CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

paleoperson

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Only three people were killed directly by Fukushima nuclear plant, they went back in to try and salvage the situation. More people were killed by the petrol depot that blew up.

Sometimes death is a blessing compared to the state nuclear accidents leave the survivors. Look at these friggin deformed butterflies:

https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-fear-increased-genetic-defects-in-fukushima/a-16170549

Nuclear is hopelessly prone to something going wrong, including as stated terrorist attacks. Saying there hasn't been terrorist attacks using nuclear power plants yet is on the same level of idiocy as saying noone has fallen off a cliff face yet so why bother putting sign posts up around there saying it's dangerous. There's a thing called logic, where we imagine what could happen even though it may not have happened yet.

Very possible someone joked "well, unless there was a giant earthquake and the reactor was hugely damaged hahaha, of course that would never happen".

Birdnuts

paleoperson wrote: »

If that's what makes you feel better, sure. In reality no politician is going to touch it with a 20 foot pole, that's why no there are no movements against it - there's no need, because the debate was settled long ago and there's no question of it ever happening. The Fukushima plant is a recent example of things going spectacularly wrong with nuclear.

Well thats wrong for a start - the likes of France have the lowest grid emissions and cheapest power prices in the EU on the back of nuclear. Also trailing new Nuclear fusion plants that will remove any waste issue. China and India also have big plans in that area. The reality of the Irish grid last week was that it was depending heavily on coal and nuclear generated power via interconnectors

Banana Republic 1

paleoperson wrote: »

Sometimes death is a blessing compared to the state nuclear accidents leave the survivors. Look at these friggin deformed butterflies:

https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-fear-increased-genetic-defects-in-fukushima/a-16170549

Nuclear is hopelessly prone to something going wrong, including as stated terrorist attacks. Saying there hasn't been terrorist attacks using nuclear power plants yet is on the same level of idiocy as saying noone has fallen off a cliff face yet so why bother putting sign posts up around there saying it's dangerous. There's a thing called logic, where we imagine what could happen even though it may not have happened yet.

Very possible someone joked "well, unless there was a giant earthquake and the reactor was hugely damaged hahaha, of course that would never happen".

I never made any mention of terrorist attacks. Everything humans do is prone to going wrong that’s why or planet is destroyed and it wasn’t nuclear meltdowns or weapons that caused it.

Birdnuts

paleoperson wrote: »

Sometimes death is a blessing compared to the state nuclear accidents leave the survivors. Look at these friggin deformed butterflies:

https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-fear-increased-genetic-defects-in-fukushima/a-16170549

Nuclear is hopelessly prone to something going wrong, including as stated terrorist attacks. Saying there hasn't been terrorist attacks using nuclear power plants yet is on the same level of idiocy as saying noone has fallen off a cliff face yet so why bother putting sign posts up around there saying it's dangerous. There's a thing called logic, where we imagine what could happen even though it may not have happened yet.

Very possible someone joked "well, unless there was a giant earthquake and the reactor was hugely damaged hahaha, of course that would never happen".

Fukishima was an old outdated plant built on a known techtonic fault line. It has zero relevance to the modern industry. Ironically the site of Chernobly is now a place of high biodivestersity thanx to the 30km no go zone around it.

https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife





If you want to see real environmental carnage then I suggest you check out the damage mining rare earth metals for wind turbines and electric cars is doing in places like China and the Congo

Wanderer78

M.T. Cranium wrote:

I haven't followed anti-nuclear movements very closely in recent years, if there even are such things these days, so I don't know what kinds of support they might attract. I've always felt it was totally irrational to oppose this relatively clean and naturally abundant source of power, and it seems like the political left have come around to that view but they certainly weren't there in the 1970s. However everything the left did in the 1970s was more or less what their Soviet handlers told them to do.

Irrational? Am I missing something here!

Or maybe some of us on the left realise, safety and development of nuclear tech has significantly advanced in recent decades, but still realise, there's still plenty of nut jobs around the world that would disguise these developments, so that they can continue developing this tech for weapons, including super powers such as America

Nabber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Irrational? Am I missing something here!

Or maybe some of us on the left realise, safety and development of nuclear tech has significantly advanced in recent decades, but still realise, there's still plenty of nut jobs around the world that would disguise these developments, so that they can continue developing this tech for weapons, including super powers such as America

What's left and right got to do with it?

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Irrational? Am I missing something here!

Or maybe some of us on the left realise, safety and development of nuclear tech has significantly advanced in recent decades, but still realise, there's still plenty of nut jobs around the world that would disguise these developments, so that they can continue developing this tech for weapons, including super powers such as America

Who would have thought that, after the Hindenberg disaster over 80 years ago, we'd still be looking at hydrogen as a viable source of clean energy, installing hydrogen filling stations all over the place. That's happening right now. We've come a long way with hydrogen and we've come a long way with nuclear. I say it again, most people's fear comes from the past and their lack of understanding of how it works.

Throwing in the terrorist angle is just a scaremongering tool. You could say that about anything. It was the automatic assumption directly after that huge chemical explosion in Israel this year. I was in Italy at the time and the immediate response was a terrorist attack. There was a panel of "experts" on a tv program discussing the reasons why and the likely culprits. Not once did they stop to actually look at the facts. This type of nonsense is what has people like you and paleoman and many others unwilling to consider it for what it is.

Wanderer78

Nabber wrote: »

What's left and right got to do with it?

i was responding to another posters use of these terms, so i guess, maybe ask them

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Who would have thought that, after the Hindenberg disaster over 80 years ago, we'd still be looking at hydrogen as a viable source of clean energy, installing hydrogen filling stations all over the place. That's happening right now. We've come a long way with hydrogen and we've come a long way with nuclear. I say it again, most people's fear comes from the past and their lack of understanding of how it works.

Throwing in the terrorist angle is just a scaremongering tool. You could say that about anything. It was the automatic assumption directly after that huge chemical explosion in Israel this year. I was in Italy at the time and the immediate response was a terrorist attack. There was a panel of "experts" on a tv program discussing the reasons why and the likely culprits. Not once did they stop to actually look at the facts. This type of nonsense is what has people like you and paleoman and many others unwilling to consider it for what it is.

its important to realise, some of the most dangerous 'terrorists', are actual involved in governments and state bodies, in developed countries!

ive always believed nuclear and hydrogen are the way to go, regarding our power needs, since childhood in fact

paleoperson

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Throwing in the terrorist angle is just a scaremongering tool. You could say that about anything. It was the automatic assumption directly after that huge chemical explosion in Israel this year. I was in Italy at the time and the immediate response was a terrorist attack. There was a panel of "experts" on a tv program discussing the reasons why and the likely culprits. Not once did they stop to actually look at the facts. This type of nonsense is what has people like you and paleoman and many others unwilling to consider it for what it is.

This bit literally made me laugh out loud, that's a rare thing for me on reading preposterous posts online these days.

No, I reckon you can't say "you could say that about anything" about something that could take out a entire countries at a time and make them uninhabitable for the 100 years, if not send the earth off its orbit which on the upside would at least would end all the nonsense (jk). Terrorists taking over a fishing harbour ("anything") are unlikely to have the same possibilities.

Sure terrorists can cause major explosions like the one you referred to but it's like the worst they can do is still relatively contained. There's a limit to the damage they can do. The worst case nuclear scenario is not so pretty.

Gaoth Laidir

paleoperson wrote: »

This bit literally made me laugh out loud, that's a rare thing for me on reading preposterous posts online these days.

No, I reckon you can't say "you could say that about anything" about something that could take out a entire countries at a time and make them uninhabitable for the 100 years, if not send the earth off its orbit which on the upside would at least would end all the nonsense (jk). Terrorists taking over a fishing harbour ("anything") are unlikely to have the same possibilities.

Sure terrorists can cause major explosions like the one you referred to but it's like the worst they can do is still relatively contained. There's a limit to the damage they can do. The worst case nuclear scenario is not so pretty.

What did I just read? Take out a whole country? Knock the earth off its orbit? Really?

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its important to realise, some of the most dangerous 'terrorists', are actual involved in governments and state bodies, in developed countries!

ive always believed nuclear and hydrogen are the way to go, regarding our power needs, since childhood in fact

Ok, well if that's your opinion then maybe the conspiracy theory forum is more of an option.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ok, well if that's your opinion then maybe the conspiracy theory forum is more of an option.

are you saying there are no seriously dangerous people and/or thinking, in positions of power, in the western nations?

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

are you saying there are no seriously dangerous people and/or thinking, in positions of power, in the western nations?

This is not quite a weather topic, but no, I don't think "some of the most dangerous 'terrorists' are in the governments. Would they be the same ones that are allegedly spraying us with chemtrails?

nacho libre

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This is not quite a weather topic, but no, I don't think "some of the most dangerous 'terrorists' are in the governments. Would they be the same ones that are allegedly spraying us with chemtrails?

Rather you don't believe they are in governments you support/identify with.

Gaoth Laidir

nacho libre wrote: »

Rather you don't believe they are in governments you support/identify with.

? You're going to have to give some examples.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This is not quite a weather topic, but no, I don't think "some of the most dangerous 'terrorists' are in the governments. Would they be the same ones that are allegedly spraying us with chemtrails?

its always interesting to note, the only country to ever activate an atomic bomb over a country, was of course, america! no clue where you re going with that chemtrails nonsense

Gaoth Laidir

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its always interesting to note, the only country to ever activate an atomic bomb over a country, was of course, america! no clue where you re going with that chemtrails nonsense

That was 75 years ago. Are you really saying things are the same now?

I'm amazed at the level of chronic paranoia being shown by some here. Terrorist governments itching to nuke populations (and apparently the Irish government is no exception), the planet being knocked off its axis, countries wiped out. Great stuff for a weather forum.

The same sort of nonsense as the chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That was 75 years ago. Are you really saying things are the same now?

It is less noticed (and wilfully so, in most cases) when it done by degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAlSNiFpTc

Direct link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYAlSNiFpTc

Gaoth Laidir

Ah here, lads, yizzer all having me on! This thread's about climate...

nacho libre

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

? You're going to have to give some examples.

Ok. If wanderer78 had said some of the most dangerous terrorists in government were in the Middle East.
I suspect you'd have been less inclined to direct him to the Conspiracy Forum.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Ah here, lads, yizzer all having me on! This thread's about climate...

You asked for an example. I gave you just one and could provide many, many more. Western Governments (European/N American) are not the benign force you might think they are, and I say beware of right-wing/libertarian/neoliberal propaganda that seeks to convince you to the contrary. They are lying through their teeth. What the shiny corporate/state media show is the nice glossy front: smiling suits who distract the public with the non-issues of identity politics/climate change. Breaking through already open doors in order to give themselves the impression that they are 'far left' (a detestable, meaningless, Americanesque term which, by any measurement, is something these people most certainly are not)

Anyway, I've said my piece, but I would implore you to watch that interview I posted. And if you do, I might just dare you to come back and call me a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Oneiric 3

One final post, but this is the guy the media and their consumer idiots are lauding left right and centre. Keep the masses living in the eternal present, where the good vibes always rock and all is well with the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ

And actual terrorist responsible for far more deaths than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and all in our generation. But that's OK, coz he is going to sign the US back right back in to Paris Agreement. Phew! Let the good times roll.

Gaoth Laidir

nacho libre wrote: »

Ok. If wanderer78 had said some of the most dangerous terrorists in government were in the Middle East.
I suspect you'd have been less inclined to direct him to the Conspiracy Forum.

Never mind what he said, you said this

nacho libre wrote: »

Rather you don't believe they are in governments you support/identify with.

Governments I support. That would most likely imply the Irish government, right? This all in the (original) context of the safety of nuclear as an alternative energy source. It's all gone off on some wild paranoid tangent about nuking and knocking the earth off its axis. Totally off topic nonsense.

I'm not into politics, so that's it from me on this.

Wanderer78

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

Never mind what he said, you said this

I'm not far wrong though, major western nations such as America have played critical roles in destabilising the planet, including environmentally, but we rarely, if ever, acknowledge that

Gaoth Laidir wrote:

I'm not into politics, so that's it from me on this.

Unfortunately these issues, again in particular in relation to environmental issues, have all been deeply politically caused and motivated, and again, western nations, including ourselves, have played critical roles in their causation

Banana Republic 1

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

One final post, but this is the guy the media and their consumer idiots are lauding left right and centre. Keep the masses living in the eternal present, where the good vibes always rock and all is well with the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrLFQnlf6lQ

And actual terrorist responsible for far more deaths than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, and all in our generation. But that's OK, coz he is going to sign the US back right back in to Paris Agreement. Phew! Let the good times roll.

Trump is better is he

Nabber

More heatwaves, according to the report, will have a “direct impact” on public health and mortality, but may be offset by the projected decrease in colder days.
Rainfall is projected to decrease substantially in the summer months and could decline by as much as 17 per cent under a high global emissions scenario.

So we get the summer we have always cried for in Ireland
source - https://greennews.ie/ireland-dramatic-climate-change-by-2050/

Danno

Nabber wrote: »

So we get the summer we have always cried for in Ireland
source - https://greennews.ie/ireland-dramatic-climate-change-by-2050/

The report also finds that the energy content of high-speed winds is projected to decrease by mid-century and there could also be a small decrease in solar-generated power.

Guess those wind turbines are going to have an even more useless future.

Also, can we get back to discussing the original topic - terrorist attacks on a potential Irish nuclear plant might be good for a fiction novel or mini-film, but I doubt it adds much to this debate! :pac:

Wanderer78

Danno wrote: »

Guess those wind turbines are going to have an even more useless future.

Also, can we get back to discussing the original topic - terrorist attacks on a potential Irish nuclear plant might be good for a fiction novel or mini-film, but I doubt it adds much to this debate! :pac:

...and you ve some hope of getting one built here, but maybe if we started experiencing regular black outs, public opinion might quickly change

Danno

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and you ve some hope of getting one built here, but maybe if we started experiencing regular black outs, public opinion might quickly change

Indeed - as mentioned earlier in an article I linked to a few days back, Ireland's energy is vulnerable (December 11th). It would be the only upside to this fallacy of relying on wind turbines to power Ireland if we experience power outages and thus have to turn nuclear and by the same process giving the middle finger to Saudi Oil, Rooskie Gas and Chinese turbines. All equally a leech on our money.

Wanderer78

Danno wrote: »

Indeed - as mentioned earlier in an article I linked to a few days back, Ireland's energy is vulnerable (December 11th). It would be the only upside to this fallacy of relying on wind turbines to power Ireland if we experience power outages and thus have to turn nuclear and by the same process giving the middle finger to Saudi Oil, Rooskie Gas and Chinese turbines. All equally a leech on our money.

the whole planet is in a similar boat, and i wouldnt be worrying too much about money as such, we ve figured out how to effectively create infinite amounts of the stuff, without collapsing the planet, we ve just decided its best not to redistribute it very well