If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?
Printable View
If she was on a bus, how do they explain the presence of her bike in some of the shots?
Her bike? HER bike?Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Photoshop.
It's all lies, I read that somewhere.
P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Actually, I don't really doubt that the photo's in kidofspeed are real, and of items in the exclusion zone. I just think that Elena has been very clever in massaging her photo-essay into a daredevil motorcycle ride. She probably was on a bus! I read somewhere that one of the debunkers was on a tour with her, and she and her boyfriend were annoying the guide by moving things and taking photos with the helmet etc. Sounds likely.
Motive? Fame; the next bike payment; a dare; or relief from boredom?
Photographers can indeed manipulate their photographs, but I have no trouble believing about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. It was reported widely from many sources. You don't have massive population movements, radiation exclusion zones and international nuclear disaster teams assembling because a couple of kids sufferred individual mishaps.
woodbe.
Woops! My naievety and implicit belief in the integrity of human nature just took a king hit. I will investgate further.
However if all the negative aspects of the "Kidd's" site are considered, surely you also attribute similar cynical motives to those in power who wish to propagate the benefits of nuclear power.
If you were one of those persons and suddenly something like this came along, how would you go into damage control? Your best chance would be to discredit the whole endeavour.
Australian 60 minutes visited Chernobyl recently in one of their programmes. Perhaps somebody saw the programme. I only saw clips. The sarcophagus looked real to me. I believed they identified the problems with concrete cracking and high radiation levels. How are birth defects X200 normal levels exlpained?
I feel quite sure powerful authorities with limitless funds would really like to play down such far reaching effects. Are they also denying Three Mile Island? Is the radio active half life of Uranium 235 now back to a managable level from the 730 million years it used to be?
A few too many issues to be a complete beat up, but like I said in a previous post, everybody has an angle; Everybody has a predjudice.
Here is another thought. Nuclear power stations have generally been built under the auspices of government control. The last stations in the US were built in the 70s. They were expensive to build and had to be subsidised.
The current trend is for privatisation. Private companies have to foot the bill and they expect a financial return. In Australia Victoria has privatised most of their stations (not very successfully). NSW wanted to sell off their power stations and corporatised to facilitate that process, but after nearly 10 years have not sold a single station.
Queensland falls somewhere between the two and is arguably the most successful in this regard, but by no means perfect. South Australia I am not sure about but it is the smallect player in the equation. Oh and there is the newcomer Tasmania, which predominantly relies on hydro power, the one time panacea, but now known to be an ecological disaster particularly in fragile ecosystems.
Now we have to find a private investor willing to fork out between two and three times the cost of a thermal station for a nuclear one. Same power, same return but three times the establishment cost.
A recent report estimated nuclear power stations would be viable when the wholesale price for power was between $44 and $70, but this was using new technology that is both untried and untested. It also did not take into account the cost of nuclear waste disposal. It also added that coal would have to suffer a penalty (carbon tax) to make a competitive playing field.
This financial year the best average price for power on the East coast was in South Australia at $37. Queensland was more like $27. Is the economics of the situation starting to come home?
Nuclear power in most countries is heavily subsidised and has grown up in an environment of expensive alternatives (see France). It was pointed out that France exported their nuclear power. I am not sure who we would export power to. We have difficulty just tranmitting small quantities across our state borders!
Enough for now. I think my predjudice may be showing like a 60s petticoat.
Regards
Paul
I wanted to say that!Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
cheers,
P
:D :D :D
Neanderthal Times Report - Hunter named grug, discoverer of how to make fire - sacrificed by tribal leaders this week. "He was offending the God of Fire, and besides, this thing - fire - it's dangerous and might hurt or kill someone. Young adults are spending entire nights graffitti-ing the caves by firelight instead of concentrating on breeding. We can't have people lighting fires willy nilly, the risk to our way of life is too great." A spokesman from the tribal comittee for risk management was quoted as saying...Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
If that's a dig at my previous posts, you better reread them... and may your timber stocks be infested by termites, if not, well may you timber stocks be infested with termites, but nice termites.:D
Interesting report in the Financial Review today (sorry!) to the effect that the Govt is going to fine Electricity Suppliers for not keeping up with demand.
Pity they haven't been reading this thread and started finding people for using too much instead, and giving suppliers bonuses for undersupply!
Cheers,
P
It's not a dig at anyone. It's a light hearted way of shining a light on the fallacy that Nuclear power stations are now somehow 'safe'Quote:
Originally Posted by mic-d
There's a few local woodworkers picking up 30+ logs of cypress here soon, I'm not sure they would like termites with that :D :D
woodbe.
Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm
wouldnt mind a small personal reactor in the yard..nothing too flash....
mmmm
Al Quaeda would like one in their yard too. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by reeves
If you take in to the equation how much greenhouse producing energy is required to build the reactor, mine and process the uranium and safely(?) dispose of the waste it isn't so green.Quote:
Inevitably yes, we have a lot of the worlds Uranium and its more eco friendly than coal or gas power. Of u have concerns about Chernobyll style ####ups, yes they ####ed up and the tin shed thye had the thing in melted and the could not contain the fire...solve the saftey and waste issues effectively and wow, cheap clean power....mmmm
The cost of producing energy from a reactor isn't cheap. You've got to take in to account the huge cost of building a reactor. The only way they are competitive is when they are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
I'd be happy for Australia to look at ways of producing power from coal in a clean manner. This is possible but just more expensive. If we're going to subsidise anything subsidise this and wind power.
It's presently only three times the cost, so all it would take would be a 50% reduction in consumption, and the volume would hopefully reduce the cost to the extent that electricity would not cost the consumer any more!Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
Cheer,
P:D
Aye. There's the rub! Add the cost of mining the ore and the nuclear waste disposal too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
A couple of atomic issues:
Nuclear power is not cheap.
The safe disposal of nuclear waste has not been satisfactorily resolved. It is only deferred.
Safety is dependent on people. People make mistakes because they are human. This is exactly what happened at Three Mile Island. Unfortunately, with nuclear power, mistakes have humungus ramifications with the contamination of food sources etc by radioactive fallout.
Twenty and thirty years on the porblems are still there. If these issues were resolved I suppose we would be half way to considering nuclear. It would then only leave economics, weaponary implications and terrorist strategic target issues to deal with.
Couple? One, two.........
Regards
Paul
From what I understand, Chernobyll environs has turned into a wonderful wildlife sanctuary, now that the humans have left and won't hunt there as N Europeans are wont to do. And no, the local species don't have four eyes....
Perhaps I'm being optomistic, but for all us nature lovers out there, perhaps a good nuclear war or major radioative pollution (say around all cities having more than 10 million population) would not only resolve the problem of global warming (no humans, therfore no warming), it would also provide respite for the wildlife of the world and allow the next generation of dominant species (Dinosaurs being 1, humans 2, indian mynah birds No. 3???) to take over in around 65 million years.
And maybe they will have better luck communicating with their brothers and sisters in another galaxy, so at their future millennium party they can blow this planet just up for fun.
Regards
Greg
With all this rabbting on, what is the alternative? All these people who are anti coal, anti neuclear, anti solar, ant wind are all harping on about their pet hate. Just like most soap box additcs, no one has the solution.If you want to be critical then you must also be constructive. Otherwise SHUT UP!!
Since I've continually posted my solution, does that mean I don't have to shut up?
:D :D :D
P
Speak up I can't see you
Tas Devils are unique in their ability to smell decaying objects, but they are rare and will shortly only exist in Denmark.
Denmark now has a strong affilliation with you Tassies......What was that song by the Beatles, something about Scandanavian wood?
It burns well, so maybe timber plantations will solve the problem and we won't need coal or Uranium any more.
Stop being rational. It will stifle this thread and we don't want those with a loose bias to lose their therapy here.
Greg
Computer says NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
*Cough*
I can't see the constructive part of your post. If you ignore your own advice, what do you expect us to do with it? :confused:
Why don't we sticky tape plastic bags to all the cows bums, then burn the methane.
Now that my friends is a solution I bet none of you thought of. Just call me Mr ideas.
Elbow power should solve it all and have energy to spare.... all we have to do is hook a generating system up to the elbows of all the wankers on here and the energy crisis would be solved!
Good idea Mr Gigawatt..Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
Al :p
What? Which watt is what you mean Head Wanking person..... we know how you train the trowel hand!!!!
Wouldn't there be a problem with premature electrocution?Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
P
:D :D :D
or this problem :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Ernknot
I thought for a moment no one would ask. You have restored my faith in human nature (well, partially in that human nature is ultimately predictable.) If you look at my first post on this subject, I did mention
before I get in too deep.
The first and easiest solution is that we just use less electricity. Easy but often not palatable. Many years ago someone asked me how to reduce his electricity bill. I said you can start by turning off lights when you are not in the room. His attitude was "bu**er that" and that was the end of the conversation. If everybody used 10% less electricty our initial targets of reduction in greenhouse gases would be met immediately. Incidently, the power producers would probably freak out.
Another example:- If you only need a cup of boiling water, don't fill the kettle to the brim, only fill a quarter of the electric kettle. Apply these principles to most of your electical needs and you will use less electricity and save money too.
OK, I hear you. Soon we will be back to the current situation so the best that electricity reduction does is buy time. That is what we need. Whatever the solution is, we need time, not to put off the dreaded moment but to develop alternatives.
At this time, I believe there is not an economic or sustainable alternative to coal-fired thermal stations. However, particularly in Australia, I think solar power with further development could become viable. Perhaps we will see it initially as an addition to our houses which feeds back into the grid when we generate a surplus. We already have solar heating for water.
Solar only produces during daylight hours, but that is OK. We probably use twice as much power through the day as we do at night. The base load thermal stations will continue to produce through the night hours. The possibility of storing solar power in batteries is an absolute non starter. Visions of huge parabolic, sun tracking collector plates in the desert is just not economic...yet.
Wind power only produces when the wind blows and does not seem to be really economic so far. Proposed wind farms are being knocked on the head because investors cannot get government subsidies. We talk about polution. Windmills (in the hundreds) are an eyesaw and noisey too. Now we are concerned about birds flying into them as well. Have those people who complain not heard about bird strike in aircraft engines?
I am wary of boring you good folks, but the initial way to go for me is to clean up our existing act. The CO2 emissions from the stacks have to be reduced. This will not come cheaply either and nor is the technology there yet. Hence my earlier comment about buying time and conserving electricty (and indeed other fuels). CO2 sequestration is a possibility, particularly if could be used to force other fuel, such as natural gas, back out of the ground thus getting a double benefit.
Incidentally gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal but not normally able to compete on price. Consequently it is used for peaking power plants (they only generate when wholesale prices are around ten times the norm and then perhaps only for an hour). They are often gas turbines. The other use for them is when a political move is being made to create jobs.
Enough.
Back to you folks.
Regards
Paul
Shut up?Quote:
Originally Posted by woodbe
You're a friendly coot aren't you? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
No, that's not constructive. It's an attempt to censor the debate, which has been quite friendly when you consider the subject matter.
Anytime, anywhere this subject gets discussed publicly, there always seems to be a polarisation of views. It's the same here. It's a problem with no 100% easy and 'correct' answer. If you find it annoying to read a thread with a lot of discussion and few solutions, save your click and don't read it, your blood pressure will thank you :)
woodbe.
You lot
need to
(put on Dr Evil Voice)
"get a freaking room"
:p :p :p
Keep it nice guys..
Al :)
Wot? This lot :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ozwinner
After eleven pages, the big padlock seems a good place to start ;)
Richard
Thats the last resort if they dont listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
Al :)
Can't we give it a dose of voluntary euthenasia?
Yep. It is going in ever decreasing circles.:D