|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2001 : 08:53:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And many small power sources run independently surely will be cheaper than having one company setting arbitrary prices on power, yes?
I think that the person that wrote that has no idea how business really works. I have seen businesses become more profitable thrpugh consolidation. The other way around makes things more expensive. So while it's put forth as this great idea, my experience in the real world says the opposite.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 00:13:06 [Permalink]
|
I believe Tokyodreamer is saying it would be cheaper for those who pay the power bills....
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 01:19:57 [Permalink]
|
I wouldn't mind getting a RAPID-L reactor.
The lithium 6 control idea seems to be quite interesting.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 02:33:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe Tokyodreamer is saying it would be cheaper for those who pay the power bills....
I realize that and I'm saying I seriously doubt it would be cheaper. Inspection would be a nightmare. Safetry as well. I have no idea why this sounds attractive. It sounds infinitely dangerous to me and for so many reasons. Let's just allow terrorists a chance to wreak some serious havok shall we?
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 08:30:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I believe Tokyodreamer is saying it would be cheaper for those who pay the power bills....
I realize that and I'm saying I seriously doubt it would be cheaper. Inspection would be a nightmare. Safetry as well. I have no idea why this sounds attractive. It sounds infinitely dangerous to me and for so many reasons. Let's just allow terrorists a chance to wreak some serious havok shall we?
Ah, I see. You're looking at it from the perspective of an anti-nuke wacko... 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 09:15:27 [Permalink]
|
No I support nuclear power. I just believe that it's potential for misuse and abuse is so great that extra care must be used.
I also think that in the lon run having such a duplication of effort(multiple generation plants) is in the end MORE expensive and would cost consumers far, far more than the way it's currently done.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 00:56:21 [Permalink]
|
About the worst a terrorist could do to RAPID-L would be to open it up and pour water into it.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 06:39:14 [Permalink]
|
Then there is absolutely no risk to human health and the fuel could not be used for any undesirable purpose like bombs or spreading from a plane or throwing into a water supply?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 17:06:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
My point is that we don't have a full understanding of the impact of human industrialization on the biosphere. I've pointed this out before - the Denver Metro area is a pollution sink. When we have a cold air inversion it traps pollution in the trough where Denver sits. This has little to do with the actual amount of pollutants being dumped into the atmosphere and more to do with the fact that the pollution doesn't disperse. Yet Denver gets penalized by the EPA for having a poor air quality index for several days a year. If you look overall through the year our levels aren't that bad.
Are you saying that toxic air is okay as long as it happens only some of the time? I hope that you never get COPD.
quote:
All I'm saying is that until we have sufficient evidence of the impact caused by industrialization, CO2, and global warming trying to legislate about it is a bit premature. There are things that we as individuals can do. Don't agree with a companies environmental policies - don't purchase their product. This means a little more work for the individual but is a way of stating your opinion regarding the issue. Also, recycling and conservation practices at the individual level are something that should be done. Don't expect government to solve every problem.
Consumer pressure is often times more effective than government pressure.
If I burn tires in my backyard, the local government will fine me for being a nusance. Maybe the town should just tell my neighbors to not talk to me instead. Why should big polluters be allowed to continue unmolested while I have a fine to pay? Should corporations have more rights than individuals? There is enough misinformation out there about pollution and it's effects to make any wide ranging boycott unlikely. Of course if polluting industries are in ones own neighborhood, then they become a problem. Maybe factories should be in everybody's neighborhood. I think you would see the government act quickly.
Greg.
No, what I am saying as regards the Denver Metro Area is that pollution becomes trapped in the trough. There is sufficient evidence to support that pollutants were high here before the area became settled. Particulate matter in the atmosphere is trapped, has always been trapped in the trough. It is something that occures naturally. There isn't anything that can be done to reduce the amount of particulates in the air during an inversion. There's no where for it to go. When it disperses the air is clear. Don't get me wrong - I hate seeing the brown cloud around here.
I'm specifically refering to the effects of CO2 and global warming. I am in no way refering to toxins. The EPA fines the city of Denver for having X number of red air quality days every year without regard for the naturally occurring environmental factors that contribute to those red air days. During the fires last summer and late fall particulates affected our skys and were trapped by pressure inversions causing red air days. We were fined for those and that had nothing to do with emissions from any corporation.
Natural environmental factors must also be taken into consideration. As for toxin being dumped by corporations, yes they are responsible for that and should be held accountable.
BTW, excellent strawman.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 01:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Good luck using low enriched fuel as a bomb.
Dropping it out of a plane wouldn't do anything worse then dropping a lump of sodium metal out of the plane.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 04:01:50 [Permalink]
|
Dropping it into a water supply is also safe? By the way, I am scraping up money to buy President Bush a plutonium belt buckle. We don't need this boy reproducing any more than he already has 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 05:41:31 [Permalink]
|
That would be like dropping a lump of Sodium into a water supply. The nuclear part doesn't make it anymore dangerous then it would be without the U.
As for the Pu belt buckle you're probably better off giving him a Deplected Uranium bullet. Preferably in the neck.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 07:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
BTW, excellent strawman.
To what are you referring?
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 08:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If I burn tires in my backyard, the local government will fine me for being a nusance. Maybe the town should just tell my neighbors to not talk to me instead. Why should big polluters be allowed to continue unmolested while I have a fine to pay? Should corporations have more rights than individuals? There is enough misinformation out there about pollution and it's effects to make any wide ranging boycott unlikely. Of course if polluting industries are in ones own neighborhood, then they become a problem. Maybe factories should be in everybody's neighborhood. I think you would see the government act quickly.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2001 : 10:16:55 [Permalink]
|
That is an illustration of the fact that we all should be held financially responsible for the filth that we create and others have to live with.
Straw man.
The clean air regulations that allow hundreds of millions of Americans to breathe significantly cleaner air than they would otherwise are too harsh because one medium sized city is fined 'unfairly' by the EPA sometimes.
The only part of this argument that makes it even emotionally compelling is the part about the fines being unfair - something that hasn't been proved.
Please let me know if I have characterized your argument incorrectly.
Greg.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
