What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
221 Comments
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/31/2007, -14/+111You are speaking with no knowledge.
1) Nuclear power is dangerous.
Ok, numbers for you people. How many nuclear reactors have gone critical and killed people? in 50+ years, how many?
1, 2 maybe??
How many exist in the world?
439 (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuc ...
Unsafe? Dangerous? using nuclear fuel is a very new technology when compared to burning coal, and in the first 50 years we ***** up twice. Translation, Nuclear energy isn't unsafe, it is actually very safe considering how new it is to mankind.
2) Siting new plant is nearly impossible?
Yeah, it sure is, and thank you mr enviro-whacko who if you hadn't stirred up unnatural fears about nukes in the first place we might have staved off what people are now calling a catastrophe.
3) Uranium mining is incredibly destructive.
Right, and coal mining has *NEVER* been destructive.
4) Fuel processing releases CFC's
Jesus christ, do you even understand how nuclear plants work?!?! You barely use ANY fuel mass compared to other forms of power. The amount of CFC's released is similarly small.
5) Building and decommissioning nuke plants produces tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases.
WHAT THE HELL?? So we should just continue to spend an equal amount building natural gas plants which naturally release greenhouse gasses WHILE IN USE?!?!?
In short, you are an idiot who makes no sense. Your points are silly and self-contradictory. I can't believe anyone dugg you up. - thebaron2, on 11/05/2007, -4/+58September 6, 2007 (last month) this guy said that "neither the Earth nor the human race is doomed" when he spoke at the World Nuclear Association. I mean I know people change their minds, but one month we'll be OK and the next month we're screwed? Make up your mind, dude.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/energyEnvironmen ... - ECas123, on 11/05/2007, -16/+61*Fingers in ears* LAH-LAH-LAH-LAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/13/2007, -6/+39This guy is not a "top scientist."
- opie32958, on 10/30/2007, -3/+25I am waiting for the day when a scientist tells his university administration, "Quit putting money away for my pension. Pay me straight cash right now, because the world is doomed before I will be able to retire." That's when we'll know they believe their own theories.
- ICSU, on 10/30/2007, -3/+24"The planet is fine. The people are *****." - George Carlin
- inertic, on 10/30/2007, -1/+21And if you actually read the article instead of the misleading digg title, he never says we're doomed. He says global warming is going to happen and there is nothing we can do to stop it. He says the we will have to adapt to new conditions and thinks we will be able to.
- zushiba, on 11/13/2007, -2/+20I'm really diggin this guys pic, a jubilant smile while discussing the end of the earth.
- plr4ever, on 10/30/2007, -2/+18Chernobyl is a bad example: it was poorly designed with no containment structure and hardly any safety mechanisms to speak of. It was an accident waiting to happen, and well, it happened.
- Intrepion, on 10/30/2007, -1/+15In case that happens, we should put a baby in a space capsule that will hopefully crash land on a planet that with give him superpowers (just don't send any earth rocks... the kid will be allergic to them, for some reason)
- remisser, on 10/30/2007, -3/+17" Top Scientist Says We’re Screwed "
Bottom Scientists do the screwing. - lOvOl, on 10/31/2007, -11/+25A lot of people don't know about global dimming which has a huge effect on localized weather patterns as well as temperatures. In fact, it is speculated that pollution from the United States in the 1980's had a large impact on the droughts and famines that afflicted Ethiopia until America cleaned up some of its most polluting industries. It seems amazing to imagine particulate matter traveling halfway across the world, but even pollution from China makes it all the way to the west coast of the United States these days.
The scary thing is that some of the climate models for what happens if global dimming all of a sudden stops pretty much predict some of the worst case scenarios as far as sea ice melting, seas rising, and the ocean currents shutting down which would pretty much turn the interior of continents into deserts in a very short period of time. In fact, some have argued that this is exactly what is happening to the interior of the United States with the unprecedented drought in Georgia right now.
The end result of all of this is that the amount of food we can produce will likely go down considerably and there just won't be enough food (and fresh water) to go around for the 6.5 billion people (and growing) on planet earth right now. The pretty much leaves you with the good old-fashioned human culling methods of war, famine, and disease described by Malthus centuries ago. - hayes321, on 11/13/2007, -4/+17Its strange how I've been told this so much nowadays, I don't think anything of it.
- moskaudancer, on 10/30/2007, -1/+13Not to mention the fact that the human operators intentionally and deliberately overrode the warning systems... I believe they were in the middle of an unauthorized test, but I can't say for sure. I'll go Google it.
- cambob76, on 10/30/2007, -1/+13He's smiling because he's old enough to be dead before anything serious happens. Bastard.
- moskaudancer, on 10/30/2007, -0/+10If we could build a Dyson Sphere, that would probably be an indication that mankind had solved almost every other problem on earth. :)
- Feep, on 10/30/2007, -11/+19Gaia theory? This isn't Final Fantasy, jackass.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7LOL I laughed SOOO hard at this comment.
- ncairns, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7Except zombies.
- Brianguy2000, on 10/30/2007, -6/+12As long as it's our kids problems, no worries for me.
- hayes321, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7Love the irony.
- klpowell, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Man has been on this planet for millions of years why now? Earth has had Ice Ages its had Warming Periods and guess what? Humans are still here and guess what? We will be here in 10 years when "Top Scientist Declare new Ice Age"
- DooM, on 10/30/2007, -1/+6Except that the Global Dimming stopped and started reversing at around 1990.
"A 2007 NASA sponsored satellite-based study sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Recent ... - counterplex, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Shouldn't we be looking for a rogue general and imprisoning him and his minions in some sort of planar dimension?
- socialpyramid, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5BigManOnCampus,
1. It’s not just the deaths of people directly from nuclear fallout that we’re talking about. As award winning Dr. Helen Caldicott writes, “Operating nuclear reactors routinely emit radioactive materials into the air and water including the fat soluble
noble gases, xenon, krypton and argon which are readily absorbed through the lung and migrate in the blood to fatty tissues of the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs where they irradiate the reproductive organs with high doses of mutagenic gamma radiation. Carcinogenic tritium - radioactive hydrogen is also routinely released.” http://www.helencaldicott.com/pdf/adeadv070629.pdf The radiation fallout from Chernobyl covers much of Eurasia, and because the effects take so long to manifest, it’s impossible to know how many thousands have had increased cancer risk.
2. Siting nuclear plants is nearly politically impossible not because of environmentalists, but because people are terrified of accidents or terrorist attacks. Have you ever lived near a plant? Do you know what it’s like to grow up hearing the test sirens every week, reminding you of what can happen?
3. CANCER cases among Aborigines near Australia's biggest uranium mine appear to be almost double the normal rate, according to a study by the Federal Government's leading indigenous research body. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/aboriginal- ... As for miners, underground uranium miners have mortality rates from lung cancer that are 3.6 times those of nonminers (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lung+Cancer+in+a+Non ... Also, if all the world’s power was supplied by nuclear, we would run out of uranium within 9 years.
4. The plant in Paducah, Kentucky, where much of the world's uranium is enriched requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, and with another enrichment facility in Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0415-23.htm
5. Building nuclear plants requires much more energy than building natural gas plants, and decommissioning nuclear plants is a job that takes years, not weeks as it is with fossil fuel plants, because all the materials in a nuke plant become so irradiated over time. - exomni, on 10/30/2007, -5/+10"And then suddenly out of the blue occuring rapidly during what should be a COOLING period, MAGICALLY by COINCIDENCE just HAPPENING to be heating up during this cooling period directly following drastic increases in production of greenhouse gasses, but ignore that, obviously a drastic increase in greenhouse gases would have nothing to do with the anomaly."
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6While I agree with you on most parts, your somewhat off with the statement: "But the trees adapted and converted more carbon to O2." Its the other way around, trees have adapted to lower CO2 levels. CO2 levels have been dropping since the planet was formed as its naturally sequestered into what we call fossil fuels. And it should be pointed out that rapid changes to the environment are difficult to adapt to and cause mass extinctions. Mitigating our effects on the world to prevent or delay this event should be a priority.
- sockpuppets, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4You drinkin' again, surly?
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4so, Cheney, Bush and, we need the female part, condoleezza rice?
- plr4ever, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4I agree, but how is this relevant?
- bugsy187, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Flawed methods for testing safety of nuclear plants and cost to risk analysis makes nuclear power a poor choice. As a side note, legislation signed by Bush in the past few years put a cap on liability costs in the event of a nuclear disaster.
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS REPORT, "NUCLEAR PLANT RISK STUDIES: FAILING THE GRADE"
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs ... - hiikeeba, on 10/30/2007, -4/+8How do you figure cooling period? According to "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan, we just came out of a minor ice age (geologically speaking) where the temperature dropped ten degrees. The temperature has only risen 7 degrees since the Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the 19th century, and we still haven't seen the wine industry in England recover to pre-14th century levels.
- elnerdo, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6Yes, there's a lot of dangerous energy still in nuclear waste. The only reason that happens though is because it's illegal to reuse it. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed into plutonium and uranium and then reused a few times. Doing this makes nuclear waste actually very safe.
It's illegal because the process can easily be used to create weapons grade plutonium.
So, don't pretend that there's NO solution to the nuclear waste problem. - goffy59, on 10/30/2007, -1/+5dugg down for trying to tie global warming with being either democrat or republican.(as in, why does it matter if your dem or reb. Global warming is an issue regardless of the pissing contest) It has nothing to do with that pissing contest. Its just what the sheep use as ammo to piss and moan at each other.
- evodude, on 10/30/2007, -5/+9You sound as though you are at least somewhat familiar with the concept of nuclear power, but what about nuclear waste? Yes, nuclear power is a good source of relatively clean energy, but the waste products are incredibly toxic and have half lives that are measured in tens of thousands of years, meaning that the waste generated today will be a danger for hundreds of thousands of years. Where do we put all that? We can't put it underground, since there are no places that people will consent to having it placed. We can't shoot it into space, I hear that's too expensive. Personally, I'd think that dropping it at a subduction zone and letting the earth's core do the dirty work is an idea, but who knows what affect it may have on this great big geodynamo of ours, and I'd imagine that's a tad impractical, and dangerous to boot. Besides, even if the Yucca mountain facility opened tomorrow (and I doubt it ever will), it's already been filled, and we generate even more waste every day we wait. There is no nice solution to the waste problem. Besides, while the risks are admittedly low, a real accident isn't some minor occurrence: it's a disaster. The Chernobyl incident literally destroyed the region's ecosystem, to say nothing of the human and economic tolls. Accidents like that may happen only once in the next hundred years of safe operation, but I still don't think that the risks are justifiable. There may not be any great alternative to the burning of fossil fuels, but nuclear power sure as hell isn't one.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Err? I fail to see how the world has gotten warmer considering it started as a glowing ball of liquid rock. In addition to the fact that the planet will continue to cool until it becomes a solid mass, i still don't see your point. If your talking about atmospheric temperature, that too, has been steadily dropping as atmospheric CO2 is naturally sequestered by the carbon cycle.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Yeah, damn you people for living! Don't you know everytime you exhale you release poisonous CO2 into the atmosphere? Everytime you eat you crap out poisonous methane gas? You people are so selfish, what gives you the right to eat and breath and screw... Kurt Cobain cared about the planet that's why he killed himself. p.s. There's a sale right now at Hot Topic!
- yoda17, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5There's always a backup plan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter - doremon313, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4i like how the photo shows him with a big smile while tell the rest of us that we're *****
- hiikeeba, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Isn't that what you're supposed to do on Digg?
- MrShak, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3What you said actually makes a lot of sense. The thing is, in many poorer countries this just won't happen. My mother has so many siblings I don't even know them all properly. It's just that in most second and third world countries when you don't have protection, a job, or too much work and not enough help, you just have kids. It's kinda sad, but true.
- RedHerringHack, on 10/30/2007, -2/+5We are building the first nuke plants in 30 years, 2 plants have been ordered.
- klpowell, on 10/30/2007, -3/+6Must be the same global warming that is causing all the hurricanes?
http://digg.com/world_news/2007_lowest_September_a ... - colto, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4Those crazy people who actually WANT to live?
- moskaudancer, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5Last month's speech was before the Black Mesa Incident. Interdimensional rifts and hungry aliens tend to change a guy's mind pretty quickly.
- AngryChris, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Final Fantasy got the idea from him, jackass.
- Soofi, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4BBC Documentary on Global Dimming:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3952087976 ... (50 mins) - unknownsoldierX, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3I don't know why you're getting dugg up. You comment wasn't funny or insightful in any way.
AngryChris, though possibly incorrect, may not be that far off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Histo ...
"The Gaia hypothesis was first scientifically formulated in the 1960s by the independent research scientist Dr. James Lovelock, as a consequence of his work for NASA on methods of detecting life on Mars.[1][2] He initially published the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in the early 1970s[3][4] followed by a popularising 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. He named this self-regulating living system after the Greek goddess Gaia" - moskaudancer, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4Wait, what? Since when is ***** sapiens not a part of nature?!
- krebcycle, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4So anyone who buries you is a "hippy." Gotcha. Perhaps I just think you're incorrect? Hmm. Nope, I must be a hippy. Typical republican. Good job pulling your politics.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 222 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is