Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?

[dug777]

I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

 

[Excelsior]

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

You do realize how large the US is right...and how much land is still uninhabited? Not to mention the waste would be stored underground.

Why haven't the terrorists already attacked a nuclear plant then? Its not like we haven't had any in operation.

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: K1052
Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

Not to mention they would have to really know what to do once they got in there. It would take a team of people trained in the reactor's design to override all of the safety measures to get a melt down.

 

[Manuwell]

Nukelar what ?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

You could always dispose of the waste in the streets of New Jersey. It would probably be an improvement.

 

[Rubycon]

I met someone that actually hugged a tree and almost died because of it. Lesson learned: make sure any holes in the tree aren't passageways to a huge hornet's nest! :laugh:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dug777

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

As a citizen of nevada, home of Yucca mountain, I HOPE they put it in our backyard...of course, my fellow residents largely disagree, but knowing what I know -- I'm happy to see it come here.

IMO, it's as if in 1800, the Saudis had come to us and said "we have all this nasty black liquidy stuff coming up out of our ground, and we'd like to pay you to dump it in your wasteland"

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

They would have to kill all the guards, operate the plant in such a way as to cause a meltdown (they would have to be very skilled and know the details of that reactor's operation or it would just shutdown on them), and breach the containment in a meaningful way. All that takes quite a bit of time and law enforcement agencies would certainly storm the plant at all costs before they could acomplish it

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Ryan
Chernobyl ring a bell?

bad design + wrong operational procedures = BIG BOOM

human + ignorane = backwards progress.

New technology LITERALLY makes BIG BOOM impossbile. Actually BIG BOOM has always been impossible. But meltdowns are imopssbile with current tech.

<=== works for Electric Boat (we build nuclear submarines). It's occasionally discussed iwth co-workers and there is NO RISK with the currently available tech. The only issue is where tyo store spent rods ... whcih has been resolved. now how to transport nuclear waste over state lines?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: dug777
I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country,

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Yuka+mountain

and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

Hahaahahahh!!! That's more ofa political tool than anything. You can fly a plane into a plant and nothing will happen. The core is 30 feet underground. And those concrete walls are 6 feet thick. For terrorists to attack a nuclear power plant, they'll need a nuclear device.

Oh, not to mention EVERYTHING is redundant (some safety systems are triple redundant).

And new tech makes meltdowns impossible. (EDIT: For new constuction ... it's a whole new core design)

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Nope .... just people that don't understand the world around them and that the issues are mostly fake and used as political tools more than for resolving issues and making the world is a better place.

What would happen to big oil (Mr Bushes friend) if renewable energy took over and oil died? Oh, nuclear is renewable by the way. Some people realize the truth and others ignore it.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

They would have to kill all the guards, operate the plant in such a way as to cause a meltdown (they would have to be very skilled and know the details of that reactor's operation or it would just shutdown on them), and breach the containment in a meaningful way. All that takes quite a bit of time and law enforcement agencies would certainly storm the plant at all costs before they could acomplish it

The could just blow it up

I'm not say it's easy, or likely at all, it hasn't happened yet has it? I'm pointing out that if it were to happen, the consequences would be devastating, and subsequently worthy of consideration.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dug777
The could just blow it up

I'm not say it's easy, or likely at all, it hasn't happened yet has it? I'm pointing out that if it were to happen, the consequences would be devastating, and subsequently worthy of consideration.

You could use a bunker buster bomb to disable a nuke plant, but to spread the radiation around? You'd need a nuke of your own, and then what's the point?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: dug777
I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country,

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Yuka+mountain

and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

Hahaahahahh!!! That's more ofa political tool than anything. You can fly a plane into a plant and nothing will happen. The core is 30 feet underground. And those concrete walls are 6 feet thick. For terrorists to attack a nuclear power plant, they'll need a nuclear device.

Oh, not to mention EVERYTHING is redundant (some safety systems are triple redundant).

And new tech makes meltdowns impossible. (EDIT: For new constuction ... it's a whole new core design)

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Nope .... just people that don't understand the world around them and that the issues are mostly fake and used as political tools more than for resolving issues and making the world is a better place.

What would happen to big oil (Mr Bushes friend) if renewable energy took over and oil died? Oh, nuclear is renewable by the way. Some people realize the truth and others ignore it.

Your link to the yucca mountain thing exactly highlights my point, rather than proving in any way that long term issues with the storage of the waste have been solved :laugh:

Did you actually bother reading it?

Your post epitomises what i refer to when i say it's impossible to have a balanced discussion on here. You've decided that everything about nuclear power is perfect, and thus, anyone who doubts it or raises issues about it is ignorant and stupid :roll:

And nuclear fuel certainly isn't renewable, as i understand the definition of renewable energy, and the process of using nuclear fuel.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

They would have to kill all the guards, operate the plant in such a way as to cause a meltdown (they would have to be very skilled and know the details of that reactor's operation or it would just shutdown on them), and breach the containment in a meaningful way. All that takes quite a bit of time and law enforcement agencies would certainly storm the plant at all costs before they could acomplish it

The could just blow it up

I'm not say it's easy, or likely at all, it hasn't happened yet has it? I'm pointing out that if it were to happen, the consequences would be devastating, and subsequently worthy of consideration.

Worthy of consideration, yes. Enough realistic concern to make us shut down 20%+ of our electrcity production, no. Since most of the plans put forward by the utilities call for additional reactors at existing plants the increased security concerns are minimal with no more actual sites to protect.

Nuclear plants are hard targets anyway. Terrorists like the soft ones, especially in a country where they will have little to no support. Look at Europe, they almost always go after tranportation targets.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dug777

And nuclear fuel certainly isn't renewable, as i understand the definition of renewable energy, and the process of using nuclear fuel.

Nothing is really renewable, of course. Eventually the sun will burn out and the universe will reach thermal equilibrium.

I'm a common misstatement, since there is no word for "Clean, but controversial and not a fossil fuel"

Also, I think it's fair to say that there is no concensus, except that we need a reall, well though out nuclear fuel cycle that includes things like breeder reactors, reprocessing, and reasonably thought out disposal of final waste. I personally think Yucca is a reasonable answer to the last part, but we need to have drained every joule of energy we can out of that fuel first.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

They would have to kill all the guards, operate the plant in such a way as to cause a meltdown (they would have to be very skilled and know the details of that reactor's operation or it would just shutdown on them), and breach the containment in a meaningful way. All that takes quite a bit of time and law enforcement agencies would certainly storm the plant at all costs before they could acomplish it

The could just blow it up

I'm not say it's easy, or likely at all, it hasn't happened yet has it? I'm pointing out that if it were to happen, the consequences would be devastating, and subsequently worthy of consideration.

Worthy of consideration, yes. Enough realistic concern to make us shut down 20%+ of our electrcity production, no. Since most of the plans put forward by the utilities call for additional reactors at existing plants the increased security concerns are minimal with no more actual sites to protect.

Nuclear plants are hard targets anyway. Terrorists like the soft ones, especially in a country where they will have little to no support. Look at Europe, they almost always go after tranportation targets.

I have to agree with you there.

*dug777 falls in love with the proponent of a rational and well argued case*

You have to also take into account proliferation issues, and the security and storage of both the fuel and the waste, if you replaced all your coal plants with nuclear, as some in this thread seem to be suggesting, those issues would become dramatically more important. Where do you source your fuel from, us? Or do you mine it over there?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dug777

You have to also take into account proliferation issues, and the security and storage of both the fuel and the waste, if you replaced all your coal plants with nuclear, as some in this thread seem to be suggesting, those issues would become dramatically more important. Where do you source your fuel from, us? Or do you mine it over there?

There is a large quantity of Uranium in the western US to be tapped. I agree, security is a major issue, but the only sever weak point in that is in transportation of already refined fuel rods, which can be solved by placing transportation routes away from easily accessible attack points (dense population areas) and possibly keeping refining close to the reactors themselves.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dug777
I suppose another valid question is; why are you all in the main refusing to discuss or consider the very real issues that dog nuclear power? It's much easier to arrogantly state that 'environmentalists' whoever they are, are retarded i suppose

I haven't seen anything in this thread that sensibly addresses the long term storage of nuclear waste in your own country, and there's a blanket refusal to even think of the awesome consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant on mainland USA.

At the end of the day, it's impossible to have a sensible balanced discussion on here because very few people seem capable of taking in both sides of the debate, there's a knee jerk reaction on way or the other and it descends into personal insults.

Seeing as how the terrorists would have to get through the guards with automatic weapons on the perimiter and interior of the facility, most of the plant, and a rather solid containment structure made of lots of steel and concrete I'd say they would have a fairly tough time.

The storage issue is being addressed. Reprocess what we can and store the remainder for far less time than required for unreprocessed fuel, thus decreasing the chances that the geologic storage we select will become compromised and release radioactive materials to the environment.


Or we could just ship it all to Australia as some have suggested.....

Exactly, if you want them, deal with the waste in your own backyard

All i've read suggests that long term storage issues are far from settled, and that reprocessing still leaves a significant amount of hazardous material to dispose of, i'd be happy to learn otherwise

If you read what i've said all along, i admit that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a mistake leading to meltdown is incredibly low, but it would be irrational not to take into account the worst case scenario when considering something like that...what's the worst that could happen if someone used explosives on a gas power plant, a big localised explosion at the most, same with every other source of power except nuclear (and potentially hydro)...

They would have to kill all the guards, operate the plant in such a way as to cause a meltdown (they would have to be very skilled and know the details of that reactor's operation or it would just shutdown on them), and breach the containment in a meaningful way. All that takes quite a bit of time and law enforcement agencies would certainly storm the plant at all costs before they could acomplish it

The could just blow it up

I'm not say it's easy, or likely at all, it hasn't happened yet has it? I'm pointing out that if it were to happen, the consequences would be devastating, and subsequently worthy of consideration.

Worthy of consideration, yes. Enough realistic concern to make us shut down 20%+ of our electrcity production, no. Since most of the plans put forward by the utilities call for additional reactors at existing plants the increased security concerns are minimal with no more actual sites to protect.

Nuclear plants are hard targets anyway. Terrorists like the soft ones, especially in a country where they will have little to no support. Look at Europe, they almost always go after tranportation targets.

I have to agree with you there.

*dug777 falls in love with the proponent of a rational and well argued case*

You have to also take into account proliferation issues, and the security and storage of both the fuel and the waste, if you replaced all your coal plants with nuclear, as some in this thread seem to be suggesting, those issues would become dramatically more important. Where do you source your fuel from, us? Or do you mine it over there?

Proliferation is a concern, but less so since most of the material will be very unsutiable for use in a weapon meant to achieve supercriticality. Some sort of dirty weapon would be the most likely use. Even given that we should be able to maintain adequate physical security as long as the key reprocessing and transport facilities are kept under close governmnet (possibly military) security.

As far as fuel goes we still have a good amount of Uranium in the ground and so do a number of other nations (Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and parts of Africa). It will eventually become a more competitive world market. The US and Russia are also sitting on large amounts of weapons grade Plutonium and Uranium that can be downmixed into more than X10 as much reactor fuel.

Past the conventional fuel sources there are breeder reactors and the thorium fuel cycle to consider. Both of which could extend the usefulness of fission power several centuries or possibly more (certainly to the point where fusion is economical).

 

[Rubycon]

Time to warm up!

:music:

One day in a nuclear age

They may understand our rage

They build machines that they can't control

And bury the waste in a great big hole

Power was to become cheap and clean

Grimy faces were never seen

But deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen

:music:

 

[SampSon]

Environmentalists are a bunch of hypocritcal, self-serving, agenda pandering whores.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Environmentalists are a bunch of hypocritcal, self-serving, agenda pandering whores.

Now there's a moronic generalisation designed to pander to the majority view in this thread :laugh:

Don't actually address the issue or anything, just show us how stupid, narrow minded, and childlike you can be

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Time to warm up!

:music:

One day in a nuclear age

They may understand our rage

They build machines that they can't control

And bury the waste in a great big hole

Power was to become cheap and clean

Grimy faces were never seen

But deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen

:music:

Meanwhile, tens of thousands each year die from fossil fuel power plant emissions. Millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste in the US?

Whoops!

Rejecting nuclear power is not only the irrational choice, it's the deadly choice.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Time to warm up!

:music:

One day in a nuclear age

They may understand our rage

They build machines that they can't control

And bury the waste in a great big hole

Power was to become cheap and clean

Grimy faces were never seen

But deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen

:music:

Meanwhile, tens of thousands each year die from fossil fuel power plant emissions. Millions over time. How many have died from nuclear waste in the US?

Whoops!

Rejecting nuclear power is not only the irrational choice, it's the deadly choice.

That's a little dramatic and 'FUD speading' of you Amused

You know as well as anyone else here are plenty of alternatives that are far cleaner than coal (in fact, everything is cleaner than coal, with the possible exception of nuclear ), there are even plenty of ways to make coal 'clean' (scrubbing and geo-sequestration), without going nuclear.

You don't believe in global warming, in fact you're utterly adamant man has had no role in it, so LNG is an extremely clean and viable option if you don't mind the CO2 emissions (and you don't, you;ve made that clear in the past)