Users Online:
Nuclear rant
Yes one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history immediately followed by a tidal wave will mess up a nuclear power plant....and pretty much any other structure that human science and engineering have been able to come up with thus far. I do not need ...ten different congressional committees and international nuclear regulations inspectors wasting millions of dollars that could be better spent actually helping the the people of Japan to tell me this. Common sense will suffice. The mistake is not in using nuclear power as a viable energy source. The mistake is once again the arrogance of human science and engineering, failing to show respect for the awesome power of a freaking planet. By all means build nuclear reactors, but not near the coast of an island located on one of the most geologically unstable places on the planet. So unstable we gave it the nickname "ring of fire." Give nature an opening and it will rock your world. Didn't we learn anything from the sinking of the Titanic? So no, the disaster in Japan does not make me nervous to live near Dresden, Braidwood, or Zion.....so long as the engineers who built them made them tornado-proof. That being said one of the ten worst tornadoes in recorded history hitting one of these facilities head on will probably cause some trouble, but I'm not going to lie awake at night being frightened of that
| Contact Webmaster | Back to Top | Create Account |
All site content is the sole responsibility of the individual contributor.
© 1998-2012 WWandI.com and its contributors, save where otherwise explicitly indicated.
Please see this friendly Generic Disclaimer for further information.
Comments
Unclear - Because anagrams can be fun
Nuclear power is actually a terrible idea. Might as well power the world with pox.
Humanity has a long history of playing with fire and, of course, getting burned. Radiation is never "safe" just like coal is never "clean".
When we have the technology for 100% clean energy that is infinite in supply all over the planet, any other option is simply the Powers That Be trying to hold on to their market share.
Ecological devastation = profit
Human tragedy = profit
Waste = profit
I could expound upon these things at length, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. The short version is this: Solving problems is bad for business; creating problems is creating profit.
Geothermal energy in the "ring of fire" ought to be a no-brainer since it's relatively cheap and easy to do, works basically forever, and can provide more than enough power. However, free energy is not profitable. That is the real reason that wind, tidal, wave, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric are not the only sources of power in use today. It is infinite in supply, can be done practically everywhere, and is no more expensive to maintain than a potential global disaster (oil, nuclear, coal). The problem is that, since they don't run out, they are infinite in supply. Anything that is freely available becomes free eventually, and that means shrinking profit margins. And that's bad, right?
Because actually making the world a better place for everyone would somehow not be the right thing to do, right?
I hate money.
I am a mirror; all depth seen in me is an illusion. -- MRH