The Fossil Fuel Industry Deceives the Public.

[Alate_One]

Pasting your agenda to the front of physical processes does not build a convincing case.

I'm re-explaining how it works since you keep pretending you don't understand.

Your claim is that people are going to cause the planet irrevocable harm. Telling us that some carbon that was once in the atmosphere is going to return there does not convince us to start fearing the end of the world.

I have never said "the end of the world" nor "irrevocable harm". So it would help if you actually paid attention to what I said rather than making assumptions.

Irrevocable is a long time. I think it is unlikely we could actually create runaway climate change that could turn earth into another venus.

However, we are already making enough changes that are damaging to people's livelihood. And those effects will get worse over time and last for a thousand years. In the grand scheme of things that's not "irrevocable" but is longer than western civilization has been around so far and different conditions than any civilization has faced.

So you want to keep experimenting on the earth, the only home we have, on the assumption that no matter what we do, "it won't really be that bad".

I'd suggest you would be better served using your experimental impulses by eating random wild mushrooms, because I'm sure all of them "won't really be that bad".

In the Test Tube

 

[ok doser]

Exxon are guilty of racketeering as they conducted a campaign of disinformation to deceive the public into producing more profits for the company. It is still going on industry-wide.

so what's keeping you from unplugging, riding a bicycle, going without heat this winter, eating food made from crops grown without fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or grown and harvested using anything but human hands?

 

[Stripe]

I'm re-explaining how it works since you keep pretending you don't understand.

I have never said "the end of the world" nor "irrevocable harm". So it would help if you actually paid attention to what I said rather than making assumptions.

Irrevocable is a long time. I think it is unlikely we could actually create runaway climate change that could turn earth into another venus.

However, we are already making enough changes that are damaging to people's livelihood. And those effects will get worse over time and last for a thousand years. In the grand scheme of things that's not "irrevocable" but is longer than western civilization has been around so far and different conditions than any civilization has faced.

So you want to keep experimenting on the earth, the only home we have, on the assumption that no matter what we do, "it won't really be that bad".

I'd suggest you would be better served using your experimental impulses by eating random wild mushrooms, because I'm sure all of them "won't really be that bad".

Yet again you imply the truth of your agenda-based idea without providing anything convincing.

 

[gcthomas]

so what's keeping you from unplugging, riding a bicycle, going without heat this winter, eating food made from crops grown without fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or grown and harvested using anything but human hands?

Mostly, because I'm not a hair shirted environmentalist. I think that a high power economy is better than an economy with little electrical power available. If you read my posts, I was advocating transferring from CO2 emitting to non-CO2 emitting sources, not a reduction in energy use. I cut my usage first to reduce costs to me, then second to reduce CO2 harm to the climate - I am in favour of producing greatly more electricity than we do now. Just not with a two hundred year old technology.

 

[MortSullivan]

You should look into the heavy metal content of American coal - plenty of uranium in it.

And I'd like you to answer the comment about deaths from nuclear waste. You know - stores of used fuel rods and the waste produced in processing such waste. Do you know of anyone who has died of such waste? Please relate the number you claim to deaths from fossil fuel waste related illnesses (NOx, smoke inhalation, slag heap collapses such as in Aberfan, etc).

If you can find that nuclear waste is as much as 0.1% as dangerous to health as coal power station waste, I will offer you an apology. (Even non-waste related accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima killed less than fossil fuels did in the same years.)

So Chernobyl comes to mind.

Now I already know that you're going to do your cutesy little doe see doe around it, and claim that that was not due to nuclear WASTE. Yadda yadda yadda.

But it doesn't alter the FACT that there have been 99 nuclear "accidents" at power plants - and that doesn't include other nuclear accidents. Tens of thousands of people, that we know about, dying either immediately or as a long-term result of radiation. But never mind.

You go ahead and believe that nuclear power is a better alternative than not using so much energy.

 

[MortSullivan]

so what's keeping you from unplugging, riding a bicycle, going without heat this winter, eating food made from crops grown without fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or grown and harvested using anything but human hands?

Simple. He doesn't want to. He wants YOU to live that way, while he lives in comfort.

Very typical of a liberal environmentalist. They want everyone else to make the sacrifices.

 

[gcthomas]

SBut it doesn't alter the FACT that there have been 99 nuclear "accidents" at power plants - and that doesn't include other nuclear accidents. Tens of thousands of people, that we know about, dying either immediately or as a long-term result of radiation.

The reactors I think should be built wouldn't include any of the design of Chernobyl's reactor (they forgot to fit a containment dome!).

Fukushima hasn't killed anyone AFAIK.

Kyshtym maybe 50, Windscale 35.

And I notice you haven't put a number on fossil fuel deaths for comparison. Estimates are for 30 000 deaths in the US alone per year due to fine particulates. Still think nuclear is more dangerous?

Try this graph:

 

[CabinetMaker]

So Chernobyl comes to mind.

Now I already know that you're going to do your cutesy little doe see doe around it, and claim that that was not due to nuclear WASTE. Yadda yadda yadda.

But it doesn't alter the FACT that there have been 99 nuclear "accidents" at power plants - and that doesn't include other nuclear accidents. Tens of thousands of people, that we know about, dying either immediately or as a long-term result of radiation. But never mind.

You go ahead and believe that nuclear power is a better alternative than not using so much energy.

It is. It is one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy. Do you know why Chernobyl exploded? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The nuclear industry has learned.

 

[MortSullivan]

It is. It is one of the safest and cleanest sources of energy. Do you know why Chernobyl exploded? Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The nuclear industry has learned.

Let's address the other 99 nuclear power plant accidents, shall we?

I know you're a nuclear power shill, but it's not stacking up.

The ONLY right thing for you to do is to live off grid.

 

[MortSullivan]

The reactors I think should be built wouldn't include any of the design of Chernobyl's reactor (they forgot to fit a containment dome!).

Fukushima hasn't killed anyone AFAIK.

Kyshtym maybe 50, Windscale 35.

And I notice you haven't put a number on fossil fuel deaths for comparison. Estimates are for 30 000 deaths in the US alone per year due to fine particulates. Still think nuclear is more dangerous?

Try this graph:

Hahahaha - that's rich! :chuckle:

Let's talk about Fukushima in 10 years after the lives of local farmers are literally destroyed, and their families become mutants. Let's talk about the long-term effect of radiation for Fukushima being found clear across the Pacific Ocean... :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

Hahahaha - that's rich! :chuckle:

Let's talk about Fukushima in 10 years after the lives of local farmers are literally destroyed, and their families become mutants. Let's talk about the long-term effect of radiation for Fukushima being found clear across the Pacific Ocean... :chuckle:

So you're not worried by the million deaths in the US over the last three decades from fossil fuels?

You sure seem to be hoping that Fukushima kills someone. Anyone.*Just to bolster your failed incredulity in the face of fossil fuel company racketeering.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Let's address the other 99 nuclear power plant accidents, shall we?

I know you're a nuclear power shill, but it's not stacking up.

The ONLY right thing for you to do is to live off grid.

Sure, lets talk about them More importantly, lets learn from them. Like lets not build them in earthquake prone areas, lets not build them on the edge of the ocean. Lets not run poorly designed tests while operating them. Lets also talk about the numerous accidents at coal fired plants or hydro plants. No source of energy is risk free, but nuclear is the one of the safest.

As to living off line, what in the world makes you think I would want to? My power tools all need electricity to run and I like to use them. Solar and wind just will not power them. Besides, wind power will not work unless there is a large thermal or hydro plant on line. Wind generators do not generate voltage or set system frequency. Learn the difference between and induction generator (wind) and a synchronous generator.

 

[MortSullivan]

So you're not worried by the million deaths in the US over the last three decades from fossil fuels?

Let's provide some proof of that claim, shall we?

This should be amusing. It'll be fun to see how far you stretch the "deaths from fossil fuels" claim. Gonna include motorcycle deaths? Farm accidents? If a diesel-powered ocean liner sinks, are those deaths from fossil fuels?

 

[MortSullivan]

Sure, lets talk about them More importantly, lets learn from them. Like lets not build them in earthquake prone areas, lets not build them on the edge of the ocean. Lets not run poorly designed tests while operating them. Lets also talk about the numerous accidents at coal fired plants or hydro plants. No source of energy is risk free, but nuclear is the one of the safest.

As to living off line, what in the world makes you think I would want to? My power tools all need electricity to run and I like to use them. Solar and wind just will not power them. Besides, wind power will not work unless there is a large thermal or hydro plant on line. Wind generators do not generate voltage or set system frequency. Learn the difference between and induction generator (wind) and a synchronous generator.

First of all, there is no such thing as an earthquake-free area. Those areas that once were thought to be, aren't.

As per your refusal to live off-grid... You've just admitted that you're part of the problem.


As I've said before, people who don't practice what they preach are hypocrites.

 

[CabinetMaker]

First of all, there is no such thing as an earthquake-free area. Those areas that once were thought to be, aren't.

Are there more earthquakes in Colorado or California? Are the magnitudes of the earthquakes in Colorado and California similar?

As per your refusal to live off-grid... You've just admitted that you're part of the problem.

Never said I wasn't. Our society works far better with electricity than without. Can you imagine trying to run a grocery store without electricity? How about a hospital? I like the internet and I like some TV shows. I like building things in my shop and I LOVE Christmas lights.

As I've said before, people who don't practice what they preach are hypocrites.

I want to practice what I preach! I advocate for putting more nuclear energy stations on line. Build them in parts of the country that are more geologically stable and closer to Yucca Mountain.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Let's provide some proof of that claim, shall we?

This should be amusing. It'll be fun to see how far you stretch the "deaths from fossil fuels" claim. Gonna include motorcycle deaths? Farm accidents? If a diesel-powered ocean liner sinks, are those deaths from fossil fuels?

Energy Source - Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)



SOURCE

 

[MortSullivan]

Energy Source - Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)
Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil - 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas - 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) - 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind - 150 (~ 1% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)



SOURCE

I would STRONGLY suggest you re-read your "source" and look closely at what is actually being claimed, what determining factors are used, and the complete absence of proof. For instance, the article makes absolutely no attempt to back up the claim of "300,000 deaths in China last year..." Absurd. :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

I would STRONGLY suggest you re-read your "source" and look closely at what is actually being claimed, what determining factors are used, and the complete absence of proof. For instance, the article makes absolutely no attempt to back up the claim of "300,000 deaths in China last year..." Absurd. :chuckle:

You can quibble over the numbers if you wish but it really doesn't change the trend. If you don't like Forbes, look here. Look at the articles. Check out the images. Do you see a trend?

 

[MortSullivan]

You can quibble over the numbers if you wish but it really doesn't change the trend. If you don't like Forbes, look here. Look at the articles. Check out the images. Do you see a trend?

Nothing you have provided even begins to explain what criteria they are using - nor do the articles back up the claims.


As an example: 300,000 people in China died last year as a result of coal electricity.

Really? Seriously?

So somebody makes a claim, makes no attempt to prove that claim or how it is determined.

But we believe it anyway.


Pretty much a foregone conclusion, isn't it? Everybody gets to believe whatever they want to believe!

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nothing you have provided even begins to explain what criteria they are using - nor do the articles back up the claims.


As an example: 300,000 people in China died last year as a result of coal electricity.

Really? Seriously?

So somebody makes a claim, makes no attempt to prove that claim or how it is determined.

But we believe it anyway.


Pretty much a foregone conclusion, isn't it? Everybody gets to believe whatever they want to believe!

The articles have been posted for you to review at your leisure. If you wish to dig deeper into how they determined the numbers, by all means, do so. As it stands, enough people have looked into this to reasonably vet the claims. Several of the larger news agencies that take fact checking seriously have looked into the numbers. The trend is clear.

Here is one thing you will see with coal that you will never see with nuclear: