Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Expert: Fossil fuels kill more people

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:12 PM
Original message
Expert: Fossil fuels kill more people
 
Run time: 03:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLsQ6XNQZNU
 
Posted on YouTube: April 06, 2011
By YouTube Member: CNN
Views on YouTube: 8
 
Posted on DU: April 06, 2011
By DU Member: SkyDaddy7
Views on DU: 1438
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. He has a point
and nuclear plants aren't fucking up the climate either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's just that glowing pile of waste with a 10,000 year half life that causes problems...
The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain have been abandoned, but even if a facility had been built there, America already has more waste than it could have handled.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/us-nuclear-was...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Why store it?
New reactors are being designed that use the spent fuel from older reactors. Bill Gates has been instrumental in pushing the research forward and getting the next generation of reactors on line as soon as possible.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/terrapower-how-the-travelli...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Technically, you're still storing it
albeit in a much more distributed manner. But those are still nuclear reactors, using nuclear fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Read up on how traveling wave reactors work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I have read about "traveling wave reactors"
Some of us have degrees in physics and stuff... not that it matters in an anonymous forum.

These reactors still use nuclear fuel, which needs to be STORED in the reactor to be used. That being my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. So why aren't you up in arms
about uranium just existing in the first place then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yeah, and in a long enough time scale everybody eventually dies
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 05:35 PM by liberation
so what's the big fuss about arsenic in pill form, right?

Yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Arsenic pill in a 5 inch plastic shell
coated with antacids and wrapped in a layer of cellulose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Bon appetit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Russr2008 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Excellent, take something dangerous and
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 04:58 PM by Russr2008
make it really dangerous. No other fuel source can make this claim: I am a time bomb waiting to go off. At the first natural disaster or unforeseen event I will $#it on you and the rest of the world too. I will cause mutations that generations will inherit. I am das gift that keeps on giving. Chernobyl wildlife

Experience should be telling us, that both Nuclear and Fossil fuels are not our future.
You want Nuclear Power, look up in the sky on a cloudless day, there it is. Let us use it.
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher

BTW: The German word das Gift means poison.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Russr2008 Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Reactor Fuel recycling still has waste and
furthermore, each time it is recycled there is more, more dangerous waste, and less usable fuel. The French have been trying to secretly deal with this for some time. At one point the French were secretly contracting their waste disposal to "outsourced" entities and those entities reportedly were just dropping it in the ocean of the coast of Somalia. I read about this when I discovered the Democratic candidate Obama was a Nuke Monger.
And for the record Bill Gates is a Putz, a rich Putz, but still a Putz.

hmmm not bad, wonder how many this will piss-off, ah even better ... I voted for Nader :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. No, he doesn't. He has a very flawed false dichotomy.
He made all that money claiming there was no such thing as "climate change" only to be proven wrong. And here he is, once again... with a repackaged version of his hubris to... tadaaa make more money.

Why is this idiot still taken seriously? And why is an economist brought in as an "expert" in matters that have nothing to do with his area of study?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inademv Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I wasn't aware that
having once been a skeptic about something and been shown the mistakes in your position, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT changing your position to be congruent with the facts you are aware of was a liability in ones credibility.

Did you ever hold a position that you now find to be patently absurd? If no, you're a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. There is no such thing as "skepticism" when dealing with a field of study he knew nothing about,
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 04:34 PM by liberation
it is called "ignorance."

He knew absolutely nothing about climate physics, he is an economist, and he made the work of those doing actual research that much harder while he made loads of money. He only changed his message when his books became completely unmarketable in lieu of the overwhelming facts coming from science, and lo and behold... he now has more books to sell.

You may call that "credibility" other people call that "hubris."

His is still a flawed dichotomy. We do not have to discuss the evils of cancer when dealing with an AIDS epidemic. Yes, cancer kills more people each year so what? His is a ridiculous argument. Among other things because he puts arbitrary stops to when he wants to follow its ultimate logic: if nuclear is better because it "kills less people" than fossils, then it follows that renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) are even better, optimal even. From a "humane" metric of being responsible for less deaths. Yet he simply labels them as "unrealistic" and that is that. Which is hypocritical because his is a knee jerk reaction regarding renewables, while at the same time he complains about the knee jerk reaction against nuclear plants.

How people are in this thread equating the opinions of an economist with a very flawed track record with "facts" is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Since when do facts trump hysteria?
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 03:44 PM by WatsonT
Panic! Buy iodine tablets and shelf stable milk and duct tape and tarps.

/you know, someone with a media empire could make a killing on these panic-buy items by selectively investing prior to drumming up hysteria about whatever is popular at the moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I don't know about you, but I don't get my "facts" on nuclear energy from a mediocre economist.
But as they say, for tastes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Americans & facts do not mix well. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Charleston Chew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
9. How we became slaves to oil
1. The biggest threat to the water supply of
the world comes from the petrochemical
industry.

2. One way or another, oil (in the form of gasoline
and diesel fuel) is involved in everything we do
and as the price rises, our standard of living
declines.

It just happened that way, right?

There was no alternative and we're only just starting to get
a glimmer of potential alternative fuels sometime way out
in the future, right?

Baloney.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. At one time. Not over coming millenia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-11-11 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. good news. Now we
simply must turn to renewable, safe alternatives to nukes and fossil fuels. "a clear and present danger" these dirty fuel sources are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 15th 2014, 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC