http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7313986.stm
i really hope not.
even the chance that one could have a meltdown and the UK would have a 'chernobyl' scares me.
so, AGH! basically.
- Reviews: * Gonga - Transmigration
- Features: * Sub Pop 20: the DiS review
- Features: * Discography reassessed: Bright Eyes in perspective
- Reviews: * One Day As A Lion - One Day As A Lion EP
- Reviews: * The Tupolev Ghost - The Alpha EP
- Reviews: * Ponytail - Ice Cream Spiritual
- Features: * Lovebox 2008: the DiS review
- Reviews: * CSS - Donkey
- Reviews: * Quiet Village - Silent Movie
- Reviews: * Pentangle at Cardiff St Davids' Hall, Tue 01 Jul
- Reviews: * She & Him - Volume One
- Features: * Latitude 2008: DiS's festival picks
- Features: * Benicassim 2008: the DiS review
- Reviews: * The National at Belfast Mandela Hall at Belfast University, Tue 08 Jul
- Features: * Truck 2008: DiS's Festival Diary
- * Wild Beasts @ Kendal The Brewery Centre, 25/07
- * Sparklehorse, Daniel Johnston @ Dublin Whelan's, 28/07
- * DiScover Sheffield @ Sheffield The Harley, 28/07
- * Club Fandango @ London Camden Dublin Castle, 29/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Dublin Whelan's, 30/07
- * Mirror! Mirror!, Dananananaykroyd @ Edinburgh Cabaret Voltaire, 30/07
- * Mudhoney @ London Kentish Town Forum, 31/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Glasgow Nice N Sleazy's, 31/07
- * A Sunny Day In Glasgow @ Leeds Upstairs at the Library, 1/08
- * The Chiara L's, Cuckoo's Nest, Real Feal, Docksud @ London The Wilmington, 1/08
- * Club AC30 @ London The Luminaire, 2/08
- * Ratatat @ Glasgow The Captain's Rest, 2/08
- * Brainlove Alldayer @ Leeds Brudenell Social Club, 2/08
- * The Mae Shi, Dananananaykroyd @ London Old Blue Last, 4/08
- * Jonquil, Left With Pictures, Gossamer Albatross @ London The Macbeth, 4/08
Yes, they will.
What other option is there, in light of our increasing need to cut down on emissions?
Nothing is impossible but another Chernobyl is extrememly unlikely.
Yes i do
its a necessary evil really. although they are very good in some ways too.
and they aren't going to meltdown - chill out.
there's a chance though, maybe a minute one, but there is one.
to me, that small chance is enough to make me completely against them.
i also think it's because for some reason when i was about 10 i had a load of teen fiction books that were about people living post-nuclear meltdown. hmm.
much in the same way
a number of nasty chemicals from a fossil fuel plant will mix with a raincloud right above you, and the rain will pour onto your head and YOUR HAIL WILL FALL OUT
THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
i'm glad someone understands me.
I'm confused
so you basically think everything will kill you? Are you pocketmouse?
i'm being sarcastic ffs
I was confused as to where the sarcasm started
as in before or during the thread
ok, i do have an inherent fear of nuclear holocaust,
and also a fear that zombies will inherit the earth. i think they come from the following sources -
- reading these nuclear holocaust books when i was a young teen, when the protagonist was a young female teen
- playing res.evil2 for hours on end and scaring myself, while also watching zombie movies at far too young an age.
i know it's not much comfort
but zombies probably will inherit the earth, they're pretty patient.
o
|<
|
/ \
dead bastards.
*undead
that's the problem
Is that a duck on stilts?
it went wrong ok
DiS took out my spaces
I don't devote much time to these types of thing
other excuses
you'll have to make do with my wheelchair zombie
O
|--<
| Oo
Someone should tell that
man to stop dropping eggs.
*zombie
o
>#
/\
ghostbuster zombie?
Since reading World War Z
I've decided it is a question of when rather than if
...what about the chance
that our continued dependence on carbon dioxide-emitting forms of energy production will irreverseably alter the earth's atmosphere, resulting in our premature demise?
unfortunately you are buying into the
polarised choice of 'its either a or b'
It has been quite deliberate that 'they' have delayed until this seems like the choice......this was not always so, but it was procrastinated, because 'they' realised that 'hard choices' coming to pass will do the dirty work for 'them'
Sustainable renewables were deliberately not invested in or investigated although the inevitablity of needing to change from fossil fuels at some point in the future was unchallenged (in the long term) ......but, because it did not appear to be imminant in the forseeable administrations tenure (of democracies) then it was not considered more important at the expense of election winning tinkering and projects.
'THe Dome' for instance is far more important than say ......insulating for free many homes, or building wind farms or wave farms or theremal differential research, or research to reduce cost of harnessing solar energy.
The wind does indeed not always blow, band does not blow sufficiently in certain areas......but renewables are never absent in one form or another.
Renewable policy has also always been based on replacing central generation and feeding in....rather than low ech adaptation........every car that is scrapped has a unit that could be used to turn a rotational force from a windmill into electricity.....this sort of solution has never been investigated.
Also take the idea of bateries.......why havnt battery using devices incurred a large tax/duty when they could be powered by wind up mechanism and capacitor (or some such)
Simple obvious ideas that would require legislation to make them become commonplace have not been persued by any government suggesting to me that, many of these issues are only important to politicians ....becaus they are issues that might get voted on by the public......therefore political parties primary concern is not the environment...but 'what is the oppositions stance on it? are they doing more than the opposition in the publics eyes'
...I wasn't providing the ONLY alternative...
just playing Devil's Advocate for the use of Nuclear Energy. Obviously the argument can be increased to a massive scale with a whole array of complexities applied to every possible solution/group of slutions. There is ultimately no right answer and every decision on the subject will have its drawbacks. We need to be open to suggestions for all energy production AND suage, and this will include nuclear energy.
sorry....I was pre guessing your intention
mistakedly it turns out.
(I also do that to mrs knees....playing devils advocate for nuclear energy.....something that i think is flawed and short sighted, but possibly more necessary now because of machinations of 'THEM!')
Yep this sums it up
pretty well. The fact that it's touted as the only option as a renewable energy source is because it now is the only option left. as they didn't bother planning ahead for what they, sorry 'they' knew was coming.
The fact that we can use it as energy is secondary to the fact we can make BIG SCARY BOMBS TO PROTECT OURSELVES..from all those imminent invasions we face on a daily basis. Yeah.
yep
hopefully in 300 years when it destroys the planet, the animals might have worked out where to hide...
Hopefully.
ohmygoshalternativeenergysources!
yeah, they'll probably have to. lesser evil etc.
They're very safe these days
know a few people doing emergency planning for nuclear sites.
yes they will
it was obviously always the intention to rely on nukes for when fossil fuels started to get 'more pressurised' they just had to wait till there was enough publicised clamour for carbon emission reduction combined with a squeeze on dirt cheap fossil fuel availability.
'They' obviously rationalised a long time ago that they would be able to persuade the public that they would have to swallow nuclear power when other pressures grew great enough, so they waited and did not try to go 'the hippy route of renewables/reduction'
cos now they will say
what do you want? power cuts? skyrocketing electric prices? carbon emissions?
'what about renewables and reduction?' some will ask
'wont be enough to fullfill our energy requirements im afraid' THEY will reply....'but they will have their place alongside nukes'
what reneweble energy
sources can provide enough power for a densely populated first world state of over 60m people?
naughty cats
on treadmills
really extreme messures including dynamos and humans
we would get fitter and the environment would get healthier
I STRONGLY BELIEVE HUMANITIES GREED WILL BE IT'S DOWNFALL, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
wind, tidal, hydroelectric
solar, wave and thermal differential in combination with cuting on needless pointless energy use........everyday people wizz up and down the motorway and roads on their way to some place of work that is far from their home, why? when all they might be doing ois working in an office? (just one....but a BIG ONE example of needless consumption)
Why do so many people need ot go to another part of the world, when that other part of the world will have to change so that it is more in keeping with what the travellers will expect.
How can a trip between continents that takes only hours be so cheap compared with other stuff.......there is a lot screwed up Daniel, and a lot of it is in peoples heads.
Advertising, uniform uninformed education and intantaneous gratification media has buggered peoples minds and their logic, to be a warped homogenous collection where it all seems to reinforce itself so that that that is outside of it seems illogical and unworkable. 60m is too many, i dont advocate 'depopulation'....its not me that supports a system that creates a population that is too large for it to support beyond a few more decades (well it will support it but in a horrider nastyer brutisher fashion.....because it is not sustainable...ditto worldwide systems of control and commerce and supply)
Ourlifestyle is unsustainable in the long term, yet in the short day to day term is the most convenient way of doing things......you or i or individuals did not create it this way, but consistant refusal to insist that capitalist economic expansion and consumerism and industry and wealth based on needless consumerism is the cause for us getting deeper and deper in the sh*t.
Simple stopping using plastic bags aint going to help.
You are all run by a bunch of irresponsible (or unknowledgable) people who say they have the best economists.....I am not ignorant about big finance, i have probably worked with far bigger sums of money than anyone else on DIS through my IT business jobs, i dont normally advertise this, because that would be unfair......however i am sick and tired of people who have a degree in such and such, or know a politician saying that i am ignorant of such matters and 'should go back to my hand croched mud hut'
oh and we can burn the tories
gas burns cleanish
right
could you answer the question though?
I did
Solar, wind, tidal, wave, freshwater hydroelectric, thermal differential, combined with energy consumption reduction to the level that is 'needed' by the population rather than consumerist capitalist growth.
Also some small scale wood burning.
And limited coal (british coal which is cleaner than the imported brown coal) with more carbon extraction and filtering (which is costly, but affordable if fossil fuel usage is not the norm but used to keep up supplies during slack production periods)
They will...
there is no choice really. It will probably lead to our demise, but mother nature will survive and the plannet will be returned to its rightful custodians, the water voles (along with every other species of animal/plant that will thrive in our absence).
Nah
If we go, we'll take most life with us.
...i don't think so...
Chernobyl is a fairly good example of nature surviving and thiriving under such circumstances...
and mutating
to grow bigger and with more legs.
Chernobyl is pretty localised though
Obviously, but it gives us a glimpse
of nature's ability to survive under such circumstances, and it will. MARKETH MY WORDS. (of course we'll never know cos we'll be dead).
Is it true Chernobyl caused mutations leading to
the singer out of the Enemy?
Nah, humans would
almost certainly survive too.
Not many, but enough to start again and begin worshipping unexploded bombs in our underground chambers whilst our monkey overlords reign supreme above ground.
Hehe
I remember watching a documentary about what would happen if the human race died out. Without anyone to maintain other nucler power stations, dams etc etc, it apparently wouldn't be too long until man post-humously killed everything
Going out in a trail of glory
I love humanity
That's rubbish.
We wouldn't kill everything.
ALMOST everything, sure. And rightly so. 95% of animals are bastards.
The idea of the documentary
was that important parts of various food chains and eco-systems would die, ultimately taking other parts with them.
Almost everything is what I was going for.
Oh sure,
I have no doubt that would be the case.
...you underestimate nature...
there's no way everything would be wiped out...
Well some stuff not being wiped out
and some stuff thriving are two different things. We'll have this chat again a couple of years after Doomsday and see
Will DiS survive...?
Stuff thriving is far closer to 'stuff not being wiped out' than you think. Again, look at Chernobyl, which now has the highest concentrations of top predators through much of mainland Europe (predators being a snapshot of ecosystem health...). This has happened very quickly, thus illustrating the quick step from surviving to thriving.
yeah they're thriving cos there are no friking humans
in the area.......ecosystems recover really well in those circumstances
exactly...
but it's important to appreciate the immense capacity for adaptation within nature's arsenal, which is obviously allowed to express itself more in the absence of mankind (not the wrestler).
not really though
tat cloud covered a rather large area, but we do not care how much seemingly small damage it caused
You might find this of interest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6946210.stm
Yeah, I've seen that...
...still very much against other scientific evidence, and it doesn't really say much...
Without a doubt
Mainly so they have plenty of material to arm those new nuclear subs that we're spending shit loads of money on.
Incedentally, the first nuclear reactor that was built in Britan was made for the sole purpose of getting material we could build nukes with.
And that nearly melted down ;D
Another chernobyl?
Very unlikely.
An attempted terrorist attack on a nuclear power station? Much more likely
oooh....know something do we?
Guards! Arrest this man!
I attended an exercise last year with this scenario
it was a tad scary.
True
But I think everyone will be conscious of that, they'll have the shit guarded out of them
they'll need very good SAMs
sarkyfox
don't be so melodramatic.
Your reasoning can be applied to any potentially dangerous substance. Do you have the same worries that you could just explode when you turn a cars engine on? Or how about being electrocuted by all that current passing through a train?
Accidents like Chernobyl will just never happen again because there are fail-safe systems in place to stop exactly that sort of thing happening again.
So hysterical responses like
"even the chance that one could have a meltdown and the UK would have a 'chernobyl' scares me. so, AGH! basically."
really don't help anything as your fear is clouding your reason, so how can we have a reasoned debate with you if your judgement is clouded by fear?
but we'll end up like this
http://www.nanarland.com/Chroniques/toxicavenger1/toxic_avenger_1.jpg
lol.
YES!
I love toxie
Yep, definitely one of The Enemy
dont dis sarkyfox
her fears are not groundless, you are literally applying her 'another chernobyl' to mean exactly the same sort of thing......like a microsoft windows patch, that will shore up this problem, however others will occur (and probably be covered up if feasible and possible) the thing is...what will the governments of this world look like in 100 years time? do you know? I dont.
why not?
I will dis anyone who's opinion is based on and derived from fear, especially an entirely irrational one.
Besides, your posted response is wholly hypothesis and doesn't contain anything to make me think otherwise.
LOL
A post on rationality from someone who chose to call themselves "drummerboi"
my posted response is one of hypothesis based on rational analysis of the way
that humans think that they have ironed out faults and tend to still build moduly dependent systems that have critical weaknesses.
This comes from my experiance as a 'librario' test analyst of extremely large and complex financial IT systems.
It is my employable asset, my ability to identify where planners and designers and developers and business analysts are likely to have made assumptions and to identify the risk involved
I could have just said that humans are fallable
of course........
anyway just because something is hypothetical does not mean that it cannot be an almost absolute certainy.........let me use another example.........particle physics......what is the lates smallest fundamental thing they think they've found (by its efect on other things...or non effect) Is it a particle?...or is it a shape? a dimension? a packet of energy? a potential? I dont know I dont consult wikipedia everyday...its irrelevant to my example anyway......'Do you not think that subsequent to the latest fundemental building block, another smaller more fundamental thing will be found?' pure hypothesis, but pretty high probability in my mind....what about yours?
Hypothetical things do not represent unlikely things or flight of fancy. They are just as yet tangibly/visibly manifested
fears based on hypothesii
that are very likely are not irrational. The unknown is when and what malfunction will occur first and where. This is at yet unknowable.....perhaps the sort of event that sarky fears may not come to pass for a while and if something stops nuclear power staions becoming very common then it might not be a very big event.......however you also do not know this.
Your reassurance and confidence is surely as irrational as what you claim sarkys fears to be, you are basing it purely on an emotional optimism which has no factual grounding. Sarky fears the unknown and the ability of humans to do things exactly correctly, or being able to forsee all circumstances......which is based on lifetime experiance of seeing events like say....the concord crash.....who could have forsaw the debris on the runway?
Sarkys fears of something which might not be everyday are correctly amplified by the magnitude of how big the wrong might be. She is corect to fear something that might occur infrequently if the outcome is large.....it is an element of risk assessment, it is logical to have your fears being a product of the likelyhood against the magnitude of impact of failure
I think that it would be wise if
'THEY' waited till most commercial airline activity ceased, because otherwise 'THEIR' plan could become more unpopular if Mr Bin laden could engineer a plane crash on.....or even just very near, a nuclear plant.
This would make it far more unpopular and difficult to swallow.
But i imagine that 'they' (bin ladens 'they') will probably wait till oil prices skyrocket more and combine that with attacks on oil supply lines to try to completely topple the 'western' countries
'they' (bl's 'they')
dont actually need to though as it will topple anyway
hmmm i've just realised
what a great word 'topple' is.......try sayinmg it to yourself over and over :)
jenga?
jenga.