More on Durkin's

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

From the UK Independent


Lessons to be learnt from Channel 4 blunder

By Steve Connor

Published: 06 September 2007

The Independent

The BBC's decision to drop its climate change event is not the first time a major broadcaster has been accused of skewing the debate in favour of global warming deniers.

One of the most controversial programmes on the subject was transmitted by Channel 4 last March, and, littered with major errors and half-truths, it was one of the finest examples of how not to make a television documentary. The Great Global Warming Swindle suggested the public had been duped by scientists prepared to lie for the sake of gaining either fame or research funds and contained a string of mistakes, some of which have now been accepted by the programme's makers. The scientific accuracy of the film and how its makers treated the interviewees is also the subject of an Ofcom inquiry.

Channel 4 attempted to justify the programme's transmission on the grounds it had already given large amounts of air time to presenting the orthodox views of the scientific establishment on the issue. It was time, it said, to present the views of the heterodox community.

The argument sounded remarkably similar to the Channel 4 position in the early 1990s when it decided to transmit a series of documentaries claiming HIV was not the cause of Aids, and that the Aids epidemic in Africa was a myth put about by aid agencies in need of money.

Needless to say, Channel 4 has never apologised to the millions who have been infected with "harmless" Aids since.

Professor Carl Wunsch of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the scientists interviewed in The Great Global Warming Swindle, has complained that he was duped by the film-makers – a claim denied by Martin Durkin, whose company Wag TV made the documentary.

Professor Wunsch said the programme was grossly distorted and his own interview was edited to make it seem as if he supported a viewpoint he did not. More disastrously for Mr Durkin and Channel 4, however, is that the programme relied heavily on a series of graphs that were either wrong or flawed.

Mr Durkin claims the overall thrust of the film was unaffected by the errors but many impartial observers would disagree.

But where the programme really fell down is in what it left out. Much of the science that would have explained Mr Durkin's arguments was just not dealt with. It was a huge error of omission, something Channel 4 should have identified long before this disastrous programme was aired.

Also check out this video:

http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-austra...s-martin-durkin (http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin)

[Vanguard1917]

The BBC's decision to drop its climate change event is not the first time a major broadcaster has been accused of skewing the debate in favour of global warming deniers.

The suggestion that the BBC is somehow 'skewing the debate in favour of global warming deniers' is actually quite ridiculous. Like Frank Furedi pointed out in an article yesterday: "The notion that the BBC only presents the facts, rather than ‘raising public awareness’ about climate change, is contradicted by its record. Virtually every BBC news item on climate change comes across like a health warning about the impending catastrophe facing humanity. Anyone who watches BBC News will be left in no doubt that virtually every flood, earthquake, drought or unusual natural occurrence around the world is a direct consequence of global warming." (link (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3798/))

It is clear that if anyone is expressing the ideas of the establishment, it's the environmentalists.


Channel 4 attempted to justify the programme's transmission on the grounds it had already given large amounts of air time to presenting the orthodox views of the scientific establishment on the issue.

In fact, Durkin's documentary was sandwiched safely in between hours of programmes which followed the eco-consensus.

Whatever its faults and shortcomings, Durkin's documetary presented an alternative view to that which we are usually presented. Environmentalists got angry because it challenged their beliefs. Many also called for the documentary to be censored (while some Government officials have called for DVDs of Al Gore's An Inconvienient Truth to be sent to schools to teach kids about the 'facts'). Scientists who challenge the established view on climate change are compared to holocaust deniers.

So much for the environmentalists' so-called commitment to 'science'...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG, big improvement; six months ago you would hear no criticism of this execrabele documentary, and you bad-mouthed anyone who tried to point out it was a pack of lies.

Now you say:


Whatever its faults and shortcomings,

But, why did you not spot these "faults and shortcomings" yourself?

We did try to tell you.

But, we mustn't complain; at least you are on the mend...

[Vanguard1917]

I never made any claims about the scientific debate presented in the documentary, mainly because i'm not a natural scientist. I praised the programme for daring to question eco-orthodoxies and environmentalist politics.

And there are many scientists who question the man-made global warming thesis. When such people are compared to holocaust deniers, debate gets shut down.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


I never made any claims about the scientific debate presented in the documentary, mainly because i'm not a natural scientist. I praised the programme for daring to question eco-orthodoxies and environmentalist politics.

And now you have egg all over your face.


And there are many scientists who question the man-made global warming thesis.

But, far, far more who do the opposite.


When such people are compared to holocaust deniers, debate gets shut down

You should not be so sensitive.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hmm, I gotta say though, you can't claim that BBC is "skewing the debate in favor of global warming deniars". Have you seen the BBC documentary (a very beautiful one I might add) called Planet Earth?

It pretty much warns against global warming in a really theatening manner, and I agree with the sentiment of that show. Personally I believe global warming is not a myth but a truth, a truth that could have some devestating results not only on mankind but also on flora and fauna in general.

That show illustrates this in a really heart-warming manner, I recommend it.

[Vanguard1917]

This is a a political issue (about whether or not we support things like economic development, rapid and large-scale industrialisation in the developing world, agricultural progress, etc.). The environmentalists have consistently shown that they are on the side of reaction. I'd choose the side of Durkin anyday over the likes of Al Gore, Zac Goldsmith and George Monbiot.

[Led Zeppelin]

Environmentalists such as myself don't oppose industrialization in third-world countries, we support cutting down on pollution and emissions in the imperialist countries, while at the same time supporting the development of other renewable sources of energy. It is the capitalist monopolies like Shell which are holding back the development of such sources.

In a socialist world industrialization will be promoted globally to equalize material conditions, but at the same time we won't shy away from the development of new energy sources which are not polluting and which are renewable.

Of course if it was a progressive political issue to oppose global warming, we wouldn't expect someone like, say, the Bush regime to support it, now would we? They support it because they want to keep the corporations in their own countries happy, they don't support it because they like to see the third world industrialize.

Can you even point out an organization which calls for the third world to stop industrializing instead of calling on the imperialist nations to cut down on pollution and emissions?

[Vanguard1917]

Can you even point out an organization which calls for the third world to stop industrializing

If you're telling poor countries that they should use more renewable sources of energy, you're telling them that they should not be allowed to industrialise how they see fit. Because, at least now, a modern, advanced, industrial society cannot be powered by wind and solar power.

[Led Zeppelin]

I'm not telling poor countries to do that, I'm telling imperialist countries to do that, as they are responsible for most of the pollution.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:50 am

Can you even point out an organization which calls for the third world to stop industrializing

If you're telling poor countries that they should use more renewable sources of energy, you're telling them that they should not be allowed to industrialise how they see fit. Because, at least now, a modern, advanced, industrial society cannot be powered by wind and solar power.
None of the Green movement I have interacted with have ever said that.

All they propagate is the Industrialists not to pollute and destroy the livelihoods of poor people like Rivers. Have you ever heard of the Most polluted river in India Ganges ?

In some occasions they themselves are doing the cleaning work from the money they have raised as charity work.

The Industrialists don't care about the workers welfare because caring too much would reduce their profits. The Government and its Corrupt runners don't care about it because caring too much would reduce their income which is produced by the Industrialists.

Who do you support in the ground ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


I'd choose the side of Exxon, Shell and BP anyday over the likes of Al Gore, Zac Goldsmith and George Monbiot.

Er, sorry, my computer seems to have had a fit of honesty...

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 09, 2007 04:57 am--> (Vargha Poralli @ September 09, 2007 04:57 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 08:50 am

Can you even point out an organization which calls for the third world to stop industrializing

If you're telling poor countries that they should use more renewable sources of energy, you're telling them that they should not be allowed to industrialise how they see fit. Because, at least now, a modern, advanced, industrial society cannot be powered by wind and solar power.
None of the Green movement I have interacted with have ever said that. [/b]
I don't know which Greens you're interacting with, but all of the prominent Green groups in the West are calling on developing countries to employ more solar and wind power.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 09:07 am
VG 1917:


I'd choose the side of Exxon, Shell and BP anyday over the likes of Al Gore, Zac Goldsmith and George Monbiot.

Er, sorry, my computer seems to have had a fit of honesty...
This is based on some extremely stupid reasoning. Opposing environmentalists does not mean supporting oil companies.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+September 09, 2007 07:37 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ September 09, 2007 07:37 pm)
Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 09, 2007 04:57 am

[email protected] 09, 2007 08:50 am

Can you even point out an organization which calls for the third world to stop industrializing

If you're telling poor countries that they should use more renewable sources of energy, you're telling them that they should not be allowed to industrialise how they see fit. Because, at least now, a modern, advanced, industrial society cannot be powered by wind and solar power.
None of the Green movement I have interacted with have ever said that.
I don't know which Greens you're interacting with, but all of the prominent Green groups in the West are calling on developing countries to employ more solar and wind power. [/b]
Well the many are local level movements but also some international movements like Greenpeace and WWF. WWF is main sponsor for our local environment groups which had worked hard to de-toxify and deweed our cities water storage facilities(Ponds,Tanks and Lakes).


This is based on some extremely stupid reasoning.Opposing environmentalists does not mean supporting oil companies.

:rolleyes:

But in some way or another disregarding all facts all environmentalists are anti-workers ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


This is based on some extremely stupid reasoning. Opposing environmentalists does not mean supporting oil companies.

And opposing Durkin, and other mad Furedi-clones, and blaming global warming on CO2 (etc), does not mean support for petty-bourgeois greens, either.

So, if you do not like being branded a stooge of big capital, lay-off accusing us of the above.

[Vanguard1917]

Well the many are local level movements but also some international movements like Greenpeace and WWF.

Greenpeace and WWF are both promoting the use of solar and wind energy. They are also against nuclear power.


But in some way or another disregarding all facts all environmentalists are anti-workers ?

I mean that opposing environmentalists does not mean supporting oil companies, as the member above was trying to imply.

For example: i oppose religious campaigners against contraceptive pills. That doesn't mean that i support the practices of pharmaceutical companies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


For example: i oppose religious campaigners against contraceptive pills. That doesn't mean that i support the practices of pharmaceutical companies.

Same in reverse for those of us who blame global warming on capitalism.

[Vargha Poralli]

Greenpeace and WWF are both promoting the use of solar and wind energy.

Why is that a bad thing ? And they are just promoting - not forcing anybody to do it. Definitely not third world countries.


They are also against nuclear power.

I don't know about WWF. But Greenpeace has done a very reasonable job in opposing Nuclear testing - which I think is not beneficiary to the working class.

They might be wrong in Nuclear power generation balnketly - but there are certain concerns yet to be addressed. And almost every country which has Nuclear reactors does use them top produce Nuclear weapons. I find it particularly outrageous that Indian spends billions on Weapons when majority of its population starves. I would support Greenpeace in this issue.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know about WWF. But Greenpeace has done a very reasonable job in opposing Nuclear testing - which I think is not beneficiary to the working class.

If you're campaigning against coal, oil, nuclear power and hydroelectric power (environmentalists have consistently opposed the building of dams), and if you're campaigning for wind and solar power, then, for all intents and pusposes, what you're doing is campaigning against industrialisation. An industrial society needs to generate large amounts of energy - which cannot be provided by solar panels and wind turbines.


almost every country which has Nuclear reactors does use them top produce Nuclear weapons.

A country which produces steel can use that steel to produce military tanks. In fact, all sorts of technology and materials can be used for military pusposes. We should oppose the way that the technology is used, not the technology itself.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:55 pm

I don't know about WWF. But Greenpeace has done a very reasonable job in opposing Nuclear testing - which I think is not beneficiary to the working class.

If you're campaigning against coal, oil, nuclear power and hydroelectric power (environmentalists have consistently opposed the building of dams), and if you're campaigning for wind and solar power, then, for all intents and pusposes, what you're doing is campaigning against industrialisation. An industrial society needs to generate large amounts of energy - which cannot be provided by solar panels and wind turbines.

Which green organisation primarily campaigns against using those powers ?

India's primary energy supplier is Coal and Lignite which are abundant here. Dams are built whereever they are possible and still they contribute only to 20% of the Energy needs.

The primary opposition to Dam Constructions comes primarily from the farmers of the lower delta regions. It gets complex when it mixes with the Lingual and Regional differences.One Example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_River_Water_Dispute)

And the Narmada dam projedcts affects more people than it benefits. It is the affected people who are primarily fighting against the injustice met out to them not the Greens who are hell bent on destroying the civilisation as you know it <_< .

And the Nuclear power you celebrate much just contributes 2.6 % of the Energy needs in India. It has not grown because of Greenpeace but because India lacks uranium. US and other Imperialist nations have blockaded Uranium supply not because they are controlled by Green Conspiracy but because of the Nuclear testing Indian Government carries out in 1999.

And advacacy for Solar and Wind power &#33;= Forcing it.




almost every country which has Nuclear reactors does use them top produce Nuclear weapons.

A country which produces steel can use that steel to produce military tanks. In fact, all sorts of technology and materials can be used for military pusposes. We should oppose the way that the technology is used, not the technology itself.


Oh come up with an alternative way to do it then.

At least Greenpeace all it can to disrupt one French Nuclear weapon testing.

[Vanguard1917]

Which green organisation primarily campaigns against using those powers ?

Which environmentalist organisation does not?


And the Nuclear power you celebrate much just contributes 2.6 % of the Energy needs in India. It has not grown because of Greenpeace but because India lacks uranium. US and other Imperialist nations have blockaded Uranium supply not because they are controlled by Green Conspiracy but because of the Nuclear testing Indian Government carries out in 1999.

I didn&#39;t say that it was a &#39;Green Conspiracy&#39;. I said that environmentalists campaign against nuclear power. They are also against oil, coal and hydroelectric power. What they propose - wind and solar power - cannot meet the energy needs of industrialising countries. They are aware of this, which is why they&#39;re hostile to rapid and large-scale industrialisation in the developing world.


Oh come up with an alternative way to do it then.

The alternative is to campaign against militarism and war, not technological advance.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:53 pm

Which green organisation primarily campaigns against using those powers ?

Which environmentalist organisation does not?

As I have already said WWF and Greenpeace. And their mainstay of work had been against polluting industries and deforestation etc rather than opposing all forms of energy as you repeatedly assert without citing any sources.



And the Nuclear power you celebrate much just contributes 2.6 % of the Energy needs in India. It has not grown because of Greenpeace but because India lacks uranium. US and other Imperialist nations have blockaded Uranium supply not because they are controlled by Green Conspiracy but because of the Nuclear testing Indian Government carries out in 1999.

I didn&#39;t say that it was a &#39;Green Conspiracy&#39;. I said that environmentalists campaign against nuclear power. They are also against oil, coal and hydroelectric power. What they propose - wind and solar power - cannot meet the energy needs of industrialising countries. They are aware of this, which is why they&#39;re hostile to rapid and large-scale industrialisation in the developing world.

Seriously you have already said this and I have responded to them.

Don&#39;t just repeat what you have already typed. Respond to the argument I have provided.





Oh come up with an alternative way to do it then.

The alternative is to campaign against militarism and war, not technological advance.


Most of the Green Movements already do that.

Do you thinkg Greepeace opposition in French Nuclear testing is against militarism ?

Or Communist Left to opposition to Indian nuclear test is against militarism ?

You have created a myth - greens oppose technology and repeatedly saying it again and again. Which makes me wonder whetehr you think repitition is a proof or something.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 10, 2007 05:01 pm--> (Vargha Poralli @ September 10, 2007 05:01 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:53 pm

Which green organisation primarily campaigns against using those powers ?

Which environmentalist organisation does not?

As I have already said WWF and Greenpeace. [/b]
What are you talking about? Opposing nuclear power is central to the campaigns of groups like Greenpeace and WWF.

Greenpeace:

End the nuclear age (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear)

&#39;Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.&#39;


You have created a myth - greens oppose technology and repeatedly saying it again and again.

Well, the environmentalists that i know (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, as well as Green parties all over the world) oppose nuclear technology (as well as other technological developments, like biotechnology, intensive farming, and dams). Their opposition to nuclear weapons is incidental.

Clearly you don&#39;t know much about these groups.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


Opposing nuclear power is central to the campaigns of groups like Greenpeace and WWF.

Good for them.

Promoting nuclear power is something Big Captial has an interest in.

Funny how you line up with them yet again. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 10:22 pm
VG 1917:


Opposing nuclear power is central to the campaigns of groups like Greenpeace and WWF.

Good for them.
No not really. If we wanted to avoid a major cataclysm in our energy production we should have been building power plants years ago.


Promoting nuclear power is something Big Captial has an interest in.

Funny how you line up with them yet again. :rolleyes:

Oh come on Rosa, you can do better than a company you keep red herring. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 10:22 pm
VG 1917:


Opposing nuclear power is central to the campaigns of groups like Greenpeace and WWF.

Good for them.
Not when 2 billion people don&#39;t have access to electricity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


No not really. If we wanted to avoid a major cataclysm in our energy production we should have been building power plants years ago.

What cataclysm?

There&#39;s gigawatts of free energy we are just not harnessing, on top of the gazillions the capitalists are wasting (in war, competition, marketting, advertising, packaging, luxury consumption...).

Scrap all that, and no &#39;catclysm&#39;.


Oh come on Rosa, you can do better than a company you keep red herring.

Not where VG 1917 is concerned. He uses that slur to tar those of us who oppose the capaitalist system ruining the environment with his accusations that we are in bed with petty-bourgeois greens etc. He just refuses to believe we oppose it for genuine socialist reasons.

So, I am just throwing this back in his face.

Not a red herring then; more a slap in his face with a wet fish.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 10:50 pm
Jazzy:


No not really. If we wanted to avoid a major cataclysm in our energy production we should have been building power plants years ago.

What cataclysm?

The one where we run out of fossil fuels and find out that our renewable energy project isn&#39;t nearly advanced enough to cope with modern infrastructure. That cataclysm.


There&#39;s gigawatts of free energy we are just not harnessing,

Yeah, all that Uranium, Plutonium and Strontium just lying in the ground is a tragic waste.


on top of the gazillions the capitalists are wasting (in war, competition, marketting, advertising, packaging, luxury consumption...).

Scrap all that, and no &#39;catclysm&#39;.

The last couple of things are not going to be scrapped, not if I or any of my comrades have anything to do with it - packaging will still be required (especially on food), although not nearly as much and luxuries will still be desired, hell they&#39;ll be available to everyone.


Not where VG 1917 is concerned. He uses that slur to tar those of us who oppose the capaitalist system ruining the environment with his accusations that we are in bed with petty-bourgeois greens etc. He just refuses to believe we oppose it for genuine socialist reasons.

So, I am just throwing this back in his face.

Not a red herring then; more a slap in his face with a wet fish.

You make a fair point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


The one where we run out of fossil fuels and find out that our renewable energy project isn&#39;t nearly advanced enough to cope with modern infrastructure. That cataclysm.

Well you are too young to know this, but they were predicting we&#39;d run out of fossil fuels by the mid-1980&#39;s when I was just a bit younger than you.

And there&#39;d be much less of a &#39;problem&#39; if the waste in the system was corrected (as I noted in my last post).


Yeah, all that Uranium, Plutonium and Strontium just lying in the ground is a tragic waste.

Not needed --, and it&#39;s hightly dangerous.


The last couple of things are not going to be scrapped, not if I or any of my comrades have anything to do with it - packaging will still be required (especially on food), although not nearly as much and luxuries will still be desired, hell they&#39;ll be available to everyone

You need to start thinking creatively, and stop drawing reformist conclusions.

[Vanguard1917]

Not needed --, and it&#39;s hightly dangerous.

What&#39;s the alternative?

[Vanguard1917]

He uses that slur to tar those of us who oppose the capaitalist system ruining the environment with his accusations that we are in bed with petty-bourgeois greens etc. He just refuses to believe we oppose it for genuine socialist reasons.

There are no &#39;genuine socialist reasons&#39; for opposing mass, large-scale industrialisation in the developing world, which the environmentalists are doing by opposing oil, coal and nuclear power.

Socialists have always been the most enthusiastic advocates of industrial development.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 11:10 pm
Jazzy:


The one where we run out of fossil fuels and find out that our renewable energy project isn&#39;t nearly advanced enough to cope with modern infrastructure. That cataclysm.

Well you are too young to know this, but they were predicting we&#39;d run out of fossil fuels by the mid-1980&#39;s when I was just a bit younger than you.
I knew about that, obviously not first hand. They used poor methods and overly pessimistic calculations.


And there&#39;d be much less of a &#39;problem&#39; if the waste in the system was corrected (as I noted in my last post).

Clearly.


Not needed --, and it&#39;s hightly dangerous.

Not if proper safety procedure is followed, modern reactors are really impressively safe. Plus you should consider that a gram of Uranium is going to be able to power a small town for centuries (and that&#39;s being really conservative.). Considering we have enough Uranium to keep us going for Millennia and when that&#39;s done we can use Strontium.

Nuclear is also far better than systems that rely on unpredictable circumstances (such as wind power).


You need to start thinking creatively, and stop drawing reformist conclusions.

There is nothing revolutionary about a world devoid of luxuries where everyone has to consume food fairly sharpish because there is no packaging for it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


What&#39;s the alternative?

Burn all the old copies of LM, and &#39;The Next Step&#39;, plus all of Furedi&#39;s books.


There are no &#39;genuine socialist reasons&#39; for opposing mass, large-scale industrialisation in the developing world, which the environmentalists are doing by opposing oil, coal and nuclear power.

Socialists have always been the most enthusiastic advocates of industrial development.

And there are no genuine socialist reasons for arguing the way you do: just the interests of Big Capital.

Now, we can do this all day long if you want.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


They used poor methods and overly pessimistic calculations.

And in 50 years time, I can justy see a Jazzy of the future saying the same thing.

I have seen far too many of these failed, formerly &#39;cast iron&#39;, predictions to take a single one seriously.

I suggest you do the same.


Not if proper safety procedure is followed, modern reactors are really impressively safe. Plus you should consider that a gram of Uranium is going to be able to power a small town for centuries (and that&#39;s being really conservative.). Considering we have enough Uranium to keep us going for Millennia and when that&#39;s done we can use Strontium.

Nuclear is also far better than systems that rely on unpredictable circumstances (such as wind power).

No such thing as safe nuclear.

And it is not the cheapest.


There is nothing revolutionary about a world devoid of luxuries where everyone has to consume food fairly sharpish because there is no packaging for it.

There is nothing socialist about such waste either.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 11:35 pm
VG 1917:


What&#39;s the alternative?

Burn all the old copies of LM, and &#39;The Next Step&#39;, plus all of Furedi&#39;s books.


There are no &#39;genuine socialist reasons&#39; for opposing mass, large-scale industrialisation in the developing world, which the environmentalists are doing by opposing oil, coal and nuclear power.

Socialists have always been the most enthusiastic advocates of industrial development.

And there are no genuine socialist reasons for arguing the way you do: just the interests of Big Capital.

Now, we can do this all day long if you want.
Aren&#39;t you a grown, middle-aged woman? Maybe it&#39;s time to start showing some maturity...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 10, 2007 11:39 pm
Jazzy:


They used poor methods and overly pessimistic calculations.

And in 50 years time, I can justy see a Jazzy of the future saying the same thing.

You can "justy" see what you want. It doesn&#39;t change the fact that, especially with the closing of many coal mines around the world and the dwindling supply of oil one day we will have to consider a better source of fuel.


I have seen far too many of these failed, formerly &#39;cast iron&#39;, predictions to take a single one seriously.

I suggest you do the same.

It&#39;s better to judge these predictions on their merits rather than to reject them needlessly out of hand - research it a little for yourself. One day you may find yourself chucking the baby out with the bath water.


No such thing as safe nuclear.

And here I was thinking you&#39;d have a compelling argument against nuclear power...sigh.

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/cartoon.jpg

(I hope you understand what I&#39;m implying with the image)


And it is not the cheapest.

Irrelevant. It is the most efficient (in terms of kilometres per kilowatt-hours)


There is nothing socialist about such waste either.

Then why are you suggesting that wanting to keep luxuries and some packaging is "reformist"?

[thewoodcutter]

nuclear the most efficient? for whom? its not as if uranium supplies are uniform throughout the globe, and how will uranium be transported without petroleum supplies? solar and wind on the other hand are somewhat more ubiquitous. renewable technologies have a long way to go, which is why we need to start developing them (on a larger scale) immediately.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917, sticking to the point onece more:


Aren&#39;t you a grown, middle-aged woman? Maybe it&#39;s time to start showing some maturity...

Aren&#39;t yopu a supporter of Big Capital.

Isn&#39;t it time you showed us a clean pair of heels...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


You can "justy" see what you want. It doesn&#39;t change the fact that, especially with the closing of many coal mines around the world and the dwindling supply of oil one day we will have to consider a better source of fuel.

Looks like you have swallowed the &#39;official&#39; story. And I thought you anarchists waved two fingers at authority.


It&#39;s better to judge these predictions on their merits rather than to reject them needlessly out of hand - research it a little for yourself. One day you may find yourself chucking the baby out with the bath water.

Not so; the evidence so far tells us that these &#39;predictions&#39; are not worth the paper they were printed on.


I hope you understand what I&#39;m implying with the image

Yes, I think the message is "Jazzy prefers cartoons to genuine evidence."


Irrelevant. It is the most efficient (in terms of kilometres per kilowatt-hours)

Not if you fiddle the figures.


Then why are you suggesting that wanting to keep luxuries and some packaging is "reformist"?

On the grounds that, if you do not want to change the system, then at least we can be made to feel comfortable with our oppression.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 10:07 am
Looks like you have swallowed the &#39;official&#39; story. And I thought you anarchists waved two fingers at authority.
Even if there is no catastrophic loss of fossil fuels, there is still the issue of global warming and pollution. If we carry on simply belching fuck knows what toxins into the atmosphere we&#39;re completely fucking screwed.


Yes, I think the message is "Jazzy prefers cartoons to genuine evidence."

Close, but no cigar. I was pointing out that your comment on nuclear power&#39;s safety was completely asinine as everything is "unsafe". I know you like your Fear Uncertainty and Doubt Rosie but don&#39;t you find it a bit dishonest?


Not if you fiddle the figures.

Doesn&#39;t "fiddle" imply dishonesty?


On the grounds that, if you do not want to change the system, then at least we can be made to feel comfortable with our oppression.

I think you&#39;ve hit a major flaw there.

"If you do not want to change the system..."

And if I do want to change it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


Even if there is no catastrophic loss of fossil fuels, there is still the issue of global warming and pollution. If we carry on simply belching fuck knows what toxins into the atmosphere we&#39;re completely fucking screwed.

I agree; but nuclear is no solution.


I was pointing out that your comment on nuclear power&#39;s safety was completely asinine as everything is "unsafe". I know you like your Fear Uncertainty and Doubt Rosie but don&#39;t you find it a bit dishonest?

No, I did not find your comment at all dishonest. :)

And a domestic cat and a tiger are both &#39;unsafe&#39;, but I know which is the worse.

Same with nuclear.


Doesn&#39;t "fiddle" imply dishonesty?

Too right it does.


I think you&#39;ve hit a major flaw there.

"If you do not want to change the system..."

And if I do want to change it?

I know you do, that is why I posed you that dilemma.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 12:19 pm
I agree; but nuclear is no solution.
It&#39;s a damn good solution, what with the fact it releases next to no greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide equivalents, coupled with its unparalleled energy potential. If nuclear is no answer I don&#39;t know what is.

Wind? Don&#39;t make me laugh. Aside from relying on what can essentially be described as a random process (of course it isn&#39;t at all random, but we do not understand enough about it to think of anything else) it is also intensely wasteful in terms of land space required. Even if you do find enough space to put up the massive wind farms required for advanced infrastructure the turbines themselves will require near constant work to maintain them- as they are fairly prone to seizing up.

Solar? No dice again I&#39;m afraid. A surer bet than wind but still subject to weather. The intense amounts of mining and building required to make the kilometres of solar panels that we&#39;ll need will be disastrous to the environment. The only way to efficiently use solar panels would be to make orbital power stations that can collect solar energy directly from the sun without our bothersome atmosphere in the way and to do that you&#39;ll require energy and technology.

Any other suggestions?


And a domestic cat and a tiger are both &#39;unsafe&#39;, but I know which is the worse.

Same with nuclear.

Nuclear energy is only feared by people because it is relatively recent and advanced technology but the fear is entirely irrational. The average greenpeace activist making their way to a protest a nuclear power plant is in more danger from the journey than they&#39;ll ever be from the power plant.

I feel you&#39;re going to bring up some ridiculous scare stories about nuclear power plants but before you do that consider the study done by the Paul-Scherrer Institute on deaths per Terrawatt-Year according to each type of energy production between 1969 and 1996 (a total of fifty years):

Nuclear 8
Natural gas 85
Coal 342
Oil 418
Hydroelectric 884
LPG 3280

I don&#39;t know about you but I would feel safer (more than ten times safer in fact) working in a nuclear power plant than in a natural gas plant (the next safest).

Consider also that the only truly disastrous meltdown occurred in a powerplant that had inadequate safety measures, was operating at far above the recommended capacity and had most of the safety measures deliberately turned off. Consider also that, according to The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the Chernobyl Forum have found that (as of 2004) the death toll from this particular meltdown stands at 56 (including 16 deaths that occurred up to 2 decades after the event and 9 deaths from complications in adolescent thyroid cancer in the surrounding are [and those may not even all be related to the meltdown so the numbers could be slightly inflated]). Compare that to the number of coal miners that have died from black lung and other such problems.

Still afraid?


Too right it does.

So basically saying you would be dishonest in order to discredit nuclear energy? :huh:


I know you do, that is why I posed you that dilemma.

There is no dilemma. Keeping the luxuries of this system and advancing to another one are not mutually exclusive.

[Outmoded]

Spot-on, Jazzratt. People need to get over the Nuclear Spectre and realise it&#39;s a very viable solution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


It&#39;s a damn good solution, what with the fact it releases next to no greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide equivalents, coupled with its unparalleled energy potential. If nuclear is no answer I don&#39;t know what is.

Well, if repetition were proof, you&#39;d win.

But alas it isn&#39;t.


Any other suggestions?

In addition to the options you (superfically) rubbished, and in addition to cutting waste: waves, tidal, geo-thermal, hydro-electric, cleaner burn coal...

http://home.utah.edu/~ptt25660/tran.html


Nuclear energy is only feared by people because it is relatively recent and advanced technology but the fear is entirely irrational. The average greenpeace activist making their way to a protest a nuclear power plant is in more danger from the journey than they&#39;ll ever be from the power plant.

Comforting words, but not comforting enough. One accident will far outweigh anything humanity has so far seen.

It&#39;s too much to risk, given the other options.

That takes care of these bogus figures:


I feel you&#39;re going to bring up some ridiculous scare stories about nuclear power plants but before you do that consider the study done by the Paul-Scherrer Institute on deaths per Terrawatt-Year according to each type of energy production between 1969 and 1996 (a total of fifty years):

Nuclear 8
Natural gas 85
Coal 342
Oil 418
Hydroelectric 884
LPG 3280

I note you left out all the deaths caused by Chernobyl, and the many cancer deaths this &#39;clean&#39; power source has caused.

Oh, but perhaps you haven&#39;t:


Consider also that the only truly disastrous meltdown occurred in a powerplant that had inadequate safety measures, was operating at far above the recommended capacity and had most of the safety measures deliberately turned off. Consider also that, according to The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the Chernobyl Forum have found that (as of 2004) the death toll from this particular meltdown stands at 56 (including 16 deaths that occurred up to 2 decades after the event and 9 deaths from complications in adolescent thyroid cancer in the surrounding are [and those may not even all be related to the meltdown so the numbers could be slightly inflated]). Compare that to the number of coal miners that have died from black lung and other such problems.

Check this out, then:


Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.

Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.

The real face of the nuclear industry

Each one of these statistics has a face. Many people are paying a price for the negligence of a dirty and dangerous industry...:

You can see the pictures of those killed and made terminally ill by this &#39;safe&#39; power source on that page.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...-deaths-180406# (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406#)

Perhaps you want more...


Still afraid?

Still believing official figures -- I thought you were an anarchist?


So basically saying you would be dishonest in order to discredit nuclear energy?

Well, no more than you are by believing figures put out by Big Capital.

I prefer to believe the worst of their rotten system.

But, perhaps that is where we are different.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Outmoded -- good name.

Except, I&#39;d now think of changing it to "Out-fought".

[Vanguard1917]

Nuclear energy is only feared by people because it is relatively recent and advanced technology but the fear is entirely irrational. The average greenpeace activist making their way to a protest a nuclear power plant is in more danger from the journey than they&#39;ll ever be from the power plant.

Indeed. Good post.

The irrationalism surrounding nuclear power fears is immense. And the way that the anti-nuclear lobby likes to use and re-use the example of Chernobyl shows that they have no respect for rational debate. In the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl is the only serious fatal accident that the environmentalists can point to. Like this article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/46/) puts it, &#39;they have taken the exception and made it the rule.&#39;

Also, i think that one of the environmentalists&#39; main worries is that the expansion of nuclear power will help fuel greater economic development around the world, which they are against. They&#39;re fully aware that solar and wind enegry cannot power an advanced industrial society. So they&#39;re against large-scale industrialisation in the developing world. Rather than a radical increase in energy supply, environmentalists propose cuts in consumption and economic growth. (Being one of the first social movements in history that promises humanity less things rather than more.)

[Vargha Poralli]

What are you talking about? Opposing nuclear power is central to the campaigns of groups like Greenpeace and WWF.

Greenpeace:

End the nuclear age

&#39;Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.&#39;

Well what have they done to make it practical ?

All they are doing is just campaigning against it. They shout loud enough for people hear their argument.

And there is some points that they make which are never addressed by the establishments

They gained prominence through their unconditional opposition to Nuclear weapon testing.


Well, the environmentalists that i know (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF, as well as Green parties all over the world) oppose nuclear technology (as well as other technological developments, like biotechnology, intensive farming, and dams). Their opposition to nuclear weapons is incidental.



Nuclear technology&#39;s opposition has some legitimate reasons I have already provided.

Biotechnology - Not everything except GM crops. The reason the oppose them is also valid IMO.

Intensive Farming - I would like to produce a citation.

dams - Already have cited some legitimate reasons.


Clearly you don&#39;t know much about these groups.

http://www.hickorymanor.biz/French-Curved-Mirror-7133F-.gif


You know you are talking about yourself.


********************************

Rosa

I think blanket condemning of Nuclear energy is not constructive.

One way to deal with the wastes is to recycle them . Uranium wastes can be used to produce Plutonium which in turn can be used as a fuel.

All other radioactive wastes have a half life. They lose their toxic radioactivity over a period of time. After that they could be safely displaced. But the problem here is that the Half Lifes happen in the span of 300 - 400 years.

The Nuclear club countries manage this right now because the Nuclear power is not much widespread. On the global level if Nuclear power is to fully replace fossil fuels then I have no idea how we are going to manage these wastes.

The very sad fact is that nothing could replace Fossil Fuels as an efficient energy source right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG 1917:


The irrationalism surrounding nuclear power fears is immense. And the way that the anti-nuclear lobby likes to use and re-use the example of Chernobyl shows that they have no respect for rational debate. In the history of nuclear power, Chernobyl is the only serious fatal accident that the environmentalists can point to. Like this article puts it, &#39;they have taken the exception and made it the rule.&#39;

The irrationalism surround the case that both Big Capital and you support is even worse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VP, I disagree.

And for the reasons I said.

[I did not in fact mention nuclear waste.]

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 03:44 pm
Well, if repetition were proof, you&#39;d win.

But alas it isn&#39;t.
You do know the basics of how a nuclear power plant works, the energy-to-fuel ratio and so on, right?


In addition to the options you (superfically) rubbished,

If the rubbishing was so superficial I&#39;m surprised you&#39;ve not refuted it.


and in addition to cutting waste: waves, tidal,

Only viable amongst coastal communities, nowhere near as productive as you hope.


geo-thermal,

Fucking hell, do people still chase after that crap? I thought it was pretty much established as a non-starter before I was born.


hydro-electric,

Fucking dangerous, 884 deaths per Terrawatt-hour is not a price I want to pay for electricity. Plus it can be an environmental nightmare.


cleaner burn coal...

Why? You&#39;ll still not get nearly as much energy.


Comforting words, but not comforting enough. One accident will far outweigh anything humanity has so far seen.

:lol: Yeah, and boogeyman&#39;s going to come and eat you all up tonight.

For a start the reactor core (in everything except the old RBMKs (which were only used in Russia anyway) is encased in a fuck off great structure of steel and concrete which is thick enough not only to resist jet liner impacts but also to absorb gamma and neutron radiation. It works pretty much on two simple engineering principals - firstly that a passive safety measure (in this case six foot of concrete) is better than an active one (active ones can, and often do, malfunction) and secondly that simplicity is the key to safety and there is nothing simpler than simply encasing the dangerous part in a hench structure. You could have two Chernobyls in a modern reactor and no one on the outside would notice.


It&#39;s too much to risk, given the other options.

No, I disagree. The payoff for the relatively minor risks far outweighs any criticisms I&#39;ve seen of it.


That takes care of these bogus figures:


I feel you&#39;re going to bring up some ridiculous scare stories about nuclear power plants but before you do that consider the study done by the Paul-Scherrer Institute on deaths per Terrawatt-Year according to each type of energy production between 1969 and 1996 (a total of fifty years):

Nuclear 8
Natural gas 85
Coal 342
Oil 418
Hydroelectric 884
LPG 3280

I note you left out all the deaths caused by Chernobyl, and the many cancer deaths this &#39;clean&#39; power source has caused.

All 56 of the deaths in Chernobyl? You&#39;re right that statistic doesn&#39;t take those into account as it is measuring only civil power stations. If it included Chernobyl Nuclear would still come out on top.


Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.

Oh dear, that&#39;s already a bad start. The only increase in cancer in the area near Chernobyl was thyroid cancer, which was partially related to an increase in radiation but mostly by a lack of iodine in the diet of the locals thanks to poor economic conditions. The actual numbers should be 4000 cancer cases and 9 fatal cancers.

No increase in leukaemia was observed in the public or the workers, despite the expectation that it would be the most likely indicator of high radiation dosage. There is no scientific evidence of an increase in other cancers as of yet due to ionising radiation.


Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

From the sounds of it this started unscientifically - made deliberately to find the numbers Greenpeace wanted. It wouldn&#39;t be the first time.


The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

I would like to know how they came by these numbers because it&#39;s a fucking huge leap from these fantastic figures to the actual ones. I&#39;d especially like to know how these "52 respected scientists" had access to data that was not only (apparently) unavailable to the IAEA but also the WHO. It&#39;s also ridiculous to talk in terms of 15 years, considering the harshest of the fallout dissipated within five years.


The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.

I&#39;d like to know why these diseases haven&#39;t affected the local wildlife, and why there is a flourishing nature reserve in the area around Chernobyl, often described by cranks like you as a "radioactive dead zone".


You can see the pictures of those killed and made terminally ill by this &#39;safe&#39; power source on that page.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...-deaths-180406# (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406#)


My heart bleeds.


Perhaps you want more...

Credible evidence would be lovely.


Still believing official figures -- I thought you were an anarchist?

That doesn&#39;t mean I leave my common sense at the door and rail against every societal bogeyman that rears its head.


Well, no more than you are by believing figures put out by Big Capital.

I prefer to believe the worst of their rotten system.

But, perhaps that is where we are different.

You can believe what you want about the capitalist system that&#39;s irrelevant. However I would rather listen to a nuclear engineer than a bunch of crackpots like Green Peace.

Capitalism and Fission have fuck all to do with each other and if we do not have fusion technology post-revolution I sincerely hope we still have Fission.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


You do know the basics of how a nuclear power plant works, the energy-to-fuel ratio and so on, right?

I have a degree in mathematics.


If the rubbishing was so superficial I&#39;m surprised you&#39;ve not refuted it.

I am even more surprised you posted them.


Only viable amongst coastal communities, nowhere near as productive as you hope.

Fucking hell, do people still chase after that crap? I thought it was pretty much established as a non-starter before I was born.

Fucking dangerous, 884 deaths per Terrawatt-hour is not a price I want to pay for electricity. Plus it can be an environmental nightmare.

Why? You&#39;ll still not get nearly as much energy.

All dealt with in that link I posted.


For a start the reactor core (in everything except the old RBMKs (which were only used in Russia anyway) is encased in a fuck off great structure of steel and concrete which is thick enough not only to resist jet liner impacts but also to absorb gamma and neutron radiation. It works pretty much on two simple engineering principals - firstly that a passive safety measure (in this case six foot of concrete) is better than an active one (active ones can, and often do, malfunction) and secondly that simplicity is the key to safety and there is nothing simpler than simply encasing the dangerous part in a hench structure. You could have two Chernobyls in a modern reactor and no one on the outside would notice.

Wise after the event, I think they call this.


Oh dear, that&#39;s already a bad start. The only increase in cancer in the area near Chernobyl was thyroid cancer, which was partially related to an increase in radiation but mostly by a lack of iodine in the diet of the locals thanks to poor economic conditions. The actual numbers should be 4000 cancer cases and 9 fatal cancers.

No increase in leukaemia was observed in the public or the workers, despite the expectation that it would be the most likely indicator of high radiation dosage. There is no scientific evidence of an increase in other cancers as of yet due to ionising radiation.


QUOTE
Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

From the sounds of it this started unscientifically - made deliberately to find the numbers Greenpeace wanted. It wouldn&#39;t be the first time.

QUOTE
The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

I would like to know how they came by these numbers because it&#39;s a fucking huge leap from these fantastic figures to the actual ones. I&#39;d especially like to know how these "52 respected scientists" had access to data that was not only (apparently) unavailable to the IAEA but also the WHO. It&#39;s also ridiculous to talk in terms of 15 years, considering the harshest of the fallout dissipated within five years.

QUOTE
The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.


I&#39;d like to know why these diseases haven&#39;t affected the local wildlife, and why there is a flourishing nature reserve in the area around Chernobyl, often described by cranks like you as a "radioactive dead zone".

Looks like you have rubished this report before you read it.


My heart bleeds.

Jazzy, I did not take you for a heartless bastard. :o


Credible evidence would be lovely.

Ditto yours.


That doesn&#39;t mean I leave my common sense at the door and rail against every societal bogeyman that rears its head.

But still you accept the &#39;official&#39; view.

Funny that... :rolleyes:


You can believe what you want about the capitalist system that&#39;s irrelevant. However I would rather listen to a nuclear engineer than a bunch of crackpots like Green Peace.

Capitalism and Fission have fuck all to do with each other and if we do not have fusion technology post-revolution I sincerely hope we still have Fission.

So, you are &#39;listening&#39; to only one nuclear engineer, eh? :o

Now why does that not surprise me? :)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 11, 2007 06:03 pm
Jazzy:


You do know the basics of how a nuclear power plant works, the energy-to-fuel ratio and so on, right?

I have a degree in mathematics.
So you know how many Gigawatt-hours a nuclear reactor produces.


Looks like you have rubished this report before you read it.

It was simultaneous.


Jazzy, I did not take you for a heartless bastard. :o

Whatever I feel for the people killed and injured in the accident is irrelevant and posting their pictures is not only a shallow appeal to emotion but highly disrespectful.


Ditto yours.

More credible than the IAEA?


But still you accept the &#39;official&#39; view.

Funny that... :rolleyes:

I&#39;ve seen no credible evidence that any other story is correct and even less that shows the &#39;official&#39; story to be false.


So, you are &#39;listening&#39; to only one nuclear engineer, eh? :o

Now why does that not surprise me? :)

Currently I&#39;m not "listening" to anyone aside from The Rolling Stones but they seem reticent to add anything to this argument one way or the other.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


So you know how many Gigawatt-hours a nuclear reactor produces.

So, you seem to think they are all the same size.


It was simultaneous.

Based on your comments, I think what you really meant to say here is: "My comments were invented, and I still haven&#39;t read it&#39;.


Whatever I feel for the people killed and injured in the accident is irrelevant and posting their pictures is not only a shallow appeal to emotion but highly disrespectful.

In other words, real human disaster gets in the way of you trying to sell us &#39;safe&#39; power.

Next time you tell us about gays murdered in Iran, I do not think you will appreciate it if I respond as you have done to the deaths of these poor sods. [Not that I would; I am not a heartless bastard.]


More credible than the IAEA?

In view of the fact that they are hardly &#39;independent&#39;: then, yes.


I&#39;ve seen no credible evidence that any other story is correct and even less that shows the &#39;official&#39; story to be false.

And by &#39;credible&#39;, it is clear you mean &#39;anything that agrees with the stuff Big Capital puts out&#39;.


Currently I&#39;m not "listening" to anyone aside from The Rolling Stones but they seem reticent to add anything to this argument one way or the other.

I am glad you have chosen a superior source of information over the last shower you naively capitulated to.

Yep, the Rolling Stones are a step in the right direction.

[Jazzratt]

Oh deary me Rosie, it looks like you&#39;ve run out of actual points to make.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jazzy:


Oh deary me Rosie, it looks like you&#39;ve run out of actual points to make

Yes, about 10 miniutes after you, I think. :)

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:35 pm
Oh deary me Rosie, it looks like you&#39;ve run out of actual points to make.

&#39;Run out&#39;?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Silence please&#33;

And now, over to our very own spokesperson for Big Capital, VG:


&#39;Run out&#39;?

I appreciate you trying to put Jazzy to rights, but he is quite right, I had run out of ways of exposing your support for the likes of Exxon.

No worries; I&#39;ll just move onto Shell, and then Texaco, and then...

[Vanguard1917]

How pathetic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG (and straight from Shell House):


How pathetic.

You are asking me, about you? That&#39;s very magnanimous.

Well, off the top of my head: er..., well, I think you are way beyond pathetic.

I&#39;d rather use &#39;mendacious&#39;.

Or perhaps even: &#39;class traitor&#39;.

Have a nice fume... :)

[Vanguard1917]

Like a ten year old with a thesaurus.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG:


Like a ten year old with a thesaurus.

In fact I am nothing like you, thank goodness.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Rosa, going on and on about Chernobyl is a red herring of the highest order. Not only is the design not used outside Russia (And current designs have been altered in order to prevent such accidents in the future) but some safety features that were present in the reactor were deliberately disabled.

Modern reactor designs have multiple safety features and failsafes, and in the plants themselves safety is a high priority. The following link should give you some insight as to what goes on in a nuclear power plant.

"Nothing like this will be built again" (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/rant/torness.html)

And that&#39;s a damn shame.

As for nuclear power being the darling of the ruling class... evidence please? And even if it is, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that nuclear power will be necessary in the future.


on top of the gazillions the capitalists are wasting (in war, competition, marketting, advertising, packaging, luxury consumption...).

Scrap all that, and no &#39;catclysm&#39;.

And just what makes you think that capitalism will be abolished before the energy crisis is upon us?

The oil doesn&#39;t have to "run out" for civilisation on this planet to be fucked, it merely has to cost more energy in extracting it than you get in burning it. It might not be easy to predict just when oil will "peak" but once that happens, we are all screwed. That&#39;s why it is vitally important that we get our fissionable economy up to speed before our oil economy becomes unviable, because once we have a fissionable economy up and running, the "peak" for that kind of fuel will be centuries away at least due to the high energy density inherent in nuclear fuels (In other words, more bang for your buck thanks to atomic-level reactions being more energetic than chemical reactions - that&#39;s why a nuclear bomb is so much more powerful than a conventional explosive warhead of the same mass).

Solar, wind and other renewables rely on specific conditions (whereas nuclear power can be used anywhere), have a much lower energy density (Why do you think it&#39;s necessary to have acres and acres of room for solar and wind farms?), making them at best a supplementary form of energy. It can&#39;t even be the main supplier of today&#39;s energy needs, let alone tomorrow&#39;s.

I find it ironic that you decry the one source of energy that is capable of replacing our current main sources which are directly causing the problem of climate change, which you also decry. You can&#39;t have it both ways.

As to the documentary in question, the science was shit but I found its analysis of the modern environmental movement interesting.

[Vargha Poralli]

As for nuclear power being the darling of the ruling class... evidence please?

Well Nuclear power is the darling of the ruling classes especially the imperialist ones. Simple reason being they can produce the Nuclear weapons from it.


That&#39;s why it is vitally important that we get our fissionable economy up to speed before our oil economy becomes unviable, because once we have a fissionable economy up and running, the "peak" for that kind of fuel will be centuries away at least due to the high energy density inherent in nuclear fuels

I agree with the premise but you are completely taking out the Geo-Political equations.

India and Pakistan have some dozen Nuclear reactors. Do they use it only to produce energy ?

And how many Nuclear warheads does US,Russia,France and UK have ? You see the problem ?

What in the world do you think the main reason Iran is hell bent on building Nuclear programme ? If you think it is going only to produce energy then you are completely out of touch.

Nuclear energy in the current time and the politcal climate is not a thing which is to be unconditionally supported nor should be blanketly opposed.

[Andy Bowden]

Isn&#39;t the basic problem with nuclear power that it isnt actually renewable energy - that is it relies on uranium, which is a finite substance.

And that present uranium stocks will last for 50-70 years;Its possible new stocks will be found if the market demands it however. Or that certain by-products could be used as fuel, though this carries its own complications - would the Nuclear Plant need to be changed in structure to run off the by-products? How long would the by products themselves last?

[Led Zeppelin]

What about hydrogen?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+September 14, 2007 10:01 pm--> (Andy Bowden @ September 14, 2007 10:01 pm) Isn&#39;t the basic problem with nuclear power that it isnt actually renewable energy - that is it relies on uranium, which is a finite substance. [/b]
Also another factor to add the management of wastes is easy now a days because the Nuclear energy production is not widespread. There will be a definite problem when thinking about completely replacing the fossil fuels with them.



And that present uranium stocks will last for 50-70 years;Its possible new stocks will be found if the market demands it however.

There is thorium to replace it. Thorium might last at least for 200 years.


Or that certain by-products could be used as fuel, though this carries its own complications - would the Nuclear Plant need to be changed in structure to run off the by-products ?

One such byproduct which can be used in turn as fuel is Plutonium.

The structure I am not sure about.


How long would the by products themselves last?

Well not as long as we hope I fear.



LedZeppelin

What about hydrogen?

In what sense ? Nuclear fusion or Fuel cell ?

Fusion requires fission first and the research to build a workable fusion reactor is currently going on.ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)

I don&#39;t know much about fuel cell though.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Vargha Poralli+September 14, 2007 05:05 pm--> (Vargha Poralli @ September 14, 2007 05:05 pm)
LedZeppelin

What about hydrogen?

In what sense ? Nuclear fusion or Fuel cell ?

Fusion requires fission first and the research to build a workable fusion reactor is currently going on.ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER)

I don&#39;t know much about fuel cell though. [/b]
I&#39;ve heard of busses running on hydrogen, and the only byproduct it produces is water, I&#39;m not sure which of the two that process is called.

[Andy Bowden]

Thebig problem with Hydrogen is that for the biggest source of it (water) it takes more energy to split H20 into Hydrogen and Oxygen than you would get in energy from the Hydrogen.

[Jazzratt]

Another major problem with the Hydrogen Fuel cell is that it only stores energy that has already been, for want of a better word, "produced" (naturally energy can&#39;t be produced but you can turn some forms of energy into the kind we find useful).

[Led Zeppelin]

Ah, right, I did not know that. I guess it wouldn&#39;t be a problem though if we found an infinite source of energy. Then cars and other vehicles would be able to run on Hydrogen Fuel cells.

I think you dismissed solar power too fast. I know that at present the technology to produce solar panels is a bit crude and takes a lot of resources, but this has advanced tremendously over the past years. I think that if there is invested more in that technology (like for example is invested in the Oil producing industry today) we&#39;d find a way to produce them cheapy and efficiently in a short amount of time.

It is in my opinion the best source of power, or at least could be if there is enough investment in it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 15, 2007 06:01 pm
I think you dismissed solar power too fast. I know that at present the technology to produce solar panels is a bit crude and takes a lot of resources, but this has advanced tremendously over the past years. I think that if there is invested more in that technology (like for example is invested in the Oil producing industry today) we&#39;d find a way to produce them cheapy and efficiently in a short amount of time.
The problem with solar panels is that even at 100% efficiency (obviously impossible) we&#39;d need 770,000 square metres (taken from FFF (here is the full quote with calculations)):


There is ultimately a limit to how much power can be extracted from, say, a square metre of solar panel; that being the power incident upon it in the first place. The solar constant is about 1.3kW.m-2, which means that to generate 1GWe, assuming 100% efficiency, which would violate the laws of Physics anyway, 770,000m2 would be required. This also ignores the effect of night, which is also immutable.

That said I do hold hope for the utility of orbital solar panels.

[Andy Bowden]

I read that if some of the Sahara was covered with solar panels it could provide sizeable - ie enough to power a lot of the earths energy needs - amounts of power. Was I fed horseshit? :wacko: :(

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 15, 2007 11:56 pm
I read that if some of the Sahara was covered with solar panels it could provide sizeable - ie enough to power a lot of the earths energy needs - amounts of power. Was I fed horseshit? :wacko: :(
Could well be, what was the source?

[Led Zeppelin]

I just read this on the wikipedia site on solar power:


Deployment of solar power depends largely upon local conditions and requirements. All industrialised nations share a need for electricity and it is believed that solar power will increasingly be used as an option for electricity supply. The Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Power Generation (VLS-PV) proposal argues that "PV systems could generate many times the current primary global energy supply". To compensate for night time energy demands they would need to be complemented with pumped storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#D..._of_solar_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Deployment_of_solar_power)

So if this is true, the world could run on solar power in the future. In my opinion this is fully logical given the fact that the sun provides the planet already with natural energy (for the growth of nature and such), so this seems to be a pretty good alternative to conventional means of power production, since it&#39;s infinite.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agree with the premise but you are completely taking out the Geo-Political equations.

India and Pakistan have some dozen Nuclear reactors. Do they use it only to produce energy ?

And how many Nuclear warheads does US,Russia,France and UK have ? You see the problem ?

There is no problem as long as those nuclear weapons are not used. Going on the historical evidence, it seems that the conventional arms trade has killed a hell of a lot more people in the past 60 years than the deployment of nuclear weapons.


What in the world do you think the main reason Iran is hell bent on building Nuclear programme ? If you think it is going only to produce energy then you are completely out of touch.

While every man and his dog may want to possess nuclear weapons, most seem very reluctant, bordering on refusal, to use them in a war situation.

Most people, sensibly enough, don&#39;t want to kick off a worldwide nuclear confrontation. That alone should explain why we&#39;re not currently all radioactive dust or typing our messages from a nuclear shelter.


Nuclear energy in the current time and the politcal climate is not a thing which is to be unconditionally supported nor should be blanketly opposed.

I agree that we need to be careful where nuclear weapons are concerned, but as for nuclear power I say full steam ahead.


Isn&#39;t the basic problem with nuclear power that it isnt actually renewable energy - that is it relies on uranium, which is a finite substance.

The odds are good that it will last long enough for our purposes.


And that present uranium stocks will last for 50-70 years;Its possible new stocks will be found if the market demands it however.

"Uranium stocks"? Does that mean uranium currently in storage, or the uranium currently left in the ground? If it is the latter, how can they possibly know? What is certain is that as the uranium economy grows, costs of extraction will decrease due to technological and technical advances, and we will get better at finding what&#39;s actually there in the ground. Not to mention that Uranium is not the only form of fissionable fuel.


Or that certain by-products could be used as fuel, though this carries its own complications - would the Nuclear Plant need to be changed in structure to run off the by-products? How long would the by products themselves last?

That why we should take such considerations into account when building new reactors, so as to better deal with them in the future. Build reactors so that they can reprocess their own fuel (breeder and fast breeder), accept thorium and other available fissionables if necessary, and other important things.


Also another factor to add the management of wastes is easy now a days because the Nuclear energy production is not widespread. There will be a definite problem when thinking about completely replacing the fossil fuels with them.

It will be a positive doddle compared to dealing with the wastes of fossil fuel burning plants, which are belched pretty much unregulated into the atmosphere and which stay in the environment forever, unlike nuclear wastes which eventually decay, and are stored in lead and conrete lined sarcophagi to boot.


I read that if some of the Sahara was covered with solar panels it could provide sizeable - ie enough to power a lot of the earths energy needs - amounts of power. Was I fed horseshit?

I think covering the Sahara in solar panel would be a technological achievement matching or exceeding that of building up a viable fissionables economy. Not to mention the environmental impact of covering a living, breathing ecosystem with photovoltaic cells. The desert may look dead but is in fact far from it, and is considerably delicate.
Consider also the logistical nightmare of transporting all that energy to where it is needed.


So if this is true, the world could run on solar power in the future. In my opinion this is fully logical given the fact that the sun provides the planet already with natural energy (for the growth of nature and such), so this seems to be a pretty good alternative to conventional means of power production, since it&#39;s infinite.

Much of what I said above is in objection to that, only this time the problem is spread all over the earth as opposed to being limited to the Sahara desert.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well most of my argument is based on future technology. Of course I agree that with current technology that would be impossible. I saw a "solar power plant" on a documentary the other day and it worked, but it was very inefficient. They required a lot of space just to power one city. But in the future with this technology perfecting it could be utilized in a different fashion which is more effective.

Also in the documentary was presented the possibility to "recreate the sun on earth", that is, to force Hydrogen atoms to merge with Helium and create a powerful fission that produces ten times more energy than it is required to recreate that (on a large scale). It said that in 50 years from now that technology will have been perfected and many such "earth sun power plants" will exist, providing us with infinite sources of energy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well most of my argument is based on future technology. Of course I agree that with current technology that would be impossible. I saw a "solar power plant" on a documentary the other day and it worked, but it was very inefficient. They required a lot of space just to power one city. But in the future with this technology perfecting it could be utilized in a different fashion which is more effective.

Even with the advance of technology, there is only so much sunlight that falls on a given patch of the earth in a day. Don&#39;t forget that as technology advances, so does the rate of energy consumption. Solar cell effeciency may not be able to keep up with energy demand.


Also in the documentary was presented the possibility to "recreate the sun on earth", that is, to force Hydrogen atoms to merge with Helium and create a powerful fission that produces ten times more energy than it is required to recreate that (on a large scale). It said that in 50 years from now that technology will have been perfected and many such "earth sun power plants" will exist, providing us with infinite sources of energy.

That&#39;s called fusion, and is currently being worked on. Unfortunately Proton-Proton fusion (which is the kind that occurs in the Sun) is one of the hardest to reproduce on Earth, so we are more likely to see He-3 fusion first.