Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 167 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 10087 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Roger B

If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.

We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.

 

 

Parents
  • 0

    There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.

    At the risk of stirring, I disagree.

    operational safety is good - a handful of accidents over 75 years with more than 500 land base full size power stations running today, perhaps 100-200 small ones in submarines, not to mention small nuclear sources on using radioactive decay for direct heat of remote weather stations and so forth, from a few hundred watts to kW - a few of those are on satellites  (no new launched for a while though)

    Waste - you need a big car park. It is only a problem if you try and make the waste less radioactive than the background - a lot of low level waste you could sit on all day. Some you could not- but we are not very grown up about the difference.

    Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty  chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..) 

    mike

     

Reply
  • 0

    There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.

    At the risk of stirring, I disagree.

    operational safety is good - a handful of accidents over 75 years with more than 500 land base full size power stations running today, perhaps 100-200 small ones in submarines, not to mention small nuclear sources on using radioactive decay for direct heat of remote weather stations and so forth, from a few hundred watts to kW - a few of those are on satellites  (no new launched for a while though)

    Waste - you need a big car park. It is only a problem if you try and make the waste less radioactive than the background - a lot of low level waste you could sit on all day. Some you could not- but we are not very grown up about the difference.

    Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty  chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..) 

    mike

     

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines