What does that mean?
Is it like asking is the spaceflight 'safe'?

IMO you're not looking for a reasonably informed answer, you're looking for bias confirmation.

I asked when do you think nuclear will be safe
if you think nuclear is safe, then that s a valid answer. I have zero problems with that view.
thats why Im trying, despite what appears to be provocation, not to argue with peoples views on nuclear,
If I have , I apologies,
we have all had many experiences, in many different cultures,
all Im interested in is the people on this forums views on nuclear safety.

I did not think that hard, I seem to have been wrong,
would love to hear fomr more than the few though.

 

I'm not trying to change your mind but thank goodness climate science listened to people like Teller and convinced others in charge to start reducing emission decades ago from, burn baby burn, so we don't have the extremes of climate change today predicted earlier.

It is impossible to prove that the climate today would be any different had the West done nothing at all. All we can show is that we've dramatically impoverished ourselves -- and will continue to do so -- with no evidence it is worth it.

Oh, and btw, I would prefer all nuclear power. Only because it would eliminate particulates and toxins in the air that are demonstrably deadly to a small number of individuals.

 

It is impossible to prove that the climate today would be any different had the West done nothing at all. All we can show is that we've dramatically impoverished ourselves -- and will continue to do so -- with no evidence it is worth it.

Oh, and btw, I would prefer all nuclear power. Only because it would eliminate particulates and toxins in the air that are demonstrably deadly to a small number of individuals.

@joeyd999 and @nsaspook
please, I'd like to keep this to , do we think nuclear is safe, now , in the future or never,
and your thoughts on why
Its great to have your answer @joeyd999

 

It is impossible to prove that the climate today would be any different had the West done nothing at all. All we can show is that we've dramatically impoverished ourselves -- and will continue to do so -- with no evidence it is worth it.

Oh, and btw, I would prefer all nuclear power. Only because it would eliminate particulates and toxins in the air that are demonstrably deadly to a small number of individuals.

Yes, it's impossible to prove but logically, it's a scientifically valid hypothesis about a possible future. With a mainly nuclear power base we can still use oil for the things it works best with and still keep emission easily under control. I'm not for banning the use of gas and oil and going completely electric.

 

@drjohsmith you are not likely to get any further "fresh" opinions here, just continued conversation from existing participants. Those participants have already answered the question that was asked, and if you are not satisfied with the answer then I suggest asking a less informed group of people. Try Facebook.

 

it's a scientifically valid hypothesis...

It is not. The hypothesis was based on computer models. The future predicted by the models has failed to materialize. Therefore, the hypothesis is disproven.

 

I'd like...

There's lots of things I'd like.

But I've discovered I've got very little control, even within the very small universe of things I can effect.

If only many others would make the same discovery.

 

People have been scared near to death by the threat of nuclear annihilation for many decades now and any mention of "nuclear" ties into that fear. The many beneficial daily aspects of nuclear usage are either unknown or ignored. Such little things as why plastic baby bottles don't melt (they've been irradiated) like other similar plastics when placed in boiling water for sterilization, sensors in smoke detectors, their daily exposure to solar radiation, nuclear medicines and treatments, and many more. Instead of hearing of all the benefits from "nuclear radiation" they are instead constantly bombarded by the ills of nuclear radiation. One of the reasons that the use of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging was renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging was because of this mindset that Nuclear is BAD! Having world leaders threatening Nuclear Armageddon does not help abate this innate fear nor having the American Association for the Advancement of Science regularly pushing their Doomsday Clock closer to the Midnight of Nuclear Annihilation because of this saber rattling.

 

It is not. The hypothesis was based on computer models. The future predicted by the models has failed to materialize. Therefore, the hypothesis is disproven.

I'm with you on the major point of some people using it (climate change, nuclear power objections, etc...) for other means.



You're wasting your time with me with the science as I'm convinced the science of adverse climate change from fossil fuel usage is solid even if the current prediction models are imprecise because of chaotic initial conditions problems.

 

imprecise

Ha!

 

Hey, Spook. I hope both of us are still around 50 years from now. I want one of us to be able to say, "See? I told you so!"

I don't care which.

OT: VirtualBox on Wayland sucks.

 

Hey, Spook. I hope both of us are still around 50 years from now. I want one of us to be able to say, "See? I told you so!"

I don't care which.

OT: VirtualBox on Wayland sucks.

I'll join the challenge if you let me ... the loser pays the bar's bill ...

 

I'll join the challenge if you let me ... the looser pays the bar's bill ...

You've got a third way?

 

You've got a third way?

Nope ... sorry to tell you but I'm with Spook on this one ... so it's gonna be a two to one stakes for you

 

Nope ... sorry to tell you but I'm with Spook on this one ... so it's gonna be a two to one stakes for you

Good. More beer for me!

 

I think climate cooling/climate heating/climate change/climate weirding/climate whatever is just another method/form of political control.

Bingo. The perpetrators have admitted as much.

It's never been about the planet or "the science", it's about political power and wealth transfer. Their un-seriousness is revealed whenever potential solutions are brought forward that don't advance those goals. It's why western technology building out safe nuclear plants is abhorrent to them - they get no political power and no wealth transfer. Quite the opposite, likely, and they lose their holier-than-thou position on this issue. It degrades their position and they have zero interest in it. Ditto for any other technological solutions that might come from capitalism and market-based solutions.

I'll send my grandkids to enjoy that beer.

 

And what happened to my Carbon Credits?

kv

 

Bingo. The perpetrators have admitted as much.

It's never been about the planet or "the science", it's about political power and wealth transfer. Their un-seriousness is revealed whenever potential solutions are brought forward that don't advance those goals. It's why western technology building out safe nuclear plants is abhorrent to them - they get no political power and no wealth transfer. Quite the opposite, likely, and they lose their holier-than-thou position on this issue. It degrades their position and they have zero interest in it. Ditto for any other technological solutions that might come from capitalism and market-based solutions.

I'll send my grandkids to enjoy that beer.

Is there room for this to be true AND for there to be a legitimate concern for the environment and climate?

I think there is. The views I hold on man-made (or, man-caused?) Climate change are not based on first-hand knowledge or experience. So I cannot speak with the same confidence as I do on the topic of nuclear power. My opinions on climate change are not strong, or particularly well informed, so I don't engage this discussion often.

But this isn't the first time I've heard what you've just said and I do see the logic in it. It smells true, or very plausible at least. But so do the arguments on the other side.

A lie that is mostly true is the hardest kind to identify. Can it be true that the widely accepted state of climate change differs from the absolute truth only in the motives behind the delivery of the data? Because if only the motive is different then it would explain the continuous reinforcement of popular condemnation of nuclear power when it is obviously the answer to the problem expressed by the data.

 

Is there room for this to be true AND for there to be a legitimate concern for the environment and climate?

Certainly! I don't think dumping carbon into the atmosphere without concern is a responsible way to act. I'm all for technology to reduce it at the source, and to remove it from the air is that's remotely practical. And if human activity really is changing the climate, we'd better figure out how to adapt to that. Reasonable plans to adapt don't require self-immolation and destroying the economy. In fact it's the money from a booming economy that will enable us to pay for the things we need to adapt, like sea walls to protect all those oceanfront properties the global warming hysterics are fond of.

 

Honestly, I see the current weather tendencies, as compared to historical data, too sharp for them to be the product of merely natural phenomena. All one has to do is look at satellite pictures comparing the "snow line" of the 1980's to today's in the North American Continent. And that's just one example among many, many other discrepancies; which include ocean's temperatures, storm frequencies, lakes (and even seas) shrinkages or disappearances ... the list goes on and on ... All of those anomalies compressed in the course of a few decades, instead of centuries or millennia. Something's definitely going on weather-wise and it cannot entirely be blamed on Nature alone.