• Global Warming

Replies: 484   Views: 67086
Up one level

 • Re: Global Warming

Posted by dalek at 2008-05-13 08:37 PM

Cyberman, that report about 24,000 deaths that you posted said "The study, prepared by Abt Associates, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's consultant on air pollution impacts, found that 22,000 of those deaths, along with many nonfatal heart attacks and tens of hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, could be prevented by requiring power plants to install currently available pollution control technology"

Well bugger me the figure has come down to 2000 when the techniques that are routine in more developed countries are applied to the US.

One of the things that all you US lovers do not appreciate is that the country is really backward when it comes to industrial safety (Just ask the people of Bhopal who have been the recipient of US industrial technology). The US managed to export most of it's really backward industrial processes starting in the 60's (it has gone backwards economically ever since). But they find it difficult to relocate power generation to Asia so they still build the old crap - including nuclear reactors in the swamps of Florida! (the latest folly).  

The problem of Fine Particle Emissions (FPE) is not confined to coal fired generation. It applies in particular to diesel powered vehicles such as the buses that  travel the streets of Brisbane and Sydney. FPE's are a major health hazard as they go directly into the bloodstream through the lungs and carry all sorts of toxins in with them. It even applies to the giant trucks that move the uranium ore.

I am not in the business of defending coal or fossil fuelled generation. but you are asking me to believe that these dickheads can build safe nuclear plants. They cannot even build a low emissions coal fired plant! - or a chemical plant in India without poisoning thousands of people.


 • Re: Global Warming

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-05-13 10:43 PM

Well of course the nuclear reactor incident in Chernobyl could have been much minimised if it had been built with a containment structure as the "dickheads", as you describe them , in the US managed to do with their reactor at Three Mile Island.


As you know, I'm no supporter of US foreign policy generally but I wouldn't name call Americans as a whole. It's childish and verging on being racist.  


I'd be surprised if emissions from US coal power stations were any worse than the world average in this respect. It's all very well saying that they would be much less hazardous to health (maybe just a hundred times instead of a thousand times worse than nuclear?) if they were fitted with the best available technology but we should be comparing coal and nuclear safety with what is actually in operation now, in both cases,  not some idealised versions that never have existed and probably never will.

 • Re: Global Warming

Posted by dalek at 2008-05-14 03:57 PM

Cyberman , no it's not racist to call citizens of the US stupid since they are made up of just about every "race" in the globe.

In the US  78% of the population identifies itself as Christian and about 50% believes in the literal truth of the Christian bible and probably 90% share the vision of  the Manichean exceptionism of God's chosen country and they have the bomb. 

You want to place your and your childrens safety in the hands of this lot? You say they can be trusted to run nuclear power stations and manage nuclear weapons ? They are manifestly stupid by their own admission (or are you a God botherer too Cyberman?).

You support nuclear power and it's inevitable bomb making capacity for every mad mullah, Christian nutbag, raving feudal monarch and zionist end of days looney in the world (the Cyberman global nuclear program).

Cyberman you are just as crazy as they are.




 • Re: Global Warming

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-05-14 07:03 PM



Your comment " You want to place your and your childrens safety in the hands of this lot?  You say they can be trusted to run nuclear power stations and manage nuclear weapons ?  "  shows quite a touching faith in my ability to decide these questions one way or the other ! I'm sorry to disappoint you but the " zionist end of days looneys in the world" already have nuclear weapons and, even if they didn't, there would be little I could do to stop them, or anyone else, for that matter.


The facts of the matter are that you don't need a civil nuclear power station to build a nuclear weapon. The cheapest way to do it is by enriching uranium, just like the USA did with its first A-bomb  dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.


The issues of nuclear non proliferation do need to be addressed of course, but giving up on nuclear energy is unlikely to reduce the danger of nuclear war. In fact it is likely to increase the danger, primarily because a poorer world that would result from the abandonment of nuclear energy would be more likely to have wars. Separating the world into nations which are, and which are not, allowed to use nuclear power , is by definition, divisive, and again will do nothing to stem poverty and the feelings of alienation which will grow out of this.


My arguments are not directed at the mad mullahs and nutbags of this world. There is nothing I can say to them which will make one jot of difference. Rather they are directed at the left and environmental groups who , I am suggesting, are making a huge mistake in discounting the peaceful possibilites of nuclear power and, like you, often seem impervious to all rational arguments, both about its intrinsic safety and environmental advantages. Largely this opposition is ideological, rather than factual. There may have been good reasons for rejecting nuclear power when the cold war was at its height, and before the problem of rising CO2 concentrations was understood, but times move on, and it is time now , for full, rational and sensible  re-appraisal of the issues. 


If you can't accept the scientific evidence, Dalek, you are  showing that you're a political dinosaur stuck in a cold-war era timewarp. It's time to give up on all that name-calling, put your brain into gear  and start to  think rationally. I've got a bit bored with having to deal with your ad-hominem attacks and unless you can lift your game, show some maturity and the capability of presenting a factual and scientifically based argument,  I'm going to sign off on this issue for now.

 • Re: Global Warming

Posted by dalek at 2008-05-15 04:02 PM

Cyberman I am not arguing about the science of nuclear power I am arguing about the political context of the science of nuclear power. You wish to argue that all science is removed entirely from the social conditions of the time then that is fine. (You arguments for nuclear power remind of an insane diatribe by Trotsky in favour of massive terraforming of the planet,  I once read). But I digress. 

I argue that :

  1. Virtually all clandestine weapons programs so far have been based upon nuclear reactors, India, Pakistan, Israel.
  2. None of the newly emerging or prospective nuclear states in Southeast Asia or the Middle East have stable  responsible and non corrupted civil law and scientific establishments that can resist the pressures of other authorities to either produce nuclear weapons or even to build the reactors to the relevant standards. I cite A Q Khan in Pakistan as an example. (How many more of these monsters will it take to convince you Cyberman?)
  3. I have listed the countries that already hold significant amounts of Plutonium that has been generated by their "peaceful" nuclear programs Japan in particular. (Care to see a re-run of the Greater South East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere -this time Japan has the bomb - Cyberman) 
  4. Maybe you want to live in a region where all the neighbours are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons generated from sub standard poorly constructed and leaking reactors ( I can predict that this is what they would be with 100% confidence)

Best of luck with it Cyberman, your Grandchildren will thank you for it.