Greenpeace On Nuclear Power - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-02-2006, 12:52 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
At least $200K a year? I guess there are higher expectations of "making money".


i think we can safely assume that Ms. Engberg is hardly in it for the money, nor does her salary increase as donations increase.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 12:59 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:44 AM
We don't know the bonus structure.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 02:13 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:44 AM
all-expense paid trips to Vieques?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 05:05 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:44 AM
I guess they have a few of their own boats as well!
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 05:29 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I guess they have a few of their own boats as well!


great way to cut travel costs.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 08:58 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?
It is actually a very stable geological setting, Central Australia is considered to be a craton, that is a block of very old and stable continental crust - this is an ideal place to bury nuclear waste as has been laid out in the Pangea Proposal.

Another idea is burial at subduction zones, however without a good understanding of the processes that would occur could lead to more radioactive volcanos.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-02-2006, 09:02 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tania




Yep, and I think it will be a long time coming.

And, much as I would love to say, yes, Australia is geologically stable, unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) it is not.

Oh, and while we are talking about nuclear waste, what exactly is the half-life of an isotope?
I disagree with this assertion, the cratons in central Australia are sone of the most geological stable places we can find, the other options are really in Africa and I don't think that is a wise place to put radioactive waste.

The half-life is a length of time derived by the probability of the decay constant for half of the radioactive isotopes to decay, if I have 1 kg of radioactive potassium 40 then after 1.25 billion years the sample will have broken down to 0.5kg.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 05:02 PM   #23
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Awesome! How nice of you to volunteer your country! Do you live in that area, or are you just hoping that the few people who live there will consent to this?

As for the whole subduction zone thing: Are these people out of their fucking minds?????
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 09:46 PM   #24
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?
ask the good folk of Maralinga how stable we are.

tania, i love you. gin & tonic's are on me when you come back.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 11:29 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Awesome! How nice of you to volunteer your country! Do you live in that area, or are you just hoping that the few people who live there will consent to this?

As for the whole subduction zone thing: Are these people out of their fucking minds?????
Your opposition seems highly reflexive, nuclear is one of the few viable options for carbonless generation of energy (the cost effectiveness of wind and solar are prohibitive). The biggest concequence of it is nuclear waste and it's reprocessing and ultimate disposal, given the concern at dependence on fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change nuclear power has an important part to play in the future. Probably worth pointing out that any future rollouts of nuclear power will be sourcing their Uranium in large part from Australia, as such there is practically an obligation to manage the waste after it has been cycled for power generation.

the proposal for burial at subduction zones are one of the better suggestions, they can returns the nuclear waste to the earth where it will be locked up and spread around.

Consent on crown land should be no different than that of testing missiles out near Woomera, there is a significant difference between using an area as a repository for nuclear waste and testing nuclear weapons as was done at Maralinga in the 50's (for which the fallout has all decayed by now).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 11:38 PM   #26
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


How many people budget for "raised awareness"? It is not a commodity people seek. Companies that produce goods and services that people seek will naturally make more money.
"People" don't have to "budget" for raised awareness. Isn't watching the news, a documentary, reading a pamphlet that comes through the mail, the newspaper, the internet etc, raising their awareness?

If you want to consider Greenpeace or PETA as a "company" then they must be doing okay as you have already stated they make money (whether or not this is true I do not know) and they have both been around for quite some time.

While I don't always agree with their methods, at least they get people talking and considering a proposal. Isn't that why we hold democratic values so high? That we want to be able to argue/disagree/refute another point of view?
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 11:48 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I disagree with this assertion, the cratons in central Australia are sone of the most geological stable places we can find, the other options are really in Africa and I don't think that is a wise place to put radioactive waste.

The half-life is a length of time derived by the probability of the decay constant for half of the radioactive isotopes to decay, if I have 1 kg of radioactive potassium 40 then after 1.25 billion years the sample will have broken down to 0.5kg.
A-Wanderer, can you tell me exactly how much nuclear waste we (as in the whole world or even Australia would do) have currently sitting there waiting for 1.25BILLION years to pass before only half of the stuff is left? And, could you also tell me how much nuclear waste this proposal is going to generate, say, in the first one to ten years?

Also, why is it "wise" to dump nuclear waste in the middle of Australia but "not wise" to do it in Africa? What, there are no people who live there? It's a big pile of sand that doesn't really matter? Australians are so relaxed about stuff, no one will worry about it? Sorry, but to decide to upend the middle of Aus (and hence the ecology of this island) for something that can cause untold disaster is ridiculous.

Until there is a method for disposing of the waste that is safe and doesn't take over 5 billion years to reduce to almost nothing, then I don't want to have nuclear power.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 11:49 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


ask the good folk of Maralinga how stable we are.

tania, i love you. gin & tonic's are on me when you come back.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-03-2006, 11:58 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tania
[B]

A-Wanderer, can you tell me exactly how much nuclear waste we (as in the whole world or even Australia would do) have currently sitting there waiting for 1.25BILLION years to pass before only half of the stuff is left? And, could you also tell me how much nuclear waste this proposal is going to generate, say, in the first one to ten years?

Quote:
Also, why is it "wise" to dump nuclear waste in the middle of Australia but "not wise" to do it in Africa? What, there are no people who live there? It's a big pile of sand that doesn't really matter? Australians are so relaxed about stuff, no one will worry about it? Sorry, but to decide to upend the middle of Aus (and hence the ecology of this island) for something that can cause untold disaster is ridiculous.
Africa is much more populated than Australia and the political situations can always be fluid, Australia to date hasn't had these problems and given how inhospitable the area is it is not likely to in future.
Quote:
Until there is a method for disposing of the waste that is safe and doesn't take over 5 billion years to reduce to almost nothing, then I don't want to have nuclear power.
And that is an unrealistic demand, we cannot accelerate radioactive decay (something that is happening all the time - radioactive decay is what keeps the earth hot), what we can do is lock it away for good. Or even fill it out and fill in the original Uranium mines with it. If it was affordable (space elevator perhaps) then launching it out into space would be a way to deal with it.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 09:06 AM   #30
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 02:14 AM
Pfft, just dump it all in New Jersey
__________________

__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com