Spork Boards


bahamut's Avatar Picture bahamut – March 15, 2011 06:51PM Reply Quote
earthquakes, nuclear disasters, hurricanes, ebola… 

you name your horror, it's got a home here.

except for the lamp style iMac. that does not.

ARL (Moderator) – March 15, 2011 09:36PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
I thought you were selling a B&W powermac baha...

bahamut – March 16, 2011 04:06AM Reply Quote
Ok, you can talk about that here too.

tokyo geiger counter:


ddt – March 16, 2011 08:46AM Reply Quote
Check also www.nei.org and http://mitnse.com/


bahamut – March 16, 2011 09:17AM Reply Quote
There's been a bit of talk about MITSNE… it's unclear as to how or IF this is related to MIT. This was at geniusnow.com, but his blog is offline due to too much bandwidth.

ARL (Moderator) – March 16, 2011 09:10PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Was watching a program about a new kind of tech for nuclear reactors that ensures they can never go critical mass. It's based on using thorium rather than uranium. Which means two things:

1. You can't use the byproducts for nuclear weapons

2. It's more expensive because it's still new and see #1

Too bad.

tliet – March 18, 2011 09:07PM Reply Quote
Of course what I'm about to say will be dismissed as 'unrealistic' and 'not feasible', but it is my clear conviction that we need to review our energy policy radically.

Just as Tokyo has now switched off its excess power consuming devices the human race could ask itself; do we really need nuclear (or coal) power facilities?

Sure people will say that 'alternative' energy generating means will never be enough to satisfy demand. I would ask; what about that demand then?

We've gotten used to an ever increasing supply of electricity and have gotten into the habit of consuming that supply. What if 'the public' decides that enough is enough? That it doesn't want the habitat under constant threat because of the dangers that come with coal and nuclear power generation? But instead wants real clean energy forms like wind or solar powered electricity generation at the cost of having to learn to live more in balance with our habitat.

It's my conviction that eventually our habits will stop us if we go on like this.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 09:09PM by tliet.

John Willoughby – March 18, 2011 10:52PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
You're never going to turn back the clock. I think we need more (safer, modern) fission until we can get fusion going. Thorium would be great, but whatever it takes. As the price of energy goes up, we in the States are going to party like it's 1899 and burn coal in unheard of quantities. It will suck for the environment, but no politician is going to say no to constituents who want affordable energy (or to the corporations who will mine the coal). I want to make this period as brief as possible and minimize the colossal hit the environment will take. We need fusion ASAP, but fission will provide a bridge. Wind, solar and geothermal will be great in the niches where they are feasible, but as humanity develops we will need ever-greater amounts of energy.

Unless, of course, we kill enough of each other off to reduce our energy footprint. It won't happen otherwise.

ARL (Moderator) – March 18, 2011 11:12PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Nice sentiments, tliet.

But tell 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese that - for the sake of the planet - could they kindly go back to the stone age and you know what the answer will be.

A worldwide carbon tax, or better still, an ETS would drive innovation in safer cleaner energy. But that's sadly a pipedream too.

tliet – March 19, 2011 11:53AM Reply Quote
There is a middle ground between fusion and the stone age, wouldn't you agree? I believe there are so many ways to satisfy at least some of our energy use by just reducing consumption and using alternative sources when possible. Earth warmth, solar power and warmth. It's all out there and free to use! Plus, it creates more (local) jobs.

My energy bill is around 90 euros a month while we have a relatively high price (plus taxes) on energy in my neck of the woods. Plus, I own a plasma TV. (but no microwave) The house is comfortable, but whenever we're chilly, the first thought is to put on a jumper instead of running to the thermostat.

Simple stuff really, but it goes a long way in cutting personal energy use, which is where the solution really is in my opinion.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2011 11:55AM by tliet.

John Willoughby – March 19, 2011 12:56PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Good. I mean that. Now tell 2 billion people that they have to do the same, and tell 5 billion people that they can never have the standard of living that you're asking the 2 billion to give up.

It's going to be the same kind of pitch that the people pleading for zero population growth are trying to make. It's logical, even necessary, but it will not sell.

tliet – March 19, 2011 02:08PM Reply Quote
Agreed. Our habitat will have sell the idea, Japan is the first teaser.

ARL (Moderator) – March 22, 2011 09:22PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Thorium is win, win, win...

Much safer, much more plentiful, can't be used to make bombs. Much less radioactive waste, zero C02 emissions.

Thorium, FTW!

ARL (Moderator) – March 25, 2011 01:14AM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!

For those who are curious:


El Jeffe – April 12, 2011 12:53AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Yeah, I am trying to scale back on my radiation. But yesterday another x-ray and MRI (I know, not ionic radiation on this one).
But when the doc says they need it .... sigh ... they need it.
As to the above Tony's link, I found it odd I started getting my thyroid issues flaring the week after the Fuku plant disaster. shrug.

ARL (Moderator) – April 12, 2011 03:27PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
Fukushima is now Category 7 - yikes!

Dave Loudin – April 12, 2011 06:35PM Reply Quote
The Register continues to debunk the scare stories about Fukushima. (No offense, Tony!)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2011 06:36PM by Dave Loudin.

ARL (Moderator) – April 12, 2011 10:35PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
From the Register article:


(Chernobyl actually killed fewer than 60 people).

Um, not quite...

tliet – April 13, 2011 08:20AM Reply Quote
Plus, leaving half a country inhabitable (mine would be completely inhabitable) is not a risk I call acceptable.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login