I would favor the .1% just to be safe.

I feel better now that I know you can stop it wherever you want...

---

I would favor the .1% just to be safe.

I feel better now that I know you can stop it wherever you want...

Don't look at me. I have always been in favor of atomic power and I am in favor of reducing waste in my life as much a possible. The one solution we don't have yet is a real good battery which we will need to reduce our oil consumption. I don't think global warming is real but I believe conserving our resources for future generations so they have as many options as possible in their life. I agree with your goals but not your methods.

---

I like nuclear power. I don't like the cost and time wasted building plants. Nor do I see an easy solution for the nuclear waste from spent rods.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I like nuclear power. I don't like the cost and time wasted building plants. Nor do I see an easy solution for the nuclear waste from spent rods.

Breeder reactors or fast neutron reactors burn the waste into something with a very short half life. Carter stopped all work in this area so we are left with a problem of left over waste products but if we started work in this area, we could take all the waste thats sitting around and stick it back in a reactor and burn it up. Thats why I hate to see any storage system that makes it hard to recover this waste because it could still be very useful.

---

Russian scientists all the time was saying that global warming is a global fake

The real problem is pollution. This is true problem. Especially in my country. I don't know what they doing. They using a technology that even USSR declared too dirty to use ever where ever. They started to pollute Baikal lake because it's cheaper to use closed loop technology that was used all the time before. But we're not throwing up!

I like nuclear power. I don't like the cost and time wasted building plants. Nor do I see an easy solution for the nuclear waste from spent rods.

I think nuclear power too risky. And it's also not renewable resource. Water, wind, solar and sea flow stations are more interesting i tnink. Like in Norway.

Russian scientists all the time was saying that global warming is a global fake

The real problem is pollution. This is true problem. Especially in my country. I don't know what they doing. They using a technology that even USSR declared too dirty to use ever where ever. They started to pollute Baikal lake because it's cheaper to use closed loop technology that was used all the time before. But we're not throwing up!

I have seen some interesting writing from your country (translated of corse) indicating that warming is not a problem and I agree with it. On the other hand, while pollution may be a problem in your country, China is producing far more than your are. Look here and here

---

I like nuclear power. I don't like the cost and time wasted building plants. Nor do I see an easy solution for the nuclear waste from spent rods.

I think nuclear power too risky. And it's also not renewable resource. Water, wind, solar and sea flow stations are more interesting i tnink. Like in Norway.

I would like to avoid nuclear if possible, but the problem is in this country we are using all the water power we can and wind or solar power should never account for more than about 10% to 15% of your power because the can't be relied on for 24 hour output.
In the United States we have learned how to use atomic power safely, but the human factor is still an issue. Properly trained humans and computers checking on each other can reduce the risk almost to zero. We will continue to need fission power till we can get fusion power to work unless you are willing to burn hydrocarbons.

---

Skildude, this link is for you and it's about the type of reactor we need to take a good hard look at.

---

Indeed, the limiting factor is the install cost

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

On the other hand, while pollution may be a problem in your country, China is producing far more than your are.
Maybe, but it not sound easier to me.

The legacy of Cold War weapons programs has left environmental blackspots throughout the former Soviet Union, but Dzerzhinsk is by far the worst. The city's own environmental agency estimates that almost 300,000 tons of chemical waste — including some of the most dangerous neurotoxins known to man — were improperly dumped in Dzerzhinsk between 1930 and 1998. Parts of the city's water are infected with dioxins and phenol at levels that are reportedly 17 million times the safe limit. The Guinness Book of World Records named Dzerzhinsk the most chemically polluted city on Earth, and in 2003 its death rate exceeded its birth rate by 260%.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661021,00.html#ixzz0fKoRcCk9

It' only one of them. At Norilsk black snow again. Novokuznetsk is a place where i just couldn't breath sometimes without a mask and etc. We're absolute champion by numbers of such cities. Of course we have the biggest country and the overall pollution concentration is much less than at India or China, but it not the reason to poison people futher.

I'm joining Greenpeace actions every time when i can. It' only one green force here that cares and don't have a blind fanatism or cheating people at one time.

Time coming, things changing to better. Some things do Greens, some things our president. Here still much pople that value money over clean nature for next generations and there's no much we can do with this. But this will change. It already changing.

I would like to avoid nuclear if possible, but the problem is in this country we are using all the water power we can and wind or solar power should never account for more than about 10% to 15% of your power because the can't be relied on for 24 hour output.

That is true but technology don't stops. I remember a Citizen solar powered calculator i first saw 20 years ago. That time it was a toy, nothing more. No one ever could imgaine that sometimes solar battery will be enough effective to produce any real power. Maybe some Great Accumulator Invention awaits us in future. Or may be scientific gossips about using Helium 3 will come in reality. Who knows?

In the United States we have learned how to use atomic power safely, but the human factor is still an issue.Properly trained humans and computers checking on each other can reduce the risk almost to zero.

The trouble and danger of nuclear power is that mistake cannot be undone. You can build again weir, you can rebild a destroyed city even, dispite it very cynic, you can born more childs. But the radiation polluted area is lost forever in terms of country life duration. Chernobyl was such a mistake, as we believe now...

I would like to avoid nuclear if possible, but the problem is in this country we are using all the water power we can and wind or solar power should never account for more than about 10% to 15% of your power because the can't be relied on for 24 hour output.

That is true but technology don't stops. I remember a Citizen solar powered calculator i first saw 20 years ago. That time it was a toy, nothing more. No one ever could imgaine that sometimes solar battery will be enough effective to produce any real power. Maybe some Great Accumulator Invention awaits us in future. Or may be scientific gossips about using Helium 3 will come in reality. Who knows?

In the United States we have learned how to use atomic power safely, but the human factor is still an issue.Properly trained humans and computers checking on each other can reduce the risk almost to zero.

The trouble and danger of nuclear power is that mistake cannot be undone. You can build again weir, you can rebild a destroyed city even, dispite it very cynic, you can born more childs. But the radiation polluted area is lost forever in terms of country life duration. Chernobyl was such a mistake, as we believe now...

Doing some searches on "life after chernobyl" was interesting to say the least. Seems the Animals are doing better...
"What none of the Opachichi residents own is a dosimeter, the hand-held ticking Geiger counters that measure radioactivity.

"Bah, who needs it?" scoffs Kovtunko. "I'm an old lady. The radiation hasn't killed me yet. And when I die, that won't be the reason."

Her fear, an illogical paranoia, is that authorities are eyeing the region with the idea of establishing a hunting and fishing preserve, since the ecology of this contaminated environment has sprung back of its own accord, a weird post-apocalyptic biosphere rife with undisturbed wildlife: boar and lynx, the white-tailed eagle (a total newcomer), Przewalski horses, an estimated 300 wolves, birds and voles, mutantly large catfish in the Pripyat River. Some of these species had not been seen for decades. (The only "mutants" identified in Chernobyl lands have been barn swallows with partly albino faces instead of the species' typical red chins.)

While hunting and fishing are forbidden, poachers are known to bag game and sell it to restaurants in Minsk and Kyiv."

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

Yes, i know about that, but the true is that wild animals simply don't live long enough to start suffer from radiation

Theres', also some people living around in closed area at their own risk, but they don't live exactly in Chernobyl. In city, especially at ex-power plant radiation is still so strong that it kills every living being in matter of days. And this is despite thick lead sacrcophagus.

The reason is simple: 95% of radiactivities blown up to the air and grounded around. With time, it mainly dissolved because of natural weather circle. But 5% is still there and they will remain dangerous for centuries.

It' only one of them. At Norilsk black snow again. Novokuznetsk is a place where i just couldn't breath sometimes without a mask and etc. ...

Time coming, things changing to better. Some things do Greens, some things our president. Here still much pople that value money over clean nature for next generations and there's no much we can do with this. But this will change. It already changing.

The soot from burning and from industry can have a greater warming effect than CO2. Especially so when normally reflective snow is instead turned into a heat absorber by a dirty black coating of pollution...


Unfortunately, I think things need to change very much more quickly for the better to avoid war and mass migrations and many deaths.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction movie depicting a dystopian future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare and expensive commodities. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers made from recycled dead humans.

Was the writer a futurist or a quack?

About that bet Luke - I'm out. I can't afford to lose $1,000.

Niko

Looks like I'll need to bow out too. I'll be 81 in 2030 and I might be able to afford to loose NZ$1000 - depending on the USD exchange rate ... But, I would be more inclined to bet on your side. Besides, in reviewing my 20-year plan ... there are no guarantees that I'll actually live long enough for you to collect if I did bet against you

These so called "glorious leaders" couldn't save themselves, let alone our countries.

Looks like they've left it all up to us then ...

Idiots..........\\

THIS is the day the world went under..........
BuddyThe day the Music dies........on a cold, dark day in Wisconsin.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

Phil Jones better be careful, he accidentally let some truth out.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.



There's some serious truth for ya, so much for "consensus" and "the science is settled".

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


A better article on Phil Jones, he let a whole lot of truth out.

---