Similarly, I would argue - a scientific understanding of reality is objective with respect to all ideological interests. So, it has happened before. It is something of which human beings are capable. — karl stone
Again, like I said, this is a utopian vision with no prospect of occurring in the real world any time soon. — Jake
Then I'm sorry to have wasted your time. — karl stone
Usually higher than average radiation people get is when flying and in medical imaging. And most of the radiation we get is from the natural background radiation, either from cosmic or ground radiation. Here the capital Helsinki is built upon ground that has a lot of radon gas. Hence when building basements one has to provide enough ventilation. The average household here in this country gets 2 millisieverts of radiation from this background radiation annually. Now to put this into context with the Chernobyl accident in 1986, we here in Finland will suffer radiation until 2036 (50 years) of 2 millisieverts of radiation. Hence the Chernobyl accident gives in 50 years the average annual radiation that we get from natural radiation annually. And to put this into context, when I was scanned this year by a modern medical scanner, I got instantly 8 years worth of background radiation. From a dose of 1 sievert (not millisievert) of radiation there's a 5% change you get cancer. But how many people know about background radiation and how many of them can put into perspective the radiation from nuclear accidents?As I recollect, people worried about radiation, but we didn't think we were doomed, and no one was getting sick from radiation. We didn't drink less milk (strontium-90 or not). Minnesota has the best overall health outcomes of all the other states, except Hawaii and Massachusetts, with whom we trade off first place position. Good health outcomes are not owing to more radiation, of course, but to social policies and community norms which have brought about less smoking, less drinking, less fried food, better dentistry and better health care. — Bitter Crank
The reason for animals to prosper in Chernobyl exclusion zone is very natural: life in the wild is short and radiation effects in the long term. Hence the animals can reproduce before radiation effects kick in. This is btw the similar reason NASA basically opts for older astronauts for long term space missions: younger one's could fall ill to radiation during their lifetime, older astronauts die naturally.As annoying as the facts are, animals do seem to be able to tolerate more radiation than I thought. There are some adverse effects on animals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, but nothing approaching catastrophic consequences. Wolves--the top predator--seem to be doing well there, despite feeding at the top of the food chain. Some birds have, if I remember correctly, developed a mal-aligned beak, not a beneficial mutation. The wolves may not be attaining the same upper age as they would elsewhere. — Bitter Crank
This may seem like an insurmountable issue - but the solution I devised is very simple, and entirely consistent with the principles of our economic system. Basically, fossil fuels are commodities, and commodities are assets. Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. — karl stone
4) Your utopian dream is dead. — Jake
When we factor in time, we can make estimates of the inherent dangers. We have had now for over 70 nuclear energy and in those 70 years we have seen accidents. And yes, when nuclear energy is as dangerous as solar power with it's unlucky installers, that does indicate the inherent danger especially when compared to the massive casualties of coal energy. Chernobyl was a reactor that could blow up, the people there were doing tests with the safety systems off, hence we do have an example of the worst kind of accident.I'd be willing to bet more people are killed by solar than nuclear energy, installers falling off roofs. I'm not defending fossil fuels, but rather pointing out that total number of deaths is no indication of the inherent dangers associated with any technology. — karl stone
Really? And how much energy one has to need for the steel plant in Sweden using hydrogen you referred to? Energy infrastructure needs energy to be built, yet 90 percent of the carbon emissions from electricity generation in the United States come from coal-fired power plants.Nuclear power doesn't produce carbon emissions, but it takes half the energy a nuclear power station will ever produce - to build a nuclear power station. — karl stone
My basic point is that our energy policies have to be tuned to reality and not wishfull thinking or the ignorance of the masses. The basic line is that when Coal power far kills hundred fold more people (basically counted in the millions) than nuclear and nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, why are we then giving up first on nuclear? And taking off a energy source that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses has meant that then fossil fuels are used because the renewable energy infrastructure is not there yet. Sure, there are risks, but these risks have to put in some kind of rational scale to the danger of others. The problem is that environmental friendly administrations in many countries (perhaps with the exception of the US) can make too ambitious goals like Sweden did, and then fall totally flat on those goals as those goals simply were not realistic in the first place. Then as the energy policy has basically failed, we use the old energy resources, namely fossil fuels.On the whole however, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I agree fossil fuels are a massive problem. I just don't believe nuclear power is the answer, and designed my solar/hydrogen approach with these ideas in mind; not some overblown fear of radiation, but environmental costs of construction, running costs, and nuclear waste storage costs - against the type, amount and utility of the energy it produces. Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution. — karl stone
Interesting plan. But if it works, people might still dig up the coal 5000 years from now and burn it. — frank
Whatever CO2 we put up will be scrubbed out of the atmosphere by the oceans. If we burn all the coal, the atmosphere will be back to normal in around 100,000 years. — frank
If something unforeseen pops up and makes us extinct, there will still be life. The world doesn't need to be saved. — frank
The world? No! Humankind - the only intellectually intelligent animal we're aware of, the knowledge we've gained, the art and literature, the music and cuisine, the comedy - the tragedy, is in my view worth saving. — karl stone
Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution. — karl stone
Antinatalism? :roll:That, or fewer people? :chin: If there were no humans none of the issues we're discussing would have become problematic, would they? So focus clearly on the elephant in this topic: humans are the problem. The topic asks "how to save the world?", and there is an obvious answer.... :gasp: — Pattern-chaser
When we factor in time, we can make estimates of the inherent dangers. We have had now for over 70 nuclear energy and in those 70 years we have seen accidents. And yes, when nuclear energy is as dangerous as solar power with it's unlucky installers, that does indicate the inherent danger especially when compared to the massive casualties of coal energy. Chernobyl was a reactor that could blow up, the people there were doing tests with the safety systems off, hence we do have an example of the worst kind of accident. — ssu
Really? And how much energy one has to need for the steel plant in Sweden using hydrogen you referred to? — ssu
Energy infrastructure needs energy to be built, yet 90 percent of the carbon emissions from electricity generation in the United States come from coal-fired power plants. — ssu
My basic point is that our energy policies have to be tuned to reality and not wishfull thinking or the ignorance of the masses. — ssu
The basic line is that when Coal power far kills hundred fold more people (basically counted in the millions) than nuclear and nuclear power emits no greenhouse gases, why are we then giving up first on nuclear? — ssu
And taking off a energy source that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses has meant that then fossil fuels are used because the renewable energy infrastructure is not there yet. — ssu
Sure, there are risks, but these risks have to put in some kind of rational scale to the danger of others. The problem is that environmental friendly administrations in many countries (perhaps with the exception of the US) can make too ambitious goals like Sweden did, and then fall totally flat on those goals as those goals simply were not realistic in the first place. Then as the energy policy has basically failed, we use the old energy resources, namely fossil fuels. — ssu
Sweden on target to run entirely on renewable energy by 2040 | The ...
https://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Europe
26 Oct 2016 - Sweden is on target to run entirely on renewable energy within the next 25 years, a regulatory official has said. Last year, 57 per cent of ...
I don't have anything against a hydrogen economy, yet that still begs the question of where the electricity to produce hydrogen fuels comes from. Nowadays global hydrogen production is 90% done by fossil fuels. — ssu
Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.
— karl stone
That, or fewer people? :chin: If there were no humans none of the issues we're discussing would have become problematic, would they? So focus clearly on the elephant in this topic: humans are the problem. The topic asks "how to save the world?", and there is an obvious answer.... :gasp: — Pattern-chaser
Are you unaware of the dire warnings issued by thousands of scientists? Or do you have solid grounds to disagree with specialists in this particular field? — karl stone
I understand. You love us. — frank
But whatever it is, I'd belong to that legacy - and thus my life now would have meaning. I don't think there's any meaning to life if we chart off the edge of the map in the near future. It's just masturbation. An empty gesture. — karl stone
You've nailed it. This is the main problem. Public opinion is prone to scares and ignorance and politicians actually won't go against it. Hence energy policy can be out of touch of reality.I think we're incredibly conscious of the dangers of nuclear power and go to extraordinary lengths to contain it. That's not so with fossil fuels. So, it's not really a fair comparison - or rather, such a comparison only carries one so far. — karl stone
That's the whole problem! Nobody is against renewable energy, but just how we get out of using fossil fuels is the question. And why wouldn't we use nuclear energy as a stop gap energy resource rather than coal, which is many times deadlier and is one of the main sources to the greenhouse effect?We would need to use existing fossil fuel infrastructure to overcome the need for fossil fuels, that's true — karl stone
No. But energy policies in general can be based on whishful thinking and hence be basically decietful.Are you accusing me of either wishful thinking or playing upon the ignorance of the masses? — karl stone
Explained it earlier, but I'll tell it again. In 1980s Sweden made a public referendum on it's energy policy and after the anti-nuclear result the goverment vowed to close down all of it's nuclear power plants by 2010 and be using renewable energy. In 2010 Sweden was producing more energy from it's nuclear power plants than in 1980 and the government had silently given up it's agenda of a non-nuclear Sweden.What happened in Sweden? — karl stone
So it gives your life meaning now to work for the well-being of your descendents. So you know your ancestors felt the same way about you. They blessed your life without knowing you.
I would say remember to honor them by looking on this world with a loving eye. So many people who engage this issue come to it with abiding hatred for humanity. It's a breath of fresh air to meet someone who comes to it with love. — frank
No. We fit nicely into our cities. The best way to decrease population growth is to make people to be more affluent. Rich people have less kids than poor people universally. It might happen that in our lifetime we see the peak of humanity, and then a global population decrease.Well seven or eight thousand million of us does seem like too many, don't you think? — Pattern-chaser
Who sees us like this?As the rest of the world - and the remains of its living population - sees us, we are a plague species; a catastrophe for the world and all the creatures in it. — Pattern-chaser
Your utopian dream is dead. — Jake
We're done. I will not speak to you again. — karl stone
Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted — karl stone
I'm not wasting my time writing something you won't read, or perhaps, simply don't understand. You are certainly not commenting from engagement with, and comprehension of these ideas. — karl stone
We might need to stave off an ice age someday — karl stone
Assets can be mortgaged - and in this way, fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted. The money raised by mortgaging fossil fuels would first go to applying sustainable energy technology. — karl stone
You both recognize that we face grave problems. You disagree about methods of avoiding catastrophe. Situation: Normal. — Bitter Crank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.