Malware

General discussion

Locked

The Nuclear debate rages on...

By Benevolence ·
George Ou recently opened up a particularly large can of worms recently when he wrote an article discussing the myths surrounding Windows XP and power consumption. Much of the debate has turned into a discussion on how to best produce power whilst reducing pollution.

One thing many people seem to agree on is that whether or not humans are contributing to global warming, it is in our best interests to reduce the effect and protect our environment.

Some of us believe we need to move toward nuclear energy production, and some of us believe this is a bad idea.

With so many new developments in energy production, and so many differing arguments, what do you think is the direction we should head in?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Fair enough

by shardeth-15902278 In reply to Look at the waste from Co ...

That seems to meet the "Lesser of two evils" criteria. Thanks, that was very helpful.

One other consideration... I am afraid I don't remember the source now, but I recall one of the articles indicated that if the world were to swith to nuclear, our current power consumption rate would use up the available sources for nuclear power in approximately 100 years.

Is that sufficient time to justify the infrastructure cost for Nuclear, vs. investing those funds in development of wind, solar, and oceanic energy capture solutions?

Collapse -

That's speculative FUD that ignores Nuclear waste recycling.

by georgeou In reply to Fair enough

"One other consideration... I am afraid I don't remember the source now, but I recall one of the articles indicated that if the world were to swith to nuclear, our current power consumption rate would use up the available sources for nuclear power in approximately 100 years."

That's speculative FUD. It assumes we do zero recycling. Nuclear waste recycling can recover nearly all of the material for reuse. Those rods simply need to have the contaminants removed and they're as good as new. More nuclear power simply means a lot less pollution including CO2 production.

It's the old carrying capacity scare story. That same justification is used to lobby against modern farming and genetically modified foods. They believe that more food and a better standard of living would lead to more people which is just wrong. More efficient farming moves people off the farms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

People living in the suburbs or cities actually have children below the sustainable level and that's why you see European, Japanese, and American populations shrinking. Europe and American population decreases are neutralized by immigration though.

Collapse -

Hav we broke a law ?

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to That's speculative FUD th ...

Conservation of energy?

GM's you in favour of them too?

I'll swap you, we'll go nuclear, just knock that stuff on the head.

We don't need more food anyway, all we have to do is stop throwing what we have away because it isn't economically viable to sell it!

What's wrong with the farm anyway.

I know the animals are a bit boring, being fairly sane and having only one head and stuff, but you could get to like it.

Collapse -

We don't need more food? Sounds like typical European elitism.

by georgeou In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

I take it you've never starved, never seen starvation first hand, and never had to work on a farm. It's a well known fact that the average woman has 6 children when living on the farm because children are an asset on the farm and often the only form of retirement in poor rural countries. It's also a well known fact that once a woman is educated and lives in the suburbs or the city, they have fewer than 2 kids (possibly because no one can boss them around like they do in poor rural areas). The fact that humans have moved off farms is a huge contributor to the decline of population growth. Japan is actually worried about going in to extinction because their population keeps declining. So if you want to cure the pupulation bomb, you don't deprive them of food and standards of living like the western europe and american elitist environmentalists want, you give them more of the Borlaug policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
"Borlaug has continually advocated increasing crop yields as a means to curb deforestation. The large role he has played in both increasing crop yields and promoting this view has led to it being called by agricultural economists the "Borlaug hypothesis", namely that increasing the productivity of agriculture on the best farmland can help control deforestation by reducing the demand for new farmland. According to this view, assuming that global food demand is on the rise, restricting crop usage to traditional low-yield methods such as organic farming would also require at least one of the following: the world population to decrease, either voluntarily or as a result of mass starvations; or the conversion of forest land into crop land. It is thus argued that high-yield techniques are ultimately saving ecosystems from destruction."

"Paul Waggoner, of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, calculates that India's use of high-yield farming has prevented 100 million acres (400,000 km?) of virgin land from being converted into farmland?an area about the size of California, or 13.6% of the total area of India"

You sound like one of these elitists.
"In the early 1980s, environmental groups that were opposed to Borlaug's methods campaigned against his planned expansion of efforts into Africa. They prompted the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the World Bank to stop funding most of his African agriculture projects. Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. According to David Seckler, former Director General of the International Water Management Institute, "the environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa"

Collapse -

Starved no, been hungry yes.

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

You are good at the sound byte stuff, if you get tired of IT, I recommend a career in political speech writing.

As I said, there's plenty of food about.

Have you head of butter mountains, milk mountains?

Did you know europe pays it farmers not to grow stuff, to keep prices artificially high.

Have you any idea how much food supermarkets throw away because they over buy to get bulk prices and make sure they don't lose customers from being out of stock.

GM is simply about getting the same amount of food from using less resource. It won't help the starving it will let producers cut their costs.

Try again.

Collapse -

Same in the US

by shardeth-15902278 In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

gov. give subsidies to Farmer for NOT growing crops. To ensure the surpluses dont' tank the AG market. Plus I have seen how much food McDonalds, etc drop in the dumpsters every night. I have to agree With tony, I don't think we are short on food, we are just wantonly wasteful.

(Personnally, my complaint against much of the genetically modified foods is the taste)

Collapse -

Plenty of food in America, but we're not just talking about America

by georgeou In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

I don't come up with these things because I'm so gosh darn clever and I'm certainly not saying these things to win a few rhetorical points. I was actually born and grew up in a third world country in the early part of my life. I've seen 10 year old children fight for rotten food that we throw out the window of a stopped train, and China doesn't have it as bad as many other third world countries.

Before you talk about too much food with your bellies full, be mindful that there literally are millions of people starving in the rest of the world.

Collapse -

In fact, Uncle Sam declared victory in the "war on hunger."

by deepsand In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

By the stroke of a pen, the word "hunger" was recently officially removed from the USDA's lexicon; "hunger" has been banished.

From now on, the official description is "suffering from extreme food insecurity."

Is this a great country, or what?

Collapse -

There is no hunger in the USA unless you trade in your foodstamps for cash

by georgeou In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

There is no hunger in the USA unless you trade in your foodstamps for 50 cents on the dollar or you spend the welfare money in the casino. The welfare people in this country have a better standard of living than the middle class in the places like China.

Collapse -

Many needy person no longer qualify for Food Stamps,

by deepsand In reply to Hav we broke a law ?

owing to well intentioned but poorly planned and executed changes in the qualification requirements and the implementing regulations.

Along with this, the Federal government's contributions of surplus food stocks to local food banks have been on the decline for quite some time.

Both of these, coupled with the fact that the Federal minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, have resulted in a good number of citizens still suffering from "extreme food insecurity."

In fact, some recipients of our foreign aid now have a more reliable source of food, and a nutritionally better diet, than do some of our own.

Related Discussions

Related Forums