Hackers 'expose global warming con'

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html


One of the world’s leading climate change research centres has been accused of manipulating data on global warming after thousands of private emails and documents were leaked. Hackers targeted the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and published the files, including some personal messages, on the internet. Among the most damaging is one which appears to suggest using a ‘trick’ to massage years of temperature data to ‘hide the decline’.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/21/article-1229740-074D9A19000005DC-655_468x313.jpg



The CRU, which plays a leading role in compiling UN reports and tracks long-term changes in temperature, has repeatedly refused to provide detailed information about the data underlying the temperature records. It is thought that this could have triggered the theft. Climate change sceptics claim that some of the leaked messages discuss ways of manipulating data that fails to comply with the establishment view that climate change is real and is being driven by man.

The email suggesting ‘hiding the decline’ is purported to be from Phil Jones, the unit’s director. He denied trying to mislead, telling the TGIF digital newspaper he had no idea what he meant by the phrase. ‘That was an email from ten years ago,’ he said. ‘Can you remember the exact context of an email you wrote ten years ago?’Another message has been interpreted as an attempt to control the publication of research carried out by sceptical scientists.

One way of doing this would be by loading the panel of researchers who review papers ahead of publication with experts who are ‘on-message’. Talk of a figure being ‘shoehorned’ into a report from the UN’s International Panel of Climate Change appears in another of the documents. Although the data was stored on the university’s computer system, the email exchanges also involve experts from other institutions around the world. A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: ‘We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.

‘Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. ‘This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. ‘We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.’ The Met Office collaborates with the East Anglia unit on a variety of research projects, including global temperature records.The cat is out of the bag then, but in a way they were right, because global warming was man-made, just not in the way they were telling us. I do wonder why the mainstream media isn't reporting on this, I do wonder why, there must be a reason..? ££££££

[jackass]

Yeah, I read something about it in the paper today I think.

Not sure what to make of it though.

[alexxxxx]

when some more info on this comes out i'll be more inclined to believe it. I don't trust the daily mail to provide truthful reporting on subjects that they are quite clearly biased one way or the other, even though i personally believe that the threat is overstated.

a search on newsnow comes up with this and another one from the orlando sentinel. and don't ** about 'mainstream media.' DM is quite clearly populist msm. it's an term coined by fox news where they complain about the MSM but then claim they have the highest ratings so...?

[-:Undertaker:-]

when some more info on this comes out i'll be more inclined to believe it. I don't trust the daily mail to provide truthful reporting on subjects that they are quite clearly biased one way or the other, even though i personally believe that the threat is overstated.

a search on newsnow comes up with this and another one from the orlando sentinel. and don't ** about 'mainstream media.' DM is quite clearly populist msm. it's an term coined by fox news where they complain about the MSM but then claim they have the highest ratings so...?

When I talk about mainstream media I speak mainly of the BBC, which when it seems they discuss global warming they accept it as fact and never invite anybody onto the program who is sceptical of global warming. It is like on Question Time and when they review the papers, it always seems to be a journalist from the Guardian giving their opinion despite the Guardian being a paper which has low sales figures.

[BoomItsClowgon]

Why would they tamper the data though? Is it for the money?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would they tamper the data though? Is it for the money?

To peddle the myth that is global warming so the government, climate study groups and the green lobby can continue their stealth taxation to 'combat' global warming. A lot of money is being made out of absolutley nothing. Government, study groups, media and companies which make wind turbines are making a heck of a lot of money out of it, our money.

[alexxxxx]

yeah i would imagine there's a bit of back-handing. i bet there's a bit of money to be made building wind farms.

[bo$$]

In a simplified nutshell, what is all of this saying?

[-:Undertaker:-]

In a simplified nutshell, what is all of this saying?

That global warming doesn't exist.

[Gibs960]

The daily mail is famous for lying. So I don't believe this yet.

[BoomItsClowgon]

To peddle the myth that is global warming so the government, climate study groups and the green lobby can continue their stealth taxation to 'combat' global warming. A lot of money is being made out of absolutley nothing. Government, study groups, media and companies which make wind turbines are making a heck of a lot of money out of it, our money.

I think a investigation needs be done, it puzzles me anyway, on how Global warming data can be kept on record... and can be of some sort, accurate.


My opinion is Global warming does exist among us but is uncontrollable. I think nothing can be done to stop the Polar ice caps from melting, sea levels rising ect.

As Technology improves over time, maybe we will find out that all this money spent on combating global warming has been a huge waste. Time will tell i suppose.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The daily mail is famous for lying. So I don't believe this yet.

However its not as notorious for lying as the government and the green lobby are.

[GommeInc]

My opinion is Global warming does exist among us but is uncontrollable. I think nothing can be done to stop the Polar ice caps from melting, sea levels rising ect.
My view on it too, and it seems more reasonable to suggest that Climate Change is purely down to nature and the way the world works, not the human species :)

Either way, the subject is something to not totally care about, other than dealing with the impact on parts of the world e.g. floods in LEDCs and other animal species, though this is really down to passion.

[alexxxxx]

However its not as notorious for lying as the government and the green lobby are.
the mail and the express are notorious in making up stuff.

[-:Undertaker:-]

the mail and the express are notorious in making up stuff.

Although as popular selling newspapers, they represent the people more than the Guardian, European Union, British Government or the BBC. While I wouldn't trust any of them 100%, i've got a lot more trust in the press than I have of the ruling elite, especially when they attempted to prevent the Daily Telegraph from publishing their greedy and disgraceful expenses.

[Frodo13.]

Although as popular selling newspapers, they represent the people more than the Guardian, European Union, British Government or the BBC. While I wouldn't trust any of them 100%, i've got a lot more trust in the press than I have of the ruling elite, especially when they attempted to prevent the Daily Telegraph from publishing their greedy and disgraceful expenses.

How can you trust a group of people who's sole objective is to make a profit. Thats the reason why none of the papers should directly been taken into context, because they exagirate and make up stories to sell units.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you trust a group of people who's sole objective is to make a profit. Thats the reason why none of the papers should directly been taken into context, because they exagirate and make up stories to sell units.

The aim of this government has been to make a profit.
The aim of the European Union has been to make a profit.
The aim of the BBC is to raise funding and support the above.

[Agnostic Bear]

Global warming is exaggerated by the EU to get countries to reduce their global footprint and advance technology to be more efficient and such. Nothing more.

[Frodo13.]

The aim of this government has been to make a profit.
The aim of the European Union has been to make a profit.
The aim of the BBC is to raise funding and support the above.


Debatable to say the least.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Debatable to say the least.

It is fact, the EU President will get more than the British Prime Minister and the President of the United States, the EU financial records haven't been checked for years with billions apparently missing - this government meanwhile has continued to give left right and centre to the European Union, while it itself introduces stealth tax after stealth tax on the people of this country. We are sick of it.

[Misawa]

I read a long time ago of scientists who have rubbished the global warning stuff and said that it's the earth's natural cycle.

[Ardemax]

Global warming doesn't exist?

Can we getz a fail kitteh in hear plezah

[N!ck]

Yes, it is the Earth's natural cycle. We are however speeding it up. Fact.

[GommeInc]

Although as popular selling newspapers, they represent the people more than the ... , BBC.
I'd rather listen to the BBC than The Sun or the Daily Mail. Ever since The Sun reported on that snotty woman who didn't take an act of common courtesy to heart like any courteous human being would when receiving a personal letter from the Prime Minister, I've lost all respect for them. And the Daily Mail speak so much crap half the time they are also unbelievable - in the words of Rufus Hound - The Daily Mail's main readers are old people with nothing better to do than moan - the Daily Mail make stories clearly to gage a reaction, no matter how badly written or false they are. The story they published on Steven Gately is evidence enough. Daily Mail is considered a joke by quite alot of people it seems :P

So at the end of the day, the BBC do a better job at reporting any news, they're not bias towards anyone - the report they did on the story about that snotty woman who rejected a sympathy letter complimenting her recently dead son was neither for or against the two sides, they took a neutral stand point (which ironically, made the woman look silly. Heck, local radio stations like Heart FM made her seem like a senile old bint :P).

That said, I don't need The Guardian or The Daily Mail to get news on Global Warming and who is to blame, as far as history is concerned, Global Warming or what it should be called "Climate Change" is just the planet doing what it does naturally, trying to stop it is unnatural.


Yes, it is the Earth's natural cycle. We are however speeding it up. Fact.
It's not a proven fact :/ It's a theory. Besides, whether we are speeding it up is pointless, what we try to do today cannot save tomorrow, it will happen anyway. Then we'd start moaning it's getting cold, and then the WPCC are going to have to change their Panda logo into a lion. Think of the lions and ostriches getting cold :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, it is the Earth's natural cycle. We are however speeding it up. Fact.

How can we say we are speeding it up, to assume that all global warming/cooling cycles all happen on the same time scale as eachother does not make sense or science.

[Ardemax]

wasn't global warming like proved?

well we don't need to notice the major flooding, dreadful heatwaves and ice caps melting all in like the space of 20 years (it suddenly sped up).

[Accipiter]

wasn't global warming like proved?

well we don't need to notice the major flooding, dreadful heatwaves and ice caps melting all in like the space of 20 years (it suddenly sped up).

they can say the ice caps are suddenly melting, but theres about 16 people on earth who actually see them regularly.

we either need monorail or i canz ride a bicycle lolcat in here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

wasn't global warming like proved?

well we don't need to notice the major flooding, dreadful heatwaves and ice caps melting all in like the space of 20 years (it suddenly sped up).

Floods happen when you build on flood plains.
Heatwaves are part of the natural weather cycle.
The ice caps melt every summer, not to mention we are at the end of an ice age.

..so no, nothing has been proved unless you are willing to believe the European Union, British Government and the Green Lobby.

[Ardemax]

Floods happen when you build on flood plains.
Heatwaves are part of the natural weather cycle.
The ice caps melt every summer, not to mention we are at the end of an ice age.

..so no, nothing has been proved unless you are willing to believe the European Union, British Government and the Green Lobby.

im sorry, but are you saying global warming doesn't exist?

[-:Undertaker:-]

im sorry, but are you saying global warming doesn't exist?

Yeah, thats exactly what i'm saying and what this report is saying. ..and if the poles are melting slightly then its because we are at the end of a natural cycle (the last ice age). I don't believe everything the government tells me you see.

[kk.]

To peddle the myth that is global warming so the government, climate study groups and the green lobby can continue their stealth taxation to 'combat' global warming. A lot of money is being made out of absolutley nothing. Government, study groups, media and companies which make wind turbines are making a heck of a lot of money out of it, our money.

I have one question. What is UKIPs stance on global warming?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I have one question. What is UKIPs stance on global warming?

I am sure that UKIPs' policy from what I remember was sceptical, and that it favoured the need to move to nuclear power not because of climate change but because of energy security, thus making the United Kingdom energy independant rather than us relying on Russia or Libya for our oil.

Exactly what I support aswell.

[kk.]

Are you like an mp or UKIP because every thread you have posted is somehow in fcour of them. The daily mail cannot b trusted as a source an the reason that no mainstream MRI is reporting on it is because it's skeptical. I myself did a piece of coursework on global warming and found loads of evidence for the cycles planets go through, especially ours. But there was also evidence of us speeding it up,

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you like an mp or UKIP because every thread you have posted is somehow in fcour of them. The daily mail cannot b trusted as a source an the reason that no mainstream MRI is reporting on it is because it's skeptical. I myself did a piece of coursework on global warming and found loads of evidence for the cycles planets go through, especially ours. But there was also evidence of us speeding it up,

I support UKIP yes, and you asked what UKIPs' stance on this was and I told you. I support UKIP because UKIP falls in line with my opinions, thats err how voting/politics works?

On mainstream media, yes you are right - mainstream media isn't reporting on this because its sceptical, because it would show what a big con this whole thing is and they couldn't allow that! - on your coursework you may of read some Al Gore/government fixed-stats but i'm not believing it, there is absolutly no evidence that anything that is happening now has anything remotely do to with humans.

[Ardemax]

great, but we still new renewable energy, whatever way.

and UKIP need to invest on it aswell...

[kk.]

I support UKIP yes, and you asked what UKIPs' stance on this was and I told you. I support UKIP because UKIP falls in line with my opinions, thats err how voting/politics works?

On mainstream media, yes you are right - mainstream media isn't reporting on this because its sceptical, because it would show what a big con this whole thing is and they couldn't allow that! - on your coursework you may of read some Al Gore/government fixed-stats but i'm not believing it, there is absolutly no evidence that anything that is happening now has anything remotely do to with humans.

i know how voting works, which is why i said what i said. all im saying is, i think because its your view, and also the view of UKIP, youre posting something from the daily mail. I think in any other circumstance, you wouldnt, because you know how untrustworthy it is. When the independant, the times etc start reporting, ill pay attention. until then, im not.

and as for my coursework and how i must have read some fixed stats, you may be right, but if thats going to be the basis of your argument, no one is going to win against you because you'll believe any evidence we give has been corrupted.

[Gullable]

so basically global warming aint real and its all for money?

[kk.]

if youre gullable

[Ardemax]

oh silly me! i forgot the daily mail is fact. guess ill just have to change my arguement!

[-:Undertaker:-]

great, but we still new renewable energy, whatever way.

and UKIP need to invest on it aswell...

Why do we need renewable energy?

It is uneconomical.


i know how voting works, which is why i said what i said. all im saying is, i think because its your view, and also the view of UKIP, youre posting something from the daily mail. I think in any other circumstance, you wouldnt, because you know how untrustworthy it is. When the independant, the times etc start reporting, ill pay attention. until then, im not.

and as for my coursework and how i must have read some fixed stats, you may be right, but if thats going to be the basis of your argument, no one is going to win against you because you'll believe any evidence we give has been corrupted.

Of course I will post from the Daily Mail, and the Daily Mail is more likely to publish something like this rather than the BBC because the mail is right wing and is sceptical of global warming. Thats the whole point of having an opinion.

I don't point to the Daily Mail when I am posting, I use it as a source for debate. I do not need the Daily Mail or UKIP to tell me what to think, more so the ruling elite (BBC, Guardian, European Union and Government).


oh silly me! i forgot the daily mail is fact. guess ill just have to change my arguement!

Nobody said its complete fact, I think the Mail itself says its being investigated and its what the hackers are claming, not the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is merely reporting on it while the left wing BBC and others wouldn't dare cover this story.

[Ardemax]

Why do we need renewable energy?

It is uneconomical.

Nobody said its complete fact, I think the Mail itself says its being investigated and its what the hackers are claming, not the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is merely reporting on it while the left wing BBC and others wouldn't dare cover this story.

Oh and did UKIP teach you this aswell?

Let's say global warming is a "myth" and we completely ignore it. We can't ignore the fact that our CO2 emmisions are shocking.

Renewable energy is the way to cut these down.

Are you saying that energy made by the down force of water is a bad idea and that nuclear would be more "economical" and efficient?

[kk.]

When I talk about mainstream media I speak mainly of the BBC, which when it seems they discuss global warming they accept it as fact and never invite anybody onto the program who is sceptical of global warming. It is like on Question Time and when they review the papers, it always seems to be a journalist from the Guardian giving their opinion despite the Guardian being a paper which has low sales figures.


I don't point to the Daily Mail when I am posting, I use it as a source for debate. I do not need the Daily Mail or UKIP to tell me what to think, more so the ruling elite (BBC, Guardian, European Union and Government).


its interesting you say the ruling elite, and also say the guardian has low sales figures.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh and did UKIP teach you this aswell?

Let's say global warming is a "myth" and we completely ignore it. We can't ignore the fact that our CO2 emmisions are shocking.

Renewable energy is the way to cut these down.

Are you saying that energy made by the down force of water is a bad idea and that nuclear would be more "economical" and efficient?

UKIP did not teach me this no, I learnt it in basic science and using common sense aswell, we do not need to cut down on C02 and even if we did, it would make no difference what so ever because China/India/Indochina are building a new power plant every week, along with millions more cars/houses being built every year.

On nuclear power, yes it is economical whereas wind and solar are not.


its interesting you say the ruling elite, and also say the guardian has low sales figures.

The Guardian does have low sales figures yet is invited onto the BBC constantly to give its view on the news/events, despite it being a left wing paper that nobody buys and has to be subsidised.

[kk.]

The Guardian does have low sales figures yet is invited onto the BBC constantly to give its view on the news/events, despite it being a left wing paper that nobody buys and has to be subsidised.

but you completely missed the point. It cant be in the 'ruling elite' if it has low sales figures. it goes completely against identifying who the ruling elite are. It would need a large user base to be influential.

its also very rare to find a newspaper which isnt biased to one side or the other. and maybe its just that other papers declined to go on.

[Ardemax]

UKIP did not teach me this no, I learnt it in basic science and using common sense aswell, we do not need to cut down on C02 and even if we did, it would make no difference what so ever because China/India/Indochina are building a new power plant every week, along with millions more cars/houses being built every year.

On nuclear power, yes it is economical whereas wind and solar are not.


I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

[kk.]

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

i dont agree with the whole global warming is not happening, but in fairness, he has said (i think) that we should find alternate ways of getting energy. And nuclear is far better than using ***. of course its more dangerous, but much better

[-:Undertaker:-]

but you completely missed the point. It cant be in the 'ruling elite' if it has low sales figures. it goes completely against identifying who the ruling elite are. It would need a large user base to be influential.

its also very rare to find a newspaper which isnt biased to one side or the other. and maybe its just that other papers declined to go on.

It can, because it supports the ruling elite. If influence was that apparent, then we'd be having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because the Daily Express, Mail, Telegraph and the Sun (the best selling papers) have all campaigned for one.

I know, and I know the Daily Mail is biased - I read it because it fits my beliefs and I think it is pretty good at exposing this government/European Union pretty well, as well as it making some quite funny comments at times.


I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.

Actually fossil fuels have hundreds of years left, a massive oil field has been found off the coast of Argentina/The Falklands, Siberia still has many gas deposits to be explored, the poles also have VAST quantities of fuel and minerals left to be explored. I support moving away from fossil fuels with nuclear, not because of all this utter nonsense of '20 years left' or 'the earth is warming up considerably' - but for the safety of national security, we are now going to have to rely on Russia, Libya and the Middle East for our oil and gas, and more to the point with a growing China the prices are going to go through the roof.

On C02 we don't need to act on it, there is nothing to act on. Alternatives will be found when oil starts to rise, if the United Kingdom converts to nuclear for it energy this would mean only our cars would need to run on oil, which is far better than having our main supplies cut by Russia who could hold us to ransom just like they did with Ukraine a year or so ago.

[kk.]

I think it is pretty good at exposing this government/European Union pretty well, as well as it making some quite funny comments at times.
so basically, being right wing. You'd think it does a pretty good job because it supports your belief. which is excatly what its meant to do lol pointing out the obvious ftw

[-:Undertaker:-]

so basically, being right wing. You'd think it does a pretty good job because it supports your belief. which is excatly what its meant to do lol pointing out the obvious ftw

..because the rest of the media will not report on how the European Union is taking away our sovereignty, how our politicians are lieing and have been lieing over the past few decades about the European project.

[kk.]

and why do you think that is? Because they dont support it. theyre hardly going to go on about the european union taking our sovereignty away if they dont think they are.

[GommeInc]

I didn't comment on wind and solar?

Ok so if you know "basic science" and "common sense" then answer me this.

We're losing fuels. Fast.
So we should keep guzzling them up until they're all gone, then panic?

Or hows about this.
We act on CO2 right now and find new alternatives, then develop them for use in the future.

I don't wanna sound cheeky, but I think it's a no brainer.
Acting on CO2 and finding renewable sources of fuel are different ;) One targets lowering CO2, and the other looks for a different type of fuel that can work instead of gas and oil ;)

Both are interconnected, indeed, liking using hydrogen in cars as an alternative to petrol or diesel. But finding an alternative to petrol, which should last longer, doesn't necessarily require a low CO2 emissions rating, it just helps a country look more caring :P

But I do agree with you, there seems to be little work going on finding a new type of energy that the world can use that is cheaper and better than oil, gas and petrol. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to money. Petrol costs alot (usually down to high taxes) so it's a financial goldmine while water or just plain hydrogen (which comes out as pure H2O in Hydrogen Powered Cars) isn't, as it's not hard to find :P

Not forgetting car manufacturers will have to look into perfecting the hydrogen engine, when they're spending, or have spent, billions attempting to perfect the petrol and diesel engines. Not forgetting Hybrid Engines. Making the swap would cost alot, and it would require people buying newer cars, so it would have to be a slow transition, which would anger alot of people - why do they HAVE to buy a new car, when they're already wasted money on one (whether it was bought a 100 years ago, or a few minutes ago, it would still be pretty annoying). The government and car companies cannot give money off converting the cars, it would cost both alot of money and some cars might need more than the engine system to change - electrical systems might need changing too :.

[-:Undertaker:-]

and why do you think that is? Because they dont support it. theyre hardly going to go on about the european union taking our sovereignty away if they dont think they are.

They support a federal European superstate, thats why they go along with Labour and so on. They all know its happening, are aiming for it, MEPs across the continent openly admit the aim is to create one nation, just in this country because we are already very europsceptic they like to keep it a secret.

[Ardemax]

Acting on CO2 and finding renewable sources of fuel are different ;) One targets lowering CO2, and the other looks for a different type of fuel that can work instead of gas and oil ;)

Both are interconnected, indeed, liking using hydrogen in cars as an alternative to petrol or diesel. But finding an alternative to petrol, which should last longer, doesn't necessarily require a low CO2 emissions rating, it just helps a country look more caring :P

But I do agree with you, there seems to be little work going on finding a new type of energy that the world can use that is cheaper and better than oil, gas and petrol. At the end of the day, it probably comes down to money. Petrol costs alot (usually down to high taxes) so it's a financial goldmine while water or just plain hydrogen (which comes out as pure H2O in Hydrogen Powered Cars) isn't, as it's not hard to find :P

Not forgetting car manufacturers will have to look into perfecting the hydrogen engine, when they're spending, or have spent, billions attempting to perfect the petrol and diesel engines. Not forgetting Hybrid Engines. Making the swap would cost alot, and it would require people buying newer cars, so it would have to be a slow transition, which would anger alot of people - why do they HAVE to buy a new car, when they're already wasted money on one (whether it was bought a 100 years ago, or a few minutes ago, it would still be pretty annoying). The government and car companies cannot give money off converting the cars, it would cost both alot of money and some cars might need more than the engine system to change - electrical systems might need changing too :.

Well yeah, taking hydrogen, maybe if the Gvmt. offered car users 50% or even a brand new hydrogen car then it could work? Perhaps something similar to the current scrappage scheme.

Once the fuel crisis thing is over (hopefully in the next 15 years we will have a permanent new fuel for cars and buses etc.) we can start working on new energy for household appliances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well yeah, taking hydrogen, maybe if the Gvmt. offered car users 50% or even a brand new hydrogen car then it could work? Perhaps something similar to the current scrappage scheme.

Once the fuel crisis thing is over (hopefully in the next 15 years we will have a permanent new fuel for cars and buses etc.) we can start working on new energy for household appliances.

The government is already strapped for cash, if the government wants to help us it could reduce its disgusting fuel tax which is the actual thing that makes fuel expensive, not really the fuel itself.

On the household energy, the answer is simple; nuclear.

[Black_Apalachi]

Yes, it is the Earth's natural cycle. We are however speeding it up. Fact.

Therefore we can't and shouldn't try to stop it.


... Ever since The Sun reported on that snotty woman who didn't take an act of common courtesy to heart like any courteous human being would when receiving a personal letter from the Prime Minister, I've lost all respect for them. ...

That's why you have no respect for The Sun? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

[Ardemax]

The government is already strapped for cash, if the government wants to help us it could reduce its disgusting fuel tax which is the actual thing that makes fuel expensive, not really the fuel itself.

On the household energy, the answer is simple; nuclear.

Ok let's go along with this idea, nuclear.

How many should we build? 10? 50?
What are we going to do with the nuclear waste?
The environment will be ruined and you can't use the area again after a nuclear power plant has been there.


Therefore we can't and shouldn't try to stop it.

That makes no sense

[Black_Apalachi]

If it's a natural occurrence which cycles every few thousand years, why the hell should we randomly try to prevent it? :S Nature does its thing for a reason. Altering it just ***** up the rest of nature.

Even if we want to prevent it, I really don't see how we possibly can.

[Ardemax]

If it's a natural occurrence which cycles every few thousand years, why the hell should we randomly try to prevent it? :S Nature does its thing for a reason. Altering it just ***** up the rest of nature.

Even if we want to prevent it, I really don't see how we possibly can.

And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok let's go along with this idea, nuclear.

How many should we build? 10? 50?
What are we going to do with the nuclear waste?
The environment will be ruined and you can't use the area again after a nuclear power plant has been there.



That makes no sense

We should build enough to power the country by 100%, France at the moment gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power. We would be looking at around the 40 to 60 mark of nuclear power plants being built, with the extra with the potential to be exported just as France exports its own.

The nuclear waste is managed and stored thousands of feet underground where it will remain until a solution in the future is perhaps found to dispose of it fully. The United States currently buries its own in old converted mines in the mountains.

No you cannot you are right, but the land used that a nuclear power plant uses is far, far, far, far, far smaller than that of the amount of turbines that would be needed to make even half the electricity that a nuclear power plant does. We have plenty of land that we can use for them, especially in the Scottish highlands (although population in a problem there).


And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

It hasn't sprouted up in the past 25 years though, don't make quick statements which have no truth behind them to support your argument.

[Ardemax]

Yeah, nuclear is one of the best solutions at the moment, however nuclear is dangerous and could be targetted by terrorists as such.

Also I think we need to research into more hydrogen and water power.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear power plants can run for 40 years ish, which isn't really a long-term solution.

That is a long-term solution, newer plants could probably live longer than the 40 year lifespan and the area which housed the older reactor can be used to house the new reactor (as it going to happen with current government plans). Wind Turbines only have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years, and dont make the costs back aswell as being inefficent. If you can find a source of energy that lasts longer than 40 years then please do tell us, but for now in the real world nuclear is the longest and most sustainable solution.


Yeah, nuclear is one of the best solutions at the moment, however nuclear is dangerous and could be targetted by terrorists as such.

Also I think we need to research into more hydrogen and water power. Nuclear Power is not dangerous, the Soviet Reactor in Chernobyl had a meltdown due to its poor design and a test which went terribly wrong, as for terrorism - I wouldn't worry too much about terrorism, and besides, theres not much a terrorist would be able to do to a nuclear power plant as it would require a team of people to operate/change things within it, and firing something as the reactor wouldn't do anything either as they are built to withstand the worst of scenarios. In some parts of the United Kingdom, they are closer to a French reactor than a British reactor, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of different if there was a meltdown.

[Black_Apalachi]

And a natural cycle suddenly crops up rather quickly in the last 25 years does it?

Yeah the only ice age that there has ever been was 25 years ago. My bad :rolleyes:.

Do me a favour? Find a thread where you have a chance of constructing a valid point to contribute. It's clearly not working here nor in that BNP thread lol.

[Ardemax]

That is a long-term solution, newer plants could probably live longer than the 40 year lifespan and the area which housed the older reactor can be used to house the new reactor (as it going to happen with current government plans). Wind Turbines only have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years, and dont make the costs back aswell as being inefficent. If you can find a source of energy that lasts longer than 40 years then please do tell us, but for now in the real world nuclear is the longest and most sustainable solution.

Nuclear Power is not dangerous, the Soviet Reactor in Chernobyl had a meltdown due to its poor design and a test which went terribly wrong, as for terrorism - I wouldn't worry too much about terrorism, and besides, theres not much a terrorist would be able to do to a nuclear power plant as it would require a team of people to operate/change things within it, and firing something as the reactor wouldn't do anything either as they are built to withstand the worst of scenarios. In some parts of the United Kingdom, they are closer to a French reactor than a British reactor, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of different if there was a meltdown.

Nuclear power is dangerous. If it isn't, why do they need machines the operate in it? Why is it toxic?


Yeah the only ice age that there has ever been was 25 years ago. My bad :rolleyes:.

Do me a favour? Find a thread where you have a chance of constructing a valid point to contribute. It's clearly not working here nor in that BNP thread lol.

I'll work on my points, you work on yours, thanks.

[pg.security]

In a simplified nutshell, what is all of this saying?
Simply global warming is killing the world and People are making a big joke out of it$

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear power is dangerous. If it isn't, why do they need machines the operate in it? Why is it toxic?

They need machines to operate oil/gas/turbines and crude oil is also toxic. Give me a detailed and sensible reason why we should not build nuclear power plants despite this country heading for a energy crisis and after all, what is the alternative?

[Accipiter]

They need machines to operate oil/gas/turbines and crude oil is also toxic. Give me a detailed and sensible reason why we should not build nuclear power plants despite this country heading for a energy crisis and after all, what is the alternative?

My turn!!! YEYEYYYY

Because its radiation, crude oil is only "dangerous" in the sea as it kills wildlife, a simple leakage in a powerplant isn't going to be dangerous.

Radiation on a power plants scale can take up to around 50 - 75 years to become stable again. And the danger is, the machines that function it can go wrong, if the prod doesn't go in every so often it won't absorb the radiation resulting in a build up of heat, which will cause machine problems throughout, and if it blows the site would be evacuated and the rest of the uranium on site would also radiate the area.

So thats why nuclear power is bad.

and at "fossil fuels have hundreds of years left" take into account, fuel is about to run out in around 10-30 years. Then gas is what? 75, but after fuel runs out you have to take into account more gas would be used, so that would reduce its life by about 1/3rd. Then we'd resort to coal which is predicted to run out in 250 years time, but with no fuel and gas, its bound to shorten to about 100 years.

So yeah, we have 100 years left, but life does go on after your own death.

And at the point of "this country not having nuclear power plants" is because we have very little space to build them, build them in a city (n) if it went wrong, we've lost around 40square miles of land. And most of the uk is populated, and that of it which isn't is hills or natural reserve, so thats why building nuclear powerplants in england would also be bad.

[Ardemax]

What he said ^

But can I add that with Nuclear, you don't think it's dangerous? Meltdowns?

Right ok so nuclear power plants make radiation -> radiation causes cancer -> cancer causes death. If anyone came into contact with the nuclear waste then they'd suffer from the radiation too.

With the terrorism thing, this is still a factor. Nuclear is dangerous, that's a fact. They get control of a reactor -> cause a meltdown -> kill thousands of people.

This could happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My turn!!! YEYEYYYY

Because its radiation, crude oil is only "dangerous" in the sea as it kills wildlife, a simple leakage in a powerplant isn't going to be dangerous.

Crude oil can be dangerous whereever spilt, of course radiation is more harmful but oil and gas aren't safe either.


Radiation on a power plants scale can take up to around 50 - 75 years to become stable again. And the danger is, the machines that function it can go wrong, if the prod doesn't go in every so often it won't absorb the radiation resulting in a build up of heat, which will cause machine problems throughout, and if it blows the site would be evacuated and the rest of the uranium on site would also radiate the area.

So thats why nuclear power is bad.

That won't happen though, it'd be like me saying we should get rid of our nulcear arsenal because one day we might just say 'hey cba tonight' and the submarine then goes into meltdown - will not happen. I would understand if it had happened before in the west, or even anywhere in the world but its never happened like you just said.


and at "fossil fuels have hundreds of years left" take into account, fuel is about to run out in around 10-30 years. Then gas is what? 75, but after fuel runs out you have to take into account more gas would be used, so that would reduce its life by about 1/3rd. Then we'd resort to coal which is predicted to run out in 250 years time, but with no fuel and gas, its bound to shorten to about 100 years.

Wrong. At the present time we only use around half a oil well when we find it because the other half is economically unviable at the present to drill up. We have just found massive oil fields off the coast of the Falklands, the Poles, Siberia and the Middle East and Northern Africa are still bloated with the stuff.

Oil and gas have at least another 100 years.


So yeah, we have 100 years left, but life does go on after your own death.

And at the point of "this country not having nuclear power plants" is because we have very little space to build them, build them in a city (n) if it went wrong, we've lost around 40square miles of land. And most of the uk is populated, and that of it which isn't is hills or natural reserve, so thats why building nuclear powerplants in england would also be bad.

We do not have little space, otherwise the government would not be building them now. The existing sites can be re-housed to possibly house 2 plants on them sites, along with many other sites on which oil/gas sits currently operated - they can also be used. You are now using every excuse under the book to deride nuclear, there is no other option.

If we did have a meltdown, if we did, it would make no difference/be increaseed by the fact we had nuclear power plants by us - why? - because we have our Trident nuclear submarines coming into ports every few months to re-stock/fuel, we already have nuclear power plants and finally France has power plants which are in some cases, closer to some parts of the United Kingdom than British reactors are.


What he said ^

But can I add that with Nuclear, you don't think it's dangerous? Meltdowns?

Right ok so nuclear power plants make radiation -> radiation causes cancer -> cancer causes death. If anyone came into contact with the nuclear waste then they'd suffer from the radiation too.

With the terrorism thing, this is still a factor. Nuclear is dangerous, that's a fact. They get control of a reactor -> cause a meltdown -> kill thousands of people.

This could happen.

What meltdowns? - the only meltdown in history I have explained so don't bring up Chernobyl again. On the waste issue, nobody would come into contact with nuclear waste - so what exactly is your point?. If we all go and roll around in the stuff then yes we would get cancer, what else would you expect.

On the terrorist plot, i'm interested in how a terrorist could cause a meltdown, please do explain.

[Ardemax]

Crude oil can be dangerous whereever spilt, of course radiation is more harmful but oil and gas aren't safe either.



That won't happen though, it'd be like me saying we should get rid of our nulcear arsenal because one day we might just say 'hey cba tonight' and the submarine then goes into meltdown - will not happen. I would understand if it had happened before in the west, or even anywhere in the world but its never happened like you just said.



Wrong. At the present time we only use around half a oil well when we find it because the other half is economically unviable at the present to drill up. We have just found massive oil fields off the coast of the Falklands, the Poles, Siberia and the Middle East and Northern Africa are still bloated with the stuff.

Oil and gas have at least another 100 years.



We do not have little space, otherwise the government would not be building them now. The existing sites can be re-housed to possibly house 2 plants on them sites, along with many other sites on which oil/gas sits currently operated - they can also be used. You are now using every excuse under the book to deride nuclear, there is no other option.

If we did have a meltdown, if we did, it would make no difference/be increaseed by the fact we had nuclear power plants by us - why? - because we have our Trident nuclear submarines coming into ports every few months to re-stock/fuel, we already have nuclear power plants and finally France has power plants which are in some cases, closer to some parts of the United Kingdom than British reactors are.



What meltdowns? - the only meltdown in history I have explained so don't bring up Chernobyl again. On the waste issue, nobody would come into contact with nuclear waste - so what exactly is your point?. If we all go and roll around in the stuff then yes we would get cancer, what else would you expect.

On the terrorist plot, i'm interested in how a terrorist could cause a meltdown, please do explain.

I didn't say other meltdowns, I said they can be caused.

I know it seems funny, but some radiation/chemical traces from the Russia meltdown were found in N.Wales! Just imagined if it was caused again closer to home.

If a terrorist say, somehow comprimised the security of a plant, got in and planted a bomb in there, it exploded and then radiation leaked out. We're in trouble.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't say other meltdowns, I said they can be caused.

I know it seems funny, but some radiation/chemical traces from the Russia meltdown were found in N.Wales! Just imagined if it was caused again closer to home.

If a terrorist say, somehow comprimised the security of a plant, got in and planted a bomb in there, it exploded and then radiation leaked out. We're in trouble.

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.

[Accipiter]

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.

At before, you mention the poles having oil, you do realise that land is no mans land, aka. wars will be caused other trying to get that oil. So i think that oil, if tbf it exists, cause i cannot see anyone even going out there to drill or even check.

At we do not have little space, only news i've heard is of one being built on the coast of scotland. Anywhere else is at danger, and would most probaly provoke locals. As they don't want to be growing 3rd arms.

At how could melt downs be caused, Most nuclear reactors these days will be ran on computer data keeping it perfect, That can be easily hacked, Some terrorists might not have brains but they'd most probaly try and bomb a plane in, that won't work either cause jets would blow the ******s up before they even got into a 5 mile radius, passengers or not. But there is still accidental meltdowns, cherynobl would have put us one step forward on safety, but tbf that was only 1 step theres bound to be much more accidents with many more being built.

And at crude oil is dangerous anywhere, its only dangerous to wildlife, humans don't go splashing in the *******. We wash it up and get along. At gas, yh its dangerous if its lit, but its probaly got a safer technique than nuclear. Im all for nuclear, but the dangers are slap bang in everyones face.

And im pretty sure the nuclear reactors on a submarine will be much smaller than one producing power for a city.

But i personally believe theres ways of producing electricity that we havent discovered.

[-:Undertaker:-]

At before, you mention the poles having oil, you do realise that land is no mans land, aka. wars will be caused other trying to get that oil. So i think that oil, if tbf it exists, cause i cannot see anyone even going out there to drill or even check.That oil will be drilled, as oil technology improves and as other sources start to end their lives them sources will be used, thats exactly why countries are having the scramble for Antartica/Arctic already.


At we do not have little space, only news i've heard is of one being built on the coast of scotland. Anywhere else is at danger, and would most probaly provoke locals. As they don't want to be growing 3rd arms.Actually the 10 new ones which have been approved are all located in England on existing nuclear sites, as for the communities which live around them - suprisingly they actually want the plants to be built as they provide jobs in the remotest parts of the United Kingdom.

Again, as shown by your last comment, distorting the facts over nuclear to make it appear like some kind of evil - totally wrong.


At how could melt downs be caused, Most nuclear reactors these days will be ran on computer data keeping it perfect, That can be easily hacked, Some terrorists might not have brains but they'd most probaly try and bomb a plane in, that won't work either cause jets would blow the ******s up before they even got into a 5 mile radius, passengers or not. But there is still accidental meltdowns, cherynobl would have put us one step forward on safety, but tbf that was only 1 step theres bound to be much more accidents with many more being built.The systems are monitered by workers, there will be many manual shutdown methods that could be used in an event like that. That has never happened before though, so again you are just playing a wild guessing game. On a jet, a jet would not be able to blow up a nuclear reactor, these things are built to withstand reactions which are comparable to that of the Sun.


And at crude oil is dangerous anywhere, its only dangerous to wildlife, humans don't go splashing in the *******. We wash it up and get along. At gas, yh its dangerous if its lit, but its probaly got a safer technique than nuclear. Im all for nuclear, but the dangers are slap bang in everyones face.The dangers are not slap bang in everybodys faces, there has only ever been one meltdown in a Soviet reactor (which are poorly built).


And im pretty sure the nuclear reactors on a submarine will be much smaller than one producing power for a city.

But i personally believe theres ways of producing electricity that we havent discovered.Of course there are, but we are facing an energy crisis in this country. Do you not understand, in 10 years the lights will start going off, electricity will have to be rationed amongst areas - a step back to the 1970s.

I know I want my showers, running water and lights provided by cheap, safe nuclear power rather than having none at all, all because the loony left tell us how nuclear is going to kill us all.

[Accipiter]

you do realise some of the best dams in the world have been built by the russians.

And i think your confusing yourself alot, Nuclear plants are not built to withstand the heat of the sun, there is a project in leeds or i think newcastle (somewhere) were there is a machine that has been built to withstand the suns energy and recreate the reactions of the sun. Its basically a tiny lhc machine but for total different use.

Nuclear reactors get hot but they don't get sun hot.

And the nuclear reactor would probaly be about 50 metres down to stop any disturbances but enough damage to cooling towers or any other surrounding buildings would also malfunction the whole building.

yes little chance, still possibilities though, and we live in a world of safety.

i would also like to mention how on earth did this got onto global warming, and by a news read i've just read, britain is closing all but 3 of there power plants (old news but i haven't seen anything about 10 new ones) 10 new ones scattered litterally up the country if were to blow up would make around most of the country untouchable.

And most of britains power is produced abroad already, in russia etc were we get gas, which tbf i find much safer. But im sure i heard yesterday that we are trying to become independant for producing electricity.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you do realise some of the best dams in the world have been built by the russians.

What have dams got to do with nuclear power in the United Kingdom?


And i think your confusing yourself alot, Nuclear plants are not built to withstand the heat of the sun, there is a project in leeds or i think newcastle (somewhere) were there is a machine that has been built to withstand the suns energy and recreate the reactions of the sun. Its basically a tiny lhc machine but for total different use.

Actually i'm not confusing myself, the Tsar Bomb was a nuclear bomb which was 1% the power of the Sun, a nuclear plant will be much less but still far more powerful than most other things on Earth. The reactors are so strong and certainly a small home made bomb would not destroy one.


Nuclear reactors get hot but they don't get sun hot.

And the nuclear reactor would probaly be about 50 metres down to stop any disturbances but enough damage to cooling towers or any other surrounding buildings would also malfunction the whole building.

The reactor would then be manually shut off, thus averting any danger.


yes little chance, still possibilities though, and we live in a world of safety.

There are possibilities with everything, there is a possiblity that we could have a nuclear stand off/war with China next month, theres a possibility that the poles could flip at any given time, theres a possibility that Yellowstone Volcano could erupt at any minute, theres a possibility that a French nuclear reactor could explode in 100 years time - we live in a world of safety yes, but common sense over safety.


i would also like to mention how on earth did this got onto global warming, and by a news read i've just read, britain is closing all but 3 of there power plants (old news but i haven't seen anything about 10 new ones) 10 new ones scattered litterally up the country if were to blow up would make around most of the country untouchable.

10 new ones where announced a week or so ago, the old ones such as Sellafield are already decommissioned/in that process very soon. The country would be untouchable yes, but 10 nuclear power plants are not going to blow up.


And most of britains power is produced abroad already, in russia etc were we get gas, which tbf i find much safer. But im sure i heard yesterday that we are trying to become independant for producing electricity.

Russia will hold us to its political advantage in the future just as they have with Ukraine, thats just why Europe and the United Kingdom tread so carefully around Russia now. You may want to rely on the Russians holding us to ransom, but personally I look past all the scare-mongering school and Greenpeace spout out about nuclear power and use common sense.

[Ardemax]

I know it was found in Wales, which is my point; if one of these did go off in France, it would be the same effect as one going off here. The same with our Trident submarines. We are surrounded by nuclear power so that if one of them did go off, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether it was a plant of the coast of France, a plant in Liverpool or a Trident submarine in Bristol.

On that last case, the reactors are that strong the only force which could partially destroy one would be something equal to the force of the reactor overrheating itself, and terrorists don't have any weapons that powerful.

If they had knowledge of a nuclear power plant, which wouldn't be too hard if they learnt about it.
If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster.
At the top bit, ye? If it did go off lots of people would die? That's what I've been saying

[Butterfly]

Now this is what I respect about the skill.

[GommeInc]

As far as I remember from Geography lessons, there is absolutely no point in wasting money building dams, when there are no appropriate locations to build them. Unless you think building them in "areas of beauty", which are in National Parks which are protected areas is a good idea? Besides, they're in quiet areas, so having the dams and sending the power across the country would be far too much effort, when something like Oil, Gas or Nuclear could do a better job. Nuclear is a good idea as it will cut dependence on foreign fuels such as oil and gas, but there are risks, but as Undertaker pointed out, the risks aren't any greater if somewhere like France had a terrorist attack on one of theirs, or as pointed out, Russian Nuclear radioactivity was found in Wales, so the risk isn't any greater really :/

It's really down to money at the end of it, other countries lapping up out dependence on them, paying for nuclear and the risk. If only they could perfect decent, clean energy :P

[Ardemax]

Cats on rollerblades I say!

no but really, the effects caused by a failure at a nuclear power plant can be dangerous.

radiation isn't like playing in a sandbox, ykno.

[Kiovado]

Here is my view after watching a very interesting documentary called "The Obama Deception"...

Presidents exist purely for show. They are extremely good actors.. There is a group of mega powerful people who are in control of the president. and whos overall plan is to get every country in debt to them.

There are many ways they do this.. for example, they order soldiers who have gone to afganistan to destroy certain targets (the soldiers believe this to help in their mission), then the group will lend millions and millions of dollars to afganistan so they can rebuild what has been destroyed. This now means afganistan will be in debt to them, which is eventually what they will aim to have with every country in the world. They want every country to be in debt to them, because that will mean they control the world.

So what does this have to do with global warming?...

Global warming is just another very clever tactic to tax people more and more money for nothing. Think of all the new taxes that are coming in to help "prevent global warming".. they are trying to tax cars per mile, petrol is taxed more, your being taxed more for rubbish collections, its becoming compulsory to buy numerous bins to split up all garbage (which is taxed).. there's all sorts. And they will get away with it, because its to help stop "global warming" of course!..

All absolute crap. If you watch that documentary, you will think different about the world...

My view anyways

[Accipiter]

I can expect them to be safe, but with more being built, there is more possibilities than "just that one"

and if one did go off anywhere we could even be effected, like the radiation that blew to scotland and poisoned the grass. even if one was to go off and the wind was in a bad direction for us the radiation could travel the whole country.

[Ardemax]

The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.

[Accipiter]

and many others.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If they had knowledge of a nuclear power plant, which wouldn't be too hard if they learnt about it.
If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster.
At the top bit, ye? If it did go off lots of people would die? That's what I've been saying

If they had the blueprint of the damned thing, they still wouldn't be able to launch a meltdown of the reactor. A nuclear power plant is not just 15 workers sitting in a room with 1 or 2 guys controlling the rods/safety measures. It would require offices across the country in which it could be shut down safetly, near the site would also be a manual shutdown site - its such a massive and extensive network of safety nets that by you saying it would be that easy for a terrorist to blow one up shows just how George W Bush and Tony Blair have fooled you and many others into believing the west is facing a world war III against islamic terrorism.

"If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster." - YES, nobody is saying it wouldn't be a disaster. What I am saying is that to reach a meltdown in a western nuclear reactor it would be a very, very, very, very, very freakish event with almost nil chance of anything happening.


Cats on rollerblades I say!

no but really, the effects caused by a failure at a nuclear power plant can be dangerous.

radiation isn't like playing in a sandbox, ykno.

Nobody is saying a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be dangerous.


I can expect them to be safe, but with more being built, there is more possibilities than "just that one"

and if one did go off anywhere we could even be effected, like the radiation that blew to scotland and poisoned the grass. even if one was to go off and the wind was in a bad direction for us the radiation could travel the whole country.

Did you know that all across the world there is something called background radiation? - the doses in Wales from the Kiev plant were probably smaller than the radiation which is naturally present in southern England and Europe itself from the rocks.

If you are against nuclear, tell me what your solution is. You have 10 years from now to avert the energy crisis that the United Kingdom is facing - what are you going to do about it?


The wind might not even have a factor, it would spread across the country.

Nobody said it wouldn't. The fact I am disputing is that scare-mongering over the nuclear issue has no backbone or evidence behind it.

[Accipiter]

i know what background radiation is, its basically as powerful as the radiation of the sun that hits us on a rainy day :l

And telling me myself to find a new way to find an energy source was a bit pathetic i may know about science but i don't pop ideas in my head.

Nobody here is "scare-mongering" over it. Tbf i would give a **** what the country done, aslong as we do well. But the effects of radiation poisoning itself is totally disgusting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i know what background radiation is, its basically as powerful as the radiation of the sun that hits us on a rainy day :l

And telling me myself to find a new way to find an energy source was a bit pathetic i may know about science but i don't pop ideas in my head.

Nobody here is "scare-mongering" over it. Tbf i would give a **** what the country done, aslong as we do well. But the effects of radiation poisoning itself is totally disgusting.

I can say that, because if you don't agree with nuclear then what is the solution?. Ardemax and yourself are scare-mongering, i'd understand if we had a meltdown every few years then maybe the argument that its dangerous would have some substance, but it doesnt.

[Accipiter]

possibility 50/50 were both arguing pointless done and dusted.

[Ardemax]

If they had the blueprint of the damned thing, they still wouldn't be able to launch a meltdown of the reactor. A nuclear power plant is not just 15 workers sitting in a room with 1 or 2 guys controlling the rods/safety measures. It would require offices across the country in which it could be shut down safetly, near the site would also be a manual shutdown site - its such a massive and extensive network of safety nets that by you saying it would be that easy for a terrorist to blow one up shows just how George W Bush and Tony Blair have fooled you and many others into believing the west is facing a world war III against islamic terrorism.

"If the radiation was exposed out of the plant, disaster." - YES, nobody is saying it wouldn't be a disaster. What I am saying is that to reach a meltdown in a western nuclear reactor it would be a very, very, very, very, very freakish event with almost nil chance of anything happening.



Nobody is saying a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be dangerous.



Did you know that all across the world there is something called background radiation? - the doses in Wales from the Kiev plant were probably smaller than the radiation which is naturally present in southern England and Europe itself from the rocks.

If you are against nuclear, tell me what your solution is. You have 10 years from now to avert the energy crisis that the United Kingdom is facing - what are you going to do about it?



Nobody said it wouldn't. The fact I am disputing is that scare-mongering over the nuclear issue has no backbone or evidence behind it.

What's that got to do with it?

Yeah, i'm saying it will be dangerous because it will, and if we were to debate nuclear energy then it's only fair the point is looked upon

[-:Undertaker:-]

What's that got to do with it?

Yeah, i'm saying it will be dangerous because it will, and if we were to debate nuclear energy then it's only fair the point is looked upon

It has something to do with it because you seem to think that we have terrorists walking around in our streets just waiting for us to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, yet I have explained that it would a) be impossible for a terrorist to cause a meltdown and b) there have been no terrorist attacks on the existing power plants which are due to be decommissioned within years.

On the last point, there isn't a point;- Chernobyl has been explained and we have not had a meltdown in the west, nuclear is safe.

[Ardemax]

It has something to do with it because you seem to think that we have terrorists walking around in our streets just waiting for us to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, yet I have explained that it would a) be impossible for a terrorist to cause a meltdown and b) there have been no terrorist attacks on the existing power plants which are due to be decommissioned within years.

On the last point, there isn't a point;- Chernobyl has been explained and we have not had a meltdown in the west, nuclear is safe.

nuclear is not safe.

just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

if you'd like exampls, i'd be happy to give.

[-:Undertaker:-]

nuclear is not safe.

just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

if you'd like exampls, i'd be happy to give.

Nothing is safe, but to say its a imminent disaster waiting to happen is scare-mongering. We haven't got asteroid defences.. yet an asteroid could hit at any time. Our children go on swings.. but could easily break their neck if they fell off.

The only 'big' examples are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl being the only ever meltdown in history.

[Accipiter]

Nothing is safe, but to say its a imminent disaster waiting to happen is scare-mongering. We haven't got asteroid defences.. yet an asteroid could hit at any time. Our children go on swings.. but could easily break their neck if they fell off.

The only 'big' examples are Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl being the only ever meltdown in history.

asteroid defences: Jupiter and our atmosphere.

A kid falling off a swing and breaking there neck is one person, not a whole country and effecting others.

[-:Undertaker:-]

asteroid defences: Jupiter and our atmosphere.

A kid falling off a swing and breaking there neck is one person, not a whole country and effecting others.

Asteroids could still potentially hit the Earth, as they have done in the past. These are both just two examples of how anything can happen, there is no evidence that western reactors are incredibly unstable and dangerous.

[Accipiter]

Asteroids could still potentially hit the Earth, as they have done in the past. These are both just two examples of how anything can happen, there is no evidence that western reactors are incredibly unstable and dangerous.

anything as large as the one "we think" hit the earth to extinct dinosaurs usually gets pulled in by jupiters gravitational pull, or will hit something else well before it reaches our earth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

anything as large as the one "we think" hit the earth to extinct dinosaurs usually gets pulled in by jupiters gravitational pull, or will hit something else well before it reaches our earth.

My point exactly, just the same as how a nuclear plant more than 'usually' doesn't go into meltdowm.

[Accipiter]

we've been discussing it as possibilities all the way through, yet we still managed to make around 4 pages still discussing possibilities anything is possible but anything dangerous always has safety measures, done and dusted. :P

[Ardemax]

But if we built more plants then surely the risk would increase?

and btw lots of asterioids/meteors hit the earth

[Accipiter]

Risks increase with everything, we'll just have to stick with everything has possibilities, like if more swings were built more children would have a chance of breaking there neck.

[Ardemax]

And lots of children do.

But we can't say a nuclear plant won't meltdown, as of course, it always can and most probably will (just one) in the near future (or future).

[-:Undertaker:-]

And lots of children do.

But we can't say a nuclear plant won't meltdown, as of course, it always can and most probably will (just one) in the near future (or future).
Where is the justification that a nuclear power plant in the west will meltdown anytime soon. When we are talking about nuclear, nuclear power is laughable. We have India and Pakistan on the brink of nuclear war over border disputes, India and China on the brink on nuclear war over border disputes and finally in the very near future we will have a nuclear standoff between NATO and China itself, as when China makes the move to take back Taiwan it could very possibly spell world war III for us all.

..so to worry about nuclear power plants is all a bit of a farce, don't you think?

[Ardemax]

Where is the justification that a nuclear power plant in the west will meltdown anytime soon. When we are talking about nuclear, nuclear power is laughable. We have India and Pakistan on the brink of nuclear war over border disputes, India and China on the brink on nuclear war over border disputes and finally in the very near future we will have a nuclear standoff between NATO and China itself, as when China makes the move to take back Taiwan it could very possibly spell world war III for us all.

..so to worry about nuclear power plants is all a bit of a farce, don't you think?

But you told me nuclear was safe? I may be picking out things here, but you did.
Great, nuclear is a form of energy, highly toxic and dangerous. Anyone could start a great deal of harm from using it, either in an attack or a small radiation bomb.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nuclear is safe, nothing is entirely safe but its safe to the extend where I wouldn't mind one in Liverpool. Nuclear weapons are dangerous of course, but they too also have a vital role and will have in the future. We are entering a nuclear age.

On the radiation, of course they could, but they wont and cant because so much security surrounds nuclear material its mind boggling.

[xxMATTGxx]

But you told me nuclear was safe? I may be picking out things here, but you did.
Great, nuclear is a form of energy, highly toxic and dangerous. Anyone could start a great deal of harm from using it, either in an attack or a small radiation bomb.

Well you are correct in a way. Nuclear isn't something we should all play with because of the dangers it has. Although Nuclear power is safe and the plants will follow strict guidelines and procedures on how to handle any of the material and so on within that plant. They won't have anything relaxed due to what happened at Chernobyl. Like undertaker as said, they are covered by high security.