Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Coping..

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

Unread postby Liamj » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 17:58:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Creach', 'T')he comeback of coal will suck for the environment, but that's a sacrifice that will have to be made in the short term.


Pick the global warming ignoramous. So you're fine with an 11C warming, when nothing bigger than a rat survived last 5C warming? If had time would get stuck into the nuke industry propaganda too.
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S

Unread postby DamianB » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 19:28:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 'f')uck u and your nuclear energy ya bloated hogs. No clue and no care about sustainablility or sacrifice.

yep ill be sitting back in my earth ship living FREE watching the glutons and lunatics "getting their rightful energy nuclear". Then i will watch their demise as they develop cancers and disease frm all their wack experiments trying to sustain their energy fixes.

stop being a lazy ahole and ditch the nuclear. start building something sustainable. ya dopes.

and they will take every one down with them.

fuc u. selfish jerks.


Right on man! Anyone contemplating nuclear energy STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
User avatar
DamianB
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed 19 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Dorset, England

Unread postby maverickdoc » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 19:32:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamianB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('holmes', 'f')uck u and your nuclear energy ya bloated hogs. No clue and no care about sustainablility or sacrifice.

yep ill be sitting back in my earth ship living FREE watching the glutons and lunatics "getting their rightful energy nuclear". Then i will watch their demise as they develop cancers and disease frm all their wack experiments trying to sustain their energy fixes.

stop being a lazy ahole and ditch the nuclear. start building something sustainable. ya dopes.

and they will take every one down with them.

fuc u. selfish jerks.


Right on man! Anyone contemplating nuclear energy STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND


DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what? DamianB is just ranting nonsense
User avatar
maverickdoc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Liamj » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 19:54:40

"48 Groups Refute US President's Claim That Nuclear Energy Is " A Renewable Source of Energy" http://energybulletin.net/4284.html

Nuclear energy is just another pork barrel for the corporations, is about as sustainable as GWB walking & talking at the same time. Wouldn't mind really (cos theres so many handouts to corps already), but this one will spell death & deformity for 100s of 1000s of years. Fine, do it to your kids, but not to mine.

Warfare is no way to deal with the waste issue
"The horror of Depleted Uranium is not limited to Iraq – it may well be at our doorsteps." http://energybulletin.net/4121.html
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S

Unread postby maverickdoc » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 20:01:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '"')48 Groups Refute US President's Claim That Nuclear Energy Is " A Renewable Source of Energy" http://energybulletin.net/4284.html

Nuclear energy is just another pork barrel for the corporations, is about as sustainable as GWB walking & talking at the same time. Wouldn't mind really (cos theres so many handouts to corps already), but this one will spell death & deformity for 100s of 1000s of years. Fine, do it to your kids, but not to mine.

Warfare is no way to deal with the waste issue
"The horror of Depleted Uranium is not limited to Iraq – it may well be at our doorsteps." http://energybulletin.net/4121.html

Depleted uranium is not the same as Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not renewable but that has nothing to do with safety.

"but this one will spell death & deformity for 100s of 1000s of years. Fine, do it to your kids, but not to mine."

Nuclear energy is relatively safe.
User avatar
maverickdoc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 22:00:44

[quote="Creach"]We'll worry about Peak Uranium when it gets closer 8) .

You will have to wait many millions of years at todays rate of consumption. Any society that depletes all the nuclear fuel recoverable in the crust in less than ten thousand years will have been baked to slag in its own waste heat.

There is no energy crisis, only a fuel refining bottleneck.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Liamj » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 23:24:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', '
')Depleted uranium is not the same as Nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not renewable but that has nothing to do with safety.

It is if its how the corps are getting rid of their nuclear waste. 8000 tons in GulfWar1, 50,000 so far Gulf War 2, are you saying its unrelated?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')Nuclear energy is relatively safe.
Nonsense, how can you say that when the US is about to invade Iran on grounds of opposite?

1. There is still no way to permanently stabilise nuclear waste, let alone 'dispose' of it.
2. There is no way to protect nuke reactors from terrorist strike.
3. There is no way to stop reactors being used to create material for weapons of mass destruction.

Pick any point you like, prove me wrong. Else stop pushing nonsense.
I know this thread not on nukes, but oh well..
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Top

Unread postby Phaethon » Wed 09 Feb 2005, 23:30:53

well...
everyone's blith comments and attitudes confirms as much to me.


We're are 'screwed' (forgive my lack of eloquence..

I just hope that our ancestors don't condem us to brutally.
Phaethon
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun 06 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby maverickdoc » Thu 10 Feb 2005, 00:02:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '
')It is if its how the corps are getting rid of their nuclear waste. 8000 tons in GulfWar1, 50,000 so far Gulf War 2, are you saying its unrelated?


I can not understand what you are trying to say (post something coherent). Nuclear waste is buried in concrete boxes in the Nevada desert.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')Nuclear energy is relatively safe.
Nonsense, how can you say that when the US is about to invade Iran on grounds of opposite?


US is invading Iran, B/C Iran has oil we want, and we don’t want them to sell oil in euro instead of the dollar.

Safety of nuclear energy has nothing to do with why we don’t want Iran to make nuclear power plants. The stated reason is the administration believes Iran might use the rods to make nuclear weapons.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '
')1. There is still no way to permanently stabilise nuclear waste, let alone 'dispose' of it.
2. There is no way to protect nuke reactors from terrorist strike.
3. There is no way to stop reactors being used to create material for weapons of mass destruction.

Pick any point you like, prove me wrong. Else stop pushing nonsense.
I know this thread not on nukes, but oh well..


We are talking about using nuclear plant to generate energy in the US.

Terrorists have never attacked a nuclear plant. So yes there are way to protect nuke reactors from terrorist strike.

If the reactor is in the US, it is highly unlikely reactors will be used to create material for weapons of mass destruction.


Please think before posting
User avatar
maverickdoc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby DamianB » Thu 10 Feb 2005, 06:41:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverick', 'D')OESN'T UNDERSTAND what? DamianB is just ranting nonsense


I'm sorry for shouting. Have you guys watched the Bartlett video?

The consumption of energy capital is what has created this situation - a population greatly in excess of the carrying capacity of its environment. Seeking out new energy sources so that the status quo is maintained as much as possible, is not the answer. We need to find ways of living with the flow of energy in this ecosystem. Having access to so much free or excess energy has detached people from what it means to be human.

I think that 'coping' is a period of time between realisation and acceptance.
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
User avatar
DamianB
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed 19 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Dorset, England
Top

Unread postby Liamj » Thu 10 Feb 2005, 16:07:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Liamj', '
')It is if its how the corps are getting rid of their nuclear waste. 8000 tons in GulfWar1, 50,000 so far Gulf War 2, are you saying its unrelated?

I can not understand what you are trying to say (post something coherent). Nuclear waste is buried in concrete boxes in the Nevada desert.

Offloading depleted uranium in ordanence is a great way to save the cost of disposing as nuclear waste, and this use is rapidly increasing. You really believe thats a safe use of nukes? Or that it doesn't demonstrate a flaw in waste disposal? Are you aware >200 US servicemen from IraqWar2 have already come down with multiple malignancies?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')US is invading Iran, B/C Iran has oil we want, and we don’t want them to sell oil in euro instead of the dollar.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Can you quote an admin official saying that?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')Safety of nuclear energy has nothing to do with why we don’t want Iran to make nuclear power plants. The stated reason is the administration believes Iran might use the rods to make nuclear weapons.
Thankyou for repeating my point in different words and pretending its a contradiction.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'W')e are talking about using nuclear plant to generate energy in the US. Do you yanks ever pull your heads out of yr butts? The thread actually about something completely different, you propagandists are just trying to trying to redefine it to suit yourselves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')Terrorists have never attacked a nuclear plant. So yes there are way to protect nuke reactors from terrorist strike. Terrorists never attacked the Pentagon b4 2001, so that mean its safe too? Why then does the idea get v.regular mention in media?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')If the reactor is in the US, it is highly unlikely reactors will be used to create material for weapons of mass destruction. i'm embarrassed for you, saying something so stupid in public. So where did the US get all its weapons grade plutonium, free with their whoppers?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', ' ')Please think before posting save the patronising for someone who takes you seriously.
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Top

Previous

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron