Post Reply
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View More nukes for South Carolina - Are they crazy or just stupid?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 6:51PM #41
mountain_man
Posts: 40,563

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:44PM, d_p_m wrote:

I think you may be over-estimating 'most people'. ...


Even if I am, it is not a very good reason to support a costly form of power generation just because some people don't know what an MRI is. They, or what they believe, is irrelevant. The facts are. I've given quite a few facts that show nuclear power is not a good way to go.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 6:53PM #42
teilhard
Posts: 52,200

Ironically, in Fact it is the carbon-dioxide-spewing Industrial-Cultural Power Technologies are  RIGHT  NOW  wreaking HUGE Environmental Shifts globally ... 


Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:50PM, solfeggio wrote:


Bottom line -


Nuclear power is dirty and dangerous, and it is an unacceptable risk to not only the environment, but to life on earth itself.


www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/...


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 6:54PM #43
mountain_man
Posts: 40,563

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:41PM, d_p_m wrote:

...Again, more common, less hyped risks are ignored, while spectacular risks that are unlikely to occur dominate our thinking.


As they should. Two of those unlikely and spectacular "risks" have happened and have destroyed large chunks of our planet. That they could happen is something that needs to be considered, not swept under the rug.


Nuclear waste must wait on another posting.


Can't sweep that one under the rug either.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 3:13AM #44
d_p_m
Posts: 10,281

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:50PM, solfeggio wrote:


Bottom line -


Nuclear power is dirty and dangerous, and it is an unacceptable risk to not only the environment, but to life on earth itself.


www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/...


 



And I believe greenpeace as far as I can throw them with both hands tied behind my back.


Nuclear power is clean, safe, and not a serious long term risk to either the planet or life on earth.


Don't you know that nuclear reactors are a natural phenomena?

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 3:27AM #45
d_p_m
Posts: 10,281

Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:15PM, teilhard wrote:


I think some Folks worry-worry-worry about "Radiation" so much because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, or hear it ... So it seems MUCH creepier than the Chemical Spill when a Pipeline breaks or some Rail-Cars  fall off the Tracks on the other side of Town ...




We had a quarter of a million people (including me) evacuated as a result of a chemical spill.


Oddly, while you can't see radiation, it is generally easier to track/detect than some chemicals and many infectious agents.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 9:46AM #46
teilhard
Posts: 52,200

Yes ... "Carbon Dioxide" is insidious and is VERY difficult to contain ... And it has a VERY  VERY  long "half-life" ...


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:27AM, d_p_m wrote:


Apr 3, 2012 -- 6:15PM, teilhard wrote:


I think some Folks worry-worry-worry about "Radiation" so much because you can't see it, taste it, smell it, or hear it ... So it seems MUCH creepier than the Chemical Spill when a Pipeline breaks or some Rail-Cars  fall off the Tracks on the other side of Town ...




We had a quarter of a million people (including me) evacuated as a result of a chemical spill.


Oddly, while you can't see radiation, it is generally easier to track/detect than some chemicals and many infectious agents.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 10:26AM #47
mountain_man
Posts: 40,563

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:13AM, d_p_m wrote:

And I believe greenpeace as far as I can throw them with both hands tied behind my back.


How about arguing the facts, not the person or organization delivering the facts.


Nuclear power is clean, safe, and not a serious long term risk to either the planet or life on earth.


That's the problem, it is not clean, it's not save, and poses a considerable long term risk. I've explained that several times already.


Don't you know that nuclear reactors are a natural phenomena?


I'm not naive enough to fall for that one.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 3:49PM #48
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Apr 2, 2012 -- 4:31PM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 2, 2012 -- 2:14PM, mindis1 wrote:

Mar 30, 2012 -- 10:26PM, solfeggio wrote:

This, when it is well established that even very low levels of ionising radiation from these plants can seriously harm people?


Really? Please provide the evidence about what is “well established” about the “serious harm” caused by “low levels of ionizing radiation” from nuclear power plants.


Low levels can cause serious damage over time. 



Obviously what I asked for is the evidence showing what is “well established” about the “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants”. I realize that you apparently don’t know what the word “evidence” means, or don’t know how to acquire it, or how to make logical arguments using it.  


Are you able and willing to take in information about nuclear energy?


I know about nuclear energy. I also know about nuclear power plants.




So, your answer to my question is that you are not able or willing to take in information about nuclear energy/power plants? I must admit that my impression from our previous exchanges is that you are at least unwilling to take in information that is contrary to some belief you have already adopted. For instance, you have claimed here that “[n]uclear power is the most expensive and environmentally destructive way to generate electricity.” And despite being unable to provide a shred of scientific evidence to demonstrate such claim, I do not anticipate that you are willing to entertain the idea that your baseless belief is false.  (Right?) 


What if you were to learn that accidents with hydroelectric dams.....


False comparison.




Obviously you can show nothing that I stated in the question I asked, of which you only quoted a fragment, to be false.


Is there some reason that you did not want to answer the question that I asked?


You mentioned “the problem of disposing of radioactive garbage,” which you say “nobody has ever solved”....


That problem has not been solved. 




Is there some reason you did not want to answer the question I asked about that?  My question was this:  You don’t know of death or injury due to any such “problem of radioactive garbage” during the past 50 years of nuclear power plants, despite not having any laws or treaties dealing with such “radioactive garbage” for most of these years, do you?


You also didn't answer this question that I asked:  Do you know of any accident that has happened at any nuclear power plant that was not preventable?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 3:54PM #49
mountain_man
Posts: 40,563

Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:49PM, mindis1 wrote:

Obviously what I asked for is the evidence showing what is “well established” about the “serious harm” to people caused by “even very low levels of ionizing radiation from [nuclear power] plants”. ...


I gave you some. That you ignored it is not my problem. What you also ignored was that there are many other harms that could come from a nuclear power plant. Why focus on just the one?


So, your answer to my question is that you are not able or willing to take in information about nuclear energy/power plants? I must admit that my impression from our previous exchanges is that you are at least unwilling to take in information that is contrary to some belief you have already adopted. ...


I got the exact same from you. Since you want to deal with ad hominems, and deal in strawman arguments, I'll move on.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:12PM #50
teilhard
Posts: 52,200

NO present Energy Generation Technologies are ENTIRELY "clean" ... and ALL of them pose definite Risks to Living Things ...


Apr 4, 2012 -- 10:26AM, mountain_man wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 3:13AM, d_p_m wrote:

And I believe greenpeace as far as I can throw them with both hands tied behind my back.


How about arguing the facts, not the person or organization delivering the facts.


Nuclear power is clean, safe, and not a serious long term risk to either the planet or life on earth.


That's the problem, it is not clean, it's not save, and poses a considerable long term risk. I've explained that several times already.


Don't you know that nuclear reactors are a natural phenomena?


I'm not naive enough to fall for that one.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook