Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
Slovaks have 54% of energy from nuclear PP.... and now tell me how much should my country invest and how much wind or sun or geo PP we should build if we close nuclear PP down ? (PP on water we have, a lot...)
And also one information, we dont have enough money to finish our highways, so it can not cost us more then maybe 1mil €.
I can't tell you this, I'm no expert ;) But if your country really would only have a few million to spend, my advise would be: move out asap :) (If you do, Germany please, not my country. We already have our share eastern Europeans ;D Germany doesn't because of protectionism, but this ends this summer so finally they also have open borders).
And now show me real solution :-) thx :-D
I think I already showed everyone that the only thing needed is the willing to change and more investments. But to many people don't like to change the way they think and do, they rather be stubborn, short-sighted and ignorant.
(edited)
And also one information, we dont have enough money to finish our highways, so it can not cost us more then maybe 1mil €.
I can't tell you this, I'm no expert ;) But if your country really would only have a few million to spend, my advise would be: move out asap :) (If you do, Germany please, not my country. We already have our share eastern Europeans ;D Germany doesn't because of protectionism, but this ends this summer so finally they also have open borders).
And now show me real solution :-) thx :-D
I think I already showed everyone that the only thing needed is the willing to change and more investments. But to many people don't like to change the way they think and do, they rather be stubborn, short-sighted and ignorant.
(edited)
we would rather have highways and nuclear powerplants...that is the best solution :-)
But if you send me some wind or solar "family PP", I will set up it on the roof of my house :-D.
But if you send me some wind or solar "family PP", I will set up it on the roof of my house :-D.
4 000 000 foreigners live in Germany , thats 20 % . So dont tell me about it, but its another topic.
Strange numbers 4M and 20%, and kinda useless info without at least a link :P This is what I was refering to, link ;) But indeed, this is offtopic :)
I dont have a link for you, it was recently on tv. 20 % of all inhabitants it is.
4 million foreigners, that's 20% of what?
Oh boy. How hard is it to look up all these numbers in Wikipedia?
Yes.
Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves when compared to other energy producing options. This is a simmilar situation to people being more afraid of shark attacks than lightnings or airplane flights than car drives. These fears are really absurd when one considers that risk probability is in fact by far on the opposite sides. Irrational fears in these examples are conditioned by the strong and visually compelling intensity of the possible risks and complete disregard of its frequency. These 2 factors, intensity and frequency, need to be multiplied when risk is quantified. Intensity is much more advertisible than frequency thus creating fear based on impressions rather than facts.
but there is another thing no-one ever talks about. the incidence of cancer, leukemia and other diseases in the areas around nuclear plants, for hundreds of kms, that's unbelieveably high despite their "absolute safeness" and still no corporate manager ever comes out explaining why.
Could you please provide some more information about this claim? I would really like to know which scientific research or study showed this? There is far more fake studies these days than real scientific ones. Go check www.badscience.net to find out more about how to discern real studies among piles of information trash. I am not saying your claim is a product of such study but in order to have confidence in your claim, I need to know who and how made the study. I find it very difficult to single out nuclear power plant influence among other contemporary health hazards that are also contributing to increase of such diseases.
Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves when compared to other energy producing options. This is a simmilar situation to people being more afraid of shark attacks than lightnings or airplane flights than car drives. These fears are really absurd when one considers that risk probability is in fact by far on the opposite sides. Irrational fears in these examples are conditioned by the strong and visually compelling intensity of the possible risks and complete disregard of its frequency. These 2 factors, intensity and frequency, need to be multiplied when risk is quantified. Intensity is much more advertisible than frequency thus creating fear based on impressions rather than facts.
but there is another thing no-one ever talks about. the incidence of cancer, leukemia and other diseases in the areas around nuclear plants, for hundreds of kms, that's unbelieveably high despite their "absolute safeness" and still no corporate manager ever comes out explaining why.
Could you please provide some more information about this claim? I would really like to know which scientific research or study showed this? There is far more fake studies these days than real scientific ones. Go check www.badscience.net to find out more about how to discern real studies among piles of information trash. I am not saying your claim is a product of such study but in order to have confidence in your claim, I need to know who and how made the study. I find it very difficult to single out nuclear power plant influence among other contemporary health hazards that are also contributing to increase of such diseases.
Impossible. What are 'foreigners', everyone without a German passport, or all not native Germans? And 20%?? I already looked up something, how many people live in Germany and it's around 82.5M ... so 4M is 20% of this? You see the problem, I really don't understand these numbers and therefore I can't look up anything :)
You make yourself look stupid now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Demographics
Taken from above source:
Germans make up 91% of the population of Germany. As of 2004, about seven million foreign citizens were registered in Germany, and 19% of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent.
-> The number of 4M was obviously wrong as it must be higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Demographics
Taken from above source:
Germans make up 91% of the population of Germany. As of 2004, about seven million foreign citizens were registered in Germany, and 19% of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent.
-> The number of 4M was obviously wrong as it must be higher.
You can explain why people feel fear, but nuclear energy has nothing to do with fear for me, just simple rational thinking. Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years dangerous waste for (if luckey!) a century of energy .. do the math yourself ;) All other risks are more reasons not to use nuclear energy as we have many alternatives.
And your claim 'Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves' is based on absolutely nothing! Look at the votes, that's how negative people are about nuclear energy. Most people don't know the real dangers, that's the problem. And the moment it's happening, like now in Japan, most are still to ignorant to see it, or to stubbern, and that are really the dumbest of them all.
And if you want numbers, it's really easy to find if you are really interested ...... First hit in google 'research Chernobyl'.
And your claim 'Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves' is based on absolutely nothing! Look at the votes, that's how negative people are about nuclear energy. Most people don't know the real dangers, that's the problem. And the moment it's happening, like now in Japan, most are still to ignorant to see it, or to stubbern, and that are really the dumbest of them all.
And if you want numbers, it's really easy to find if you are really interested ...... First hit in google 'research Chernobyl'.
That's what I'm saying, what is 4M and 20% of what? I'm not the stupid if I don't understand 2 numbers out of the blue, and even wrong numbers. And yes I already found that many more not native Germans are living in Germany so 4M made no sence for me.
'and 19% of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent.', this was my question, 'what are foreigers'? People with German passports are most of the time no foreigners anymore, they are German. Probably in Germany it's the same as in the Netherlands, third or even forth generations of immigrants, these are Dutch. Foreigners don't have a German passport.
So think before you call someone stupid! :)
'and 19% of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent.', this was my question, 'what are foreigers'? People with German passports are most of the time no foreigners anymore, they are German. Probably in Germany it's the same as in the Netherlands, third or even forth generations of immigrants, these are Dutch. Foreigners don't have a German passport.
So think before you call someone stupid! :)
I am just saying that most of the information found here on this forum and generally in the media is not scientific enough to be taken seriously. The best post for me so far was from Laszlo78 on page 1 with link to a really good scientific explanation of current nuclear incidents. Most of the other information here is based more on impressions than facts.
The example of such information is your quote And your claim 'Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves' is based on absolutely nothing! . So, you don't know what my claim is based on and so it must be nothing. LOL. It is based on many sources and the most recent one is the article from link mentioned above. Being that you mention Chernobyl as something relevant for today's nuclear power plants gives away that you didn't even take the time to get informed and read this excellent article. :)
The example of such information is your quote And your claim 'Nuclear power has far more negative publicity than it deserves' is based on absolutely nothing! . So, you don't know what my claim is based on and so it must be nothing. LOL. It is based on many sources and the most recent one is the article from link mentioned above. Being that you mention Chernobyl as something relevant for today's nuclear power plants gives away that you didn't even take the time to get informed and read this excellent article. :)
It wasn't my question for more info, I just showed you if you are really interested in research just use Google ;) Open first article you find in Google, look for references and you will find the complete research behind an article (only when references are good ofcourse).
And I've posted enough links to show alternatives. Maybe you don't like the alternatives, or don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean it's less true. And why we shouldn't use it I don't have to prove as it had everything to do with logical thinking, short term thinking with high consequences.
But if you want some numbers:
Isotope and Half-Life
Uranium-238, half-life of 4.46 billion years
Uranium-235, half-life of 704 million years
Uranium-234, half-life of 245,000 years
These numbers should be enough to make people think if this is truely the best option, and ofcourse the answer is no :) (wiki)
And if you did use sources to make the claim that's based on something, why are more and more countries willing to build nuclear powerstations again? Because nothing happened the public oppinion was more positive as negative. Hopefully this will change, but as I already wrote, looking at the poll outcome many still don't understand it's a very bad sollution to our energy addiction.
(edited)
And I've posted enough links to show alternatives. Maybe you don't like the alternatives, or don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean it's less true. And why we shouldn't use it I don't have to prove as it had everything to do with logical thinking, short term thinking with high consequences.
But if you want some numbers:
Isotope and Half-Life
Uranium-238, half-life of 4.46 billion years
Uranium-235, half-life of 704 million years
Uranium-234, half-life of 245,000 years
These numbers should be enough to make people think if this is truely the best option, and ofcourse the answer is no :) (wiki)
And if you did use sources to make the claim that's based on something, why are more and more countries willing to build nuclear powerstations again? Because nothing happened the public oppinion was more positive as negative. Hopefully this will change, but as I already wrote, looking at the poll outcome many still don't understand it's a very bad sollution to our energy addiction.
(edited)
This scientific explanation is neither free from flaws nor is it written by an expert. It seemingly works to calm down people.
However, the latest development shows that the problem is more severe than this article suggests.
However, the latest development shows that the problem is more severe than this article suggests.
Yeah my bad with the 4 mln. erk1 allready explained it correctly:)