Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by GerryWolff on January 8, 2007, 1:13 pm
 
In newspapers and magazines around the world, articles are appearing
suggesting a need for new nuclear power stations and glossing over the
many problems with nuclear power
(www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm). If you would like to help
with an easy-to-do online campaign to correct some of the misleading
information that is being spread, and to raise awareness of
concentrating solar power (a major alternative to nuclear power,
www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp.htm), please go to
www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm.

PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY LIKE TO HELP.


Posted by ekrubmeg on January 8, 2007, 3:24 pm
 
China is turning up a coal fired power plant a month.   Between china
and india some 825 are planned plus at least 5 reactors.   The
pollution these will put out will dwarf the savings from the meeting in
Japan on greenhouse gasses.  Solar to make up just for what is planned
would have to cover thousands of square miles and they don't work for
shit at night.   What is going to happen is nothing will be done until
things really start going to shit and than there will be a war over
what little food and land there is left.  The good news is the debris
put into the atmosphere from all the nuclear explosions will amount of
sunlight reaching the earth.  Scientist think as few as 10 bombs might
bring on a nuclear winter.   The bad news is, the people that are left
will starve to death if they don't die of radiation pinioning.    Good
luck with the solar campaign.


Posted by Docky Wocky on January 8, 2007, 3:38 pm
 ekrub sez:

" The bad news is, the people that are left
will starve to death if they don't die of radiation pinioning.    Good
luck with the solar campaign..."
_________________________________
Do they get pinioned through the belly button, or the old Vlad, The Impaler
bit?



Posted by N9WOS on January 8, 2007, 4:35 pm
 

"shakes head"
What ever....................
The....... "everyone is going to die from radiation!" cry.
10 bombs cause a nuk winter?
The US, by it's self, has test detonated several hundred bombs over short
periods of a few years.No nuk winters, and no massive population die offs.In
fact, after the quickly decaying byproducts died off, the radiation levels
dropped back to pre test levels for all but the test site area it's self.

After taking the time to do research into the actual documented results of
radiation exposure. I, no longer irrationally fear radiation. I figured out
that most of my fear was not based in reality, but was just pounded into me
by the media. I no longer fear that little DU test source on the side of my
Geiger counter.

The standard background radiation levels in Ramsar Iran is higher than what
some countries allow for on a one time accidental exposure, for radiation
workers.  And that exposure is continuous. According to the rad phobs, 50%
of the people in Ramsar Iran should be walking around with big nodules of
cancer hanging off them.

The figure I come up with, based on the LNT model was about a 50% cancer
rate based on a 60 year lifespan.

The whole model the radiation safety people use, is totally stupid.

Around Chernobyl there is plenty of biological life that is doing quite
well. With no signs of radiation stressing, even in some of the highest
radiation areas.

The true Chernobyl disaster isn't the actual reactor explosion. The true
disaster was the worlds reaction to it. More people where aborted before
birth in the first few days of the accident, around 50,000, because of fears
about radiation induced mutation, than have died from the after effects that
have come about from the contamination since then.

The cure was worse than the ailment.

People were even quoting faulty records to show increased cases of certain
cancers, where no increase existed. They would point to a jump in reported
cancer levels right after the explosion. But the reason the reported cancer
levels increase, is because doctors started looking harder for cancers,
because of radiation fears. Normally the cancer induced ailment would be
written off as something else.

The normal graph would show the pre accident cancer level, and then a jump
to post accident cancer level. The only problem was the pre, to post shift
happened with in a few days, to a week. Way to short to allow the cause -
effect relationship to work it's self out. All the reported levels a few
weeks after the accident showed was the real pre accident cancer levels,
when people actually look for that type of cancer.

And the unique part is, the cancer levels have remained unchanged since
then. A straight line. There was no increase in cancer levels, but the media
has used that sampling error to pound into us how many people are dying form
the Chernobyl disaster.

Like all the people complaining about increasing cancer rates over the last
50 or so years.
The reason reported cancer rates is increasing is because people are looking
for it now. Back in the old days, some old man that died from cancer would
just be written off as dying form old age.

That is what worries me today.
If someone detonates a dirty bomb in a major city. I am afraid that are
reaction to it (abandoning the city), will be worse than the actual threat
the radiation poses to us.



Posted by Adam Whyte-Settlar on January 9, 2007, 12:08 am
 

I might be wrong here but I don't recall that they were air-bursted over
cities though.
Call it a hunch but I would bet that 4 0r 5 hundred nuclear weapons going
off on the same day in the air over population centres might be a bit
messier than the occasional underground tests carried out 200 miles from
nowhere in the desert.
Maybe the radiation levels won't be as bad as some folk imagine but there's
going to be a lot of dust for a while.
Whatever - looks like we will soon find out.

A W-S



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread