Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » It is time to stand up... EVERYONE !

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2 
It is time to stand up... EVERYONE !
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
avatar

We are destroying our home....

{"name":"612164","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/f\/2fa07b8066e65edee8be2de737ff2ae6.png","w":2480,"h":3508,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/f\/2fa07b8066e65edee8be2de737ff2ae6"}612164

Proof ?
here is some proof
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports.shtml

Harrison Ford puts it right

Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard)
Current project: [Star Trek Project ] Join if you want ;-)

torhu
Member #2,727
September 2002
avatar

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

Ok, stood up. What now?

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I am very much in support of climate change initiatives. I am a member of the Green Party of Canada (and Ontario), and have contributed probably close to CAD$1000 thus far, if not more. I am also as active as I can be in supporting climate initiatives in Canada.

It is really scary how governments continue to ignore the problem, and how ignorant the majority of the population is. I live in an industrial town supported by a large steel plant so you can imagine that about half of the city is pro-fossil fuels and doesn't believe in climate change. ::) It's very frustrating trying to have a conversation with most of them. I usually don't even bother. They're too ignorant to listen to anything that might make their lives less convenient.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

If nature could kill you, it would.

;)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
avatar

I'm usually not the activist type myself..
BUT when our worldleaders are silencing scientists, because they don't like the message, or are just plain lying about proven facts, it is time to speak up..

Earth, the environment, nature, has NO political color.
I bet a left winged can drown or suffocate just as well as a right winged.
no matter where you live.

As Harrison Ford put it... our HOUSE is on fire, and the so called "leaders" are looking the other way, and say: "They (OTHERS) haven't picked a bucket of water, so why should we ?"

OUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE, SHUT THE F*CK UP AND GET A HOSE !

Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard)
Current project: [Star Trek Project ] Join if you want ;-)

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

I'm fine with ditching coal in favor of nuclear. CO2 emissions would plummet. And there would be enough clean power for an electric car grid.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I do believe nuclear is regarded as being cleaner than fossil fuel energy sources, however, we do have to consider the dangers of a leak or explosion which have proven to not be completely mitigated yet. And what's more, as the climate does change as we fail to do enough to stop or reverse its impacts it calls into question the stability of any environment in which you would propose to build a reactor. In general, though I think that nuclear has potential, I think that we're somewhat better off investing in other technologies to capture energy from solar, wind, and water instead; the dangers of which are considerably less than for nuclear.

For all intents and purposes there is already a sufficient nuclear reactor with which to draw our power from: the Sun. We just need to get better at capturing energy from its radiation.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

The world has managed to not kill us all with nukes yet with a bunch of highschool dropouts in the military flying them around all the time.

If the 1st world countries can be trusted to have nuclear *bombs*, then they can theoretically run nuclear energy if they actually cared to. But they don't.

There's no reason nuke power can't be safe with triple redundancy, and proper accounting. And NOT PUTTING THEM NEXT TO !@$!'ING CITIES LIKE FUKISHIMA.

I mean, what does more damage? Fukishima (a semi-modern reactor design)... or the BP oil spill? There's still fish and birds floating around Japan. The BP oil spill damn near murdered entire ecosystems.

What's safer? A nuke plant that sits there, or a FLEET of run down penny-pushing metal tankers will millions of barrels of oil on them every year.

Theoretically? Nuclear is the safest, greenest energy.

Implemented? Nuclear COULD still be the safest energy source with a tiny fraction of of the number of plants (== less chances for plant failures). But it would have to be carefully designed by people who truly care.

I mean, how many people DIE EVERY YEAR due to air and water pollution from all other power? (Google it if you want to cry.)

And "green" energy like hydro? RUINS ECOSYSTEMS. It's a !@#$! damn DAM. You think flooding millions of acres doesn't kill life? And solar and wind? Kill birds, and use rare earth minerals that have to be strip mined from the earth (killing ecosystems) and kills the miners.

{"name":"log_scale.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/3\/c3c5cc3f9acaaffd132e3593d1ec04da.png","w":508,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/3\/c3c5cc3f9acaaffd132e3593d1ec04da"}log_scale.png

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

We've had nuclear energy less than ONE hundred years. Watch how far we've come in science. If nuclear waste lasts 10000 years (it can last longer), HOW FAR will we, as a society, evolve in that time? We cannot fathom. Imagine being a human in 8000 BC and guessing how far our technology will come in the year 2000 AD. For all we know, in 200 years, we'll be able to "delete" matter from the universe, or send waste directly into the sun. We may even have teleporters in the next 1000 years.

I, for one, am banking on the ingenuity of mankind based on prior data.

And, what's the alternative? Instead of "killing us in 10000 years", we all die in the next 1000 years from global warming? Great alternative.

The physics cannot be refuted. Solar, wind, and hydro cannot generate enough power to fuel the world, and asking the world to stop consuming power is an impossibility. So it's either coal and gas (read: goodbye earth), or nuke power. That's literally it. Those are our two options.

{"name":"FPL_Blue_Cypress_solar_XL_721_420_80_s_c1.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/d\/5d9f1647f3abb0bce4726e83af5037b7.jpg","w":721,"h":420,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/d\/5d9f1647f3abb0bce4726e83af5037b7"}FPL_Blue_Cypress_solar_XL_721_420_80_s_c1.jpg

Wow, look how beautiful all that dead solar land is! Asphalt is the new look of green energy!

https://wildlifeleadershipacademy.org/the-hydroelectric-dam-a-river-ecosystems-worst-enemy/

The reason nuke isn't more applicable today is simply because there hasn't been a real political push to make it so. Real, applied, engineering problems need solved. But just like getting into space, it's just a large series of problems that need solved. Difficult != impossible. Just like breaking the sound barrier in a plane you have to make engines, fuel systems, cooling systems, pilot training, aerodynamics, landing gear, you've got to MAKE the parts, you've got to ASSEMBLE the parts. It's a difficult problem but it's clearly doable by many companies around the world.

One of the US subcommittee research recommendations under Obama found that "it's essential that nuclear waste storage form a new central organization to manage it". That is, all nuclear waste MUST go through the government's control, auditing, and storage. But that organization still doesn't exist.

We CAN make nuclear energy safe. But nobody has bothered to because the general public hasn't demanded it. Instead they simply say "get rid of it!"

If people want to save the planet, they need to get on the nuclear boat... or kill 7 billion people. But nukes can help in that case too.

Quote:

It took over 200,000 years of human history for the world's human population to reach 1 billion; and only 100 years more to reach 7 billion.

Ouch. That's a real problem.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Bob Keane
Member #7,342
June 2006

Implemented? Nuclear COULD still be the safest energy source with a tiny fraction of of the number of plants (== less chances for plant failures). But it would have to be carefully designed by people who truly care.

Would it be safer or even possible to design smaller nuclear plants to power a smaller, defined area? We would have more of them but the demand on each would be known.

By reading this sig, I, the reader, agree to render my soul to Bob Keane. I, the reader, understand this is a legally binding contract and freely render my soul.
If we get apple juice from squeezing apples, and we get prunes from drying out plums, where does prune juice come from?
Hi Randall Monroe.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Even current nuclear technology and practices are extremely safe. The number of deaths from nuclear versus air pollution from fossil fuel use is negligible.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
This link has pretty compelling graphs to that effect. Don't let perfect (an unfeasible short-term worldwide switch to clean energy) be the enemy of good (a perfectly viable solution to climate change with proven technology).

piccolo
Member #3,163
January 2003
avatar

Just an Update Guys. I have become enlighten to the first stage. I used the Scriptures in and outside of Bible to become enlighten. I have figured out how to teach enlightenment. when you become enlighten you can invent any technology. I plan on teaching this enlightenment in Africa first than the rest of the world. I found a few people on youtube that are enlighten however most don't know how to teach it.

wow
-------------------------------
i am who you are not am i

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

One thing I think we can all agree about is that no matter what engineering we put in place to limit the risks of nuclear power, all it would take is driving a plane into a plant to cause a catastrophe that the region, if not planet, may never fully recover from. We clearly cannot 100% prevent this. Those are the kinds of risks we need to take into account. Sure, if this was a Star Trek-style society where people mostly got along this would be an unlikely scenario (though their plots are full of this type of terrorism too, but mostly by alien worlds at that point, and their fictional technology usually allows them to save the day in the nick of time).

The other thing I'd like to call out is your cop out. Nuclear isn't fully ready yet, but we can make it better. Sure, but what you're skipping past is that we can also make hydro, solar, and wind better too! A lot less time and money has gone into engineering better hydro, solar, and wind solutions than has been invested in nuclear. The basic principles in hydro, solar, and wind are very eco-friendly. Our naive implementations just happen to have unforeseen consequences that we need to work on.

And here is a pro-nuclear professor pointing out that solar can achieve our goals easily, even with currently available technology:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/22/we-could-power-the-entire-world-by-harnessing-solar-energy-from-1-of-the-sahara/

Nuclear is a cop-out. Of course nuclear reactions produce a ton of energy, and they're very cool, but they also produce extremely harmful byproducts that we cannot safely dispose of, and at best can bury and hope nobody disturbs. In theory, someday we'll have the technology to dispose of them safely, but that's just wishful thinking. We don't actually know that we will. And what's more, we don't even have systems in place to keep proper track of it. How will future generations even know where it is? Will our storage technologies even keep it stable long enough for future generations to safely dispose of it? Are our descendants going to have massive stockpiles of nuclear waste that they too are unable to dispose of, poisoning their world?

In my opinion it's lazy and irresponsible to trust "future" generations to solve problems for us. For all we know what's actually going to happen is somebody is going to get stupid, start another world war, and reduce our advanced civilizations back into rudimentary ones that struggle just to find food and fight off neighbouring tribes. There's no guarantee that we'll continue on an upwards trajectory. Based on the idiots around us resisting science I think it's a pretty unlikely scenario in fact. Yes, from like 1800 to 2000 we saw amazing technological developments, but what have we really seen in the past 20 years that is so amazing? Our universities no longer talk about ideas because some people's feelings get hurt. Governments are attempting to require us to respect people's preferred pronouns to support their delusions. That looks more like we're on our way back down than anything.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Planes hitting nuclear power plants is a boogeyman.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/34/066/34066699.pdf?r=1&r=1

It can't happen.

Also I probably got put on like 5 more lists by finding that document.

More money in nuclear fusion and we're good to go until the heat death of the universe. But fusion is always (current year + 10) years away so whatever.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Yeah, solve Cold Fusion and I'll kiss your nuclear butt. They made a movie about that you know, it can't be done. ::)

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I'm talking about this fusion: https://www.iter.org/

Not sci-fi bullshit.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

1. Has it been tried before?
2. Then how do you know?

???

Just because people say it can't happen doesn't mean it can't. In our field how often are we sure something can't happen until we observe it in a debugger?

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Well it's my favorite Val Kilmer movie and lt also stars Elizabeth Shue, who is gorgeous.... and if SHE can't do it NO ONE can

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

OK there's no saying an ICBM won't be launched to specifically target me but the chances are so slim it's realistically zero.

Quote:

please note the many ifs if the plane doesn't miss the NPP (relatively small, compared to WTC), if it hits the concrete containment exactly on the middle, not on the sides, if it strikes the containment structure not too high and not too low, if it gets through the containment structure, if it damages both the (small in volume) core of the reactor or a vital part of the primary circuit), if it also damages several or all the multiple redundant safety systems, then a bad accident MAY perhaps happen.

They design nuclear reactors with the risk of terrorist attacks in mind.

Read the paper I linked to. The chances of successfully hitting the nuclear reactor with a plane are virtually zero.

I live within 25 miles of two nuclear reactors (believe it's the only highly populated metropolitan area [Charlotte, NC] in the US which such a 'flaw') and I frankly have zero worry about them.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Of course they've designed the reactors to be "attack proof", but until it has been tried can we really be sure it works? A plane crash causes chaos. And even if it did work perfectly when the reactor was first built, do we honestly trust that they're going to keep them perfectly maintained over time so those systems never fail? It's basically all theoretical at this point that a catastrophe can't happen.

The titanic couldn't sink. The Boeing 737 MAX has a special system in place to detect a stall and automatically recover, except instead it often detects a false stall and puts the plane into a dangerous nose dive to try to recover from it. People are not perfect, and by extension the engineering feats that are produced by people are not perfect. In terms of the potential harm that a reactor disaster could cause I think it's a bit lazy and careless to just trust that these systems are so perfect that they cannot fail.

There's also the human element. Could a disgruntled employee of the reactor shut down safety systems or push the reactor to dangerous levels to trigger a catastrophic event? Or could terrorists on foot break into the reactor and do the same?

I think that nuclear reactors are a valid power source, but I think we need to take their dangers very seriously. I think we should have a little less faith in people, and their engineering, and choose placement of these reactors for a worst case scenario i.e., if somehow the reactor melts down or the fuel rods leak into the environment, where can we put it so that the impacts on people and the ecosystem are minimized?

Anywhere near inhabited land seems like a bad place for a reactor.

Currently a company based in Toronto is trying to get permission to build a ferrochrome smelter plant within our city limits in the next ~10 years. These plants are known to contaminate the air, water, and lands for miles with hexavalent chromium (AKA "Chromium 6" or Cr-VI). That's allegedly the same chemical that poisoned the people in Hinkley, California where they won a class action lawsuit thanks to the help of Erin Brockovich (of which the film starring Julia Roberts was based). Of course, they're trying to ensure the public that it will be safe, but they've failed to provide any credible evidence to prove that it can be done safely. Notably, we live in the heart of the Great Lakes so if they contaminate our waters there's the risk that it can also spread to Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (and Lake Superior, though that is at least upstream). We're also right on the Michigan border and the winds also often cross over to Michigan so it seems likely that the plant will be directly polluting Northern Michigan too. There's currently a strong resistance from local doctors, academics, and a small majority of the population. Nevertheless, it's looking like corporate interests and government representatives are going to push ahead despite the risks. Understand that their "promises" don't mean a whole lot to us. Humanity has seen time and time again that greed has no moral compass.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

You really know very little to nothing about any first-world nuclear reactor operation and construction procedures. You should stop talking.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Classic strawman. Don't pretend to be a nuclear reactor operations expert yourself, Aaron. We both know you aren't.

 1   2 


Go to: