Nuclear Power? (1 Viewer)

[zombie omie jay]

Great imput mate, very much addressed the issues being discussed within the thread.

 

[cookkii]

the same could be said for many of your posts, "mate"

 

[xXPearsoXx]

Yeah she has a point. And i have to say nuclear energy isnt a good thing. Uranium takes waaay too long to breakdown, we need more renewable energy sources such as wind or sun... Nuclear energy would cause as many problems as we have now, except it would also incorporate degradation due to the disposal of uranium... there, is that better?

 

[zombie omie jay]

May i point out the multitudes of well argued and citationed posts i made under the account loller.

Once again xxpearsoxx, thank you for your input. Have you even read the thread? Do you not think those ideas have already been discussed at length?

 

[cookkii]

this does not mean he cannot have an input.

 

[xXPearsoXx]

I know, i was just stating my opinion, but once again your criticising someone for doing that. Its called being an individual, you heard of that, or are you just following the other 45 people that say we should consider nuclear power???

 

[zombie omie jay]

Im saying there is no point coming into a thread without reading it and stating your personal opinion when it has already been brought up 47 times. This is how discussions become boring and circular.

 

[xXPearsoXx]

Well im entitled to my opinion according to my right to free speech, so i guess this thread just got boring and circular... oh well, your loss....i think its kinda stupid anyway, nuclear power is obviously bad for our environment...anyone who studied year 10 geography would know that, so theres no real point to this discussion anyway

 

[loquasagacious]

PV energy usually needs to be supplemented with other renewable resources.

Due to Australia's abundant renewable resources, such as water (tidal energy), wind energy, PV energy, and geothermal energy, (though NZ would be better at harnessing Geo energy than Australia) it could theoretically work.

I think we need to explore our other options first before Nuclear energy is used within Australia.

I think we've been exploring the other options for more than a decade....

 

[zombie omie jay]

See now we can have a discussion.

Please show how nuclear power is bad for the environment. Just saying this does not make it so.

Also please explain how year 10 geography gives you more knowledge about the environmental impacts of nuclear power than say a nuclear scientist or environmental scientist.

 

[xXPearsoXx]

Theres no environmental or nuclear scientist here atm, so it doesnt matter.. and year 10 geo does teach us about the negative effects of nuclear energy, if you were smart enough to pass it that is... Uranium has a ridiculously high half-life, it takes millions of years to breakdown... When we finish with the uranium, where will the waste go?? and wherever it is, im sure it will harm the enviornment, us humans, and other organisms. There is simply no way that nuclear power can have benefits to our society and country. Why not look towards other alternatives, instead of switching from coal to uranium...because that, in my opinion, is just as bad, if not worse...

 

[cookkii]

or year 10 science, when we learn all about half life. just passing your SC should have taught you these things.

hsc physics too.

 

[zombie omie jay]

What i meant was, i didnt know that year 10 geography delved into the realms of environmental and nuclear science. The curriculum must have changed an awful lot since i was ats chool.

Sorry good sir i misunderestimated the wealth of scientific knowledge that year 10 geography gifts you.

 

[zombie omie jay]

OMG you learnt about half life! Fuck i love that game.


Seriously stop posting. Of course the radioactive waste produced is an issue, but not one we cannot deal with

HAVE YOU READ ANY PREVIOUS POSTS>???

 

[xXPearsoXx]

Yeah i think the cirriculum changed since you failed year 7, its alright... Yeah i read the other posts, like i said IM ENTITLED TO MY OPINION!!! Having trouble comprehending that are we?

 

[cookkii]

mining and purifying uranium is very unclean
transportation presents the risk of exposure, contamination
waste is still deadly and radioactive
HowStuffWorks
Greenpeace

get over yourself seriously. maybe you should learn to accept that people have their own opinions, instead of insulting them every time they say them. grow up.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well im entitled to my opinion according to my right to free speech, so i guess this thread just got boring and circular... oh well, your loss....i think its kinda stupid anyway, nuclear power is obviously bad for our environment...anyone who studied year 10 geography would know that, so theres no real point to this discussion anyway

You are of course entitled to an opinion. Equally however others are entitled to criticise your opinion.

However if everyone simply went around stating their opinion ad naseum and refusing to debate then we would live in a society governed by whomever could shout their opinion loudest. Hardly an ideal situation.

For a democratic society to work effectively a vibrant discourse is required. The foundation of this discourse is people accepting that they may not always be correct and being open to alternate viewpoints. In a debate both parties must be willing to accept that they are wrong and the other party is right - otherwise you simply have a shouting match. The other key to effective debate is that it does not rely solely on appeals to emotion and instead draws on evidence, facts, data, science, etc to support the positions being debated.

One would hope that those people who chose to participate in NCAP do so with the above in mind. In my opinion NCAP is not a place for people to simply shout their viewpoints at each other but is instead a forum for debate.

 

[Random_dude]

does anyone understand how annoying it is to post twice in a row:burn:
also, how many nuclear radioisotopes are used within industrial and medical fields like, i don't know, PET scans, X-rays, CAT scans and MRI scans? anyhow, how much impact do the other alternative energy sources of power? tidal power and hydro electric power disrupts marine life, wind power is just plain noisy and doesn't really produce as much eneergy unless it is in a perpetual hurricane, whilst nuclear power provides us with useful radioisotopes. mind you, it does have waste material that it a little bit harmful (snort) to the environment. so what do you choose, the benefit of human society as we learn more about radiation and particles, and as such, might have a little bit of a chance of creating nuclear fusion reactors or stayong where we are, still negatively affecting the environment a lot more so than we all think.

 

[Sprangler]

Wind and solar etc. are not viable alternatives for Australia, at all, for the scale of power we require. There is 0% harm to people or the environment if the very low amount of waste is stored correctly, and the benefits to Australia's economy could be massive, as there is a global demand for uranium, and we have 40% of the worlds reserves.

 

[loquasagacious]

Theres no environmental or nuclear scientist here atm, so it doesnt matter..

That an authority on the subject is not actually present does not make your viewpoint correct. If this was true then I could calmly sit here and deny gravity on the basis that neither Newton or subsequent physicists are present.

In a debate it is perfectly valid to appeal to an authority on the subject. It is also perfectly valid to call into question the standing of the authority in question.

In this case you have appealed to the School Certificate Curriculum as an authority on the subject. It is however a poor authority. Quite simply it is school level. Beyond it and more authoritative are university and postgrad level material. Research is occuring at the post-grad and beyond level, it tricles down from there through undergrad, to high-school and then to school level - the school syllabus hardly presents the cutting edge of science/thought.

The syllabus is also a relatively politicised tool which makes it unsuitable. Finally the school sylabus is not well-rounded in that it deals with issues within silos - energy is considered in terms of the environment not the monetary cost. Business is considered in terms of money and not the environment, etc etc.

and year 10 geo does teach us about the negative effects of nuclear energy, if you were smart enough to pass it that is... Uranium has a ridiculously high half-life, it takes millions of years to breakdown... When we finish with the uranium, where will the waste go?? and wherever it is, im sure it will harm the enviornment, us humans, and other organisms. There is simply no way that nuclear power can have benefits to our society and country.

1. Insults are not warranted.
2. I believe Kwayera posted regarding the safe disposal of Nuclear waste.
3. Other posts have discussed benefits of Nuclear Power, you have not addressed these.
4. You clearly state that you have a foregone conclusion and no interest in being swayed by debate. This is not a constructive approach.

Why not look towards other alternatives, instead of switching from coal to uranium...because that, in my opinion, is just as bad, if not worse...

What alternatives did you have in mind?

Are you under the impression that scientists and policy makers have not been investigating alternatives for some time already?

Tidal, hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, etc have all been proposed and as yet none of them has been able to offer a reasonable cost-parity with coal power. Maybe in the future they will but we have a problem in the present. Why should nuclear power continue to be excluded from debate?