Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
metal-brain

I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem.
...
Smart people live in the country.

So here you contradict yourself by implying smart people live in the countryside because of pollution in cities which is inconsistent with your earlier claim that it is not true many people die of air pollution. If not many ...[text shortened]... L cities are known to have pollution and thus a pollution problem. Name any one city that doesn't...

False quote. Learn to read.

@metal-brain said
False quote. Learn to read.

You deny you said

"There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution."

on page 14
and then later;

"I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem"

and

"Smart people live in the country. "

?

Learn to not be a massive liar.
Your earlier assertions clearly implied you believe NOT many people die from air pollution.
Then your later assertions clearly implied you believe many people DO die from air pollution.
Which is it and why sudden inconsistency in your assertions?

@humy said
You deny you said

"There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution."

on page 14
and then later;

"I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem"

and

"Smart people live in the country. "

?

Learn to not be a massive liar.
Your earlier assertions clearly implied you believe NOT many people die from air ...[text shortened]... many people DO die from air pollution.
Which is it and why sudden inconsistency in your assertions?

There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution. I have said it before and I'm saying it again. I have been very consistent about that. Estimates are not reliable numbers and you know it. They are highly disputable. You omitted the whole quote to mislead. Context means something and you disrespected it.

Here is something else I said:

"Those estimates you quoted are highly disputable and you know it. Millions is a ridiculous claim, but even if it was true it is only because people are too stupid to move out of urban areas into the country to escape it."

Should I feel sorry for people who subject themselves to air pollution? Living in an urban area is a choice. Smart people choose not to inhale pollution if the urban area they live in has air pollution. I never implied all people from urban areas are inhaling air pollution and therefore stupid for staying there. It is all about context.

@metal-brain said
Living in an urban area is a choice.

Only for some people. For many people it isn't a choice. Even for those people that had a choice, the air pollution problem that exists in every city has to be balanced with the city advantages, such a better jobs and education etc. So the choice of living in a city certainly may not be "stupid" despite the obvious air pollution.

Smart people choose not to inhale pollution if the urban area they live in has air pollution.

How can they "choose" not to "inhale pollution" if the area they live in has air pollution? Stop breathing? Ware breathing apparatus 24/7 ? You make no sense. It isn't a "choice". People have a need to breath.

I never implied all people from urban areas are inhaling air pollution and therefore stupid for staying there.

It is a known fact that ALL people in cities ARE inhaling air pollution, because ALL cities have air pollution.
Therefore by implying city people who live in a city area known to have air pollution are stupid (with "I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem" then "Smart people live in the country. " -your quotes) you are implying all city people are stupid for staying there.
You also contradict yourself there by imply there that many people DO die from air pollution else why would it be true that "Smart people live in the country. "? If not because of air pollution, why?

@humy

"It is a known fact that ALL people in cities ARE inhaling air pollution, because ALL cities have air pollution."

I doubt all cities are equal in that way, but if they are people are stupid for living there. Do you inhale air pollution? If so, why? Why don't you move?

@metal-brain said
Do you inhale air pollution? If so, why? Why don't you move?

I have already told you why. Can't you read? I cannot move. If I could, I would have already. We don't all have the luxury of a choice. Perhaps one day, if ever I become wealthy, I will have a choice, and then I will move.

I doubt all cities are equal in that way

So name me one city that has no air pollution.

@humy said
I have already told you why. Can't you read? I cannot move. If I could, I would have already. We don't all have the luxury of a choice. Perhaps one day, if ever I become wealthy, I will have a choice, and then I will move.

I doubt all cities are equal in that way

So name me one city that has no air pollution.

So you would rather die an early death? Maybe you would like to admit it isn't as bad as you made it out to be. You don't have to be wealthy to live in the country.

You live in the city because you think the air pollution is an acceptable risk, right? Nobody breaths polluted air because they think they will die early.

Either you are exaggerating or you are stupid for breathing polluted air.

@metal-brain said
You live in the city because you think the air pollution is an acceptable risk, right?

I don't live in the city but a town. I don't live in a town because I think air pollution is an acceptable risk nor because I want to, because I don't, but rather because I currently have no where else to live.
To move to a house in the country I need to buy a house in the country with money I currently don't have else be homeless in the country. Not sure how long I would live homeless but probably less long than in the town with a house; air pollution and all.
So you make no point.

@metal-brain said
They are putting coal ash in cement. If it was that radioactive that would not be allowed. You were duped into believing an exaggerated claim. Some coal ash may have higher than normal radioactivity depending on the coal burned, but it is not all that way. You need to be skeptical when bias assertions are made. You are not doing that.

Good logic. So if the Fukushima radiation was that radioactive, it would not be allowed either?

Radiation is harmful at high doses. The concentration of radioactive materials as waste is not a practice exclusive to the nuclear power industry. Any other ideas to justify your pre-existing bias that coal is better than nuclear? You have said that coal is cheaper (even though nuclear plant lifespan is longer and fuel is much cheaper) and safer (ignoring all the comparative downsides associated with tens of thousands of tons of coal-derived radioactive materials annually).

Don't let your prejudice get in the way though. Keep believing your beliefs.

@wildgrass said
Good logic. So if the Fukushima radiation was that radioactive, it would not be allowed either?

Radiation is harmful at high doses. The concentration of radioactive materials as waste is not a practice exclusive to the nuclear power industry. Any other ideas to justify your pre-existing bias that coal is better than nuclear? You have said that coal is cheaper (even thoug ...[text shortened]... materials annually).

Don't let your prejudice get in the way though. Keep believing your beliefs.

That is completely stupid!

Do you really think all of that radioactive water from Fukushima would be released into the ocean if there was a practical alternative option? Hell no! They want to release it because there is so damn much of it and it is highly radioactive. It is so friggin radioactive it makes coal ash seem harmless in comparison. To compare the two is just plain stupid.
Coal ash is safe as long as it came from coal safe to burn. That is why they add it to make cement, because it is not a risk to peoples health.
You are just plain wrong and you know it. The only reason you keep debating this is because of stubbornness on your part. Your attempt to demonize coal ash and compare it to nuclear waste is ridiculous and absurd. One of the dumbest things I have heard of in months.
Go ahead and find some concrete made from cement containing coal ash and attempt to prove it is radioactive. Buy a Geiger counter and keep records. When you find out you were duped and it is safe feel free to re-evaluate your position and eat crow!

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

Simple solution: Don't burn coal with uranium and other radioactive elements in it. The only reason it happens is because of incompetence. Some common sense should prevail.

@metal-brain said
That is completely stupid!

Do you really think all of that radioactive water from Fukushima would be released into the ocean if there was a practical alternative option? Hell no! They want to release it because there is so damn much of it and it is highly radioactive. It is so friggin radioactive it makes coal ash seem harmless in comparison. To compare the two is just ...[text shortened]... ents in it. The only reason it happens is because of incompetence. Some common sense should prevail.

I haven't demonized anything. My earlier factual statement that coal energy emits more radiation into the environment than nuclear energy (which you chose to reject based on your belief system) remains valid despite your reference. There's no such thing as uranium-free coal.

I think a world power grid that was ~40% nuclear (including mobile nuclear for seasonal power surges), with the rest supplied by rooftop solar and a few wind farms would be ideal. As you have said, we should avoid polluting our environment if possible. Nuclear power emits far less pollution than coal.

Moreover, if more people can appreciate nuclear as an acceptable alternative to coal, we could lower emissions (and pollution) a lot faster than we currently are. I don't understand what the end game is for environmentalists who are stuck on solar and wind-only. It will take decades longer to accomplish and require enormous battery storage capacity (causing lots of pollution). How will you watch TV at night? What power source is charging your vehicle during the evening hours?

@wildgrass said
I haven't demonized anything. My earlier factual statement that coal energy emits more radiation into the environment than nuclear energy (which you chose to reject based on your belief system) remains valid despite your reference. There's no such thing as uranium-free coal.

I think a world power grid that was ~40% nuclear (including mobile nuclear for seasonal power sur ...[text shortened]... How will you watch TV at night? What power source is charging your vehicle during the evening hours?

From the summary of the link below:

" Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks."

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

You are also going back to the myth that CO2 drives GW. The youtube video I posted on the sea level thread shows that is bunk. Didn't you watch it?

You keep asserting myths. It is difficult to tolerate people like you who ignore facts in favor of myths. Why do you choose ignorance?

@metal-brain said
From the summary of the link below:

" Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks."

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

You are also going ba ...[text shortened]... fficult to tolerate people like you who ignore facts in favor of myths. Why do you choose ignorance?

So, you admit that radioactive emissions from fly ash are acceptable, but regard emissions from nuclear waste as unacceptable. Given that the net emissions from nuclear waste per kWhr of electricity produced are less from nuclear power than from coal so it's not entirely clear what your objection is.

@deepthought said
So, you admit that radioactive emissions from fly ash are acceptable, but regard emissions from nuclear waste as unacceptable. Given that the net emissions from nuclear waste per kWhr of electricity produced are less from nuclear power than from coal so it's not entirely clear what your objection is.

What is your source of information?

@deepthought said
So, you admit that radioactive emissions from fly ash are acceptable, but regard emissions from nuclear waste as unacceptable. Given that the net emissions from nuclear waste per kWhr of electricity produced are less from nuclear power than from coal so it's not entirely clear what your objection is.

Thanks for articulating that better than I could.