Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.


<septicdoodledandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133381345.537232.46370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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
>
In your humble opinion of course. Trouble is, when real facts are pointed
out to you, you still wish to believe the misconceptions even when there are
real facts to back them up. Not to mention that you are also choosing
alternatives on equally wrong grounds.

Here is a wee equally daft decision made by many. They have gas services in
their home either as a heating medium or as a cooking medium or both. Now
that gas is much more likely to cause you and yours to die in an explosion,
suffer burns or scalds and it also adds to the Worlds most threatening
hazard of modern times.

Do you honestly think the risk factor proven to be the case over many years
is so wrong that you are less likely to have an accident due to gas or from
radiation?
Then again are you more or less likely to be involved in a traffic accident
or an air crash?
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Apprenticeship for our Future
    ... Sounds a lot like what I heard in High school many years ago; Nuclear ... so small nuke plants we could shut down the East Coast's coal plants, ... Nuclear power encapsulates this problem. ... thus eliminating any "economies of scale" in construction ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: A Chart That Should Scare People
    ... I remember when the US was building nuclear power plants there was a ... free government insurance. ... "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT- Portable Nuclear Power Plants
    ... say fuel became unavailable for conventional land ... plants we have. ... Nuclear power generation in land-based large plants is set to a "base ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: What great lines...
    ... If these people who keep saying there is global warming ... There are no green house gases from a nuclear ... So if they start building nuclear power plants you'll instantly ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Nuclear Power
    ... wind, since you will not be able to site nuclear power plants ... Vogtle site it was originally set up for two more plants. ... fact that so many nuclear plants failed to block simulated terrorist ... Things like this make me doubt the feasibility of nuclear power, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading