Environment & Energy

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

37. I don't normally get into these wrangles

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:11 PM

Jan 2013

I take it from your comments that you are 100% in favour of the current global growth culture; see human needs as the sine qua non of all cost-benefit calculus; have no issues with giving human beings as much energy as they want to play with; and believe that the required organization and technical infrastructure will always be available to take care of these new reactors for as long as their normal dynamic stability might pose a risk.

Would I be right?

And in case you're inclined to this sort of mind-reading, I'll tell you up front that my answer to all of those questions is "no".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sky-High Radiation Found in Fukushima Fish [View all] xchrom Jan 2013 OP

More from the article: PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #1

When exactly is this going to be deemed a global threat? Wonder when the cancer rates will show mother earth Jan 2013 #2

One quick comment MAD Dave Jan 2013 #3

No Flaming but... PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #5

Fukushima Radiation Found In California Tuna PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #6

Many fish are migratory so the dilution is not going to help there flamingdem Jan 2013 #7

Sure it would. FBaggins Jan 2013 #62

That formula is only viable for a gamma point source. Sirveri Jan 2013 #10

Mercury is a different bird altogether. MAD Dave Jan 2013 #64

Sounds like you'd be a great help to the Japanese gov't...dump everything into the ocean, our work mother earth Jan 2013 #14

Was that really what was said? No. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #26

You are assuming that ocean currents don't exist and sea life does not move around. kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51

Rep. Markey wrote an excellent letter to NOAA and the FDA asking pertinent questions... PearliePoo2 Jan 2013 #4

Let's hope Markey continues his work from the Senate! He's great n/t flamingdem Jan 2013 #8

"Everybody RELAX." bvar22 Jan 2013 #9

No scientist is saying there's nothing to worry about. wtmusic Jan 2013 #11

Maybe, maybe not. bvar22 Jan 2013 #13

It may be true! PamW Jan 2013 #17

Sad, really chervilant Jan 2013 #22

A picture is worth a thousand words. PamW Jan 2013 #25

Condescension chervilant Jan 2013 #39

Pot calling the kettle black.. PamW Jan 2013 #41

Again? chervilant Jan 2013 #44

It's NOT presumption PamW Jan 2013 #46

OIC chervilant Jan 2013 #47

Why would I be lucky.. PamW Jan 2013 #48

Wow, Pam chervilant Jan 2013 #53

Bvar was correct kristopher Jan 2013 #56

Indeed chervilant Jan 2013 #57

WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Jan 2013 #59

Self-serving propaganda? chervilant Jan 2013 #63

Damn it, Kris - I said PWR!!! PamW Jan 2013 #58

You've been pitching that strawman for about a year now. - Correction FBaggins Jan 2013 #60

Straw man speaking there. Updated. longship Jan 2013 #27

Actually, YOUR post is the Strawman. bvar22 Jan 2013 #28

It didn't come off like that. longship Jan 2013 #29

Revisionist History - INCORRECT!!! PamW Jan 2013 #30

Well, you are selective in your history here. longship Jan 2013 #33

More REVISIONIST history PamW Jan 2013 #34

A Clarification longship Jan 2013 #35

If you don't like the response; don't make the mistake. PamW Jan 2013 #36

Mea culpa for my early morning post. longship Jan 2013 #38

Wonder how the fish survived? wtmusic Jan 2013 #12

Another WTF???!!? Adding radiation into the deadly mix isn't helping the planet or humanity. mother earth Jan 2013 #15

Perspective is important wtmusic Jan 2013 #16

Continuing the math.... PamW Jan 2013 #19

Maybe your number is applicable today, but the worst of it is yet to be realized IMHO. I think mother earth Jan 2013 #20

Whether people invest in solar, wind or nuclear, the profit motive is always involved wtmusic Jan 2013 #23

The risks for nuclear power are far too great, and the companies in charge of the sites are mother earth Jan 2013 #24

You've fallen for the anti-nuclear screed, hook, line, and sinker. PamW Jan 2013 #31

You forgot how "scientists" can be stifled & paid off, or must answer to the corporate sponsor or mother earth Jan 2013 #40

That's CRAP and you should know it. PamW Jan 2013 #42

BS, tell that to those that GWB enlisted for his agenda, climate deniers...sorry, YOU have it wrong. mother earth Jan 2013 #43

BALONEY!!! PamW Jan 2013 #45

Spare me your long winded comparisons & try to be succinct. You are writing off alternatives when mother earth Jan 2013 #49

Ignorance of Science doesn't cut it. PamW Jan 2013 #50

Alternative energy is within the realms of science. You are just being ignorant to say it isn't. mother earth Jan 2013 #52

Getting the physics and math right does matter... caraher Jan 2013 #54

McKay's presentation can be very misleading kristopher Jan 2013 #55

Thanks, kristopher caraher Jan 2013 #61

Perspective... PamW Jan 2013 #18

I probably have, but since this OT is about Fukushima, I didn't bring up these other issues as you mother earth Jan 2013 #21

Tradeoffs... PamW Jan 2013 #32

I don't normally get into these wrangles GliderGuider Jan 2013 #37