Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why Enviromentalists are Wrong--Complexity Theory

What I can't help wondering about is how closely some of his examples of fear mongering language resemble some of the language used on both sides of the gun control issue.

Lewis... thanks for the website re: www.kiddofspeed.com . The fact that she saw fit to fake a motorcycle ride does cast doubt upon the whole, but...

Are the geiger counter readings false? Why have those barges, helicopters and vehicles all been abandoned? Why don't they let people in? Can you view an exposed reactor core from some distance away (a per the bridge) without getting bathed in radiation?

None of these are argumentative questions, like most on the website you gave I'm just curious as to how much of the situation is as reported.

With regards to the rest of it, I never said that global warming as popularly assumed by the Left is a fact, and I expect I'm older than you.

What does irritate me is when the Right posts a bunch of half-truths and disconnected facts of their own and guffaw (a la Rush Limbaugh et al.) that the familiar straw men; "The Environmentalists" are wrong.

Case in point from Creighton's article; he posts the case of junk science regarding magnetic fields being harmful, and then posts countering junk science about magnetic fields being good for you. What on earth does this have to do with the validity or lack thereof of global warming?

Correctly put, the fact that climate appears to be an exceedingly complex and chaotic system does not mean the "Environmentalists" are "wrong", even a system like that could still be driven by CO2 levels.

If burning fossil fuels really DOES cause global warming we are screwed, this being a problem about like overpopulation; one without a workable solution.

And yes, I do think population growth is a huge problem, and one that is only going to get worse.

Birdwatcher

The fact that the earth is getting warmer is not in dispute. What is in dispute is why. The earth has been warming since man kind was running around in furs with flint tipped spears and before. For man kind to think that he has the power to either cause or prevent it is arrogance.

No, there is still radiation attributable to the accident. The issue is not RADIATION, the issue is the quantity of radiation, which varies from spot to spot. A bit of fall-out in one spot and a whole area is kept off limits.

In other words, the main trouble is not radiation, the main trouble is uncertainty.



Radiation levels above background. Don't let people in because there would be no way to argue they didn't get cancer from the accident (or did, for that matter). Unattainable situation.



I hope so, since we all bathe in sunlight everyday, and that is one bad-arse exposed reactor! Radiation reduces with the square of the distance. FWIW, Dutch.

Dutch... thanks for the info, still a heck of a mess.

I would be interested in knowing just how dangerous a visible, glowing core in a shatered containment vessel would be at what look about a mile maybe 1.5 mile distance. No way to know with out being there and measuring I guess.

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher, you are entirely right: I strongly suspect there would be no way to measure it. It would be less than the back ground radiation. I'm not a nuke specialist, but I happen to be married to one, so I'll find out for sure.

HOWEVER, "glowing core" in a shattered containment vessel? Don't think so. The physics don't work that way. Maintaining a chain reaction in a nuke requires maintaining a delicate balance: too much, and she runs out of control, too little and she shuts down. That's why they have to adjust the control rods. A "glowing core" a year or three after a meltdown? Nuh-uh. She'd have either used up the fuel, or gone into a near dormant state.

Also, the story is misleading talking about a containment vessel. The Ruskie reactors designs do not have containment vessels. That's why they had Chernobyl and we had Three Mile Island. The accidents were really not all that different; just the outcomes. TMI had a concrete dome designed to contain trouble (and it did), Chernobyl has steel domes designed, basically, to keep the weather out (and it did).

It's funny how nukes and guns give people the same reaction: if they aren't familiar with their workings, the response is to imagine all sorts of evils. The converse is also true: familiarity breeds complacency: the cause for almost all trouble with both of them. JMO, Dutch.