Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Germany has, in response, even shut down all its

> reactors for safety checks - yet they are not in a

> earthquake / tsunami zone.


I wonder about the response to the catastrophe in Japan from the French Government, considering the amount of nuclear power they rely upon and the protestors that emerged following this type of reporting.

Sometimes I don't know where you're coming from katie1997 :(


Fossil fuel deposits are not spread around the world evenly. Whether it's the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia or anywhere else, it generates intensive competition to exploit those resources that most often resolves itself in either social upheaval or violent international conflict. This isn't a contentious or minority observation.


I don't know what you mean by 'should' be distributed, I'm talking about geology not morality.


Likewise, I have no idea what you believe causes climate change?


As the Met Office describes: "It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century."


The principle source of greenhouse gases is the conversion of complex fossilised carbohydrates (oil, coal and gas) to produce carbon dioxide, other by-products and ENERGY.


Whilst changes in land use alter the ecosystem's opportunity to lock CO2 back in to the earth, the fact is that in the UK, for example, 65% of carbon emmissions come from centralised energy generation (power stations) and 21% comes from burning fuels in transport.


In other words almost 90% of greenhouse gas generation is from burning fossil fuels.


I don't really see what there is to wonder about the response to the tragedy by the French government. Opposition to nuclear power is based on a complete inability for otherwise sane human beings to make a reasonable cost-benefit judgement on nuclear power.


No, nuclear power isn't completely safe, neither is fossil fuel generation. The global impact of a reliance on fossil fuels has been a global catastrophe of incalculable proportions. Conversely nuclear power is less dangerous than a surfing holiday in Newquay.

Advance Warning: *Fisk Alert*


Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes I don't know where you're coming from

> katie1997 :(


Now I have a proper keyboard, I will try to see if I can express myself better (clearer?) but no guarantee...:'(


> Fossil fuel deposits are not spread around the

> world evenly. Whether it's the Middle East,

> Venezuela, Russia or anywhere else, it generates

> intensive competition to exploit those resources

> that most often resolves itself in either social

> upheaval or violent international conflict. This

> isn't a contentious or minority observation.


I know that fossil fuels do not form evenly around the world.


But ... from your post, particularly this bit



seemed to me to be implying that you thought they should be more equally distributed. Which you'll agree is not only impossible but ludicrous given that fossil fuels are not, in fact, deposited - they are formed slowly over a period of around 2 million to 30/40 million years.


> Likewise, I have no idea what you believe causes

> climate change?


No, you don't and personally I have no desire to have a discussion about it on a thread about the media's over-reaction on nuclear power, following the catastrophe in Japan. I mentioned it in response to your comment on oil and coal and I think now I understand, given the the text you quoted from the Met Office, that we are talking at cross-purposes and from a vastly different timescale/perspective.


> I don't really see what there is to wonder about

> the response to the tragedy by the French

> government. Opposition to nuclear power is based

> on a complete inability for otherwise sane human

> beings to make a reasonable cost-benefit judgement

> on nuclear power.


I got sidetracked on the subject of mild-mannered janitors scientists so the next post may have seemed apropos of nothing but it was simply me wondering whether the adverse press on the nuclear industry as a whole (of which France is a big supporter on the world-stage) could have a detrimental effect on public perception and not doing a whole lot of good for the future diversity of energy supplies. (which I agree is important and much needed)


> No, nuclear power isn't completely safe, neither

> is fossil fuel generation. The global impact of a

> reliance on fossil fuels has been a global

> catastrophe of incalculable proportions.


But oh, people will still drive and fly and ... people will always find new means of energy too. When everyone thought the US was running out of gas however many years ago, what happened? ... they found better ways of extracting shale gas. Now that we are looking towards 'greener' technologies, people are clambering over themselves to exploit rare mineral resources needed (and a future Huguenot will no doubt be posting about the competition to exploit these and the resultant evil wars etc).


> Conversely nuclear power is less dangerous than a

> surfing holiday in Newquay.


:))

This comes down to the same issue that blighted the early days of the Large Hadron Collider. Scientific language vs. journalistic interpretation.


A scientist cannot say "there is no chance" of something occurring. To do so in almost every scenario would be to lie. The fact that the chance of the LHC producing a black hole that gobbles up the Earth is so small to be virtually indistinguishable from zero to anyone who doesn't understand "10^-30" doesn't make saying it is zero any less of a lie.


And so they say that there is a tiny chance of said black hole and the media goes wild (and a few crazy people kill themselves and their pets in preparation).


And so the same thing happened here. The scientists say that small amounts of radiation may reach Tokyo, or talk about background radiation levels (which are a constant thing we are exposed to every day) and everyone reaches for their face masks, plane tickets and tinfoil hats.

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...