• UK risks running out of energy generating capacity in winter of 2015-16
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37946951]Failure to meet the needs of a population often leads to population decline in one shape or another, [B]which is kinda what environmentalists want in the first place[/B]. Less people means less resources being consumed, and thus less of a burden on the planet.[/QUOTE] you're going to need a source for that one.
[QUOTE=redBadger;37946970]you're going to need a source for that one.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/science/earth/bringing-up-the-issue-of-population-growth.html?pagewanted=all[/url] Then there are also famous environmentalists who also support population control, such as David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37946951]Failure to meet the needs of a population often leads to population decline in one shape or another, which is kinda what environmentalists want in the first place. Less people means less resources being consumed, and thus less of a burden on the planet.[/QUOTE] How would you go about reducing the population?
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;37946939]Except no. We've had two major accidents in the history of nuclear power: Chernobyl and Fukishima. The first was the result of gross negligence and a pathetically outdated reactor design. Modern nuclear reactors effectively can't meltdown, unless you're really trying. The second was the result of the largest earthquake Japan has experienced in recorded history, followed by the largest tsunami in recorded history wiping out the backup generators for the coolant system. Basically, both were total freak accidents. Coal power kills more people per year than those two accidents combined. If I remember correctly, our current waste storage methods can contain the waste for several centuries before needing to be moved to a new container. And it's not like we're just going to forget what's in them.[/QUOTE] Also, Fukushima would have actually survived if the owning company had actually listened to their last full safety assessment (a few years prior) which described the reactor as dangerously underprepared. Amazing as it sounds, it would have tanked through the tsunami and earthquake if they'd have followed what they were told to do. A modern reactor could tank even more. So it wasn't only freak disasters, it was profit and laziness being put first.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37946806]Some quotes from prominent environmentalists on the issue of nuclear power.[/QUOTE] How about we burn environmentalists instead? They burn bunnies here in Sweden already.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.