Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (6298)	4/16/2006 10:43:27 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Chernobyl The downplaying of risks posed by nuclear accidents can only be described as irresponsible. With Chernobyl we have been reasonably lucky so far. The radioactivity is still leeching into the water table and the site still poses a significant health risk. nea.fr The next time there is a nuclear accident, I suggest we send in Michael Crichton "al la" the firemen at Chernobyl. His job will be to rally the spirits of the exposed population into not thinking they will suffer the most awful consequences possible from exposure to nuclear radiation. Many aspects of the risks involved have been ignored by the authorities. This would only cause panic in the general population. For example, in Scotland radioactive rain fell after Chernobyl, routine scans of the local area around UK nuclear power stations revealed radioactive particles. i.e bits of nuclear reactor which subsequently were safely disposed of. Nobody I know asked the obvious question that such particles would have fallen ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, and every square meter of it would need to be checked? People already die from background radioactivity in Scotland. It is only DENIAL and the need for information control by the authorities that suggests that more deaths have not been caused by Chernobyl.

To: average joe who wrote (6298)	4/16/2006 8:15:39 PM
From: S. maltophilia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

<<Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s.>> He did, indeed; in the 1960's he wrote the book in question. amazon.com The timing may be a bit off, but the fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. How long do you think we'll have cheap petroleum? Do you really think we're moving away from an economy based on the oxidation of carbon? Yes, we hear plenty of hype about hydrogen, wind, etc., but demand for petroleum keeps rising. We've gone from 3 billion when The population Bomb came out to 6 billion and change, we're using more resources than ever, and still billions of us don't even have a car. Crichton isn't worried about the planet. I'm not either. The TCA cycle and mitochondria have been around for a billion years or more. But if I had kids I'd be worried for them.