Why do some politicians think we need to pollute? (recyclable, buy, environmental)

[vanguardisle]

Originally Posted by Cyberguy1950

Right on point as usual Knife!

We already have that called nuclear enegy,just need to build more!

Aren't you worried about nuclear waste? Not to mention the everpresent risk of a nuclear meltdown?

[Mack Knife]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

Aren't you worried about nuclear waste? Not to mention the everpresent risk of a nuclear meltdown?

There are risks in everything. Have you ever seen what happens when a heliostat is misaligned and is focused on something other than the collector? At great distances it can blind people, cause things to catch fire and so on. Does that mean we shouldn't use them?

Of course there is a different scale here but there is no such thing as no risk.

Nuclear waste is a problem. Possible meltdowns are a problem. So, we solve the problems and reduce the risks to as low a level or probability as we can and move on. What we shouldn't do it simply stop using something because a certain loud voices makes lots of noise.

More people are killed in car collisions every year than are killed in nuclear accidents every year. Deaths are always comparative. Do we stop using cars because so many people are killed using them or do we continue to develop the car, it's functions and features to reduce the risks in using them?

Do we stop using energy because of the risks? Just because solar and wind are becoming more prevalent does that mean we stop everything else? If we follow that line, imagine how many solutions to problems would never exist because someone gave up?

Look at how many viruses and bacteria are stored in medical laboratories. Some of those, if unleashed would decimate entire populations yet we keep them, study them and use them to help create vaccines and other medical solutions to disease and so on. There are viruses and bacteria that if allowed to propagate in a population would make the worst nuclear disaster look like a bar room brawl in comparison.

So we keep those things around and devise containment systems to reduce the risk as much as possible.

There are ever present risks of hundreds of thousands of people being killed in a single day or week by Tsunami. Still, people live on or near beaches. The disaster in Japan should be a lesson. Was siting the nuke plant there a good idea? Well no but more people were killed by the rushing waters than the nuke plant. What was the story? The nuke plant. The nuke plant was destroyed by the Tsunami so siting it away from where it was could have been a solution.

So could have siting the cities away from the low lying areas been a solution that saved many lives but in all of it people take risks.

Nuke power has proven to be reliable. Are some plants more reliable than others? Yes. Are some solar farms more efficient than others? Yes!

The nuke waste problem can be solved too, it takes research and planning, something so often overlooked or disregarded but to say that because the planning and research to finding a good solution hasn't yet provided the result we want and therefore we should abandon it, it just plain foolish.

Something to think about:

Waste from solar panel manufacturing:

http://news.yahoo.com/solar-industry...184714679.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...a-contaminate/

There is no "no risk" scenario when it comes to using energy.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

Aren't you worried about nuclear waste? Not to mention the everpresent risk of a nuclear meltdown?

I have a friend, a college professor who teaches management, who for many years has been an advisor to people trying to resolve the nuclear waste problem... namely that after more than a half century of study, there still is no acceptable disposal method for waste materials that remain toxic for 10,000 years.

This may not last forever, but we can't even properly manage the waste we already have generated, so we're in no position to OK any new nuclear fission generators until the waste issue is resolved.

That's just common sense.

[Mack Knife]

That only proves that people like your friend need to be replaced with those that have or can find the answer.

That's just common sense too.

[vanguardisle]

I wonder what types of manufacturing jobs we can bring back to the US to improve our economy that will not also harm our environment?

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

I wonder what types of manufacturing jobs we can bring back to the US to improve our economy that will not also harm our environment?

If the greenies get their way this will be the a major source of income in the manufacturing sector....

http://flintknappinginfo.webstarts.c...ingFluting.pdf

[vanguardisle]

Originally Posted by my54ford

If the greenies get their way this will be the a major source of income in the manufacturing sector....

http://flintknappinginfo.webstarts.c...ingFluting.pdf

You do not think there is any way to have manufacturing without pollution? Seriously what can be more important to give to our children and grandchildren then clean land, air, and water? Why do people need to fight each other about this issue? We should all want that shouldnt we? How much pollution do you honestly think is okay if it was your town the manufacturing came to ?

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

You do not think there is any way to have manufacturing without pollution? Seriously what can be more important to give to our children and grandchildren then clean land, air, and water? Why do people need to fight each other about this issue? We should all want that shouldnt we? How much pollution do you honestly think is okay if it was your town the manufacturing came to ?

Manufacturing requires a constant supply of reliable ENERGY, in some form of another. What do you propose as a energy resource that will provide a constant supply of energy at 60hz. Particularly for those high demand industry such as steel production?

[ca_north]

Originally Posted by vanguardisle

Why do those in power like politicians think that the USA cannot have a sucessful economy without polluting the earth? Isn't it possible to live in harmony with nature and still have a strong healthy economy? Can't we get rid of polluting industries or improve them and still remain financially strong as a society?

As long as GOP Creationist nature-haters are in power, the EPA will be under constant siege and its benefits will be taken for granted as free market magic. They ignore why the EPA was needed to begin with; industry did little to clean up its messes and the same people are still resisting.

Many GOPer types are still removing or altering catalytic converters, not realizing that modern engines are designed for increased back-pressure. All they care about is power and noise. I think the dumb hicks who "roll coal" should have their trucks seized.

But a core issue is economic growthism, which is predicated on continual pollution and destruction of nature as its very basis. More people consuming more stuff, made by more people, and so on. It has no long-term logic. Man is the only species that constantly degrades and depletes its life support system and gloats over the money being made.

[ca_north]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Your premise is flawed, we need practical and sane regulations that provide more benefit than harm. What is often overlooked is the enormous health benefits that cheap energy provides.

The days of cheap oil are over, you know. Shale fracking is just a temporary boom but it's got a lot of people thinking greed and waste is OK again. Many people have the attention spans and scientific acumen of rodents.