@djrikki

Quote:

Not sure I agree with this global warming lark. The word 'global' suggests.. well globally temperatures are rising. Certainly not in the UK for the last 3 years.

The predicted 2 degree rise over the next century is based on temperatures across the globe. You seem to think that every place will be hotter. This isn't necessarily the case as our climate isn't static but always changing. You might be interested in a quick graphical representation of 2010 Map of temp changes . You can see most of North America, most of South America, all of Africa, and a significant amount of Asia were all hotter in 2010. The size of the circle represents the average amount warmer. The UK is there in a small blue circle so yes slighly colder this year. As Europe is fairly blue. However, the red clearly wins in the largest warming and the largest amount of the globe warming. The other plus of the map is it demonstrates how small the UK is compared to the rest of the world. Slight cooling in such a small area is clearly offset but much larger wamer areas in the rest of the globe.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jan-2011 at 02:30 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @djrikki ... You might be interested in a quick graphical representation of 2010 Map of temp changes . You can see most of North America, most of South America, all of Africa, and a significant amount of Asia were all hotter in 2010. ...

I can very well remember having seen an report on TV in the early ninetees, where an animated temperature development world map was shown by Prof. Mojib Latif. And this map clearly predicted a relative cool period in Europe for the beginning of this millenium (it were the first three decades, IIRC), before it would start to heat up here as well.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I can very well remember having seen an report on TV in the early ninetees, where an animated temperature development world map was shown by Prof. Mojib Latif. And this map clearly predicted a relative cool period in Europe for the beginning of this millenium (it were the first three decades, IIRC), before it would start to heat up here as well.

Off the top of my head I recall two ways this can occur. The first, known for 100+ years, is the Arctic Oscillation. Which is a pressure abnormality over the Arctic which forces the old air out. The other method is one postulate is that the melting of ice in the Arctic will cause the salinity of the ocean to change and as a result colder winters will occur. I believe what we're seeing in Jan is a warm Arctic has changed the air pressures and cooling parts of North America and Europe.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Jan-2011 at 03:07 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... Off the top of my head I recall two ways this can occur. The first, known for 100+ years, is the Arctic Oscillation. Which is a pressure abnormality over the Arctic which forces the old air out. The other method is one postulate is that the melting of ice in the Arctic will cause the salinity of the ocean to change and as a result colder winters will occur. I believe what we're seeing in Jan is a warm Arctic has changed the air pressures and cooling parts of North America and Europe.

Yeah - plus the Gulf stream (which supplies e.g. Europe with warm water from the Gulf) is weakening.

The warm water from the gulf flows to the north near the surface. When it meets the arctic ice, the gulf water cools down, sinks to the ground and flows back to the south, where it gets heated by the sun again. The temperature difference between the gulf and the arctic drives the circulation of the gulf stream and leads to a milder climate here in Europe, as the main wind direction here is from west to east. So the cold air gets heated by the gulf stream before it hits the continent.

The more the arctic ice cap melts, the weaker the gulf stream. Should the gulf stream break down entirely, the northern hemisphere might experience a cooling.
Some scientists go to the extent to say that would mean a new ice age, while others say the effect would be offset by global warming.

I think the truth is somewhere in between...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@thread

Thought I'd share this amazing image with you guys, this was taken within the last 24 hours. Its shows the snow cover extent in the Northern hemisphere.

http://www.amigaos.net/winter10-11.html

Thought I'd share the link with the Beeb weather team too, perhaps they will find it of interest.

_________________

@djrikki

Quote:

djrikki wrote: Not sure I agree with this global warming lark. The word 'global' suggests.. well globally temperatures are rising. Certainly not in the UK for the last 3 years. Each winter has been getting noticeable more traditional year on year with ice and snow making much more of an appearance. Even the summers are cooling off here, not that I suggesting this will continue, but 'global warming' has eased off somewhat on our shores. On and off through the '00s the NAO and its associated jet-stream have been slowly drifting further south heralding somewhat cooler weather to Western Europe speckled throughout the seasons. Even now with the Northern arm of the jetstream reaching further North toward the pole in turn bringing pretty mundane and boring weather to the BI, the southern arm is hanging around Portugal and Spain - well South of its post '87 so called 'modern winter' era. As per my daily thread on Netweather.tv and for those who maybe interested, I maintain a daily update on SSTs (thats Sea Surface Temperatures) over the BI throughout the Winter months. I host this at http://www.amigaos.net/SSTs.html Doing my bit to advertise AmigaOS outside of the regular Amiga community.

It was just this morning at 04:30 a.m. that the German news station "n-tv" (http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/tvprogramm/) showed a report called "Kriegswaffe Wetter" (military weapon: weather).

In this report they discussed the possibility of influencing the weather by shooting focussed ELF pulses at a small area in the ionosphere, like Nikola Tesla predicted 100 years ago.

By that the ionosphere can be heated up locally to temperatures like 35 °C, which in turn can influence the course and the direction of the jet streams.

This way it would be possible to influence the weather and to produce droughts, thunderstorms, heavy rain and snow and even earth quakes. Regarding the earth quakes they showed an interesting experiment, that clearly demonstrated that if the conditions for an earthqake are already given (like a tectonic disruption and enough tension in the ground), the bombardment of the tectonic disruption with ELF pulses of the right frequency can release the tension and so cause the earthquake.

It was reported that US prospectors on their search for new oil resources in Alaska examined the ground with ELF waves and caused an earthquake of the magnitude 4 just a few years ago..

Furthermore it was said that such ELF pulses could also have side effects on the psyche of living beings (think e.g. of all the whales that stranded and died over the last years).

In 1990 the US started the "High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program" (HAARP). The facility officially began full operations in its final 3.6 MW transmitter power completed status in the summer of 2007, yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts or 97.1 dBW at maximum output - so it clearly has the potential to produce all the effects described above.

Europe has a similar facility called "Eiscat" near Trondheim, Norway.
On Dec. 9, 2009 there was a strange luminous effect to be seen in the night sky above Trondheim, which is attributed to "Eiscat".

Norway light
This video contains some good pictures of the Norway light, but also some nonsense about UFOs, god and so on. I just linked it because of the good pictures of the Norway light - so please ignore the nonsense.

Two researchers attribute Norway light to HAARP.

Although all that's attributed to the ionosphere experiments with HAARP/EISCAT sounds quite plausible, I really don't know yet what to think of it.

But I found it so interesting that I thought I should share it with you, as it might also concern the GW discussion.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Eh, HAARP is "High Frequency whatnot". ELF is "Extremely Low Frequency". Having a high frequency transmitter does diddly-squat in helping you generate a big ELF-field.

Edit: Finally found the HAARP-data that shows they are AM modulating the ionosphere to emulate a large ELF antenna. Pretty cool idea.

Last edited by olegil on 04-Feb-2011 at 01:27 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Dandy ... Edit: Finally found the HAARP-data that shows they are AM modulating the ionosphere to emulate a large ELF antenna. Pretty cool idea.

Yeah - sorry - forgot to mention that.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

Update:

Earth dodges geomagnetic storm: scientist

A wave of charged plasma particles from a huge solar eruption has glanced off the Earth's northern pole, lighting up auroras and disrupting some radio communications, a NASA scientist said. Full Story »

.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Tomas Ukraine to open Chernobyl area to tourists in 2011 Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova said experts are developing travel routes that will be both medically safe and informative for Ukrainians as well as foreign visitors. She did not give an exact date when the tours were expected to begin. "There are things to see there if one follows the official route and doesn't stray away from the group," Yershova told The Associated Press.

[sarcasm]
Bah - who wants to see this old crap?
In Chernobyl you can just see a concrete cover - let's rather go to Fukushima and have a direct look into the fires of hell!
[/sarcasm]

Quote:

Interesting wrote: "Though it is a very sad story."

That's right - but I'm afraid the Fukushima story will be even worse in the end...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: The United Nations Development Program chief Helen Clark toured the Chernobyl plant together with Baloha on Sunday and said she supported the plan because it could help raise money and tell an important lesson about nuclear safety.

Help to raise money for what? To build new nuclear reactors or to depollute the existing ones?

Quote:

Interesting wrote: "Personally I think there is an opportunity to tell a story here and of course the process of telling a story, even a sad story, is something that is positive in economic terms and positive in conveying very important messages," said Clark, according to her office.

We have a saying here: "A picture tells more than a thousand words."
Therefore to watch the live pictures from Fukushima should be a thousand times more telling than the story Clark has to tell.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: The ministry also said Monday it hopes to finish building a new safer shell for the exploded reactor by 2015. The new shelter will cover the original iron-and-concrete structure hastily built over the reactor that has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. The new shell is 345 feet (105 meters) tall, 853 feet (260 meters) wide and 490 feet (150 meters) long. It weighs 20,000 tons and will be slid over the old shelter using rail tracks. The new structure will be big enough to house the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in New York.

I'm just trying to imagine of what size the cover for the entire Fukushima nuclear power plant will be...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: The overall cost of project, financed by international donors, has risen from $505 million (euro380 million) to $1.15 billion (euro870 million) because of stricter safety requirements, according to Ukrainian officials. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which manages the project, said a final estimate of the project's cost will be released after the French-led consortium Novarka finalizes a construction plan in the next few months.

In the light of such huge costs just for the sarcophagus of just one damaged reactor I ask you:

Is it really worth that?

All the money in the entire world cannot buy the safe and sound environment back for the people in Japan. Their environment is just getting ruined for the next couples of thousands of years...


EDIT:

Reminds me of an old Whishful Thinking song (original title: Hiroshima):

"There´s a shadow of a man at Fukushima,
where he passed the moon,

in a wonderland at Fukushima,
´neath the oddestmoon,

and the world remembers his face,
rememberes the place was here

Fly the metal bird to Fukushima and away your load,

speak the magic word to Fukushima,
let the sky explode,

and the world remembers his name,
remembers the flame was Fukushima."

Last edited by Dandy on 26-Mar-2011 at 10:42 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 17-Mar-2011 at 07:34 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

Hmmmmm - noone interested in discussing the usefulness of nuclear power to fight global warming - in the face of the Fukushima disaster?


Sad.
There have been several postings in this thread suggesting nuclear power is the solution, as it would provide clean energy and not pollute the environment.

I would really be interested if those mates would be willing to re-consider their POV in the face of the Fukushima disaster (and the Chernobyl disaster as well, of course)...

Tomas - where are you when we need you?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I would really be interested if those mates would be willing to re-consider their POV in the face of the Fukushima disaster (and the Chernobyl disaster as well, of course)...

Still on the loose end of the wrong advocacy battlefield?

1/ Below are some numbers for your ageing neuron that speaks for themselves (based on the European ExternE project):

Energy____________________________Deaths per TeraWatthour
Coal - world average______________161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal - China______________________278
Coal - USA_________________________15
Oil________________________________36 (36% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass____________________12
Peat_______________________________12
Natural Gas_________________________4 (21% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)____1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Solar (rooftop)_____________________0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind________________________________0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro_______________________________0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Nuclear_________________________0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Adding the 1 casualty of Fukushima does not change the value for the last line.

2/ About Chernobyl, the official 2005 report ("Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts") by the WHO evidenced that as of mid-2005, fewer than 60 deaths (56 proven exactly) had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster.

3/ My usual sociological interpretation: it always is interesting how the greenwashed are wrong about everything. Let's remind the wise explaining words of Julian Simon:

Quote:

People [a]re inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they [a]re immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seem[s] to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they [a]re believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker.

As always, you fit well the description.

To conclude, the only disaster worth observing is the scalable and irreversible wrongness of the green ideology.

Let's the fun continue while enjoying this interglacial!

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Let's also remind the good people here that it is Human Achievement Hour 2011:

Quote:

Human Achievement Hour (HAH) is a celebration of individual freedom and appreciation of the achievements and innovations that people have used to improve their lives throughout history. To celebrate Human Achievement Hour, participants need only to spend the hour from 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm on March 26 enjoying the benefits of capitalism and human innovation: Gather with friends in the warmth of a heated home, watch television, take a hot shower, drink a beer, call a loved one on the phone, or listen to music.

As previous years, HAH is celebrated here with incandescent and halogen lights all switched on at the party, by the magic of cheap nuclear electricity. I do not forget burning some abiogenic fuels (oil and gas) slowly to enjoy heat and the so marvellous singing of CO²-releasing motors, while the (heavily subsidized) heat pump is running 24h a day to fight the below normal cold temperature of the pool (15°C).

Ahhhhh, nothing like the pleasure to ridicule the 'back-to-the-caves' mentality of the eco-propagandists.

May CO², the gas of life, keep rising, from France with love!

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Hmmmmm - noone interested in discussing the usefulness of nuclear power to fight global warming

I'm a geothermal kind of guy. Maybe way too hot to handle, but at least when you spill lava it's not so dang radioactive.

Plaz

@TMTisFree

Hi TMT - nice to see you're back from the dead.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Still on the loose end of the wrong advocacy battlefield?

Errrm - I'm Dandy - not TMT...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 1/ Below are some numbers for your ageing neuron that speaks for themselves (based on the European ExternE project): ...

I read through the entire ExternE pages - but the figures you provided are not mentioned there. Have you faked them as usually?

But I found this in the FAQ section:

"Not all damages have been monetised. There might be substantial impacts the costs of which are not included in the external cost estimates. How is this taken into account of in ExternE?
ExternE recognises that there are gaps in what the method has quantified. Among those damages currently not included in ExternE estimates are nuclear proliferation, nuclear security, security of energy supply, visual intrusion and risk aversion.
...
ExternE...is beginning to to try to quantify additional important impacts, but these estimates are not yet sufficiently reliable to use.
..."

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 2/ About Chernobyl, the official 2005 report ("Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts") by the WHO evidenced that as of mid-2005, fewer than 60 deaths (56 proven exactly) had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster.

The emphasis is on "directly attributed". The report youcited just takes those victims into account who died within the first few weeks after that maximum credible accident.

Relevant parts of the IAEA Press Release 2005/12 provide "slightly" different figures:

"IAEA Press Release 2005/12

Chernobyl: True Scale of the Accident

5 September 2005

A total of up to four thousand people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (rNPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
...
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster
...
The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, Chernobyl´s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts, just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history.
...
"This compilation of the latest research can help to settle the outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic fallout really resulted from the Chernobyl accident," explains Dr. Burton Bennett, chairman of the Chernobyl Forum and an authority on radiation effects.
...
Bennett continued: "This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer.
...
Major Study Findings:

Dozens of important findings are included in the massive report:

Approximately 1 000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200,000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2 200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime.
...
About 4 000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children and adolescents at the time of the accident, have resulted from the accident´s contamination
...
Relocation proved a "deeply traumatic experience" for some 350 000 people moved out of the affected areas. Although 116 000 were moved from the most heavily impacted area immediately after the accident, later relocations did little to reduce radiation exposure.
...
The international experts have estimated that radiation could cause up to about 4 000 eventual deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, i.e. emergency workers from 1986-1987, evacuees and residents of the most contaminated areas. This number contains both the known radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia deaths and a statistical prediction, based on estimates of the radiation doses received by these populations.
...
However, in the most exposed cohorts of emergency and recovery operation workers some increase of particular cancer forms (e.g. leukemia) in particular time periods has already been observed. The predictions use six decades of scientific experience with the effects of such doses, explained Repacholi.
...
What was the economic cost?

Because of policies in place at the time of the explosion and the inflation and economic disruptions that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union, precise costs have been impossible to calculate. A variety of estimates from the 1990s placed the costs over two decades at hundreds of billions of dollars. These costs included direct damage, expenditures related to recovery and mitigation, resettlement of people, social protection and health care for the affected population, research on environment, health and the production of clean food, radiation monitoring, as well as indirect losses due to removing agricultural lands and forests from use and the closing of agriculture and industrial facilities, and such additional costs as cancellation of the nuclear power program in Belarus and the additional costs of energy from the loss of power from Chernobyl. The costs have created a huge drain on the budgets of the three countries involved.
..."

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 3/ My usual sociological interpretation: ...

Yeah - I know your usual interpretation: TMT is right and the rest of the world is wrong and just trying to pull your hard earned money out of your purse - nothing new here...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: People [a]re inclined to believe the very worst about anything and everything; they [a]re immune to contrary evidence just as if they'd been medically vaccinated against the force of fact. Furthermore, there seem[s] to be a bizarre reverse-Cassandra effect operating in the universe: whereas the mythical Cassandra spoke the awful truth and was not believed, these days "experts" spoke awful falsehoods, and they [a]re believed. Repeatedly being wrong actually seemed to be an advantage, conferring some sort of puzzling magic glow upon the speaker. As always, you fit well the description. ...

As always, you have nothing better to come up with than disrespect and personal insults...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer". The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source". The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

The TMTisfree approach to our non-problems: "once you're dead you don't need shirts anymore".

Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 05:17 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 12:21 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 12:15 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @TMTisFree ...from France with love!

Hey - did you already suggest to French air force to write this slogan onto the bombs they drop on Ghaddafi's troups? They might want to award you...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

nice to see you're back from the dead.

You are projecting too much. The eco-zealots are so boringly wrong and so repetitively unimaginative that taking a break to brighter skies (expanding some CO² intensive businesses btw) was in order.

IMPORTANT: A PERSONAL NOTE TO THE AGW BELIEVERS:
Since you give me the occasion, let me thank you and your political eco-buddies for the great market jump in crops' prices I profit from since 2007, as a direct result of green biofuel policies' implementation.

Also, about the renewable energy policies you pushed so hard in a attempt to fight the CO² non-problem, I last year finally defeated the regional government representative in justice (the great irony is he was called by local greenies concerned by environmental impacts of windmills, bwahaha, so much fun with these hypocrites!), so that I have been finally giving the right to build the 10 1MW windmills: meaning that I am basically getting significantly richer without doing any work (less in fact) for at least the next 25 years.

So, many, many, many thanks for your delicate attention to me by your success to push wrong-headed policies to fight absent problems. I appreciate it!

Remind me to post here some photos of the windmills when building begins.

Back to normal program now.
Quote:

I read through the entire ExternE pages - but the figures you provided are not mentioned there.

Well, that's hardly surprising as your past record here has only demonstrated an ability to transversally read misinformed MSM pieces coming from distorted PR adapted from abstracts of the real scientific materials. Anyway, what about you, as you made the claim, demonstrating nuclear is not safe for people with real empirical data (no models, no projections/predictions, no future tense, etc., you get it)?

Quote:

"but these estimates are not yet sufficiently reliable to use"

You find your own rebuttal yourself. Great. It is always a pleasure to see believers of the [C]AGW gravy train pushing themselves into the grave (here or elsewhere).

Quote:

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster

This is even below my number (56). The remaining values you quote are predictions only ie we don't know/care (scientifically speaking).

Empirical data spoke: nuclear energy is the safer energy. Even a leftist eco-crank like Monbiot has see the light and has admit it now. Given he has probably also seen the ecological disasters which are the direct consequences of irresponsible and criminal 'green' policies, he also add: Quote:

at high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless.

Just what I have been saying for years here. Let face it: your irrational fear of nuclear energy is unfounded (and renewables are a dead end). Will YOU change your POV? I bet no.

Quote:

The TMTisfree approach to our non-problems: "once you're dead you don't need shirts anymore".

The joke was intended to be clever than that, but subtleties are not yours. Still washing your clothes by hand in Germany? Haha!

Edit: added a reply and corrected typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Mar-2011 at 01:04 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Hey - did you already suggest to French air force to write this slogan onto the bombs they drop on Ghaddafi's troups? They might want to award you...

Do you suggest that it is a good policy to support dictator? Given the German historical track record, one wonders if you give it a thought before opening your mouth.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

@DandyQuote: Hey - did you already suggest to French air force to write this slogan onto the bombs they drop on Ghaddafi's troups? They might want to award you... Do you suggest that it is a good policy to support dictator? Given the German historical track record, one wonders if you give it a thought before opening your mouth.

France's policy has been to support dictators in Africa. France has historically been a large supporter of dictators - Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Madagascar and Niger to name a few. These events continue into the recent era, 2010 for example, as we see France supporting Ali Bongo in Gabon. Your statement suggests France somehow is not a supporter of dictators? Is this a recent trend as history bears the opposite story.

Bringing this conversation back to the present nuclear energy thread is France's ownership of Niger. One of the poorest nations in the world. It continues to be kept poor as France takes the lowest cost uranium in the world out of that nation and uses up the water supply to do so, negatively impacting farming. France outed the president in the 70s and French Imperialism is linked the 3 coups since the mid 90s. Even in 2010 we see France backing President Tandja after he changed the constitution so he could hold power indefinitely, aka newest dictator on the block. Undemocratic pratices by French to prop up your nuclear industry have resulted in poverty and death for the people in this nation.

@BrianK

Quote:

Your statement suggests France somehow is not a supporter of dictators?

I have not missed your inability to comprehend basic claim in a post.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".