Idiots.. the whole lot of them.

The current level of CO2 is at around 400ppm. Plants die off at 150ppm. The optimal CO2 level for plants is 4,000ppm.

Think we are going the right direction trying to lower the CO2 level?

It would be interesting to see a comparison, in which all the pollution that's caused by uranium mining is included. 😀
France claims to utilize a clean energy source which in reality isn't even remotely clean. Storage of burnt radioactive elements and mining will haunt mankind for thousands of years, if not millions. The sooner we get rid of it the better. Plus Germany declared this year to bail out of coal burning within the next two decades. Germany will be the first major industry nation to completely rely on renewable energy and less harmful fossil energy, such as natural and biogas.

Why is Germany so anti-nuclear?

Nuclear, fossil and renewable energy sources all have both problems and advantages. It's wise to use them all to increase redundancy.

Germany has a strong civil society and is very polarised too. While the civil rights movement has its root in the late 1960's the wish for more sustainable usage of our ressources stems back to the 80's when entire Europe was under the impression of Tchernobyl. It made everyone clear, that a single technical failure in one of those sites can devastate huge landscapes and could potentially make central Europe uninhabitable. I don't necessarily consider this to be a specific german thing, I believe it is common knowledge that nuclear power is not sustainable and a potential threat of almost global scale but other countries just don't want to spend the amount of money which is required to finance the transformation. Additionally many nuclear power stations aren't that old so it seems counterproductive to many governments to shut them down while they are within their initially projected lifetime.

You should be far more afraid of medical X-rays than of nuke plants going boom. I'm amazed at how little public concern there is over doctors performing frivolous X-ray examinations on people.

That might be a threat to individuals if true but not to an entire society.

For those who think coal plants are horrible.. they are way, way, way, way, way cleaner than they used to be.

And as for the hoax of C02 causing "global warming" (which is another hoax in and of itself for the socialists to try to get you to let them gain complete control over every aspect of your life) it is just silly. Plants require C02. Too low C02 amounts and the plants will die.. and thus cause a mass extinction. No way around that.

In the past these idiots have accidentally admitted that it was the SUN (obviously) that heats up the Earth. They have gone as far as to suggest that we should launch "solar shades" into orbit in order to block the SUN so the planet will cool.

The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles and always has.. without the insignificant specks of dust that man is.

How arrogant is it to think the we can have any real affect on the climate of the Earth?

And no, I am in no way advocating that we just start polluting everything as we should of course take care of stuff.. we just don't need to bow to the false religion of "climate change".

The threat of nuclear accidents does exist, but it holds such psychological weight because it is dramatic and shocking, not because of its destructive potential. It's also more of a localized threat to man, rather than a lasting one to nature. Threats to individuals (and to entire societies) can be very easily overlooked as long as they don't capture such immediate attention. Simple human nature... see the ol' frog-in-a-boiling-pot fable. Some eminent ecologists actively advocate nuclear power (IIRC James Lovelock is one).

"Pop environmentalism" looks very silly to me because it's a sort of cognitive dissonance - people seem to think it's possible to reverse *man-made* environmental damage and climatological trends, while still working within the notion that economies (and therefore populations) have to keep growing indefinitely. Even if it means importing more people when local birth rates are declining - presumably for more taxable CO2 emissions. 😉 It's also rather silly to think you can base societies on the foundational idea of maximum individual comfort and happiness, and of living entirely for the present, but then turn around and expect to educate all those individuals to lower their standard of living because they emit 5 times as much CO2!!! as someone from a slum in the developing world or something.

Errius wrote:

You should be far more afraid of medical X-rays than of nuke plants going boom. I'm amazed at how little public concern there is over doctors performing frivolous X-ray examinations on people.

Please give some real-world examples of "frivolous X-ray examinations".

10 seconds of googling turned up this:

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2 … ds-on-dentists/

I'm sure there are a lot more stories like this out there.

The most amusing is the fact that current CO2 emissions in Poland are an effect of... protests by various "eco" idiots.
Not by those that organize current demonstrations, more like by their parents, or even grandparents.

1990 was the year when the first nuclear power plant in Poland was scheduled to be put in operation.
Great resources have been invested, and the construction was almost complete.
But then there came the protesters, and the new non-communist government decided to cancel the project.

So, it's 2019, Poland is still vastly dependent on coal, and it's simply impossible to change that anytime soon - current estimates are that some nuclear power should be finally available by 2040.
Heh, by that time the ITER project may be complete, and the world may be shifting towards thermonuclear energy...

Unfortunately climate science has become so politicized that it's difficult to be sure what's really going on. We can be sure that the planet is warming because of things like melting glaciers. However the claim that certain specific countries are causing it (and should be made to pay $$$ to put things right) is much more contentious.

cyclone3d wrote:

For those who think coal plants are horrible.. they are way, way, way, way, way cleaner than they used to be. […]
Show full quote

For those who think coal plants are horrible.. they are way, way, way, way, way cleaner than they used to be.

And as for the hoax of C02 causing "global warming" (which is another hoax in and of itself for the socialists to try to get you to let them gain complete control over every aspect of your life) it is just silly. Plants require C02. Too low C02 amounts and the plants will die.. and thus cause a mass extinction. No way around that.

In the past these idiots have accidentally admitted that it was the SUN (obviously) that heats up the Earth. They have gone as far as to suggest that we should launch "solar shades" into orbit in order to block the SUN so the planet will cool.

The Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles and always has.. without the insignificant specks of dust that man is.

How arrogant is it to think the we can have any real affect on the climate of the Earth?

And no, I am in no way advocating that we just start polluting everything as we should of course take care of stuff.. we just don't need to bow to the false religion of "climate change".

I wish we could make the planet a little warmer tbh, I hate being cold

Germany has a strong civil society and is very polarised too.

I guess that's part of it, yes. Another one would be that there's simply no storage for the waste anymore.
That salt mine is perhaps both running out of storage and slowly breaking down at same time.
In addition, German society became very self-aware/self-critic for obvious reasons.

Grzyb wrote:

Heh, by that time the ITER project may be complete

I hope so. It could help to solve humanity's energy shortage.
While also dangerous if it fails, it at least leaves no waste behind like its older cousin. 😉
Speaking of this, many aspects remind me of the events in Star Trek: Voyage Home (and Silent Running).
This blue planet is surely worth of being cared for, in either event.
I assume we can agree on this, at least.

The current level of CO2 is at around 400ppm. Plants die off at 150ppm. The optimal CO2 level for plants is 4,000ppm.
[..]How arrogant is it to think the we can have any real affect on the climate of the Earth?

Ah, the "green house" effect that we learned of in school; can be simulated in each garden house.
Not all plants can stand the same climate (temp, humidity, sun light), though, or so we were told.
What's good for one, can be bad for another type, I suppose.

But that's old news, I suppose. Back in the 60-70s, it was about the ozone hole,
which closed again after FCKW gas had been phased out of excessive use.
Later, in the 80s, it was about the whales, followed by saving the rainforest in late 80s-mid 90s
In school, we were encouraged to use recycled paper, I remember.

To my personal understanding, "environment"-awarness is no new motion. It always had been there.
It's just that the times had changed, I guess. We're on-line most of the time, drowning in streams of information.
We're now living in filter-bubbles. Back in 20th century, news came from free press and
goverment agencies. Now everyone (myself included) can choose his/her/they source of information
and ignore point-of-views that are displeasing, which is quite relieving sometimes.

Anyway, that situation is fairly new, so it may take a while until we're being used to it.
I just hope that we can learn to both understand and have respect for other
people's point-of-view without giving up on our own ideals and principles and
*hopefully* without ruining our families or friendships. It's difficult for sure, but so is life. 😉

PS: I'm about the last one to point with fingers, what I wrote was not meant to discuss right/wrong.
In fact, I tried to avoid to response to this thread, but after several hours, I felt guilty in a queerly type of kind for staying silent.
Not sure why, though. The current times are strange for sure. It's as if every little opinion has the power to be fatal.
That's why I hope that the words above are not offending anyone here. If so, it wasn't intended. 🙁

Jo22 wrote:

While also dangerous if it fails

This is a misconception. In the event of failure, a fusion device like ITER immediately stops producing any energy and releases a bit of hydrogen/deuterium/tritium gas. The amount of gas is very low because the static pressure inside the vessel is very low.

There's about as much risk from running ITER as there is from running the LHC at CERN.

gdjacobs wrote:

There's about as much risk from running ITER as there is from running the LHC at CERN.

I thought that already created a wormhole that pulled us into an alternate universe though, pretty sure that's why Dr Strange picked the right future

Errius wrote:

10 seconds of googling turned up this:

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2 … ds-on-dentists/

I'm sure there are a lot more stories like this out there.

Wow... If somebody gets paid for something then they will do it... when they don't get paid to do it, they are less likely to do it.

Reading through the article and I didn't see ANY specifics about how often the X-rays are done.

At the dentist I go to, they normally do an X-ray every 6 months to a year which is normal. Do people actually go to the dentist more often than that other than for emergencies such as broken teeth, severe tooth pain, etc?

I kinda doubt it.

I would rather have scheduled dental x-rays than to have severe tooth and other health issues do to infections caused by tooth issues.

I want real world examples.. such as... Johhny went in for a cut requiring stitches and they gave him an x-ray and not just some random article that has no real data.

cyclone3d wrote:

Errius wrote:

You should be far more afraid of medical X-rays than of nuke plants going boom. I'm amazed at how little public concern there is over doctors performing frivolous X-ray examinations on people.

Please give some real-world examples of "frivolous X-ray examinations".

Mammograms and CT scans are even worse than x-rays.. those are given out like candy. Look up the dose you receive. My total dose so far working at a nuclear plant for a decade is 58mrem... this includes doing startup/shutdown walkdowns in the steam tunnels at 60% reactor power.

Mammogram - up to 70mrem depending on how many views are taken
CT Scan - 1000mrem to 4000mrem for a full body CT, and 4000mrem to 6000mrem for a head CT

robertmo wrote:

Nuclear France emits same CO2 as Poland 😉
Eco Germany does twice as much 😉
Germany and France blame Poland 😉

German population: 83 Million
Poland Population: 38 Million

More than twice the population generating less than twice Polands CO2 😜

German GDP: 3.677 Trillion $
Poland GDP: 0.5 Trillion $

6 times the economic power for double the Co2! Some of that economic prosperity flows into other countries.

So it's not quite as simple as you say.

The UK might be the joke of the world at the moment but we generate similar CO2 to Poland whilst having

Population 66 million
GDP 2.6 trillion $