LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: I am French and For / Against Nuclear Energy?
I am For Nuclear Energy! 5 45.45%
I am Against Nuclear Energy! 6 54.55%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2013, 01:40 PM   #46
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344

Blink, blink, blink...
Blinky%2Bthe%2Bthree%2Beyed%2Bfish.jpg

Edit\Add: link and; so, one could argue (even planetary) to live life to the fullest because we will die anyhow but there are people living well in to their hundreds and not thanks to nuclear!
Code:
fortune ascii-art
SANTA IS BRINGING GOOD WISHES FROM ALL THE
MICRO ARTISTS GANG!  MAY 1988 BE A HAPPY YEAR!


					     \__\_ :. ___/
						..\  /--
 :.______ :  .:*  :  . _ .:  :..  .  :   . .  :    ()_ .:
  ((     \. :./(__ :._O_)________:______,____:____/  *\_o
====((    \: (****) (***) :. ...: .. .  ()_______/\\ __-'
 \____((   \ ()oo()_/ /.:  :  ..________/_____ll   -/.: ..
 (      ((  \(())))__/   .  ..  \\.: ..(   )  ll (  l_.:
(       / (( \__*__)___:___ :  : ))   .) /--------\ \ \
(      /    ((_____________) .. //  . / / /..:: .  )_)_\
 (____/_____________________\__// :  /_/_/  :..  :/_/ \_\
 /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/    /_/_/

fortune -m "With all"
{...had to find it...}
%
With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once
build a nuclear balm?
%
Whamp whamp...

Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-13-2013 at 10:07 PM. Reason: link
 
Old 12-14-2013, 01:45 AM   #47
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,320

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 83
What I do not accept is that people living close to nuclear plants, and seeing their relatives dying from cancer.

It is really terrible and government, laywers, ... will never
help in getting justice. Government in France protects the nuclear energy.

That's unfair because people close have tumors, cancers, ... and they are not listened that nuclear has really bad negative points: radioactivity (potential danger).


3 eyes fish is a result, such as JP fishes
 
Old 12-14-2013, 04:27 AM   #48
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Nuclear has problems down the line with waste, but doing without it has problems in the here and now: power shortages, soaring prices, dependency on unreliable sources like Russia and the Arabs.
Yeah, you have looked at the major sources for uranium right?

Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Niger.

Besides the 'waste issue'-

http://www.wunderground.com/news/nuc...again-20130625

there are also 'extraction' issues-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-0...kakadu/5142148

Even in '1st world' countries that should be doing much better.

If you think that uranium mining in africa or south america is going to be safe, think again....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Sure it gives off heat and some but if it can run cars then it can run generators. Unless you're making another point?
Hydrogen cars are a pipe dream. Dont believe the hype, the only reason that people talk about hydrogen cars is because they dont understand the technical difficulties and/or believe that the difficulties can be overcome (ha!).

Hydrogen might be 'clean', but you cant just find it, its produced with electricity. So a hydrogen generator is a neat way to just lower overall efficiencies.
 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:02 AM   #49
nigelc
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Distribution: Mageia 4
Posts: 297
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 52
Code:
fortune ascii-art
			_-^--^=-_
		   _.-^^          -~_
		_--                  --_
	       <                        >)
	       |                         |
		\._                   _./
		   ```--. . , ; .--'''
			 | |   |
		      .-=||  | |=-.
		      `-=#$%&%$#=-'
			 | ;  :|
		_____.,-#%&$@%#&#~,._____

Last edited by nigelc; 12-14-2013 at 06:07 AM.
 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:29 AM   #50
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,320

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 83
Code:
No worries there is no radioactivities (yet) on march !! we can move there when they screwed the whole planet with radioactivity

                              ::: =,    ;   
                           ;;=;;===      M      
              ,=YVRMBBMMR=,   :i=                  
            :iVRRMMMMMMBMMM :=;  ==;======          
           =tYMMMMMMBBMMM;=Y ,::;==iMMMMMMMMMM                          
          ;tYVBBMMVMMMM =; .,,,::;;=YVBBMMMMMMMMM                       
          ;tYVVYRMMM;=ti ...,,,;::==iMVMMMMMMMMMMMM                     
          ,=tYRBM;;tVB, ....,  ,::;====YVBMMMMMMMMMM                    
      ..   ,=t =tYVRB, .....,,,,=:;:;;i=VYMMRMMMMMMMM                   
     ;;..  ,===iYVVRY .....,,,;,,,,,:;;==t=RBMMMMMMMMM                  
   :;;:;=;,...       .......,,,,,,,,,:;;==Y=tYMMMMMMMM                  
  ;.,:,.....         ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,:;;;==YYMRMMMMMM;                 
  .......             .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::;;;=YtVBMMMMM                  
;t ...                .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::;;i=RiRMMMMM                  
,=..                    .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::;;=iYBBMM                    
                         .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::;;;;tVB                     
        :VMM               .,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,::;;=                       
       ,;VBM                 .,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,::     
   WT  ,,==                      `,,,,,,,      


h
 
Old 12-14-2013, 09:38 AM   #51
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344
There are differences in hydrogen run vehicles, I've worked at a factory wrapping high psi tanks in fiberglass and epoxy for school buses and company vehicles that burn hydrogen more like a traditional gas with little mod to the engine etc but way cleaner. I did not consider how they get the hydrogen on industrial scales... probably better ways than money makers of today know or would have you believe tho?
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...en-from-water/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-15-2013 at 08:51 PM.
 
Old 12-15-2013, 08:38 PM   #52
nigelc
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Distribution: Mageia 4
Posts: 297
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 52
What about hydrogen fuel cells?
 
Old 12-17-2013, 11:41 AM   #53
baldy3105
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Distribution: Mint (Desktop), Debian (Server)
Posts: 875

Rep: Reputation: 184Reputation: 184
"No worries there is no radioactivities (yet) on mars"

You are aware that radiation is natural yes? Found naturally in the environment? Tellurium Vanadiu Zirconium Samarium Osmium Neodymium Platinum Indium Gadolinium Tellurium Samarium Rubidium Rhenium nutetium Thorium Uranium and Potassium - all found naturally occuring.

We have evovled in a soup of background radition, the ground the air, plants, animals, all radioactive to a greater or lesser extent.

The Sun is so radioactive that without the atmosphere and the magnetosphere we would fry where we stood.

Even self sustaining nuclear reactions occur naturally, chunks of moutains side that are so hot you couldn't get near it, not volcanic but nuclear.

I have a problem with Nuclear power for lots of practical reasons, but when I see comments like that I have to laugh. Humans did not invent radio activity we just collected it in one place which made it more dangerous.
 
Old 12-17-2013, 04:29 PM   #54
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: infinity; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth
Distribution: any UNIXish that works well on my cheapest with mostly KDE, Xfce, JWM or CLI but open ;-)
Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344Reputation: 344
If "we" can, "we" will, Hack the Planet: http://kia31.hubpages.com/hub/Hottes...r-in-the-World; I SAID STOP!!! if ever around kids that last one's obvious (for many things e.g: hard-drugs) even to mother earth!

Edit\add: another problem I see is even if they go nuclear they'll still u$e (or even make it $eem ok to use) coal, many are now making crude-oil from it as more sources for cancer I mean coal exists!
____________
________________
____________________
______________________
________________________
__________________________
_________________________
________________________
_________________________
_______________________
__________________
__________
_______
___________
_______________
___________________
__________________
______________
_______________
___________________
____________
_____________
___________
________
_________
________
_________
______
____
_______
________
__________
_________
_______
_____
____

Last edited by jamison20000e; 12-21-2013 at 11:09 AM. Reason: add
 
Old 12-22-2013, 02:51 AM   #55
Xeratul
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2006
Location: Debian Land
Posts: 1,320

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 83
I guess that an opensource leading world government would be maybe a solution to avoid all those waste of energy and rise of pollution.

I would also vote against violent games, btw. Look how became the gaming industry. Not necessary to give any exemples, so much they are.
Violence, in US, is still there. Even in peaceful areas (you saw in Colorado, again, few weeks ago?)
 
Old 01-01-2014, 10:25 PM   #56
danimalz
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: West Coast South, USA
Distribution: debian 3.1
Posts: 255

Rep: Reputation: 30
Commercial energy production is an interesting topic. The demonization of nuclear energy is another one.

Many folks hear the word 'nuclear' or the word 'radiation' and there's an immediate panic-like hard-stop in their brain that prevents opening the mind, thinking logically and (omg) considering facts.

So, some facts:

1. Aside from a very few on-site emergency workers, there has not been one human death attributed to the chernobyl reactor accident. In fact the flora/fauna in the area seem to have benefited greatly from the subsequent scarcity of humans.

2. I dont think there's even a single human death caused by the fukushima reactor 'disaster'.

Note that i distinguish between accident and disaster in items 1 and 2 above. Fukushima was a lottery-win event; a 100plus-year occurring earthquake that happened in a perfect-storm location which caused a tsunami. This is like a meteor hitting someone in the head (it happens). On the other hand, chernobyl was the result of big, horribly incompetent government.

Either way, much ado about nothing. Ask yourself: Why is death by radiation any different or more horrible than death by carbon monoxide at a coal fired plant. Or electrocution at a solar facility? Or beheading by windmill?

Anyway, the media loves this shit, dont they.? I remember this japanese 'scientist', cant remember his name but he's on discovery channel alot - i think he claims to be a physicist even. He was doom-saying and gloom-saying on CNN and the networks loved having him on. During the 'live coverage' i made a bet with a hysterical friend that the body count would end up being zero, and that the environmental impact would be limited to the immediate physical area of the powerplant campus. My friend, and maybe you, will never admit that i was right.

Whatever. Please drop the panic and educate yourselves.

Using nuclear fission for power is not scary. Nuclear energy technology is about 50 years old. If we were to build (in the usa) new fission-based power generating facilities today, using current designs: there would be, effectively, zero risk. In fact, much less risk than any other energy generating technology outside of hydro, or geo-therm (maybe).

Prove me wrong.

Oh, wait: "It's not just the millions of horrible deaths, it's the environment!" gasp gasp cry cry

Someone in this thread talked about glowing fishes in fukushima. I need to let you in on a secret: radiation is a part of nature. Living things deal with normal radiation sources quite well. Yes, a fission power plant will generate some very bad stuff and if mis-managed it could be nasty as hell. Guess what? The way ionizing radiation works (generally) is that the 'hotter' it is, the quicker it decays. So, the really bad stuff is very short lived. The rest can be dealt with. You don't believe me? That's because you dont want to believe me. Not your fault, it's what 'they' say. All the time.

In actual fact, you are more likely to be blown up by a petrol-tanker on the freeway than by radiation or chemical isotopes from a Nuc.Power plant. Far more likely.

But there's a catch. There's always a catch. In this case, it is economics and politics. The promises of nuclear power (safe, carbon-neutral, efficient, 24x7 availability, clean, etc.) cannot be realized today mostly because of politics. Also because of simple economics. But the two are related: Politics has made nuclear power generation un-economical due to the costs associated with over-regulation. There's also the fact that, even if regulations were eased, the capital costs of building a fission based facility, plus the cost of creating fuel for it, disposing of wastes, can be higher than available substitutes such as coal, oil, natural gas.

Summing up, i'd like to point out the obvious: that whatever the source, energy-availability is the most fundamental element (aside from clean air & water) underlying the future of human existence and comfort. Full-stop. I remember as a kid, seeing the 100's of city workers taking a week to re-pave the street outside my house using shovels & jackhammers and such. Just the other day, using big, diesel-gulping robots, they did the same thing in a day.

I counsel 'greenies' that your lives would be very much different, and not in good ways, and in every possible way, without consistent and efficient access to cheap energy sources. Please think about where you get things, how you would get from place to place. Think of the energy it takes for you to use a smart phone, charge the batteries in your prius, have the luxury of a supermarket. Seriously we must face the fact that if we are to feed each of us and supply a decent standard of living, then we have to make some hard choices.

On balance, i would tell you that we MUST NOT cast aside ANY rational option for producing energy.

Cheers!
 
Old 01-01-2014, 11:20 PM   #57
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,561

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by danimalz View Post
In actual fact, you are more likely to be blown up by a petrol-tanker on the freeway than by radiation or chemical isotopes from a Nuc.Power plant. Far more likely.
Your point? I agree crap happens and being smart about things is always the best option. However, is it really necessary to damage things mining the stuff, damage things by creating the plants to deal with the stuff, damage things when something goes bad (and history shows they do go bad), trying to store the waste product somewhere, and is it really necessary to use it in the first place? The answer is no it is not necessary because there are other options.

We have had a few "accidents" here with simple things at uranium mines and while this is purely anecdotal evidence I have seen the damage to the once pristine environment in Australia's NT to know that while no energy source is perfect nuclear is a very poor choice from the start of the process to the end of the process.
 
Old 01-02-2014, 12:02 AM   #58
danimalz
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: West Coast South, USA
Distribution: debian 3.1
Posts: 255

Rep: Reputation: 30
Thx 4 the reply!


There are always downsides: mining, digging, scrapping...

Do you think that there's a diff to the earth between digging for coal/oil/etc. vs. uranium.?

Your response seems to validate my point that folks freak-out on hearing nuclear/radiation/etc.

I dont know anything about the problems you allude to with respect to Aust'l NT, but know this: 'they' will dig wherever for 'whatever' it is that is going to power our engines. 'They' HAVE to. And we should thank tme.

Do you prefer that our energy comes from fracking the soils of north dakota?

We all can argue specifics, but the problem remains - how do we feed humanity?
 
Old 01-02-2014, 01:01 AM   #59
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with Slackware 14.
Posts: 2,561

Rep: Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532Reputation: 532
IMHO renewable energy is the future and we need to move to it sooner rather than later. I'm originally from an area of Australia in the state of New South Wales, that was developed because of mining. It now has horse studs and wineries as well. It is interesting that horses and wineries are, in Australia at least, best situated where the ground is full of coal (not including or discounting climatic conditions). One of Australia's oldest settled river systems (the Hunter River which used to be called the Coal River) has undergone massive change. The quality of the water has declined, and the mining activity has disrupted the natural water cycle (not only above ground but also under it). I wouldn't eat a fish from the Hunter anymore if I knew it come from there.

When all the coal and uranium are gone what is going to feed us? When we have poisoned our rivers and underground water supply what will water our crops and what water will we use for our mains supply? I know and understand your pov but I don't agree with it.

Your question regarding fracking is a good one but my answer is the same. The property south of me, which is owned by the now retired CEO of Whitehaven Coal Tony Haggarty, is prime agricultural and grazing land but also has a massive amount of coal underneath it as does much of the area I live in. They wouldn't mine it for coal but I have no doubt he would put in CSG rigs and if he does our underground water supply will be damaged. If you think I am spreading FUD then do some research on an area called the Pilliga which has CSG rigs in it.
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature...e-pilliga/447/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sa...218-2zkob.html

Again this is only my opinion but we need to move away from damaging the land and water. If we want to feed humanity we need to protect what is left of the resources we had to actually do so.

Last edited by k3lt01; 01-02-2014 at 01:04 AM.
 
Old 01-02-2014, 01:10 AM   #60
kooru
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Location: Italy
Distribution: Slackware, NetBSD
Posts: 1,233
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 256Reputation: 256Reputation: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by danimalz
Fukushima was a lottery-win event; a 100plus-year occurring earthquake that happened in a perfect-storm location which caused a tsunami. This is like a meteor hitting someone in the head (it happens). On the other hand, chernobyl was the result of big, horribly incompetent government.
Japan, due to his position, has a long history for earthquakes, some of them above Magnitude 8 (4 from 2000 to now). You can see the list. The event happened at Fukushima was rare (earthquake 9 magnitude + tsunami) but I am not sure that the probability is like "a meteor hitting someone in the head (it happens)"
About chernobyl and "the result of big, horribly incompetent government", I believe that history has proved much times the horribly incompetent about some government and in my opinion is that this will never change.

Quote:
Using nuclear fission for power is not scary. Nuclear energy technology is about 50 years old. If we were to build (in the usa) new fission-based power generating facilities today, using current designs: there would be, effectively, zero risk. In fact, much less risk than any other energy generating technology outside of hydro, or geo-therm (maybe).
How many are new station and how many are old station?
Zero risk? What if a terrorist takes a boeing and crush into it?

Quote:
Someone in this thread talked about glowing fishes in fukushima. I need to let you in on a secret: radiation is a part of nature. Living things deal with normal radiation sources quite well. Yes, a fission power plant will generate some very bad stuff and if mis-managed it could be nasty as hell. Guess what? The way ionizing radiation works (generally) is that the 'hotter' it is, the quicker it decays. So, the really bad stuff is very short lived. The rest can be dealt with. You don't believe me? That's because you dont want to believe me. Not your fault, it's what 'they' say. All the time.
Maybe you don't know that from Fukushima's reactors continue to come out radioactive water and radioactive gas.

Quote:
Seriously we must face the fact that if we are to feed each of us and supply a decent standard of living, then we have to make some hard choice
Please talk to me about a "decent standard of living"
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mass loves Nuclear, but it will kill us all ;) Xeratul General 93 06-16-2013 03:15 PM
LXer: The Nuclear Option LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-19-2007 05:01 AM
nuclear energy foo_bar_foo General 103 02-22-2006 09:36 AM
gnome panel went nuclear imbaczek Linux - Software 0 10-08-2004 01:23 PM
French people I really need your help LinuxLala General 11 07-01-2004 10:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration