Do you want new Nuclear Power in this country?

[Obelix 11]

And that is a breath of fresh air coming from Obelix. Honestly thank goodness because for a minute I thought there would ne no inkling of an open mind from you. Really then it comes down to the mix that we agree or disagree on? The fundamentals of a nuclear free future already exist. Ironing out the not insurmountable difficulties is all (!) that remains. Only 10 years ago i would be in entire opposition to my current position. Imagine what another 10 years of solutions can provide. Small steps for man and all...

 

Was it ever otherwise? I've not changed my position one bit yet you claim some wonderous victory of rhetoric?

 

Get a grip.

[Obelix 11]

Not at all, i will at least see it as a step in the direction towards you adhering to the same standards you impose on me. I.e. answering or attempting to answer a direct question. I still don't see any clear scientific source

 

There are none so blind as those that won't see...

 

Ignorance I can tolerate. Deliberate stupidity I won't. You have been shown, repeatedly that there is no wind out there. AT ALL. So how does a windfarm work today then?

 

It doesn't. But like I say - you are deliberately missing the point.

[Obelix 11]

You have yet to state whether you do or do not work in the nuclear industry.

 

Funny because I've never asked if you work in the windfarm industry. But then I'm not digging for dirt to smear my opponent. You do that for me all by yourself.

 

Goodnight.

[meshuga 10]

There are none so blind as those that won't see...

 

Ignorance I can tolerate. Deliberate stupidity I won't. You have been shown, repeatedly that there is no wind out there. AT ALL. So how does a windfarm work today then?

 

It doesn't. But like I say - you are deliberately missing the point.

 

Insults insults. I have been shown that there is no wind onshore and locally offshore today. That is all. Where have i denied that? Where have i been ignorant of that fact? I am not stupid despite your repeated attempts to label me as such to put my arguments down. No, i have instead attempted to show that you are not providing a counter to the proposal that i favour. We are not talking aout todays wind power woth todays grid or todays mix. Perhaps you are deliberately missing that point?

 

I am ready, open armed to embrace defeat on this subject. In fact I would prefer it if I am wrong. Nuclear power seems almost too good to be true, and I'd love it to work, it could provide all our solutions. Heck, i want it to work, it would be marvelous, poetic even if all of Einsteins beautiful theories will be shown to be the very thing that provides the solution, but i can't see how they can in time to help us out. Please show me that i am wrong. Show me that the future proposal that i have sourced is wrong. Show me that the many scientists and independent reveiw panels are wrong. Perhaps more importantly, show me that new nuclear is right and has been well thought out.

Edited April 20, 2011 by meshuga

[meshuga 10]

Funny because I've never asked if you work in the windfarm industry. But then I'm not digging for dirt to smear my opponent. You do that for me all by yourself.

 

Goodnight.

 

There has been no need though, I stated that I have no conflict of interest in post 102. I have no connection whatsoever to any industry that stands to make money as a result of any decision made othis subject. My expertise is medical, and I have an understanding, but that is all, of nuclear medicine where it applies to the species that I regularly treat. I'm not the lunatic you would have people believe, and I possess the ability to take a bunch of information and data, process that and draw conclusions independently.

 

I'm not diggin for dirt at all, just asking that your cards are on the table for others to be able to understand your point of view and to critically review what your comments, your persistent refusal to answer my questions, and if it ever happens, to critique a quoted paper from you.

 

As for smearing my opponent, I have not found the need to do so. "Handwaving, deliberately ignorant, stupid", to name but a few. Quite why you felt the need to resort to such tactics i don't know, I thought your points of debate stood up perfectly well without them.

[Bart&Van 10]

No dont want another japan ,vote as no!!

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Why would the UK want to build nuclear power stations in Japan? - It's a bit of a long way to go for electricity.

 

Does the UK have a history of severe earthquakes? How about tsunamis?

[meshuga 10]

Why would the UK want to build nuclear power stations in Japan? - It's a bit of a long way to go for electricity.

 

Does the UK have a history of severe earthquakes? How about tsunamis?

 

Agreed, the exact circumstances that lead to radiation release in Japan are very unlikely to occur in the UK. It doesn't mean radiation release will never occur, it's just unlikely by those methods.

[On the ball 10]

There has been no need though, I stated that I have no conflict of interest in post 102. I have no connection whatsoever to any industry that stands to make money as a result of any decision made othis subject. My expertise is medical, and I have an understanding, but that is all, of nuclear medicine where it applies to the species that I regularly treat. I'm not the lunatic you would have people believe, and I possess the ability to take a bunch of information and data, process that and draw conclusions independently.

 

I'm not diggin for dirt at all, just asking that your cards are on the table for others to be able to understand your point of view and to critically review what your comments, your persistent refusal to answer my questions, and if it ever happens, to critique a quoted paper from you.

 

As for smearing my opponent, I have not found the need to do so. "Handwaving, deliberately ignorant, stupid", to name but a few. Quite why you felt the need to resort to such tactics i don't know, I thought your points of debate stood up perfectly well without them.

 

Hi, I think the answer to your question can be found here

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=746672&highlight=nuclear+poll&page=4 post number 80

 

Keep up the good fight and don't let 'em grind you down.

 

Six weeks on Fukushima is still burning and Obelix is still insulting people.

[Gormenghast 59]

Six weeks on Fukushima is still burning....

 

Because it was built on a geologically active site.

[meshuga 10]

Hi, I think the answer to your question can be found here

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=746672&highlight=nuclear+poll&page=4 post number 80

 

Keep up the good fight and don't let 'em grind you down.

 

Six weeks on Fukushima is still burning and Obelix is still insulting people.

 

Thanks for the confirmation. I already had strong suspicions based on the style of his debate, and refusal to answer questions, provide data or evidence to back up his claims, and by his attempts to ridicule and insult anyone that disagreed with the future of his industry.

 

Take this for example as to why I refuse to just take Obelix's answers at face value without evidence or a reference..

 

If you think twenty tonnes of uranium is a problem just remember there is half a tonne of uranium in every 747 in the air today. Yet that isn't a problem - why...? It's radioactive still...

 

What utter <REMOVED>! This is from someone who is supposed to work in the industry, asking us why the uranium in an aircraft isn't a problem? It's just the type of scaremongering an envirowhiner would be accused of - hoping that the use of the word uranium strikes instant fear or in this case reasssurance into our hearts? I'm a little more knowledgable about radioactivity than that. 10 minutes online unpicks this ridiculous assertion;

 

1. The uranium in aircraft trim weights is depleted uranium, a different isotope to that used for fission, commonly but not solely, a by product of the enrichement of natural uranium, and is less radioactive than the racemic mix of natural uranium, and cannot by itself acheive criticality. It decays primarily by alpha emission, and as such particles cannot penetrate the skin, is relatively safe.

 

2. Boeing stopped using it the 80s. Every 747 in the air today? Nice propaganda there.

 

Now when I made the initial comment about the 20 tonnes of uranium, I was just stating a fact from my external source, which I can reference if required. I made no assertion whether that uranium was harmful or not, just that it had escaped from a pipe.

 

That is why, quite reasonably, I expect every one in the land to insist that the reassurances that big industry give us as to the facts behind their practices and behind their future ability to prevent climate change, are closely scrutinised and are made sure to be independent and unbiased to the best of their ability.

 

Again, the onus is as much on the nuclear industry to prove that they have got it right, as it is on those in favour of something else to prove that the nuclear industry has got it wrong. It's a two way thing.

Edited April 23, 2011 by esme
not very well masked swearing

[Obelix 11]

Thanks for the confirmation. I already had strong suspicions based on the style of his debate, and refusal to answer questions, provide data or evidence to back up his claims, and by his attempts to ridicule and insult anyone that disagreed with the future of his industry.

 

Take this for example as to why I refuse to just take Obelix's answers at face value without evidence or a reference..

 

 

 

What utter <REMOVED>! This is from someone who is supposed to work in the industry, asking us why the uranium in an aircraft isn't a problem? It's just the type of scaremongering an envirowhiner would be accused of - hoping that the use of the word uranium strikes instant fear or in this case reasssurance into our hearts? I'm a little more knowledgable about radioactivity than that. 10 minutes online unpicks this ridiculous assertion;

 

1. The uranium in aircraft trim weights is depleted uranium, a different isotope to that used for fission, commonly but not solely, a by product of the enrichement of natural uranium,

and is less radioactive than the racemic mix of natural uranium, and cannot by itself acheive criticality. It decays primarily by alpha emission, and as such particles cannot penetrate the skin, is relatively safe.

 

A racemic mixture is one involving chiral centres.. you might want to get your basic terminology right.

 

In any given mass of uranium used in civilan environements you will get more radiation from the 238 than from the 235. It's also alpha decay in both isotopes, as in plutonium - and alpha particles are the most damaging ones despite what you say. Mr Litvinyenko found that out - it's dangerous if you inhale or ingest it but outside unless it's very concentrated they are fine.

 

If you want to debate science - please get your facts right.

Edited April 23, 2011 by esme
not very well masked swearing