In regards to nuclear, there is still the consequences of an accident. I understand your point that safety measures have gotten better since three mile island, but no plant is 100% safe. The consequences of a nuclear accident are just too great. Especially when there are plently of other options out there as the Rev. and Karlin have described.
Smog Kills - REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
There are thousands of nuclear warheads around the world as we speak. We are already relying on safeguards to keep them all from blowing up. Nothing is 100% safe, we learn to deal with that. A modern nuclear plant is hardly an explosion waiting to happen.
With an oil refinery,an atomic power plant already here in my area,the LNG plant means we have more than enough ways to die quickly..if an accident occurs.This is not a great place to raise a family!
DasFX said:
I hear ya, but there is a direct link to smog and illness and death.
Heart disease, Cancer, Asthma and lung diseases, and deaths from asthma and heart disease can be IMMEDIATE.
Here is some factoids from the link below:
# An increase in smog sparks a small but measurable increase in deaths, scientists report today in a study showing the strongest link yet between smog and damage to health.
# A study of 95 U.S. urban areas found that a small increase in the average smog level over seven days can lead to a 0.5% rise in deaths, many from heart and lung disease, on the seventh day.
# The researchers' analysis ruled out the possibility that the deaths were caused by heat, different kinds of pollution or other causes.
# Public health officials have long known that breathing smog damages human airways, worsens asthma and leads to a higher risk of lung diseases such as pneumonia.
http://www.newstarget.com/002508.html
So it IS small in the immediate sense,your point is made, but over time its a HUGE cost in caring for chronic illnesses. This fact is what is behind smog-fighting legistlation and these new warnings.
Here is an idea I am working on:
- that skin cancer, melanoma, comes from air pollution, smog. It is made much worse if you don't let the sun shine on your polluted skin to nutralise the toxins, restricting sun's healing powers is commonly done by using sunscreen.
Sunscreen itself might be a cause of cancer, but more likely its the pollution. Its not the sun. Despite using suncreen, skin cancer rates have soared in the past 15 years, which makes me wonder if its the sunscreen itself. Remember, They create the problems, and then offer the solutions!!
[that what I believe , not a medical opinion, and its an opinion not shared by many I talk with!!]
One other point is about OZONE:
It is misunderstood when we hear it classified as pollution. Its the opposite actually - smog nutralises pollution. Sunshine on polluted air, shining on the toxins in this air, will CREATE OZONE. Its like a miracle,the natural kind that we give too little praise for. The ozone will then nutralise the toxins.
The more polluted the air, the more ozone.... when the ozone levels are high enough that they start to irritate people's lungs, it is now working on nutralising the toxins we have breathed into our lungs. This is like putting HYDROGEN PEROXIDE on your skin, its irritating but not "harmfull", its not destroying tissues per se. [the same ozygen-'oxidation' process occurs in both ozone and H2O2].
At that point, asthma attacksw can be triggered. Thats maybe where the "danger of ozone" came up. More realistically, we should look at it like "if the ozone is that high, the air must be wayyyy too bad, lets go away".
Thanks for reading my blatherings,
Karlin
AirIntake said:
But again, why take that route when other options already exist without the risk. Wind, solar, and biomass are already available and in use. Geothermal is being developed, riverflow, wave and tidal are all being developed or are ready to be used. I'm sure that there are more out there.
Also, a nuclear facility needs to be constantly fed. That means mines, some sort of refinery plant, trucking to the generator, then away from it again to some place to get rid of the spent rods. All of which add to pollutants in the air.
If we also put into place practical ways to motivate people/businesses to decrease thier electrical consumption then we just don't need to even consider the nuclear option.
I don't know if you can blame the goverment on that one No1 :? People's power consumption has risen sharply with the advent of computers and electronics.What are theysupposed to do shut peoples lights off :wink:
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
Yup,:wink: and maybe then they will get the message that we are wasting to much energy.
Yup,:wink: and maybe then they will get the message that we are wasting to much energy.
Certainly society has to take on some of the blame here but government is also at fault as well.
Case in point, I have been looking into installing a wind generator on my property and getting involved in Ont. Hydro's averaging program. Without getting into details, any of the supplier/ installing companies that I've been in contact with have recomended against the program because the set up and maintenance costs of the program make it less desireable from a financial point of view for the average homeowner.
Case in point, I have been looking into installing a wind generator on my property and getting involved in Ont. Hydro's averaging program. Without getting into details, any of the supplier/ installing companies that I've been in contact with have recomended against the program because the set up and maintenance costs of the program make it less desireable from a financial point of view for the average homeowner.
Do you think this would change if the Ontario government stopped subsidizing electricity to the tune of 50%?
I don't think that any one thing will solve the issue. But I do believe that it would help.
I haven't looked into it recently, but I thought that the subsidies ended April first? Judging by the size of my bills starting that month, they certainly stopped subsidizing.
I don't think that any one thing will solve the issue. But I do believe that it would help.
I haven't looked into it recently, but I thought that the subsidies ended April first? Judging by the size of my bills starting that month, they certainly stopped subsidizing.
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
What you guys need to do is build an east-west grid so you can get clean Manitoban electricity.
What you guys need to do is build an east-west grid so you can get clean Manitoban electricity.
RE: Smog Kills - REDUCE F
Yes and no. The land is mostly muskeg and swamp, so it emits a lot of methane anyway. The trees presently there are only a short-term carbon sink, not old growth. Aquatic plants and the water itself will absorb enough CO2 to make up for much of the flood damage.
Modern damming methods also require a much smaller footprint than older technologies did, so there is less flooding and less environmental damage.
It isn't absolutely clean though, you're right. Compared to coal, or even LNG, it is very clean. Second only to wind power, really. The trade-off has to be made.
Yes and no. The land is mostly muskeg and swamp, so it emits a lot of methane anyway. The trees presently there are only a short-term carbon sink, not old growth. Aquatic plants and the water itself will absorb enough CO2 to make up for much of the flood damage.
Modern damming methods also require a much smaller footprint than older technologies did, so there is less flooding and less environmental damage.
It isn't absolutely clean though, you're right. Compared to coal, or even LNG, it is very clean. Second only to wind power, really. The trade-off has to be made.