It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions the Skeptics, Media and Government(s) Can’t Answer.

page: 16
192
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

There is no room for oil use either, no nuclear, no oil, solar, and wind, and people power.


You dont seem to realize how the oil is used to make everything from fertilizers to parts for your wind and solar, etc.

We are so much more dependent upon oil than for just the energy it provides.

Things just arent as easy as some people want to make them out to be. I completely understand your desire to move humanity to more renewable energy sources, but you are not being even the least bit realistic about where we actually are now.

Fossil fuels and their by products and impact on food production are the only thing keeping us from paying the true costs of our gross overpopulation. When that bill comes due, people will be longing for tragedy on the scale of what is happening in Japan right now.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I would certainly like to see more wind, sun, geothermal, all kinds of stuff. I just wouldnt rule out nuclear until someone sat down and actually did the cost benefit analysis in a non hysterical fashion. We fear nuclear energy, and so that skews our opinion of it.



Imho you're wrong in your analysis of the analysis situation, "we" the great unwashed fear nuclear energy but our worries are given nothing but lip service and window dressing, our worries are not factored into the cost benefit analysis and nor are the waste storage or disposal costs, or, god forbid, the costs of a 6 or 7 disaster on their nuke issue scale, if these costs were factored into the cba nuke power stations would never be built, for a very good reason they would prove to be way too expensive.

I think Thorium reactors would be a better bet if we insist on metered centrally created carbon clean nuclear generation, I however agree with PT we should go wind and sun, Algeria could provide 5 times Europes electrical needs from current tech solar generation farms.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

There is no room for oil use either, no nuclear, no oil, solar, and wind, and people power.


You dont seem to realize how the oil is used to make everything from fertilizers to parts for your wind and solar, etc.

We are so much more dependent upon oil than for just the energy it provides.

Things just arent as easy as some people want to make them out to be. I completely understand your desire to move humanity to more renewable energy sources, but you are not being even the least bit realistic about where we actually are now.

Fossil fuels and their by products and impact on food production are the only thing keeping us from paying the true costs of our gross overpopulation. When that bill comes due, people will be longing for tragedy on the scale of what is happening in Japan right now.


He is right, you don't even want to know the list of your daily contact with petroleum. Although I don't suscribe to the overpopulation line.
edit on 18-3-2011 by rougeskut because: added comment



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


What part of " I wouldnt rule it out until the costs have been calculated" are you disagreeing with? In fact, you are saying if they did calculate the costs, nuclear would be costlier. We are making the same argument. Any real decision about whether or not to use nuclear energy depends on a real assement of the costs and benefits not only of nuclear, but nuclear in relation to other energy sources. I dont disagree with you that when calculating the costs we need to be brutally honest. But that includes when calculating the cost of our alternate sources as well.

Im not cheerleading for nuclear. I arguing AGAINST making judgments in a hysterical or emotional reactionary fashion. We can sit down honestly and make rational decisions. Right now it seem to me people are taking advantage of a disaster to ride the fears of the public to push an agenda, thats not a good way to shape decisions of policies.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rougeskut
 


You dont have to. I personally do not understand why, for the life of me, people are in such denial about overpopulation, BUT, I do understand that the vast majority of human beings feel as you do that we are not overpopulated.

I do not think I will live to say "I told you so," so I dont waste much time arguing the point. I am more interested in WHY people are so unable to see that the only way we are able to live right now is by mining non renewable resources, and they are finite. When we run through that "bank account" we will be left trying to support ourselves with the renewable resources that we insufficient long ago, which was the REASON we were mining the non renewable resources to make up the short fall.

But, it is of note that this happens on all human levels. People spend more than they make, so they take on personal debt. Nations are doing the same, and are carrying national debt. Humanity is doing the same, and checking out non renewable resources is spending our billion year savings account. We wont really get to take out debt on the species level. When we empty that bank account the bill is due.

But this denial of "we cant afford this" happens on every level. Not just the population level. I dont understand the psychology of it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker84
 

Well, it smells fishy because it is fishy... but probably not in the way you imagine.

It's not that Japan was misusing or misappropriating plutonium. It's more like the plutonium sat there for ten years before it was finally loaded into a 35-year old nuclear reactor -- the only one in Japan that was refurbished -- just a few months before the largest earthquake in Japanese history struck. That's already quite the series of coincidences. After that, all the back-up systems and diesel generators failed for reasons that are still unclear. No other nuclear reactor in Japan experienced this cascading series of failures.

As to what really happened, I have my suspicions, but they're based on circumstantial evidence and are unprovable. Let's just say that when you can accomplish multiple objectives invisibly and still have plausible denial, it's the perfect crime.

Proto knows everything, so if he feels like it, maybe he can explain it better than me.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You know i'm with you on calculating cost first but what i'm against is the fact that people have to pay. It's always about profit. Even if we would find a source of unlimited energy they would still be profit involved.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


But I'm confused why do japan or the japanese government want to unleash radiation on themselves.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I havent read all the replies but hey... it's like saying your mother has last stage cancer and recieving all the treatments she can, you want to believe it's working and she'll make it through. As far as i know, i do have japanese friends who wants to believe they'll make it through. Being positive in an impossible outcome is what the ppl can do. God bless Japan and their people, dont give up... 0.0001 is still a chance. THey'll make it, cross my fingers as i or you cant do much about it.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Homesick
 


You're talking like the situation is critical. What do you mean?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Ah Jackflap, yes with the money that they spend on war we sure could get some better energy alternatives going.

But I have to say as sound as your thinking is there, how could you let this whole thread go by without this?

What everyone is singing this Friday night!



Which can we honestly say with Jimmy Page's dabbling in the occult and love for Alyster Crawley that this all wasn't a bizarre spell to make record sales?

I wonder?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeyman03
 


LIke what the OP said, common sense...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Homesick
 


But it's not like every one in japan is gonna die.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


While we do consume, we are also capable of creating. I don't want to be the person, or the group of such, that must decide over the freedom, happiness or pursuit of common remedy of grievences, that must be the basis of civilization. But I do want to be a part of US that decide that for US, and not have it decided for me from those who decide it for them.

Fin, I am done tonight.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
After that, all the back-up systems and diesel generators failed for reasons that are still unclear. No other nuclear reactor in Japan experienced this cascading series of failures.



www.bloomberg.com...


“All systems were working well after the earthquake, but the tsunami destroyed the emergency electrical generators, and an overheating situation has developed,” said Robert Kelley, a Vienna-based nuclear engineer who worked in nuclear emergency response during his 30-year career with the U.S. Department of Energy. “It appears the redundancy wasn’t actually redundant, and that led to the failure.”


The generators did not fail for reasons that are unclear. They failed because they were ruined in the tsunami. If you drive your car into the ocean, it will probably not start when you get it out of the water. Thats how engines work. A generator is in part an engine, which in this case burns diesel. If there is salt water in that generator, its not going to start.

Like the guy said, the problem is that they didnt really consider what would happen if a tsunami came and destroyed their back up generators on top of a huge earthquake. They had batteries, but it wasnt enough to actually buy them the time they needed to move in new generators and fuel under those circumstances.

Im sure there is more to it than that, but the failure of the generators really isnt mysterious. Its exactly what you would expect if you dunked an engine in the water that was not designed to be underwater.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeyman03
 

Well, Japan didn't unleash the radiation on themselves. It was done to them. But not by another country. More like a very powerful group of globalists and international banksters who reshape the world by using chaos to create order. Their kind of order. A New World Order. It's called Hegelian dialectic -- problem/reaction/solution.

Perhaps there was assistance from a small faction within the Japanese government, just like there was assistance for 9/11 from neocons in the US government.

This has been going on for millenia, from Nero's burning of Rome to Hitler's Reichstag Fire to Putin's Moscow apartment bombings. All to create a state of continuous war and/or economic plunder but mostly control.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

Yes, I'm sure you can locate a Bloomberg quote from a Vienna-based nuclear engineer who spent 30 years with DOE that "apparently" explains everything. If you like, an entire commission can be created to explain anything from the assassination of a president to 19 Arabs' terrorist attack against a country that spends more on "intelligence" and "defense" than the rest of the world combined.


edit on 3/18/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I've only heard a little bit about this before. i'm kind of new in the conspiracy business. Could you tell me more.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeyman03
 

Five letters. Any more than that and they'll have to kill me.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


What do you mean?
edit on 18/3/2011 by monkeyman03 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Yeah, I thought of the danger of the radiation getting into the Ocean too. I think that could happen anyways, though, since they are generally built right next to water sources, like the ocean...but it would be more concentrated that way if it was actually in it. The rocket could work...but of course you've already brung up the objection I thought of....what if it didn't work and released it in the atmosphere or it just plain crashed into the middle of a big city!! I thought of a way that might be perfect....just put them far underground. That would be even easier than under water. If something happens....just seal it off.



new topics

top topics



 
192
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join