How long can we survive?

[occidentalis]

Rev:

why do we have to risk losing our future for your short term luxury?

As always Rev, well put.

[jasemateau]

this is a great thread, i'm dissapointed i found it so late.

i cant wait until energy is more affordable for your average joe.

just a couple of years ago i was working on a cruise ship and we were sailing around denmark on our way back to germany and i gotta mention that even though i cant remember were we were there was rows apon rows of wind turbines out there on the ocean!!!!!!!

it was one the most majestic visuals i'd experienced at sea.

i do remember it was'nt to far from shore. but fuck great place to put them.

and as i have said before in a previous thread, the oil rich sheks, have no idea what money is and it makes my blood boil knowing that every time i fill up my vehicle fuel tank, it goes into their pockets.

was'nt wille nelson touring the US in a bus powered by peanut oil?

as for the carbon pollutions, did anyone see the documentry on sbs about 10 days ago?

i was compleatly shocked, i had no idea what the conseqences were before watching it!!!

everyone has to do something

[woof woof woof]

yep everyone has to do their part. I am putting a cork in it, so I do not fart

Yesh Denmark - one of the places renowned for using their recources efficiently. I heard that they get @ 20% from wind energy.

I hear that Canada and the other Scandanaviancountries are ahead of the pack when it comes to green energy. http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm

Holland also has plans to buil Windmills offshore in the North Sea.

[ 27. June 2005, 23:43: Message edited by: brian ]

[Hagakure]

come on rev.

we need radioactive materials for medical and scientific reasons.

ever had an x-ray? this produces radioactive waste.

this waste can be stored in hospitals and universities where there is a higher potential for humans coming into contact and getting ill or a single dump can be made in an area where the potential for harm to environment and humans is at its minimum.

the issue of nulear power is completely removed from this. i am against nuclear power but i recognise that we need a stable place to store the waste from uses i have no moral objection to.

 

quote:

---

why do we have to risk losing our future for your short term luxury?

---

that statement is a load of bullshit in this debate. whose future is going to be lost because medical and scientific nuclear waste is stored in a stable environment rather than in areas where it can do more damage?

and how is the use of radioactive products for scientific and medical puposes a short term luxury?

saving lives is a bit of a luxury in terms of that person benefits and furture generations will only benefit indirectly (or be harmed if the indvidual is a dickhead). research though can have real benefits for future generations.

also saying science has to have a degree of bias is bullshit. most of it doesnt.

as for GM start another thread if you want to discuss that. if i get started here i may not stop :D

excuse spelling etc - pretty hazy from drinking last night

[ 28. June 2005, 04:31: Message edited by: Hagakure ]

[occidentalis]

Hagakure:

also saying science has to have a degree of bias is bullshit. most of it doesnt.

While much science does not have an overt political agenda (although some does), all science is carried out by people. All people view their world through a lens known as culture. The way that scientific experiments are interpreted can be influenced by the shape, thickness, and transparency of this cultural lens. Further, if we want to get all quantum, we can say that since an observer is an integral part of any experimental system, it is impossible for that observer to be objective. Just looking at the world changes it.

[Rev]

Hagakure

my broadest statemnets are in reference to the issue of nuclear power

I dont realy want to talk about GM food either... its been done to death and science has much to say either way so its all a matter of what constittutes 'acceptable risk' and whether it provides a "necessary gain" which leaves us nowhere closer to agreemnet

im not against either myself when used for experimental and medical research in scrutinised facilities

but i am solidly against upscaling and corporatisation of both because the system of limited liabilities and lack of transparency in governmnet or the corporate structures that will determine our fate inspire no trust from me

neither does the unfortunate fact that many people are imbeciles who dont understand the deeper consequences of their own actions- even the educated ones

bah - i must be getting old

Tho i see the benefit in medical radiolgy i think ts ironic that those who live so far away and have to travel a long way to get such services are being dumped with the storage problem against their will.

and the arguments in favour of medical radiology in no way are transferable to adopting nuclear power

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Hagakure:

also saying science has to have a degree of bias is bullshit. most of it doesnt.

Ironically, a scientific paper written on this issue recently indicates that most science is indeed biased. While only very few researchers actually admitted to falsifying results of tests, the majority indicated that they would skew the results by the design of the research or by selection of the test sample.

Given that many scientists would not admit to such behaviour even in anonymous questionaires, we must assume that there are far more such fraudulent and biased scientists.

A synopsis of the research was published in New Scientist, but surely the paper is available in full for those who are interested.

I think the role business funding plays in research these days will only make this worse and certainly the overseas scientific community has become quite cynical about this in the last decade. Australian scientists are just a little slow to catch on. But of more concern is the next step, which is lack of public confidence in scientific reports. While most people (incl you) are still happy to believe that science is unbiased, many others have already lost faith in the impartiality of science. This trust will be very difficult to win back and will take decades.

[waterdragon]

Torsten:

While most people (incl you) are still happy to believe that science is unbiased, many others have already lost faith in the impartiality of science. This trust will be very difficult to win back and will take decades.

'who pays the piper calls the tune' unfortunately. those who bow down to paper points are already paid for.

[Hagakure]

i cant find that article torsten - got a link?

it doesnt sound too worrying - bad scientists can falsify results (we have seen this with the anti drug field a lot) but science is also their undoing.

most of those bias drug experiments have been proved wrong via science.

the scientific fields i have seen the most of have no room for bias as its just not possible.

with genetics and other types of biology the results are very clear due to the nature of their investigation - it isnt possible to be bias

results can be tampered with i guess. i heard some top scientists dont even bother with controls with some experiments but thats not the full story. the truth is in a lot of biology experiments the proof is in the pudding.

say you were looking for a dna sequence a protein bound to. if you find it without controls or by ignoring perhaps some bad readings from the controls it doesnt matter if you find the sequence (this can be verified with another type of experiment)

this would fit the falsifying profile but as i said the proof is in the pudding.

i wouldnt get in a hiss over science as the majority is nothing to worry about and can provide answers for big problems.

so long as we are talking bias rev look over youur remarks with an open mind and compare them with the arguments for the dump.

i wont go through all of it again but recognise that a lot of your arguments are based on emotion and not fact. if it was shown that local communities would be affected in a negative way by the dump i would be against it but all of this has been considered in its design. "nuclear" is just one of those buzzwords that sets alarm bells off in the minds of somepeople like "GM". take each case on its merits i say

also everytime i see those anti nuclear waste dump stickers with the three headed kangaroos i think of similar tactics like that ecstacy poster with the brain scans.

unscientific scare tactics

this board sees through some bullshit but has areas of unfounded biasness like any other group in society. recognise it and remove it to get full picture.

[Torsten]

Hagakure - check the New Scientist site for the ref.

Maybe your scientific field is a little to narrow to get a good picture of the bias in science. Sure, in genetics, if it isn't there then it isn't there and eventually someone will work that out. Not so in medical trials, pollution analysis, climate modelling etc. Well, yes, the truth IS indeed there and eventually will be found, but the bias and outright lies keep us from the truth often for a decade or two by which time much damage has been done. Like when science told us DDT was safe, Prozac does not increase suicide rates, reefs will not die from sewage, dioxin will not persist in the environment, cadmium will not accumulate in sediment, mercury will not deposit in fish, etc etc. I don't know how old you are, but you are either too young to remember these lies that were maintained by corrupt science for decades, or you choose not to see them.

As for three headed kangaroos, I would suggest this is an exaggeration to make a point. If you look at any research done researching tumours in lifeforms downstream of nuclear power plants you will see what the 'joke' is trying to get at. In australia we have been lucky enough not to be exposed to this reality, but for europeans it is a fact of daily life. This is not the first radioactive waste dump in the world and as such we don't need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to understanding the consequences it can have.

[Hagakure]

im 20 so i didnt see those events unfold but i have read a bit about a few of them (the ddt big boss eating a sandwich with ddt paste in it to prove its safety comes to mind)

the fact that i am young and have not encountered scandals as big as those mentioned is perhaps proof lessons have been learnt from these mistakes.

funnily enough, now i think about it, the trend these days in terms of "science has lied to us" is this whole global warming issue supposedly a hoax.

havent read that michael crighton book "state of fear" yet but read some blogs by climate scientist who say he is misleading on some issues.

and on the topic of ddt apparently he fights for it in his book.

i dont know enough about either topic to really comment but i guess i tend to beleive the climate scientists rather than an author at this point in time.

and on the topic of tumours in downstream lifeforms - from that site

 

quote:

---

The best arguments for the establishment of a radioactive storage facility (in South Australia's far north) are environmental considerations, low rainfall, it is away from underground water, distant from population centres and has stable geology.

---

water has been considered

[ 04. July 2005, 15:48: Message edited by: Hagakure ]

[Hagakure]

and also remember that most people would think radiation can produce three headed kangaroos.

it may be an exaggeration of a point but the sheep will take it literally.

edit- can a picture be taken literally?

[ 04. July 2005, 15:51: Message edited by: Hagakure ]

[Torsten]

I think the exaggeration is importnt to point out the problem. If you have a poster with a fish that has 3 rice grain size tumours which he will die from a few months later then most people would not see the significance. Fish in nuclear plant colling water/effluent have been found with many mutations, including multiple organs, fins etc, so the three headed kangaroo isn't too far off.

I am aware they took water into account in the risk assessment. But they cannot give 100% guarantees for anything. Accidents happen. Circumstances change. Quite relevant here is an article published in an english journal, that many of the reactors and nuclear waste sites will be affected by rising sea levels. Some waste storage sites in the UK will need to be moved to prevent flooding and leakage. Nice price tag.

Interestingly, a feasibility study in the UK has put the cost of nuclear power at 3 times the current cost and this does not take into account insurance, accidents and waste processing/storage. I would have though these factors would amount to the bulk of the cost, so nuclear power appears to be incredibly expensive.

As for contemporary exmaples of biased science, the best example is the pharmaceutical industry. The latest such cover up would be the VIOX/CELEBREX data that was fudged, skewed and suppressed. Why do you think the authorities now require the registration of ALL trials, rather than just the reporting of those that fitted the desired results? Obviously there was a systemic problem. Sure, science fixed that problem to some extent now, but it took many decades of death and profiteering to get us there.

(and no, I do not agree with the hysteria about these drugs, but that does not excuse the deceptive science).

Another good example is the research done into kava and the circumstances surrounding its ban.

As for climate skeptics, I am glad that there are some, because it keep the discussion alive. Consensus science is a bad thing. Sadly most climate skeptics use generalisatiosn rather than specific data to try and make their point. In fact, when pressed for specific data they usually misquote or make it up. David Bellamy was recently caught out on doing just that and has been in the embarrassing position to have to admit his ignorance and apologise for his mistakes. He is now no longer a climate skeptic. Crighton is also very light on substance and should be viewed with similar skepticism. However, this does not mean there aren't good independent scientists who are climate skeptics and I think it is sad that many of them are being ignored.

As I said in a previous post, I personally agree with the global warming model, but accept that it may be wrong or at least flawed. My reason for supporting global warming remediation 100% is because I don't think we can afford to be wrong.

[bloodbob]

Just a few comments.

Number 1. I don't think anyone has said this but regardless nuclear power planets don't make radioactive waste. The crap in the ground is already radioactive we dig it out process chuck it in the reactor we take away some of the radioactive energy as is transmutes/fuses/splits ( lets ignore neutron capture) and we end up with something slightly less radioactive then we started with from the ground.

Number 2.

Tradational light water reactors are very wasteful on the fuel. They do a good job breaking down the u-235 but you can get to energy in the realtively stable u-238 by first transmuting it to plutonium ect ect. In theory we can get about 100 times more energy out of the fuel which would cut down on the waste and make better use out of the uranium we have. Also uranium is not the only fuel we can use there are uranium/thorium research breeder reactors ect.

[ 04. July 2005, 16:56: Message edited by: bloodbob ]

[darkstar]

Just a few comments.

Number 1. I don't think anyone has said this but regardless nuclear power planets don't make radioactive waste.

I almost fell off my chair when I read this!

I could site no end of facts/ literature disproving this statement, or resort to name calling, but I’ll just shake my head and wonder who you are working for!

IMHO whats in the ground is far more safe than what comes out of the core of a reactor, to say that the radiation is intensified is probably closer to the truth

I don’t like nuclear power, for many reasons & one reason is that it’s a continuity of the same mentality of leaving it for the future to deal with, that is why we have problems today.

Natural nuclear reactors (this is a trip!):

http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarde...elock_Oklo.html

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

There are some better sites about this out there but this was the best I could dig up.

More relevant to this topic, being uninclined towards violence, like most of you I hope, how would one STOP the mass of unprepared, starved, violent and armed individuals who would come out of the city’s, from taking your land, food and resources from you?

The logical solution would to be live in the middle of nowhere, but what other preventative actions are there?