Skip to main content

View Diary: Shocking drought data from NASA (382 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, look at all the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries, Rogneid, elwior

    potential energy in just one atom.

    Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

    by dov12348 on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 01:33:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Look at All the Potential Death There, Too (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Lujane, Jasonhouse, Schnitzie, eagleray

      Getting all that energy out takes a lot more than just one atom. The rest of the atoms are prone to leaving a lot more than just some energy where they're set up to extract it. Dumping that into the water it's working on is among the worst places for it.

      Instead we could build more solar and wind, right at the coasts where there's more of it than anywhere else. For less cost per energy, starting up actually in time to do something for the crisis. Without costing several times more at the end of the plant's lifecycle, even if it doesn't have a catastrophic end.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 08:33:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Death from what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Reactor areas are unsafe for the workers and others?  Please elaborate.

        Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

        by dov12348 on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 05:58:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thyroid problems are going thru the roof (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dewley notid, Whamadoodle

          for Japanese children.
          They are pulling homeless people off the street to do the dirty work at Fukushima because so many people are getting sick.
          Check it out on the net..
          Fukushima on Years of Living Dangerously for example.
          My husband died of thyroid cancer. He was down wind of the Hanford nuclear facility when it was blowing plutonium into the atmosphere.
          Check out those stats too online.  
          Thyroid cancer is nothing anyone would want to get.

        •  Fission Power is a Thing of the Past (0+ / 0-)

          Supposedly the latest reactor designs are truly foolproof but no matter how safe the design is the human factor has killed it. It is probably a good thing. France has made it work but they appear to be very very serious about safety. Chernobyl was a 'Safety Exercise' of some sort that a fool made up. Some sort of stupid pride seems to be what happened at Fukushima. Denial of the situation until it was totally out of control. Thorium Reactors are supposed to be inherently safer & less poisonous but now they will never even be tried. The costs of failure are so severe that the risks just aren't worth it. As wind & Solar mature they offer unbeatable advantages. Decentralization makes terrorism much harder. The technology is so much safer than Nuclear power there is no sense even making the comparison. Heavy industry is the only activity that large power plants are superior at supplying. If Fusion Power ever comes online it will change the game again but who knows about it. Fifty or Sixty years of trying & we appear to be no closer to a breakthrough than at the start.

        •  Perfectly Safe (0+ / 0-)

          Nuclear power is perfectly safe. And too cheap to measure. The nuclear industry can be trusted with the tremendous risks. All of the risks are disclosed. Nuclear boosters are pragmatic.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:30:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Have some salmon from Fukushima first. (7+ / 0-)

      Or join the people frantically building storage tanks to hold the radioactive water gushing through that area so it doesn't reach the sea.

      Then you can wet your pants over Nukulurr Powuuur Will Save Us! (I used to date a guy like that.)

      “[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - which proves he was way ahead of his time on gay marriage.” - Bill Maher

      by gardnerhill on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 11:31:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rather have people die from thirst (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        than risk an extremely rare reactor breakdown?

        Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

        by dov12348 on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 06:00:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would rather (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Grannyflats, dewley notid

          that profits didn't undermine scientific knowledge and we had started taking the threats of climate change seriously decades ago.  I would rather since we delayed all these decades people would start taking it seriously now while there is still some small chance of saving 'life as we know it' on the planet for a forseeable future though the loss of species and arable land, etc. will still be significant.

          I would rather than we not be presented with false choices, one serious harm versus another, instead of choosing now to use conservation, renewables and sustainable goods, better planning of cities, better agricultural techniques, less meat, etc., all of which combined could greatly ameliorate the choices between one form of catastrophe or another.

          •  I would rather we also... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tfill, Naniboujou, 417els

            controlled the population so our resources weren't being drained at such an alarming rate.

            It is understandable that if we human beings don't control our population growth, the planet will, and it won't be much fun for anyone when that starts happening.

            If the temperature rises 4 to 6 degrees Centigrade by 2100, as has been estimated it will, this planet will support, at most, half a billion people.  If nothing changes in our population growth, the world population is expected to hit 9 billion people by 2050.  

            What will happen to the extra 8 1/2 billion people this planet won't support will not be much fun either.  

            What the rich don't seem to understand is that being rich doesn't matter if you don't have safe food to eat, safe water to drink, or a planet to build a house on.  They're too busy trying to control everyone and everything,  but themselves.

        •  an extremely rare reactor breakdown? (0+ / 0-)

          Fukishima. Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. And how many others have we not heard about.

          All it takes is one "extremely rare reactor breakdown" of immense proportion and... BOOM goes the Planet. Fukishima may very well have been that little breakdown.

          •  And how many reactors are there in the world? (0+ / 0-)

            Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

            by dov12348 on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 12:58:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's inconprehensible and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dewley notid

            inexpressibly tragic.
            What worries me now is what will happen when the majority sees the big picture.
            I've been dealing with this for over 30 years and have coping mechanisms in place.
            Most people just go day to day and figure that someone else will come up with a solution to these problems.
            There is no solution to a Fukushima.  If it manages to kill the Pacific life on the planet is pretty much over.

        •  I would rather (0+ / 0-)

          that our life span was 1000 years.  And that everybody is born with all four limbs.  And that Hitler was accepted to art school.  But things are what they are.

          Anyway my question remains unanswered.  What is "false" about that choice?

          Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

          by dov12348 on Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 01:02:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't a choice to make in the real world?? (0+ / 0-)

            First, no one here has established that there is a desalinization system that would work on the scale we are dreaming about. Second, nuclear isn't the only energy system available. Pretty much everything expressed on this blog is just wool gathering.

      •  If Fukushima........ (0+ / 0-)

        had been built right for being in a seismically active zone, there would have been no problem whatsoever.

        Base isolation for the plant complex.
        Solar power backup for the cooling pumps.
        Water-proof fuel storage for the diesel backup generators that are required.
        Locate the diesel generators above projected high water lines.

        Add a quaternary cooling loop in the steam cycle using seawater for desalination.

        Problem solved.

        •  Great hindsight, always 100% accurate. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cephas, Whamadoodle

          Except for one little problem.  You are assuming managerial and political approval of an unlimited budget for construction.  Very safe systems can always be built, if enough money is available.

          If it weren't for the Secret Service, Barack Obama would have been assassinated long ago.  There are plenty of wingnuts out there with sniper rifles.  But money is available for the Secret Service, so Mr. Obama has good chances of becoming our first African-American ex-president.

          An ordinary guy who looked like him, walking down a street in any large American city, would stand a good chance of being mugged, because money is NOT available for urban police forces to provide that same level of personal security to every citizen.

          In point of fact, the Japanese thought they had over-engineered Fukushima to survive most major earthquakes.  They knew they were building in a seismically active area.  Engineering is about trade-offs, not perfection.  That's why wind, solar and geothermal are preferable to nuclear.  A tornado, or tropical gale, could topple even a well-built wind generator,
          but that would not pollute the oceans with radioactive material.

        •  Reduce energy (0+ / 0-)

          Instead of one large desalitation plant they should build a thousand off shore below sea level so no enery to pump water in. This way damage done to one won't effect the whole system. This is much more sustainable.

      •  It's in the sea and we are all screwed. (0+ / 0-)

        it's only a matter of time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site