 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| HyperHacker Posts: 4512/5072 |
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination No, not all of Toronto is nearly that bad. Some places though are just vomit-inducing. |
| Young Guru Posts: 231/279 |
Originally posted by emcee And Chop your nose off before you get there, because those plants stink up a storm. It's a nice indicator when we're taking the south shore line to chicago, we always know when we're near the border. |
| Ziff Posts: 1468/1800 |
Originally posted by emcee Yeah, I grew up in one of the most industrial areas of Canada right near one of the factories and less than 12 miles from the nuclear reactor to my east (40 from the one to the west). I think I know enough about pollution and the effects it can have on a population. Don't have kids were I grew up. |
| emcee Posts: 754/867 |
Ok, go to Gary, Indiana instead.
Just be sure to leave before you get cancer. |
| Ziff Posts: 1467/1800 |
Originally posted by AliceOriginally posted by Young Guru I call shenanigans on this thing. I live right in the heart of Toronto at Bay and College  It really isn't bad. |
| HyperHacker Posts: 4495/5072 |
Originally posted by Young Guru This is perhaps the most important sentence in this thread. If you really don't believe in global warming, fine, but you simply can't deny that pollution is still a big problem. Go to downtown Toronto and look up. Can you see the sun? Clouds? In the more crowded areas, you see nothing but smog. Pure pollution. I don't even know how people can breathe there anymore. |
| Ziff Posts: 1439/1800 |
Also, another fun link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm |
| Young Guru Posts: 217/279 |
See, the thing is, we do have the technology to reuse spent nuclear fuel, it's a bit expensive, but we have it and it's very workable and very safe (seeing as only 6 nations that use nuclear fuel don't reuse their spent fuel). The main issue people have with reusing spent fuel is that you create plutonium in the process. This plutonium is used in the reactor, but it can also be used, if large enough quantites are taken, to create a bomb (this was actually the initial use of nuclear reactors, to farm up large quantites of weapons grade plutonium in the 1940s). To me this problem has a very simple solution, employ military* (preferable reserves) to do security and guard the nuclear plants. What does this do, it creates jobs, it makes the material as safe as possible (assumming that the government can trust it's only military) and we're using our fuel in the most efficient way possible. Who knows, maybe one day it'll catch on that unnecessary waste should not happen, because right now we view nuclear fuel as an unlimited supply, but if I recall correctly, that's pretty much how we've treated hydro-carbons and look where that's got us, people panicing that we're going to run out of petro in 10 years, others saying 50, still more saying 100, but we're facing the reality that there really is no unlimited resource and we need to start treating nuclear fuel the same (not to mention the benefit of having to deal with less waste material).
*I think that some would fear brining the military into the process (which I don't see as totaly unfounded) but nuclear plants already have a lot of government oversight and I could see the use of regular security in the plants (with a priority on electronic (redundant) security systems in the reactors) but the use of military as a guard would probably appease the masses more than a private security firm. |
| Ziff Posts: 1423/1800 |
Remember when Cassini was launched?
It had a plutonium load on board for the reactor. NASA has been doing that for ages. But people were worried that, should the launch fail in the atmosphere, it would cause the mad contamination. Regardless of the cost, that risk is still there. I'm all for putting money into studying reactor designs that will allow us to reuse the waste time and time again. Or look into the possibility of sinking financial backing into new technology to minimize the danger. |
| Jomb Posts: 421/448 |
Maybe when launching things into space becomes more affordable we could just send the nuclear waste on a one way trip to the sun? I dont think it would hurt anything there. |
| Young Guru Posts: 214/279 |
Here here, I totally agree with the two preceding posts. Whether or not you believe that global warming is real or not, caused by man or just natural, the issue of pollution still exists. The difference is, unlike with the fear of global warming, which will ultimately affect everyone on the planet, pollution can, in general, be relegated to areas that those in power can turn a blind eye to. Pollution therefore boils down to a moral dillema, is it ethical for those who produce and consume to allow their waste to be dumped on people in less fortunate situations? Most would say no, that's not fair, but those that maintain the books and budgets will do whatever is necessary to keep revenue high and costs low. This results in the current situation where corporations and governments have done very little to prevent wide spread pollution.
I still have hope for a better future because companies are starting to listen to those that are calling for change. Take the auto industry, adding to the list of fuel efficient technology found in electric hybrid vehicles compaines, like VW, are testing out new ways to use diesel fuel (diesel does burn dirtier than standard petro in the US but it also produces a lot more power which means that an equivalent volume can be used to send a car much greater distances) in their new Rabbits and reduce the exhaust that those systems produce by altering exhaust systems and efficiency in the engine. Other methods like e85 that uses 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent petrol are being used by companies like mitsubishi to create a more fuel efficient Evo. The thing is, unlike in the past, where these systems were placed in test vehicles that would never see the light of day, companies are creating vehicles that are viable options for consumers and have equivalent abilities as current petro cars. Unlike the Prius (I'm not trying to say it's a bad car, but it does not have the same power that most compacts have, yet I still think it was revolutionary design and toyota did a good job marketing it) these new vehicles have comprable power so people can have a car that is better for the environment and still be able to have that 400 hp engine. And if we really want to see some change we need to readjust our thinking on how we generate electricity. The time has come to switch from burning carbon fuels to more enviornmentally friendly means. This means that the government (and oil companies, but that's just wishful thinking to think that those that have the greatest ability to improve energy production actually would) needs to put more money into research on improving solar cells, wind turbines, and other natural energy sources. Also, the US needs to start implementing 2nd stage refinement (not sure it that's the technical term, that's what my modern physics teacher called it) of nuclear fuel so that nuclear plants can take spent fuel and rerefine it to make the material useable again (that'll never happen because to do that the facilities would need centrifuges capable of taking standard unused nuclear fuel and making it into fuel that is closer to weapons grade material, when is the US going to get over the fear of nuclear fuel, never mind the fact that almost every other nuclear power nation uses the technology). The basic problem with energy is that the only people capable of fully developing these new methods in a relatively short time frame (20 years or so) are the government and current energy producers and for current producers there's no incentive to switch because they're making insane profits with their current methods. So take away the great fear of the world becoming uninhabitable due to global warming and the issue still remains, our current lifestyle in the developed world is creating copious amounts of pollution and those that have the most influence are doing very little to stop it. |
| Ziff Posts: 1421/1800 |
Yeah. You see, I'm really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY in favour of having strong anti-pollution legislation. You know why? This is why. Forget for a moment that it is in the Caucus region of Europe. Forget that it is about the Soviet legacy. It just shows that pollution in an area that gets economically depressed (and when I've been on road trips through West Virginia and see old ex-mining towns...I can tell you that those people would get as much help as these ones) is really scary. This may not have to do with global warming, but it shows you the immediacy of the danger that pollution poses. |
| Snow Tomato Posts: 770/798 |
I'd like to second that none of us are scientists, and therefore cannot judge the current climate situation. We can only listen to the actual scientists who have devoted their whole lives to this study. The people in Antarctica digging up ice from prehistoric times recording CO2 levels are the people we should be listening to. Not politicians, conservative or liberal talk show hosts or underqualified college professors. I now go on to express my opinions on the subject, which I consider neither for nor against the prospect of global warming.
I watched that youtube video that college professor made trying to discredit global warming. Although the video did not complete his argument, what I did see was very weak and raised some questions. His argument about Libertarians trying to pass environmental legistlation to control people's civil liberties is completely and utterly ridiculous. Why would Libertarians want to control what people do for seemingly no reason? If he offered some sort of sinister motive for this argument, then perhaps it would hold some water. People interested in this supposed crisis simply want to control CO2 emissions to save our environment. The notion that environmental laws are meant to limit people civil liberties is ridiculous and extremely innacurate. I cannot think of one single example of this, and if you can... please share it with me. I can see this hurting some businesses perhaps. They would actually have to be responsible for the harmful emissions they release. Poor babies. (Not just CO2 emissions, which aren't necessarily toxic but naturally occuring. I'm talking about other kinds of toxic harmful pollution as well.) I think at this point it would prove more profitable for auto companies to switch over to environmentally friendly cars. Many people are aware of the impact they may be having on the environment with their cars, but are unable to change this impact because the technology is still for the most part unavailable or unaffordable for the most of the population. It would create a whole new industry, new jobs, and reduce our dependance on foreign oil. This would decrease American interests in the middle east and probably reduce tensions between America and many mideastern countries. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you at least have to support an effort to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. It would prove beneficial to American bussiness, foreign policy and perhaps even the environment. |
| beneficii Posts: 282/310 |
Whoa, there was some flaming the last couple posts. I'll close it tonight for a little while to let things cool down a bit.  |
| geeogree Posts: 205/207 |
Arwon: go fuck yourself.
Dracoon: not really a big difference to me. But thanks for coming out. |
| Arwon Posts: 503/631 |
I move that people who confuse "Weather" with "Climate" be banned from opinions. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1625/1697 |
We aren't predicting the weather, we're predicting the climate.
Very big difference. |
| geeogree Posts: 204/207 |
This is all I have to say.
We can't even accurately forecast the weather a week from today. Why do we believe that we can understand what is going to happen 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years from now. It's arrogance. Nothing more. |
| Jomb Posts: 416/448 |
ibz10g - It's the message, not the messenger, that's important. The ideas should sink or swim on their own merit regardless of who said them. I did'nt really have a very high opinion of Al Gore either until well after his presidential run, but lately he's been talking alot of sense. |
| ibz10g Posts: 576/588 |
No. I don't really like Al Gore. But I'm not going to tell people not to listen to him because of that.
Although there are people that don't want to listen to him anyways. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
