Why stop there? Lets introduce a law where everyone must live in a tent, because you know, an earthquake may come about one day, and if you're living in the average house, or apartment, there's a high chance that you'll die........
Why stop there? Lets introduce a law where everyone must live in a tent, because you know, an earthquake may come about one day, and if you're living in the average house, or apartment, there's a high chance that you'll die........
Your village called. They want their idiot back.Originally Posted by Draco
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Oh snap! You got me there Mr Comedian..you're such a funny guy!! teehee
Well, maybe next time you should take the time to switch on your brain before going all hurfa-durfa on a thread. Because you indeed made yourself look like an idiot - your response is so far off the mark, it should be an example of how not to deal with an issue.Oh snap! You got me there Mr Comedian..you're such a funny guy!! teehee
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Why are you being so defensive about this report if you claim to disagree with it? Reflexive nationalism?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm simply uncomfortable with people making half-assed statements.
Like you with your moronic 9.0 statement. It's obviously irrational to be concerned about energy production methods possessing a catastrophic failure mode - with said failure mode just having been demonstrated again.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Ignoring the fact that this once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe, which took place in a country that has frequent earthquakes, still killed (even if we include an elevated cancer risk) far fewer people than coal mine explosions do on an annual basis. Sorry, but anyone who rejects a major source of energy just because it might kill a few dozen people once a generation is an idiot. the fact that those catastrophes have virtually no chance of happening makes them even bigger idiots.
Hope is the denial of reality
Once in a lifetime? Aha. Strangely enough, during my lifetime that's already the third major incident...
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
A 9.0 earthquake being within a short distance of a nuclear power plant? Really?
Pray tell what the casualty figure was for all of these catastrophes and then compare that to the annual death toll for coal mining accidents.
Hope is the denial of reality
Catastrophic failure of a nuclear reactor, moron.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
And how many people have those killed, smart person?
Hope is the denial of reality
I bet if we were to hang out in real life, we'd get along just fine though
This type of idiocy is not unusual, its just a shame it grips otherwise-sensible people.
It's just the same as people being afraid of flying because they don't want to die in a plane-crash. Nevermind the tiny amount of plane casualties versus automobile fatalities, nevermind the fact that flying is the safest means of travel, nevermind that even in 2001 flying was still by far the safest means to travel ... a plane crashes anywhere and its big news. So people think stupidly that planes are dangerous as accidents are the exception rather than the rule.
There is no more logic to banning nuclear on safety reasons than there is planes. Planes are safer than the alternatives, nuclear is safer than the alternatives. But when the former fails its big news. The fact that nuclear has only failed three times (and that's including Three Mile Island I guess) versus however many coal-related fatalities there have been speaks wonders.
The airplane vs automobile in part reflects something you didn't mention *which doesn't come into play for the power generation comparisons* You can do more in reaction to a problem driving than you can when you're in an airplane. Makes a huge psychological difference.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
But you also have to take the economical effects into consideration. A crashed airplane versus a huge swath of irradiated land? Plus, we still don't know where to store the nuclear waste reliably.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I think we now places to store it reliably, but no one wants that place to be near their homes. Even the US -- with enormous open spaces full of nothing -- has trouble building spent nuclear fuel storage facilities because every member of Congress whose district may be ideal for storage throws up legislative hurdles.
No one really knows how many people may have died because of Chernobyl. But excluding incidents mainly caused by towering idiocy, the answer is probably 'none'.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Yeah, sure. We had one of those "reliable" places as well. A former salt mine, to be exact.
Only it turns out that there's suddenly water leaking into this salt mine and they don't know from where.
Ah, so the rise in cancer rates and gene mutations is only an illusion then?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
He was making the difference clear between real act of God and people fucking up. Tjernobyl and Fukushima can't really be compared, not even with the high levels of incompetence in the running of the latter one. Neither really provide a valid reason as to why Germany (different type of reactor for one and highly improbability of replication of the same unique combination of a big ass earthquake, a tsunami and utter incompentent people running the place).
Harrisburg is too long ago to be bothered with at all.
Congratulations America
I don't know what you're going on about - I said the ultimate numbers of dead caused by Chernobyl may never be known.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Brick and stone houses are much more radioactive than wooden ones. But the latter get smashed easier by tornados and hurricanes - and big bad wolves. What is a mortal to do? I like nuclear power and I think the Germans are making a mistake. I do recall reading Germany was heading this way before the Japanese earthquake/ tsunami, however. And I was scratching my head then too. Oh well. We all know orbital's the only way to go, even if the short sighted can't seem to justify the start up costs.... What is a mortal to do? What, I say? What I ask?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
What a fantastic initiative to open wide the energy sector of the future for innovation and private entrepeneurship, not to mention giving innovators the opportunity to shine by touting their energy-saving ideas. Well done Germany, kill the energy oligopolies dead.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let's be honest here: the likely outcome will be Germany importing more oil and gas from Russia. Innovative solution indeed. Maybe Merkel can go become Schroeder's VP after she leaves office.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh don't you fret Loki sooner or later they'll find ways to manage their energy requirements with friendlier sources of renewable energyand in the meantime Russia will prosper, which is a nice bonus.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In the long run, we're all dead.
Hope is the denial of reality
That remains to be seen, but the smart money says that we won't live in Germany so it's okay if large portions of the German people succeed in pressuring their political representatives into not supporting something they find objectionable. Nuclear power is a damned funny issue.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Those same groups of people have no intention of making the kind of sacrifices their demands necessitate. It's just like the "we want more services and lower taxes" crowd, only with irreversible consequences.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well sure they don't permit their government to fund a bunch of power plants, but it's not like they demand to get money to pay their electricity bills. I've certainly never heard of a Swedish person demanding the government subsidise their personal electricity bills even though the price is too damn' high (okay, barring the Swedes who believe the govt. should pay for nuclear powerplants). It's entirely possible that a country full of fairly wealthy people can pay through the nose for electricity just like they can for healthcare or for fair trade coffee or locally produced food or whatever the hell else it is they've decided to love. If Norwegians can be happy with high taxes then it's entirely possible that German treehuggers can be happy with expensive electricity for a few more decades.
As for sacrifices, we don't know what the sacrifices are/must be, which makes it more difficult to make claims about which sacrifices will or won't be accepted. I mean, even Fuzzy refuses to prognosticate beyond a couple of years, so how much can we really know about the technological state of Germany twenty years from now?
And even if we know everything and are right about everything, we're talking about nothing more important than hypocrisy etc among German treehuggers. German hypocrisy is an insignificant subject wrt impact on any of our lives.
Speaking of nuclear power saving mankind, are we okay with every nation in the world having nuclear power?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"None" = "unknown"? News to me.
Which reminds me: You still did not make your point clear in the other thread. Must have been a moronic one then, if you can't cough it up.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
There were two parts two his post. He said that the number that can be attributed to Chernobyl is unknown (the implication is that it is greater than zero). He said that the number that could be attributed exclusively to disasters like a 9.0 level earthquake+tsunami (ie. barring human error and idiocy) was zero.
His overall claim is that deaths related to nuclear power can be attributed to inexcusable human error or outright idiocy. A natural objection to that claim is that you can't completely get rid of human error or idiocy. To which a natural response is that that's true of everything we do and at that point it becomes a discussion of acceptable risks and stakes. That discussion is inevitably hampered by disagreements about what constitutes an acceptable risk given a particular stake. Should we colonise space? Clearly we should.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote