Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

but no one is willing to give up night football games

I'm kinda willing to give up Monday Night Football. It's really gone to crap since moving to ESPN.

 

[bleedblk&gld]

Folks don't realize how much energy we have come to depend on. Thats why I keep asking posters what they are willing to give up but no one is willing to give up night football games, ighting cities at night , etc. and I dont blame them. With the demand we have for energy, it takes powerful and / or combustious reactions to produce it. In a hundreed years or so, we might be able to do it with solar, but thats a stretch unless we cut way back on our lifestyles and we are not going to do that. Producing energy is dangerous.

Some conspiracy theorist believe that we have created alternative sources of energy that could easily displace oil/coal/etc....

But the conspiracy being that the corporate oligarchs made sure these alternative methods disappeared before making any headway.

Ala Nikola Tesla.....and others.

 

[efil4stnias]

Folks don't realize how much energy we have come to depend on. Thats why I keep asking posters what they are willing to give up but no one is willing to give up night football games, ighting cities at night , etc. and I dont blame them. With the demand we have for energy, it takes powerful and / or combustious reactions to produce it. In a hundreed years or so, we might be able to do it with solar, but thats a stretch unless we cut way back on our lifestyles and we are not going to do that. Producing energy is dangerous.

so was driving the first auto.

 

[St. Widge]

Now who is biased and misleading?

How is what I said biased or misleading?

Anthropogenic radioactive isotope not occurring on earth for billions of years = natural... way to redefine what words mean!

You clearly do not understand nuance or language analysis.

The full quote you referenced:

"This is radio clash please save us, not the whales
This is radio clash underneath a mushroom cloud."

Not really a pro nuclear statement is it?

but since you've used the quote to misrepresent joe strummer's commitment to environmentalism, here is another link

It was a joke so calm down. Plus, I never claimed that Strummer was anti-environmentalist. However, the quote does suggest that he at least understood that the point was to make a good place for humans to live, not to protect the planet as a goal in and of itself. Sacrificing the things that it takes for humans to live useful, safe and fulfilling life and returning to the state of nature to avoid "destroying mother Earth" is simply reactionary and irrational. The truth is we couldn't destroy this planet if we wanted to. We could probably make it uninhabitable for humans, but we could not destroy the planet.

But, to suggest that the few accident with nuclear plants means that we should shut them down is alarmist, reactionary and foolish. There is room for balance even on this issue. We should seek alternative sources of energy, but we are not in a position to just stop the use of nuclear, coal or fuel oil power generation unless we want to return to an 18th century level of technology.

 

[St. Widge]

Some conspiracy theorist believe that we have created alternative sources of energy that could easily displace oil/coal/etc....

But the conspiracy being that the corporate oligarchs made sure these alternative methods disappeared before making any headway.

Ala Nikola Tesla.....and others.

Some conspiracy theorists also think that the U.S. did the 9/11 bombings and that aliens are the ones controlling our economy.

 

[zeetes]

Some conspiracy theorists also think .. that aliens are the ones controlling our economy.

idiots. we all know its goblins.

 

[Goatman Saint]

Some conspiracy theorists also think that the U.S. did the 9/11 bombings and that aliens are the ones controlling our economy.

Impossible. No way could aliens be controlling the economy. You can't tell me that the jenyusus running this country are capable of walking down the street chewing gum let alone interstellar space travel.

 

[superchuck500]

However, the quote does suggest that he at least understood that the point was to make a good place for humans to live, not to protect the planet as a goal in and of itself. Sacrificing the things that it takes for humans to live useful, safe and fulfilling life and returning to the state of nature to avoid "destroying mother Earth" is simply reactionary and irrational. The truth is we couldn't destroy this planet if we wanted to. We could probably make it uninhabitable for humans, but we could not destroy the planet.

While I understand this rationale, I think it substantially underappreciates the interdependent nature of the ecosphere. "Useful, safe and fulfilling" human life still depends on plants, animals, and the dynamics of water and weather.

Certainly we will have to make value judgments but I think the point of the rational environmental movement is that human life benefits in both quality and longevity by recognizing this interdependency, which in turn requires us to be very careful about how we impact it.

 

[St. Widge]

While I understand this rationale, I think it substantially underappreciates the interdependent nature of the ecosphere. "Useful, safe and fulfilling" human life still depends on plants, animals, and the dynamics of water and weather.

I'm not saying that they don't. And, I'm not saying that we don't need to protect the environment. What I am saying is that there are extremists on both sides of this issue. One side of extremists wants to do whatever it takes to protect mother Earth. The other side of extremists wants to exploit all resources to their fullest extent and damn the consequences. There is, or at least can be, a rational middle ground.

Certainly we will have to make value judgments but I think the point of the rational environmental movement is that human life benefits in both quality and longevity by recognizing this interdependency, which in turn requires us to be very careful about how we impact it.

I don't have any issues with that and, in fact, agree with that. What I have an issue with is things like the misleading photo from the biased source that started this thread. That and the plea to "just ignore the misrepresentation" because "take my word for it this is going to kill us all", so we have to stop using all nuclear power without any analysis or evidence to support that position. Those things are used to just get attention and inflame emotions. They don't help with achieving the above. And, yes, the other side is just as guilty, if not more guilty of the same things.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm not saying that they don't. And, I'm not saying that we don't need to protect the environment. What I am saying is that there are extremists on both sides of this issue. One side of extremists wants to do whatever it takes to protect mother Earth. The other side of extremists wants to exploit all resources to their fullest extent and damn the consequences. There is, or at least can be, a rational middle ground.



I don't have any issues with that and, in fact, agree with that. What I have an issue with is things like the misleading photo from the biased source that started this thread. That and the plea to "just ignore the misrepresentation" because "take my word for it this is going to kill us all", so we have to stop using all nuclear power without any analysis or evidence to support that position. Those things are used to just get attention and inflame emotions. They don't help with achieving the above. And, yes, the other side is just as guilty, if not more guilty of the same things.

I hear ya - it's getting absurd how muckrakers just say things or use supposed data that are false or completely unrelated. You really can't take anything at face value but so much of the public operates that way.

 

[mister pc]

How is what I said biased or misleading?





You clearly do not understand nuance or language analysis.

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHərəl/
Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


You're right I don't understand because your language analysis has rendered the word meaningless and unrecognizable. I'm trying to imagine what if any substance in the known universe would not qualify as natural, given your "nuanced" understanding of the word.

It was a joke so calm down. Plus, I never claimed that Strummer was anti-environmentalist. However, the quote does suggest that he at least understood that the point was to make a good place for humans to live, not to protect the planet as a goal in and of itself. Sacrificing the things that it takes for humans to live useful, safe and fulfilling life and returning to the state of nature to avoid "destroying mother Earth" is simply reactionary and irrational. The truth is we couldn't destroy this planet if we wanted to. We could probably make it uninhabitable for humans, but we could not destroy the planet.

But, to suggest that the few accident with nuclear plants means that we should shut them down is alarmist, reactionary and foolish. There is room for balance even on this issue. We should seek alternative sources of energy, but we are not in a position to just stop the use of nuclear, coal or fuel oil power generation unless we want to return to an 18th century level of technology.

I have a feeling we differ greatly in regards to respect for lifeforms that aren't humanoid, but will frame the discussion purely from the interest of our own species. I don't think all nuclear energy should be immediately halted. I do question the wisdom of powering the world with energy that produces waste which is toxic for 10thousand years (and that's when everything goes according to plan). Doesnt really seem to qualify as "sustainable". The only thing worse than a BP disaster in the gulf would be a Fukushima.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I have a feeling we differ greatly in regards to respect for lifeforms that aren't humanoid, but will frame the discussion purely from the interest of our own species. I don't think all nuclear energy should be immediately halted. I do question the wisdom of powering the world with energy that produces waste which is toxic for 10thousand years (and that's when everything goes according to plan). Doesnt really seem to qualify as "sustainable". The only thing worse than a BP disaster in the gulf would be a Fukushima.

How so? Are you talking about the effect on seafood? Neither incident affected the catch much at all.

The rig blowing up killed 11 people immediately - the Fukushima incident hasn't killed anyone yet. If you want to talk about excess cancer deaths, you might find this link interesting:

CDC - Cancer - Data and Statistics - Cancer Rates by State

 

[Tapxe]

Crippled Fukushima nuclear plant: 300 tons of radioactive water spilled - World News

TOKYO - The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant said an ongoing leak had spilled some 300 tons of radioactive water into the ground - the latest in a series of embarrassing revelations involving the tsunami-struck power station.
"We believe it is still leaking at this moment," Tokyo Electric Power Company General Manager Masayuji Ono told reporters at press conference in Tokyo Tuesday.
High levels of radiation were detected at several hot spots along the hillside section of the plant where the water was thought to have spilled onto the ground, the company said. These areas were emitting a radiation dose of 100 millisieverts an hour measured about 1.6 feet above the surface, it added.

 

[efil4stnias]

How so? Are you talking about the effect on seafood? Neither incident affected the catch much at all.

The rig blowing up killed 11 people immediately - the Fukushima incident hasn't killed anyone yet. If you want to talk about excess cancer deaths, you might find this link interesting:

CDC - Cancer - Data and Statistics - Cancer Rates by State

did u just say the Deepwater Horizion catastrophe DIDNT affect the seafood catch in the waters just off La. Coast "much at all"?

 

[cdogg]

idiots. we all know its goblins.

Leave Mel Brooks out of this.