|
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:58 PM
Posts: 4,390
Visits: 10,911
|
| | You can sure count on "The Nation" to give unbiassed reporting. Still, they even point out: Yet as scientists will tell you, what is commonly called the "accident" at Chernobyl was anything but. For this disaster was born of human decisions. The engineers at the plant had long been eager to test a theory. Those on the night shift decided to conduct an unauthorized test. Not specialists in nuclear science, they powered the reactor down, disabled emergency backup systems in order to see how long the turbines could operate and, hoping to learn how the reactor's coolant system would function on low electricity, instead learned how its core would melt. Also: Pretty dang big area for ONE worst case scenario nuke plant meltdown to become useless to humanity for effectively "forever" if you ask me Rhode Island isn't even 50 miles x 50 miles. The greater Los Angeles (I use that because that's where I grew up) area could hold Rhode Island 3 times. Yeah, it's a lot of land and it should not be taken out of the equation but it's hardly what I'd consider a "pretty dang big area." |
--
-A government that is powerful enough to do anything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us. -Fred Thompson
-There are two races of people, the decent and the indecent. - Victor Frankel
-They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin
Consequences
 |   |  |
| |
| | 
Udderly ridiculous
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:39 PM
Posts: 3,615
Visits: 4,365
|
| Jerm, you're dismissing a nuclear meltdown and an area that is now un-livable in for a long time. What the?
I think the original point was that for nuclear technology being MOSTLY safe, there is still that inherent risk that is quite unlike any other risk out there in any other field. With oil and refineries, the biggest risk you have is starting a massive blaze that could burn like crazy, but certainly won't make an area uninhabitable or create mutations, etc. Nuclear technology has a risk to it, albeit unlikely, to jack things up like nothing else in existence can. Except for maybe Rosie O'Donnell. She probably could too. |
--
"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal. "
-- John F. Kennedy
"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
--Patrick Overton
"It doesn't matter where you are as much as where you are headed."
--Mike Shanahan |  | |
| |
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 7:08 AM
Posts: 7,242
Visits: 9,608
|
| | |
| | 
Culture-Monger
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:42 PM
Posts: 6,243
Visits: 8,818
|
| Scipio Africanus (7/4/2008)
I definitely hear ya Jerm. I noted that part about how and why Chernobyl happened. It was not at all an "unavoidable" or "freak" accident. It was malfeasance if not maliciousness. But then, how can malfeasance and maliciousness, let alone sabotage, ever be ruled out 100%? I also hear ya that Rhode Island is piddly squat compared to the awesome swath of ecological destruction called "The Greater Los Angelos Metropolitan Sprawlathon."  But me personally? I want 90% of all human-impacted land to be turned back to wilderness, and anything that threatens that long-term goal has to be regarded with hesitancy if not suspiscion. Again, I think the real solution here is not (a) more oil; or (b) more alternative energy forms; nor even (c) more recycling, reusing, and efficiency . . . I'm not arguingthat noneof these partial, and interim if not short-term solutions should be explored and/or carried out. But I will argue that they are never going to fully solve the problem on a planet with a bunch of nasty-dirty randy big-brained apes intent on fully infesting Mother Earth with their progeny. The Ultimate Solution is: fewer dirty damned apes. Combine that with elements of (a) (b) and (c) above for a thousand years or so, and = no more problem! the end is near. |
--
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have
unless you are willing to give it to others." -William Allen White
Edited: 7/4/2008 12:31 PM by cleopatra143 |   | |
| |
| |
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 1:58 PM
Posts: 4,390
Visits: 10,911
|
| Jerm, you're dismissing a nuclear meltdown and an area that is now unlivable in for a long time. What the? Where did I dismiss it? In fact, I even said, "it should not be taken out of the equation," didn't I? I think the original point was that for nuclear technology being MOSTLY safe, there is still that inherent risk that is quite unlike any other risk out there in any other field. With oil and refineries, the biggest risk you have is starting a massive blaze that could burn like crazy, but certainly won't make an area uninhabitable or create mutations, etc. Nuclear technology has a risk to it, albeit unlikely, to jack things up like nothing else in existence can. Except for maybe Rosie O'Donnell. She probably could too.
I do understand the original point, I just don't find it all that compelling. Some do, I don't. I believe the risk is worth it. That is, while the potential damage is high, it seems that the odds of it ever happening again are extremely low and in fact negligible, at least in the first world... which brings us to one of Scipio's points: But then, how can malfeasance and maliciousness, let alone sabotage, ever be ruled out 100%?
Could this be a reason for limiting who gets to use this technology? I know it kind of runs into the other thread but I kind of do fear what a desperate for power nation like Iran would do to "push the limits". That said, why should the responsible world be punished for using such a technology responsibly? But me personally? I want 90% of all human-impacted land to be turned back to wilderness, and anything that threatens that long-term goal has to be regarded with hesitancy if not suspiscion.
That is an honest answer and I respect that. I have addressed your depopulation theory with concerns but have never received a counter point to it. We also have to come to grips with the fact that at this point in history, depopulation is not likely. We can wish all we want but for now we must deal with the issues at hand. |
--
-A government that is powerful enough to do anything for us is powerful enough to do anything to us. -Fred Thompson
-There are two races of people, the decent and the indecent. - Victor Frankel
-They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin
Consequences
| | | |
| |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 7:08 AM
Posts: 7,242
Visits: 9,608
|
| | |
| |
Udderly ridiculous
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:39 PM
Posts: 3,615
Visits: 4,365
|
| | |
| |
Udderly ridiculous
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:39 PM
Posts: 3,615
Visits: 4,365
|
| | |
| | 
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:10 PM
Posts: 5,296
Visits: 27,183
|
| But folks.... Depopulation is a reality. In most of Europe, in Japan, in Canada, in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong and various other nations.
List of Countries and Territories by Fertility Rate
Granted the Global Fertility rate may be on the plus side, but in significant sections of the planet it is in the negative. And this, no doubt will have an impact on these parts of the world. |
|
|
|
|
