| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 68471 | 2006-04-30 00:56:00 | Nuclear power. | Cicero (40) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 450785 | 2006-09-22 08:47:00 | The fact is ,man has always been afraid of new technology, Zqwe would be at home with the Luddites. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450786 | 2006-09-23 14:43:00 | Not afraid of new tech Cicero just the results of unbridled adoption: www.iht.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450787 | 2006-09-23 20:11:00 | Your article Z. suggests the need for atomic power. How are we to learn how to harness new tech power supplies if we remain afraid. Do avoid any UN treatise. And where is Terry? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450788 | 2006-09-25 00:54:00 | By crikey....... www.ecoenquirer.com |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 450789 | 2006-09-26 13:00:00 | Golly..... www.news.com.au |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450790 | 2006-09-26 14:22:00 | will denonate nuclear weapons on cities for the purpose of burning entire populations. No ! The purpose was to bring to an end a war started by those people who had a really disgraceful record of treating their prisoners and are not teaching the true history of what they did. The Yanks doing that probably saved one of your ancestors from being killed. It certainly saved as many as were killed by it by ending the war earlier. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 450791 | 2006-09-26 21:38:00 | No ! The purpose was to bring to an end a war started by those people who had a really disgraceful record of treating their prisoners and are not teaching the true history of what they did. The Yanks doing that probably saved one of your ancestors from being killed. It certainly saved as many as were killed by it by ending the war earlier. Spot on, Mike. :thumbs: It is difficult for any of us to slide into the mind-set, emotions and political wartime mentality of WW2. But if anyone carefully reads the history, including what the Japanese did, they will understand why the atomic bombs were used. The alternative - invading the Japanese mainland - would have been worse. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 450792 | 2006-09-26 21:44:00 | Back to nuclear power... Evidently nuclear power stations are heavily subsidised by national governments, e.g. France, USA, etc. When this is taken into account, along with the total power plant lifetime cost (dismantling, processing waste), nuclear power is not economically feasible. :2cents: My hunch is that advances in solar, wind and tidal power will save the day, but this will be at least 5 or 10 years from now. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 450793 | 2006-09-27 08:08:00 | Global warming? I posted this mainly because the picture at the bottom of the page is informative: www.denverpost.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 450794 | 2006-09-27 10:03:00 | Chernobyl. And before you say 99% od them aren't like that and have safety precautions it only takes one screwup and a loooonnnnnnggggggggggggggg time to fix. Humans are good at screwups. Chernobyl killed between 31 and 52 people, of which 29 died as a result of the physical explosion, and all were employees present at the time of the explosion. The TV says tens of thousands? TV1 claimed at least 16k deaths a few months ago and my father won a broadcasting standards complaint against them, as he did when TV 3 said a similar thing. More people die every year in occupational accidents at plants producing 'safe' types of power. Yes, I know that this post is just addressing human casualties and not environmental effects, but I don't know enough about them to comment. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||