You wanna talk about the Chinese and the FACT that every nation puts its own self-interests ahead of all others (and those who say they aren't are the ones you have to watch, because they're LYING through their TEETH), then go start another discussion.
*Boxleitnerspeak* GET THE HELL OUT OF MY THREAD!
Sieg: RE; The ABC Special...
what they don't tell you is that the parents were there with their kids during the interviews, and raised ZERO objections at the time, and for a considerable time afterwards. They were all fine with it, and signed the releases and everything.
It wasn't until AFTER those parents were harassed by some environmentalists that they pulled their kids' interview.
[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
That makes NO sense whatsoever. He INTERVIEWED them. HE asked the questions, he didn't TEACH anything.
Watch the program.
Here's another tidbit that I just picked up the other day.
It's true that some 1400 scientists signed a petition urging Congress to adopt the Kyoto accords.
What isn't commonly reported is that 17,000 OTHER scientists signed a petition urging congress NOT to, because they believed Kyoto was bad science.
Let me say that again, just in case you think I made a typo... 1,400 yes. 17,000 no.
I wouldn't gamble a trillion dollars on that, would you?
[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
How did he pick the kids? Did he just go to somebody's house and ask to do the interview? Was there a pre-screening interview? How were the interviewees selected? And were you present when the enviormentalists spoke with the parents?
posted
Was I present? No. Did the show SHOW them talking to the kids? Yes. Dod the show SHOW the interviews? No, but being smart, they found some other parents who the Greenies hadn't managed to reach, and interviewed THEIR kids.
Incidentally, in case you didn't believe me about the roughly 17,000, here's a link to a partial list. I'd love to see someone try to deride ALL these people as right-wing kooks...
[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
The kids were just a class of elementary school kids. A whole group, not one-on-one. It was clear they'd all been taught the same things.
They were interviewed shortly after one of these 'green earth' presentations. The cameras also filmed the kids marching around the schools and shouting slogans...
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
First of Two: I know all about some of the parents being pressured by environmental groups to rescind their consent to have the interview with their children. I have no doubt that the environmental groups used all sorts of heavy tactics to do so as Stossel has long reported on environmental issues that contradict today's accepted standard pattern of thought. However, for such a quick about-face, I cannot help but wonder if a few of the parents did have a bit of apprehension about the interview.
I showed some reluctance to accepting all of it at face value for that reason plus the fact that he was forced to apologize for a report he did last year where he cited data from an experiment that was never done. I also have a bit of bias against him because some of his reports of the past have struck me as being very whiney and not containing a good deal of substance.
I did not get to see all of the news report, but the parts of the report that I did watch I do agree were well done. Quite a few of the issues that he raised I agree with. Just as one example, the teaching of environmental studies in elementary school has moved towards being more propagandic than educational. I know this first hand because in my day (about 10 to 12 years ago), nuclear power was considered a good and viable alternate source of energy. Nowadays, it's view with almost the same villany that fossil fuels have been branded with.
posted
Nuclear power's becoming viable again (not that it wasn't in the first place, just that the propagandists won the battle).
The newest issue of Popular Science includes an article on what are said to be meltdown-proof reactors. I haven't read it yet, but "Ah aim to."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Cool. Once we have that in place, nuclear power should start to make a comeback. All we need to do now is convince the government to start a rocket building program so that we can launch the radioactive waste into the sun to get rid of it all (that's the other prong of the anti-nuclear energy argument).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
One aspect of nucleair energy is often overlooked: current reactors run on a particular uranium isotope (-235, IIRC) which isn't exactly present in abundance. If the current energy output was raised (solely by nucleair powerplants, as they are the only "viable" means we have) by say, 50% (which would be sufficient for a few decades - at least until countries like India and China really reach the industrial age), the present amount of U-235 would last us roughly 40 years. After that, unless we had/would have seriously invested in finding alternative sources of energy (i.e. fusion, or hybrid plants that can process plutonium (which raises serious security issues regarding nuclear proliferation, btw)), we'd be in the dark - think of the consequences a global outtage would have!
The way I see it, our best hopes lie with fusion, or perhaps even anti-matter, technology to carry us through the 21st century - approximately 5 decades remain, and I wish governments would realise the just how dire our predicament is.
posted
It's been a few years, but I recall watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel that took a look at a prototype fusion reactor that was in testing in Russia.
Apparently, fusion is a hard process to maintain and control because of the massive amounts of heat and the powerful magnetic fields needed. I think fusion is the best of the nuclear alternatives because of its using hydrogen as its reactant. Of course, helium is the by-product, and there's only so much of the stuff we can inhale to do funky voices.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
One thing that they should consider is vitrification, where they melt the used uranium, separate the radioactive isotopes, and trap it in glass. The remaining uranium is recycled into rods and sent back to the reactor.
That is the much better alternative then having lots of used uranium lying somewhere taking space. I was told that this process can save as much as 90% of space and is also environmentally safer than storing used uranium.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
posted
It seems fusion (proper fusion, not to be confused with cold fusion) could be a reality soon. This article reports that techniques for more effective magnetic containment are being improved, and that there are plans for a prototype that will produce power.
Another article debates the need for nuclear power (conventional fission). You've probably heard most of that debate before, but here's a part I found interesting:
"A particularly promising line of research, which is being pioneered by the Nobel-prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia and others, is into reactors that depend on spallation neutrons from a proton accelerator. The protons hit a target of a heavy metal, such as tungsten, producing a shower of neutrons that go into a sub-critical reactor assembly. This makes the reactor go critical, thereby generating power. Such reactors are easily controlled because the reaction stops as soon as the accelerator is switched off. The neutron fluxes are also so high that the radioactive wastes can be burnt inside the reactor. These are both highly desirable environmental features."
Burning the radioactive waste inside the reactor seems like a good thing to me.
On a similar issue, people might be interested in NASA's investigations into nuclear propulsion (for launching).
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
And now I'd like to mention how the "corporation slave" is sticking it to a certain megacorporation by dredging the Hudson for PCB's and making sure that they (the corporation) get the bill for it.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Printer-friendly view of this topic
