Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You're changing the subject. We were discussing what happened at Fukushima, not a normally functioning plant.

Seriously, Fukushima used technology that was decades outdated, survived an Earthquake, and primarily had an issue because a Tsunami knocked out the backup power generators. In the end it killed no one.

Different types of nuclear reactors have different possibilities of meltdowns. CANDU reactors used in Canada are far safer than the light water reactors used in Fukushima.

And what about Thorium-salt reactors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seriously, Fukushima used technology that was decades outdated, survived an Earthquake, and primarily had an issue because a Tsunami knocked out the backup power generators. In the end it killed no one.

Different types of nuclear reactors have different possibilities of meltdowns. CANDU reactors used in Canada are far safer than the light water reactors used in Fukushima.

I get tired of this nonsense from nuclear energy apologists. Those plants aren't safe but these ones here are perfect. Japan is a technologically advanced democracy. If their nuclear energy industry lied to them, chances are ours is lying to us.

Nuclear energy is inherently centralized, dangerous and expensive. It produces dangerous waste, requires huge infrastructure and once built represents a tempting target for terrorists.

By contrast, solar is inherently scalable (which is why it's hated by the electricity industry) and relatively safe. An electric grid powered by rooftop solar and wind and backed up by natural gas would provide a distributed, redundant, scalable energy system. Battery technology advances will eventually make storage possible and the natural gas backup will be unneeded.

And what about Thorium-salt reactors?

What about them? Similar to fusion, there is great fanfare about how they will save the world. But curiously, there aren't any, at least not commercially.

Edited by ReeferMadness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the big reasons is that the electric utilities don't encourage them because they don't make money from solar. And in Canada, the current federal government thinks its job is to be a cheerleader for the fossil fuel industry.

They don't make money because the power costs too much money to generate, is too sporadic in its generation, and can't meet demand without exorbitant cost, if at all.

You're saying that nuclear power plants are not a potential terrorist target?

I'm saying that's a stupid reason not to build them.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get tired of this nonsense from nuclear energy apologists. Those plants aren't safe but these ones here are perfect. Japan is a technologically advanced democracy.

Different technology is used in different places.

Japan is basically the only major Asian country without a CANDU reactor. And even in terms of light water reactors, newer reactors are far safer than the over 40 year old technology that was used for the Fukushima reactor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You **** have been saying for years that we're not under any threat and face no danger at all. So which is it? You guys need to get unified in your message.

I've helpfully removed the word socialist since it's not a word I use to describe myself. And since you're clearly using it as an epithet, it could get you kicked. You're welcome.

I've never heard anyone say that we're under no threat although I have heard it said (and I agree) that law-and-order types like the Conservative government inflate and hype the danger to support their regressive policies. Also, the more we participate in pointless and destructive exercises like the the wars in the middle east, the more of a target we become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because you would have to turn the planet into a solar panel Death Star to generate enough energy for our demand. The S/P crowd are as smart as a two by four

To hear the breathless hyperbole of those that are fixated on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you might think that was actually true. And yet, it turns out it's not.

According to a graduate thesis by Technical University of Braunschweig student Nadine May, the number of solar panels needed to supply the entire world’s energy needs would fill just 25,000 square miles – or an area only slightly larger than the state of West Virginia.

Maybe if you work hard, one day you can be as smart as a two by four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think you would starve under the Greens Freddy?

According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve.

Now, in reality that wouldn't happen under a Green party government... after all, they'd only control a small fraction of the world's food supply. Still, it seems strange to champion a method of farming that would lead to widespread starvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one.

Yet. Unless radiation exposure is severe, the effects can take years or decades to show up. Nobody will ever know how many people die from Fukushima.

Scientists have considerable experience dealing with factors like radiation. There will be some cancer-related fatalities in the future. That is not denied.

However, even with those fatalities, the overall death rate from nuclear power will still be less than that of solar or wind.

If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind.

Citation please.

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/

•Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

•Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

•Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

•Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

There is also this reference: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Basically, you might assume they accept GMOs, but they've got so many restrictions in their platform that functionally it will result in a ban.

That's patent nonsense. There are so many GMO's out there already, it would be impossible for any government to ban them and certainly not Canada. The Green Party is just trying to put some basic controls in place

The green party has in its platform:

- A call for the outright banning of genetic modification for some crops like wheat. (Even if genetically modified wheat is best from a science perspective, it cant be done in Canada.)

- A requirement for labeling GMO foods, which will result in such an overhead that producers will probably be unwilling to use GMO crops in their products

- A restriction on GMO patents, which will mean that companies like Monsanto will have no incentive to produce new varieties here in Canada.

..

There is no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is medicine that works, and not-medicine.

When your doctor prescribes medication, she doesn't know what it will do to you. Maybe it will have the intended benefit. Maybe it will do nothing.

It is true that some medicines may be ineffective in some people. But, pharmiceutical products are tested to make sure that they have a positive effect in the majority of people.Testing is not always perfect, but generally it gets the job done.

On the other hand, "alterntative" medicines (the ones that were championed by the green party in the past) have absolutely no proof (in a scientific sense) that they are effective for anyone, any more than a placebo or random chance.

The amount of money to conduct the studies virtually guarantees that simple, cheap remedies that can't be patented won't be studied at all; unless governments or universities conduct the studies. But governments and universities are increasingly cash strapped.

"Alternative medicine" is a rougly $33 billion industry in the U.S. alone. In Canada its another $5 billion. Globally, spending on alternative medicine rivals that of the biggest drug companies. If companies wanted to test their wares, they have more than enough money to.

https://nccih.nih.gov/research/statistics/costs

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/complementary-alternative-medicine-in-canada-2007.pdf

The fact is, alternative medicines have been tested. And they have been found not to work. Yet the Green party wants us to use them.

So, I understand why people turn to alternative therapies. And if there is a demand, I think we need to be flexible in our approach.

People turn to alternative therapies because the practicioners are good salesmen, and people's knowledge of science is limited.. If a person is sick, science might cure them, but doctors don't always "hold their hands"... so people find comfort in dealing with some snake-oil salesman. If a person can't be cured, well, that's all the better for the snake-oil salesman, who can offer false hope.

But there are a lot of people out there who subscribe to the therapies that you dismiss as quackery. In a democratic country, it's right that people should be able to have representatives that believe in things that you don'.

The fact that its popular doesn't necessarily make things right.

Some people want the green party to be seen as the party of "science". Science has nothing to do with what's popular, and in fact may contradict commonly held beliefs.

Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform:

So, you're not sure what their platform is but you're convinced it's wrong?

Hey, if you have evidence to suggest they've changed their platform, by all means provide it. If you can find a video clip of May saying "chiropractors are scam artists. And so are accupuncturists", by all means let me know. It will definitely change the way I view the party. May even make me consider supporting them.

I am basing my analysis on 2 factors:

- Their current platform dues say they want to fund "alternative therapies". They do not go into detail about what those thearapies are, but the use of the word 'alteternative' is a red flag

- Yes, the platform where they talked about accupuncture and chiropractors was from several years ago. But, party turnover is not that fast. Most people who were responsible for including those things in the platform last election are still around.

I think you've been reading the wrong sources.

Pretty much every western health organization has supported Fluoridation of water supplies.

If that's the case, they're not doing their jobs very well. In Western Europe, only a tiny fraction of the people drink fluoridated water. In Canada, fluoridation is prevalent in Ontario and Alberta but almost non-existent in BC and Quebec.

The fact that its not done in many parts of the world has nothing to do with the science... it has to do with politics.

Oh, and Europe? Many countries there don't add fluoride to water, but they add it to salt instead.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16156167

If there is a substantial benefit to fluoridation, it should be simple to demonstrate.

It is easy to demonstrate.

From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/

Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm).

I've done a fair bit of reading on this and I oppose fluoridation on the following grounds:

1. The practice of fluoridation essentially amounts to medicating people whether they want it or not. This is contrary to the medical principle of informed consent.

That's a philosphical question rather than a scientific one.As is the question about whether its worth it.

2. Fluoride is a toxic substance and some studies in higher doses will cause health problems

Which is irrelevant since the amount of fluoride added to water is controlled to be around ~1 ppm . No "High doses". (And if someone does get a high dose, it has nothing to do with drinking water. They got it from somewhere else.)

I would say that there is no proof at this point that the levels in drinking water are harmful but it's entirely possible that we will find out at some point that it is

They've been adding fluoride to watter for decades. (Plus, many areas have naturally occuring fluroide.If there was a risk, we would have found evidence for it by now.

.

4. When you put a substance in drinking water, you lose control of the dosage

Irrelevant. The amount added to drinking water is so small, you'd probably have to injest multiple gallons of water per day to get a dangerous dose. .

5. The health benefits of fluoride are when it is applied to the surface of the teeth. We shouldn't be ingesting it.

Ingesting it is perfectly safe. And it does affect the teeth when done..

6. The articles that I've seen claim the efficacy of flooride to be all over the map from slight to huge. It seems to me that good dental care is preferable to mass medication.
.

Except of course not everyone engages in good dental practices.

Yeah, it would actually be better of everyone brushed their teeth 3 times a day. Flossed regularly. Visited the dentist. Avoided sugary foods. But not everyone does. Some can't afford to do all that. Others (e.g. kids) may not have the capacity to think of their future to see the benefits of proper dental care.

The bottom line here is that there are a lot of Canadians that share these views. They deserve representation in parliament.

And if a lot of people believed in a flat earth, they might demand representation in parliament too. But if that party said "We are all about science" then I would rightly view them as idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve.

Now, in reality that wouldn't happen under a Green party government... after all, they'd only control a small fraction of the world's food supply. Still, it seems strange to champion a method of farming that would lead to widespread starvation."

Hah don't be ridiculous. I've worked on a massive agricultural farm and organic. I'd never work on the former again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To hear the breathless hyperbole of those that are fixated on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, you might think that was actually true. And yet, it turns out it's not

I've built a solar farm. It's miles and miles of panels and powers 2% of our electrical grid. People where saying the same thing about Hydro power. And then they realized all the unforeseen negative results.

We don't understand the balences that may exist that regulate our planet that uses or are based on this solar energy hitting earth. Absorbing such a large amount quite possibly could have consequences we had not foreseen. Our knowledge even though we believe ourselves brilliant is very limited when we compare it with the infinit possibilities.

We have lots of solar panels , and Eastern Ontario happened to have a energy cost double then the rest of the country. Come see our field of solar panels as far as the eye can see. That powers 2% of our grid.

Edited by Freddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/

•Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

•Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

•Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

•Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

There is also this reference: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

I love that you parsed that list because it would have forced you to be extremely critical of oil and natural gas production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve.

Hah don't be ridiculous. I've worked on a massive agricultural farm and organic. I'd never work on the former again.

Why exactly is that relevant? How does the fact that you prefer working on an organic farm mean that organic farming gives the same yields as non-organic?

Oh and just wondering... one of the "pesticides" used in organic farming is urine. So, was it your job to pee on people's food, or did you hire others to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

•Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

•Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

•Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

I love that you parsed that list because it would have forced you to be extremely critical of oil and natural gas production.

I parsed the list because in previous posts I was comparing the death rate for nuclear (the technology that the green party doesn't want to use) with wind/solar (technologies that the green party favors). In a thread that already has a substantial amount of drift, bringing up issues with fossil fuels would have been an additional distraction that wasn't needed.

I have no problem criticizing fossil fuels. They contribute to localized air pollution. They contribute to the greenhouse effect. The remaining reserves will eventually run out. We do need to find alternatives, and soon. (And I have no problem criticizing the conservatives for having the weakest policies towards global warming.)

Nuclear power would be a good alternative to fossil fuels (at least for electricity production). No carbon footprint. Technology (when handled properly) is relatively safe, remaining reserves of uranium will last a substantial amount of time (much longer than fossil fuels anyways). And the technology is mature. We could start building additional reactors tomorrow. But the green party doesn't want us to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've built a solar farm. It's miles and miles of panels and powers 2% of our electrical grid. People where saying the same thing about Hydro power. And then they realized all the unforeseen negative results.

Solar farms seem to me like the type of thinking that could only come from utility companies. Let's dedicate a whole bunch of land to only one thing and generate power miles away from where anyone uses it. And that way we can keep it all under our control. You're right, it's a lot like hydro.

Rooftop solar seems like a better way to go. You're taking space that is already wasted and turning it into something useful. You're generating power where it's needed and you already have power lines running to the site. Utilities aren't crazy about it because they don't like to lose control to the homeowners. Sux for them.

Personally, I like the idea of solar shingles. Everyone has to replace their roof sooner or later and as the technology gets adopted, the prices will drop.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solar farms seem to me like the type of thinking that could only come from utility companies. Let's dedicate a whole bunch of land to only one thing and generate power miles away from where anyone uses it. And that way we can keep it all under our control. You're right, it's a lot like hydro.

Rooftop solar seems like a better way to go. You're taking space that is already wasted and turning it into something useful. You're generating power where it's needed and you already have power lines running to the site. Utilities aren't crazy about it because they don't like to lose control to the homeowners. Sux for them.

Solar farms have several advantages over rooftop solar:

- Death per KWH is lower (probably because the centralized allows more control to prevent industrial accidents)

- Rather than solar panels, they can use other technology that is still able to produce energy after the sun has gone down (e.g. molten salt... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229654-100-giant-solar-farm-uses-molten-salt-to-keep-power-coming/)

- I suspect it may be easier to feed power into the grid... rather than a thousand circuits from rooftop systems to the grid, they just need a single one

Personally, I like the idea of solar shingles. Everyone has to replace their roof sooner or later and as the technology gets adopted, the prices will drop.

Whether solar shingles work will probably depend on how your house is oriented, the snow covering, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segnosaur what is wrong with urine? It's a natural source of nitrogen, like manure. I'll bet you're just shocked that vegetables grow in manure aren't you?

Perhaps you'd prefer the vegetables grown on the massive agricultural farm grown in clay so concreted and hard that a tractor couldn't make a dent in it, that the only thing added to them for 30 years was massive amounts of pesticides that my own manager the person responsible for producing the food said that "he wouldn't that sh^t"?

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...