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

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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