Zhen Li wrote:A nuclear melt down is never going to be like a nuke, and most of the radioactive material released will decay in a few days. You can walk and have a nice stroll right through the Fukushima exclusion zone and receive less radiation than you would have got while in the jumbo jet flying to Japan.
kirtu wrote:Malcolm wrote:Sherab wrote:Molten salt nuclear reactors are considered to be "safe and proliferation-resistent".
Yes, the operative word here is "considered"; Three Mile Island was "considered" safe, Fukushima was "considered" safe, Chernobyl was "considered" safe until it turned out that they weren't safe at all.
TMI was in fact safe. The radiation release was heavily overblown in the press
Fukashima was stupid design and that could easily be seen.
However safe means, if there is a total disaster, the reactor will shut itself down with no or minimal radiation release (obviously we need to engineer this for no release).
If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline will help pump billions of dollars into the pockets of a few companies... but also millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. It's been called "a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet". Bold public action has delayed it once, and a court ruling last week has dealt a serious blow to the project. Now, if we act fast and in massive numbers, we can help kill it for good.
If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline will help pump ... millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
sherabpa wrote:If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline will help pump ... millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Actually it pumps oil, not carbon. This is important, since it has been said that that the oil will be extracted and the carbon generated regardless of the Keystone pipeline. This was actually said by someone who was against the pipeline, because he thought the oil should 'stay in the ground'. But even if you accept that carbon is similar to a 'bomb' I don't see how stopping the pipeline would help keep the oil in the ground or the carbon out of the atmosphere.
A new study by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has claimed that only a few decades are left for our current civilization before it collapses. Mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center wrote a report along with her team of natural and social scientists. The report said that there are fixed numbers of days for modern civilizations, and there is nothing to blame on climate change, or a potential World War III.
They cited five major reasons for the social collapse, comprising of population, climate, water, agriculture and energy. According to the report, within the last 5,000 years, all societal collapses have been a result of the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity as resources were overstretched. Also, the economic stratification of society into Elites and poor in Masses caused the social collapse.
The flow of resources accessible to Masses is controlled by the 'Elite' population, which in turn allows Elites to accumulate a great amount for themselves. It is more than enough to strain natural resources.
Motesharrei's team is of the firm belief that this will become the cause of societal collapse at the end of civilization.
kirtu wrote: ... And then we'd have free, non-polluting energy forever.
Thrasymachus wrote:And of course in that case the poorest may well likely end up getting the shortest straw as usual, while the biggest consumers and wasters hire mercenaries to kill for their private property and access to resources.
Sherab wrote:For those who argue that it is ok to do nothing about climate change.
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a- ... e-7?c=ufb3
zsc wrote:Ugh, makes me see the appeal of socialism sometimes.
Indrajala wrote:That's actually a good point I've thought about too: humans tend to use energy that is available to them, so if virtually unlimited energy became available you can be sure industrialization would figuratively devour the planet.
Users browsing this forum: TurnitinBot [Bot] and 3 guests