No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already.
Where the hell do most people hear this stuff? I read up on global climate change stuff all the damn time and I virtually never see this message. Most of it is "Hey, we should be careful with this CO2 shit, maybe you should switch to stuff that saves you money anyway."
That's the message conservatives say environmentalists are spreading. You encounter it when you talk to conservatives about why they oppose climate change. It has about as much to do with reality as most of the other bullshit conservatives spread.
So lets start shooting the sulfur dioxied or w/e into the ionosphere because, the CO2 isn't going away. Just keeping the growth in terms of tons/year down is going to be a monstrous task for the US, let alone in developing countries.
The problem is that you need both things working in concert; if the CO2 PPM continues to spike upward, your mitigation techniques are going to become less and less effective (the 'we keep adding a bigger and bigger ice cube to the ocean' problem).
Remember: Snowball Earth, which probably had an albedo approximating that of Venus, was completed thawed-out by a high CO2 concentration (and the world afterward became incredibly hot).
Geoengineering is called 'mitigation' for a reason: it buys us time to reduce emissions. It's not an alternative to emissions reduction.
Please provide evidence for this claim. If you have found a visible human signal that pinpoints climate change as being man-made then I would like to see it, it would certainly shut up the deniers.
No problem.
The foundational piece of evidence is that CO2 is the primary gas in the atmosphere responsible for temperature forcing, both because of it's long half-life and because of the way it traps long wave-length radiation (specifically, absorbing it in the 8-18 micrometer band, where the water vapour in the atmosphere would otherwise allow it to escape). Historical temperature readings & carbon dioxide levels corroborate the mathematical models on this issue: high levels of CO2 are always associated with high global temperatures.
Today's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 390 PPM, has increased by roughly 36% since 1750, and is higher now than it has been for at least 420,000 years, and likely much, much longer. How did all of this CO2 get into the atmosphere? The only plausible explanation is that human beings have put it there.
The recent build-up of CO2 is associated with what our mathematical models predict it should be: increased global temperatures.
So, it boils down to this:
1) CO2 is a gas that traps long wave-length radiation & has a long half-life
2) Humans are producing a lot of CO2 and emitting it into the atmosphere
3) The CO2 emissions are having a predictable warming effect on the planet as the concentration increases
All this talk about solar and electric is great and all, but my understanding of both of those technologies is that they rely largely on components that, short term, are scarcer than petroleum. It is really fucking stupid that this is our long term plan for the future, and I don't understand why more people aren't freaking out about this: http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/rare-earth-elements-endangered-list
Which is why I'm in favor of biodiesel, and really excited with the recent advances in harvesting it from algae, coupled with Navy$ to help it along:
You can make a basic, functional photovoltaic device from just a block of silicon which is literally one of the most common things on Earth in raw form. When you start adding parts that are less common like gold (which is still several orders of magnitude more common than the materials discussed in that article) for electrical contacts you get gains in efficiency. Unfortunately, there are many more scientists and engineers focused on creating super-high efficiency solar cells than sustainable ones, but there are people working on it (almost all of them are in Europe, FWIW).
The rarest thing that is used in common silicon-based solar cells is Indium-Tin-Oxide, which is extremely useful due to the fact that it is a transparent conductor that happens to make good electrical contact with silicon, but there are plenty of really smart people working on getting non-ITO conductors to work as efficiently as ITO. The only reason this particular compound is a concern is that it is also used in LCD flat-panel construction (for the same reasons) and the demand there has driven up the price of Indium over 100x over the past decade.
The overall situation vis-a-vis Rare Earths and solar isn't as bad as that article makes it sound, since no one is seriously proposing to use Indium-Gallium-X bulk solar panels to replace base loads since silicon-based panels are so much cheaper.
All this talk about solar and electric is great and all, but my understanding of both of those technologies is that they rely largely on components that, short term, are scarcer than petroleum. It is really fucking stupid that this is our long term plan for the future, and I don't understand why more people aren't freaking out about this: http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/rare-earth-elements-endangered-list
Which is why I'm in favor of biodiesel, and really excited with the recent advances in harvesting it from algae, coupled with Navy$ to help it along:
You can make a basic, functional photovoltaic device from just a block of silicon which is literally one of the most common things on Earth in raw form. When you start adding parts that are less common like gold (which is still several orders of magnitude more common than the materials discussed in that article) for electrical contacts you get gains in efficiency. Unfortunately, there are many more scientists and engineers focused on creating super-high efficiency solar cells than sustainable ones, but there are people working on it (almost all of them are in Europe, FWIW).
The rarest thing that is used in common silicon-based solar cells is Indium-Tin-Oxide, which is extremely useful due to the fact that it is a transparent conductor that happens to make good electrical contact with silicon, but there are plenty of really smart people working on getting non-ITO conductors to work as efficiently as ITO. The only reason this particular compound is a concern is that it is also used in LCD flat-panel construction (for the same reasons) and the demand there has driven up the price of Indium over 100x over the past decade.
The overall situation vis-a-vis Rare Earths and solar isn't as bad as that article makes it sound, since no one is seriously proposing to use Indium-Gallium-X bulk solar panels to replace base loads since silicon-based panels are so much cheaper.
Also, you can get the indium back by recycling. Unlike oil it's not burned away or anything so you can take old panels and re-use the indium.
I think we have should all just take a breath and maybe take a few steps back here.
Do we even KNOW if any of these supposed climate changes are actually man-made?
Especially after that whole business with the e-mail scandal.
We're basically back to Square One.
Yes, we really do know that the 'supposed' climate change is man-made, in that it is being caused by high concentrations of CO2, which we are producing.
The e-mail scandal was not really a scandal. Some of the e-mails are rather impolite; that's the way things go with human communication.
Please provide evidence for this claim. If you have found a visible human signal that pinpoints climate change as being man-made then I would like to see it, it would certainly shut up the deniers.
And will the IPCC report provide hard evidence that climate change is anthropogenic or not? Bearing in mind the IPCC have had some 'questionable' moments I'm reluctant to cite them. The Ender said "yes we really do know that climate change is man made" when my understanding is that it is still a hotly debated question on whether it's anthropogenic or natural variance. I want stuff like this;
but even that seems uncertain when they say things like "Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed" and "Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity".
There is a very, very, very small minority of scientists who are debating.
Also, the debate isn't
"The Climate is changing!" vs "The climate is the same as it always has been!"
it's
"The Climate is changing, it's our fault and we should do something about it!" vs "The climate is changing and it's not our fault, we must do something about it!"
All this talk about solar and electric is great and all, but my understanding of both of those technologies is that they rely largely on components that, short term, are scarcer than petroleum. It is really fucking stupid that this is our long term plan for the future, and I don't understand why more people aren't freaking out about this: http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/rare-earth-elements-endangered-list
Which is why I'm in favor of biodiesel, and really excited with the recent advances in harvesting it from algae, coupled with Navy$ to help it along:
You can make a basic, functional photovoltaic device from just a block of silicon which is literally one of the most common things on Earth in raw form. When you start adding parts that are less common like gold (which is still several orders of magnitude more common than the materials discussed in that article) for electrical contacts you get gains in efficiency. Unfortunately, there are many more scientists and engineers focused on creating super-high efficiency solar cells than sustainable ones, but there are people working on it (almost all of them are in Europe, FWIW).
The rarest thing that is used in common silicon-based solar cells is Indium-Tin-Oxide, which is extremely useful due to the fact that it is a transparent conductor that happens to make good electrical contact with silicon, but there are plenty of really smart people working on getting non-ITO conductors to work as efficiently as ITO. The only reason this particular compound is a concern is that it is also used in LCD flat-panel construction (for the same reasons) and the demand there has driven up the price of Indium over 100x over the past decade.
The overall situation vis-a-vis Rare Earths and solar isn't as bad as that article makes it sound, since no one is seriously proposing to use Indium-Gallium-X bulk solar panels to replace base loads since silicon-based panels are so much cheaper.
Also, you can get the indium back by recycling. Unlike oil it's not burned away or anything so you can take old panels and re-use the indium.
Yeah, that too. Once the panel hits its ~20 year service life, you would be able to harvest and recycle almost all of the raw materials.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already.
Where the hell do most people hear this stuff? I read up on global climate change stuff all the damn time and I virtually never see this message. Most of it is "Hey, we should be careful with this CO2 shit, maybe you should switch to stuff that saves you money anyway."
That's the message conservatives say environmentalists are spreading. You encounter it when you talk to conservatives about why they oppose climate change. It has about as much to do with reality as most of the other bullshit conservatives spread.
It's silly to claim there isn't a sizeable portion of people who do actually make it about morality and the evils of capitalism/consumerism. Or in fact the evils of putting humans first. They do that with every topic.
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already.
Where the hell do most people hear this stuff? I read up on global climate change stuff all the damn time and I virtually never see this message. Most of it is "Hey, we should be careful with this CO2 shit, maybe you should switch to stuff that saves you money anyway."
That's the message conservatives say environmentalists are spreading. You encounter it when you talk to conservatives about why they oppose climate change. It has about as much to do with reality as most of the other bullshit conservatives spread.
It's silly to claim there isn't a sizeable portion of people who do actually make it about morality and the evils of capitalism/consumerism. Or in fact the evils of putting humans first. They do that with every topic.
Yes, but in this case they are actually right. It's certainly desirable to re-frame the argument in more solution orientated terms, but it really is all our fault. We've literally driven ourselves to the verge of ecological destruction for cheap energy prices and fear of change.
"The Climate is changing!" vs "The climate is the same as it always has been!"
it's
"The Climate is changing, it's our fault and we should do something about it!" vs "The climate is changing and it's not our fault, we must do something about it!"
Actually, I'd like to clarify the specifics of this:
There are 4 climate scientists that disagree with the consensus (so, you're right, this is not a field-wide 'debate' - it's 4 experts that disagree with everyone else in their field. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, since science is not about universal consensus, but it does mean that calling it a contentious issue is nonsense): Eigil Friis-Christensen, Knud Lassen, Henrik Svensmark and Richard Lindzen.
Eigil Friis-Christensen & Knud Lassen have proposed that it is increased solar activity that is solely responsible for the recent warming, and that CO2 is immaterial / inconsequential. Their paper on this subject tracked solar radiation output and global temperature, and (no surprise) found they correlated quite well. But a subsequent review of the paper, in combination with updated data from the ACRIM satellite series, found that the correlation breaks down during the last 50~ years. Solar irradiation has remained relatively stable, but global temperatures have spiked.
Henrik Svensmark & Eigel Friis-Christensen have proposed that cloud seeding via cosmic rays can be / has been interrupted by solar activity, and that the current trend in warming is caused by low cloud cover (which would lower the planet's albedo). Their model is quite plausible in terms of physics, but the interesting idea is more or less just that at this point - there is currently no evidence suggesting that solar activity is blocking more cosmic rays than normal, or that the Earth has less cloud coverage overall than is normal.
Richard Lindzen has proposed that the Earth has a self-regulating temperature mechanism that he has dubbed the 'Infrared Iris', and that this will prevent any kind of catastrophic warming. His paper on the subject, roughly, explains that warmer oceans result in the formation of fewer high altitude cirrus clouds, and cirrus cloud tend to trap more heat that they reflect because of their small surface area. As the Earth heats-up, he predicts that fewer and fewer cirrus clouds will form over the ocean, which will result in enough heat escape to reverse the warming trend. Lindzen's peers have been unable to replicate his results (that is, observe the same things he has observed), which has lead to speculation that he either:
A) Faked his results
or
Happened to obtain anomalous results
The academic community, unfortunately (in my opinion), tends to give a lot of weight to tenure, and Lindzen has a lot of tenure & respect at MIT from his past work. So, he's been given the benefit of the doubt and his 'interesting' paper has not been retracted, despite the fact that only Lindzen himself has been able to measure the effects of the supposed 'Infrared Iris'.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
alright guys. I need your help.
I've got a friend who wants to start recycling. She's pretty excited about it. And i'm excited for her.
But she's got a bunch of people on her facebook now trying to tell her to NOT recycle because it does more harm than good. Something about the waste being dumped on 3rd world countries who can't process it, and how that's not lowering the effects of just throwing the stuff out.
I'm looking for information. Easy to understand (she's not one of the more 'well-read' friends that I have) easy to explain information on recycling, the pros and cons and the effects.
I've got a friend who wants to start recycling. She's pretty excited about it. And i'm excited for her.
But she's got a bunch of people on her facebook now trying to tell her to NOT recycle because it does more harm than good. Something about the waste being dumped on 3rd world countries who can't process it, and how that's not lowering the effects of just throwing the stuff out.
I'm looking for information. Easy to understand (she's not one of the more 'well-read' friends that I have) easy to explain information on recycling, the pros and cons and the effects.
I don't have any citations, but generally recycling companies make their money from recycling metal (mostly aluminum cans). In order to not get yelled at, they generally take and process paper and plastic (since they are actually useful recycled). Some places take glass, but it is not economical to process it - there have been some scandals where companies were just taking the glass and sending it to the normal landfills.
I've never heard anything about recycling companies just shipping everything to the 3rd world, though. That seems incredibly inefficient when they could just dump it domestically. This may be a line of attack created in NZ, as I've never heard it here in the US.
I've got a friend who wants to start recycling. She's pretty excited about it. And i'm excited for her.
But she's got a bunch of people on her facebook now trying to tell her to NOT recycle because it does more harm than good. Something about the waste being dumped on 3rd world countries who can't process it, and how that's not lowering the effects of just throwing the stuff out.
I'm looking for information. Easy to understand (she's not one of the more 'well-read' friends that I have) easy to explain information on recycling, the pros and cons and the effects.
It really depends on a number of factors, especially what you're recycling & how you do your recycling. If you're driving your own mixed recyclables to a depo, or the city is picking up mixed recyclables, it's basically always worth it.
It you have to take different items to different depots, you want to recycle:
1) Aluminum
2) Glass
Paper is not very efficient to recycle on it's own, but it's worthwhile to include in a mix.
If it's available, electronic recycling is also extremely worthwhile.
A lot of e-waste gets dumped on third world countries. I'm pretty sure most of the common materials like paper, plastic, and glass are done more locally.
edit: re @The Ender
eWaste recycling is extremely worthwhile, as electronics contain a lot of rare earths and precious metals (more gold per pound in computer parts than gold ore). But this is the stuff that gets dumped on a coastal town in Bangladesh or somewhere, where barefooted people just bang on them with hammers to break them apart, releasing toxic chemicals. This is probably what your friend's friends are talking about. They have no proper facilities, training, or safety equipment. This is an area where there is room for huge improvements in our process.
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already.
Where the hell do most people hear this stuff? I read up on global climate change stuff all the damn time and I virtually never see this message. Most of it is "Hey, we should be careful with this CO2 shit, maybe you should switch to stuff that saves you money anyway."
That's the message conservatives say environmentalists are spreading. You encounter it when you talk to conservatives about why they oppose climate change. It has about as much to do with reality as most of the other bullshit conservatives spread.
It's silly to claim there isn't a sizeable portion of people who do actually make it about morality and the evils of capitalism/consumerism. Or in fact the evils of putting humans first. They do that with every topic.
Yes, but in this case they are actually right. It's certainly desirable to re-frame the argument in more solution orientated terms, but it really is all our fault. We've literally driven ourselves to the verge of ecological destruction for cheap energy prices and fear of change.
Oh neither I or Yar are saying that there isn't any truth to it. But it's a thoroughly uninteresting thing. We've done a lot of things. Saying it was a huge mistake to come down from the trees and walk upright isn't helpful. I also don't agree with it if the implication is that it's immoral for us to strive for advancement. The shits I give about the planet and the environment outside of those factors necessary for the continued existence of humanity are not a lot.
And it's especially just plain stupid to focus on the blame when there is no real clear blame to give. I mean, the main parties advocating for quickly switching to alternative energy are also the ones who fucking screwed us over by attacking nuclear power. Green parties everywhere are still against nuclear power!
eWaste recycling is extremely worthwhile, as electronics contain a lot of rare earths and precious metals (more gold per pound in computer parts than gold ore). But this is the stuff that gets dumped on a coastal town in Bangladesh or somewhere, where barefooted people just bang on them with hammers to break them apart, releasing toxic chemicals. This is probably what your friend's friends are talking about. They have no proper facilities, training, or safety equipment. This is an area where there is room for huge improvements in our process.
...Source?
All of the recycling for electronics in my area is done locally. They have the plant right behind the depot.
Oh neither I or Yar are saying that there isn't any truth to it. But it's a thoroughly uninteresting thing. We've done a lot of things. Saying it was a huge mistake to come down from the trees and walk upright isn't helpful. I also don't agree with it if the implication is that it's immoral for us to strive for advancement. The shits I give about the planet and the environment outside of those factors necessary for the continued existence of humanity are not a lot.
And this sort of attitude is what got us here in the first place.
It's nonsensical to talk about the Earth as if it's some disposable second-fiddle to humanity; our future is tied to it's future. Until we've decided to, say, terraform Mars or the moon and are travelling freely from planet to planet, there's no sense in treating the Earth / talking about the Earth as if we can trash it without consequence. Saying, "I want us to advance as a species, and I also do not care if we ruin the global ecosystem as we do so," is a contradiction: if we decide that ecosystems are unimportant, we won't be able to advance. If we become totally careless, we'll go extinct.
And it's especially just plain stupid to focus on the blame when there is no real clear blame to give. I mean, the main parties advocating for quickly switching to alternative energy are also the ones who fucking screwed us over by attacking nuclear power. Green parties everywhere are still against nuclear power!
A small minority of uninformed protesters are against nuclear power. None of the academic environmentalists are. You might be thinking of the environmental / nuclear concerns in previous decades, when we were running nuclear plants with extremely poor safety standards & the line between weapons proliferation & civilian reactors was much more blurry.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
We're not the Soviets.
Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).
Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already. "The End is Nigh," the mayan calendar, you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, and driving your big car will burn the planet. We hear these messages from a lot of sources, and they are usually fear-mongering crap.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause?
Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Don't make me laugh.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
Glyph on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
We're not the Soviets.
Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).
Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.
eWaste recycling is extremely worthwhile, as electronics contain a lot of rare earths and precious metals (more gold per pound in computer parts than gold ore). But this is the stuff that gets dumped on a coastal town in Bangladesh or somewhere, where barefooted people just bang on them with hammers to break them apart, releasing toxic chemicals. This is probably what your friend's friends are talking about. They have no proper facilities, training, or safety equipment. This is an area where there is room for huge improvements in our process.
...Source?
All of the recycling for electronics in my area is done locally. They have the plant right behind the depot.
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already. "The End is Nigh," the mayan calendar, you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, and driving your big car will burn the planet. We hear these messages from a lot of sources, and they are usually fear-mongering crap.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause? Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we at Peak Oil? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Please.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
Dude, we're not living in water world, but the people of the South Pacific will be soon. We actually probably are pretty close to peak oil.
I can't imagine you're being serious, and we're obviously NOT going to turn into Venus, but come on.
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
We're not the Soviets.
The big issue I'm worried about is the fact that they cost so much that they need to last for over a century to be economical, and it looks like that isn't the case. It doesn't help that the radiation seems to damage the reactors over time, and god only knows how disassembling one is supposed to work.
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already. "The End is Nigh," the mayan calendar, you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, and driving your big car will burn the planet. We hear these messages from a lot of sources, and they are usually fear-mongering crap.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause? Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we at Peak Oil? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Please.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
Dude, we're not living in water world, but the people of the South Pacific will be soon. We actually probably are pretty close to peak oil.
I can't imagine you're being serious, and we're obviously NOT going to turn into Venus, but come on.
Specifically, Bangladesh is going under water in a few decades.
That is what the rest of the world will be facing in a century if nothing changes.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
We're not the Soviets.
The big issue I'm worried about is the fact that they cost so much that they need to last for over a century to be economical, and it looks like that isn't the case. It doesn't help that the radiation seems to damage the reactors over time, and god only knows how disassembling one is supposed to work.
Uh, I think you can safely not worry about any of that.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause? Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we at Peak Oil? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Please.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
It's a slow burn.
Imagine if you were locked in a room with two vending machines: one that served food and one that served bottled water at regular intervals each day. Both vending machines have enough food & water to last 10 days.
When are you going to realize that there is a problem? If you're aware of the machines' limitations, you might be uneasy and act accordingly (by, say, rationing each serving). But you're not actually going to be in trouble until the machines actually run out of supplies (at which point you'll be in a lot of trouble).
Climate change is non-linear in a similar way. The problems won't be really large and obvious until we're beyond a certain threshold, and but they're really bad once you do pass that threshold. There are hints of the various problems to come right now (pine beetle population explosions, invasive squid migration patterns, rapidly melting ice at the poles, etc), but it's not until the Earth warms another 1-3 degrees that everything falls apart.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that e-waste this is what they were talking about.
No, I disagree. That's part of it. But the main reason deniers have the upper hand is because the message so far has been "look what your sinful lifestyle has done to mother earth!!! Repent!!! Repent!!!" and that's a message they've heard many times and get enough from church already. "The End is Nigh," the mayan calendar, you go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus, and driving your big car will burn the planet. We hear these messages from a lot of sources, and they are usually fear-mongering crap.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause? Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we at Peak Oil? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Please.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
Dude, we're not living in water world, but the people of the South Pacific will be soon. We actually probably are pretty close to peak oil.
I can't imagine you're being serious, and we're obviously NOT going to turn into Venus, but come on.
islands in the south pacific.
I honestly can't remember the name of the island, but it's a small one, just north of new zealand roughly, and the majority (read pretty much all) of the island is below sea level. They are doing massive research and work right now to try and get as much information from the natives, preserve as much of their history, artifacts, and culture as they can because the island is just simply not going to be there anymore in a few years.
also, i can't go outside in the summer/winter/ever without sun protection on in the middle of the day because there's a hole in the ozone over this country.
I honestly can't remember the name of the island, but it's a small one, just north of new zealand roughly, and the majority (read pretty much all) of the island is below sea level. They are doing massive research and work right now to try and get as much information from the natives, preserve as much of their history, artifacts, and culture as they can because the island is just simply not going to be there anymore in a few years.
also, i can't go outside in the summer/winter/ever without sun protection on in the middle of the day because there's a hole in the ozone over this country.
so yeah, that's a thing.
I'd be cautious about attributing atoll & island inundation to climate change at this point in time; most sea level rise at present is due to thermal expansion, and it's not very significant. Some islands like Tuvalu, however, are literally sinking beneath water because they're located at subduction zones, where's the Earth's tectonic plates are sliding under each other. As a plate subducts, it drags the crust (and any islands sitting on that crust) downward.
I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?
As I understand it, yes, New Zealand has to deal with the consequences of the permanently thinned ozone layer over Antarctica. Sometimes 'patches' of thinned ozone pass over the island.
As for sea level rise - when a large inland glacier collapses and moves into the sea, it's not going to be subtle. :P It won't be just a few islands in the developing world that'll be in trouble.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
And Kiribati. And the Maldives.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?
As I understand it, yes, New Zealand has to deal with the consequences of the permanently thinned ozone layer over Antarctica. Sometimes 'patches' of thinned ozone pass over the island.
As for sea level rise - when a large inland glacier collapses and moves into the sea, it's not going to be subtle. :P It won't be just a few islands in the developing world that'll be in trouble.
Actually we fixed the hole in the ozone layer. International negotiation drastically cut the emission of CFC's and other ozone catalysts, and the situation has been improving ever since. I think the prediction is 20-30 years for full recovery, but we're getting there.
I'm fairly certain fear of the Nuclear Menace in the US was never a justifiable thing.
We're not the Soviets.
Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).
Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.
It's much better today.
The fears were overblown to the point of putting a complete damper on the technology. The legacy continues to this day, people still hate nuclear in large numbers, Germany vowed to close all their reactors.
It's like the world is immune to facts, oil and coal kill untold hundreds of thousands over the whole world directly or indirectly each year and yet oh no nuclear!
Eigil Friis-Christensen & Knud Lassen have proposed that it is increased solar activity that is solely responsible for the recent warming, and that CO2 is immaterial / inconsequential. Their paper on this subject tracked solar radiation output and global temperature, and (no surprise) found they correlated quite well. But a subsequent review of the paper, in combination with updated data from the ACRIM satellite series, found that the correlation breaks down during the last 50~ years. Solar irradiation has remained relatively stable, but global temperatures have spiked.
I'm pretty sure this one is basically regarded as poor statistics by this point - i.e. look at any given short period - say, 5 - 10 years - and you can always show a correlation between solar activity and temperature, because the differences in both over that time-span just aren't very large.
As you say though - look at it over a longer time-span, and the whole thing falls apart. It's like that gif that got posted a while back.
Actually we fixed the hole in the ozone layer. International negotiation drastically cut the emission of CFC's and other ozone catalysts, and the situation has been improving ever since. I think the prediction is 20-30 years for full recovery, but we're getting there.
My understanding is that the holes are still incredibly large, and the damage won't be reversed until around 2060~.
I'm definitely not an expert on the subject & haven't read-up on the latest research.
It does still boggle my mind that at one point we were fighting to prevent people from totally destroying the thing that keeps the planet from being fried by UV radiation.
I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?
Not Tuvalu! What'll happen to all out .tv domains?
edit: I do not mean this to belittle the plight of that island. I was just sort of bringing up the domain thing, because I find it interesting that there are these tiny islands where they get a significant amount of income from cheap domains.
The fears were overblown to the point of putting a complete damper on the technology. The legacy continues to this day, people still hate nuclear in large numbers, Germany vowed to close all their reactors.
You'll note that the irrational response in Germany was provoked by the Fukishima meltdown, not by fear expressed by academics in the 60s / 70s. And that meltdown in particular showed exactly why some fears aren't overblown at all - the Japanese energy consortium that built that plant, TEPCO, decided that it would meet the absolute bare minimum standard for supplying back-up generators in order to keep the reactors cooled, and built those reactors in a location that inspectors had informed them was unwise in order to save money. Oops.
Obviously that does not mean the technology is unsafe, but it does mean we're right to demand extremely high standards & be skeptical of the industry because we're dealing with serious compounds that can turn cities into ghost towns for decades, perhaps centuries, if they're handled carelessly.
It's kind of funny to hear people claim that this is a 'green' or 'environmentalist' issue: most organisms actually deal with radiation levels that would be lethal to human beings rather well. The area around Chernobyl, for example, hasn't become some arid desert - it's been largely reclaimed by forest & wildlife. Radioactive contamination is a problem that, for the most part, disproportionately effects humans.
We should pursue nuclear energy, but we should do it while learning from past mistakes and understanding that many companies interested in making money from nuclear power are not going to be interested in spending the money to do so safely. We have to keep an eye on them, in other words.
Fukushima. A twenty year-old plant gets hit by one of largest earthquakes on record AND a tsunami.
That might be an outlier situation.
Conversely the fact it did happen is a problem, seeing how difficult radiation is to clean up. Although to another degree, I think I'd prefer radiation to heavy metal contamination, since radiation - you know - radiates.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.
Posts
That's the message conservatives say environmentalists are spreading. You encounter it when you talk to conservatives about why they oppose climate change. It has about as much to do with reality as most of the other bullshit conservatives spread.
The problem is that you need both things working in concert; if the CO2 PPM continues to spike upward, your mitigation techniques are going to become less and less effective (the 'we keep adding a bigger and bigger ice cube to the ocean' problem).
Remember: Snowball Earth, which probably had an albedo approximating that of Venus, was completed thawed-out by a high CO2 concentration (and the world afterward became incredibly hot).
Geoengineering is called 'mitigation' for a reason: it buys us time to reduce emissions. It's not an alternative to emissions reduction.
No problem.
The foundational piece of evidence is that CO2 is the primary gas in the atmosphere responsible for temperature forcing, both because of it's long half-life and because of the way it traps long wave-length radiation (specifically, absorbing it in the 8-18 micrometer band, where the water vapour in the atmosphere would otherwise allow it to escape). Historical temperature readings & carbon dioxide levels corroborate the mathematical models on this issue: high levels of CO2 are always associated with high global temperatures.
Today's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 390 PPM, has increased by roughly 36% since 1750, and is higher now than it has been for at least 420,000 years, and likely much, much longer. How did all of this CO2 get into the atmosphere? The only plausible explanation is that human beings have put it there.
The recent build-up of CO2 is associated with what our mathematical models predict it should be: increased global temperatures.
So, it boils down to this:
1) CO2 is a gas that traps long wave-length radiation & has a long half-life
2) Humans are producing a lot of CO2 and emitting it into the atmosphere
3) The CO2 emissions are having a predictable warming effect on the planet as the concentration increases
You can make a basic, functional photovoltaic device from just a block of silicon which is literally one of the most common things on Earth in raw form. When you start adding parts that are less common like gold (which is still several orders of magnitude more common than the materials discussed in that article) for electrical contacts you get gains in efficiency. Unfortunately, there are many more scientists and engineers focused on creating super-high efficiency solar cells than sustainable ones, but there are people working on it (almost all of them are in Europe, FWIW).
The rarest thing that is used in common silicon-based solar cells is Indium-Tin-Oxide, which is extremely useful due to the fact that it is a transparent conductor that happens to make good electrical contact with silicon, but there are plenty of really smart people working on getting non-ITO conductors to work as efficiently as ITO. The only reason this particular compound is a concern is that it is also used in LCD flat-panel construction (for the same reasons) and the demand there has driven up the price of Indium over 100x over the past decade.
The overall situation vis-a-vis Rare Earths and solar isn't as bad as that article makes it sound, since no one is seriously proposing to use Indium-Gallium-X bulk solar panels to replace base loads since silicon-based panels are so much cheaper.
Also, you can get the indium back by recycling. Unlike oil it's not burned away or anything so you can take old panels and re-use the indium.
Also, the debate isn't
"The Climate is changing!" vs "The climate is the same as it always has been!"
it's
"The Climate is changing, it's our fault and we should do something about it!" vs "The climate is changing and it's not our fault, we must do something about it!"
Yeah, that too. Once the panel hits its ~20 year service life, you would be able to harvest and recycle almost all of the raw materials.
It's silly to claim there isn't a sizeable portion of people who do actually make it about morality and the evils of capitalism/consumerism. Or in fact the evils of putting humans first. They do that with every topic.
Yes, but in this case they are actually right. It's certainly desirable to re-frame the argument in more solution orientated terms, but it really is all our fault. We've literally driven ourselves to the verge of ecological destruction for cheap energy prices and fear of change.
Actually, I'd like to clarify the specifics of this:
There are 4 climate scientists that disagree with the consensus (so, you're right, this is not a field-wide 'debate' - it's 4 experts that disagree with everyone else in their field. That doesn't automatically make them wrong, since science is not about universal consensus, but it does mean that calling it a contentious issue is nonsense): Eigil Friis-Christensen, Knud Lassen, Henrik Svensmark and Richard Lindzen.
Eigil Friis-Christensen & Knud Lassen have proposed that it is increased solar activity that is solely responsible for the recent warming, and that CO2 is immaterial / inconsequential. Their paper on this subject tracked solar radiation output and global temperature, and (no surprise) found they correlated quite well. But a subsequent review of the paper, in combination with updated data from the ACRIM satellite series, found that the correlation breaks down during the last 50~ years. Solar irradiation has remained relatively stable, but global temperatures have spiked.
Henrik Svensmark & Eigel Friis-Christensen have proposed that cloud seeding via cosmic rays can be / has been interrupted by solar activity, and that the current trend in warming is caused by low cloud cover (which would lower the planet's albedo). Their model is quite plausible in terms of physics, but the interesting idea is more or less just that at this point - there is currently no evidence suggesting that solar activity is blocking more cosmic rays than normal, or that the Earth has less cloud coverage overall than is normal.
Richard Lindzen has proposed that the Earth has a self-regulating temperature mechanism that he has dubbed the 'Infrared Iris', and that this will prevent any kind of catastrophic warming. His paper on the subject, roughly, explains that warmer oceans result in the formation of fewer high altitude cirrus clouds, and cirrus cloud tend to trap more heat that they reflect because of their small surface area. As the Earth heats-up, he predicts that fewer and fewer cirrus clouds will form over the ocean, which will result in enough heat escape to reverse the warming trend. Lindzen's peers have been unable to replicate his results (that is, observe the same things he has observed), which has lead to speculation that he either:
A) Faked his results
or
The academic community, unfortunately (in my opinion), tends to give a lot of weight to tenure, and Lindzen has a lot of tenure & respect at MIT from his past work. So, he's been given the benefit of the doubt and his 'interesting' paper has not been retracted, despite the fact that only Lindzen himself has been able to measure the effects of the supposed 'Infrared Iris'.
I've got a friend who wants to start recycling. She's pretty excited about it. And i'm excited for her.
But she's got a bunch of people on her facebook now trying to tell her to NOT recycle because it does more harm than good. Something about the waste being dumped on 3rd world countries who can't process it, and how that's not lowering the effects of just throwing the stuff out.
I'm looking for information. Easy to understand (she's not one of the more 'well-read' friends that I have) easy to explain information on recycling, the pros and cons and the effects.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I don't have any citations, but generally recycling companies make their money from recycling metal (mostly aluminum cans). In order to not get yelled at, they generally take and process paper and plastic (since they are actually useful recycled). Some places take glass, but it is not economical to process it - there have been some scandals where companies were just taking the glass and sending it to the normal landfills.
I've never heard anything about recycling companies just shipping everything to the 3rd world, though. That seems incredibly inefficient when they could just dump it domestically. This may be a line of attack created in NZ, as I've never heard it here in the US.
It really depends on a number of factors, especially what you're recycling & how you do your recycling. If you're driving your own mixed recyclables to a depo, or the city is picking up mixed recyclables, it's basically always worth it.
It you have to take different items to different depots, you want to recycle:
1) Aluminum
2) Glass
Paper is not very efficient to recycle on it's own, but it's worthwhile to include in a mix.
If it's available, electronic recycling is also extremely worthwhile.
edit: re @The Ender
eWaste recycling is extremely worthwhile, as electronics contain a lot of rare earths and precious metals (more gold per pound in computer parts than gold ore). But this is the stuff that gets dumped on a coastal town in Bangladesh or somewhere, where barefooted people just bang on them with hammers to break them apart, releasing toxic chemicals. This is probably what your friend's friends are talking about. They have no proper facilities, training, or safety equipment. This is an area where there is room for huge improvements in our process.
Oh neither I or Yar are saying that there isn't any truth to it. But it's a thoroughly uninteresting thing. We've done a lot of things. Saying it was a huge mistake to come down from the trees and walk upright isn't helpful. I also don't agree with it if the implication is that it's immoral for us to strive for advancement. The shits I give about the planet and the environment outside of those factors necessary for the continued existence of humanity are not a lot.
And it's especially just plain stupid to focus on the blame when there is no real clear blame to give. I mean, the main parties advocating for quickly switching to alternative energy are also the ones who fucking screwed us over by attacking nuclear power. Green parties everywhere are still against nuclear power!
...Source?
All of the recycling for electronics in my area is done locally. They have the plant right behind the depot.
And this sort of attitude is what got us here in the first place.
It's nonsensical to talk about the Earth as if it's some disposable second-fiddle to humanity; our future is tied to it's future. Until we've decided to, say, terraform Mars or the moon and are travelling freely from planet to planet, there's no sense in treating the Earth / talking about the Earth as if we can trash it without consequence. Saying, "I want us to advance as a species, and I also do not care if we ruin the global ecosystem as we do so," is a contradiction: if we decide that ecosystems are unimportant, we won't be able to advance. If we become totally careless, we'll go extinct.
A small minority of uninformed protesters are against nuclear power. None of the academic environmentalists are. You might be thinking of the environmental / nuclear concerns in previous decades, when we were running nuclear plants with extremely poor safety standards & the line between weapons proliferation & civilian reactors was much more blurry.
We're not the Soviets.
Safety standards for the U.S. didn't really pick-up until after the meltdown at Three Mile Island (the major difference between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl was that the American engineers decided a containment vessel should be constructed, whereas the Soviet engineers didn't).
Academics were absolutely right to be skeptical of the industry at that point in time, which was cutting corners in ways very similar to contemporary coal & oil companies.
It's much better today.
Yes, exactly. Global Warming alarmists are like 2012 End of the World "theorists." They're spreading all this fear and where is the cause?
Are we living in a Water World? No. Are we living in a new Ice Age? No. Are we living in a world reeling from the effects of global economic turmoil, expanding transnational corporate consolidation and increased international hostilities owing in large part to depleting natural resources and shifting spheres of influence reflecting a drastically altering balance of power on the national and supranational level? Don't make me laugh.
Where are all these supposed disasters that climate change is supposed to be causing?
If seeing is believing to these people (who are usually atheists who deny even the possibility of a one true God), why are they so quick to put their "faith" in their own version of the Apocalypse?!
Fair enough.
Stuff like this
Dude, we're not living in water world, but the people of the South Pacific will be soon. We actually probably are pretty close to peak oil.
I can't imagine you're being serious, and we're obviously NOT going to turn into Venus, but come on.
The big issue I'm worried about is the fact that they cost so much that they need to last for over a century to be economical, and it looks like that isn't the case. It doesn't help that the radiation seems to damage the reactors over time, and god only knows how disassembling one is supposed to work.
Specifically, Bangladesh is going under water in a few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Bangladesh
Also the massive flooding in Pakistan made news 1-2 years back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods_in_Pakistan
That is what the rest of the world will be facing in a century if nothing changes.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Uh, I think you can safely not worry about any of that.
It's a slow burn.
Imagine if you were locked in a room with two vending machines: one that served food and one that served bottled water at regular intervals each day. Both vending machines have enough food & water to last 10 days.
When are you going to realize that there is a problem? If you're aware of the machines' limitations, you might be uneasy and act accordingly (by, say, rationing each serving). But you're not actually going to be in trouble until the machines actually run out of supplies (at which point you'll be in a lot of trouble).
Climate change is non-linear in a similar way. The problems won't be really large and obvious until we're beyond a certain threshold, and but they're really bad once you do pass that threshold. There are hints of the various problems to come right now (pine beetle population explosions, invasive squid migration patterns, rapidly melting ice at the poles, etc), but it's not until the Earth warms another 1-3 degrees that everything falls apart.
islands in the south pacific.
I honestly can't remember the name of the island, but it's a small one, just north of new zealand roughly, and the majority (read pretty much all) of the island is below sea level. They are doing massive research and work right now to try and get as much information from the natives, preserve as much of their history, artifacts, and culture as they can because the island is just simply not going to be there anymore in a few years.
also, i can't go outside in the summer/winter/ever without sun protection on in the middle of the day because there's a hole in the ozone over this country.
so yeah, that's a thing.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I'd be cautious about attributing atoll & island inundation to climate change at this point in time; most sea level rise at present is due to thermal expansion, and it's not very significant. Some islands like Tuvalu, however, are literally sinking beneath water because they're located at subduction zones, where's the Earth's tectonic plates are sliding under each other. As a plate subducts, it drags the crust (and any islands sitting on that crust) downward.
that's the one I'm thinking of.
Huh.
So i can't blame that on higher water.
*glare*
I can still complain about the hole in the ozone though, right?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
As I understand it, yes, New Zealand has to deal with the consequences of the permanently thinned ozone layer over Antarctica. Sometimes 'patches' of thinned ozone pass over the island.
As for sea level rise - when a large inland glacier collapses and moves into the sea, it's not going to be subtle. :P It won't be just a few islands in the developing world that'll be in trouble.
Actually we fixed the hole in the ozone layer. International negotiation drastically cut the emission of CFC's and other ozone catalysts, and the situation has been improving ever since. I think the prediction is 20-30 years for full recovery, but we're getting there.
The fears were overblown to the point of putting a complete damper on the technology. The legacy continues to this day, people still hate nuclear in large numbers, Germany vowed to close all their reactors.
It's like the world is immune to facts, oil and coal kill untold hundreds of thousands over the whole world directly or indirectly each year and yet oh no nuclear!
I'm pretty sure this one is basically regarded as poor statistics by this point - i.e. look at any given short period - say, 5 - 10 years - and you can always show a correlation between solar activity and temperature, because the differences in both over that time-span just aren't very large.
As you say though - look at it over a longer time-span, and the whole thing falls apart. It's like that gif that got posted a while back.
My understanding is that the holes are still incredibly large, and the damage won't be reversed until around 2060~.
I'm definitely not an expert on the subject & haven't read-up on the latest research.
It does still boggle my mind that at one point we were fighting to prevent people from totally destroying the thing that keeps the planet from being fried by UV radiation.
edit: I do not mean this to belittle the plight of that island. I was just sort of bringing up the domain thing, because I find it interesting that there are these tiny islands where they get a significant amount of income from cheap domains.
You'll note that the irrational response in Germany was provoked by the Fukishima meltdown, not by fear expressed by academics in the 60s / 70s. And that meltdown in particular showed exactly why some fears aren't overblown at all - the Japanese energy consortium that built that plant, TEPCO, decided that it would meet the absolute bare minimum standard for supplying back-up generators in order to keep the reactors cooled, and built those reactors in a location that inspectors had informed them was unwise in order to save money. Oops.
Obviously that does not mean the technology is unsafe, but it does mean we're right to demand extremely high standards & be skeptical of the industry because we're dealing with serious compounds that can turn cities into ghost towns for decades, perhaps centuries, if they're handled carelessly.
It's kind of funny to hear people claim that this is a 'green' or 'environmentalist' issue: most organisms actually deal with radiation levels that would be lethal to human beings rather well. The area around Chernobyl, for example, hasn't become some arid desert - it's been largely reclaimed by forest & wildlife. Radioactive contamination is a problem that, for the most part, disproportionately effects humans.
We should pursue nuclear energy, but we should do it while learning from past mistakes and understanding that many companies interested in making money from nuclear power are not going to be interested in spending the money to do so safely. We have to keep an eye on them, in other words.
That might be an outlier situation.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Conversely the fact it did happen is a problem, seeing how difficult radiation is to clean up. Although to another degree, I think I'd prefer radiation to heavy metal contamination, since radiation - you know - radiates.
Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.