TaiidanTomcat said:
Kadija_Man said:
Yes and no. When you have a disaster in power stations which aren't nuclear powered, caused by corrupt practices it doesn't have the potential to affect most of the surrounding countryside for thousands of years, now does it? A dam bursting is the closest analogy but that only lasts a few years before the countryside downstream recovers.
Not really no, and I would say you havn't been paying attention to my mountain top shearing rants... or will the mountain be back in a few years? Will the streams magically purify themselves overnight? The black lung will disappear too right? and the chemicals in the soil?
I agree they are long term problems with fossil fuel burning. Don't assume that I am a fan of fossil fuels. I acknowledge they have material and social costs. However you appear to think that there are none with nuclear power, either.
By this logic its best to scrap city buses and airliners with more than 10 passengers, that way when something goes wrong fewer people are killed or wounded.
We could work to replace them with something that isn't as polluting, nor as potentially dangerous as nuclear power - renewables. Solar, Wind, Wave, Tidal, etc. Nuclear has considerable potential for base load needs, I admit but I find the potential problems associated with Nuclear keeps me unwilling to support it.
You do understand that unless there is government regulation concerning safety, commercial operators won't bother with it, seeing it as an unnecessary expense?
sorry Brian thats not true. Civilian standards for safety are often higher than government requirements and government practices. This is for a number of reasons, like how you can't turn a profit on a crashed plane, or how no one will buy an unsafe car or work for a company that is fine with having its employees irradiated. Don't look now but the desire to turn a profit can actually lead to better services and standards, as in the end people have to want to use, buy, or promote your product.
Forgotten "Unsafe at any speed"? Ford, wasn't it, who designed unsafe cars because they didn't care about the potential danger to their customers? It wasn't until government regulations brought in safety standards that you got seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, etc. The car manufacturers weren't interested in designing such features in until they were forced to. Deeming them too expensive and that the public wasn't interested.
It is the unending criticism of government by libertarians who appear totally naive of the cause and effect nature of government regulation. It isn't imposed on a whim. It is imposed because of a perceived need.
The problem with being driven by profit means that business places a higher priority on that rather than it's social responsibilities.
Utterly false. private companies contribute money, time, and man power to charity constantly. My company offers services for veterans FREE OF CHARGE for as long as they desire to use our services. We also donate to and volunteer for cancer charities. keep up the stereotypes though. Like how the problem with all Australians is they only play rugby and all have pet kangaroos right?
Charity? So, as long as a company gave loads of money to charity you wouldn't care if they polluted the land/air/water? Released radioactivity? Engaged in unsafe manufacturing practices which resulted in the deaths of their workers?
Social responsibility covers much more than merely giving money or services to charities or for free to those deemed qualified to accept them (ie veterans, etc). It is about making sure that you don't kill your workers, that you don't destroy the environment, that you make sure that you don't pollute and you pay the full social cost of your activities.
As I've pointed out, Government owned/operated Nuclear power stations have similar problems because of politics.
So just to review, the government can't be trusted with nuclear power (even though it possesses nuclear weapons) and private industry can't be trusted with nuclear power. and government regulated, commercially operated nuclear power can't be trusted. so its completely circular argument based on your opinion with no use of actual facts for how nuclear plants operate.
To some degree, yes. As I said, until you can create an incorruptible regulatory system, I don't believe that I will support nuclear power. If you're happy to accept the risks in having a system which can and has been over the years corrupted, then you're welcome to support nuclear power. You appear willing to accept risks which I won't.
It is. It is interesting that what was the safest airline in the world was QANTAS which was, until recently Government owned. Since it has been privatised, it has been drastically cutting costs in it's maintenance and the result has been a succession of worrying "incidents". Is there a correlation? I believe so.
Careful Brian, remember just earlier you were telling us that politicians thanks to short cited election vision couldn't be trusted to operate things safely. Now you are telling us that a government operated airline was the safest in the world. Don't forget your argument there, bud.
QANTAS was a separate statutory body. I don't know if they have those in the US. While the government owned it. It didn't operate it. QANTAS was similar to a business. Government merely provided money, when required. Day-to-day decisions were the responsibility of the QANTAS management.
You would prefer that there was no regulation? Where private operators were allowed to build anything as ramshackle as they desired? You do realise what we are discussing? It is this sort of silly statement that makes me wonder about the libertarian viewpoint.
Umm no you are twisting my words and assigning a political viewpoint to me. That post was in response to you trying to say that if a private company works closely with the government they will automatically start working "hand in glove" as you claimed. please keep track of your argument.
I am.
If a plane crashes, a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand people may be affected. Ditto if a truck crashes (if it's carrying non-nuclear hazardous materials). If a nuclear accident occurs at a nuclear power plant how many could die? How many will have their lives blighted for the rest of their lives? How many will potentially develop cancer? How long will the accident area and the surrounding countryside be contaminated? There is a scale of difference that you seem not to appreciate.
How many
Could die if a nuclear weapon suddenly detonates setting off a chain reaction that causes an ICBM to launch? or if a cruise ship collides with an aircraft carrier? better to not have these things, lest something
could go wrong. speaking of cruise ships, how about that Titanic? look what can go wrong! Come on Brian, you are a smart boy, your argument would make a lot more sense if coal wasn't
already doing everything you are warning against with nuclear.
Again, you seem to be saying that you're willing to accept the risks. I am not. Does that make me irrational or merely cautious? You seem to find my caution offensive for some reason. There are risks in every day life, however, more over the effects of when those risks become reality are limited. Nuclear accidents aren't. When Chernobyl was burning, radiation affected most of eastern and northern Europe. When Fukashima leaks, it effects the Northern Pacific. When Sellafield's chimney burnt, if affected a large slice of the UK and Ireland. Again, you just don't seem to appreciate the scale of the risks associated with nuclear power.
I would suggest that you appear willing to accept a level of risk which I and most other sensible people who actually understand such nuclear matters are not.
Brian you havn't demonstrated much understanding of the subject at all and continue to try and use your bias and politics to argue against something as if it wasn't already successfully in use all over the globe and proving asinine theories wrong by the day. You might as well be arguing that the sun revolves around the earth because the church says it does and thats your belief. your arguments are far more about your beliefs, and very little about facts in evidence.
I point to the history of nuclear accidents. Their consequences. The often ways in which corrupt corporate and government officials have reacted to those accidents. The cover ups. These are all in the public domain. Ignoring the hysteria one comes to the conclusions that I have put before you.
1. I don't trust governments with nuclear matters;
2. I don't trust corporations with nuclear matters;
3. I don't believe sufficient consideration is given to the consequences of nuclear accidents by the proponents of nuclear power.
In particular, with the last, we are assured continually that nuclear power plants are safe and reliable, that is until the next disaster. Then we are told this was an exceptional event. Which it is, until the next one and the same root causes are invariably identified - incompetence, neglect and corrupt dealings.
I agree that fossil fuel burning power plants are not as regulated as nuclear ones but that may be because when a coal fired power plant suffers an accident or even a catastrophic failure, the consequences are no where as bad as when a nuclear one does.
Actually the consequences of coal operating perfectly as it should are far more devastating to people and the environment than if there is a nuclear accident. Coal destroying lives and the environment is built into the system actually. NPPs can operate for decades without incident, and the vast majority of them do.
Once again Brian you have completely and utterly derailed yet another interesting thread by introducing your politics into it. not to mention the several threads where your beliefs (note the word is not "facts") have been completely called into questions by a acute lack of evidence. Why on Earth are you quoting Mao in a thread about the pros and cons of nuclear power? Thanks again for taking another thread ruining it for the adults that were enjoying the subject at hand and not your tinfoil political theory.
Ah, here we come to the crux of the matter. In your opinion, introducing politics different to your own into a thread where you are displaying your own brand of politics "derails it". I prefer to believe that it offering an alternative viewpoint. Not every one accepts the right-wing viewpoint or the more extreme version referred to as libertarianism. Perhaps its time you learnt to cope with differing opinions?
And what is wrong with quoting Mao? Mao said many things, some apposite, some not. In a discussion that has brought in the profit motive as a driver for big business and it's attitude towards safety, I think what he said was rather apt, don't you? Do you disagree with with his comment that, "to be rich is to be glorious"? I'd wouldn't have thought any card-carrying member of the Right would have disagreed.
