Yes I was talking about the indirect consequences of nuclear power during the entire cycle of its life. I guess this is going to exist even with renewable sources of energy, there will always be some toxic emissions, either radioactive or direct and indirect carbon emissions. Do you feel there is an issue with safety, I doubt that you considering that technology has purportedly made the nuclear cycle a much safer process. Have you any concerns regarding safety?
I agree. You are perhaps right that an aggressive move away from the carbon economy is essential and could possibly fix the problem but it would need to be immediate. I unfortunately share your lack of faith also. You seem to be aware of our various energy options for future consumption. I beleieve that from mining to decommisioning the nuclear cycle as a whole causes far greater toxic emissions than the oil cycle, uyp to 70 per cent. Do you know if these emissions are offset by the gretaer efficiensy or safety of the nuclear option?
Sorry for bringing in discussion from other streams, thought they were all relevant to this discussion. It is absolutely true that we could quite easily feed every person on the planet should Wetsern leaders feel so inclined; I reserve little hope of this happening. We could infact feed, cloth and educate every person on the planet with a fraction of the United States' ridiculously out of proportion military budget. I misunderstood your comment as meaning that you were waiting on a technological fix to the climate change issue, quite embaressing for a so-called native English speaker. I don't think fixing it is really an option, I fear all we can do at this point is adapt to the change and hope that technology continues facilitating our ability to feed ourselves. Perhaps if we put an equal amount of resources or possibly more of the resources we have at our disposal for killing people into feeding, clothing and educating people we can be happier in our technological achievements.
It was not an argument from the environment that saw DDT banned worldwide, it was infact banned when it had been found in the breastmilk of Guatemalan women sprayed vociferously with the stuff. I assume when you say the ban of DDT caused millions of deaths you are referring to malaria epidemics. Malaria is easily treated if gluttonous drug manufacturers would only dish out the right vaccines for free. I know it is afoolish thing to say in this greed centred world, but I believe it nonetheless.
Waiting for a technological quick-fix is really foolish in my opinion. It may require a couple of billion people dying before technology catches up. Sure that is overpopulation sorted for a while, nonetheless the climate will still be fucked.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is humans who are impacting the climate. These changes can happen faster than most would think. The area known as Daggerland that used to connect Britian and Europe disappeared under the ocean within a single generation during the Mesolitihc period. That is by the way a Mesolithic generation, which constitutes about 20-30 years. People returned to resource rich land they had harvested (not agriculturally obviously) only to find that this land was gone.
The earliest artefacts that constitute writing, which for me would be the beginnings of 'history' are over 4000 years old from Mesopotamia, used to be Iraq, now it's a hole in the ground. Thanks America.
Sure most of this is difficult to interpret but does add knowledge to the archeological record. I would consider this the beginning of history. So I would double that initial 2000 year estimate, at least.
There is a problem that most people consider the Bible to be the oldest available writings.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I was talking about the indirect consequences of nuclear power during the entire cycle of its life. I guess this is going to exist even with renewable sources of energy, there will always be some toxic emissions, either radioactive or direct and indirect carbon emissions. Do you feel there is an issue with safety, I doubt that you considering that technology has purportedly made the nuclear cycle a much safer process. Have you any concerns regarding safety?
I agree. You are perhaps right that an aggressive move away from the carbon economy is essential and could possibly fix the problem but it would need to be immediate. I unfortunately share your lack of faith also. You seem to be aware of our various energy options for future consumption. I beleieve that from mining to decommisioning the nuclear cycle as a whole causes far greater toxic emissions than the oil cycle, uyp to 70 per cent. Do you know if these emissions are offset by the gretaer efficiensy or safety of the nuclear option?
Sorry for bringing in discussion from other streams, thought they were all relevant to this discussion. It is absolutely true that we could quite easily feed every person on the planet should Wetsern leaders feel so inclined; I reserve little hope of this happening. We could infact feed, cloth and educate every person on the planet with a fraction of the United States' ridiculously out of proportion military budget. I misunderstood your comment as meaning that you were waiting on a technological fix to the climate change issue, quite embaressing for a so-called native English speaker. I don't think fixing it is really an option, I fear all we can do at this point is adapt to the change and hope that technology continues facilitating our ability to feed ourselves. Perhaps if we put an equal amount of resources or possibly more of the resources we have at our disposal for killing people into feeding, clothing and educating people we can be happier in our technological achievements.
It was not an argument from the environment that saw DDT banned worldwide, it was infact banned when it had been found in the breastmilk of Guatemalan women sprayed vociferously with the stuff. I assume when you say the ban of DDT caused millions of deaths you are referring to malaria epidemics. Malaria is easily treated if gluttonous drug manufacturers would only dish out the right vaccines for free. I know it is afoolish thing to say in this greed centred world, but I believe it nonetheless.
Waiting for a technological quick-fix is really foolish in my opinion. It may require a couple of billion people dying before technology catches up. Sure that is overpopulation sorted for a while, nonetheless the climate will still be fucked. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is humans who are impacting the climate. These changes can happen faster than most would think. The area known as Daggerland that used to connect Britian and Europe disappeared under the ocean within a single generation during the Mesolitihc period. That is by the way a Mesolithic generation, which constitutes about 20-30 years. People returned to resource rich land they had harvested (not agriculturally obviously) only to find that this land was gone.
The earliest artefacts that constitute writing, which for me would be the beginnings of 'history' are over 4000 years old from Mesopotamia, used to be Iraq, now it's a hole in the ground. Thanks America. Sure most of this is difficult to interpret but does add knowledge to the archeological record. I would consider this the beginning of history. So I would double that initial 2000 year estimate, at least. There is a problem that most people consider the Bible to be the oldest available writings.