Change font size
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:46 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 16 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:11 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Events in Japan have changed Moonbat's viewof nuclear power. You will, he says, be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:29 am 

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 6700
Yes you should!
Moonbat is repositioning himself to support Palin in '12.
PDT_Armataz_01_08 Wow this stuff's strong! PDT_Armataz_01_08

_________________
If you don't get grumpy as you grow older then you aren't paying attention


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:41 am 

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:42 am
Posts: 412
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown. says Monbiot

This could be fun....


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:33 am 

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:44 am
Posts: 293
I would like to say that the urge to say 'I told you so' really is to be resisted at all costs.

As a convert myself I don't think it worthy to attack a changed position and I will confess that I have a streak of respect overall for the man. I think he made an arse of himself with the AGW debate but I was a former proponent of AGW myself. He can't quite bring himself to say he was wrong with AGW ..yet...but he will and will more readily do so if he feels he ain't going to get his head shot off the moment he raises it.

He is going through a painful transition and should be supported through it as the force is at least moderately strong with him and a powerful ally he would make....yeeeeerrse....

Am I being too fair?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:27 am 

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:07 am
Posts: 127
thejones wrote:
I would like to say that the urge to say 'I told you so' really is to be resisted at all costs.

As a convert myself I don't think it worthy to attack a changed position and I will confess that I have a streak of respect overall for the man. I think he made an arse of himself with the AGW debate but I was a former proponent of AGW myself. He can't quite bring himself to say he was wrong with AGW ..yet...but he will and will more readily do so if he feels he ain't going to get his head shot off the moment he raises it.

He is going through a painful transition and should be supported through it as the force is at least moderately strong with him and a powerful ally he would make....yeeeeerrse....

Am I being too fair?


No - not being too fair, although I've never believed in AGW - it's a red herring designed to throw us off the scent and away from resource depletion due to population numbers. When the Green Party had a policy on population growth I voted for them in local elections. I think they dropped it around the same time our New Labour overlords decided to make us a multi cult nightmare of a country. So I dropped them.

I'm still not convinced about nuclear power, but only from point of view of the fact that we've imported a load of medieval nutters into our midst and Govt policy is to get as many of them into these types of institiutions as possible. Duh!

What has made the political elite so suicidal on our behalf for the last 50 years?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:40 am 

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:07 am
Posts: 36
This has been a strange week.

In this week I find myself, in part, in agreement with George Monbiot and George Galloway. I am seriously worried about myself. I may have to seek professional help!!!!

Is George M slowly moving away from his silly AGW stance? It's looking more like it? Mind you when you read some of the comments on his blog... well. Do these people do any research? Do they read? Is their only diet of news the BBC and The Guardian? Perhaps Georges great place in world should be directed at trying to square the circle that is the Green Movement. One group say save this another group says by saving this we endanger that and so on and so ad finitum. One thing is certain. The influence of the Greens must be significantly reduced and soon.

Georgie Boy G now there's a challenge, cat mimicking apart. Dave and his supporters? Friends? Allies? Thugs? Can't think of a word that would cover it have no business taking us into a confrontation with Qaddafi. Surely the message is stand back and let them sort it out themselves. Mayhem and slaughter if we didn't intervene? What a horrible, horrible thought but will we actually achieve any reduction in that? Let's be honest here. Does anyone really expect any of the Arab countries to become democratic? Will we actually see a real improvement in the quality of life for their populations?

So there we go. My tow great friends George and George. Who'd have thunk it!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:48 am 
Why would anyone want to "throw us off the scent" of resource depletion? Plenty of people bang on about "peak oil" - their forebears probably banged on about a "high tide of horse shit".

And plenty of people talk about "overpopulation" openly*. (Is Monaco overpopulated? Manhattan?) Malthus cannot compete with even a stopped clock: he is and always has been wrong. This is a good intro:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... ticle/7723



* Click here to see anti-human scum such as Attenborough (AGW simpleton), Tickell (who temporarily made even Thatch an ecotard), Ehrlich (unashamedly discredited by a reality he did not foretell) etc:

http://populationmatters.org/about/who-we-are/patrons/


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:09 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
PeteM wrote:
This has been a strange week.

In this week I find myself, in part, in agreement with George Monbiot and George Galloway. I am seriously worried about myself. I may have to seek professional help!!!!!


At least the Boy hasn't disappointed.

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:16 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:09 pm
Posts: 331
I wish the members of PopulationMatters would lead by example, and practice their awful policies on themselves.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:13 am 

Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:59 pm
Posts: 1862
Anyone care to guess whether a gas cooled reactor (like ours are but the replacements won't be) might have fared in the circumstances Fukushima faced?

The reactor design is engineered to cope with much higher temperatures but I don't know what would happen if they had no power to circulate gas through the reactor.

The French seem to manage okay with their water cooled reactors though. Plenty of them, sited on rivers and able to match demand rather than just provide a base load.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:41 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:47 pm
Posts: 4434
The only reason he supports Nukes is because of his total belief in Co2 as the cause of global warming, he is still as wrong as ever.......but he does at least realise that re-newables are not only incapable of produceing our power but are a physical and visual nightmare.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:17 am
Posts: 301
Location: repatriated Taff
Moonbat was wrong even by the time he reached his second paragraph ......
Dont know how many of the atomic samurai are going to die over time , but its already started .The radiation is already in the water supply
Then there is the sarcophagus construction and its ability to remain intact in a typhoon, earthquake ,and tsunami zone .Going to need a lot of samurai for that .Death toll cannot be concluded within 10 days of the accident.and its going to take years to complete construction to get an unsatisfactory result.
Outflow is still unmitigated from the reactors and just how much of the damaged core's is going out through the outfalls ? The reactors are still open to the environment .
Combustion products are still being released from two of the reactors .

Way to early to start crooning , It will be years before we can even consider some sort of conclusion.

And what's the matter with earthquake resistant small scale hydroelectric , Japan's got a lot of altitude and rainfall ,very small weirs with reducing circumference pipes downhill to micro turbines .. ?

and I notice he carefully avoided tidal , wave , and subsurface current power ,also remember what the nuclear industry did when reviewing the economics of the Salter duck ...they moved the decimal point !

Hooray for Islay

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNJhX0x7yI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:41 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
Well ... we could certainly see some unexpected consequences.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 ... dies-show/

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:34 pm 

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 9:09 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Stroud Gloucestershire UK
I suspect George is worried on 2 counts. He is wedded to notion that CO2 is about to cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. He’s campaigned for a cut in CO2 emissions and relies on renewables to deliver this. We know that is not going to happen, and they (the greens) have quietly hoped that new nuclear would come to the rescue without being vocal about it. Fukushima has put a spanner in the works and as is our propensity for exaggeration and alarm at present George can see our spineless government delaying any nuclear decisions.

In fact the government whoever they were have no choice but to delay as so much miss information and ill inform comment is about the average person has no idea what is fact or fiction. From what I have gathered so far no person in Japan has receive a dose of radiation even close to that which a nuclear worker is allowed in a year. An the low does found in the spinach would mean you would have to eat the whole field, in one day and do this for several months and years, to come anywhere near the same does as you would get from an MRI or chest X Ray. So the radiation level is LOW.

The coming Shale Oil and Gas revolution is also in a way making it easier for our government to prevaricate, as the competition from this new source is likely to dropkick the worries over Peak Oil and unreliable suppliers into touch.

Another point that few have picked up on is that it is because of the green movement that we have had radiation leaks at all. From what I understand, and I’m always open to be corrected, it was the spent fuel rods being stored on site, rather than in a secure and safe location, that caused the hydrogen explosions, and that if it was just the reactors that had to be managed there may not have been any issue other than possible bleeding off of high pressure steam and workers would have been able to restore power much earlier without having to work through the wreckage.

It’s also worth quoting from 2 scientists working the aftermath of Chernobyl for those who worry about low dose ration.
"Low doses of radiation are a [very] poor carcinogen," says Professor Brooks, who has spent 30 years studying the link between radiation and cancer. "If you talk to anybody and you say the word radiation, immediately you get a fear response. That fear response has caused people to do things that are scientifically unfounded."

Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, US, has spent 10 years studying animals living within the 30km exclusion zone surrounding Chernobyl. He has found that, far from the effects of low-level radiation being carcinogenic; it appears to boost those genes that protect us against cancer. "One of the thoughts that comes out of this is that prior exposure to low levels of radiation actually may have a beneficial effect," Professor Chesser says.

For those of you who may find these comments difficult accept I leave you with this thought. Think about yourself as a just another mammal and think about where you are. You have evolved on a planet that is being constantly bombarded by all manner of radiation from the Sun and the cosmos. As we speak cosmic rays in the form of muons (a subatomic particle with a similar charged to an electron with 200 times the mass) are passing through your body. Every now and then a Star goes bang and we get blasted by radiation. There is a star in Orion called Betelgeuse that will go supernova soon, and when it does it will shine as brightly as the moon. It will shower us in all sorts of radiation most of which should not get to us, but some will. This has happened before so is it not beyond the realms of possibility that we have developed a defence mechanism for this eventuality, a defence mechanism that of course does not protect everyone, and rapidly breaks down when pushed to unnatural limits. Is it not worth us finding out more about this and listening to what those who are actually studying the subject say, rather than behaving like witches from the middle ages?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: And we should care?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:18 pm 

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:25 pm
Posts: 1032
It s certainly a step in the right direction,but Monbiot hasnt given up on the anti fossil fuel stance.He d just prefer the lesser evil nuclear to coal and gas.
But the greenies are having to face up to reality,they cant have their cake and eat it.Renewables wont be enough and they know it.If we keep cleaning up coal and gas who knows they may even come to accept those energy sources too,and we can all keep the lights on.

We might even see changes on Government energy policy.......in about 10 years time PDT_Armataz_01_17


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 16 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net