Agenda21

Hi Bryan,

wandering free;441075 wrote:
The radiation leak was played down at the time, they did a hush up job while confiscating milk from the area but never warned breast feeding mothers about the risk to their babies, it was the start of the disillusion I have with atomic energy. Then when we got married in Oct 1962 they had the Cuban missile crisis, not that we new anything about it until we got home, but it does alter your perception when you live on the firing line.

Top secret weapons programs and "matters of national security" usualy involve lying to people and keeping the public in the dark. Other than chemical vs nuclear, was hushing up the fire at Windscale really much different to spraying our own troops with Agent Orange (herbicide) during the Vietnam war whilst telling them that it was perfectly safe?

I wonder what form nuclear energy would have taken, had WWII (and by extension the cold war - eg occupied east and west germany) never occured?
Uranium fission was "discovered" by Otto Hahn in 1938 (uranium fission had been previously performed, but was not recognised for what it was). Without WWII, there wouldn't have been the huge push (the Manhatten project) to weaponise this lab curiosity.

Would nuclear fission have remained a lab curiosity until US domestic oil production peaked in the 70's and OPEC responded by reducing supply to increase prices (the oil shocks), which would have provided the incentive for the development of nuclear energy (as opposed to weapons) much as the 70's oil shocks provided incentive for the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology?

Cheers

Have a look at Pebble Bed Reactors.

Much simpler and castastophe safe than water cooled or graphite moderated.

Plus avoiding the graphite/carbon fire of Windscale by operating abover the annealing point of graphite.

Some good information here www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

RhodeRed;440547 wrote: Climate is ALWAYS changing.

Please explain the paleolithic warming/cooling periods in terms of modern mans direct interference/causality.

Easily debunked by looking at the CO2 isotopes - the human fingerprint is easily identified.

grist.org/climate-energy/the-co2-rise-is-natural

RhodeRed;440547 wrote: Please explain the medieval warming period when they were growing grapes in northern England in terms of how it was generated by modern man.

Umm, aren't they still growing grapes in the UK?, and even if it was warm in one small part of the Europe (which no one is debating) it can't be extrapolated to mean that the whole planet was warmer -As with most things, its the big picture that needs to be looked at

grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-wa...st-as-warm-as-today/

and here's another on the history of English wines - not much evidence of it been grown in the north
www.english-wine.com/history.html

ww.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/

RhodeRed;440547 wrote: PLEASE explain how channeling billions of dollars to the UN via Al' Gore and associates is in ANYWAY going to alleviate anything if there WAS a problem.

:confused: Remind me again how how can climate change research in NZ (which is highly contestable) be going to Al Gore? (and please don't give me conspiracy theories:rolleyes:).

No problem? Says who? Only those who stand to lose the most - Coal, oil, energy companies are the first to come to mind. Have a look and see how many billions they have spent trying convince everyone there isn't a problem

"surely the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either"

grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/
grist.org/climate-energy/kyoto-is-a-big-...-for-almost-nothing/
grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

Kiwi303;441134 wrote: Have a look at Pebble Bed Reactors.

Much simpler and castastophe safe than water cooled or graphite moderated.

Plus avoiding the graphite/carbon fire of Windscale by operating abover the annealing point of graphite.

Hi, I still see waste disposal as a problem but how about this breeder, www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar+breeder they can put one in my back yard any time.

It still comes down to oil being the limiting factor for growth, I can't see how electricity will make up for a decline in oil supply, and with it a following decline in population, oil is still the backbone of the worlds food supply and unfortunately were one goes the other follows.

I can see them using coal to oil as a desperate effort to keep things going but that's like having a CO2 factory with oil as a byproduct, it would make climate change even worse, bit of a cleft stick, climate change destroying us or oil depletion.

Hi,

Is this why PV panels are so much cheaper now?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...AR2008030802595.html

Not exactly the sort of "solar breeder" that I would want in my back yard...

Cheers

spark;441206 wrote: Hi,

Is this why PV panels are so much cheaper now?
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...AR2008030802595.html

Not exactly the sort of "solar breeder" that I would want in my back yard...

Cheers

Well after reading that, I certainly wouldn't want one near my backyard, but then this article www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/docs/life-c...ndsafetyconcerns.pdf talks about an enclosed system of purifying and producing polysilicon. so I'm back to being positive about PV.

Cheers

morioka;441138 wrote:
No problem? Says who? Only those who stand to lose the most - Coal, oil, energy companies are the first to come to mind. Have a look and see how many billions they have spent trying convince everyone there isn't a problem

Actually you'll find the 2 biggest oil companies are the 2 biggest financiers of pro global warming/climate change...
Now why would 2 of the biggest companies supposedly set to take the biggest hits from this scare mongering be pushing it??? In "unrelated" news the big oil companies had HUGE gains in profit following the global warming scare

Scuba_Steve;441265 wrote: Actually you'll find the 2 biggest oil companies are the 2 biggest financiers of pro global warming/climate change...
Now why would 2 of the biggest companies supposedly set to take the biggest hits from this scare mongering be pushing it??? In "unrelated" news the big oil companies had HUGE gains in profit following the global warming scare

What companies are you talking about?? Exxon and Koch are big companies that seem to be spending billions - a quick google came up with these

www.independent.co.uk/environment/climat...deniers-1891747.html

www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/glob...tch/koch-industries/

news.softpedia.com/news/Exxon-Keeps-Fund...bbyists-115642.shtml

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea...imate-change-deniers
www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/16593/glob...er-not-taking-action

Maybe it won't be long before the facts start speaking for them selves.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/au...-rich-world-disaster

Is it that people don't want to accept climate change for the simple reason they don't want to change their life style, how many people run gas guzzlers and have holidays abroad, have power boats, all adding CO2 for no good reason.

None of this argument about climate change is new, some of use accept that humans have a great capacity to stuff up, and have tried to tread lightly.

We were told by a friend (gleefully) that her grand children were being taught not to believe in climate change, maybe it's not to frighten them.

Hi Bryan,

wandering free;441251 wrote: Well after reading that, I certainly wouldn't want one near my backyard, but then this article www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/oipp/docs/life-c...ndsafetyconcerns.pdf talks about an enclosed system of purifying and producing polysilicon. so I'm back to being positive about PV. Cheers

I suspect that certain developing countries might not be in such a hurry to pass environmental protection legislation.
Lack of political freedom (for people to campain for law change), bribery and corrupt law enforcement contribute towards it being "more cost effective" for businesses to dump their waste and pay bribes instead of cleaning up their own act...

Kiwi303,
Pebble bed reactors are also interesting, though I understand that it is hard to reprocess the spent fuel (as it is locked up inside golf to tennis ball sized ceramic "pebbles"). I beleive that pebble bed reactors are graphite moderated, but the graphite is contained within the pebbles, and they are operated above the "Wigner energy" annealing temperature.

Cheers

morioka;441277 wrote: What companies are you talking about?? Exxon and Koch are big companies that seem to be spending billions - a quick google came up with these

The 2 biggest, BP & Shell.
However their linkage is MUCH harder to come by as unlike the "deniers", the pushers won't divulge who is sponsoring their research (I wonder why...)
Also (for obvious reasons) they don't directly sponsor, it's done through many shell companies
The whole fact anyones being paid to "prove" anything brings doubt into the whole thing from the start, they should be paid to research NOT to "prove". They're going in with pre determined outcomes, their job is purely to make the numbers fit & that isn't science nor is it right! But as long as theres money to be made it's gonna keep happening. And yes the big money's in "proving" it's happening, people don't get paid for showing the opposite.
Al Gore wants his money!

Scuba_Steve;441315 wrote: The 2 biggest, BP & Shell.

Marketing is a very powerful tool!

Show me where they say "we will stop extracting oil/gas because climate change will destroy our ecosystems and economies and its a priority that we stop extracting", rather than "we must develop strategies to cope with increased carbon in the atmosphere"

Its interesting to see that the two strategies oil companies use to deal with this by either funding the deniers, lobbying the politicians and try to change the school science curriculum or a very sophisticated marketing strategy to make us all believe that their oil is much better and cleaner and we can all feel good about using it. They want their money too[]

BTW science is a systemised study of facts or principles, not to prove anything or be 'right' otherwise we would be still arguing over whether the sky is blue and water is wet (which it sometimes is and isn't)

I've been looking at Agenda21 trawling through the hyperbole and found some interesting information. Not sure what all the fuss is really:rolleyes:

Anyway here are some alternate views for your reading entertainment

www.globaldashboard.org/2012/02/06/agenda-21-is-evil/

news.yahoo.com/tea-party-versus-agenda-2...-just-050156332.html

www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinameri...a-and-united-nations