Pouncer has a point, the older designs were not the best, and in the case of older plants like the Fukushima complex, they need to be decommissioned and newer more modern plants developed that have less risk.
That takes money. And gov't support.
That said, the majority of the time, developers of nuclear power face an unrelenting wall of 'no' from all sectors - environmentalists, average citizens afraid of the technology, and gov'ts who do not have the money to support further development. 
All this stops the development of newer technology. I'm for spending the $ up front, design a good reactor, and draw down those that are higher risk. We have learned a lot in the last 50 some years of nuclear power, let's use it instead of running away from it. We need to have alternative sources of clean power and nuclear is one of them.
IMHO, its short sighted to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater because one area of the globe suffers an tremendous earthquake/tsunami and the after effects have been somewhat predictable given the amount of destruction.
BTW, today TEPCO admitted that Fukushima is on par with Chernobyl.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> BTW, today TEPCO admitted that Fukushima is on par with Chernobyl.


Per the radio that I was listening to, as bad or worse than Chernobyl. They cannot stop the radiation leak.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

Newer planes are lightyears ahead of older ones in terms of reliability, safety, and the number of redundant critical-to-flight-safety systems. Guess what ... they still crash.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I think the outcome of this is going to be a North Japan and a South Japan with a radioactive dead zone in the middle. They are kaput as an economic superpower.


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

Yes, they do still crash TimfromOhio, but they crash less often due to the newer technology. Without nuclear fuels and research for this type of power, we'd not have modern medicine for fighting cancer, space exploration, military strength - the aircraft carriers are nuclear powered - and other things that we've come to expect and take for granted. Its a permanent part of our society now, we need to learn to accept it and make it better not run from it. (IMHO of course)
I'm afraid you are right, Ernie. I fear for the Japanese people on the manufacturing issues...most of their economy is based on exports.
The most sobering thing to me is that any unexpected natural disaster can create this type of scenario where the economy of a whole nation is permanently hobbled. There is no predicting when "it" happens.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

I'd argue that nuclear power is certainly not a permanent part of society. No new reactor has been built in about 3 decades. I'm sure that many horse whip and wagon wheel makers said the same kind of thing. My point is that you can engineer the heck out of something and there will ALWAYS be a combination of events, unforseen circumstances, or seemingly unrelated events that come together to defeat all of the safeguards put in place. This is certain. With technology like aviation, the risk is small, and the consequences are usually inconsequential for those who did not decide to actively participate in activity and take the risk - ie, the ramfications of a commerical airliner coming down are quite small to everybody but the people on the airliner - this is not the case with nuclear power - there is a much larger risk to many people that had no active role in the operation of the plant. Therein lies the big difference in my mind. Further, I'd not even try to link the nuclear power industry with space exploration or medince - this is just nonsensical?


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

Its not 'nonsensical'. Many of the newer cancer fighting drugs and therapies are nuclear-assisted. Nuclear medicine as we know it comes from the research done with nuclear power - specifically radiation treatment and the effects on the human body. Nuclear power is the offshoot of weapons design and testing, which BTW won the US/Allies WWII. 
Space exploration is important, as it brings new drugs and other information and don't forget the single biggest improvement - the Integrated Circuit - which is in all PC's and other equipment now. The satellites and that go up and out of the orbit of Earth are nuclear powered. So, no its not 'nonsensical' at all. These things are the result of R&D with nuclear power. Without the drive to explore Space and the money behind it, we'd be farther behind on a lot of technologies. Nuclear power technology is here to stay, and not just in the large plants that we now grapple with.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

"nuclear assisted" medicines are a whole different ballgame than nuclear power. Same with space exploration and IC's. Most power for space-bound vehicles comes from batteries, fuel cells, or solar arrays. Further, the vast majority of our nuclear know-how came from building bombs - at least that's what I picked up while working at ORNL. Further, I don't see the connection between space exploration and new drugs (and I work for an aerospace company ....). 

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't badmouth nuclear power b/c of all of the side-benefits. I just don't think the benefits are derived from the application of nuclear technology to power generation. My point was that accidents will always happen and the ramifications of nuclear ones can be quite far-reaching as we are presently witnessing.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

halfpint said:


> The new advanced reactors are supposed to be able to cool without power. Spent fuel is still an issue as well as our older reactors in an emp or total loss of power, and although utilities have been paying the government (DOE) for years to develop a place to store spent fuel, nothing has been done for years since the Yucca Mtn. project was halted. I'm not sure where all that money is going to, but I think it needs to be used to develop spent fuel storage asap.
> Dawn


Actually, spent fuel is about the only issue with the newer designs which are meltdown proof.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/3760347-2


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Allow me to point out a few problems here ...

Even the experts are now stating that Fukushima is ranking as bad as Chernobyl. That is somewhat dishonest in itself. On the scale they use, Chernobyl goes to the top. So does Fukushima. Since Chernobyl had ONE reactor and Fukushima has a BUNCH, then I would hazard to say that Fukushima is a whole heckuva lot worse than Chernobyl just on that scale alone.

Next, Chernobyl hadn't really been operating all that long so it didn't have a whole lot of radioactive material. Fukushima has been around for decades and has a BUNCH of radioactive material sitting onsite ... and all of it is leaking. Chernobyl leaked radiation for 10 days before they put the fire out by entombing the whole site in concrete. That failed at Fukushima and many experts are now stating that the site will NEVER be contained. Never is a strong word, but I think barring some new technology being developed, that site is going to continue to leak radiation into the atmosphere and the ocean for decades to come.

Now I'm not a nuclear expert, but I'm going to hazard a guess here that the word "Fukushima" is going to enter the lexicon with the meaning of "completely screwed" here somewhere in the next few months.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

And notice how little news is being reported about it? Major news will give us a daily dose of what Charlie Sheen is up to, but the leaking nuclear reactor is old news ....


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> I kind of came to the same conclusion lately. I was starting to lean that way, and then Herrick Kimball's latest blog post at The Deliberate Agrarian blog pushed me over the edge. Most every other technology, we have a choice of whether or not to accept the risk. But with nuclear power, we have no choice. Even if we go off-grid so we don't have to use it, we still have to share in the consequences with those who do use it.


I fail to see how you don't share in the consequences of coal plants and their damage both from mining or emissions even if you opt out.

Or the damage done to produce solar panels or windmills which to date have left more toxic waste from mining and refining, and more radioactive waste from mining, than all the nuke plants ever built.

We have no choice to accept those risks either, and going off grid doesn't insulate one from their effects.

We'll share in consequences regardless, and as it stands all these forms of energy leave nasty consequences.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

timfromohio said:


> I'd argue that nuclear power is certainly not a permanent part of society. No new reactor has been built in about 3 decades.


That is incorrect. Very incorrect.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Ernie said:


> I think the outcome of this is going to be a North Japan and a South Japan with a radioactive dead zone in the middle. They are kaput as an economic superpower.


Why would there be a dead zone? There is no dead zone in Chernobyl. In fact, biodiversity has flourished since all the people left.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Txrider said:


> I fail to see how you don't share in the consequences of coal plants and their damage both from mining or emissions even if you opt out.


The consequences of coal power plants are much more limited, both in scope of harm, and in geographical dispersion. I'm not a fan of coal power plants either, so I choose not to live near one. If I choose not to live near a nuclear plant, and the plant melts down, it is more likely to affect me. Coal plants may put out some nasty stuff, but you really can't compare the risks.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

Jena - you're right. No new nuclear power facility has started construction in about three decades. The newest one I could find that when online was circa 1990, so it's about 2 decades ...

Another apsect of nuclear power that nobody has mentioned is the economics behind them - every single commerical plant built in this country was incredibly heavily subsidized. Nuclear power is not economical at all if not subsidized. Nevermind that little issue of the waste ... anybody wanna ride the yucca mountain express?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Jena said:


> Why would there be a dead zone? There is no dead zone in Chernobyl. In fact, biodiversity has flourished since all the people left.


Deer and other small game have flourished. People, with their longer lifespans, have not.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

timfromohio said:


> Another apsect of nuclear power that nobody has mentioned is the economics behind them - every single commerical plant built in this country was incredibly heavily subsidized. Nuclear power is not economical at all if not subsidized.


That has been my biggest reason not to like nuclear power for years.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

timfromohio said:


> Jena - you're right. No new nuclear power facility has started construction in about three decades. The newest one I could find that when online was circa 1990, so it's about 2 decades ...
> 
> Another apsect of nuclear power that nobody has mentioned is the economics behind them - every single commerical plant built in this country was incredibly heavily subsidized. Nuclear power is not economical at all if not subsidized. Nevermind that little issue of the waste ... anybody wanna ride the yucca mountain express?


There have been plenty of plants built throughout the world. Lots and lots of nuclear power plants.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

This is a no win conversation.

Ernie, I feel if you had your wildest dream come true, we'd all be living in the 1700's.

This topic reminds me of many simular topics of envirnmental concern. Each side presents their "facts" and "numbers" that they use to demonstrate how they come to their conclusions. Neither side will admit that their "facts" and "numbers" were found AFTER the opinion was actually formed. Neither side will admit the "facts" and "numbers" they use to support their own side come from largely biased sources and are inflated and overly extreme generalizations. When a valid point IS made by one side, the other says 'yeah, but.......' or 'what if......', never to concede the point. Like this one from Ernie:

"Deer and other small game have flourished. People, with their longer lifespans, have not."

Um, there are no people there. Regardless, it is still far from a "dead zone".

I'm pro nuclear power. Why? Well, why not? I'm more likely to die in a house fire or any of a thousand things than I am from radiation from the nearby nuclear reactor even in the unlikely event that it melts down.

As for a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl effecting the whole world, how do you explain the longer average lifespan nowadays? It just doesn't add up that we are all dieing from radiation due to Chernobyl nor will we all die from Fuki-whatever. Inbreeding will cause more genetic mutations in the world in 2012-3000 than Japans nuclear incident.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Feel free to view this documentary on the legacy of Chernobyl. I'll do the rest of you a favor by not directly linking the photographs of the deformed and mutated children who languish in asylums in the Ukraine.

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

The effects of the Japanese plant are not yet known. Reactor 1, 2 and 4 are causing problems to say nothing of the several hundred tons of spent fuel. I think some of us need to spend some time in a cancer ward and then blow off radiation.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Ernie said:


> Feel free to view this documentary on the legacy of Chernobyl. I'll do the rest of you a favor by not directly linking the photographs of the deformed and mutated children who languish in asylums in the Ukraine.
> 
> http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl


A documentary with an agenda?

The pictures are disturbing. Where did these children come from? It's not clear from the pictures or the commentary. I've seen many cases of mutations in documentaries on TV from around the world. Institutions around the world can share simular pics. Advertising on US TV often show such pics for donations to childrens cancer hospitals right here in the good ol US.

It's fearmongering at it's best.

I feel for those children. I also feel for the children I personally know with mis-shaped heads, cancer and other birth defects. Now that I think of it, I know several. Maybe I should take some black and white artistic photo's for comparison. I garrentee I can get as many pics of unfortunate individuals in my small city as was shown here.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

time said:


> A documentary with an agenda?
> 
> The pictures are disturbing. Where did these children come from? It's not clear from the pictures or the commentary. I've seen many cases of mutations in documentaries on TV from around the world. Institutions around the world can share simular pics. Advertising on US TV often show such pics for donations to childrens cancer hospitals right here in the good ol US.
> 
> ...


A post with an agenda?

I challenge you to find ANYTHING like that in America in a concentrated area. I "garrentee" you won't. So list your town and let the challenge begin. 

Do a little research on Paul Fusco. Maybe you could send him an email questioning his integrity. 

Or maybe Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-defect-chernobyl-idUSTRE62N4L820100324

Or maybe National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0426_040426_chernobyl_2.html

No, there's no agenda in the truth. Radiation causes birth defects. Chernobyl released a lot of dangerous radiation into the atmosphere.

To argue against that is inane.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

seedspreader said:


> A post with an agenda?
> 
> I challenge you to find ANYTHING like that in America in a concentrated area. I "garrentee" you won't. So list your town and let the challenge begin.
> 
> ...


This is an institution in the documentary. Where did all the children in the institution come from? Where were their parents in relation to the reactor? What is the actuall percentage of birth defects where ALL of those children came from? Where are the pictures of healthy kids? Where are the pics of the wildlife? The deformed deer and birds? If I walk into any institution, hospital or asylem, I'm going to see a very concentrated group of individuals with problems. 

The commentary, especially at points 30 and 33, are specifically anti-nuke.

Paul Fusco may well be a great journalist, the doc was well done, that does not mean he is not biased or that there is no agenda. This is a very one sided point of view.

Radiation causes birth defects. Yes, but at what rate over the general population? There are birth defects around the world. Always has been, always will be. Some groups of people have higher birth defect rates than others.

Pictures and sad stories are not meant for anything but an emotional responce. You only see the bad. You are not shown healthy families that these unhealthy children came from.

Yes, my post has an agenda. I thought I stated it clearly.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

You clearly did not watch it, many of the questions you asked are included in the rest of the documentary.


----------



## timfromohio (Jun 19, 2007)

Jena - apologies - I didn't clarify in my initial post which was in reference to domestic plants. You're absolutlely correct - many new ones in Europe and Asia, just not here in the US which is what my comments referred to.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Nuclear energy is a finite resource unless someone comes up with a fusion plant that makes more energy than it consumes. I find it quite foolish that people will defend a source of energy that will remain dangerous many millennia after the original and selfish folks used up the entire world's fissionable material. Once all the fissionable material has been mined then what? The only thing nuclear energy is doing is delaying the inevitable. We will need to learn to live with what can be sustained by renewable resources or face a mass die off. 

The idea that radiation doesn't cause any health effects is not only just dumb but entirely non-scientific. I would ask Time he would move his family right next to the Chernobyl disaster site or out into the desert where there was nuclear weapon testing. If nuclear radiation was as safe as Time claims there would be no point in having big thick walls around reactors, Chernobyl would be inhabited today by people, and those stupid walls that X-ray technicians stand behind are because of the goofy faces people make while they are getting x-rayed.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> Nuclear energy is a finite resource unless someone comes up with a fusion plant that makes more energy than it consumes. I find it quite foolish that people will defend a source of energy that will remain dangerous many millennia after the original and selfish folks used up the entire world's fissionable material. Once all the fissionable material has been mined then what? The only thing nuclear energy is doing is delaying the inevitable. We will need to learn to live with what can be sustained by renewable resources or face a mass die off.
> 
> The idea that radiation doesn't cause any health effects is not only just dumb but entirely non-scientific. I would ask Time he would move his family right next to the Chernobyl disaster site or out into the desert where there was nuclear weapon testing. If nuclear radiation was as safe as Time claims there would be no point in having big thick walls around reactors, Chernobyl would be inhabited today by people, and those stupid walls that X-ray technicians stand behind are because of the goofy faces people make while they are getting x-rayed.


I never said it was "safe". I'd like you find that post and quote it please.

I am saying, many people's fears are OVER EXAGGERATED.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

time said:


> This is an institution in the documentary. Where did all the children in the institution come from? Where were their parents in relation to the reactor? What is the actuall percentage of birth defects where ALL of those children came from? Where are the pictures of healthy kids? Where are the pics of the wildlife? The deformed deer and birds? If I walk into any institution, hospital or asylem, I'm going to see a very concentrated group of individuals with problems.
> 
> The commentary, especially at points 30 and 33, are specifically anti-nuke.
> 
> ...


effects on population depend on exposure , we arfe all exposed to some forms of radistion some are far more dangerous than others .
While I seldom agree with ernie In this case we are very close to agreement .
nuclear fission is a very dangerous source of energy , its biproducts arte pure poison killing the ground and air for centuries . 
there are major differences between a hydrogen bomb as was used on japan during WWII and the radio active waste produced by long term nuclear generation.
they figure out fussion and maybe


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

While we disagree on many points, Pyrodon and I, we can both universally agree that we want to be alive and healthy to do so for many years to come.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

seedspreader said:


> You clearly did not watch it, many of the questions you asked are included in the rest of the documentary.


I watched it several times. Those things are not there.

There was a note about 500K people being affected. With what?

There were other vague notes and comments but again nothing specific.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> I never said it was "safe". I'd like you find that post and quote it please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you don't see a problem of saddling thousands of future generations with our nuclear mess because we couldn't possibly learn to cut back? There is nothing exaggerated about how long nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years. The only thing I see that is exaggerated is how much human kind will benefit by burning up the ENTIRE WORLD'S WORTH of fissionable material in less than 50 years.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> So you don't see a problem of saddling thousands of future generations with our nuclear mess because we couldn't possibly learn to cut back? There is nothing exaggerated about how long nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years. The only thing I see that is exaggerated is how much human kind will benefit by burning up the ENTIRE WORLD'S WORTH of fissionable material in less than 50 years.


Yes, someone posted that Chernobyl is a "dead zone". This is not true. I would not sit naked on top of the old reactor site nor stay for very long. But there is wildlife there. I can't live at the bottom of the ocean either, but it is far from dead. That's not to say it is safe.

The rest is complicated(or simple depending on your veiw) but no, I don't see saddling thousands of future generations with any of our mess as a big problem. The earth is always changing. It is going to die someday. Prolly not soon like some think but it will die. What are we saving? We are not saving the planet. If nothing else, the sun will eventually eat the earth.

I hope, for future generations, someone smarter than I finds a way to get people to a new, young inhabitable planet.

Untill then, the earth will continue renew itself and sustain what life it can in the proccess. I won't be here so it won't matter. I never got to see a real live dinasour so I don't supose whoever or whatever is here in the future won't mind they never got to see a real live me.:smiley-laughing013:

Edit to add: 

If the worlds supply of fissionable material is used up in fifty years, doesn't the problem solve itself?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

time said:


> Yes, someone posted that Chernobyl is a "dead zone". This is not true. I would not sit naked on top of the old reactor site nor stay for very long. But there is wildlife there. I can't live at the bottom of the ocean either, but it is far from dead. That's not to say it is safe.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl_2.html

*Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations. 

"In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said.
*


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Is that the definition of a dead zone?

I also read somewhere that though there is wildlife at Chernobyl there is a couple species that do no exist there that should.

I do not claim that there is no ill effects at Chernobyl. I simply state that many claims are over exaggerated. Calling it a dead zone is precisly what I mean by over exaggeration. I believe your first post claimed that Chernobyl effected the whole world. I think it has SOME negative local effects.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

The video said where the parents were. Showed pictures of the parents. Said specifically where some of the cases were from, like the little girl who went out and played in a radioactive rain.

The other two links gave the birth defect rates for some specific defects including spinal bifida for Ukraine.

Birth defect rates are 200 - 300% higher on average, some up to 24 times the average. 

That's not drama, it's not heart strings, it's fact.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> Yes, someone posted that Chernobyl is a "dead zone". This is not true. I would not sit naked on top of the old reactor site nor stay for very long. But there is wildlife there. I can't live at the bottom of the ocean either, but it is far from dead. That's not to say it is safe.


So you say it isn't safe yet on the other hand you support it. Would you like asbestos insulation in your house? It is perfectly safe as long as nothing happens to it. How about painting the inside of your house with lead based paint? It is safe as long as no one disturbs it. How about living next to a coal powerplant with no emissions controls, it's safe as long as you don't drink the water and eat the fish. 



time said:


> The rest is complicated(or simple depending on your veiw) but no, I don't see saddling thousands of future generations with any of our mess as a big problem. The earth is always changing. It is going to die someday. Prolly not soon like some think but it will die. What are we saving? We are not saving the planet. If nothing else, the sun will eventually eat the earth.


That is the best argument you can come up with? Planet is going to get burned up by the sun in a few trillion years anyway? What's 40,000 years worth of human kind worth anyway, not much according to you. I truly hope there are not more folks like you in the world because it will be a sad sad place to live in the future. 



time said:


> I hope, for future generations, someone smarter than I finds a way to get people to a new, young inhabitable planet.


Every single nuclear power supporter I've come across has said without fail about how human kind will spread to the stars. Why save this planet when maybe someday (not sure how or when) we'll travel the stars like Star Trek and be able to destroy planets across the universe instead. Maybe that will happen and maybe it won't. 

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep our planet it good shape so future generations can concentrate on space exploration instead of cleaning up the messes of one and a half generations for thousands of years to come?

I hope our *current* generation becomes a little more smarter about energy policy instead of shrugging our collective shoulders saying,"It's not my problem."



time said:


> Untill then, the earth will continue renew itself and sustain what life it can in the proccess. I won't be here so it won't matter. I never got to see a real live dinasour so I don't supose whoever or whatever is here in the future won't mind they never got to see a real live me.:smiley-laughing013:


You really think people won't exist in 2,000 years or even 10,000 years or 100,000 years for that matter? At the high end nuclear waste has the potential to last a million years and at the low end 10,000 years. Even at the low estimate that is still twice as long as the entire recorded history of human kind. I can't believe anyone would possibly think that a mere 50-100 years of burning up a non-renewable resource is worth polluting the planet for tens of thousands of years (or much much more). Selfishness, that is the only word I can come up to describe your viewpoint.



time said:


> If the worlds supply of fissionable material is used up in fifty years, doesn't the problem solve itself?


Maybe, if all the nuclear waste becomes self-aware and decides that Earth sucks so it decides to makes a space ship and leaves. Then yes if that happens then I believe the problem will have solved itself :happy0035:


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Ya know Time Bikini island appears to be a beautiful place , clear blue lagoons, numerous fruit trees birds and wild life . I like seeing the pictures but considering the radiation levels from the Nuclear bomb testing there many decades ago I wouldnt care to visit for any length of time and sure would take a young child .
for cancer and birth defect rates look at the GIs who got the privilage of watching the tests in Nevada for that matter look at the numbers in towns down wind of those tests.
Just because you dont start glowing in the dark doesnt mean you havent been harmed , the damage may not show up in your off spring but it may in your grand children .
No one really knows the true long term effects on human genetics , what we do know is they released a genie from a bottle 60 years ago and cant seem to find a safe way to use it . 
Nuclear power is a bit like setting a bomb and giving the detonator to a three year old , your not sure when they will push the button but pretty sure they will some time .


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Txrider said:


> Or the damage done to produce solar panels or windmills which to date have left more toxic waste from mining and refining, and more radioactive waste from mining, than all the nuke plants ever built.
> 
> We have no choice to accept those risks either


Deleted.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Just to be clear, I am not anti-nuclear power, but I am not pro-nuclear power anymore either.

I do know that we already have a bunch of nuclear power plants and I think it would be government money well spent (constitutionally appropriate due to the potential threat to actual American's welfare) for us to do massive inspections and improvements to the nuclear plants in the states. 

I know they've been upgraded along the way but I also know corporations take "calculated risks" for profit. I don't trust that.

So, I am between a rock and a hard place here. I don't trust the government, I don't trust the corporations and we've got 104 of these in operation.

So until the spent fuel issue is dealt with, I don't want to see any more new Nuclear Power plants.

Really, until the spent fuel issue is addressed by the government we can't even say that nuclear power is a viable energy source anyways because the cost is hidden.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

There are many places in the world that are not safe to live in. Most of them occuring quite naturally. Some we have made ourselves. We will continue to make others. Natural disasters continue to be the largest threat. I don't have the time, patients or desire to list all of the uninhabital places for natural causes or manmade and the reasons they are uninhabitable. The world is not, nor never will be, a safe place to live. 

Do you deny that at some point in the future this planet will cease to exist? Even if mankind died out today, the earth will not thrive for an eternity. Many natural occurances exist that could destroy most of the life on the planet. It has happened before and most agree it will likely happen again.

There may be hundreds or thousands of generations to come behind me. Who is to say that they will not have the technology to solve problems we create today. The knowledge and technology they accumulate will come in part by the use of the technology we have today. Unless of course, one of those natural disaster things wipes most of us out.

I try to be prepared for a big event that could happen. It's only wise to do so. But I do not want to stop progress in technology that will make my life easier. There are risks to nuclear power. They are acceptable risks. There are risks to everything, I take the risks that are acceptable for the end result. Like driving to town for a movie. Very much not needed, but fun.

A very tiny percentage of the world population has been affected by nuclear power in a negative way.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

time said:


> But I do not want to stop progress in technology that will make my life easier.


And now we get to the distilled message here.

"Hey, only a small percent of folks have been killed or their children deformed and it's nobody I know personally so I'm all for whatever makes my life easier!"

After all, the world's going to end sooner or later as you stated, so we might as well irradiate it now in the sake of not having to wash dishes by hand or hang clothes up on a clothesline, right?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

Ernie said:


> And now we get to the distilled message here.
> 
> "Hey, only a small percent of folks have been killed or their children deformed and it's nobody I know personally so I'm all for whatever makes my life easier!"
> 
> After all, the world's going to end sooner or later as you stated, so we might as well irradiate it now in the sake of not having to wash dishes by hand or hang clothes up on a clothesline, right?


That is partly correct. As I am disabled due to a likely manmade but officially unidentified source, I beleive I know how it is to have these things affect people on a personal basis.

I have lived for several months without electricity. Without a comfortable amount of hot water. In a tent mostly with little heat. Washing clothes in a bucket.

It's do-able and I'm willing to do it again for extended periods if necissary. But, it's not necissary at this time. After all, this is a survival and preperation forum. There would be no reason to prep if we was already living the dream. 

I'm not completely reliant on technology but I do enjoy the things that make life easier. I can prep for the possibility those things are no longer available but I won't live it untill it is necissary. There is no reason to.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Until the sun goes POOF planet earth will survive.Nature far superceeds anything we will do to the Earth.
The article below....this is hardly cheap power.I guess most of the proponents werent around when building these plants came in at 2-300% more than budgeted.

So much for cheap,it isnt. So on strictly a cost basis Nuclear is a bad option. But of course proponents will deny it,we the people WILL fight these plants being built in the Future,Sorry GE and your political bribes,errr....campaign contributions.Too many of us see through you.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/nuclear-debacle-not-clean-not-safe

This article stands far above most of the anti-nuclear commentary in that regard. There's no panic-driven hoopla about "let's shut down all reactors now because we might get hit by a tsunami"... just an honest argument that the current rules offer *an unfair subsidy to the nuclear industry in the form of the liability cap.*

In 2009, Ontario was shopping for bids to build a nuclear power plant *and required the bidders to shoulder all risks* - both with manufacturing and liabilities... and the only compliant bid came in at over $10/W.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/

THAT is a valid, honest, and reasonable argument against nuclear power - it's very expensive once risk is assessed and priced into the package. This doesn't in any way imply that there is a direct threat just because Japan got hit by a tsunami.

It's merely a fair statement that liability should not be shouldered by the people.

Thank you Scott Sklar, for delivering a rational argument.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> There are many places in the world that are not safe to live in. Most of them occuring quite naturally. Some we have made ourselves. We will continue to make others. Natural disasters continue to be the largest threat. I don't have the time, patients or desire to list all of the uninhabital places for natural causes or manmade and the reasons they are uninhabitable. The world is not, nor never will be, a safe place to live.


Then why risk making more areas non-inhabitable? Your argument makes about as much sense as someone who says highways are inherently dangerous so why make any attempt at designing safer automobiles.



time said:


> Do you deny that at some point in the future this planet will cease to exist? Even if mankind died out today, the earth will not thrive for an eternity. Many natural occurances exist that could destroy most of the life on the planet. It has happened before and most agree it will likely happen again.


Sure I agree that might happen but why throw caution to the wind over a what if situation?



time said:


> Who is to say that they will not have the technology to solve problems we create today. The knowledge and technology they accumulate will come in part by the use of the technology we have today.


They may or may not. You don't have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else on this planet does. We have a moral obligation to future generations to at least try and make a half hearted attempt not to make a total mess of things.



time said:


> Unless of course, one of those natural disaster things wipes most of us out.


What it boils down to is how much risk you are personally willing to take on. The way I see it we have enough risk as it is from natural disasters. Why make more risk for ourselves that is *completely avoidable* if we don't have to?



time said:


> I try to be prepared for a big event that could happen. It's only wise to do so. But I do not want to stop progress in technology that will make my life easier. There are risks to nuclear power. They are acceptable risks. There are risks to everything, I take the risks that are acceptable for the end result. Like driving to town for a movie. Very much not needed, but fun.


What progress is made by making a society dependent on a *finite fuel source*? Wouldn't it be much more logical to try and figure out a way to be sustainable? Instead you suggest we just keep using up our finite resources with the vague faith that hopefully maybe someday someone will figure out a way to provide infinite energy. 



time said:


> A very tiny percentage of the world population has been affected by nuclear power in a negative way.


Perhaps but we now know what the effects are of radiation. Just like leaded gas nuclear energy is a yesteryear idea that has no place in the future (besides on a very limited scale). Just like leaded gas, asbestos, and DDT we have learned there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy. Also just like leaded gas, asbestos, and DDT the effects on the world's population was limited. You say nuclear power is the future of progress I say renewable energy is the future of progress. One of those two sources of energy will be around in the foreseeable future. 

I liken nuclear energy supporters to religious folks (without the moral compass though). Despite scientific evidence to the contrary they'll support nuclear energy with the blind faith that someday someone will come up with something that will magically take care of all the problems of nuclear waste. Like a terrorist on a suicide mission suffering and the loss of life here and there is perfectly acceptable for the greater good (depending on whose definition). When questioned about the moral dilemma of leaving behind thousands of years worth of nuclear waste like a modern day Queen Marie Antoinette nuclear supporters say to those who come after us to "eat cake".


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> You say nuclear power is the future of progress I say renewable energy is the future of progress.


Sorry, but even most of the optimists don't feel renewable energy will be a viable replacement for the nations energy needs in fewer than fifty years.

I would love to see it happen and hope for the best but.........


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> Sorry, but even most of the optimists don't feel renewable energy will be a viable replacement for the nations energy needs in fewer than fifty years.


So we have a finite energy source that may last another 50 years (which God willing I'll still be around) and then what? Sorry, still the same problem just delayed except when that happens there won't be any more energy to burn through. Not to mention we'll have 50 more years of nuclear waste to figure out what to do with. I guess though you'll be dead by then so who cares right? If our current crisis has taught us anything the last place people will be looking for solutions is in space.

There is another option. One that others may scoff at but realistically it is the only option. It is bringing down our population to a sustainable level. We can do that or wish that someone or something with bestow upon us with a new magical source of energy. Some countries have already taken those steps (to reduce population), whether it be the draconian approach of China or a natural change like much of western Europe to reduce population.



time said:


> I would love to see it happen and hope for the best but.........


It won't happen if you and others adopt the fatalist attitude of we can't change it so why bother. So while it might make it morally easier for you to think we are all going to die as a species when the sun goes nova in a mere 3-7 billion years the truth is those who are born today will have to deal with our selfishness well within their life time.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> So we have a finite energy source that may last another 50 years (which God willing I'll still be around) and then what? Sorry, still the same problem just delayed except when that happens there won't be any more energy to burn through. Not to mention we'll have 50 more years of nuclear waste to figure out what to do with. I guess though you'll be dead by then so who cares right? If our current crisis has taught us anything the last place people will be looking for solutions is in space.
> 
> There is another option. One that others may scoff at but realistically it is the only option. It is bringing down our population to a sustainable level. We can do that or wish that someone or something with bestow upon us with a new magical source of energy. Some countries have already taken those steps (to reduce population), whether it be the draconian approach of China or a natural change like much of western Europe to reduce population.
> 
> ...


No, not the same problem. You seem to assume that using current technology(finite energy source) means that research on sustainable energy must stop. Nuke energy can fill the gap. Or burn another resource to fill the gap. Either way, there must be something in between now and your future energy source.

Something must change. No arguement there. Things have no choice but to change. Untill a viable source of sustainable energy is available, we use what we have. If we run out of currently used resources before a new viable source is accomplished, the population will adjust on it's own. I agree population is an issue. I find it odd that you would have that veiw but fight tooth and nail to worry about the health of a tiny percentage of it.

"It won't happen if you and others adopt the fatalist attitude of we can't change it so why bother."

Another assumption on your part. I'm all for finding the alternative. It's not here yet. Untill it is, I'm all for using what we have.

mightybooboo has a valid arguement against nuclear energy. I have not read into it or formed an opinion but it is one that is valid and worth looking into.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> No, not the same problem. You seem to assume that using current technology(finite energy source) means that research on sustainable energy must stop.


Never said that once. 



time said:


> Nuke energy can fill the gap. Or burn another resource to fill the gap. Either way, there must be something in between now and your future energy source.


There is actually more coal than there is fissionable material currently on the planet. I am not a coal fan by any means but as far as negative lasting effects nuclear energy has coal beat by thousands maybe possibly almost a million years.



time said:


> Until a viable source of sustainable energy is available, we use what we have. If we run out of currently used resources before a new viable source is accomplished, the population will adjust on it's own. I agree population is an issue. I find it odd that you would have that veiw but fight tooth and nail to worry about the health of a tiny percentage of it.


What is odd about suggesting that we voluntarily reduce our population (and no I am not talking about death camps)? You suggest we risk a small segment of our population so everyone can live comfortably I suggest we control our birthrates, risk no one, to accomplish the same result. 



time said:


> Another assumption on your part. I'm all for finding the alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee I wonder where I would have gotten that assumption from 

What gets me is not so much your idea that we should use up every bit of finite energy on the planet as much as it is your "I've got mine so screw em" attitude.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

PhilJohnson said:


> What gets me is not so much your idea that we should use up every bit of finite energy on the planet as much as it is your "I've got mine so screw em" attitude.


Yeah,lots of folks with that attitude.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> What gets me is not so much your idea that we should use up every bit of finite energy on the planet as much as it is your "I've got mine so screw em" attitude.


And that would be what Ernie calls "the distilled message". :banana02:

I can't help ya with that.:happy0035:

People are not going to make the population correction voluntarily. It does not exist according to many on this pesimistic forum let alone the general public. So, the earth will make the correction. It will be unpleasant. I'm not looking forward to it. In the meantime, I'll enjoy what is available and if it speeds up the inevitable, I'll not lose sleep over it. I'll be prepared if it happens in my life time. That's all I can do.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> And that would be what Ernie calls "the distilled message". :banana02:


No distilling necessary. How else would would I interpret this:



time said:


> I don't see saddling thousands of future generations with any of our mess as a big problem.


I find it interesting that you post on this thread defending an unsustainable technology when the whole point of the thread has been about getting away from unsustainable technology. You admit nuclear power isn't safe and that it is finite. When people bring up facts you shrug it off to being emotional nonsense. When asked about nuclear waste you don't post any studies on safe containment of nuclear waste instead you resort to saying not my problem. When people suggest that there may be other technological alternatives you say those won't work. And this is coming from a guy who thinks that someday people will travel the stars looking for habitable planets.

In effect you are agreeing on exactly the point that Ernie was trying to make in his original post:



Ernie said:


> I believe that in order to sustain constant growth we are turning to more and more dangerous technologies. The truth of the matter is that constant growth is simply an _unsustainable concept._


I hate to admit that I agree with Ernie on anything but he's right on the point that "modern living and convenience has simply grown too high to be sustained". It would seem that you believe that too but unlike Ernie and other posters you suggest we should't do anything to conserve because it might lower our standard of living at least temporarily.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

PhilJohnson said:


> I hate to admit that I agree with Ernie on anything but he's right on the point that "modern living and convenience has simply grown too high to be sustained". It would seem that you believe that too but unlike Ernie and other posters you suggest we should't do anything to conserve because it might lower our standard of living at least temporarily.


Ode to Ernie

Cantankerous some say (not I)
His posts seem to set them off without a try.

By some he is loved and adored,
By others he is hated... 
even abhorred. 

But loved, adored, hated, abhorred, 
The one thing Ernie never is... is ignored.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> Ode to Ernie
> 
> Cantankerous some say (not I)
> His posts seem to set them off without a try.
> ...


Quite true


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Bahaha! Seedspreader, my old friend and spiritual advisor, that brightened my whole day.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

seedspreader said:


> Ode to Ernie
> 
> Cantankerous some say (not I)
> His posts seem to set them off without a try.
> ...



I do think this sums Ernie's effect on HT rather well.
Very clever seedspreader


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> In effect you are agreeing on exactly the point that Ernie was trying to make in his original post:


I do agree with that statement by Ernie if you take the word 'dangerous' out of it.

I also agree with your position on the population.

I also agree that EVENTUALLY a sustainable source of energy will be found and used. It might even utilize sun and wind.

I do not agree that conservation is realistic or an answer.

I do not agree that nuclear energy is too dangerous to pursue.

I do agree we will run out of resources at the current rate we are going.

I do not agree we will kill the planet with our poisoning.

I believe the planet will kill us before we kill it. (probably just reduce our numbers substantialy)

It all sounds a bit hypocriticle doesn't it? Consider this:

If we halt growth, it throws us in a depresion. A very bad depresion. The very thing some of us are preping for. Conservation of resources halts growth. As the population increases, current food and energy systems can't keep up without growth. Everyone goes to third world status. Americans especially are not prepared to live that way. The world population, world economy, world energy needs are all dependant on growth. I believe a lack of growth will kill more people through riots, unrest, war, famine and ect than the nuke plants ever will.

I agree the growth cannot be sustained forever. There has to be an end to it. When it does end, it's not going to be pretty. I feel slowing or halting growth starts the end.(except population growth)

So, for me, I see two choices. Try to keep up with growth untill we can't and things go bad, or give up and halt the growth now and things will go bad. 

I do not want to see myself, my family or anyone else go through that. It's better if I'm not here when it does happen. I would also like to see my granddaughter live in a world of growth rather than a world in decline. So you bet, keep up the growth.

Maybe, just maybe, technology or some change will level everything off and a sustainable future can be realized. Untill then, build the nuke plant(if financially viable)

Oops, way more than I was planning on saying.:smack


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> So, for me, I see two choices. Try to keep up with growth untill we can't and things go bad, or give up and halt the growth now and things will go bad.


In a lot of ways I'd rather see it go bad now so folks like you can live with the foolish policy choices that have been made over the course of the 20th century. Your attitude is the same one I've come across from older people and it really ticks me off because my own generation most likely will be the first to clean up and deal with mess left by folks like you. 



time said:


> I do not want to see myself, my family or anyone else go through that. It's better if I'm not here when it does happen. I would also like to see my granddaughter live in a world of growth rather than a world in decline. So you bet, keep up the growth.


So selfish. You should save your post on this thread and leave them to your granddaughter's offspring. I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact that at least you could live the good life at their expense.


----------



## CaliannG (Apr 29, 2005)

I am not going to argue with Time, as I try very hard not to waste mine. For the benefit of others who read here, though.....

However, I am going to say that it is interesting that I agree BOTH with Ernie AND with PyroDon, which surely means the world will come to an end tomorrow. Sad, because I just bought new goats.

Nuclear power IS dangerous. To say it is not is sticking one's head in the sand. Airplanes are also dangerous, as is snowboarding. That does not keep us from flying or hurtling down mountainsides with our feet strapped to an over-sized toothpick, but that does not negate the fact that all of these things are correctly termed "dangerous".

Okay, maybe it keeps ME from strapping my feet to an over-sized toothpick, but that is just me. I, personally, would not snowboard down a pile of raked leaves in my front yard. My daughter, much younger than I am (read: much STUPIDER than I am) would cheerfully snowboard down Mount Everest.

Which brings us to risk...and consequences.

If my daughter's metaphorical snowboard fails....she will suffer the consequences and will perhaps destroy some bushes and a tree in the process. At MOST, she might run into one or two other people and take them out with her. Damage to the environment will be limited to some vegetation, unless she starts and avalanche...however, if EVERYTHING went wrong, it would still be a very localized event.

If a plane crashes with all of its occupants in the very worst way possible, we could possibly see damage occurring at the level of Ground Zero on 9/11. Thousands of people died. However, it was also an instant event. No one died from it the following year.

If a coal plant blows up, it is also an instant event. It could very well kill thousands of people and damage ground and vegetation for miles around. We had something of the sort happen in the 80's (or was it the early 90's?) here in Texas. In Brenham to be exact. It felt like a tiny earthquake up here. Still, within a few years, the grass will grow again and trees will sprout up. It will not have a much more lasting effect than the huge wildfires that occur naturally. Again, once it is done, it is done. A rabbit born on the site next year is not going to have a higher chance of being born with two heads.

NONE of these things are true for a nuclear plant going awry. The consequences can effect worldwide ecosystems. It is NOT an instant event....as the event is continuing to occur for as long as radiation is leaking. Radiation at that level alters and mutates genes, therefore, things born on the site a decade later have a much higher chance of being born with two heads. Creatures that move into the area will have higher incidences of cancers, etc. that kill them.

And sorry, it is the radiation that kills...the cancers and such are SYMPTOMS of the radiation. The disease is the radiation itself which causes the cell mutations that develop into cancer. One may argue that these people just happened to have higher chances for it, but if everywhere else, something happens once in every 10,000, but in a certain place, it is happening once in every 100, you got some problems with your geographical location.

Constant growth IS unsustainable...we have been watching it in its death throes since the 80's. Eisenhower started the "planned obsolescence" ideal to start a huge growth spurt, but it was supposed to be a TEMPORARY ideal...only lasting 10 years, in order to put capitalism back on its feet after the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. _It was never intended as a permanent situation._ Those who initiated it didn't intend for it to last longer than a decade, maybe two. _It has been artificially kept up through the exploitation and rape of the resources of other countries._

The very idea of trying to keep it going even longer is morally, ethically and spiritually repugnant, no matter what your reasons or how you are doing it for the children. No, you are not. Because it is *killing* other children.

I want my granddaughter to grow up and live a happy, healthy life. Whether that means it is in a world where she collects Barbies or in a world where she is collecting pine nuts does not matter to me. I am not seeking to sustain the unsustainable so that my grandchildren can live a life of wealth and relative ease at the expense of someone else's grandchild who must live a life of illness, overwork and despair to make that happen. 

That is greed on the highest level. Directly on par with my ex Mother-in-law who exclaimed to me, "What do I care if the skies turn black with pollution in 20 years? I won't be alive that long! I want cheap gas for my Jeep TODAY....and if that means kicking those lazy redskins off of their reservations and drilling right in the middle of their burial grounds to get it, I don't care."

No, before you ask, as a matter of fact, I did not like my ex MIL. Not even a little bit. It didn't help that it was *my* reservation she was talking about, either.

But, neither here nor there....we got INTO this mess due to greed ... and we're not going to get OUT of it by even more greed. Jimmy Carter told us flat out that we were a bunch of spoiled, rotten, selfish little children who wanted to eat ALL of the candy themselves. If we had listened to Prez. Carter and kept his energy programs in place, we would be enjoying energy independence today. But NoooOOOoooOOOoooo.... we had to throw a temper tantrum until the oil companies got what they wanted: record profits going up for decades. 

Yeah, real smart, weren't we?

And now, we have the very evidence before our eyes: There are real nasty consequences to using nuclear energy, it is a FINITE resource and is NOT the answer to our energy dilemma, and truthfully, mining the components of it, refining them, etc., at EVERY step along the way, there is poisoning of the earth, the air and the water.... right on down to when it is spent. 

Just how stupid does a person have to be to decide, after being presented with the facts over and over, that a form of finite energy that is dirty from first mining to last disposal (nuclear) should be pursued as a replacement for a finite energy that is dirty from first mining to last disposal (oil)? The biggest difference is that we're going to an even DIRTIER form of energy? Excuse me?

And anyone who say nuclear energy is "clean" hasn't bothered to find out where it comes from or where it goes to... Forget testing sites, bombing sites, or reactor meltdowns....go check the radioactivity and health problems where the stuff was MINED. 

And while you are at it, are you wasicu ever gonna fulfill your contracts about cleaning up the mess you made with that stuff on our land? Oh, never mind, I forget...I am talking to people who think it is okay to rape other cultures and countries for their own creature comforts.  Technology dumps in China where grade school children are getting mercury poisoning from your old Commodore 64 and Amiga? Yeah...leave filth and destruction where-ever you walk, but never look back to actually smell the offal you are gifting your granddaughter with.

There is sustainable, renewable energy.... and again, people who wish only to maintain their greed and growth never see it. The wind never stops blowing, the tides never stop flowing. Off shore tidal dams are FAR cheaper than nuclear power plants and don't pollute. The sun doesn't stop shining. None of these things _by themselves_ is the answer....but together, they will more than meet the energy needs of our current declining  population. 

Technology is growing in other areas also...photovoltaic panels keep getting more and more efficient. And cheaper...they now have panels made from printing the chemicals onto metal foil. Turbines, also. They now have helio-coil turbines that work in slight breezes...or in hydro-electric plants established on lazy, slow streams. 

And you know what? If a wind turbine blows up in Kansas, or a solar panel becomes shards in San Fran, or even if a dam should burst right on my property......

.... it isn't going to effect the reproductive health of my GREAT granddaughter, if she grows up here.


----------



## frank (Dec 16, 2008)

CaliannG, well said. Don't forget geothermal! Tidal plants can be built. Geothermal plants can be built. Solar plants and wind farms can be built. I wouldn't mind living(or working in) near one. 
I guess the ruling powers like it the way it is. 
Nuclear=insane in my opinion.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

CaliannG said:


> If a coal plant blows up, it is also an instant event. It could very well kill thousands of people and damage ground and vegetation for miles around. We had something of the sort happen in the 80's (or was it the early 90's?) here in Texas. In Brenham to be exact. It felt like a tiny earthquake up here. Still, within a few years, the grass will grow again and trees will sprout up. It will not have a much more lasting effect than the huge wildfires that occur naturally. Again, once it is done, it is done. A rabbit born on the site next year is not going to have a higher chance of being born with two heads.
> 
> 
> 
> I want my granddaughter to grow up and live a happy, healthy life. Whether that means it is in a world where she collects Barbies or in a world where she is collecting pine nuts does not matter to me. I am not seeking to sustain the unsustainable so that my grandchildren can live a life of wealth and relative ease at the expense of someone else's grandchild who must live a life of illness, overwork and despair to make that happen.


I, of course, have a different opinion on the lasting effects of coal.

Here you have an uninhabital place(by people):

http://www.pahighways.com/features/centralia.html

Feel free to google for more info.

Also feel free to do searches on, oh I don't know, mining death rates and cancer rates and pollution from coal energy plants, ect. Ever hear of Black Lung? There are plenty of anti-coal proponents so I'm sure good, trustworthy unbiased numbers are out there. How is it that these deaths and illnesses are acceptable? I would entertain the idea that this is acceptable because the lack of fear of coal is not driving people to strum their heart strings.

Just a few generations ago, children did live without these technological advances and growth while collecting pinenuts. The average life span was what? 45 Years? Now, despite all this poison being spread around, what is the average lifespan?


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> In a lot of ways I'd rather see it go bad now so folks like you can live with the foolish policy choices that have been made over the course of the 20th century. Your attitude is the same one I've come across from older people and it really ticks me off because my own generation most likely will be the first to clean up and deal with mess left by folks like you.
> 
> 
> 
> So selfish. You should save your post on this thread and leave them to your granddaughter's offspring. I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact that at least you could live the good life at their expense.


Let's talk about selfish.

I say the deaths and illnesses to date are acceptable along with future possible deaths and illnesses for nuke energy. You call this selfish.

Anti-gun advocates say the deaths and injuries from guns, both intentional and accidental, show that guns should be outlawed. I disagree. I believe the benifit of freely owning a firearm outweighs the risk. Do you see me as selfish for holding that opinion also? If guns are still around when my granddaughter has her children, those children will be at risk from guns. So should I begin lobbying to outlaw guns so my greatgrandchildren will not be at risk? Should we compare numbers of deaths, injuries, disabilities and ect between guns and nukes and decide wich to outlaw first?

The only arguement can be, 'well that's different'. It's not different.

The only difference is that I am honest about an "acceptable risk".

If you are pro gun rights, you can join me in the selfish bracket. I'm selfish on both accounts. I'll even throw in coal power to my selfishness.

Since my local power comes from hydro, I hardly see it as selfish to advocate for others to use other means. It's not likely I will personally benifit from an unsustainable source.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> Let's talk about selfish.
> 
> I say the deaths and illnesses to date are acceptable along with future possible deaths and illnesses for nuke energy. You call this selfish.


It is exceptable to you not me or others. That is your opinion not a fact.



time said:


> Anti-gun advocates say the deaths and injuries from guns, both intentional and accidental, show that guns should be outlawed. I disagree. I believe the benifit of freely owning a firearm outweighs the risk. Do you see me as selfish for holding that opinion also? If guns are still around when my granddaughter has her children, those children will be at risk from guns. So should I begin lobbying to outlaw guns so my greatgrandchildren will not be at risk? Should we compare numbers of deaths, injuries, disabilities and ect between guns and nukes and decide wich to outlaw first?


Really now you are going to compare guns to nuclear power? Guns cause death sure, but they don't cause death long after the last bullet has been shot. I can leave a gun buried out in my backyard for the next million years. It won't poison the ground water and it won't hurt anyone. There is no comparison at all. We could outlaw guns tomorrow and recycle them into plows. We could outlaw nuclear power plants tomorrow and be still stuck with the risk of nuclear radiation for an indefinite amount of time. 



time said:


> The only arguement can be, 'well that's different'. It's not different.


It is totally different. Your argument is flat out dumb. Every single other piece of technology does not leave behind the sort of waste that nuclear energy does. Coal power plants can be torn down and recycled, concrete can be ground up into gravel, any thing that has been contaminated by radiation can not be used. You have waste x2. First the nuclear waste, then all the material that can't be recycled for an indefinite period of time. 



time said:


> The only difference is that I am honest about an "acceptable risk".
> 
> If you are pro gun rights, you can join me in the selfish bracket. I'm selfish on both accounts. I'll even throw in coal power to my selfishness.
> 
> Since my local power comes from hydro, I hardly see it as selfish to advocate for others to use other means. It's not likely I will personally benifit from an unsustainable source.


Whatever. This just isn't about nuclear power this is about your own comfort. You admitted it yourself. *You don't care about what happens to anyone else as long as you got to live your life in comfort.* *How is that not selfish?* Bringing in guns into the mix is a desperate attempt for you try and make it out like you have some sort of moral high ground. 

I'll say it once more because it seems to have struck a chord with you, you are a selfish individual who will try and justify death because you can't stand the thought of having to reduce your own standard of living so others can live. You can bring up straw man arguments about guns, automobiles, or anything else but that still does not change that basic truth about yourself. The only thing you have convinced me of is that if human kind will continue to exist it will be in spite of people like you and not because of people like you. There are two types of people, those that solve problems and those who are the problem. I hope for your descendant's sake you choose to be the former.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> It is exceptable to you not me or others. That is your opinion not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you deny that guns will continue to harm people in the future?

Do you deny having the following opinion on a different thread?

"I can believe that but it didn't do much elsewhere in the US. Japan's nuclear troubles while bad for them are of zero concern for me in the mid-west."

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=388193 

It doesn't bother me in the least to be called selfish. I hope you don't mind being called a hipocrite.

Don't bother answering. You don't listen to your own reasoning, you won't listen to mine.


----------



## frank (Dec 16, 2008)

desdemona has a good video posted on the current (as of april 6th) state of fukishima.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/

Not good


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

time said:


> So you deny that guns will continue to harm people in the future?


Nope don't deny it. Still a straw man argument. And plus a gun doesn't have the ability to potentially destroy the environment for an indefinite amount of time regardless of my personal stance on them. 



time said:


> Do you deny having the following opinion on a different thread?


You are really really reaching for this one. You want to feel like you are in the right so bad that you'll hunt down old post just to prove your point. The point that you have proven is that you have a reading comprehension problem. I don't believe that radiation in Japan will affect me personally more than I'll be affected by the Aral Sea drying up in Eurasia. I'll just point out no where did I say I supported nuclear power 



time said:


> It doesn't bother me in the least to be called selfish. I hope you don't mind being called a hipocrite.


Ahem I think what you are getting is a "distilled message" to quote a quote. I know exactly where you stand because you've said it. All you have is me stating a fact and then hoping that maybe you've finally got me to prove to everyone that while you're still selfish I'm no better because you've (incorrectly) read between the lines. If your reasoning was reasonable I'd listen. All I get out of your own endless tirade (which I'll bet will keep going on) is that it's all about you, no facts, nothing refuting anything, just a bunch of babbling nonsense and straw man arguments.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I thought this was about power sources for heating, cooking and such.
Guns are not in that category.


----------



## time (Jan 30, 2011)

AngieM2 said:


> I thought this was about power sources for heating, cooking and such.
> Guns are not in that category.


It's about the safety of a particular power source isn't it? As in, we shouldn't use this source because it is too dangerous.

It's far from a stretch to compare the safety record of one against the other If someone argues it is not wise to use one because of safety issues but supports the other that has much greater safety issues.

The anti-gun crowd site safety(death, injury, disability) concerns for their reason.

The anti-nuclear power crowd site safety(death, disease, disability) concerns for their reason.

I am accused of being selfish for supporting the one with the fewest past safety issues and feel quite confident it will have fewer safety issues in the future compared to guns. Yet my accuser/s support the more dangerous of the two, past and future.

If we are talking about safety, and I beleive we are, then guns are in the same catagory. Without safety concerns, there is no discusion neccisary for either one.

If a person supports one issue while dismissing it's safety history yet rallies against another BECAUSE of it's safety history, there is a word for that. I think I used it correctly.

This post is just an explaination of my prior post. To put it into context.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

You agree with everyone here that nuclear power isn't safe:



time said:


> I never said it was "safe".


You agree our current way of life isn't sustainable:



time said:


> I agree the growth cannot be sustained forever. There has to be an end to it.


And there you have it, we agree :sing:


----------



## CaliannG (Apr 29, 2005)

Guns do not kill people. *I* kill people. 

As a U.S. Soldier (separated), I can say that and it is not a joke. 

However, if my M16A2 blows up, the only people that need to worry about it are myself and whomever is next to me. The folks a county over have no worries about it effecting them either in the instant of failure, or next year.

If I leave my weapon on my kitchen table, it does not kill anyone. If the barrel is cracked, and it is on the kitchen table, it still doesn't kill anyone, either directly or indirectly. Unless my weapon is actively in my hands, with my intent behind it, (or in the hands of another) it is harmless. It is an inert object.

A substance that is radioactive is not, by its very nature, ever inert.

Time, you are grasping at straws and attempting to redirect the subject in a weak and feeble effort to cover up your moral and ethical faux pas in this debate. Give it up. It is rather pathetic. There is no context because you cannot compare socialism to astrophysics.

Nuclear energy is not the happy, magic pill that will keep capitalism, and planned obsolescence, going on for you and your granddaughter to enjoy. Alternative, renewable energies, when combined (and yes, sorry that I forgot to add on geothermal and other alternative energies. We have plenty of sites that could be used by these technologies.) MIGHT give it the jumpstart to carry it through past your lifetime, but nuclear energy never will. The consequences of an accident...not the likelihood, but the CONSEQUENCES (It is highly unlikely that I will win the lottery, but I promise you that if that 3 mil to 1 chance ever hit me, the consequences to my bank account and lifestyle would be GREAT. I'd have the most luxuriously decked out bunker you ever saw...a mile beneath the surface, yadda, yadda...) are more than most people wish to accept.

After all, the roulette wheel just MIGHT land on your number. Then what are you going to do, hmmm? 

If falls down to NIMBY.

I don't want coal or oil plants either. I dislike smog and pollutions. However, I'll take my chances, and accept the consequences, of someone building a wind farm, hydroelectric dam, or a solar plant next door. (Not a lot of geothermal sites nearby, and the ocean is rather far)


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I guess the bottom line is that there are some people who aren't willing to use less energy if it "inconveniences" them, no matter how safe or unsafe a technology may be.

I would put those people in the same category as the woman in the giant SUV who races past me on the freeway while simultaneously putting on her makeup and talking on the cellphone. Careless with consequences.


----------

