The land of Attachment 11994 Just got back from a nice cruising day.

My feeling is that:

1) Even if the emissions that are claimed to be causing artificial climate change are not causing artificial climate change, they are still not good for Humans to breathe, so either way, we're not wasting money trying to reduce or eliminate them.
2) Quite apart from what seem like twisting what others have said, and what seem like pure insults for the sake of insults, surely anyone who was truly interested in having a meaningful discussion, would have paid much more attention to what they themselves had said than you seemed to, and realized the obvious contradiction in what you said.

I had hopes of a meaningful discussion of this topic, but I now see that was not to be. Unsubscribing from this thread...looking for a thread in which a meaningful discussion can be had.

Hi,

It is pretty nice to see. In any case, you have no danger of radioactivity for 100-200 years or more.

Look Frenchies. They claim that they have no troubles with their atomic plants (vid in French speaking):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8uyGTTP2sA

Actually there are far more cancers in France in vicinity of nuclear plants (<100 km). Nobody care in France. It occurs later, so Areva claims that's because people are getting old (you know it is easy).

(AREVA has the government in their hand (it's as dirty as nuclear there). This is why you will never find single (real) interest in renewable energies in France. )

Well, climate change is a worse problem but one of human cause of that is burning fossil fuel to build power plant. If we want to have the solution in climate change, we should know first how to find solution to its cause.

[edit]Whoops I only looked at the "Vivace". The rest I know of. Could use some research.
While I don't intend to question the remuneration of tidal/sea powered solutions, that thing in particular looks like bogus. IIRC there is a math/physics theorem that states you can't extract power from such chaotic motions. (You can damp it, but you won't get power.)
OMG carbondioxide !!11!! ;P
The discussion tends to go to "the bigger picture", because the ramifications of nuclear power are surely global and over a longer period. Problem is: I wouldn't know, you probably wouldn't know, and even experts wouldn't be certain how things turn out on the long run globally. So this sort of discussion has lots of room for personal opinion. That being said, there's also a lot of politics going on, and used solutions always have more disadvantages than proponents want you to believe. I think it's important to look at solving these issues instead of looking at another solution and believing, hoping, praying that it has less disadvantageous side-effects.

The same that advance circuitry to make it possible.

Tony, the climate change we are experiencing has an origin in human activity. If you follow the planets natural cycles we should be cooling down right now but the planet isn't. Why? because of an increase in human population and the associated increase in energy usage powered by fossil fuels creating an inbalance in the planet's atmosphere. There are gasses in the atmosphere that should not be there and increased levels of other gasses that are way beyond natural cycles. They are their because of humans, that is the cause.

We are smogging s#!t up++! But, to claim we know what trillions of years of systems is supposed to do is the part of evolution where we make more mistakes, like making many things all about money and not life...(healthcare, nuclear, laws; etc.)

It's got nothing to do with evolution, instead it has alot to do with evidence of old climates trapped in ice, and other core samples.

OK I see good in that. But as humans we theorize to fact and then realize often centenaries later back to theory... and I see the answers already here but controlled for power, like lacking in education is.

Side notes:
Look at how fast electronics move forward in history compared to humankind...

Bigger the city dirtier it seems

That is a flaw in the human condition. We treat certain things, using a religious term, as gospel truth (or maybe a better term is incontrevertable truth) then we find out what was truth is just someones theory that has no basis in fact (and I have seen many sprouted on this forum). Unfortunately people think science is fact but a fair proportion of science is just theory sprouted as fact. I was watching a show on Australian TV last week called QandA. A scientist was asked a question about the beginings of the universe and how it could start from nothing. His answer was the use of the word nothing, a word used in scientific literature through the ages, doesn't mean nothing but something. So we change the meaning of a word so we can make it seem as though we have the answers when infact we don't. This, not so, little problem is one of the few thigns that annoys me about science.

You should rather be annoyed about that particular scientist, not about science as a whole. If you really are interested in how it is possible to have a universe popping up into existence I recommend the book "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, it doesn't need to relable things to explain how it could have worked. I would sent you my copy, but sending things down-under is a little bit to expensive for me currently.

No need for that... just keep throwing it into the sea, I'm sure that will work out well...

@k3lt01: It seems we agree in this thread.

And that is kinda like the crux of the bisquit '.

Everyone wants cheap easy to make power, to power their gear.
When it comes time to take out the trash. "Not in my back yard"

If we kill the Ocean. Oh Baby. Will Earth get even with Us.
Then whether man made or not. The question will be moot.

The capitalist enterprises behind both fossil fuels and atomic energy don't really care about the planet, global warming, etc... let's be honest about it shall we? To pretend otherwise, to suppose that the big bosses of the major global energy companies are wringing their hands over the future of the planet would be just a little naive... Both sources of energy have the potential to destroy the planet in their own unique ways. If a good proportion of the world switched to atomic in the next few years however, industrial pollution, traffic pollution, pollution from air travel, etc would all still be there and still growing with the population and as countries develop and industrialise.

Everyone should probably read about Fukushima before they decide if nuclear energy is a good/bad thing. It's not making the news these days because there's other sensationalist crap making the headlines.