Matt Mead

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:01:58 -0000, "Robin Smith" <robin@noaddress.com>
wrote:

>Matt, I feel we are going around in circles here:


Well, I suppose that is true. You are of the belief that it is OK to
create deadly nuclear waste, a whole lot more than has already been
created, that is going to be a problem for our civiliation THOUSANDS
of years from now. You don't seem concerned that we have yet to come
up with a containment system that can last a fraction of the time the
waste is dangerous.


>Radioactivity is around us already, its what heats the earth


This is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. (Unless you are trying
to say that the nuclear waste is going increase global warming too!)


>Fossil is expected to exacerbate ice cap melt, so your offspring will be
>seeing the results of your nice liefstyle in about 200 years. That aint nice
>Wind and Solar, too late

>I would welcome nuclear, its less of a risk than fossil when you look at the
>big picture


The problem is the best scientists disagree on global warming and its
actual cause. Yes, a lot of them like to blame the buring of fossil
fuels, but our studies of environmental effects is in its infancy. We
don't know what kind of cylces are natural to the earth. We don't
know how long they last, how extreme they are, and what the frequency
is. And then you have natural effects like volcanos spewing ungodly
amounts of pollutants into the air.

But what we know for sure is nuclear waste is dangerous for THOUSANDS
of years.

And technology has come along way, and can go a lot farther, in making
the use of fossil fuels eco-friendly.

You seem awfully quick to dismiss solar and wind. If we invested the
billions you seem willing to spend on nuclear into solar and wind, we
could accomplish quite a bit. And once the equipment is build and
installed, it is CLEAN. Cleaner than Nuclear. (And it doesn't leave
problems for our civilizations THOUSANDS of years in the future.)


>The web site is an NGO so yes it has its own opinion, but backed up by great
>scientists, some of whom discovered the extent if the ozone/CFC and how much
>pollution talk is largely green propaganda. I feel you are a victim of this
>if you dont mind me saying


If you don't mind me saying? Gee that sounds a bit condescending....

Hey, you are entitled to your own opinion on nuclear power. But I
don't think you are disputing the fact that nuclear waste is going to
be a problem to be dealt with for THOUSANDS of years. And I can't
imagine you will dispute that global warming problems (over and above
what is occurring naturally - I'm talking attributed to fossil fuels)
is just a scientific theory at this point.

Matt
Focus owner

Alan

In message <4nh421lkaaisaii9nn3ljn1p32bqjivag4@4ax.com>, Matt Mead
<mdmead@DELETETHIScharter.net> wrote

>
>If you want to push for a clean environment, great. Just concentrate
>on something like wind, solar or wave powered. Something that can
>actually minimize our impact on the environment, not increas it.

There is now growing evidence that wind power isn't the green solution.

When it only accounts for a small proportion of a countries energy needs
conventional power stations can cope for the times when it isn't windy.
When greater proportion is supplied by wind power what do you need for
the times when there is no wind?

The majority of people want electricity when it suites them and not when
the weather says they can have it.

How much of the countryside do you have to pollute with a forest of
noisy windmills to provide electricity for a small village?

--
Alan
mailto:news2me_a_2003@amacleod.clara.co.uk

Tony Wesley

Matt Mead wrote:
> Emotional? Yeah, whatever. Bottom line is you can't dispute the
fact
> that nuclear waste is going to be a problem for THOUSANDS of years.

Sure you can. Why is it a fact?

I previously provided links about the Oklo natural reactors. I'll
repeat one quote from my previous post:

"Remarkably, despite abundant groundwater, the plutonium and fission
fragments drifted through the rock less than 10 meters over the next
1.7 billion years."

It wasn't stored in any way, it was in porous rock with groundwater
drifting through it. And it moved about 30 feet in 1.7 billion years.

We can do better than just digging a hole iun the ground and tossing
the stuff in there. I don't recommend it. But that would probably
enough all by itself.

> When you have an answer for dealing with it, (a way to neutralize or
a
> containment system that can last thousands of years), we can continue
> the discussion.

Okay, dig a hole in the ground in soil similar to Gabon, Africa and
toss the stuff there. Proven solution.

> Oh, and when you want to discuss this further, lose the condescending
> tone. It's not appreciated and weakens your credibility.

Et tu?

Matt Mead

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:52:53 -0000, "Robin Smith" <robin@noaddress.com>
wrote:

>Well goodbye from this forum Matt, even if you dont want to open up yet,
>please drop me an email off thread. I'd be delighted to continue there
>
>BTW, I used to hold your exact opinion on the topic... since then I've read
>a lot, researched a lot and tried to form a balanced opinion from all
>angles. The result is my current position which I feel quite secure about. I
>can only suggest you think about that
>
>rgds
>

Take care and have a nice life.

Matt
Focus owner

Geoff

"LJ" <ljnws@ljayNOSPAM.gro.ku> wrote in message
news:95lje2-ml8.ln1@invalid.com...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:51:16 +0000, Alan wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure why people believe electric cars are non-poluting.
>
> Well they are in the sense that they concentrate the pollution away from
> the car. (Unless you happen to be driving past a power station ;P)
>
> LJ
Ford of Canada have a hybrid SUV on the road right now. I test drove one,
very nice.
They are just introducing a second version
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6939701/
Geoff