Blakeyrat. Firstly, many thanks for actually raising valid points. I really appreciate that.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:I actually have a very good idea how fission reactors work and I am also aware of just how much nuclear waste we stash in bunkers that has a half life of several thousand years.Then you know we can reprocess that waste into new fuel, increasing its usefulness 10 times. We don't because of pretty stupid political reasons.</blockquote>
Yes we can, as you say we don't. That makes it a pointless excercise to say we can when the political will is not there to do it. In my experience I have found this usually comes back to some financial incentive.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:Oh course some of the depleted uranium we use in weapons to fights wars in countries so we can steal their oil, so that we can keep on consuming. But don't let that reality hold you back.Uh-oh, we're like one paragraph in and you're sounding the Paranoid Nutcase Alarm. Not a good sign for the rest of the post!!</blockquote>
So you don't think the couple of thousand tonnes of depeleted uranium that we (the UK armed forces) alone used in Iraq by 2003 is a problem and is just me being paranoid?
Or is it that there were WMDs and I'm hallucinating.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
The CIA and the Royal Society seem to disagree.If we didn't go in for the WMDs then using occam's razor would suggest it's oil. Or is it just normal practice where you are from to terrorise a country, pretty much unilaterally, with no evidence and leave it in a state of hell and then set up your country's businesses with the contracts to rebuild it's infrastructure? ( I know that's a simplification of the situation ).
Seeming as the US produces and consumes far more depleted Uranium 234 than the UK I would hate to know how much in total has been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:If of course you've designed a working commercial fusion reactor I'd love to hear about it.In the 1000+ years we can power our society using fission reactors and reprocessed fuel, we'll have plenty of time to work on fusion reactors.</blockquote>
Agreed, That would require research right? And in the 50 years that the UK has been using nuclear reactors we've created ~40,000 tonnes of waste material. We consume 1,215 tonnes a year here with current capacity. It's not being reprocessed.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:So yes, Near Earth Objects. Plenty go flying by, but every now and then some of them do get caught in our gravity well and do impact on our planet. You might want to check for some of the craters left by them on Google Earth. At some point in our future another large one is likely to hit. Chances are very much that it won't be in my lifetime but it likely will be soon (I'm using the geological definition of soon, the one that says 100000 years is a short period of time)So what's your fucking point? There are a dozen things that would wipe us out "soon" (by your measure). The Yellowstone Caldera thing could explode again. There could be a gamma ray burst in a nearby solar system which fries the whole planet. If you're in the Pacific Northwest like I am, "the big one" (earthquake) could hit any day now. Or Rainier could go off. Or a fucking bus could hit you while crossing the street. <p>Either you decide right now that you're worried about those things, and ruin your fucking life. Or you do the reasonable thing and say, "eh, well, nothing I can do about it, might as well not think about it." Of course, Paranoid Nutcases are generally the first case, so... another bad sign.</blockquote>
But I can do something about many of those things. I can choose to cross the road safely, reducing my chance of being hit by a bus. I can choose to not live in an area of the planet prone to earthquakes or floods. Admittedly there's not much I can do about gamma ray bursts from a nearby solar system and I don't let it worry me. Because worrying about that would interfere with my fun. I am here, down to a choice made by my parents (and I was a concious choice), so I'm going to have as much fun as a I can. Please note, lack of significance does not neccesarily mean pointless.
My point was in regard of @BC_Programmer said:
"And what happens when the next near earth object comes near Earth? Will everybody catch a plague from demons? it's NEAR earth object, not hitting the earth object. You also demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the relative emptyness of space."I hoped I was clarifying my understanding of scale. Not saying it was a current (ZOMG! my lifetime) threat as BC seemed to be trying to imply.
@blakeyrat said:
I'm not much of a Christian. (Ok, I'm not a Christian at all.) But I've always been fond of their Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity
To accept the things I cannot change;
Courage to change the things I can;
And wisdom to know the difference.
All the things I just mentioned? Those go into the "accept the things you cannot change" bucket.
I'm not a Christian either but wisdom is wisdom, wherever it comes from.
Personally my mantra is:
Accept the things I cannot change;
Have courage to change the things I can;
Gain wisdom to know the difference.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the above. I've not said anything to dispute what you say as far as I am aware.Why do you keep associating insignificance with pointless? It seems like you and BC may have your own issues on this matter and for some reason, I cannot fathom, think that if life is insignificant then it is also pointless. I have much serenity. I accept life is insignificant. I also believe that to assist all animals be they apes or not is something I should strive for. They're all insignificant, but it makes me feel good to be nice to them. So again selfish motive.@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:You noticed the fact I said nuclear power was part of the 'GREEN' answer right?.Yay! @pink said:<blockquote>Just not our current fission tech.</blockquote> And... snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.</blockquote>
The tech we currently implement IMHO is subject to many factors that make it potentially dangerous. The lack of waste re-processing is one of them, as you said above. Quite simply we don't do it and we don't do it for what are, in my opinion, the wrong reasons.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:I don't consider them to be safe particularly (Three Mile Island,Here's an exercise: why do anti-nuclear activists always consider Three Mile Island to be an example of how unsafe reactors are when, in reality, it's the exact opposite? Three Mile Island showed that, even with that crappy old design, <b>pretty much everything</b> can go wrong, and <b>still no radiation will be released into the environment, and no people will die</b>. That's what Three Mile Island is an example of, how fucking *safe* the reactor design is... and remember, we're talking about the universally-agreed-upon "unsafe" reactors!</blockquote>
It's used as an example because it's well known. Radioactive gases were released into the environment, but thankfully for those in charge, at a level whereby it is unlikely that we will be able to correlate any resultant ilness or death. That does not mean that no-one died as a result and no-one got ill. It just means we cannot correlate the cause and effect. I agree it's a bad example and I should have thought more about that.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:Chernobyl).Now, as opposed to Three Mile Island, what Chernobyl showed is that if you get a PWR reactor, purposefully disable pretty much every safety system it has, then bring in a group of retards to run a pointless experiment, disaster results. Let's take a look at some numbers: </p><p>4,000 deaths-- that includes both the actual first-responders on the scene, and predicted deaths due to increased cancer rates (yes, yes, the real number is unknown and unknowable, but this is a good estimate.) Remember, this is the worst nuclear accident ever. Ever. <br>5,932 deaths-- average number of deaths due to coal mining <i>each year</i> <br>0 deaths-- the number of civilian nuclear-power-related deaths in the US (not counting research reactors, or Naval nuclear accidents-- although to my knowledge there have been zero Naval nuclear reactor accidents) </p><p>10% of the world's CO2 emissions-- the amount of CO2 released by US coal-burning power plants. That's 10% of the <i>world</i> figure. <b><i>This</i> is the power source Greenpeace, an organization who's goal is reducing CO2 emissions, thinks is better than nuclear!</b> We, as a society, if we had the will, could build a single nuclear power plant in 10 years. We could replace half of those coal plants in 50 years. Lowering the global CO2 rate by 5%. There is No. Possible. Faster. Way. to lower CO2 emissions. </p><p>It actually makes me inarticulate, how retarded Greenpeace's position is on this matter. It makes me red with rage. It makes me want to punch those assholes who stand on the sidewalk to talk to me about Greenpeace right in their iPad-using Prius-driving faces.</blockquote>
I never said coal mining was a safe occupation, but those people chose to be coal miners and thereby chose the associated risks. I don't remember being consulted on the construction or running of Chernobyl or any nuclear plant. You were I assume?
I partially agreee with you on this point. The trend of human nature in general that I have experienced in my lifetime is to continue to consume in a mindless manner. So without actually approaching it in the logical manner you have the trend would be to continue to use coal, increase the number of nuclear plants and have the worst of both worlds. Political agendas also seem to mean that the reactors that are to be built are not in order to close coal or gas powered stations but to meet our ever growing 'needs' in addition. This is where I disagree and it comes back to research and education. I don't have a problem with nuclear. I have a problem with our implementation. I equally have a problem with our implementation of Coal/Gas. All for the reasons you have mentioned above.
I have trusted friends who have categorically stated that they have been involved in nuclear naval accidents in the UK. The UK Government (AFAIK) has always denied this has occurred on any serious level. I lived near such a naval base for about 8 years of my life and knew a fair number of people who worked there. They are all either lying or the government is. Why my friends would lie to me about such things I do not know. I do however know that governments lie. Or have they found WMDs in Iraq? Did we (the UK) not supply Saddam with "pipes" for oil that just "happened" to be rifled and suitable for military use? I would not expect you to use my friends as evidence as there are no references, there is no documentation to back it up that I can refer you to, but I do have to take my experience into account. I also lived for all of my childhood near a US military base in the UK and we were consistently told no nuclear weapons were stored there. Eventually when they were decommisioned the government owned up to it (and I can understand that from a security point of view). So they also lied to me for all of my childhood.
It's my life experience that makes me wary of such things.
Please don't get me started on GreenPeace, bunch of tossers for the most part in my experience.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:You may have noticed my post also said that research and education are part of the solution.If your solution requires changing the lifestyles of billions of people, it's not a solution. If fucking Stalin and Mao, who literally had the power of death over their subjects, never succeeded in making a communist society, what the holy SHIT makes you think you can succeed in your goals? You can't. You're fucking dreaming if you think you can. </p><p>If you want to reduce CO2, here's how you fucking do it: </p><p>1) Reduce CO2 usage where ordinary consumers do not give a shit. Nobody gives a shit whether their power comes from a coal or nuclear plant, so build the fucking nuclear plant! Nobody gives a shit if their garbage truck runs on diesel or hydrogen fuel cells, so hydrogen that shit up! These are things the government could do *right now* to fix the problem! (Assuming Greenpeace didn't throw a baby tantrum in court every time somebody brought up nuclear power.) </p><p>2) Create green technologies that work *better* than non-green technologies. Linux is fucking free, and pretty much as good as Windows for what the average computer user uses it for, and yet nobody's adopted it. Why? It's not enough *better* than Windows... yes even your *free* product has to be better than the competition to be adopted. Nobody fucking switched to Firefox until they added features that made it *better* than IE. You're not going to get people to switch to your green technology until it's *better* than the alternative. It's pointless to even try. </p><p>3) On a personal level, stop flying across the fucking country! Whenever I hear someone, in the same breath, talk about how environmentally conscious they are, then talk about their recent trip to London, I want to fucking scream. I can *literally* leave my car idling in my driveway for *three months*, and I still wouldn't use as much CO2 as a single 747 trip from LAX to Heathrow. (777s perform better, but the general point still applies.) If you make ride a bus to work every day instead of driving-- but you take a couple airline flights a year-- you're more of a problem than the guy who drives the huge 10 MPG truck. If you're traveling by airplane, <i>you are not green</i>. Period.</blockquote>
Which I think was exactly my point. Research and education? I'm not sure where I said that people's lifestyles had to change? I said research and education. A point you back up in your own discourse.
Are we not saying exactly the same thing here. Make a better mousetrap and use it.
Do you think that anyone would have used firefox even with it being better if there hadn't been education to that fact, articles about security flaws in IE, articles about speed in IE. Articles about how much better Firefox was/is. That is education. And how did firefox come to be better than IE? I believe by people spending time researching better ways of doing things. Again research and education. This was my point.
Your point about flying across the country is again my point. Reduce mindless consumption. Do the right thing. Educate people. I 100% agree. I'm just also saying at the same time I choose to stop producing more consumers. More people = more consumption.
I don't think my choice to not have kids is going to cause us as a species to die out but it's far more green than choosing to drive a prius. I like driving. No, I LOVE driving. If someone can find a way for me to do that in a greener manner than I currently can and still retain the fun that my 200bhp 2 seater sports car gives me and is within my budget I'll adopt that in the blink of an eye. Driving a prius is fucking boring though.
Couldn't agree more on the flying thing, having said that though I've just recently had the chance to fly a helicopter a couple of times and it was awesome :) I now want to save the money to get my pilots license.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:I can't kill myself, I enjoy life too much. However, that still doesn't make me think I'm important in the grand scheme of things. I don't even think this planet or this solar system is significant, or even this galaxy.Then why the fuck do you do anything you do? What's the fucking point? If you *honestly* think it's all pointless, why the fuck do you refinish furniture, or take photos, or drive a "T-Bar" sports car (whatever that is), or even fucking get out of bed? </p><p>You're like a poseur nihilist. What the fuck, man. You need help.</blockquote>
Believing that the human race is insignificant does not change the reality that I am here. Whilst I am here I am going to do my best to enjoy myself. Otherwise insignificance would turn into pointlessness and there would be no reason for me to live. Is that so hard to understand? Insignificant != pointless.
Insignificant = Too small or unimportant to be worth consideration.
pointless = without meaning, relevance, or force.One is a gradient. It scales by reference.
The other is complete lack of. Non existence.It's like saying 0.1 == null, for some cases that may be true
float function isPointless(float pSignificance) { float lLowestAcceptableSignificance = 1.0; if(pSignificance < lLowestAcceptableSignificance) { return null; } } float lSignificance = 0.1; if( isPointless(lSignificance) == null ) { printf("you suck"); }
:) (yes my variable naming and code suck)By definition a scale can equate to zero, and then it is pointless. But if it is measurably not zero then it's not pointless.
(A T-Bar is a removable glass roof with a T section through the middle to support the glass panels and retain rigidity. Wind through your hair and all that, sun streaming down on you whilst driving).
@blakeyrat said:
Oh, and hang on a bit, let's turn on the Hypocrite Alarm as well. You're yelling "stop breeding" while at the same time saying, "hey I have a great lust for life!" Fuck you, man. Fuck you. You can't be passionate about life, while wanting to prevent other people from even existing. If you believe human passion is a good thing, you should support having as many children as the planet's resources can allow!
Both yourself and BC have taken that out of context. The quote is related to if you want to be green "stop breeding for the sake of it" that's not the same as "stop breeding". If you can't see the difference then I would say IMHO you should not be allowed to breed :)
My parents conciously chose to bring me into this world. I choose to not bring children into this world for a variety of reasons. My partner has very different reasons to mine but because we both agree on the same choice it works for us. If you wish to be green and do your bit for the environment then that's a choice you can make. How does that make me a hypocrite? I did not choose to be here, now I am here I choose to not breed. BC confused breeding with intercourse. You now seem to be confusing my parent's choices with mine. I fail to see how I am a hypocrite because I do not follow my parent's choices.
That's no different than saying if you want to be green then don't fly.
@blakeyrat said:
@pink said:I love ad-hominem attacks, they're so easy to destroy. I lost my virginity 24 years ago.
... at the age of 50!(Sorry, cheap shot. But I had to.)
...That would be hard having not yet reached the age of 50. :)
<Insert preferred generic slur of your sexuality here.>
You're welcome to take cheap shots, because you're insignificant :P