Burning coal even worse for air than previously thought

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-08-16 04:43pm

Wasn't Paul Ehrlich the idiot who say we were all going to be starving in 10 years... IN THE 1970s!?!?!

Why is anyone still listening to him? He also said we run of resources in 1992.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-08-16 04:57pm

frigidmagi wrote:Wasn't Paul Ehrlich the idiot who say we were all going to be starving in 10 years... IN THE 1970s!?!?!

Why is anyone still listening to him? He also said we run of resources in 1992.

Obviously he's trying to be Nostradamus but has instead perfected the art of being completely and utterly wrong all the time.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-08-16 05:00pm

RedImperator wrote:Greenpeace's opposition to fusion is very easily understood if you realize they're not opposed to POLLUTION, they're opposed to DEVELOPMENT. Going after energy is an easy way to strangle development. Fusion scares the hell out of them because it doesn't pollute like fossil fuels, doesn't have the potential for disaster like fission, doesn't fuck up riverine ecosystems and drown pretty scenery like hydro, and isn't limited like solar or wind. Noted asshole and population alarmist Paul Ehrlich once said giving cheap, clean, abundant energy to mankind was like giving a child a loaded machine gun, and these jerkoffs think the same way. Doubtless the people at the top know that fusion isn't dangerous, but they're starting the scare campaign early.

Does it really matter to them that fusion doesn't have the potential for disaster? With fission disaster is very unlikely, and vastly less likely than countless other disasters that are accepted nonchalantly by almost everyone. Yet somehow, anything even vaguely realted to fission is evidence that it's a humanity-destroying disaster waiting to happen. For example, Greenpeace is currently distorting the facts about a recent incident at a nuclear plant in Japan. The problem was a leak in a steam pipe, which sadly killed a few people with superheated steam. Greenpeace only vaguely alludes to what actually happened, though. All they say is that some people were killed, and then they launch into a rant against nuclear power. They cite another incident in Japan, which occurred at the Tokaimura reprocessing plant. Some workers there were very careless with a uranium solution, which they were mixing in buckets rather than using the proper machinery. They also made an error in amounts, which resulted in a minor fission reaction in a vat. They saw a flash of Cherenkov radiation, and got irradiated. The vat was drained, and the accident was fairly minor. Does Greenpeace tell you the facts? Hell, no! They tell a very small subset of the facts, add in some details that they just pulled out of their asses, and start scaremongering.

Facts don't make a whole lot of difference to these assholes. I don't see how the gains in safety from going to fusion are going to even put a dent in their widely-accepted lies and distortions.

On another note, is Greenpeace really that closely akin to a sinister conpiracy? They act like they're determined to hold back development by coldly calculated lies, but I have an aversion to attributing things to malice which can be explained by stupidity. In this case, though, the stupidity would have to be truly mind-boggling, and I'm having doubts about the "they're all just total idiots" explanation.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-08-16 07:50pm

sketerpot wrote:On another note, is Greenpeace really that closely akin to a sinister conpiracy? They act like they're determined to hold back development by coldly calculated lies, but I have an aversion to attributing things to malice which can be explained by stupidity. In this case, though, the stupidity would have to be truly mind-boggling, and I'm having doubts about the "they're all just total idiots" explanation.

I think of them as an outlet value a bunch of truely ignorant and indocrinated people use. That still doesnt prevent other interests from not opposing them which is generally considered passice acceptance of their cause.

Since artsy people also tend also be lacking on the technical knowlage, which is just the type of people you find packed into the western entertainment industry.

Thus its really a conspiracy of self-reenforcing ignorance fanned on a lack of viable resistance to their methology. People will spontaneously form movements with little prompting, and once they gain ideological momentum free of their initial creators, they just keep going.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-08-16 08:17pm

sketerpot wrote:On another note, is Greenpeace really that closely akin to a sinister conpiracy? They act like they're determined to hold back development by coldly calculated lies, but I have an aversion to attributing things to malice which can be explained by stupidity. In this case, though, the stupidity would have to be truly mind-boggling, and I'm having doubts about the "they're all just total idiots" explanation.

While their ranting and raving could be written off as genuine stupidity, it fits too perfectly with their anti-development, frankly anti-human agenda. Going after energy is much easier than going after development. "You can't hug people with nuclear arms!" is going to get better results with the public than "Ration electricity!" and "Queue up for razorblades!", even if the latter two would be the actual end result of their policies.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-08-17 11:23am

RedImperator wrote:Greenpeace's opposition to fusion is very easily understood if you realize they're not opposed to POLLUTION, they're opposed to DEVELOPMENT. Going after energy is an easy way to strangle development. Fusion scares the hell out of them because it doesn't pollute like fossil fuels, doesn't have the potential for disaster like fission, doesn't fuck up riverine ecosystems and drown pretty scenery like hydro, and isn't limited like solar or wind.

(puts on tinfoil hat)

Hmmm... is it possible that the fossil fuel lobby has pressured or brainwashed Greenpeace into opposing fusion power?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-17 11:42am

Peregrin Toker wrote: (puts on tinfoil hat)

Hmmm... is it possible that the fossil fuel lobby has pressured or brainwashed Greenpeace into opposing fusion power?

Possible, but unlikely. Those with interests in fossil fuels tend to be the ones that would be building nuclear plants if they were allowed to, and the other ones have their own lobbyists for defeating nuclear power. I don't see why they would need to team up with narco-anarchist groups to deliver their agendas.