Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: septicdoodledandy@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Nov 2005 12:09:05 -0800
Deirdre wrote:
> Then _find_ it. Get off your dead a*se and quit
> moaning about how bad nuclear is without offering
> viable alternatives. Solve the limitation problem of
> wind power, solve the dam failure one for hydro,
> solve the waste problem for geothermal and the
> hazard problem for solar plant failure...hell, make
> _coal_ burn more efficiently and cleaner.
>
> You sit around expecting everyone else to solve the
> problems of _your_ needs while all you do is criticise
> what they come up with. Do it yourself then...get out
> there and _make_ a bloody difference, nothing but
> your own inertia is stopping you and if you succeed
> you'll be lauded to the heavens.
>
> People spend their lives trying to make things better...
> cheaper power, cleaner air, water and land, more abun-
> dant food sources...millions upon millions of tiny collec-
> tive steps all to give you the world you take as your
> god-given right...
>
> ...and all you can do is piss on them and say it's not
> good enough.
I am a consumer and a voter with choices to make. You are a
'scientist'. It's your job to find solutions to offer and my job to
decide if they work for me. I vote in every election and with each
penny I spend. I attempt to make informed choices that will steer my
government because decisions my government makes can affect my health
and well-being and that of my children.
If I am offered the choice of nuclear power plants dotting my country
as a 'solution' to a cleaner planet I will patiently vote 'no' because
I do not believe the waste products from these enterprises will be
managed responsibly by my government and more importantly by future
governments. The past has seen the mismanagement of these waste
materials become anything from dreadful accidents to bombs to
unaccounted-for hazerdous materials to beachs no one can stand on
because the radiation will damage their bodies. The cost of the plants
in question will be astronomical and the plants will not come on-line
for at least a decade, possibly longer. For now I would peronally vote
for cleaner coal technology using existing plants and hope that
research on renewables and better kinds of electrical storage can be
arrived at. Nuclear power has been subsidized by 0.5-1 trillion dollars
since the 1950s. No comparable investment has yet been made in
renewable energy.
There is no need to call me 'lazy' because I don't happen to agree with
you and because I don't believe the world is about to come crashing to
a halt. Perhaps you have a survivalist streak to you? I could
practically hear an evil, Dr. Stranglove cackle when you described the
'chaos'. If you aren't holed up somewhere with a decades worth of
supplies then you don't really believe your own squawking about the
impending doom when nuclear is phased out. Many countries are phasing
it out for the reasons outlined throughout this thread.
I think you actually enjoy the idea of civilisation grinding to a halt
because some people don't happen to agree with you.
Adjust your medication. Perhaps that will help be less abusively
dismissive of those who don't see it your way.
Septic
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: Robert Peffers
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- From: Deirdre
- Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Prev by Date: Re: The whole dialect business
- Next by Date: Re: We Need a Kwiz
- Previous by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Next by thread: Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
