I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

What If? [Pic]

Hits: 9500 | Rating: (3.1) | Category: Community & Lifestyle | Added by: Cy
Page: 13 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2341 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:19:59 PM
@randomxnp
Her FACTS were about overpopulation and it's causes. She DISMISSED 5Cats biofuel claims as propaganda, and you have yet to prove her wrong.

"Not only was the accident unrelated to power generation..."
Bullspit. The Chernobyl nuclear POWER STATION held four operating 1,000-megawatt power reactors with a fifth under construction. How is that "unrelated to power generation?"

"...let alone in modern times."
Russia still has 10 RBMK reactors, just like Chernobyl, still in operation.

All current nuclear power stations operate on the edge of disaster, counting on a careful dance of control rods and water pumps to avoid major catastrophe. Any one of literally thousands of tiny failures could start a cascade, then kiss your ass goodbye, along with thousands others. That is an unnecessarily stupid way to get electricity.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:16:15 PM
Chalket

It is safer. Statistics prove it.

2-3000 tons is trivial. Do you know how big the Earth is? Hint from an Earth Sciences graduate, 3000 tons is a very, very small amount. Hydro causes widespread environmental damage; it has its place, but it cannot replace fossil fuel or nuclear. There is no geothermal technology even close to replacing fossil fuel or nuclear in wide areas.

"+ cheaper than ANY "green power"
- "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies""

Great argument for fossil fuel and new nuclear technology (thorium, uranium or plutonium); lousy argument for green power.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 2:10:17 PM
" It's hard to imagine a SOLAR or WIND disaster forcing the semi-permanent displacement of over 160,000 people"

Your poverty of imagination is not a great argument, is it? Many more than this displaced by hydro, and the damage (including ill health) caused by wind is bound to displace far, far more before it will produce as much power as nuclear.

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2341 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:56:25 PM
+ Safer
- Only when all goes well. When something fails, and eventually something will, it is MUCH more harmful for a MUCH longer time.

+ Less pollution
- Still no good disposal for the 2000-3000 TONS of high-level nuclear waste produced every year in the U.S. alone.

+ works 24/7/365
- So does hydro and geothermal. Wave and tide generators show promise. Cleaner, safer molten-salts nuclear is viable.

+ can be built almost anywhere
- NIMBY

+ cheaper than ANY "green power"
- "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies"

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:54:42 PM
chalket

Why on Earth would anyone honest (hmmmm, I think I answer my own point there) include Chernobyl in a discussion of the safety of nuclear energy production in the free world in 2013? Not only was the accident unrelated to power generation (it was an unauthorised and pointless experiment) but it could never happen in any other design or any other country, let alone in modern times.

Even if you do include them nuclear power is still far safer than wind power of course. Considering the total energy produced worldwide from nuclear power, compared to the infinitesimal energy generated in the USA from wind for those 35 deaths, those 8000 deaths are a rounding error in statistics.

For each death due to wind power in the US less than 20 GWh were produced. For each of those 8000 Chernobyl deaths over 6000 GWh was produced worldwide (very rough but conservative estimates, but you get the idea).

All power generation is dangerous; my point is that nuclear

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1804 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:46:13 PM
I'd love to hear from the european countries that have all the wind farms I see from my train seat when I visit. And I'd love to see solar panels and wind turbines in all that unused land I see when I fly over the land on the way to Vegas. I know there are issues with getting that energy to places efficiently but it would be great if we could figure that out and use all that apparently uninhabitable land rather than run oil pipelines through places where people actually live.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:40:01 PM
chalket

"it doesn't diminish the validity of her opinions which are based on her own experience, as are yours"

Hahaha

I said she could have her opinion (based on her husband's non-scientific degree; of course I don't put quotes around mine, I studied an actual science). I object to her making up her own facts. She did not share facts, but easily refuted lies. You want to know what has happened to prices of basic foodstuffs that are used for fuel? http://bit.ly/17bAGdU

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2341 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:34:11 PM
@5Cats
"Aside from Chernobel?"
Again, WHY aside from Chernobyl? From Wiki: "4,000 fatalities – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people."

There were thankfully no direct deaths from Fu-kushima, but no one knows how many premature deaths the contamination will cause. And death is not the only factor to consider. It's hard to imagine a SOLAR or WIND disaster forcing the semi-permanent displacement of over 160,000 people.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 21790 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:29:09 PM
Dam Failures - Wiki

I thought there were more, but still there's a couple over 1,000. It does note that some places count dams burst by earthquakes as "earthquake deaths" and not flooding/ dam deaths...

@chalket: The power station was destroyed by human error. Compounded by poor design. Yes thousands died, mostly the poor souls who had to go in and try to put the fire out (I think it's 90% of them dead now).
Again, I repeat myself: it's STILL safer than ANY other form of electrical generation, PERIOD.
+ Safer
+ Less pollution
+ works 24/7/365
+ can be built almost anywhere
+ cheaper than ANY "green power"

BUT the "AGW Crew" absolutely refuses to even consider it...

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2341 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:14:23 PM
@randomxnp
You can keep putting your cute little "quotes" around other people's science (and not your own) but it doesn't diminish the validity of her opinions which are based on her own experience, as are yours.

The facts she shared haven't really been refuted, whereas you shared no facts, just derision.

"If you disregard Chernobyl..."
What?! In a discussion of nuclear power deaths why the hell should we disregard Chernobyl?? Just because YOU claim the Chernobyl Nuclear POWER PLANT was not power generation? You're approaching tin-foil-hat territory, dude. Chernobyl estimates range from 4,000 (World Health Org) to 200,000 (Greenpeace) to an extreme of 985,000 (Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment) premature deaths. fudgeushima is still a HUGE unknown, but certain rare cancers appear to be increasing in the area. Yeah, lets just disregard the very real dangers of Gen II reactors, sure why not?

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:58:58 PM
"Meanwhile, TENS of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands have died world wide from... hydro electric dams! Want to compare Apples? How do you like THEM apples?"

You're going to need to explain this one. All of Seattle is powered from hydroelectric dams. Except for the random accident during construction I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't think of a safer energy source.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 11707 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:46:01 PM
Bio-fuel is NOT going to raise the price of food

It already has.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 4362 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:22:56 PM
Have to say I agree on this one. Nuclear is far from ideal, but it is a damn sight safer than fossil fuel as an interim measure. We need to be damn careful and build the latest, safest reactors and be excessively careful about waste... but as a temporary measure to keep things going until solar and renewables get sorted it is an idea. Electric cars work well, but can we get more efficient electric heating please??

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 21790 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 12:00:27 PM
But many thousands have died worldwide.

@chalket: Aside from Chernobel? No one has died from Nuclear power. Even those brave souls in Japan who fought to save Fu-kishima didn't get "lethal doses".

Meanwhile, TENS of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands have dies world wide from... hydro electric dams! Want to compare Apples? How do you like THEM apples?

(I have to use a hyphen or it will say "fudgeishima" eh?)

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 4362 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:46:26 AM
Randonxnp- bollocks. Reducing energy usage, mass transit, refusal to consume, relying on local produce- how exactly does this prevent brown people from living? Perhaps if we stop shoving our poo in their direction, give them access to decent low cost technology and start by cleaning up things like the Niger Delta (because that does them a lot of good). What you mean is- you want to keep your car, want to walk around your house in a tshirt when it is December, want cheap fish fingers , want want want want want.... well- hard luck- as the climate alters, the oceans crash you will indeed want. The west needs to learn the difference between want and need.

kvetcher
Male, 50-59, Europe
 148 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:38:20 AM
Worth repeating, and I know the French are no-one's favourite country, but they get over 75% of their electricity from nuclear (plus they export some to the UK and Benelux) and it's never killed anyone.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:30:29 AM
madduck

"...if a few over privileged people have to lower their lifestyle..."

Only they are not, are they? It is the wealthy who are claiming this is a panic, and none is willing to have less of a lifestyle. Instead they insist (as do you) on policies that will reduce the lifestyle and lifespan of the poor, but you racists don't care about that because the worst hit will be black people in Africa and Brown people in Asia.

Poverty kills, after short lives of backbreaking toil and agonising hunger. The only way out of poverty is economic development based on cheap, abundant energy; the only source for that at the moment is fossil fuel.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 4362 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:10:08 AM
No- my point about climate change exactly- good housekeeping. As it happens they know that the numbers are panning out, and- if a few over privileged people have to lower their lifestyle- tough. If not- then we are screwed....
Stop giving oil companies money to wreck the place, force them to divert money from their obscene profits to getting solar etc up and running.... not hard- good sense and preferable to the alternative.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:01:25 AM
Chalket

Another hint: environmental "sciences" degrees include very little actual sciences. In the hard sciences, especially the Earth Sciences which actually studies the environment, it is not considered worthwhile.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:56:49 AM
FoolsPrussia

Your problem is that I have heard of oil subsidy, and so I know that it is a lie. What government subsidises oil apart from a few despotic regimes with tiny economies?

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:54:43 AM
Chalklet

Should have read more carefully and said husband, however apart from that my comment stands.

" her opinion is more valid than most here, especially yours"

Right, so marrying an environmental "scientist" is so much better than studying actual hard science yourself, in the form of my Earth Sciences degree from a world-class university.

She is perfectly entitled to her opinions, but not her own facts in the old saying.

Food prices have, in some cases, doubled. People are therefore starving, many dying early. This is the truth.

"But many thousands have died worldwide"

No they haven't. If you disregard Chernobyl (which was nothing to do with power generation, it was a stupid, unauthorised experiment that caused a disaster due to a design flaw the Soviets lied about even to their own people running the plants).

Your argument is invalid being based on incorrect assumptions on your pa

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16123 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:47:10 AM
Yeah, let's just keep throwing good money after bad into 'green energy' companies that go bankrupt then get bought by the Chinese.

To name a few:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million) SpectraWatt ($500,000) Solyndra ($535 million) Beacon Power ($69 million) Eastern Energy ($17.1 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.5 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) Ener1 ($118.5 million) Amonix ($5.9 million) National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million) Fisker Automotive ($528 million) Abound Solar ($374 million) A123 Systems ($279 million) Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million) Johnson Controls ($299 million) Schneider Electric ($86 million) Brightsource ($1.6 billion) ECOtality ($126.2 million) Raser Technologies ($33 million) Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million) Range Fuels ($80 million) Thompson River Power ($6.4 million) LSP Energy ($2.1 billion) UniSolar ($100 million) Azure Dynamics ($120 million)

chalket
Male, 50-59, Southern US
 2341 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:32:35 AM
@randomxnp
Don't be such an ass! (I almost said "stupid ass" before realizing you can't do much about your stupidity.) Despite your derision, thubanstar has every right to her opinion; and since she has close contact to the actual branch of science under discussion, her opinion is more valid than most here, especially yours, numbnuts.

Since 1971 not a single person has died in the USA due to nuclear power

But many thousands have died worldwide. Since we've been so lucky so far, we should keep tempting fate with a very dirty and very dangerous technology? Until we convert to LFTR (or similar) technology, your argument for nuclear is invalid.

FoolsPrussia
Male, 30-39, Western US
 3153 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:25:38 AM
"Where are millions of dollars going from government to fuel companies apart from to buy oil-based products?"

I take it you've never heard of an oil subsidy.

randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
 1065 Posts
Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:15:38 AM
FooolsPrussia

It is not in the oil sector. Where are millions of dollars going from government to fuel companies apart from to buy oil-based products?

Page: 13 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.