Expert: Fossil fuels kill more people

[SkyDaddy7]

Run time: 03:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLsQ6XNQZNU   Posted on YouTube: April 06, 2011 By YouTube Member: CNN Views on YouTube: 8   Posted on DU: April 06, 2011 By DU Member: SkyDaddy7 Views on DU: 1438

 

[inademv]

1. He has a point

and nuclear plants aren't fucking up the climate either.

[rfranklin]

2. It's just that glowing pile of waste with a 10,000 year half life that causes problems...

The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain have been abandoned, but even if a facility had been built there, America already has more waste than it could have handled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/us-nuclear-waste-radioactive-storage_n_839438.html

[inademv]

5. Why store it?

New reactors are being designed that use the spent fuel from older reactors. Bill Gates has been instrumental in pushing the research forward and getting the next generation of reactors on line as soon as possible.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelling-wave-nuclear-reactor-works/

[liberation]

8. Technically, you're still storing it

albeit in a much more distributed manner. But those are still nuclear reactors, using nuclear fuel.

[inademv]

10. Read up on how traveling wave reactors work

[liberation]

12. I have read about "traveling wave reactors"

Some of us have degrees in physics and stuff... not that it matters in an anonymous forum.

These reactors still use nuclear fuel, which needs to be STORED in the reactor to be used. That being my point.

[inademv]

15. So why aren't you up in arms

about uranium just existing in the first place then?

[liberation]

17. Yeah, and in a long enough time scale everybody eventually dies

so what's the big fuss about arsenic in pill form, right?

Yawn.

[inademv]

19. Arsenic pill in a 5 inch plastic shell

coated with antacids and wrapped in a layer of cellulose.

[liberation]

20. Bon appetit

[Russr2008]

16. Excellent, take something dangerous and

make it really dangerous. No other fuel source can make this claim: I am a time bomb waiting to go off. At the first natural disaster or unforeseen event I will $#it on you and the rest of the world too. I will cause mutations that generations will inherit. I am ”das gift” that keeps on giving. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/18/2519385.htm">Chernobyl wildlife

Experience should be telling us, that both Nuclear and Fossil fuels are not our future.
You want Nuclear Power, look up in the sky on a cloudless day, there it is. Let us use it.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/06-3">The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher

BTW: The German word das Gift means ”poison.”

[Russr2008]

18. Reactor Fuel recycling still has waste and

furthermore, each time it is recycled there is more, more dangerous waste, and less usable fuel. The French have been trying to secretly deal with this for some time. At one point the French were secretly contracting their waste disposal to "outsourced" entities and those entities reportedly were just dropping it in the ocean of the coast of Somalia. I read about this when I discovered the Democratic candidate Obama was a Nuke Monger.
And for the record Bill Gates is a Putz, a rich Putz, but still a Putz.

hmmm not bad, wonder how many this will piss-off, ah even better ... I voted for Nader :evilgrin:

[liberation]

4. No, he doesn't. He has a very flawed false dichotomy.

He made all that money claiming there was no such thing as "climate change" only to be proven wrong. And here he is, once again... with a repackaged version of his hubris to... tadaaa make more money.

Why is this idiot still taken seriously? And why is an economist brought in as an "expert" in matters that have nothing to do with his area of study?

[inademv]

7. I wasn't aware that

having once been a skeptic about something and been shown the mistakes in your position, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT changing your position to be congruent with the facts you are aware of was a liability in ones credibility.

Did you ever hold a position that you now find to be patently absurd? If no, you're a liar.

[liberation]

11. There is no such thing as "skepticism" when dealing with a field of study he knew nothing about,

it is called "ignorance."

He knew absolutely nothing about climate physics, he is an economist, and he made the work of those doing actual research that much harder while he made loads of money. He only changed his message when his books became completely unmarketable in lieu of the overwhelming facts coming from science, and lo and behold... he now has more books to sell.

You may call that "credibility" other people call that "hubris."

His is still a flawed dichotomy. We do not have to discuss the evils of cancer when dealing with an AIDS epidemic. Yes, cancer kills more people each year so what? His is a ridiculous argument. Among other things because he puts arbitrary stops to when he wants to follow its ultimate logic: if nuclear is better because it "kills less people" than fossils, then it follows that renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) are even better, optimal even. From a "humane" metric of being responsible for less deaths. Yet he simply labels them as "unrealistic" and that is that. Which is hypocritical because his is a knee jerk reaction regarding renewables, while at the same time he complains about the knee jerk reaction against nuclear plants.

How people are in this thread equating the opinions of an economist with a very flawed track record with "facts" is beyond me.

[WatsonT]

3. Since when do facts trump hysteria?

Panic! Buy iodine tablets and shelf stable milk and duct tape and tarps.

/you know, someone with a media empire could make a killing on these panic-buy items by selectively investing prior to drumming up hysteria about whatever is popular at the moment.

[liberation]

6. I don't know about you, but I don't get my "facts" on nuclear energy from a mediocre economist.

But as they say, for tastes...

[SkyDaddy7]

13. Americans & facts do not mix well. nt.

[Charleston Chew]

9. How we became slaves to oil

1. The biggest threat to the water supply of
the world comes from the petrochemical
industry.

2. One way or another, oil (in the form of gasoline
and diesel fuel) is involved in everything we do
and as the price rises, our standard of living
declines.

It just happened that way, right?

There was no alternative and we're only just starting to get
a glimmer of potential alternative fuels sometime way out
in the future, right?

Baloney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x563940

[damntexdem]

14. At one time. Not over coming millenia.

[goodnews]

21. good news. Now we

simply must turn to renewable, safe alternatives to nukes and fossil fuels. "a clear and present danger" these dirty fuel sources are.