"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i spoke earlier about pipedreamers being a curse on a par with the deniers..

some idiot posted a link to a "woo woo" website about fukishima warming up the pacific



you and others read it then put your clown shoes on belived it and liked it...

i rest my case

now i need to go have a spliff hold my head in my hands and wonder about the fate of civilization whilst fuckwits run amok
Click to expand...
Nope. Wasn't me. I didn't make that claim. Liking the post didn't mean that I was agreeing with everything in that article.

The blob formed off the PNW four years ago during an extended warm period caused by a static high pressure zone. 2013 was a warm winter, a drought year, wind patterns didn't mix the water like it ususally does and the warm water pooled well offshore, the next year, the blob moved into shallower waters and stayed there. It wasn't due to Fukushima. People say all sorts of things and it get's published. It's not a big deal.

National Enquirer posted a made up story about a half boy-half bat found deep underground in a cave. I'm not responsible for it, nor believed it either but I liked Big Lou's post containing a shot of the page from Natl Enquirer.

Not only can you not spell, make laughable gaffs with technical jargon, write poorly and get your facts wrong, you also assume too much. I really hope you aren't some nuclear scientist working on a design or construction of a plant. You are the kind of idiot who would mix up English and metric units of measurement.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
you need to take your clown shoes off first kiddy the link you loved said it

was my maths wrong?
Click to expand...
Your maths was wrong.
ginjawarrior said:
call me back when i like his or anyone elses posts..

as i said im not here for your tribalism nor am i here to join anyones gang

from where i stand your all fucking retarded atm

i miss the good old days when most posters here had at least 2 braincells to rub together
Click to expand...
ginjawarrior said:
check my sig ;)
Click to expand...
Thats cute hypocrite. I called out your merits not you. You attacked everyone who thinks your wrong with a weak attempted slap. You think that article was false based on it's tone. It's condemning nucular power and is biased. I will find a better article but you will probably ignore the facts and come with alternative facts like nuclear power only leaves 200 years of waste. So i ask you , if nucular power is 99% safe and leaves only a small amount of extremely toxic dangerous waste that lasts only 200 years and we can use this form of power for thousands of years, how long before people die and land and nature is poisoned beyond the capacity for life?
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Exxon knows... Politicians know. There's money to be made and China is the customer.

Increasing Activity in the Polar Regions

As ice melts, and sea lanes and access to precious natural resources expand, the Nation must maintain adequate access and presence to address increased safety, security, and environmental risks associated with increased exploration, vessel traffic, and human activity. Improved governance through cooperation with other Arctic Nations and becoming party to the Law of the Sea Convention are critical to resolving competing claims by other nations and protecting U.S. sovereign rights in the Polar Regions, particularly the Arctic.

http://www.overview.uscg.mil/Strategy/
http://www.overview.uscg.mil/Strategy/
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
esh dov ets said:
Your maths was wrong.
Click to expand...
cute
*show your work*


You think that article was false based on it's tone. It's condemning nucular power and is biased.
Click to expand...
was a nonsense aricle reread it go ahead
I will find a better article but you will probably ignore the facts and come with alternative facts like nuclear power only leaves 200 years of waste. So i ask you , if nucular power is 99% safe and leaves only a small amount of extremely toxic dangerous waste that lasts only 200 years and we can use this form of power for thousands of years, how long before people die and land and nature is poisoned beyond the capacity for life?
Click to expand...
"what would purple taste like if it was a kind of car"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Advantages and disadvantages
Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

  • Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[27]
  • 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[28]
  • Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
  • In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
  • Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
cute
*show your work*



was a nonsense aricle reread it go ahead

"what would purple taste like if it was a kind of car"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Advantages and disadvantages
Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

  • Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[27]
  • 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[28]
  • Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
  • In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
  • Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.
Click to expand...
Ok i will read my article you read your wiki link. A few is more than 2. This is not current technology it's theory and research. It's also well funed where as clean natraul alternatives get left behind thanks very much
P.s. Wikipedia is a good starting point for research or a place to answer simple questions but the history and science written in it is often wrong. In this case even the stated facts don't back you up here
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There was a warm water event along the PNW and into Alaska that caused a fish die-off in Alaska in 2015. This didn't get much press play at the time. It was a big deal in the marine ecosystem, however.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with holding public office?

Nobody cares what you think, blowhard.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There was a warm water event along the PNW and into Alaska that caused a fish die-off in Alaska in 2015. This didn't get much press play at the time. It was a big deal in the marine ecosystem, however.
Click to expand...
cute so you skimmed over the "woo woo" nature of the site and bulshit claims in the article over a love of the fishes?

still clown shoes
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
cute
*show your work*



was a nonsense aricle reread it go ahead

"what would purple taste like if it was a kind of car"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Advantages and disadvantages
Relative to current nuclear power plant technology, the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors include:

  • Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[27]
  • 100–300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[28]
  • Broader range of fuels, and even unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).
  • In some reactors, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, that is, a Closed nuclear fuel cycle. This strengthens the argument to deem nuclear power as renewable energy.
  • Improved operating safety features, such as (depending on design) avoidance of pressurized operation, automatic passive (unpowered, uncommanded) reactor shutdown, avoidance of water cooling and the associated risks of loss of water (leaks or boiling) and hydrogen generation/explosion and contamination of coolant water.
Click to expand...
So, in 2025, when this technology is ready to come on line, come back and we'll discuss nuclear power. The third generation reactor still produces long-lived wastes. And so is a no-go until the means to eliminate it are available.

One of the reasons why nuclear power has such a strong safety record is the regulation that the plant's must meet in order to be brought on line. Stringent regulations and safety design requirements are also why so few reactors have been built in the past decades and why they are so expensive. Too expensive.

Nuclear isn't needed in the US. Maybe in the UK but not here.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
cute so you skimmed over the "woo woo" nature of the site and bulshit claims in the article over a love of the fishes?

still clown shoes
Click to expand...
I answered your question. Too bad you don't like the answer. In fact, I'm pretty happy that you don't.

In October, you included some links to an energy analysis done by a physicist in the UK. It was interesting reading and I appreciated the links. Science is populated with antisocial dickheads like you. Just because I wouldn't have a beer with you doesn't mean I disbelieve everything you say. For many antisocial dickheads, technical jobs are probably the only place they can find meaningful employment.

You should learn how to read, write and spell, however. Your credibility suffers when you come across like a moron. Also, thermodynamics. (snicker)
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
What does this have to do with holding public office?

Nobody cares what you think, blowhard.
Click to expand...
I'd rather read a page of his writing i might not agree completely with then a blurb by you being racist or pedantic and always so enlightening. It's called a dynamic conversation mr. One track mind. Get a ~ lost
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
What does this have to do with holding public office?

Nobody cares what you think, blowhard.
Click to expand...
Too funny this. I don't really care what you or others think.

If a person does not believe in climate change they shouldn't hold public office. Not my statement but it makes a lot of sense. Recognizing facts and addressing them makes for good public policy. Has there ever been a good public policy that was based upon a lie?
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
So, in 2025, when this technology is ready to come on line, come back and we'll discuss nuclear power. The third generation reactor still produces long-lived wastes. And so is a no-go until the means to eliminate it are available.

One of the reasons why nuclear power has such a strong safety record is the regulation that the plant's must meet in order to be brought on line. Stringent regulations and safety design requirements are also why so few reactors have been built in the past decades and why they are so expensive. Too expensive.

Nuclear isn't needed in the US. Maybe in the UK but not here.
Click to expand...
huge reason why they aren't being built is the publics uninformed hysterical adversion to it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top