Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

And who in this world control information distribution? Who controls people with knowledge? Who controls the media? Who controls the internet? It's just a silly conspiracy claim, that anyone would have the power to keep something like that down. And why you insist on not calling it a secret, I don't know. I don't get the point. Or your argument. To be honest I think it's gibberish.
(edited)

ok,
I was wasting my time thinking it was a fair discussion.

why again are you talking about conspiration?
The point is always the same: anyone make is interest.
So if I have an interest I will make anything to reach it.
no need for secret or other strange ideas..

About information business I found really funny that control of information can be confused with control of media..
It needs a very little study about the formation of consensus and the production of information to understand that there's no need to imagine strange theories.. (start from the beginner N. Chomsky ,for example)

Maybe it's the language barrier. But I really don't get what you're saying. I'm trying, honestly, but it makes no sence to me. So let's just leave it at that.
(edited)

A video with a person opinion (nothing more), and a great independent (???) website ... ;)

I was wondering how much info you read that doesn't fit your view, just a question.

I didn't speak about intellectual property. I spoke about the costs of research. That's more than any country could pay, if we add the costs of all the research in a country.

MIT's artificial leaf, this is really interesting. Hadn't read it well before. Sometimes almost unbelievable they can make these things :)

With a single gallon of water, Nocera says, the chip could produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing country for an entire day. Provide every house on the planet with an artificial leaf and we could satisfy our 14 terrawatt need with just one gallon of water a day.
Only 1 little thing, this is a bit to optimistic, water in some countries is also scarce. These people would probably be much happier with a well working well-spring :) And the leaf works, but still the hydrogen has to produce electricity. That little powerplant won't be cheap I think. In one and a half year we will see the result if everything goes to plan :)

What's your point? Of course it's a personal opinion. All I've said is that I totally agree with it. Am I not allowed to have a personal opinion either? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You're unbelievable.
(edited)

And one more repetition: Your style of debate seems to be all about ad hominem attacks instead of substance. Which makes it pretty much a waste of time for anyone else - including me. You know nothing about me. I've studied this issue for years now out of personal interrest. I've interviewed lots of people in my work as a journalist from both sides of the isle. I've read thousands of pages from all sorts of sources. I've been following the intense debate from the sideline for years on the biggest forum for Danish engineers, and believe me, both sides are represented there.

Besides that I still don't think I need to justify my beliefs to you. That's a third repetition, so it seems we're running in circles now. Maybe we should just agree to totally disagree.

(edited)

I can't help it. You annoy me so much I've got to answer...

Barry Brook - the man behind the blog - is an independant. Just like myself. Having a strong opinion based on research and studying doesn't make you a dependant on anything or anyone. It's such bullshit to keep trying to frame it like anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some sort of secret lobbying scheme.

Edit: I'm sorry for my many edits. Unfortunately I make a lot of typing errors writing when I'm angry.
(edited)

If it makes you feel better, I personaly understand why you got angry and I totally agree with you. You have an ideal background and some real knowedge for this discussion so it's no wonder you get attacks on personal level. What else is there to do if one chooses to ignore well explained arguments and key questions? Anyway, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge here. It was very interesting and useful for me.

Btw, it's a bit offtopic but I wonder if you have also a formed an opinion on how frequent usage of mobile phones influences human health. Have you analysed some relevant research in that area as well?

Not at all. :)

But I've researched quite a bit into radiation levels and the effect on human health. And to be honest I'd be surprised if there was any effect. The level of radiation from mobiles is just too small in my opinion.

My last post was a question, not a point of discussion. Why I asked is because I was wondering what you expected to see, more comformation of what you already think? I mean, you did a long personal study, you say you know a lot of the ins and outs of this subject, but what about the other side of the story.

Let me give you an example of my personal study I did, maybe you understand better why I asked. I was taking part of many discussions about evolution, so I started to read and watch as much as I could understand. When it's about evolution eventually creationism will become part of this discussion. Could they be right? I'm not a believer, my knowledge of the bible was limited. So I could only do 1 thing, even knowing I probably won't believe in a god at the end, I started a biblestudy for over one and a half year, 2 or 3 hours a week. Not all by myself or on the internet, but real meetings with people that really knows the bible. Not because I wanted to become a believer, but to really know the other side of the story. Finding conformation of evolution isn't that difficult if that's what you believe, really challenge your own believes is much more difficult. Specially if this is with people that knows a lot more about the other side of the story as you do because they are specialized in that subject.

Maybe now you understand my question :)

Your question is stil the same: rethorical and insulting. This additional explanation only shows that besides subtle insults you are also inclined to taking sides and simplifying issues.

Evolution and creationism are not separated with a knife. There are no sides here either to take. Many people believe that God created everything and designed it to evolve. Who's side are those people on and who they need to talk to check if their "side" is true or whether they should in fact be on the other "side"?

Classifying everything to drawers makes things more simple but less true.

Is no insult, just a question. I just think that if someone is really interested in a subject all sides should be part of the knowledge.

And I'm not going to discuss this based on nothing new-christian thinking, completely other subject :)

I was wondering how much info you read that doesn't fit your view, just a question.

I just think that if someone is really interested in a subject all sides should be part of the knowledge.

You're implying that people you disagree with have taken a side and are only interested in arguments that fit his or her opinion. In the absence of reasonable arguments or answers you turn to giving "polite personal advice". This can only end in repeating "yes, you did" and "no, I didn't".

Maybe being pro-nuclear does mean taking a side to 'some' people (just look on the internet how many these 'some' are). You could have misjudged that.
(edited)