To the Luddites amongst us
Iskandar Baharuddin
in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
understand.
They hurl accusations of "blind faith in technology" at their
perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
The Luddites are at war with the rest of human race.
A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
appears to be lacking.
Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
indeed they do get fed.
What is the point of having all these billions of people about
unless we DO something?
Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
blindness is in the technophobia.
If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
out into the Universe.
If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
destroy ourselves, does it?
Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
human race get on with its work.
--
Regards,
Izzy
"Stop the world - I want to get off!"
Colin King
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
> The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under the
> banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The 'original'
> Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a less-than-idyllic life
> for tens of thousands of years, and got nowhere. Well, Indonesians
> have now embraced the Western way, and once they recover from the
> recent hiccup will resume catching up. And catch up they will. I am
> less confident about the descendants of the early settlers of
> Australia. The will appears to be lacking.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Izzy
>
> "Stop the world - I want to get off!"
You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
"primitive".
Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
"got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which technologically
progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for another 200, if we
carry on as we have?
As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously
view aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an
honest day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have
shown that, where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to
adopt new technologies.
For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
living in Australia.
Try reading some history and archaeology (and not just the
Euro-centric "three cheers" versions of history so beloved of Lil'
Johnny). Then try broadening your mind.
One last example - using a horse is obviously far more primitive
than driving a car. And yet, the average speed of traffic in London is
now about 15 km/h. I'm sure old Dobbin could manage that.
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
> > The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under the
> > banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The 'original'
> > Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a less-than-idyllic life
> > for tens of thousands of years, and got nowhere. Well, Indonesians
> > have now embraced the Western way, and once they recover from the
> > recent hiccup will resume catching up. And catch up they will. I am
> > less confident about the descendants of the early settlers of
> > Australia. The will appears to be lacking.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Izzy
> >
> > "Stop the world - I want to get off!"
>
> You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
> assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
> "primitive".
Yes I do. Humans are fundamentally builders. The ones who do not
build are primitive. As were Indonesian for thousands of years.
>
> Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"?
Well, if you could compare the life of the Malays in Indonesia
in 1500 AD with the life of Aborigines in Australia at the same
time, I think you would quickly conclude that the Australian
lifestyle was considerably less idyllic.
> Because
> they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
> Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
> as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
What makes you think they did not kill each other with
monotonous regularity? The population hardly exploded in those
40,000 years.
>
> "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
> culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years,
Maintaining a 'constant culture for some 40 - 100,000 years' is
the best example of getting nowhere we are likely to find.
> in a land which technologically
> progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for another 200, if we
> carry on as we have?
We have never carried on "as we have" for much more than ten
years at a stretch. We learn. The Great Lakes were supposed to
be cess pools by now. (That "We" includes all of us who have
adopted the Western outlook, regardless of genetic makeup.)
>
> As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously
> view aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an
> honest day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have
> shown that, where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to
> adopt new technologies.
A few examples, please - other than the obvious: firearms, cars,
TV, etc.
>
> For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
> very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
> adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
> living in Australia.
But not irrelevant to building a civilization. Nomads do not
build.
>
> Try reading some history and archaeology (and not just the
> Euro-centric "three cheers" versions of history so beloved of Lil'
> Johnny). Then try broadening your mind.
I would appreciate your learned comments on "The Future Eaters".
>
> One last example - using a horse is obviously far more primitive
> than driving a car. And yet, the average speed of traffic in London is
> now about 15 km/h.
On the underground?
> I'm sure old Dobbin could manage that.
Well, if you prefer the aroma of horse shit to petrol fumes ...
Have you tried fitting a catalytic converter to a horse?
The problem with traffic is simple: a lot more people can afford
cars than could ever have afforded a horse. Car technology has
changed; horse technology has not, although couple of breeders
over your way seem to be trying.
May I point out that I declared my value system in my original
posting? Groups of people who do not build are not doing their
jobs. I can think of nothing to add to that.
David Wareing
<clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
> You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
> assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
> "primitive".
But they were. Primitive technology, primitive legal system, primitive
religion (I'm of the opinion that *all* religions are primitive but
there you go), primitive understanding of their universe and a complete
lack of anything we'd regard as science, primitive trade, primitive
levels of production and innovation, primitive levels of inter-national
relations, etc. (Before you reply to this, please read the
following paragraph.)
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone claims
group x is primitive, that they're necessarily racist. Pointing out
that the Australian Aborigines were pretty much a stone-age culture
is simply fact -- and can be supported by both Aboriginal and
European evidence. HOWEVER to say that Aboriginal cultures were
primitive because Aborigines as a race were primitive, is another
thing altogether, and would be racist. Aborginal culture was
relatively primitive in comparison to Western European cultures
because of a range of factors, including the technological and
social arms race that was being run in Europe. For an excellent
essay on this, see Jared Diamond's 'The Rise and Fall of the
Third Chimpanzee'.
> Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
> they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
> Europeans?
That argument doesn't wash. It's the same as the old line that
dolphins must be smarter than humans because they (the dolphins)
haven't developed the nuclear bomb. But would you rather be a
dolphin than a human?
Aboriginal culture was extremely well adapated to the environment.
Just as European cultures are extremely well adapted to their
respective environments. If nothing else, humans and their
ancestors are great survivors. However, Aborginal culture was
also primitive. That is not a good thing. Survival is one thing --
but survival with knowledge of your place in the universe and
an ability to change some of the circumstances that the universe
inflicts upon you, is even better. Again, don't confuse racism
with an appreciation of the facts.
> The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
> as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
Indeed. It was barbaric. However, judging people through the
lens of history is tricky, both technically and morally. How
do you think you will be judged in 200 years time? If you're
going to judge people, judge them by the values and expectations
of their time.
> "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
> culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which technologically
> progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for another 200, if we
> carry on as we have?
So what? Kangaroos and any number of any other animals have
managed to do the same. Are you going to argue that Kangaroos
are culturally advanced too? Simple duration of tenure is not
a measurement of advanced civilisation. After all, the crocodile
has been around (and has changed little) since Adam was a boy
yet nobody is ever going to give an overgrown lizard a medal of
civic virtue.
Here's the test: the arrival of which culture to this continent
has allowed you to contribute these words to the newsgroup?
Is this an argument for racial superiority? No. But it's a clear,
simple fact that Aboriginal cultures, for historical and social
reasons, were primitive in comparison to Europeans in 1788. No
amount of noble-savage we're-all-equals-now revisionism will change that.
> As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously
> view aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an
> honest day's work.
No. Aborgines were not exposed to the cultural and technological
arms race that was Europe. Their cultures had different requirements
and were subjected to far different situations. Aborigines didn't
rub up against the sort of circumstances and conditions that allowed
or required the advent of new technologies. (And, even if they
did, it doesn't necessarily mean that Aborigines would have. See
Chinese technological development for an instance of where culture
has stymied innovation.)
> For your information, history and archaeology have
> shown that, where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to
> adopt new technologies.
Very few people would argue that Aborgines are unable, because
of their race or culture, to adapt and use new technologies. Those
that do, I would regard as racist. However,
the point remains that Aborigines themselves developed precious
few technologies that could be compared to European or Asian
technologies. What technologies they did develop were useful
in their environment, but that says nothing about their relative
level of advancement. Aborgines basically had a stone-age
technology level. (Seen any pre-1788 Aborginal iron foundries
lately?)
> For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
> very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
> adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
> living in Australia.
True. However, this "reality" was a primitive level of existence.
That's fine if you see virtue in mere survival, but it's no use
then holding up this reality as somehow equivalent to European
achievements.
> Try reading some history and archaeology (and not just the
> Euro-centric "three cheers" versions of history so beloved of Lil'
> Johnny). Then try broadening your mind.
I would have thought that one way to broaden your mind would
be to tackle the viewpoints of others instead of belittling them
and writing them off as racist.
> One last example - using a horse is obviously far more primitive
> than driving a car.
> And yet, the average speed of traffic in London is
> now about 15 km/h. I'm sure old Dobbin could manage that.
You have failed to make your point. Most people around London
use the Tube. People select their technology to suit their
purposes. In any case, have you ever tried to ride a horse
on the M1?
ant
Colin King wrote in message <379CE9AC...@smartchat.net.au>...
>
>
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote:
>
>> The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under the
>> banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The 'original'
>> Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a less-than-idyllic life
>> for tens of thousands of years, and got nowhere. Well, Indonesians
>> have now embraced the Western way, and once they recover from the
>> recent hiccup will resume catching up. And catch up they will. I am
>> less confident about the descendants of the early settlers of
>> Australia. The will appears to be lacking.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Izzy
>>
>> "Stop the world - I want to get off!"
>
>assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
>"primitive".
>
meet all their needs as a rather advanced one. i also belive it is a sign of
an advanced civilisation to not have a signifigant adverse effect on the
enviroment.
> Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
>they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
>Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
>as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
>
> "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
>culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which technologically
>progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for another 200, if we
>carry on as we have?
>
> As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously
>view aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an
>honest day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have
>shown that, where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to
>adopt new technologies.
>
> For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
>very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
>adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
>living in Australia.
>
why bother to farm when the already managed enviroment meets all your needs?
> Try reading some history and archaeology (and not just the
>Euro-centric "three cheers" versions of history so beloved of Lil'
>Johnny). Then try broadening your mind.
>
> One last example - using a horse is obviously far more primitive
>than driving a car. And yet, the average speed of traffic in London is
>now about 15 km/h. I'm sure old Dobbin could manage that.
well said.
ant
Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a stroke of
luck.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
>Every generation spawns its own share of technophobes, quivering
>in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
>understand.
>
>They hurl accusations of "blind faith in technology" at their
>perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
>misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
>streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
>
>The Luddites are at war with the rest of human race.
>
>A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
>which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
>
i never heard of chimps being called men before, chimps make tools and can
modify their environment to a limited extent.
>The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
>taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
>but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
>of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
>adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
>serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
who is spreading misinformation now, given the political will renewable
energy could meet the worlds demands for energy for the foreseeable future
it just would cost a bit more then nasty fossil fuels. who said anything
about banning cars, ever heard of zero emission vehicles?
>
>The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
>the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
>'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
>less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
>nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic basis?
>and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
>catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
>the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
>appears to be lacking.
>
the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to continue
destroying our environment?
heard of salinity, Australia's agricultural productivity has already peaked
and is declining because of the environmental degradation caused by the
unsustainable use of the land. respected members of society warned
Australians of the damage we were doing to our future in the 1890's but
their warnings were ignored for short term profit. same goes with the
introduction of the rabbit to the mainland despite the damage done by them
in Tasmania. if we can't learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat
them.
>Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
>what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
>indeed they do get fed.
>
we grow enough food to feed the world population with room to spare, it is
just more economic to let the poor starve rather then giving away valuable
produce which would lower the price of grain and reduce the profitability of
the agricorporations. it was the technology of mass childhood vaccination
without the parallel application of contraception that caused the
unsustainable population growth in the first place. i rather think the human
race is more than just the total of the toys we can make.
>What is the point of having all these billions of people about
>unless we DO something?
one thing we could do would be to make contraception and the information on
how to use it freely available to all, regardless of economic status. then
we could start reducing the global population and improving the quality of
life for all the inhabitants of the world, not just the richer third.
another thing could be to distribute the wealth of society more fairly to
ensure that nobody starves when there is enough food for all.
>
>Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
>Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
>blindness is in the technophobia.
>
so you are saying that technology will solve all our problems despite the
fact that it has failed to do so in the past and is not dealing with the
inequities and problems it has generated in this century. when the worlds
six wealthiest families have an income higher then the 600,000,000 poorest
people put together something is not working. perhaps we should think about
fixing some of the problems technology has already made before we introduce
more problems. industry is not dealing effectively with conventional toxic
waste as it is and the history of the transnational corporations does not
lend much credence to your claim that faith in industry driven technological
development will solve all our problems.
>If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
>out into the Universe.
>
into a universe which we don't even know if any other worlds are going to be
habitable without terraforming. sending more then a fraction of the worlds
population off to colonize other worlds would be totally uneconomic,
regardless of the fact that you are relying on the development of
theoretical technologies to compensate for todays irresponsible use of the
planets resources. i seriously doubt that it will be the worlds poor that
can afford to move to a new planet. nice attitude you have, trash the place
you are living in and move somewhere else and trash it again(must remember
not to rent a house to you). unless we want to be destined to lead a nomadic
life consuming one planet after another we should concentrate on fixing the
planet we live on now before we think of moving to a new world.
>If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
>destroy ourselves, does it?
it is all a matter of what your vision for the future involves, if you want
the human race to become nothing more then a interstellar disease, spreading
and destroying one world after another then go for it, shit in the rivers
and oceans, chop down the original hardwood features, kill every species
that has no immediate economic benefit to society (and a lot that do as
well). dont worry if the oceans die, just build atmospheric reprocessing
plants
my vision of the future involves a sustainable use of the worlds resources,
with clean water and air, energy efficient devices and a stable population.
a future where more then the economic value of a thing or action determines
its benefit to society. where the ideal of "From each according to his
means, to each according to his needs." is applied fairly to all, where
education is not a privilege but a guaranteed right, where food is shared
evenly regardless of the ability of a person to pay. a society not based on
greed and selfishness.
>
>Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
>human race get on with its work.
of destroying its long term future for a short term profit.
the power over the environment our tool making gives us also comes with a
duty of care towards the environment that sustains us. if we fail that test
we don't deserve to have a future and probably wont. the planet is not our
exclusive ball to kick around as we want and throw away when it goes flat
just because we can.
ant
As David Suzuki has pointed out - Global Free Trade is a disaster
for the environment. And it's a boon to exploiters and
slave-labour-traders who want us all to have to bid down against each
other.
Iskandar Baharuddin
> >A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
> >which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
> >
>
> i never heard of chimps being called men before, chimps make tools and can
> modify their environment to a limited extent.
I would not class picking up a stick as making a tool. Has
anyone observed a chimp sharpening a stick? If so, I withdraw my
claim that the human animal is unique in the narrow sense of the
term.
>
> >The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
> >taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
> >but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
> >of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
> >adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
> >serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
>
> who is spreading misinformation now, given the political will renewable
> energy could meet the worlds demands for energy for the foreseeable future
> it just would cost a bit more then nasty fossil fuels. who said anything
> about banning cars, ever heard of zero emission vehicles?
Yep. Product of technology.
>
> >
> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
>
> well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
That is precisely where we differ.
>
> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
>
> so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic basis?
Yes. Of course, I include the arts, which have a very
substantial material component.
>
> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> >appears to be lacking.
> >
>
> the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to continue
> destroying our environment?
Shaping, moulding, remaking.
> heard of salinity, Australia's agricultural productivity has already peaked
> and is declining because of the environmental degradation caused by the
> unsustainable use of the land. respected members of society warned
> Australians of the damage we were doing to our future in the 1890's but
> their warnings were ignored for short term profit. same goes with the
> introduction of the rabbit to the mainland despite the damage done by them
> in Tasmania. if we can't learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat
> them.
I recall making the point that we do learn from our mistakes. cf
Great Lakes.
>
> >Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
> >what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
> >indeed they do get fed.
> >
>
> we grow enough food to feed the world population with room to spare, it is
> just more economic to let the poor starve rather then giving away valuable
> produce which would lower the price of grain and reduce the profitability of
> the agricorporations. it was the technology of mass childhood vaccination
> without the parallel application of contraception that caused the
> unsustainable population growth in the first place. i rather think the human
> race is more than just the total of the toys we can make.
Well, the Chinese did it right, didn't they?
>
> >What is the point of having all these billions of people about
> >unless we DO something?
>
> one thing we could do would be to make contraception and the information on
> how to use it freely available to all, regardless of economic status. then
> we could start reducing the global population and improving the quality of
> life for all the inhabitants of the world, not just the richer third.
> another thing could be to distribute the wealth of society more fairly to
> ensure that nobody starves when there is enough food for all.
The inequality of income in the world reflect the unequal use of
available technology. Unfortunately we have not yet figured out
how to force people to understand and use it. Any suggestions?
>
> >
> >Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
> >Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
> >blindness is in the technophobia.
> >
>
> so you are saying that technology will solve all our problems despite the
> fact that it has failed to do so in the past and is not dealing with the
> inequities and problems it has generated in this century. when the worlds
> six wealthiest families have an income higher then the 600,000,000 poorest
> people put together something is not working. perhaps we should think about
> fixing some of the problems technology has already made before we introduce
> more problems. industry is not dealing effectively with conventional toxic
> waste as it is and the history of the transnational corporations does not
> lend much credence to your claim that faith in industry driven technological
> development will solve all our problems.
Technology has a proven record of solving problems faster than
it creates them.
See comment above on income distribution.
>
> >If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> >out into the Universe.
> >
>
> into a universe which we don't even know if any other worlds are going to be
> habitable without terraforming. sending more then a fraction of the worlds
> population off to colonize other worlds would be totally uneconomic,
> regardless of the fact that you are relying on the development of
> theoretical technologies to compensate for todays irresponsible use of the
> planets resources. i seriously doubt that it will be the worlds poor that
> can afford to move to a new planet. nice attitude you have, trash the place
> you are living in and move somewhere else and trash it again(must remember
> not to rent a house to you). unless we want to be destined to lead a nomadic
> life consuming one planet after another we should concentrate on fixing the
> planet we live on now before we think of moving to a new world.
That is precisely the attitude I condemn. The "Let's make do
with what we have" philosophy.
The human race has never done that, and is unlikely to start
now.
>
> >If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
> >destroy ourselves, does it?
>
> it is all a matter of what your vision for the future involves, if you want
> the human race to become nothing more then a interstellar disease, spreading
> and destroying one world after another then go for it, shit in the rivers
> and oceans, chop down the original hardwood features, kill every species
> that has no immediate economic benefit to society (and a lot that do as
> well). dont worry if the oceans die, just build atmospheric reprocessing
> plants
> my vision of the future involves a sustainable use of the worlds resources,
> with clean water and air, energy efficient devices and a stable population.
> a future where more then the economic value of a thing or action determines
> its benefit to society. where the ideal of "From each according to his
> means, to each according to his needs." is applied fairly to all, where
> education is not a privilege but a guaranteed right, where food is shared
> evenly regardless of the ability of a person to pay. a society not based on
> greed and selfishness.
Boring!
>
> >
> >Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
> >human race get on with its work.
>
> of destroying its long term future for a short term profit.
>
> the power over the environment our tool making gives us also comes with a
> duty of care towards the environment that sustains us. if we fail that test
> we don't deserve to have a future and probably wont. the planet is not our
> exclusive ball to kick around as we want and throw away when it goes flat
> just because we can.
>
> ant
>
> As David Suzuki has pointed out - Global Free Trade is a disaster
> for the environment. And it's a boon to exploiters and
> slave-labour-traders who want us all to have to bid down against each
> other.
Ant, you have come through exactly as expected.
Your nom-de-net is well chosen.
Colin King
David Wareing wrote:
> In article <379CE9AC...@smartchat.net.au>, Colin King
> <clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
>
Okay - first point: was the original post racist in content? Well, as far as I
could see, his basic line of argument was: "Luddites" are stupid and
aborigines - as a race - are luddites. The logical conclusion, I would have
thought, was that therefore aborigines are stupid.
However, perhaps I am too used to picking up the subtleties in mny racist
arguments ("I'm not racist, but ..."), so let us be generous, and just allow
that the original poster was merely
chauvenistic in his outlook. I refer to the type of chauvenism that judges
achievement or sophistication purely by "things". Generally, the bigger, the
better.
> > You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which >
> assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were >
> "primitive".
>
> But they were. Primitive technology, primitive legal system, primitive
> religion (I'm of the opinion that *all* religions are primitive but there
> you go), primitive understanding of their universe and a complete lack of
> anything we'd regard as science, primitive trade, primitive levels of
> production and innovation, primitive levels of inter-national relations,
> etc. (Before you reply to this, please read the following paragraph.)
>
> Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone claims group x
> is primitive, that they're necessarily racist. Pointing out that the
> Australian Aborigines were pretty much a stone-age culture is simply fact --
> and can be supported by both Aboriginal and European evidence. HOWEVER to
> say that Aboriginal cultures were primitive because Aborigines as a race
> were primitive, is another thing altogether, and would be racist. Aborginal
> culture was relatively primitive in comparison to Western European cultures
> because of a range of factors, including the technological and social arms
> race that was being run in Europe. For an excellent essay on this, see
> Jared Diamond's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee'.
>
You make the mistake that has consistently bedevilled relations between
Europeans and aborigines. From William Dampier on, Europeans have assessed
aborigines on the basis of their toolkit, their dress, and their apparent lack
of agriculture, and found them wanting.
Certainly the aboriginal toolkit was unsophisticated (then again, have _you_
ever tried to make a stone tool? I have - and it's bloody hard. I started out
with a piece of flint big enough for an axe, and ended up with a pretty crappy
arrowhead.), but it was more than adequate for their needs. Other tools came
their way - heavy throwing axes from New Guinea were traded as far south as
Victoria, but were not adopted, in the long run, because there was simply no
use for them.
But tools aren't everything. Primitive legal system? Most Europeans have
assumed so, because aboriginal law wasn't written down in big impressive
books. The very use of
disphemistic terms as "tribal law" tacitly belittles aboriginal law. However,
an Australian Judge who looked into Yolngu law stated that it was probably as
complex and as rigid as anything in European law. Unfortunately, the practice
of aboriginal law has been warped and bastardised by European interference.
Practices such as Payback and Spearing certainly seem barbaric (who knows what
the aborigines made of leg-irons, flogging and hanging?), but the reality was
that the system of payback involved such a complex, hierarchical scale of
retribution, that in practice it acted as an effective deterrent to potential
miscreants.
Some ethical standards may not have appealed to us - such as infanticide
(rarely - and usually in the case of genetic deformity). But then, Europeans
have the luxury of a large
gene pool to cushion us from some of the harsher realities. If you have a very
small population, you probably can't afford to take a chance on undesirable
genetic traits being allowed to propagate. Not that aborigines would have
thought in terms of gene pools, etc., but their complex systems of
inter-tribal marriage, etc., certainly did the job well.
If you believe that all religions are primitive, well, then fair enough. But
was aboriginal religion necessarily more primitive than, say, Buddhism? Again,
nature religions may seem primitive to us, but what of a religion that adopts
a torture device as its great symbol? As far as sophistication goes,
aboriginal religion would have permeated nearly all aspects of daily life -
from marriage, to who sat where in camp. That sounds pretty complex to me.
Also, such ideas as taboo areas. Seems like a pretty simple superstition to
us, but the reality is that it preserved "safe havens" for certain animal
species to breed in, unmolested by over-hunting.
Perhaps their view of the Universe was/is primitive. But then, how many
technologically sophisticated Americans still believe God created the Universe
in six days, 4000 years ago? This includes astronauts, as well as rednecks.
Creationists use the net, too.
Primitve trade? There were established trade routes the length and breadth of
the Australian continent, and beyond. Trepang harvested in the Gulf of
Carpentaria ended up in China.
It is a common mistake to assume that aborigines were trapped in a time-warp
back to neolithic Europe. In reality, aboriginal culture had evolved and
developed over those 60 000+ years, just as European culture had, just in
completely different directions.
> > Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because >
> they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as >
> Europeans?
>
> That argument doesn't wash. It's the same as the old line that
> dolphins must be smarter than humans because they (the dolphins)
> haven't developed the nuclear bomb. But would you rather be a
> dolphin than a human?
>
There is an old Ron Cobb cartoon that still washes well - "Man demonstrates
his superiority to animals". Look it up.
> Aboriginal culture was extremely well adapated to the environment. Just as
> European cultures are extremely well adapted to their
> respective environments. If nothing else, humans and their
> ancestors are great survivors. However, Aborginal culture was
> also primitive. That is not a good thing. Survival is one thing -- but
> survival with knowledge of your place in the universe and
> an ability to change some of the circumstances that the universe
> inflicts upon you, is even better. Again, don't confuse racism
> with an appreciation of the facts.
>
Aboriginal culture was _not_ primitive. Just because they didn't write books
(and on what,pray?), doesn't mean they were primitive. Any aborigine would
have had to speak probably four or five languages, at least. Including
specific languages to be used with different members of their own group (i.e.
"mother-in-law" languages). Aboriginal society was based on complex systems of
kinship, language and land ownership. Just because these were notthe things
that mattered to Europeans does not mean they were primitive.
Survival is a pretty major achievement, I would have thought. It seems to me
that aborigines had a view of their place in the Universe that suited them
admirably, and that they have managed to adapt remarkably well to European
conquest. If the Japanese _had_
conquered Australia, and subjected Us to the same treatment we meted out to
the aborigines, how well would we have fared? Aborigines were well able to
change the circumstances the Universe inflicted on them. The original arrivals
had an enormous impact
on the Australian ecology. Much of eastern Australia quickly changed from
thick forests- not much good for hunting - to open grasslands ("like an
English park" as Cook said).
Again, this brings me to the issue of "primitiveness". Going by the lack of
ploughs, fields, granaries, etc., Europeans judged aborigines to be an
agriculturally unsophisticated lot. Yet it
is only now that we are coming to appreciate just how complex the system of
Firestick farming actually was. The massive bushfires that have bedevilled
White Australians are purely their own creation. Now, as it has been said, we
are only just beginning, with the aid of sattelite tracking, radio
communication, and sophisticated firefighting equipment, to get close to what
aborigines were able to do for tens of thousands of years with a couple of
sticks and their own two feet and their heads.
> > The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
> > as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
>
> Indeed. It was barbaric. However, judging people through the
> lens of history is tricky, both technically and morally. How
> do you think you will be judged in 200 years time? If you're
> going to judge people, judge them by the values and expectations
> of their time.
>
> I don't think we _will_ be judged very kindly in 200 years time. Even by the
> values and expectations of our own time, I think it is pretty clear that
> Western society has been incredibly rapacious, greedy and selfish. It is
> just that we, by and large, are the ones writing the history books, so we
> tell ourselves what we want to hear. The 20th century has been one of
> unprecedented bloodshed and violence, but, on the whole, it has not happened
> to western Europeans, so we have been able to persuade ourselves that it has
> been a pretty comfortable time.
Again, you base your assessment of "sophistication" on a Eurocentric world
view that assumes that writing, use of metals, etc., are the only things of
value. Not that they have no value - I would go insane without my bookcases -
but there are many other things that contribute to our happiness.
Basically, I am arguing against the original poster's assumption that
technological evelopment is all good, as a matter of course. Which is the
point I was trying to make in the last paragraph (below). A better example
might be the Leaf Blower. A more useless device I cannot imagine. Using a swag
of non-renewable resources, and expelling clouds of noxious gases, it is now
possible to do exactly the same job a straw broom could do. Very advanced.
Another example might be the case of a friend living overseas, who wanted to
know why his father had not written in so long. The reason? He hadn't been
able to figure out how to use
his new word-processor. Obviously a pen and paper was just too unsophisticated
to bear thinking about.
Quite frankly, western Europeans are just too dazzled with the new toys they
are making, and just too full of hubris at their own cleverness, to assess
whether _all_ new technologies are of
any real benefit. It has been estimated that most aborigines would have spent
a few hours a day "working" (i.e. gathering food), with the rest for leisure.
How many people reading this
newsgroup work less than 8 hours a day?
Tim Flannery has commented that the main thing he notices in a place like New
Guinea, as compared to say New York or Sydney, is the number of smiles he sees
on peoples' faces. No matter how poor their conditions, people in "primitve"
cultures just seem to be a hell of a lot happier than we sophisticated
Europeans.
"How shall it profit a man if he should gain the world, but in so doing lose
his soul?"
> > Try reading some history and archaeology (and not just the
> > Euro-centric "three cheers" versions of history so beloved of Lil'
> > Johnny). Then try broadening your mind.
>
> I would have thought that one way to broaden your mind would
> be to tackle the viewpoints of others instead of belittling them
> and writing them off as racist.
>
> > One last example - using a horse is obviously far more primitive
> > than driving a car.
> > And yet, the average speed of traffic in London is
> > now about 15 km/h. I'm sure old Dobbin could manage that.
>
> You have failed to make your point. Most people around London use the
> Tube. People select their technology to suit their purposes. In any case,
> have you ever tried to ride a horse on the M1?
A facetious reply to an admittedly facetious point.
David Wareing
<bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> > i never heard of chimps being called men before, chimps make tools and can
> > modify their environment to a limited extent.
>
> I would not class picking up a stick as making a tool.
I'm not sure if chimps actually make their tools or not, but
they do select their tools. They need sticks of suitable length
and the stick needs to have no branching (so that the stick
will fit into ant hole easily). The chimp USES the stick
as a TOOL in much the same way that we would use a fishing line
or a net to catch fish.
> Has
> anyone observed a chimp sharpening a stick? If so, I withdraw my
> claim that the human animal is unique in the narrow sense of the
> term.
Why does it have to be a sharp stick? Chimps don't capture ants
by spearing them to death. All the ants have to do is climb on
to the stick, so that the chimp can them wipe them off with his
hand and then eat them.
The stick, clearly, is a tool when used by a chimp for the
purposes of gathering food.
Many animals use tools. One obvious example: spider's webs. They
are not only precise constructs but they are highly effective.
[snip]
> > we grow enough food to feed the world population with room to spare, it is
> > just more economic to let the poor starve rather then giving away valuable
> > produce which would lower the price of grain and reduce the profitability of
> > the agricorporations. it was the technology of mass childhood vaccination
> > without the parallel application of contraception that caused the
> > unsustainable population growth in the first place. i rather think the human
> > race is more than just the total of the toys we can make.
>
> Well, the Chinese did it right, didn't they?
Sadly, the Chinese did a lot of things terribly wrong. Among other
things, Imperial rule extended to all facets of life and killed
off innovation, individual responsibility, individual incentive,
anything remotely like scientific endeavour, personal relationships
to property, etc. (Why work hard to develop your rice paddy if you
don't get the profits of any improvement? Far easier instead to
take the ration and just do the least work required by your lord
and master. Why bother to sail the seas looking for new trading
and technological opportunities when you'll be regarded with distrust
by authorities? Far easier to stay at home and avoid contact
with those devilish foreigners.)
> > one thing we could do would be to make contraception and the information on
> > how to use it freely available to all, regardless of economic status. then
> > we could start reducing the global population and improving the quality of
> > life for all the inhabitants of the world, not just the richer third.
> > another thing could be to distribute the wealth of society more fairly to
> > ensure that nobody starves when there is enough food for all.
>
> The inequality of income in the world reflect the unequal use of
> available technology. Unfortunately we have not yet figured out
> how to force people to understand and use it. Any suggestions?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Technology, in itself,
will not produce equal incomes. Even if this is a desirable
and possible goal (and I don't think it is *), the use of technology
ultimately depends more on culture and the politics of that culture.
"Forcing" people to use technology isn't going to work, and you'd have to
explain why you have the right to force someone in the first place
anyway.
After all, installing high-bandwidth network connections across
Sudan or Ethiopia and conducting Netscape classes in villages
is not going to do a damn thing, especially in the face of
perpetual wars, race-based hatred, government corruption, military
government, a disregard for the rule of law and individual human
rights, nepotism, etc.
The same thing goes for food. Famine is a political problem. Note
the lack of perpetual famine in countries that have a well developed
political system which respects the rights of the individual, has
accountable government and which respects the rule of law over
the rule of whim.
[big snip]
* Equality of incomes is a socialist pipe-dream. It is utopian and
and utterly unrealistic. Equality of incomes does not take into account
the huge differences in ability, effort, knowledge, cultural limitations
and advantages, comparative advantages, etc. The only possible way
you could get equality of incomes in a real world would be to redistribute
earnings from high-income earners to low-income earners, and to do this
you would have to accept losses of overall productivity and economic
growth and technological growth. Some socialists like to claim that
you can have all the benefits (social "justice" through income equalisation)
but none of the disadvantages. This is pie-in-the-sky at best and
an outright lie at worst. There's no such thing as a free lunch,
as any economist will tell you. Artifically equalising incomes comes
at a cost, and a huge one. Ask Russia.
Kathy
>
> Every generation spawns its own share of technophobes, quivering
> in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
> understand.
>
Many people can't understand it, so they denounce it.
> They hurl accusations of "blind faith in technology" at their
> perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
> misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
> streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
>
posts in this newsgroup.
> The Luddites are at war with the rest of human race.
>
making war with things they don't acept or understand.
Perhaps your statement exaggerates the situation somewhat?
> A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
> which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
>
> The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
> taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
> but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
> of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
> adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
> serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
>
I would not worry too much...They'll never agree on a common agenda as
to which technologies are acceptable and which are not...:-)
> The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
> 'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
> and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> appears to be lacking.
>
A person's desire not to use technology or to just lead a simple
lifestyle is not a problem in itself, and should not be deplored as
such.
It is a well-known fact that many people are happier that way than they
would ever be if surrounded by the latest inventions.
While technological advances, by and large, have improved mankind's
lifestyle, they have also been often used to the opposite effect: to
make war.
I am all for people's choice - whether they want to use the latest
gizmos or not, it should be up to themselves. However, too often in our
society that choice is taken from them.
> Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
> what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
> indeed they do get fed.
>
To a alrge extent, yes. But this statement also is a gross
simplification. By the same token you could say technology is what will
kill anyone who disagrees with our world view...
> What is the point of having all these billions of people about
> unless we DO something?
>
Philosophical question which probably cannot be answered
satisfactorily...
Perhaps the whole point just isn't...?
> Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
> Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
> blindness is in the technophobia.
>
There are many forms of blindness...Technophobia may even be useful at
times.
> If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> out into the Universe.
>
You'll be waiting for quite some years for that one yet...
And, unless we find a way to travel faster than light (impossible,
according to our current understanding of physical laws), it will most
likely never happen.
> If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
> destroy ourselves, does it?
>
That depends...on a cosmic scale, I suppose mankind (and, indeed, the
Earth, our entire solar system, or, even our galaxy), are less than a
grain of sand...
On a local scale, though, I think many will disagree with you.
> Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
> human race get on with its work.
>
Things are not really too bad - just look at it from a historical point
of view:
Had you been born in the 12th century, died and got re-born in the 15th
century, you'd hardly have noticed any change...
These days, even someone from 40 years ago would have trouble
understanding all the modern technology, which has found its way into
our everyday life, and which we often take for granted...no wonder many
find it hard to cope!
Personally I think technological advances are desirable, and I consider
myself fortunate to be able to live in such exciting age, where we see
new and exciting technological advances appear all the time and very
little seems impossible.
That, however, should not mean that those who choose to live without the
latest gadgets should somehow be ridiculed. There are many ways to
happiness....even though we are not a perfect species and many of us
will never be truly happy...
Regards,
Kath
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> In article <379D052A...@highway1.com.au>, Iskandar Baharuddin
> <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > i never heard of chimps being called men before, chimps make tools and can
> > > modify their environment to a limited extent.
> >
> > I would not class picking up a stick as making a tool.
>
> I'm not sure if chimps actually make their tools or not, but
> they do select their tools. They need sticks of suitable length
> and the stick needs to have no branching (so that the stick
> will fit into ant hole easily). The chimp USES the stick
> as a TOOL in much the same way that we would use a fishing line
> or a net to catch fish.
>
> > Has
> > anyone observed a chimp sharpening a stick? If so, I withdraw my
> > claim that the human animal is unique in the narrow sense of the
> > term.
>
> Why does it have to be a sharp stick? Chimps don't capture ants
> by spearing them to death. All the ants have to do is climb on
> to the stick, so that the chimp can them wipe them off with his
> hand and then eat them.
>
> The stick, clearly, is a tool when used by a chimp for the
> purposes of gathering food.
>
> Many animals use tools. One obvious example: spider's webs. They
> are not only precise constructs but they are highly effective.
Maybe I have been obscure again. I thought I said that man is
the only animal that _makes_ tools. If that clever chimp
sharpened his/her stick, I would class that as making a tool.
Don't really worry about what the stick is for.
Anyhow, I am willing to bet that man is the only animal that
makes tools for making tools.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > we grow enough food to feed the world population with room to spare, it is
> > > just more economic to let the poor starve rather then giving away valuable
> > > produce which would lower the price of grain and reduce the profitability of
> > > the agricorporations. it was the technology of mass childhood vaccination
> > > without the parallel application of contraception that caused the
> > > unsustainable population growth in the first place. i rather think the human
> > > race is more than just the total of the toys we can make.
> >
> > Well, the Chinese did it right, didn't they?
>
> Sadly, the Chinese did a lot of things terribly wrong.
I was making another obscure reference to birth control.
Technology produces wealth. It certainly does not produce equal
wealth.
Low technology = poverty.
Even poverty is unequal.
>
> After all, installing high-bandwidth network connections across
> Sudan or Ethiopia and conducting Netscape classes in villages
> is not going to do a damn thing, especially in the face of
> perpetual wars, race-based hatred, government corruption, military
> government, a disregard for the rule of law and individual human
> rights, nepotism, etc.
You might have a point there.
>
> The same thing goes for food. Famine is a political problem. Note
> the lack of perpetual famine in countries that have a well developed
> political system which respects the rights of the individual, has
> accountable government and which respects the rule of law over
> the rule of whim.
And technology?
There is a compelling argument that decades of Western food aid
buggered agriculture in Africa.
Not saying it is totally valid, but seriously plausible.
It is a lot easier to ship in food than to teach ignorant smelly
natives how to feed themselves.
>
> [big snip]
>
> * Equality of incomes is a socialist pipe-dream. It is utopian and
> and utterly unrealistic. Equality of incomes does not take into account
> the huge differences in ability, effort, knowledge, cultural limitations
> and advantages, comparative advantages, etc. The only possible way
> you could get equality of incomes in a real world would be to redistribute
> earnings from high-income earners to low-income earners, and to do this
> you would have to accept losses of overall productivity and economic
> growth and technological growth. Some socialists like to claim that
> you can have all the benefits (social "justice" through income equalisation)
> but none of the disadvantages. This is pie-in-the-sky at best and
> an outright lie at worst. There's no such thing as a free lunch,
> as any economist will tell you. Artifically equalising incomes comes
> at a cost, and a huge one. Ask Russia.
Do you expect an argument?
Iskandar Baharuddin
I agree whole-heartedly. What I deplore is the Luddite bitching
about the people who do use technology.
>
> > The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> > the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
> > 'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> > less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> > nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
> > and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> > catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> > the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> > appears to be lacking.
> >
> A person's desire not to use technology or to just lead a simple
> lifestyle is not a problem in itself, and should not be deplored as
> such.
> It is a well-known fact that many people are happier that way than they
> would ever be if surrounded by the latest inventions.
> While technological advances, by and large, have improved mankind's
> lifestyle, they have also been often used to the opposite effect: to
> make war.
> I am all for people's choice - whether they want to use the latest
> gizmos or not, it should be up to themselves. However, too often in our
> society that choice is taken from them.
So am I. All I want them to do is shut up about it.
>
> > Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
> > what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
> > indeed they do get fed.
> >
> To a alrge extent, yes. But this statement also is a gross
> simplification. By the same token you could say technology is what will
> kill anyone who disagrees with our world view...
>
> > What is the point of having all these billions of people about
> > unless we DO something?
> >
> Philosophical question which probably cannot be answered
> satisfactorily...
> Perhaps the whole point just isn't...?
>
> > Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
> > Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
> > blindness is in the technophobia.
> >
> There are many forms of blindness...Technophobia may even be useful at
> times.
For example?
>
> > If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> > out into the Universe.
> >
> You'll be waiting for quite some years for that one yet...
> And, unless we find a way to travel faster than light (impossible,
> according to our current understanding of physical laws), it will most
> likely never happen.
Not necessary. My son is working on the plans for a Generation
Ship. Might take a couple of hundred years to get somewhere, but
better than sitting on Earth going around in circles.
That is precisely why I discount "happiness" as a goal.
The fun is in the pursuit.
When we actually get it we are usually disappointed.
Seppo Renfors
Colin King wrote:
{snip]
> You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
> assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
> "primitive".
What an extraordinary statement! The "racist world-view as Tim
Fischer" is wrong on all counts! How the devil is stating an
undisputed fact "racist"? Why would you smear Tim Fischer with a
gratuitous side-swipe? Surely Tim Fisher is a politician, not a
historian, not an archaeologist! His hobby was music IIRC, no
connection there either! What the devil has he got to do with
anything Izzy said? What ARE you on about?
[snip]
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that
privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy
>
(previous points cut)
> > I would not worry too much...They'll never agree on a common agenda as
> > to which technologies are acceptable and which are not...:-)
>
> I agree whole-heartedly. What I deplore is the Luddite bitching
> about the people who do use technology.
>
But that is just a common human trait...Most of us bitch about something
or other most of the time...:-)
(abbreviated)
> >
> > > Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
> > > Technology is the only hope for the survival of man. The
> > > blindness is in the technophobia.
> > >
> > There are many forms of blindness...Technophobia may even be useful at
> > times.
>
> For example?
>
When it comes to war machines.
I think it would, by and large, be useful for many African countries if
their rulers took to modern destructive technology less eagerly.
> > > If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> > > out into the Universe.
> > >
> > You'll be waiting for quite some years for that one yet...
> > And, unless we find a way to travel faster than light (impossible,
> > according to our current understanding of physical laws), it will most
> > likely never happen.
>
> Not necessary. My son is working on the plans for a Generation
> Ship. Might take a couple of hundred years to get somewhere, but
> better than sitting on Earth going around in circles.
>
True. But I still think an interstellar flight is a long way into the
future - if it ever happens (here...I should know not to use "if ever"!)
Even at speeds approaching the speed of light, it would take centuries
(allowing for acceleration and the consequent braking) to get to any
solar system which looks even remotely like it might host a habitable
planet.
I think you'd have enormous problems talking people into an adventure
(taking their entire lives) like that.
For the next few centuries, my guess would be we'll be staying where we
are.
Well, you just need to look for inspiration towards one old,
non-technological philosophy: Buddhism.
"The cause of suffering is desire."
As true then as it is now...
Thanks for an interesting post, anyhow!
Kath
Colin King
Seppo Renfors wrote:
Yes, well, believe it or not, but loveable old Tim Fischer, lil Johnny's
faithful old lapdog, has said a few unreasonable things about aboriginal
Australians. Could it be? 'Fraid so. Kerry Packer's mind-control network
may be hard-selling him as a loveable larrikin from the bush, but face it,
he was willing to bash the darkies when he had an election to win.
Such as referring to aboriginal organisations as "blood-sucking
leeches". And also reviving the 19th Century doctrine of Manifest Destiny:
That aborigines were so appallingly primitive, that they didn't really
deserve the land in the first place.
That's what I was on about.
Colin King
> actually have a valid point? As I recall, the Industrial Revolution pretty
> well screwed the peasants six ways to Sunday.
That's not to say I despise technology altogether. After all, I'm
posting this, am I not? I do think, though, that too many people place too
much unquestioning faith in all technology, without weighing its relative
merit.
As the brilliant Tim Flannery has remarked, maybe science will come up
with ways to feed us all from our rapidly depleted soils, but, just in case
it _doesn't_, wouldn't it be prudent to at least try and conserve what we've
got?
I've still got books I had as a child, that optimistically declared that
the oceans would provide an inexhaustable food supply for the future. 'Tis
to laugh.
Seppo Renfors
Colin King wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Colin King wrote:
> > {snip]
> > > You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
> > > assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
> > > "primitive".
> >
> > What an extraordinary statement! The "racist world-view as Tim
> > Fischer" is wrong on all counts! How the devil is stating an
> > undisputed fact "racist"? Why would you smear Tim Fischer with a
> > gratuitous side-swipe? Surely Tim Fisher is a politician, not a
> > historian, not an archaeologist! His hobby was music IIRC, no
> > connection there either! What the devil has he got to do with
> > anything Izzy said? What ARE you on about?
> Yes, well, believe it or not, but loveable old Tim Fischer, lil Johnny's
> faithful old lapdog, has said a few unreasonable things about aboriginal
> Australians. Could it be? 'Fraid so. Kerry Packer's mind-control network
> may be hard-selling him as a loveable larrikin from the bush, but face it,
> he was willing to bash the darkies when he had an election to win.
Most politicians have said something "unreasonable" unreasonable
at one time or another of a group or individual. Doesn't make
them racist. Your use of "Kerry Packer's mind-control network..."
tends to indicate an unwillingness to move from a preconceived
notion regardless of what is said. I cannot recall him being
"willing to bash the darkies", perhaps you could refresh my
memory.
> Such as referring to aboriginal organisations as "blood-sucking
> leeches".
That is hardly racist. Possibly misguided, or ill-considered, or
perhaps some organisation actually was that? Saying something
against aborigines does NOT amount to racism. To say something is
inherently bad purely *because* they are aborigines IS racist.
> And also reviving the 19th Century doctrine of Manifest Destiny:
> That aborigines were so appallingly primitive, that they didn't really
> deserve the land in the first place.
>
> That's what I was on about.
I think you are jumping at shadows. Something back then can
hardly be blamed on either Tim Fischer or Izzy, can it. Neither
did Izzy use the term "appallingly" in what he said. The term
"primitive" is the apt description before the arrival of
Europeans or even later. There were such, as late as the 20th
century. I think there was a tribe who hadn't even seen a white
man until about the 1950'ies IIRC. Nothing in Izzy's story had
reference to "they didn't deserve land". The PHONies are the only
group that I know off that would abolish Native Title.
You seemed to take offence at the term "primitive", no idea why.
It is a term of measurement relative to a reference point. That
reference point being Western Culture and the starting point of
its evolution. It is equally fair to say the Europeans were
primitive back in the stone age too.
The "Luddites" referred to were anyone who opposed advancement in
technology, they way I read it. Specifically I would suggest Izzy
was intimating to nuclear power in the main. I would include
those who would oppose advancement in human interaction, eg in
commerce, education, laws, human rights, information, etc.... or
globalisation.
che_...@my-deja.com
and while my technical background leads me to share your
concern about the irrational, i think you misrepresent
all the opposition as luddite and backward looking.
Certainly since Oppenheimer quoted the Baghavid Gita
at the first Atomic explosion, scientists have been acutely
aware of the potential world destroying capacities which
human technology has developed.
Also, concerns are frequently not about the technology per se,
but the CONTROL of dangerous technologies, and the level of
understanding required to do so.
Any early tribesman could master the bow and arrow, and each
become the posessor of such a powerful new innovation.
Few understand gene splicing, and even fewer have access to
the technology in any meaningful way.
It is frequently the degree of trust which we are asked to
place in the owners and manipulators of technology which is at issue.
This problem becomes intensified when it control is concentrated in
private hands, dedicated not to the broader social good, but to
the generation of profit for shareholders.
Take the ethics of the banking sector, and their committment
to good citizenship, and apply it to human health!
Then you have the pharmaceutical cartel and global price fixing.
Atomic weapons began the global nureosis, and our culture reflected
the concerns back to us with "Godzilla" and "Planet of the Apes".
Genetic manipulation has created a whole new genre, "Species",
"Alien Resurrection", "The Plague", monsters created by another arm
of Global Inc, this time to entertain us with our new phobias.
Don't blame the fearful for being fearful.
They have good cause.
Blame the technological priestly class for being servants of
the plutocratic ruling class, unworthy of trust.
Blame the 'opinion makers' with their mass marketed entertainments
feeding on fears and dreams.
In other words... the technological society produces its own
nightmares.
We all have to live through them.
In article <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>,
Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> Every generation spawns its own share of technophobes, quivering
> in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
> understand.
Cannot be 'bothered' to understand? Hmmm.
How many specializations have you mastered, Mr Renaissance man?
Would you care to outline string theory, and then give a short
dissertation on anti-viral agents, followed by a careful
exposition of gene-splicing technology, a brief rest while you
outline your theories on heuristic programming, and then back to
some serious physics...
The average westerner would be hard put to explain the telephone
system.. but are quite able of using it. Ditto television.
Just look at the 'fearful response' to the limitations of HIV
screening.
>
> They hurl accusations of "blind faith in technology" at their
> perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
> misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
> streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
>
> The Luddites are at war with the rest of human race.
Fortunately, they only posess low-tech weapons ;-)
(And, as Vietnam demonstrated, therefore don't stand a chance ;-)
>
> A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
> which _makes_ tools.
No, chimps will strip the branches and leaves from their
ant-sticks, some birds will drop shellfish onto rock to
crack them open..
So the 'tool-maker' definition is one that has come and gone in
my lifetime.
> And makes tools to make tools.
so far ;-)
>
> The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
I thought that was the rightful privilige of teh ruling class,
by virtue of harnessing, if not inventing, technology ;-)
> taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
> but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
> of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
> adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
> serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
Hang on.. are you slagging people who are against technology per se,
or just those who discriminate?
If the second it sounds like you don't want discussion
about the efficacy of particular technologies?
Care for a glass of Thalidomide?
Mercury seafood?
>
> The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
> 'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
> and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> appears to be lacking.
We are talking about the people with one of the highest uptakes
of new technology here aren't we?
Clearly they are not 'luddites' when they use mobiles, the
internet, or viagra... just when they don't embrace your
enthusiasm for nucleur isotopes! B^D
>
> Technology defines us.
Oh dear! Has it come to that?
> Technology is what we do. Technology is
> what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
> indeed they do get fed.
Technical capacity is not the critical component in hunger.
I invite you to travel through Northern Victoria and observe
the ratio of food crops to vinyards, hops, and tobacco.
Technology is used in a political and economic context.
These also 'define us'. They are also 'what we do'.
(I have not included the moral or spiritual dimension..
why cloud a narrow technocratism further ;-)
>
> What is the point of having all these billions of people about
> unless we DO something?
Is their a point? So in addition to technology there
is philosophy, and ontology.. this also is 'what we do'?
>
> Do I have faith in technology?
And faith!
> You bet - but it is not blind.
Very wise, same as the rational approach to spiritual matters!
> Technology is the only hope for the survival of man.
Oh dear, monomania! This was a popular view in the 19th
century, it has become a little jaded after two global
conflicts just bristling with technology
> The blindness is in the technophobia.
Well that is certainly one kind.
But as you demonstrate, it is certainly not the only one! ;-)
>
> If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> out into the Universe.
I agree. It seems an irresistable challenge.
It may not be our only destiny, though.
>
> If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
> destroy ourselves, does it?
Speaking personally, yes.
The fact that i face ultimate physical death does not prevent
me from enjoying this sweet peach, or my lovers lips.
Sorry, i know neither of these paltry interests are 'techo'
but i need the occasional break from 'doing things'. ;-)
>
> Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
> human race get on with its work.
The last group who decided some fellow humans were 'outside the
race' and holding us all back took to gassing them.
It was a feasible technological solution.
And 'technology is what we do, it defines us'
But we are more.
Che
----
Dear Izzy, I am a technophile, I used to have the first
scientific American images of IC's on my wall, (they were
so like Tibetan buddhist mandalas ;-)
next to the early Apollo full disc earth images...
It has earnt my living and payed for my kids orthodontics..
...but making technology god, to me, is just old fashioned
idolatory.
And abusing the ignorant for being reasonably fearful of
that which can be used against them, as easily as for them,
ignores *why* so many cry:
> "Stop the world - I want to get off!"
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kym HORSELL
>Every generation spawns its own share of technophobes, quivering
>in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
>understand.
Yeah, Rachel Carson for one... ;-)
>...
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU K...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~khorsell http://cs.binghamton.edu/~kym
Iskandar Baharuddin
Have you read her work? Do you know her background? Hardly a
technophobe.
She was a consummate professional, and succeeding in getting
attention to identifiable, quantifiable problems.
She changed the way we think about the environment with reasoned
argument. BTW, I was around at the time.
This is precisely the way we progress - through research and
solid argument, not through inchoate ranting.
The anti-nuclear movement has no Rachel Carson, and is most
unlikely to get one.
--
Regards,
Izzy
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379D3E80...@highway1.com.au>...
would you class shapeing a stone to better do a certain task as tool making,
or using a hammer and anvil stone to open a particulary tough but tasty nut
as tool use. as chimps have been observed in the wild making simple stone
tools, some of their work is very similar to early human efforts as it
proforms similar functions.
>Don't really worry about what the stick is for.
>
>Anyhow, I am willing to bet that man is the only animal that
>makes tools for making tools.
>
incorrect, see the chimps making stone tools, some of the tools they have
made are for making other stone tools with.
a summary of the research findings were published a couple of years ago in
newscientist.
<large snip>
ant
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379D052A...@highway1.com.au>...
nothing wrong with technology in general, just technologys that pose a risk
to all, not just the ones that use them.
>>
>> >
>> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
>> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
>>
>> well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
>
>That is precisely where we differ.
>
which is why it is wrong to expect others to live by your rules, as is
forcing an unwilling public to expose itself to the risk of nuclear power,
for the profit of a few.
>>
>> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
>> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
>> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
>>
>> so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic
basis?
>
>Yes. Of course, I include the arts, which have a very
>substantial material component.
>
well how do you determine the material value of happiness?
or the value of a safe enviroment for future generations ?
>>
>> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
>> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
>> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
>> >appears to be lacking.
>> >
>>
>> the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to
continue
>> destroying our environment?
>
>Shaping, moulding, remaking.
>
are you so arrogent that you belive that humans know what is best for all
other species?
or are you saying that the only things that have a right to live are
organisims that have an immidiate profit to be made out of them?
>> heard of salinity, Australia's agricultural productivity has already
peaked
>> and is declining because of the environmental degradation caused by the
>> unsustainable use of the land. respected members of society warned
>> Australians of the damage we were doing to our future in the 1890's but
>> their warnings were ignored for short term profit. same goes with the
>> introduction of the rabbit to the mainland despite the damage done by
them
>> in Tasmania. if we can't learn from our mistakes we are destined to
repeat
>> them.
>
>I recall making the point that we do learn from our mistakes. cf
>Great Lakes.
>
the great lakes would not have been cleaned up if it was not for concerted
public campaigns from the enviromental organisations who drew attention to
the problems with the lakes and conducted independant chemical monitoring to
show that the official figures were misleading. same goes for the
enviromental improvements in western europe.
well, salinity is still spreading across australias farmlands despite the
fact we have known the cause for over fifty years. the problem has not been
corrected because it would adversly affect short term profitability and the
long term costs of land clearing have never been factored into the costs of
farming.
really, owuld you care to quote a some sources or produce a time line of
some sort to assert your claims.
>See comment above on income distribution.
>
>>
>> >If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
>> >out into the Universe.
>> >
>>
>> into a universe which we don't even know if any other worlds are going to
be
>> habitable without terraforming. sending more then a fraction of the
worlds
>> population off to colonize other worlds would be totally uneconomic,
>> regardless of the fact that you are relying on the development of
>> theoretical technologies to compensate for todays irresponsible use of
the
>> planets resources. i seriously doubt that it will be the worlds poor that
>> can afford to move to a new planet. nice attitude you have, trash the
place
>> you are living in and move somewhere else and trash it again(must
remember
>> not to rent a house to you). unless we want to be destined to lead a
nomadic
>> life consuming one planet after another we should concentrate on fixing
the
>> planet we live on now before we think of moving to a new world.
>
>That is precisely the attitude I condemn. The "Let's make do
>with what we have" philosophy.
instead of the throw it away now and we can learn how to make better stuff
later, i promise. what is wrong with living within ones means instead of
borrowing against our descendants incomes?
>
>The human race has never done that, and is unlikely to start
>now.
>
all the more reason to maybe change our ways.
>>
>> >If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
>> >destroy ourselves, does it?
>>
>> it is all a matter of what your vision for the future involves, if you
want
>> the human race to become nothing more then a interstellar disease,
spreading
>> and destroying one world after another then go for it, shit in the rivers
>> and oceans, chop down the original hardwood features, kill every species
>> that has no immediate economic benefit to society (and a lot that do as
>> well). dont worry if the oceans die, just build atmospheric reprocessing
>> plants
>
>> my vision of the future involves a sustainable use of the worlds
resources,
>> with clean water and air, energy efficient devices and a stable
population.
>> a future where more then the economic value of a thing or action
determines
>> its benefit to society. where the ideal of "From each according to his
>> means, to each according to his needs." is applied fairly to all, where
>> education is not a privilege but a guaranteed right, where food is shared
>> evenly regardless of the ability of a person to pay. a society not based
on
>> greed and selfishness.
>
>Boring!
is that all you can come up with?
if you want to start these sort of discussions at least try not to resort to
such lame come backs.
ant
Democracy: 3 wolves & a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
littlefish
<379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
>Every generation spawns its own share of technophobes, quivering
>in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
>understand.
Careful, you're drifting close to using emotive language here. :-)
>They hurl accusations of "blind faith in technology" at their
>perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
>misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
>streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
Whereas this post is nothing like that. :-)
>The Luddites are at war with the rest of human race.
>
>A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
>which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
And has the intelligence to see the consequences, if only he would use it.
>The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
>taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
Sounds good to me.
>but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
>of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
>adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
>serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
What were you saying about "garbled, misconstrued or simply incorrect"?
>The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
>the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere.
Except for thousands of years of idyllic life.
>The
>'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
>less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
>nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
>and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
>catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
>the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
>appears to be lacking.
>
>Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
>what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
>indeed they do get fed.
How many people starved in Africa and Asia before this century?
How many people starved in Africa and Asia during this century?
Perhaps starvation is due to reliance on technology which fails.
>What is the point of having all these billions of people about
>unless we DO something?
I can think of a few things I would like to do under a banana tree in a
pristine environment.
>Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
>Technology is the only hope for the survival of man.
OTOH, we would be unlikely to wipe ourselves out without it.
>The
>blindness is in the technophobia.
You mean all those quivering technophobes choking the freeways with their
bicycles? :-)
>If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
>out into the Universe.
Just how many planets do you think will be as pleasant as this one used to
be, and still is in parts?
>If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
>destroy ourselves, does it?
Bloody oath it does!
>Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
>human race get on with its work.
As you said, "A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools."
Technology is only a tool. Men are not.
>--
>Regards,
>
>Izzy
Izzy-mandias?
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379D3E80...@highway1.com.au>...
> or using a hammer and anvil stone to open a particulary tough but tasty nut
> as tool use. as chimps have been observed in the wild making simple stone
> tools, some of their work is very similar to early human efforts as it
> proforms similar functions.
>
> >
> >Anyhow, I am willing to bet that man is the only animal that
> >makes tools for making tools.
> >
>
> made are for making other stone tools with.
>
> a summary of the research findings were published a couple of years ago in
> newscientist.
>
> <large snip>
>
> ant
Thanks, ant. I missed that. Will go looking for it.
Clever little buggers, aren't they?
Iskandar Baharuddin
A truly thoughtful post, a rarity in this thread.
I will limit my response to a simple clarification:
I admit that I am shaky on string theory, viral technology et
all. I have not been concerned enough about these to dig into
them. If I were anxious about them I would do so.
My sole objection is to the crucifix-and-garlic crowd who run
around in circles spreading totally false 'information'.
An informed critic is a blessing to any innovator. It is an
essential part of the feedback loops which make technology
controllable.
Rants and raves benefit only the ranters and ravers - they get a
nice adrenaline rush.
Well, now that "Ban the Bomb!" is passé they have to do
something, I guess.
Why don't they get worked up about the evils of television? That
bit of technology is doing more damage to the human race than
the next five put together.
--
Regards,
Izzy
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
> >in suspicion and fear of technology they cannot be bothered to
> >understand.
>
>
> >perceived enemies, and push forward a mixture of garbled,
> >misconstrued or simply incorrect "data" combined with huge
> >streams of verbiage with a semantic content approaching nil.
>
>
> >
>
> And has the intelligence to see the consequences, if only he would use it.
>
>
Boring as hell.
>
> >but eschewing 'evil' technology such as nuclear power in favour
> >of poisonous but holy fossil fuels or alternative power sources
> >adequate for a life under the banana tree, but not for any
> >serious work. Cars, no; bicycles yes.
>
> What were you saying about "garbled, misconstrued or simply incorrect"?
>
> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere.
>
> Except for thousands of years of idyllic life.
>
> >The
> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> >appears to be lacking.
> >
> >Technology defines us. Technology is what we do. Technology is
> >what will feed the burgeoning masses of Africa and Asia - if
> >indeed they do get fed.
>
> How many people starved in Africa and Asia before this century?
> How many people starved in Africa and Asia during this century?
> Perhaps starvation is due to reliance on technology which fails.
Once you become dependant on technology you better make damned
sure it does not fail.
However, the two major problems in Africa were food aid and
Africans.
>
> >What is the point of having all these billions of people about
> >unless we DO something?
>
> I can think of a few things I would like to do under a banana tree in a
> pristine environment.
We are probably thinking about the same things. ;) Ever done it
under a banana tree? Actually, palm trees are better - but watch
out for falling coconuts. Can be fatal. Even low-tech
environments have their environmental hazards.
>
> >Do I have faith in technology? You bet - but it is not blind.
> >Technology is the only hope for the survival of man.
>
> OTOH, we would be unlikely to wipe ourselves out without it.
>
> >The
> >blindness is in the technophobia.
>
> You mean all those quivering technophobes choking the freeways with their
> bicycles? :-)
Quivering? Hell, no! Those nuts on bicycles appear to be totally
fearless. Must be enclose in some sort of force field.
>
> >If mankind has a destiny it must be to get off this planet and
> >out into the Universe.
>
> Just how many planets do you think will be as pleasant as this one used to
> be, and still is in parts?
Dunno. Let's go find out!
>
> >If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
> >destroy ourselves, does it?
>
> Bloody oath it does!
But why? To whom would it matter? After all, if we are gone, it
certainly won't matter to us.
>
> >Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
> >human race get on with its work.
>
> As you said, "A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
> which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools."
>
> Technology is only a tool. Men are not.
Agreed. We are the tool makers and the tool wielders. Without
tools we are zip.
>
> >--
> >Regards,
> >
> >Izzy
>
> Izzy-mandias?
>
No, he izzn't.
This was a good one. Thanks
jim colbert
<clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
<snip>
> You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer, which
>assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they were
>"primitive".
What's racist about calling a society that has limited use of tools,
no agriculture and a legal system that involves sticking sharp pointed
sticks into people (which usually results in them being unable to fend
for themselves and so dying) primitive?
> Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
>they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
>Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
>as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
You mean the aboriginal tribes didn't fight each other? that's news.
Most primitive, and modern societies have fought each other - over
land, power, various other things - only difference is that modern
technological societies have better weapons and so can do it more
thoroughly.
Personally I'd define any society that goes round killing other people
as primitive - at least in a social sense.
As to "idyllic" you mean scrounging round in the desert trying to find
your next meal, surrounded by some of the deadliest critters on the
planet with no real means of protection was "idyllic"?
Come back to reality, please.
> "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
>culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which technologically
>progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for another 200, if we
>carry on as we have?
And they developed what?
It was a primitive stone age culture - and they took real good care of
the land too - like starting a fire upwind of where they wanted to
camp to get rid of the nasties that may be there (and who gives a shit
if the fire goes on for another mile or two, or 10 or 50?).
> As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously
>view aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an
>honest day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have
>shown that, where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to
>adopt new technologies.
Where on earth did Izzy say that? All he said was they were a
primitive (actually pretty much stone age) culture. Nothing for or
agin them - they couldn't really develope past that stage in a country
with no surface metals, natural grain and very limited readily
available resources of any kind.
> For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
>very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
>adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
>living in Australia.
Yup - didn't work without a bit of technological assistance, which
they didn't have.
,-._ ? cut the xy&z from address to reply
/ Oz \ Jim Colbert
\_,--.x/ col...@melbpc.org.au
v If all the economists in the world
were laid end to end they'd all point
in different directions. - JM Keynes
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379D052A...@highway1.com.au>...
> >ant wrote:
> >>
> >> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
> <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
> >snip
> >
> >> >A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
> >> >which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
> >> >
> >>
> >> it just would cost a bit more then nasty fossil fuels. who said anything
> >> about banning cars, ever heard of zero emission vehicles?
> >
> >Yep. Product of technology.
> >
>
> nothing wrong with technology in general, just technologys that pose a risk
> to all, not just the ones that use them.
Such as coal-fired generators.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
> >> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
> >>
> >> well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
> >
> >That is precisely where we differ.
> >
>
> which is why it is wrong to expect others to live by your rules, as is
> forcing an unwilling public to expose itself to the risk of nuclear power,
> for the profit of a few.
Where is the bloody risk you keep talking about? All the
evidence shows that nuclear power is the most
environmentally-friendly source of gigawatts - on which our
civilization depends.
>
> >>
> >> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
> >> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
> >> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
> >>
> >> so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic
> basis?
> >
> >Yes. Of course, I include the arts, which have a very
> >substantial material component.
> >
>
> well how do you determine the material value of happiness?
Don't even try.
> or the value of a safe enviroment for future generations ?
Incalculable. That is why I want to see the fossil fuel plants
shut down.
>
> >>
> >> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> >> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> >> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> >> >appears to be lacking.
> >> >
> >>
> >> the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to
> continue
> >> destroying our environment?
> >
> >Shaping, moulding, remaking.
> >
>
> are you so arrogent that you belive that humans know what is best for all
> other species?
Well, unless they tell us otherwise ...
> or are you saying that the only things that have a right to live are
> organisims that have an immidiate profit to be made out of them?
I don't think that is exactly what I am saying.
>
> >> heard of salinity, Australia's agricultural productivity has already
> peaked
> >> and is declining because of the environmental degradation caused by the
> >> unsustainable use of the land. respected members of society warned
> >> Australians of the damage we were doing to our future in the 1890's but
> >> their warnings were ignored for short term profit. same goes with the
> >> introduction of the rabbit to the mainland despite the damage done by
> them
> >> in Tasmania. if we can't learn from our mistakes we are destined to
> repeat
> >> them.
> >
> >I recall making the point that we do learn from our mistakes. cf
> >Great Lakes.
> >
> the great lakes would not have been cleaned up if it was not for concerted
> public campaigns from the enviromental organisations who drew attention to
> the problems with the lakes and conducted independant chemical monitoring to
> show that the official figures were misleading. same goes for the
> enviromental improvements in western europe.
>
> well, salinity is still spreading across australias farmlands despite the
> fact we have known the cause for over fifty years. the problem has not been
> corrected because it would adversly affect short term profitability and the
> long term costs of land clearing have never been factored into the costs of
> farming.
And public concern is bringing about change.
I am a member of the concerned public.
However, I object strongly when public concern is fanned with
false 'facts' and irrational hysteria.
enormous amount of crap snipped.
> >Boring!
>
> is that all you can come up with?
> if you want to start these sort of discussions at least try not to resort to
> such lame come backs.
It may be lame, but it is most sincere.
>
> ant
>
> Democracy: 3 wolves & a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
You must be seriously bent. Do you want to abolish democracy as
well?
Colin King
jim colbert wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:05:18 -0700 Colin King
> <clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer,
> which>assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they
> were>"primitive".
>
> What's racist about calling a society that has limited use of tools, no
> agriculture and a legal system that involves sticking sharp pointed sticks
> into people (which usually results in them being unable to fend for
> themselves and so dying) primitive?
I have talked about the complexity of aboriginal law and agriculture in
another posting on this subject. Look it up. The problem was (and is) that
aboriginal society, being so entirely _different_ to European, they (and you,
seemingly) mostly failed to appreciate its complexity.
> > Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
> >they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
> >Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
> >as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
>
> You mean the aboriginal tribes didn't fight each other? that's news. Most
> primitive, and modern societies have fought each other - over land, power,
> various other things - only difference is that modern technological
> societies have better weapons and so can do it more thoroughly.
>
> Personally I'd define any society that goes round killing other people as
> primitive - at least in a social sense.
>
Of course fighting, on various scales, occurred in aboriginal society
(the term "inter-tribal" is actually quite misleading, as aborigines did not
live in "tribes", in the sense that Africans or Europeans did), but the
evidence suggests that the complex systems of inter-marriage, kinship and
payback worked quite well to limit conflict, which usually consisted of quite
a lot of threat and display, and usually ending with the first blood being
drawn.
> As to "idyllic" you mean scrounging round in the desert trying to find your
> next meal, surrounded by some of the deadliest critters on the planet with
> no real means of protection was "idyllic"?
>
> Come back to reality, please.
Actually, the majority of aborigines, pre-1788, did not live in the
desert. The greatest concentrations of population in Australia, as today,
were along the east coast. You confuse yourself with the situation as it has
been in recent times. As for "scrounging", they seem to have managed to feed
themselves rather well, considering some of the early settlers' admiring
comments on aborigines' health and physiques (guess where Manly beach got its
name).
> > "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
> >culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which
> technologically>progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for
> another 200, if we >carry on as we have?
>
> And they developed what?
>
> It was a primitive stone age culture - and they took real good care of the
> land too - like starting a fire upwind of where they wanted to camp to get
> rid of the nasties that may be there (and who gives a shit if the fire goes
> on for another mile or two, or 10 or 50?).
Again you demonstrate your total lack of knowledge (not to say seeming
prejudice) about the subject. As before, I have posted lengthy explanations
of aboriginal fire-stick farming. The fact is that it is only now that
Australian land-care authorities are beginning to appreciate the complexity
and _necessity_ of aboriginal burning patterns.
> > As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously >view
> aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an >honest
> day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have >shown that,
> where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to >adopt new
> technologies.
>
> Where on earth did Izzy say that? All he said was they were a
> primitive (actually pretty much stone age) culture. Nothing for or agin
> them - they couldn't really develope past that stage in a country with no
> surface metals, natural grain and very limited readily available resources
> of any kind.
I will admit that here I probably did overreact, but I will plead in my
defence that I have become fairly sensitive to remarks of that nature being a
prelude to more something overtly discriminatory ("I'm not racist, but ...".
Even so, it is fairly demonstrative of that blinding cultural prejudice that
led the original settlers to declare the aborigines "the miserablest people
on earth", hence it was okay to steal their land.
> > For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
> >very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
> >adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
> >living in Australia.
>
> Yup - didn't work without a bit of technological assistance, which they
> didn't have.
And which has degraded most of our arable land to the point of
uselessness. So who's the primitive?
che_...@my-deja.com
Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
> che_...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip.. where there is unity of purpose, progress is possible>
>
> A truly thoughtful post, a rarity in this thread.
One can't spend the whole time doing a Kennel expose
on Mosley! ;-)
>
> I will limit my response to a simple clarification:
>
> I admit that I am shaky on string theory, viral technology et
> all. I have not been concerned enough about these to dig into
> them. If I were anxious about them I would do so.
Of course, my point was layered, first that we can no longer
hope to be renaissance men, the necessary knowledge base is
far too immense, and growing expotentially.
Secondly, while we can have a passing understanding of
many fields, we are increasingly going to have to take
much 'on faith'.
Not in the same sense as 'blind faith' (eg creationism)
but faith in the integrity of peer review, independence,
openess and transparency of various specialised disciplines..
Oh Dear! I detect a similarity to things I constantly
campaign for in the corporate world!
For precisely the same reasons.
The general ignorance of the masses, (ourselves included)
lends singular power to the technical 'priestly' class
in each discipline. Their loyalty is increasingly to
the 'owners' rather than the 'beneficiaries' of the
technology.
Do you know many scientists, even 'academics' who have
not felt the hot breath of corporate necessity, or the
new demands of 'marketing' and fiscal angling?
Science, in the terms you eulogise, is in danger
of being corrupted by the market. (Along with banking,
media ;-) etc etc)
And there is no alternative value system to
counter-balance corporate capitalist triumphalism.
(Hence my interest in spiritual value systems)
>
> My sole objection is to the crucifix-and-garlic crowd who run
> around in circles spreading totally false 'information'.
Carl Sagan accurately described the new age of superstition..
And i persist in maintaining that secular humanism has not
diminished the grip of teh irrational.. that in fact the
weakening of traditional religions has only seen the rise
of even more irrational forms.
I can deal with a Methodist or a Muslim.. most of them are
hard working common sense, community oriented,
responsible citizens...
God knows what one does with an astrologer, a Scientologist
or a tory free-market ideologue. ;-)
>
> An informed critic is a blessing to any innovator. It is an
> essential part of the feedback loops which make technology
> controllable.
>
> Rants and raves benefit only the ranters and ravers - they get a
> nice adrenaline rush.
>
> Well, now that "Ban the Bomb!" is passé they have to do
> something, I guess.
Has the bomb been banned? ;-)
I am a firm believer that the best place for thermonucleur
reactions is 93,000,000 miles away.
I have a degree and Post graduate qualifications, but am amazed
that i only hear about radioactive isotopes from atmospheric
testing in soil samples, all around the globe, in passing,
on some nature program.
I have lived through that era.. the fact that i am more
likely to develop cancer or emphysemia from vehicle emissions
than cancer from radioactive particles does not diminish my fury
at such global pollution.
>
> Why don't they get worked up about the evils of television?
Speaking personally? Because you will criticise me for
ranting and raving! ;-)
I have a dear Persian friend who refers to TV as 'poison'.
This precisely fits my concerns about the insidious
toxic byproducts of our civilization. And goes someway to
explaining the fear many have of 'Frankenstein' technology.
In our age the poison may be invisible.
The fruit may look and smell and taste delicious,
despite the pesticide.
The tiniest carcinogenic particle, a fleeting cosmic
ray, even too much sun may bring death.
Invisible death is the most feared.
TV, then, is a wonderful metaphor for the Janus nature
of technology in civilization.
We have cable at our house. ;-)
(I have tried offering my kids a direct cash payment in
lieu of the cable subscription.. but they remain incorruptible ;-)
> That bit of technology is doing more damage to the
> human race than the next five put together.
I do think we could eliminate the commercial stations
and improve the national IQ average by 30-40 points.
But TV is one of the most important of the 'democratizing'
technologies. Not through overt, explicit or deliberate
didacticism.
But by showing everyone how everyone else lives.
That is why the Soviets tried to control the distribution
of VCRS.
And why Che is a fish swimming the ocean of the internet.
Che
----
I am intrigued by the way the paintings of Mondrian
and Kandinsky, derided as 'abstracts' in contrast
to traditional realism, presaged the electron
microscope images of crystaline structures. :^}
They painted a realism which had not yet been realised.
"A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised,
embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances
and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness
and perfect regularity..."
- Shoghi Effendi, March 11,
1936.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379F8A37...@highway1.com.au>...
>ant wrote:
>>
>> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
making,
>> or using a hammer and anvil stone to open a particulary tough but tasty
nut
>> as tool use. as chimps have been observed in the wild making simple stone
>> tools, some of their work is very similar to early human efforts as it
>> proforms similar functions.
>>
>> >
>> >Anyhow, I am willing to bet that man is the only animal that
>> >makes tools for making tools.
>> >
>>
>> made are for making other stone tools with.
>>
>> a summary of the research findings were published a couple of years ago
in
>> newscientist.
>>
>> <large snip>
>>
>> ant
>
>Thanks, ant. I missed that. Will go looking for it.
>
>Clever little buggers, aren't they?
>
different from us genetically anyway so it stands to reason that they would
exhibit similar behaviors. that is one species that most people think
deserves a right to a continued existence, if only because we can learn so
much about ourselves from studying them.
ant
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379F8CC6...@highway1.com.au>...
>ant wrote:
>>
>> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
<379D052A...@highway1.com.au>...
>> >ant wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
>> <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
>> >snip
>> >
>> >> >A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
>> >> >which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
>> >> >
>> >>
>
>> >> it just would cost a bit more then nasty fossil fuels. who said
anything
>> >> about banning cars, ever heard of zero emission vehicles?
>> >
>> >Yep. Product of technology.
>> >
>>
>> nothing wrong with technology in general, just technologys that pose a
risk
>> to all, not just the ones that use them.
>
>
yep, dont like those dirty carcinogenic things either, if we must burn
fossil fuel to make power we should be using natural gas as it is so much
cleaner.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
>> >> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
>> >>
>> >> well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
>> >
>> >That is precisely where we differ.
>> >
>>
>> which is why it is wrong to expect others to live by your rules, as is
>> forcing an unwilling public to expose itself to the risk of nuclear
power,
>> for the profit of a few.
>
>Where is the bloody risk you keep talking about? All the
>evidence shows that nuclear power is the most
>environmentally-friendly source of gigawatts - on which our
>civilization depends.
risk from a catastophic reactor faliure, risk from a waste storage accident,
the already documented discharges of radionucleides from reactors and more
signifigantly in the fuel refining and reprocessing stages. scientific
uncertanty over the long term stability and sutability of the sites selected
so far as waste depositorys. all small but real risks, as i have said
nothing humans have ever made has been totally proof against failure, and
claiming something is is just foolishness.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
>> >> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
>> >> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
>> >>
>> >> so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic
>> basis?
>> >
>> >Yes. Of course, I include the arts, which have a very
>> >substantial material component.
>> >
>>
>> well how do you determine the material value of happiness?
>
>Don't even try.
>
>> or the value of a safe enviroment for future generations ?
>
>Incalculable. That is why I want to see the fossil fuel plants
>shut down.
>
and replaced with an even more risky alternative, risk contaminating
farmlands and fisherys for generations, so much for feeding the starving
masses, either they go hungry or they eat the cancer food like the ukranians
have done, most of the world does not have the wealthy industrialiaed
society with the political stability needed to properly oversee and regulate
the industry for safety. if the soviets failed so badly what chance does the
third world have of properly controling the industry. all these safety
features you keep citing are only there because of government and public
pressure. anyone can put a wind turbine or some solar cells on their roof,
as the risks of long term enviromental contamination from those technologys
are small.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
>> >> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
>> >> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
>> >> >appears to be lacking.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to
>> continue
>> >> destroying our environment?
>> >
>> >Shaping, moulding, remaking.
>> >
>>
>> are you so arrogent that you belive that humans know what is best for all
>> other species?
>
>Well, unless they tell us otherwise ...
>
and how would they do that exactly?
maybe by throwing new diseases at us in increasing numbers and in many
locations around the world, never know what is going to crawl out of a cave
next. but that is just because humans are moving into enviroments that we
have traditionally avoided and are encountering new diseases. but one can
always hope.
>> or are you saying that the only things that have a right to live are
>> organisims that have an immidiate profit to be made out of them?
>
>I don't think that is exactly what I am saying.
>
well could you clarify it a little as that is how it comes accross.
>And public concern is bringing about change.
>
>I am a member of the concerned public.
>
>However, I object strongly when public concern is fanned with
>false 'facts' and irrational hysteria.
>
same thing was said about the enviromentalists when they said that the great
lakes were in danger, same thing with the franklin river protesters, same
thing with the claims by the enviromentalists that warned us that DDT was
not safe, that xrays were not safe, that asbestos was not safe, and so on.
how much data do you want, i have showen how the iaea studys into chernobyl
and hiroshema are flawed already. i have presented links to credible
scientific reviews of the methodology the iaea uses to support its
presuposed ideas and bias, how can they be trusted to tell the truth if the
"science" they use is so flawed and packed full of misinformation and
exclusioins.
so are the only true facts the ones that support your minority view on
nuclear energy?
>enormous amount of crap snipped.
>
not a very nice thing to say about points i raised and you ignored.
>> >Boring!
>>
>> is that all you can come up with?
>> if you want to start these sort of discussions at least try not to resort
to
>> such lame come backs.
>
>It may be lame, but it is most sincere.
>
so because it bores you it is dismised as of being of no relevance to
society, what a narrow view of the world you must have.
>>
>> ant
>>
>> Democracy: 3 wolves & a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
>
>You must be seriously bent. Do you want to abolish democracy as
>well?
>
ever heard of cycnical humor in sig files?
Iskandar Baharuddin
Your input channels appear to be totally blocked. You keep
repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >and once they recover from the recent hiccup will resume
> >> >> >catching up. And catch up they will. I am less confident about
> >> >> >the descendants of the early settlers of Australia. The will
> >> >> >appears to be lacking.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> the will to subjugate all living things to our will, or the will to
> >> continue
> >> >> destroying our environment?
> >> >
> >> >Shaping, moulding, remaking.
> >> >
> >>
> >> are you so arrogent that you belive that humans know what is best for all
> >> other species?
> >
> >Well, unless they tell us otherwise ...
> >
>
> and how would they do that exactly?
> maybe by throwing new diseases at us in increasing numbers and in many
> locations around the world, never know what is going to crawl out of a cave
> next. but that is just because humans are moving into enviroments that we
> have traditionally avoided and are encountering new diseases. but one can
> always hope.
>
> >> or are you saying that the only things that have a right to live are
> >> organisims that have an immidiate profit to be made out of them?
> >
> >I don't think that is exactly what I am saying.
> >
>
> well could you clarify it a little as that is how it comes accross.
Go back and read past postings.
Yes. No one supporting nuclear power in this newsgroup has made
any assertion that is not fully supported by the data.
Your problem, and that of your fellows, is that any data which
does not support your emotional position is, ipso facto, wrong.
People who react like this are incapable of learning.
>
> >enormous amount of crap snipped.
> >
>
> not a very nice thing to say about points i raised and you ignored.
Snipped because they were repetitious, and have been answered at
least a dozen times this month.
>
> >> >Boring!
> >>
> >> is that all you can come up with?
> >> if you want to start these sort of discussions at least try not to resort
> to
> >> such lame come backs.
> >
> >It may be lame, but it is most sincere.
> >
>
> so because it bores you it is dismised as of being of no relevance to
> society, what a narrow view of the world you must have.
>
> >>
> >> ant
> >>
> >> Democracy: 3 wolves & a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
> >
> >You must be seriously bent. Do you want to abolish democracy as
> >well?
> >
>
> ever heard of cycnical humor in sig files?
No. What does it mean?
Would this be cynical?
"The Universe does not give a damn about opinions."
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."
from "My Struggle", by Alfred E Neuman
Iskandar Baharuddin
Well, maybe not so manqué after all.
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."
from "My Struggle", by Alfred E Neuman
David Wareing
> > I will limit my response to a simple clarification:
> >
> > I admit that I am shaky on string theory, viral technology et
> > all. I have not been concerned enough about these to dig into
> > them. If I were anxious about them I would do so.
>
> Of course, my point was layered, first that we can no longer
> hope to be renaissance men, the necessary knowledge base is
> far too immense, and growing expotentially.
This has always been the case. There has never been a time when
one man had a reasonable grasp of all knowledge. Even in
primitive cultures there was a high degree of specialisation.
And the knowledge of a man could be defined more by what
he didn't know than what he did know.
> Secondly, while we can have a passing understanding of
> many fields, we are increasingly going to have to take
> much 'on faith'.
There is a huge difference between religious 'faith' and
a 'faith' in the accumulated knowledge produced through
scientific endeavour. For starters, religious faith is
mostly untestable -- the argument of last resort is always
the devine. ("It's god's will.") Science, on the other
hand, does not require faith at all -- it explicity renounces
the notion of faith and in fact the scientific community awards
its highest honours not to those who broadcast conservative
wisdom but those who challenge and change previously held
views. With religious faith, this is heresy. With science,
it's the stuff of Nobel prize winners and intellectual
advancement.
> Not in the same sense as 'blind faith' (eg creationism)
> but faith in the integrity of peer review, independence,
> openess and transparency of various specialised disciplines..
The human element will always be there. We can't remove
the human scientist from science. This is as true for
science as it is in any any field of study. However, the
big difference is that, at the end of the day, 'blind faith'
is not rewarded in science. You don't have to have 'faith'
in the peer review process to show that a new theory is
correct. The new theory just has to be supported by the
evidence and be reproducible.
> Oh Dear! I detect a similarity to things I constantly
> campaign for in the corporate world!
No doubt. It's easy to detect similarities if you define
the argument in such a way as to produce easy, advantageous
outcomes. You haven't shown that this 'faith' of which
you speak is remotely relevant to your argument.
> For precisely the same reasons.
>
> The general ignorance of the masses, (ourselves included)
Speak for yourself. I'm of the opinion that the "masses"
are far more generally knowledgeable about their universe
than any other peoples in history. But I guess if you see
the world as an us-vs-them situation, with class struggle
and workers vs elites, then I suppose it's only natural
that you see yourself as ignorant.
> lends singular power to the technical 'priestly' class
> in each discipline. Their loyalty is increasingly to
> the 'owners' rather than the 'beneficiaries' of the
> technology.
Who was the last scientist who became President of the US?
Which members technoclergy are in the White House? What
scientists are running the top 100 companies?
> Do you know many scientists, even 'academics' who have
> not felt the hot breath of corporate necessity, or the
> new demands of 'marketing' and fiscal angling?
Welcome to reality. It's called being accountable. It's
the curious notion that if you accept money from people
then you should do something to earn it. If you want to
do pure science, then by all means, you do it. Nobody is
stopping you. And when you discover something useful you
may profit from your discovery.
I understand that you hate this idea, and I know exactly
why you hate it. Accountability is not your big thing. Far
easier instead to take public monies and use it as you
see fit. What was that you were saying about technical
priestly classes again?
> Science, in the terms you eulogise, is in danger
> of being corrupted by the market. (Along with banking,
> media ;-) etc etc)
Corrupted? How? There is no such thing as pure, perfect
science. We live in the real world (well, some of us do) and
in this world we have to make choices about resource allocation
and politics and ethics and so forth. Science is not some
department of human activity that is closeted away from
other activities. The market is not the enemy of science. How
do you think science gets FUNDED in the first place? Where
do you think the taxes for public scientific expenditure comes
from?
> And there is no alternative value system to
> counter-balance corporate capitalist triumphalism.
> (Hence my interest in spiritual value systems)
"Triumphalism", eh? You've been reading too many Ralson Saul books.
Tell me, do you use every fashionable word that you pick up?
YOU may have no alternative value system, but that is YOUR
problem. We're not here to solve your little dilemmas in
life. We're not here to pay for your pure science. We're
not here to make sense of the universe for you.
> > My sole objection is to the crucifix-and-garlic crowd who run
> > around in circles spreading totally false 'information'.
>
> Carl Sagan accurately described the new age of superstition..
> And i persist in maintaining that secular humanism has not
> diminished the grip of teh irrational..
> that in fact the
> weakening of traditional religions has only seen the rise
> of even more irrational forms.
More irrational? Than what, Catholicism? Do you think we're
about to enter a new long dark night of Inquistions at the
hands of New Agers?
Doomsaying is an old sport, CliChe. I understand it's
called environmentalism nowadays, but it's still boring.
> I can deal with a Methodist or a Muslim.. most of them are
> hard working common sense, community oriented,
> responsible citizens..
Except for the irrational ones who aren't, eh?
> God knows what one does with an astrologer, a Scientologist
> or a tory free-market ideologue. ;-)
You don't even know what the word 'tory' means and I seriously
doubt you understand what the word 'ideologue' means either.
You just use these words as some sort of insipid nerfballish
debating tactic. When I did ask you for your defintions of
tories and liberals and economic rationalists, you slunk away
like a coward.
> Has the bomb been banned? ;-)
>
> I am a firm believer that the best place for thermonucleur
> reactions is 93,000,000 miles away.
Yah, the bomb is bad. Almost as bad as the millions of deaths
in WWI and WWII and Korea and Viet Nam caused by traditional
weapons.
Please name any global conflict that has occurred since the
introduction of nuclear weapons.
> I have a degree and Post graduate qualifications, but am amazed
> that i only hear about radioactive isotopes from atmospheric
> testing in soil samples, all around the globe, in passing,
> on some nature program.
You have a degree? Amazing. What in?
> I have lived through that era.. the fact that i am more
> likely to develop cancer or emphysemia from vehicle emissions
> than cancer from radioactive particles does not diminish my fury
> at such global pollution.
Hell hath no fury like a greenie bolshie scorned. Far be it
for me to suggest that you reserve your fury for something
actually important to people's lives.
> > Why don't they get worked up about the evils of television?
>
> Speaking personally? Because you will criticise me for
> ranting and raving! ;-)
Too late.
> I have a dear Persian friend who refers to TV as 'poison'.
That's funny, because I regard Iranian fundamentalism (there's
your irrationality again) as 'poison'.
> This precisely fits my concerns about the insidious
> toxic byproducts of our civilization. And goes someway to
> explaining the fear many have of 'Frankenstein' technology.
Concerns are handy things -- they empower the individual
by providing him with the tool of moral outrage, with which
he can beat the Unconcerned over the head with. After all,
if you're Concerned about 'toxic byproducts' of our civilisation
and I'm not, then you must be one hell of a stand up guy, right?
So, my little bolshie friend, what exactly are you DOING about
these "concerns" of yours? Apart from bleating about capitalism
in newsroups, that is.
> In our age the poison may be invisible.
> The fruit may look and smell and taste delicious,
> despite the pesticide.
[oh, oh. CliChe is doing his stream of consciousness routine.
Time to snip as a community service]
Greig Ebeling
>
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379F8CC6...@highway1.com.au>...
>>ant wrote:
>>>
>>> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
><379D052A...@highway1.com.au>...
>>> >ant wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
>>> <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
>>> >snip
>>> >
>>> >> >A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the animal
>>> >> >which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>snip
>>
>>> >> it just would cost a bit more then nasty fossil fuels. who said
>anything
>>> >> about banning cars, ever heard of zero emission vehicles?
>>> >
>>> >Yep. Product of technology.
>>> >
>>>
>>> nothing wrong with technology in general, just technologys that pose a
>risk
>>> to all, not just the ones that use them.
>>
>>Such as coal-fired generators.
>>
>
>yep, dont like those dirty carcinogenic things either, if we must burn
>fossil fuel to make power we should be using natural gas as it is so much
>cleaner.
Gas is also very valuable as a heating fuel, since it is cleaner and
more efficient than burning coal for electricity then using radiators.
Burning gas for electricity is wasting a limited resource. Better to
use gas for heating, and nuclear for electricity.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The precursors of modern Indonesians lived an idyllic life under
>>> >> >the banana tree for thousands of years. Got them nowhere. The
>>> >>
>>> >> well i would have thought an idyllic life would be its own reward.
>>> >
>>> >That is precisely where we differ.
>>> >
>>>
>>> which is why it is wrong to expect others to live by your rules, as is
>>> forcing an unwilling public to expose itself to the risk of nuclear
>power,
>>> for the profit of a few.
>>
>>Where is the bloody risk you keep talking about? All the
>>evidence shows that nuclear power is the most
>>environmentally-friendly source of gigawatts - on which our
>>civilization depends.
>
>
>risk from a catastophic reactor faliure, risk from a waste storage accident,
>the already documented discharges of radionucleides from reactors and more
>signifigantly in the fuel refining and reprocessing stages. scientific
>uncertanty over the long term stability and sutability of the sites selected
>so far as waste depositorys. all small but real risks, as i have said
>nothing humans have ever made has been totally proof against failure, and
>claiming something is is just foolishness.
You are right, ant. The risks are real - but small - REAL SMALL,
compared to the ramifications.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> >'original' Indonesians migrated to Australia, and lived a
>>> >> >less-than-idyllic life for tens of thousands of years, and got
>>> >> >nowhere. Well, Indonesians have now embraced the Western way,
>>> >>
>>> >> so you judge cultural development and merit purely on a materialistic
>>> basis?
>>> >
>>> >Yes. Of course, I include the arts, which have a very
>>> >substantial material component.
>>> >
>>>
>>> well how do you determine the material value of happiness?
>>
>>Don't even try.
>>
>>> or the value of a safe enviroment for future generations ?
>>
>>Incalculable. That is why I want to see the fossil fuel plants
>>shut down.
>>
>
>and replaced with an even more risky alternative, risk contaminating
>farmlands and fisherys for generations, so much for feeding the starving
>masses, either they go hungry or they eat the cancer food like the ukranians
>have done, most of the world does not have the wealthy industrialiaed
>society with the political stability needed to properly oversee and regulate
>the industry for safety. if the soviets failed so badly what chance does the
>third world have of properly controling the industry.
So you are in favour of nuclear power, provided the safety systems are
adequate?
>all these safety
>features you keep citing are only there because of government and public
>pressure. anyone can put a wind turbine or some solar cells on their roof,
>as the risks of long term enviromental contamination from those technologys
>are small.
So anyone, including denizens of thrid-world countries, can put wind
turbines and solar panels on their roof?
This is the first I have heard of it, I must have missed that post.
Can you please state the authors of these references who are so
critical of the IAEA methods? What are their qualifications?
>so are the only true facts the ones that support your minority view on
>nuclear energy?
I'm not sure if the anti-nuclear view is in majority, but I know that
this view is not based on "facts". AFAIK you, ant, certainly have not
presented any.
...Greig
ant
Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37a11808...@24.192.3.17>...
<old stuff sniped>
>>
>>risk from a catastophic reactor faliure, risk from a waste storage
accident,
>>the already documented discharges of radionucleides from reactors and more
>>signifigantly in the fuel refining and reprocessing stages. scientific
>>uncertanty over the long term stability and sutability of the sites
selected
>>so far as waste depositorys. all small but real risks, as i have said
>>nothing humans have ever made has been totally proof against failure, and
>>claiming something is is just foolishness.
>
>You are right, ant. The risks are real - but small - REAL SMALL,
>compared to the ramifications.
>
but it is a matter of how those risks are calculated, and who suffers the
consaquences. how many avoidable deaths a year are an acceptable risk?
>>>>
>>>> >>
<old stuff sniped>
>
>So you are in favour of nuclear power, provided the safety systems are
>adequate?
i dont belive that anything made by man can be totally proof against
failure, so no. risking long term genomic damage is not what i call an
acceptable risk.
>
>>all these safety
>>features you keep citing are only there because of government and public
>>pressure. anyone can put a wind turbine or some solar cells on their roof,
>>as the risks of long term enviromental contamination from those
technologys
>>are small.
>
>So anyone, including denizens of thrid-world countries, can put wind
>turbines and solar panels on their roof?
>
provided that they have the funds to do so yes, little regulation is
required. some of the metals used in batterys and the solar cells are the
only exception but that can be solved by running a buy back scheme. if their
government can afford to build nuclear reactors they can afford to subsidize
the installation of small scale renewable energy systems.
>
>>>> >>
<old stuff sniped>
>>same thing was said about the enviromentalists when they said that the
great
>>lakes were in danger, same thing with the franklin river protesters, same
>>thing with the claims by the enviromentalists that warned us that DDT was
>>not safe, that xrays were not safe, that asbestos was not safe, and so on.
>>how much data do you want, i have showen how the iaea studys into
chernobyl
>>and hiroshema are flawed already. i have presented links to credible
>>scientific reviews of the methodology the iaea uses to support its
>>presuposed ideas and bias, how can they be trusted to tell the truth if
the
>>"science" they use is so flawed and packed full of misinformation and
>>exclusioins.
>
>This is the first I have heard of it, I must have missed that post.
>Can you please state the authors of these references who are so
>critical of the IAEA methods? What are their qualifications?
>
here is the link
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/BioMedUnknow.html
and a breif description of the author
John William Gofman is Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell
Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, and Lecturer at the
Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine at San
Francisco.
Ph.D. in Nuclear/Physical Chemistry from the University of California at
Berkeley, 1943. Dissertation: Discovery of Pa-232, U-232, Pa-233, and U-233.
Proof of the slow and fast neutron fissionability of U-233. Discovery of the
4n + 1 radioactive series.
M.D. from the School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco,
1946. Internship in internal medicine at the University of California
Hospital, San Francisco, 1946-1947.
>>so are the only true facts the ones that support your minority view on
>>nuclear energy?
>
>I'm not sure if the anti-nuclear view is in majority, but I know that
>this view is not based on "facts". AFAIK you, ant, certainly have not
>presented any.
>
really, this is the second time i have posted the link above for you and yet
you calim i have not presented any data. most of the links you post are to
sources that have a clear vested intrest in the nuclear industry. the UIC
was founded by the uranium mining and exploration industrys as was its
london counterpart. the link above clearly demonstrates a bias in the IAEA
research. i await your next reply with intrest.
ant
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A0D6DD...@highway1.com.au>...
just ignore those nasty fact thingys when they don't aggree with you.
<snip old stuff>
>> >> well how do you determine the material value of happiness?
>> >
>> >Don't even try.
>> >
>> >> or the value of a safe enviroment for future generations ?
>> >
>> >Incalculable. That is why I want to see the fossil fuel plants
>> >shut down.
>> >
>>
>> and replaced with an even more risky alternative, risk contaminating
>> farmlands and fisherys for generations, so much for feeding the starving
>> masses, either they go hungry or they eat the cancer food like the
ukranians
>> have done, most of the world does not have the wealthy industrialiaed
>> society with the political stability needed to properly oversee and
regulate
>> the industry for safety. if the soviets failed so badly what chance does
the
>> third world have of properly controling the industry. all these safety
>> features you keep citing are only there because of government and public
>> pressure. anyone can put a wind turbine or some solar cells on their
roof,
>> as the risks of long term enviromental contamination from those
technologys
>> are small.
>>
>
>Your input channels appear to be totally blocked. You keep
>repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over.
>
and what have you been doing dizzy, two new threads attempting to discredit
your oposition without one single fact from yourself in any of the posts in
the threads you have started on the issue to support your acusations.
>
which would be?, even most nuclear industy spokes things admidt thet there
is a small risk of accident. all i am against is governments forcing nuclear
energy on an unwilling public. the private sector is not keen on investing
in the industry because of the risks, both real and percived. indonesia has
abandoned its nuclear power porgramm, even japan is reconsidering its
position on nuclear energy. if the world bank wont invest in nuclear
technology its days are numbered as a large scale contributor to the worlds
energy requirements. public opinion has spoken, democracy is functioning
correctly, if you dont like it you are welcome to hop on a generation ship
and find somehwere else to pollute.
>> >>
>> >> >>
<snip old stuff>
>> >> or are you saying that the only things that have a right to live are
>> >> organisims that have an immidiate profit to be made out of them?
>> >
>> >I don't think that is exactly what I am saying.
>> >
>>
>> well could you clarify it a little as that is how it comes accross.
>
>Go back and read past postings.
>
i have and that is what you appear to be saying.
<snip old stuff>
>Yes. No one supporting nuclear power in this newsgroup has made
>any assertion that is not fully supported by the data.
>
bull, your low level radiation is safe assertion, for one.
and if you would care to follow this link i have now posted several times
you will see how the research you have cited is defective and the
conclusions it reaches are suspect.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/BioMedUnknow.html
>Your problem, and that of your fellows, is that any data which
>does not support your emotional position is, ipso facto, wrong.
>
when thath data is false or misleading or has been modifed in some way to
support preconcived ideas, yes it is not valid science see above link.
>People who react like this are incapable of learning.
>
seems the same could be said about the "true belivers" like yourself. i have
learned a lot since the start of this debate, for example the amount of
uranium and thorium released by burning coal (another reason to use
renewable energy sources). or the extent of contamination around the
sellafield/windscale facility and the number of deaths which it has and will
continue to cause.
>>
>> >enormous amount of crap snipped.
>> >
>>
>> not a very nice thing to say about points i raised and you ignored.
>
>Snipped because they were repetitious, and have been answered at
>least a dozen times this month.
>
by quoting the same faulty data which is easily discredited.
and i have not seen any actual data presented by yourself to back up your
assertions. you seem to be relying on greig and gregory to provide you with
predigested and approved opinions.
ant
jim colbert
<clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
>jim colbert wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:05:18 -0700 Colin King
>> <clow...@smartchat.net.au> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > You subscribe to the same racist world-view as Tim Fischer,
>> which>assumes that, since aborigines didn't "build" anything, they
>> were>"primitive".
>> What's racist about calling a society that has limited use of tools, no
>> agriculture and a legal system that involves sticking sharp pointed sticks
>> into people (which usually results in them being unable to fend for
>> themselves and so dying) primitive?
> I have talked about the complexity of aboriginal law and agriculture in
>another posting on this subject. Look it up. The problem was (and is) that
>aboriginal society, being so entirely _different_ to European, they (and you,
>seemingly) mostly failed to appreciate its complexity.
I realise that the customs of primitive societies can be called
"complex" but they really are relatively simple compared to the load
of wank we saddle ourselves with - their agriculture, basically,
wasn't/ain't. They were primarilly a primitve stone age hunter
gatherer society. Similar societies lived in Europe but developed
(because of resources, climate - lots of factors).
No one is saying that the Oz aborigines were stupid - it was purely
the nature of their environment that held them back - but the simple
fact is that their society did NOT develope in any meaningful way.
>> > Who says the aboriginal way of life was "less than idyllic"? Because
>> >they didn't kill one another as regularly and on such massive scales as
>> >Europeans? The Thirty Years War may make interesting history, but I sure
>> >as shit wouldn't want to have lived through it?
>> You mean the aboriginal tribes didn't fight each other? that's news. Most
>> primitive, and modern societies have fought each other - over land, power,
>> various other things - only difference is that modern technological
>> societies have better weapons and so can do it more thoroughly.
>> Personally I'd define any society that goes round killing other people as
>> primitive - at least in a social sense.
> Of course fighting, on various scales, occurred in aboriginal society
>(the term "inter-tribal" is actually quite misleading, as aborigines did not
>live in "tribes", in the sense that Africans or Europeans did), but the
>evidence suggests that the complex systems of inter-marriage, kinship and
>payback worked quite well to limit conflict, which usually consisted of quite
>a lot of threat and display, and usually ending with the first blood being
>drawn.
Still didn't stop them sticking sharp pointy things into each other
:-) Only thing was thay only had simple sharp pointy things - we had
much better metal sharp pointy things and better throwers.
>> As to "idyllic" you mean scrounging round in the desert trying to find your
>> next meal, surrounded by some of the deadliest critters on the planet with
>> no real means of protection was "idyllic"?
>> Come back to reality, please.
> Actually, the majority of aborigines, pre-1788, did not live in the
>desert. The greatest concentrations of population in Australia, as today,
>were along the east coast. You confuse yourself with the situation as it has
>been in recent times. As for "scrounging", they seem to have managed to feed
>themselves rather well, considering some of the early settlers' admiring
>comments on aborigines' health and physiques (guess where Manly beach got its
>name).
And developed stable agrarian societies? No arguments with your claims
- but they still don't support any claim that the indigenous
inhabitants of Oz pre European settlement were not primitive.
>> > "got nowhere"? What, apart from managing to maintain a constant
>> >culture for some 40 - 100, 000 years, in a land which
>> technologically>progressive Europeans will be lucky to survive in for
>> another 200, if we >carry on as we have?
>> And they developed what?
>> It was a primitive stone age culture - and they took real good care of the
>> land too - like starting a fire upwind of where they wanted to camp to get
>> rid of the nasties that may be there (and who gives a shit if the fire goes
>> on for another mile or two, or 10 or 50?).
> Again you demonstrate your total lack of knowledge (not to say seeming
>prejudice) about the subject. As before, I have posted lengthy explanations
>of aboriginal fire-stick farming. The fact is that it is only now that
>Australian land-care authorities are beginning to appreciate the complexity
>and _necessity_ of aboriginal burning patterns.
You confuse a description of a type of society with "prejudice". Early
nomadic and stone age type cultures are just that. Obviously they
didn't have the knowledge or ability to stuff up the environment like
we can and do. They couldn't or can't kill each other as efficiently
as we do. They were no dumber or smarter than we are - but obviously
not as well educated in a modern sense.
But that doesn't change the simple fact that they were or are NOT
primitive stone age cultures.
>> > As for lacking the will to adopt new technologies, you obviously >view
>> aborigines as a bunch of lazy, black bastards unwilling to do an >honest
>> day's work. For your information, history and archaeology have >shown that,
>> where it suited them, aborigines have been very quick to >adopt new
>> technologies.
>> Where on earth did Izzy say that? All he said was they were a
>> primitive (actually pretty much stone age) culture. Nothing for or agin
>> them - they couldn't really develope past that stage in a country with no
>> surface metals, natural grain and very limited readily available resources
>> of any kind.
> I will admit that here I probably did overreact, but I will plead in my
>defence that I have become fairly sensitive to remarks of that nature being a
>prelude to more something overtly discriminatory ("I'm not racist, but ...".
>Even so, it is fairly demonstrative of that blinding cultural prejudice that
>led the original settlers to declare the aborigines "the miserablest people
>on earth", hence it was okay to steal their land.
Hey - we've been stealing each others land for hundreds and thousands
of years. My lot stole a slab from the local picts and scots, the
pommy bastards stole some from us, we toddled over to france & (I
guess) stole some of theirs ...... It's only in this century that
that hasn't been regarded as "normal" and acceptable.
>> > For instance, agriculture, which aborigines would have been aware of
>> >very quickly via their trading relations in New Guinea, was never
>> >adopted, because it was quite simply irrelevant to the realities of
>> >living in Australia.
>> Yup - didn't work without a bit of technological assistance, which they
>> didn't have.
> And which has degraded most of our arable land to the point of
>uselessness. So who's the primitive?
In a sociological sense - the aborigines. Primitive and undeveloped.
I don't think you'll have Izzy disagreeing with the argument that a
lot of the use technology is put to is bad - BUT without it things
would be a hell of a lot worse for most if not all of us.
And at least modern civilised societies do provide decent medicine,
reasonable social care and don't let people stick sharp pointy sticks
into each other :->
Iskandar Baharuddin
This is your example of serious research? It is absolutely
classical anti-nuclear rant by an embittered individual.
It bears not the slightest resemblance to a serious paper.
Iskandar Baharuddin
This is the most intelligent statement of the week.
littlefish
>littlefish wrote:
>>
>> Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
>> <379BF3CF...@highway1.com.au>...
>>
>> >The Luddites want us to sit back and enjoy life on this planet,
>> >taking full advantage of any technology on their approved list,
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
>Boring as hell.
Are you saying it is necessary to embrace every technology to avoid
boredom?
<snip>
>> Perhaps starvation is due to reliance on technology which fails.
>
>Once you become dependant on technology you better make damned
>sure it does not fail.
>
>However, the two major problems in Africa were food aid and
>Africans.
How so?
>>
>> >What is the point of having all these billions of people about
>> >unless we DO something?
>>
>> I can think of a few things I would like to do under a banana tree in a
>> pristine environment.
>
>We are probably thinking about the same things. ;) Ever done it
>under a banana tree? Actually, palm trees are better - but watch
>out for falling coconuts. Can be fatal. Even low-tech
>environments have their environmental hazards.
The coconuts do tend to get shaken loose when the Earth moves. :-)
But you're right, under the coconut palms is a better place for lots of
things. There's often a refreshing sea breeze, the sound of the surf and
maybe a headland with oysters on the rocks or a fringing reef to dive on.
(Pretty boring compared to a construction site though, isn't it? ;-) Not
enough tools.)
<snip>
>>
>> Just how many planets do you think will be as pleasant as this one used
to
>> be, and still is in parts?
>
>Dunno. Let's go find out!
Sure, if it's possible. The essential thing is that we don't stuff up the
only paradise we know for sure to exist.
>>
>> >If mankind has no destiny, it does not really matter if we
>> >destroy ourselves, does it?
>>
>> Bloody oath it does!
>
>But why? To whom would it matter? After all, if we are gone, it
>certainly won't matter to us.
Speak for yourself. I won't be committing hara-kiri if I don't get to
holiday at the Horsehead Nebula. Why is destiny so important? I'd be happy
just to enjoy the ride and leave the world in better shape than I found it.
>> >Beloved Luddites, pull your collective heads in and let the
>> >human race get on with its work.
>>
>> As you said, "A number of animals use tools. Man is the name for the
animal
>> which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools."
>>
>> Technology is only a tool. Men are not.
>
>Agreed. We are the tool makers and the tool wielders. Without tools we are
zip.
Not really. Without tools we are just less well off. What is far more
important IMO is that humans don't become tools, or pawns or slaves to
abstract concepts like "technology" or "destiny". Individual technologies
should be assessed based on their true long-term costs, risks and benefits.
--
"Man seizes, abandons, but then commits again the errors that flatter him."
Antoine Lavoisier
Iskandar Baharuddin
Fortunately the human race is a mixture of inclinations.
There have always been, and always will be, those who prefer to
stay at home, under the palm trees, and those who have a burning
urge to get out there.
There will always be those prepared to take risks, and those
afraid of their shadows.
Without some restraint on bold innovators we would have been
extinct before this.
My complaint is really about the utterly mindless opposition to
nuclear power.
I think it is based simply on fear. I have given up responding
to ant's endless repetitions. The only thing that would satisfy
ant and his ilk is an iron-clad guarantee that nuclear power is
absolutely 100% safe at all times.
Christ, you can't even get that on a Swiss army knife.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A19DEE...@highway1.com.au>...
dismiss all data coming form the pro nuclear lobby as eaisly as you do
rational critisizim of the nuclear industry, he is a well published
scientist with respected credentials and has had plenty of peer reviewd
papers published, why would he be bitter?
if you cant produce a better reply then that i will assume you are speaking
out of your arse alltogether and really don't have the inteligence or the at
least slightly open mind to ingage in an actual debate. as i said you have
not actually provided any facts in any of these posts, you just cite
evidence without giving examples, and rely on other people to do the actual
work for you. so as i asked greig, how many avoidable deaths a year are an
acceptable risk?
ant
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
>> animal
>> >> which _makes_ tools. And makes tools to make tools."
>> >>
cause the premature death of millions of people through cancer. so you are
saying that it is alright to risk the lives of millions of people for a
short term profit, as the more reactors brought online increases the risk of
an accident happening somewhere in the world, eventually a serious accident
will happen, and people will die. why replace one dirty and polluting
industry(fossil fuel electricity generation) with another industry that
relies on a finite reserve of fuel and produces much more harmful
radioisotopes then the burning of coal does.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A19DEE...@highway1.com.au>...
> >ant wrote:
unspeakable amount of repetitive stuff snipped
> >> sources that have a clear vested intrest in the nuclear industry. the UIC
> >> was founded by the uranium mining and exploration industrys as was its
> >> london counterpart. the link above clearly demonstrates a bias in the
> IAEA
> >> research. i await your next reply with intrest.
> >>
> >> ant
> >
> >This is your example of serious research? It is absolutely
> >classical anti-nuclear rant by an embittered individual.
> >
> >It bears not the slightest resemblance to a serious paper.
> >
> really, the points its raises are valid regardless of the origins, or can i
> dismiss all data coming form the pro nuclear lobby as eaisly as you do
> rational critisizim of the nuclear industry, he is a well published
> scientist with respected credentials and has had plenty of peer reviewd
> papers published, why would he be bitter?
>
> if you cant produce a better reply then that i will assume you are speaking
> out of your arse alltogether and really don't have the inteligence or the at
> least slightly open mind to ingage in an actual debate. as i said you have
> not actually provided any facts in any of these posts, you just cite
> evidence without giving examples, and rely on other people to do the actual
> work for you. so as i asked greig, how many avoidable deaths a year are an
> acceptable risk?
>
> ant
No avoidable death is acceptable, you idiot! That's why I would
like to see the coal-fired plants phased out in favour of nukes.
Have you read Greenman's reply to you?
I have already conceded the arena to you. You have bored me into
non-responsiveness.
Greig and Greg have more patience than I, but eventually you
will wear us all down with an avalanche of nonsensical
lower-case bytes.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A2D228...@highway1.com.au>...
>ant wrote:
>>
>> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
UIC
>> >> was founded by the uranium mining and exploration industrys as was its
>> >> london counterpart. the link above clearly demonstrates a bias in the
>> IAEA
>> >> research. i await your next reply with intrest.
>> >>
>> >> ant
>> >
>> >This is your example of serious research? It is absolutely
>> >classical anti-nuclear rant by an embittered individual.
>> >
>> >It bears not the slightest resemblance to a serious paper.
>> >
>> really, the points its raises are valid regardless of the origins, or can
i
>> dismiss all data coming form the pro nuclear lobby as eaisly as you do
>> rational critisizim of the nuclear industry, he is a well published
>> scientist with respected credentials and has had plenty of peer reviewd
>> papers published, why would he be bitter?
>>
no reply ay dizzy?
>> if you cant produce a better reply then that i will assume you are
speaking
>> out of your arse alltogether and really don't have the inteligence or the
at
>> least slightly open mind to ingage in an actual debate. as i said you
have
>> not actually provided any facts in any of these posts, you just cite
>> evidence without giving examples, and rely on other people to do the
actual
>> work for you. so as i asked greig, how many avoidable deaths a year are
an
>> acceptable risk?
>>
>> ant
>
>No avoidable death is acceptable, you idiot! That's why I would
>like to see the coal-fired plants phased out in favour of nukes.
>
well why do you support an industry that by its own admission causes many
avoidable deaths a year through the release of ionising radiation into the
enviromnent. if we invest the money into renewable energy research we could
meet all our energy needs through zero emmision renewable energy with no
need to resort to nuclear energy. you just cant charge people for sunlight
or the wind like you can with nuclear and fossil fuels.
>Have you read Greenman's reply to you?
which one?
where he misrepresented me through sneaky snips the first time or the second
time?
or would that be the post that he removed large amonts of without noting it
in an effort to only answer the questions he felt like and to make his
position look stronger by removing the points he did not have a ready made
counter for.
>
>I have already conceded the arena to you. You have bored me into
>non-responsiveness.
>
well maybe you wont start new threads attacking people so often in the
future. pretty lame attempt to get out of the argument without actually
providing any evidence. you never provided data to prove your assertion that
low level ionising radiation was safe.
neither have any of you managed to prove that an accident is totally
impossible.
when the consaquences are so large only %100 safety is acceptable.
>Greig and Greg have more patience than I, but eventually you
>will wear us all down with an avalanche of nonsensical
>lower-case bytes.
you just prefer to attempt to discredit your opposition by starting new
threads and then run away when you realize you are sliding. bit like trying
to shoot the messenger because you dont like the news he brings.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin
Because it would save both lives and the environment.
Here go again, responding to this crap.
I need professional help.
Greig Ebeling
>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37A0D6DD...@highway1.com.au>...
>>Yes. No one supporting nuclear power in this newsgroup has made
>>any assertion that is not fully supported by the data.
>>
>
>bull, your low level radiation is safe assertion, for one.
Nobody in this debate is stating that low levels of radiation are "safe".
Nothing is completely safe. What you are doing, ant, is stating that it
is DANGEROUS, sufficiently so that it is necessary to shutdown an industry
which produces 17% of the worlds electricity, and yet you have not
presented any data to support that assertion. If there is data, then
please present it here - not opinions, or conspiracy theories - FACTS.
>and if you would care to follow this link i have now posted several times
>you will see how the research you have cited is defective and the
>conclusions it reaches are suspect.
>
>http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/BioMedUnknow.html
This is an opinion, and does not present any data, or quantifiable facts.
It is a conspiracy theory, written by a scientist with an axe to grind.
He is probably bitter because he can't get a job with RERF or the IAEA
study teams. I wonder why.
>>Your problem, and that of your fellows, is that any data which
>>does not support your emotional position is, ipso facto, wrong.
>>
>
>when thath data is false or misleading or has been modifed in some way to
>support preconcived ideas, yes it is not valid science see above link.
Now 'thems are fightin' words'. If Gregory, Izzy or I have presented data
in this debate which is distorted, false or misleading, you have never
taken the time to expose it. Please provide examples of this, and point
out specifically where the data is wrong.
>>People who react like this are incapable of learning.
>>
>
>seems the same could be said about the "true belivers" like yourself. i have
>learned a lot since the start of this debate, for example the amount of
>uranium and thorium released by burning coal (another reason to use
>renewable energy sources).
...Yet you have not learned that renewable energy is not a viable
alternative to coal or nuclear...BTW where is that essay on the subject
which you promised us?...
>or the extent of contamination around the
>sellafield/windscale facility and the number of deaths which it has and will
>continue to cause.
I have been in this debate too, and many others over the past 20 years,
and I have never seen a single shred of proof concluding that Sellafield
or Windscale have been responsible for a single death. I challenge you
(again), ant, to show me a peer-reviewed scientific study of
Sellafield/Windscale which demonstrates harm.
You can't do this, can you ant? All you can provide is some loose
speculation, some hypotheses put forward by rogues which are supposed to
explain observed cancer clusters, despite the fact that there is no
observed correlation. Your conclusion on this issue is at odds with your
precious "BIO-MEDICAL UN-KNOWLEDGE" reference which (in case you hadn't
noticed) is arguing that we need more rigorous scientific scrutiny of
radiation exposure effects, BEFORE concluding.
...Greig
Add .au to email me
Greig Ebeling
>Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37a11808...@24.192.3.17>...
>>On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:54:35 +1000, "ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message
[snip]
>>>so far as waste depositorys. all small but real risks, as i have said
>>>nothing humans have ever made has been totally proof against failure, and
>>>claiming something is is just foolishness.
>>
>>You are right, ant. The risks are real - but small - REAL SMALL,
>>compared to the ramifications.
>>
>
>but it is a matter of how those risks are calculated, and who suffers the
>consaquences. how many avoidable deaths a year are an acceptable risk?
Apparently 1000s of deaths is acceptable, if the fossil fuel industry is
anything to go by.
>>
>>So you are in favour of nuclear power, provided the safety systems are
>>adequate?
>
>
>i dont belive that anything made by man can be totally proof against
>failure, so no. risking long term genomic damage is not what i call an
>acceptable risk.
>
>>>all these safety
>>>features you keep citing are only there because of government and public
>>>pressure. anyone can put a wind turbine or some solar cells on their roof,
>>>as the risks of long term enviromental contamination from those
>technologys
>>>are small.
>>
>>So anyone, including denizens of thrid-world countries, can put wind
>>turbines and solar panels on their roof?
>>
>
>provided that they have the funds to do so yes,
Yeh right.
>little regulation is
>required. some of the metals used in batterys and the solar cells are the
>only exception but that can be solved by running a buy back scheme. if their
>government can afford to build nuclear reactors they can afford to subsidize
>the installation of small scale renewable energy systems.
Hang on. A few posts ago you were claiming that nuclear power was bad and
wrong, was uneconomical because it requires government subsidies to run.
Now you are admitting that solar power would not be feasible without
government subsidies! Double standards.
I have read this reference twice, very carefully. There is no data in it.
It is merely the opinion of a scientist, and not a very objective opinion
either. It has nothing to do with science.
It is also somewhat inconsistent. On one hand it claims that radiation
studies (eg Hiroshima and Chernobyl) are inconclusive since they are
flawed, and that funding bodies are biassed, and yet the author states:
"But unfortunately, evidence and logic do not support the wish-list. On
the contrary, evidence and logic require me to issue a grave warning:
Low-dose ionizing radiation may well be the most important single cause
of cancer, birth defects, and genetic disorders. Therefore, we do not
want to add more radiation to our unavoidable doses from nature.
[...]
By 1970, my colleague, Dr. Arthur Tamplin, and I concluded and publicly
stated that the "permissible" extra radiation dose for the United States
population, if reached, would cause approximately 32,000 extra cases of
fatal cancer each year in the USA. Such a "permissible" dose would
amount to premeditated random murder of 32,000 individuals. (And
evidence from subsequent years indicates that our 1970 estimate was too
low.) "
[note that this statement does not include a reference to a study to
support the above figures]
If the evidence is insufficient, the studies flawed, and the conclusions
biassed, then where the hell does this guy get the idea that he can
conclude on the subject, on the basis of a guess, without presenting any
data???
>most of the links you post are to
>sources that have a clear vested intrest in the nuclear industry. the UIC
>was founded by the uranium mining and exploration industrys as was its
>london counterpart. the link above clearly demonstrates a bias in the IAEA
>research. i await your next reply with intrest.
You are correct, the UIC and IAEA research are indeed industry sponsored
sources of information. But beyond your implication of a conspiracy to
deceive, you have not challenged the information they supply. You see the
UIC and IAEA are professional organisations, and they are very careful not
to present data which is debatable or open to challenge. They present
facts.
I'm looking forward to you, Ant, presenting something vaguely akin to
quantifiable information, but I'm not holding my breath.
BTW what happened to that essay you promised us which was going to prove
the technical and economic viability of solar power. Bogged down in
figures? Having trouble with the maths? Or are you now questioning the
validity of your preconceived notions?
littlefish
>littlefish wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Not really. Without tools we are just less well off. What is far more
>> important IMO is that humans don't become tools, or pawns or slaves to
>> abstract concepts like "technology" or "destiny". Individual
technologies
>> should be assessed based on their true long-term costs, risks and
benefits.
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Man seizes, abandons, but then commits again the errors that flatter
him."
>> Antoine Lavoisier
>
>Fortunately the human race is a mixture of inclinations.
>
>There have always been, and always will be, those who prefer to
>stay at home, under the palm trees, and those who have a burning
>urge to get out there.
>
>There will always be those prepared to take risks, and those
>afraid of their shadows.
>
>Without some restraint on bold innovators we would have been
>extinct before this.
In my experience, this type of rhetoric (Us Bold Innovators vs Them Wimps
Afraid of Their Shadows) is often the resort of salesmen who can't sell
their product on its merits.
Lots of people get a kick out of taking risks (myself included) but putting
other people in danger is not on. It's fun to jump out of a plane, hunt
dangerous game in close cover or drive very fast on the open road. That
doesn't make it OK to drive just as fast on a busy freeway.
>My complaint is really about the utterly mindless opposition to
>nuclear power.
>
>I think it is based simply on fear.
I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is no
shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to make
a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people must
be subject to close scrutiny.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Sometimes it works. ;)
Did you miss my point? I am in favour of some restraint on said
Bold Innovators - but I am opposed to mindless obstruction.
>
> Lots of people get a kick out of taking risks (myself included) but putting
> other people in danger is not on. It's fun to jump out of a plane, hunt
> dangerous game in close cover or drive very fast on the open road. That
> doesn't make it OK to drive just as fast on a busy freeway.
>
> >My complaint is really about the utterly mindless opposition to
> >nuclear power.
> >
> >I think it is based simply on fear.
>
> I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is no
> shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to make
> a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
> technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people must
> be subject to close scrutiny.
What bitter experience are you talking about?
Precisely my point. If the anti-nuke kooks actually did their
scrutinizing and understood what they scrutinize they would shut
up.
It is the stubborn denial of reality that is the issue here.
jim colbert
wrote:
>Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
><37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
<snip>
>>My complaint is really about the utterly mindless opposition to
>>nuclear power.
>>I think it is based simply on fear.
>I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is no
>shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to make
>a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
>technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people must
>be subject to close scrutiny.
It's interesting that, if one looks at nuclear power generation in the
Western world that, despite all the horror stories and incompetence
(remember that at 3 mile island Murphy was proven to be an optimist)
no one has been hurt.
Yet how many were injured at the Longford plant?
And how many coal miners have died of black lung disease, ignoring
those killed in plant accidents?
littlefish
>littlefish wrote:
>>
>> Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
>> <37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
<snip>
>> >afraid of their shadows.
>> >
>> >Without some restraint on bold innovators we would have been
>> >extinct before this.
>>
>> In my experience, this type of rhetoric (Us Bold Innovators vs Them
Wimps
>> Afraid of Their Shadows) is often the resort of salesmen who can't sell
>> their product on its merits.
>
>Sometimes it works. ;)
>
>Did you miss my point?
No, I picked out the rhetoric cleverly slipped into a point which, on the
surface, appears to portray you as a reasonable man who is equally
disapproving of both extremes. A cunning plan ... :-)
>I am in favour of some restraint on said
>Bold Innovators - but I am opposed to mindless obstruction.
>>
>> Lots of people get a kick out of taking risks (myself included) but
putting
>> other people in danger is not on. It's fun to jump out of a plane, hunt
>> dangerous game in close cover or drive very fast on the open road. That
>> doesn't make it OK to drive just as fast on a busy freeway.
>>
>> >My complaint is really about the utterly mindless opposition to
>> >nuclear power.
>> >
>> >I think it is based simply on fear.
>>
>> I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is
no
>> shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to
make
>> a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
>> technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people
must
>> be subject to close scrutiny.
>
>What bitter experience are you talking about?
The bitter experience 'which has shown that there is no shortage of people
willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to make a fast buck or gain
prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.)', of course.
>Precisely my point. If the anti-nuke kooks actually did their
>scrutinizing and understood what they scrutinize they would shut
>up.
>
>It is the stubborn denial of reality that is the issue here.
You can't really blame people for being skeptical. But I'm sure they are
reassured when you make comments like: "If mankind has no destiny, it does
not really matter if we destroy ourselves". :-)
Iskandar Baharuddin
Perhaps I have been guilty of a bit of imprecision.
It would matter while the process of self-destruction is going
on, not after it is over.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Who was the last scientist who became President of the US?
Hmmm ... Herbert Hoover? (He was an engineer, actually.) I wouldn't quite
say Jimmy Carter qualifies, though he did get some sort of engineering
degree from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. But that was to
qualify him to be a nuclear sub operator.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
littlefish
Of course it would matter. It would be an appalling tragedy even if there
was nobody left to know it.
littlefish
<37a6e216...@news.melbpc.org.au>...
>
> >Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> ><37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
> <snip>
>
> >>nuclear power.
>
> >>I think it is based simply on fear.
>
> >I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is
no
> >shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to
make
> >a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
> >technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people
must
> >be subject to close scrutiny.
>
> Western world that, despite all the horror stories and incompetence
> (remember that at 3 mile island Murphy was proven to be an optimist)
> no one has been hurt.
>
> Yet how many were injured at the Longford plant?
>
> And how many coal miners have died of black lung disease, ignoring
> those killed in plant accidents?
Not to mention all the other disadvantages of coal-fired power generation.
IMHO, all competing technologies need to be assessed on their true
long-term costs, risks and benefits. Unfortunately, the type of people
mentioned above may distort the facts and make accurate assessment
difficult.
Perhaps the best bet is to try to reduce consumption of electricity (solar
hot water systems, fluoros, more efficient appliances etc.) until better
generation technologies are available.
--
"Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, and the lines on the map
moved from side to side"
Pink Floyd, 'Us and Them'.
Iskandar Baharuddin
> > > >littlefish wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> > > >> <37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
> > > <snip>
> > > >> >afraid of their shadows.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Without some restraint on bold innovators we would have been
> > > >> >extinct before this.
> > > >>
> > > >> In my experience, this type of rhetoric (Us Bold Innovators vs Them
> > > Wimps
> > > >> Afraid of Their Shadows) is often the resort of salesmen who can't
> sell
> > > >> their product on its merits.
> > > >
> > > >Sometimes it works. ;)
> > > >
> > > >Did you miss my point?
> > >
> > > No, I picked out the rhetoric cleverly slipped into a point which, on
> the
> > > surface, appears to portray you as a reasonable man who is equally
> > > disapproving of both extremes. A cunning plan ... :-)
> > >
> > > >I am in favour of some restraint on said
> > > >Bold Innovators - but I am opposed to mindless obstruction.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lots of people get a kick out of taking risks (myself included) but
> > > putting
> > > >> other people in danger is not on. It's fun to jump out of a plane,
> hunt
> > > >> dangerous game in close cover or drive very fast on the open road.
> That
> > > >> doesn't make it OK to drive just as fast on a busy freeway.
> > > >>
> > > >> >nuclear power.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I think it is based simply on fear.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their
> is
> > > no
> > > >> shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives
> to
> > > make
> > > >> a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
> > > >> technology which could adversely affect a very large number of
> people
> > > must
> > > >> be subject to close scrutiny.
> > > >
> > >
> people
> > > willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to make a fast buck or
> gain
> > >
> > > >Precisely my point. If the anti-nuke kooks actually did their
> > > >scrutinizing and understood what they scrutinize they would shut
> > > >up.
> > > >
> > > >It is the stubborn denial of reality that is the issue here.
> > >
> > > You can't really blame people for being skeptical. But I'm sure they
> are
> > > reassured when you make comments like: "If mankind has no destiny, it
> does
> > > not really matter if we destroy ourselves". :-)
> >
> > Perhaps I have been guilty of a bit of imprecision.
> >
> > It would matter while the process of self-destruction is going
> > on, not after it is over.
>
> Of course it would matter. It would be an appalling tragedy even if there
> was nobody left to know it.
Who would be the apallees?
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"Ciri sa-bumi, cara sa-desa" - Old Sundanese saying.
English translation: "People all over the world are basically
about the same, but the way they go about doing things depends
upon the village they come from."
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> jim colbert <xcol...@ymelbpc.org.auz> wrote in article
> <37a6e216...@news.melbpc.org.au>...
> > On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 13:48:35 GMT "littlefish" <littl...@bigpond.com>
> >
> > >Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> > ><37A22F52...@highway1.com.au>...
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>nuclear power.
> >
> > >>I think it is based simply on fear.
> >
> > >I think it is based on bitter experience, which has shown that their is
> no
> > >shortage of people willing to take risks with other peoples' lives to
> make
> > >a fast buck or gain prestige (tobacco industry, WW1 etc.). IMO, any
> > >technology which could adversely affect a very large number of people
> must
> > >be subject to close scrutiny.
> >
> > Western world that, despite all the horror stories and incompetence
> > (remember that at 3 mile island Murphy was proven to be an optimist)
> > no one has been hurt.
> >
> > Yet how many were injured at the Longford plant?
> >
> > And how many coal miners have died of black lung disease, ignoring
> > those killed in plant accidents?
>
> Not to mention all the other disadvantages of coal-fired power generation.
> IMHO, all competing technologies need to be assessed on their true
> long-term costs, risks and benefits. Unfortunately, the type of people
> mentioned above may distort the facts and make accurate assessment
> difficult.
>
> Perhaps the best bet is to try to reduce consumption of electricity (solar
> hot water systems, fluoros, more efficient appliances etc.) until better
> generation technologies are available.
>
But while you are waiting for your campaign to bite, Australia
faces the embarrassment of exceeding the generous increase in
greenhouse gases allowed at Kyoto.
The only off-the-shelf technology which will actually help in
any realistic time frame is nuclear power.
With upward pressure on oil prices you will see a renewed
interest in nukes.
There is nothing wrong with the economics of nuclear power
plants that cannot be cured by USD40 per barrel oil prices.
And there is no bloody safety problem!
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37AE974A...@highway1.com.au>...
the lead time for a nuclear power plant is at least 8 to 10 years.
we could reduce our demand for electricity by a third just by fitting solar
hot water systems where they were are practical, and that could be done in
two or three years, much faster than building a whole new industry in
australia. remember when you build a nuclear power plant you also have to
build waste storage and disposal facilitys, fuel processing and reprocessing
plants and the skilled workers to staff them.
>With upward pressure on oil prices you will see a renewed
>interest in nukes.
>
and a much greater intrest in renewable energy as it does not have the image
and health problems nuclear fisison has.
>There is nothing wrong with the economics of nuclear power
>plants that cannot be cured by USD40 per barrel oil prices.
well how about removing the public liability insurance cap that has been
applied to nuclear energy to make it viable. ahh but i forgot the insurance
industry will not insure it without liability protection from the government
as they have done their own risk assessments on the nuclear industry and
found it uninsurable.
>
>And there is no bloody safety problem!
>
except the admitted small risk of a core melt down, a few thousand people a
year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
reactors during their normal operation, the uranium miners who will die from
cancers they other wise would not have developed, the workers in the nuclear
fuel processing sector who accidently recive leathal doses of radiation
prove that there is no risk associated with nuclear power generation, even
the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of catastophic
faliure. after gregorys statements on the safety of white asbestos i have to
question his claim of being a scientist and have no faith in his assertions
on the safety of nuclear power generation, add greigs obvious conflict of
intrest and you are the only pro nuke in this argument with any credibility
left, and that is because you have been relying on the clearly biased
opinions of others instead of actually doing some research youself.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin
Here we go again, parroting the same old crap:
> a few thousand people a
> year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
> reactors during their normal operation,
By this time you surely know that this is nonsense, and that the
risks of the entire uranium cycle are far lower than the coal
cycle.
You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
alternative power.
You also must know that the risk from radiation from nuclear
power plants is insignificant compared with flying around in
airplanes.
Yet you go on and on and on and on ....
Why?
The only theory that fits all the observed facts is that you are
being paid to make the anti-nuclear lobby look like a bunch of
idiots.
--
Salaam
Izzy
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong."
- Henry Louis Mencken
Greig Ebeling
>energy efficency technology is easy to implement and fast to deploy.
And it WILL be deployed where practical. The thing is, energy
conservation has small impact on capacity.
>the lead time for a nuclear power plant is at least 8 to 10 years.
>we could reduce our demand for electricity by a third just by fitting solar
>hot water systems where they were are practical, and that could be done in
>two or three years, much faster than building a whole new industry in
>australia. remember when you build a nuclear power plant you also have to
>build waste storage and disposal facilitys, fuel processing and reprocessing
>plants and the skilled workers to staff them.
Solar hot water heaters do indeed save on energy bills, but I don't
think it is 33% of all power usage. This forgets that domestic power
usage is inly a part of total capacity, and that gas is used in many
places in Oz for water heating.
I agree with you, ant, that solar hot water is a good use of renewable
energy - so why aren't there more panels on rooftops? Answer:
Infrastructure cost. They cost $1000s, and take 10-15 years to pay
themselves back, and people just don't have the money to spend - there
are always more important bills to pay.
Just curious, ant, do you have solar hot water? If not, why not. .
>>With upward pressure on oil prices you will see a renewed
>>interest in nukes.
>
>and a much greater intrest in renewable energy as it does not have the image
>and health problems nuclear fisison has.
Curiosity in a technology does not make it any more viable.
>>There is nothing wrong with the economics of nuclear power
>>plants that cannot be cured by USD40 per barrel oil prices.
>
>
>well how about removing the public liability insurance cap that has been
>applied to nuclear energy to make it viable. ahh but i forgot the insurance
>industry will not insure it without liability protection from the government
>as they have done their own risk assessments on the nuclear industry and
>found it uninsurable.
>
>>
>>And there is no bloody safety problem!
>>
>except the admitted small risk of a core melt down, a few thousand people a
>year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
>reactors during their normal operation, the uranium miners who will die from
>cancers they other wise would not have developed, the workers in the nuclear
>fuel processing sector who accidently recive leathal doses of radiation
>prove that there is no risk associated with nuclear power generation, even
>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of catastophic
>faliure.
We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
>after gregorys statements on the safety of white asbestos i have to
>question his claim of being a scientist and have no faith in his assertions
>on the safety of nuclear power generation, add greigs obvious conflict of
>intrest
What conflict of interest? I thought I had explained - I'm an
engineer with a personal curiosity for the subject, but I don't work,
and never have worked, in the industry. Where is the conflict of
interest?
I think it is interesting that you should want to explain to yourself
why people have pro-nuclear views. You just can't accept that what we
are saying is actually correct - we must be insufficiently qualified
*, liers or...
>and you are the only pro nuke in this argument with any credibility
>left, and that is because you have been relying on the clearly biased
>opinions of others instead of actually doing some research youself.
We are all still waiting for you to present your research (on solar
power, hydraulic storage, etc). But I'm not holding my breath.
* BTW what are YOUR qualifications, ant? Science or engineering
degree perhaps?
...Greig
ant
political disscussin groups as iskander wants to claim the support of
science without actually providing links to any information i thought
someone else might be able to him out a bit.
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37AF413F...@highway1.com.au>...
just had to mention the peple who died of radiation posioning from being
involved in the chernobyl claen up, and the hundreds of workers who have
been inadvertantly exposed to high or leathal doses of radiation because of
accidents. murphy is just rolling dice.
no comment ay dizzy?
no comment there either ay dizzy?
the industry itself admits that it is not %100 safe or proof against a
serious accident but i guess they dont know what they are talking about
either.
>> after gregorys statements on the safety of white asbestos i have to
>> question his claim of being a scientist and have no faith in his
assertions
>> on the safety of nuclear power generation, add greigs obvious conflict of
>> intrest and you are the only pro nuke in this argument with any
credibility
>> left, and that is because you have been relying on the clearly biased
>> opinions of others instead of actually doing some research youself.
>>
>> ant
>
>Here we go again, parroting the same old crap:
>
i cant help it if you can't be bothered to do your own research and refuse
to admit your ignorance on the subject, you still have not posted one link
to any data that supports your claims about the safety and economics of
nuclear power, so who is parroting crap dizzy?
>> a few thousand people a
>> year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
>> reactors during their normal operation,
>
>By this time you surely know that this is nonsense, and that the
the data is there and available for all to see, notice it is only yourself
that is claiming that the nuclear industry causes no extra cancers and
deaths as both of the G's have the commonness not to argue that the industry
is totally safe. the correlation between radiation exposure and cancer is
clear, even in the revised data from the a-bomb study.
>risks of the entire uranium cycle are far lower than the coal
>cycle.
>
if you had read a few more reports on the coal fired power plants you would
see that as most of the radiation is already captured and concentrated on
site or in the ash the actual amount released into the environment is
smaller, it is like classing all the radiation produced by a nuclear reactor
regardless of weather it is contained as being released into the
environment. you will get no argument from me on the idea that coal fired
power plants should be replaced with cleaner sources, we just disagree on
what those sources should be. you seem to be using a strange argument to
support the nuclear industry, coal is bad because it releases thorium and
uranium into the environment but the nuclear industry is good because it
releases much more dangerous but lesser amounts of fission byproducts into
the environment.
>You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
>alternative power.
i have no problem paying %15 more for electricity if it comes from truly
clean sources, as most people seem willing to do the same it tends to
discredit your argument, integral energy is installing more wind farms and
biofueld generating plant as they cant meet the demand from their consumers
to pay more for clean power.
>
you are also ignoring the low costs of energy efficiency as opposed to
building more generating capacity. as i have said before, installing solar
hot water systems in all the suitable houses in Australia would cut our
energy consumption by almost a third, from the figures i have seen solar hot
water systems pay for themselves in about five years, when you consider that
the average lifespan of a solar system is about 15 years that is a lot of
free energy and it is also cost effective. what was that you were saying
about costly?
>You also must know that the risk from radiation from nuclear
>power plants is insignificant compared with flying around in
>airplanes.
>
flying around in airplanes is an avoidable risk, and is entirely voluntary,
being irradiated by a nuclear power plant is not an avoidable risk.
go and read the full reports and the stuff on the risks of low dose exposure
from the world health organization.
as i have said many times before how many deaths a year from radiation
induced cancers are an acceptable risk?
averaging the dose over the whole population is not an effective comparison
as the doses of radiation released from the nuclear reactors are not evenly
spread over the entire world but are concentrated in localised pockets of
high doses and are prone to bioconcentration.
>Yet you go on and on and on and on ....
because you keep attacking anyone who doesn't hold the same industry
sanctioned opinion as you do. if the scientific community can't reach a
consensus on the issue why should we accept the assertions of the industry,
remember that the private nuclear industry is run by the same sort of people
who run the tobacco industry.
>
>Why?
>
>The only theory that fits all the observed facts is that you are
>being paid to make the anti-nuclear lobby look like a bunch of
>idiots.
really dizzy, why do you bother attacking me if i am doing you a favor?
your actions contradict your words.
i have presented my reasons for not believing your claims of the safety of
nuclear power. you have not actually presents a shred of evidence to back up
your assertions, your posts consist of nothing but opinions with no real
substance.
i could say that people like yourself and the two G's are being paid by the
environmental movement to make the pro nuclear lobbyists seem to be fools.
as big G claims that white asbestos is safe and little g has a vested
interest in seeing as many nuclear power plants built as possible as he has
not denied his involvement in a business which wants to refit nuclear
reactors with gas burners both of them have no scientific credibility.
besides dizzy, nuclear power is dying, there have been no new privately
funded nuclear reactors commissioned in the US since the TMI incident.
abolish its accident liability cap and the industry would fall over
altogether. the insurance companies know a bad risk when they see one. if it
cant thrive in an open market on its own merits without special treatment or
protection from the government let it fall, as you claim that the renewable
energy sector should not be subsidized you surely cant support the
continuing government subsides of the nuclear industry.
some information on the "clean" nuclear industry for you to consider. as you
seem determined not to do the research yourself.
Hot seafood
Rob Edwards, writing in New Scientist 31st October (98?)has drawn attention
to recent Environment Agency surveys which reveal that Tritium levels in
flounder, sole, and mussels in the Severn Estuary are hundreds of times
higher than expected.
This confirms research by Tim Deere Jones (see Radioactive Times vol. 2 no.
3 p 15) and others showing that biological mechanisms can reconcentrate
radioactivity discharged to the sea. Conventional wisdom holds that
concentrations of Tritium in fish would be roughly the same as
concentrations in the water they swim in.
Tritium in the Severn Estuary is less than 100 Becquerels per litre, but
flounder sampled by the Environment Agency and MAFF this year contained
37,800 Becquerels per kilogramme. Silt was also far more radioactive than
the water.
The Tritium is discharged by Nycomed Amersham in Cardiff, who make 700
compounds containing Tritium for pharmaceutical use. Campaigners in the
Cardiff area have long- standing concerns over Tritium in the drainage
system and in Cardiff Bay. MAFF's radiological safety department now admits
that their assumptions about the behaviour of Tritium in the marine
environment are questionable. They hypothesise that the chemical composition
of some of Nycomed Amersham's products may make them more likely to be eaten
by the fish.
Tritium, a form of hydrogen, represents a unique radioactive hazard for a
number of reasons. The molecule is very small and can diffuse through almost
every type of containment. It can easily enter the human body, as tritiated
water, by inhalation and ingestion, even through the skin. Because of its
extremely small decay energy, 5.6keV, one hundreth the energy of a
Caesium-137 decay, the nuclear risk agencies consider Tritium to carry very
little risk. Accordingly, and since Tritium is one of the two most
embarrassing nuclear power pollutants, the recent Euratom Directive has
relaxed the threshold for authorization requirement from 400Bq/kg to 2.5
million Bq/kg.
The easy movement of Tritium through the body means that its biological
half-life is low, so it is generally rapidly excreted. A number of recent
critics of the risk models focus on the risk from the retained fraction
resulting from reaction between Tritium and C-H bonds. There has also been a
suggestion that the higher number of atoms per Sievert dose resulting from
the low decay energy makes Tritium a Second Event hazard. Since there may be
several atoms in one cell at low dose, it is possible to get sequential hits
to the same cell in a short period and interfere with induced cell repair.
However, there is a much more dangerous biochemical mechanism which has been
generally overlooked.
Hydrogen bound to Oxygen, Sulphur, Nitrogen and Phosphorus in bio-molecules
is the basis of the mechanism (called hydrogen bonding) which causes weak
bridges between adjacent enzyme structures in living systems. It is the
tertiary structure, the gross shape of these huge molecules, like
haemoglobin, insulin, and all the hundreds of other proteins and
biologically active molecules that together constitute life. These hydrogens
are easily exchanged by Tritium in tritiated water, HTO.
The decay of the bound Tritium atom converts it to a Helium atom, which
cannot bind to the adjacent atom. The chemical bond fails and the adjacent
Oxygen, Nitrogen or other atom becomes very reactive and attaches itself to
the nearest atom, tying the huge enzyme up in knots and destroying its
activity. Since these enzymes have literally thousands of atoms in them,
their inactivation or destruction by one Tritium decay is a massive
amplification mechanism for harm from this substance.
The mechanism, called ‘transmutational’ has been acknowledged but dismissed
by NCRP for DNA base mutation effects. But since the number of Becquerels
per Sievert for Tritium is so high, the number of Tritium atoms in a cell at
low exposure will also be high, and the further amplification of harm to
tertiary proteins by this transmutation mechanism is an unconsidered route
for cell damage and mutation.
Thyroid cancer
Early in the development of the Chernobyl accident, it became obvious that
the radioiodines were contributing significant thyroid doses (Il90),
especially to children, and the then Soviet authorities made every effort
not only to minimise doses, but also to record the thyroid doses as
accurately as possible. The results of these measurements and dose
reconstruction assessments indicated that some groups in the population
received high doses to their thyroids, and that an increase in thyroid
abnormalities, including cancer, was a very real possibility in the future.
This was particularly true for children in the contaminated regions in
Belarus, northern Ukraine and the Bryansk and Kaluga regions of the Russian
Federation. These were not inconsequential thyroid doses and, as early as
1986, it was predicted by experts from the Soviet Union that the thyroid
would be the target organ most likely to show evidence of radiation effects,
especially an increased incidence of benign and malignant tumours.
It was known from previous studies of largely external irradiation of the
thyroid that an increase in thyroid tumours tended to appear six to eight
years following irradiation, and continue for more than twenty years after
exposure, particularly in children. What was not expected was that thyroid
abnormalities would already become detectable about four years after the
accident. At the same time, the current conventional wisdom was that
internal radioiodine exposure was less carcinogenic than external
irradiation of the thyroid. It was estimated that the incidence of thyroid
cancers in children, defined as those diagnosed between the ages of 0 and
14, might increase by about 5 per cent, and in adults by about 0.9 per cent
over the next 30 years. As will be seen, a substantial increase has already
been detected in the more contaminated regions. A determined effort was made
to estimate doses, record the data, initiate medical examinations and follow
the cohorts already identified as being most at risk.
In Ukraine, more than 150,000 examinations were conducted by special
dosimetric teams, and a realistic estimate of the collective thyroid dose of
64,000 person-Sv has been made, leading to a projection of 300 additional
thyroid cancers (Li93a). In the contaminated regions of Russia, namely
Bryansk, Tula and Orel, it was predicted that an excess thyroid cancer total
of 349 would appear in a population of 4.3 million (Zv93). This represents
an increase of 3 to 6 per cent above the spontaneous rate.
A programme to monitor the thyroid status of exposed children in Belarus was
set up in Minsk in May/June 1986. The highest doses were received by the
evacuated inhabitants of the Hoiniki rayon (district) in the Gomel oblast.
In the course of this study, it was noted that the numbers of thyroid
cancers in children were increasing in some areas. For Belarus as a whole
(WH90, Ka92, Wi94), there has been a significantly increasing trend in
childhood thyroid cancer incidence since 1990 (Pa94). It was also noted that
this increase is confined to regions in the Gomel and Brest oblasts, and no
significant increase has been noted in the Mogilev, Minsk or Vitebsk areas
where the radioactive iodine contamination is assessed to have been lower.
Over 50 per cent of all the cases are from the Gomel oblast.
For the eight years prior to 1986, only five cases of childhood thyroid
cancer were seen in Minsk, which is the main Belarussian centre for thyroid
cancer diagnosis and treatment on children (De94). From 1986 to 1989, 2 to 6
cases of thyroid cancer in children were seen annually in Minsk. In 1990,
the number jumped to 29, to 55 in 1991, then to 67 in 1992. By the end of
1994 the total had reached over 300 in Belarus. Nearly 50 per cent of the
early (1992) thyroid cancers appeared in children who were aged between one
and four years at the time of the accident.
The histology of the cancers has shown that nearly all were papillary
carcinomata (Ni94) and that they were particularly aggressive, often with
prominent local invasion and distant metastases, usually to the lungs. This
has made the treatment of these children less successful than expected,
whether undertaken in Minsk or in specialised centres in Europe. In all,
about 150,000 children in Belarus had thyroid uptake measurements following
the accident. Other data from Ukraine and Russia show a similar, but not as
pronounced, increase in the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer since
1987.
The increase in Belarus was confirmed by the final report of an EC Expert
Panel (EC93) convened in 1992 to investigate the reported increase. In 1992
the incidence of childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus as a whole was
estimated to be 2.77 per 100,000, whereas in the Gomel and Brest oblasts it
was 8.8 and 4.76 respectively. This increased incidence was not confined to
children, as a larger number of adult cases was registered in Belarus and in
Ukraine (WH94).
There is some difficulty in comparing the numbers quoted by the health
authorities of the former Soviet Union with previous incidence statistics,
as previous data collection was not sufficiently rigorous. However, in
Belarus all cases of childhood thyroid cancer have been confirmed since 1986
by international review of the histology, and, because of more rigid
criteria for data collection, reliance can be placed on accuracy and
completeness. An attempt to review incidence estimates was made in the
above-mentioned EC Report (EC93). These experts confirmed that the incidence
of childhood thyroid cancer (0-14 y) prior to the accident in Belarus
(between 0 and 0.14/100,000/y) was similar to that reported by other cancer
registries. This indicates that the data collection in Belarus was adequate.
They noted that it jumped to 2.25/100,000/y in 1991, about a twenty-fold
increase.
When this increase was first reported, it was very quickly pointed out
(Be92) that any medical surveillance programme introduced would apparently
increase the incidence by revealing occult disease and rectifying
misdiagnoses. While this may account for some of the increase (Ro92), it
cannot possibly be the sole cause, as the increase is so large and many of
the children presented not with occult disease, but with clinical evidence
of thyroid and/or metastatic disease. In fact, only 12 per cent of the
childhood thyroid cancers were discovered by ultrasound screening alone in
Belarus (WH95). In addition, subsequent examination by serial section of the
thyroids of persons coming to autopsy in Belarus have confirmed that the
number of occult thyroid cancers is similar to that found in other studies
(Fu93) and showed none of the aggressive characteristics found in the
childhood cancers presenting in life (Fu92).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
what was that you were saying about nuclear energy being clean and safe
dizzy?
littlefish
> littlefish wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Not to mention all the other disadvantages of coal-fired power
generation.
> > IMHO, all competing technologies need to be assessed on their true
> > long-term costs, risks and benefits. Unfortunately, the type of people
> > mentioned above may distort the facts and make accurate assessment
> > difficult.
> >
> > Perhaps the best bet is to try to reduce consumption of electricity
(solar
> > hot water systems, fluoros, more efficient appliances etc.) until
better
> > generation technologies are available.
>
> But while you are waiting for your campaign to bite, Australia
> faces the embarrassment of exceeding the generous increase in
> greenhouse gases allowed at Kyoto.
Replacing all those 75W bulbs with 20W fluoros would bite pretty quickly,
and cut consumption significantly. Likewise solar HW, which can reduce a
household's power consumption by up to 40%.
>The only off-the-shelf technology which will actually help in
>any realistic time frame is nuclear power.
Both the above are readily available right now.
littlefish
> > > littlefish wrote:
<snip>
> > > > You can't really blame people for being skeptical. But I'm sure
they
> > are
> > > > reassured when you make comments like: "If mankind has no destiny,
it
> > does
> > > > not really matter if we destroy ourselves". :-)
> > >
> > > Perhaps I have been guilty of a bit of imprecision.
> > >
> > > It would matter while the process of self-destruction is going
> > > on, not after it is over.
> >
> > Of course it would matter. It would be an appalling tragedy even if
there
> > was nobody left to know it.
>
> Who would be the apallees?
'Apallees' are not necessary. Or do you think the tree falling in the
forest with nobody there to hear it makes no sound?
'Apallees' are very poor judges of 'appallingness' anyway. Many of them
were probably less appalled by the Asian floods or Indian train crash than
the death of Princess Di.
ant
please.
Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37b11418...@24.192.3.17>...
>On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:38:15 +1000, "ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote:
>
>>energy efficency technology is easy to implement and fast to deploy.
>
>And it WILL be deployed where practical. The thing is, energy
>conservation has small impact on capacity.
>
the figures i have seen show a projected savings of almost %40 in energy
usage if current energy effiecncy technology is evenly applied.
>>the lead time for a nuclear power plant is at least 8 to 10 years.
>>we could reduce our demand for electricity by a third just by fitting
solar
>>hot water systems where they were are practical, and that could be done in
>>two or three years, much faster than building a whole new industry in
>>australia. remember when you build a nuclear power plant you also have to
>>build waste storage and disposal facilitys, fuel processing and
reprocessing
>>plants and the skilled workers to staff them.
>
>Solar hot water heaters do indeed save on energy bills, but I don't
>think it is 33% of all power usage. This forgets that domestic power
>usage is inly a part of total capacity, and that gas is used in many
>places in Oz for water heating.
>
point, i was forgetting the use of gas for hot water, growing up in the
sydney suburbs gas was nonexistant so i overlook it to eaisly.
>I agree with you, ant, that solar hot water is a good use of renewable
>energy - so why aren't there more panels on rooftops? Answer:
>Infrastructure cost. They cost $1000s, and take 10-15 years to pay
>themselves back, and people just don't have the money to spend - there
>are always more important bills to pay.
>
>Just curious, ant, do you have solar hot water? If not, why not. .
>
yeah i do have solar hot water, i got a slightly cheaper car and used the
difference to change from electric to solar.
>>>With upward pressure on oil prices you will see a renewed
>>>interest in nukes.
>>
>>and a much greater intrest in renewable energy as it does not have the
image
>>and health problems nuclear fisison has.
>
>Curiosity in a technology does not make it any more viable.
>
no but if they invested a quarter of the amount of government funding that
it took to make nuclear power(which was implemented as a cold war
properganda tool) almost economical, the renewable sector would give nuclear
a run for its money. take away the protection of the price anderson act and
the nuclear industry becomes unviable.
>>>There is nothing wrong with the economics of nuclear power
>>>plants that cannot be cured by USD40 per barrel oil prices.
>>
>>
>>well how about removing the public liability insurance cap that has been
>>applied to nuclear energy to make it viable. ahh but i forgot the
insurance
>>industry will not insure it without liability protection from the
government
>>as they have done their own risk assessments on the nuclear industry and
>>found it uninsurable.
>>
>>>
>>>And there is no bloody safety problem!
>>>
>>except the admitted small risk of a core melt down, a few thousand people
a
>>year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
>>reactors during their normal operation, the uranium miners who will die
from
>>cancers they other wise would not have developed, the workers in the
nuclear
>>fuel processing sector who accidently recive leathal doses of radiation
>>prove that there is no risk associated with nuclear power generation, even
>>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of
catastophic
>>faliure.
>
>We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
>
which is why i find it strange that dizzy dosent get it.
or are you going to contradict the industrys own risk projections, on
average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says the
industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
contained. considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these countrys
is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
>>after gregorys statements on the safety of white asbestos i have to
>>question his claim of being a scientist and have no faith in his
assertions
>>on the safety of nuclear power generation, add greigs obvious conflict of
>>intrest
>
>What conflict of interest? I thought I had explained - I'm an
>engineer with a personal curiosity for the subject, but I don't work,
>and never have worked, in the industry. Where is the conflict of
>interest?
>
so you are not the Mr. Doug Ebeling, FAIE, CPEng. FIEAust.
Burning natural gas with increased radiant efficiency
(Patent Applied For)
Radiant Tube Technology, an informal partnership of M.E.T.T.S., The
Australian Gas Light Company and The Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO), with investment from Australia's Energy
Research & Development Corpotation, set out to find methods of burning
natural gas with increased radiant efficiency, to improve the efficiency of
devices that use gas as an energy source.
During an investigation of options for converting a nuclear reactor to
fossil fuel firing, the combustion of natural gas was considered as being
one option for refuelling. The concept was to use the pressure vessel as a
fire-tube boiler, and to as closely as possible replicate the 'nuclear fire'
so as to avoid the complete scrapping of the heat transfer system, and to
allow the operation of the plant at close to its original design mode and
capacity. The conversion scheme was presented as an alternate scheme to the
combined cycle concepts:- constructing gas turbines with waste heat boilers
connected to the existing (but modified) turbine generator (2).
as you have sometimes used the name Doug i assumed that there must be some
sort of connection, considering that some of your posts originate with the
same ISP and from the same area that the above mentioned company is based
in, the logical leap was not to hard to make.
also there was that article in the new australian enthusing on the russian
idea of building floating nuclear reactors which was written by a Greig
Ebeling which seemed to share some of your writing style.
>I think it is interesting that you should want to explain to yourself
>why people have pro-nuclear views. You just can't accept that what we
>are saying is actually correct - we must be insufficiently qualified
>*, liers or...
>
the same could be said about your side of the argument, as you seem to
dismiss any data that contradicts your opinion and attempt to discredit the
messenger all to often
>>and you are the only pro nuke in this argument with any credibility
>>left, and that is because you have been relying on the clearly biased
>>opinions of others instead of actually doing some research youself.
>
>We are all still waiting for you to present your research (on solar
>power, hydraulic storage, etc). But I'm not holding my breath.
>
well as you pointed out solar is not cost effective when compared with
fossil fuels, but wind and hydro are cost competitive. and given it has
taken the nuclear industry 40 years to reach this level of competitiveness i
have no doubt that energy storage systems and other renewable energy
generation options will continue to fall in cost and increase in efficiency.
surly the idea of clean no risk power is not a bad goal for society to work
towards?
>* BTW what are YOUR qualifications, ant? Science or engineering
>degree perhaps?
>
environmental science.
with an interest in bio concentration and industrial pollutants, their
effects on the environment and their concentration through the food chain.
but what is a bit of paper worth anyway.
anthony
Scott Nudds
: Chernobyl, Schmernobyl! Totally irrelevant to the safety issue.
Apologists always discount look for mechanisms to excuse or ignore the
failure of their world view.
In this case, Baharuddin thinks that the projected death count of 30,000
is too small to be worth thinking about.
Ian St. John
ant <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
news:1Xfs3.9251$_Q2....@ozemail.com.au...
<snip>
> industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power
reactors one
> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so
based on
I was unaware of any nuclear accident in which the containment vessel
failed.
Please cite your example.
Note: Chernobyl is not eligeable. It was a Russiam design without
containment vessel, which is why the meldown released so much
contamination. Pouring concrete on it *after* the fact doesn't count.
;-)
Fortunately, western safety standards are higher, and so TMI partial
meltdown released very little, with no significant public exposure,
even though it was nearly as bad an accident.
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> <37AE960B...@highway1.com.au>...
> > littlefish wrote:
> > >
> > > Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
> > > <37A766C8...@highway1.com.au>...
> > > > littlefish wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > You can't really blame people for being skeptical. But I'm sure
> they
> > > are
> > > > > reassured when you make comments like: "If mankind has no destiny,
> it
> > > does
> > > > > not really matter if we destroy ourselves". :-)
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I have been guilty of a bit of imprecision.
> > > >
> > > > It would matter while the process of self-destruction is going
> > > > on, not after it is over.
> > >
> > > Of course it would matter. It would be an appalling tragedy even if
> there
> > > was nobody left to know it.
> >
> > Who would be the apallees?
>
> 'Apallees' are not necessary. Or do you think the tree falling in the
> forest with nobody there to hear it makes no sound?
Wallabies can hear.
Not quite sure whether they can be appalled.
My, you do take things seriously, don't you?
>
> 'Apallees' are very poor judges of 'appallingness' anyway. Many of them
> were probably less appalled by the Asian floods or Indian train crash than
> the death of Princess Di.
>
You are undoubtedly correct.
Nice to be able to agree with you on something.
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."
Iskandar Baharuddin
They have been available off the shelf for years.
The problem is that they stay on the shelf.
People will not buy them on a scale which makes a significant
difference.
Now if you propose an emissions tax to internalize costs I will
support you.
But be warned: it will bugger coal.
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> can we get this out of the politics groups and into a more relevant group
> please.
>
> Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37b11418...@24.192.3.17>...
>
> >>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of
> catastophic
> >>faliure.
> >
> >We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
> >
> which is why i find it strange that dizzy dosent get it.
> or are you going to contradict the industrys own risk projections, on
> average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says the
> industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
> contained.
ant, we have been over this about a dozen times.
Chernobyl, Schmernobyl! Totally irrelevant to the safety issue.
> considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
> countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
> unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these countrys
> is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
> world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
I presume you refer to Japan and France. Yes, less than
exemplary in terms of environmental protection. However, they
have yet to have a nuke go up.
How many nukes in Africa?
> >
> environmental science.
> with an interest in bio concentration and industrial pollutants, their
> effects on the environment and their concentration through the food chain.
> but what is a bit of paper worth anyway.
Obviously not much.
Iskandar Baharuddin
startling conclusion yesterday.
Abrogating his obligations under the Geneva Convention on
Psychological Warfare ant dropped the B-bomb.
Izzy, who was at Ground Zero, expired instantly from Terminal
Boredom.
ant was immediately branded a War Criminal. However, in view of
his devastating arsenal it will be difficult to bring him to
justice.
--
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."
from "My Struggle", by Alfred E Neuman
Iskandar Baharuddin
A churlish remark.
If you had been paying attention you would know full well that
Chernobyl is totally irrelevant to any discussion of the safety
of modern reactors.
If I may be a bit churlish myself, that dubious figure of 30,000
looks pretty good compared with the ongoing slaughter from the
coal cycle. ;(
Gregory Greenman
[snip]
> so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
> contained.
Ant,
I assume that the two meltdowns that you are referring to are
Three Mile Island Unit 2 and Chernobyl Unit 4.
You claim above that in one of these, the containment failed.
In the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, the containment held.
I therefore assume that your example of a containment failure
is Chernobyl Unit 4.
Problem is - Chernobyl Unit 4 does not have a containment!!!
There is a containment with pressure suppression that surrounds
the steam generators.
However, what is really important - the reactor - didn't have a
containment.
See the diagram:
http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=9
Notice that above the reactor core [#1] are the removable refueling
channels [#7], and above that the reactor refueling machine [#8].
Notice that there is nothing from the top the removable refueling
channels up to the thin walls - appears to be WINDOWS - just
above the support for the red bridge crane.
What you would like to see completely encasing the reactor are
thick concrete walls - like those seen near the #2.
That's why Chernobyl Unit 4 is has no applicability when
discussing the safety of Western-style reactors.
[snip]
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Gregory Greenman
[snip]
> so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
> contained.
Ant,
Also note in the web page from the INSC - the International
Nuclear Safety Center at Argonne National Lab:
http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=9
the following statement:
"The most significant difference between the Soviet-designed
RBMK nuclear plant design and most of the world's nuclear power
plants is the RBMK's lack of a massive steel and concrete containment
structure as the final barrier against large releases of radiation in an
accident.
The effectiveness of American-style reactor containments was shown in the
1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, when virtually all radiation was
retained
inside the containment building, despite considerable melting of the fuel.
In the
Chernobyl accident, the RBMK plant's accident localization system (the
RBMK's
version of containment) could not withstand the force of the accident."
[snip]
Further evidence, that the Chernobyl Unit 4 accident is immaterial when
discussing the safety of Western-style reactors.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Greig Ebeling
>can we get this out of the politics groups and into a more relevant group
>please.
If you don't mind, can we not change the groups. I actually think
your lines of argument are more consistent with politics than with
science.
>Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37b11418...@24.192.3.17>...
>>On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:38:15 +1000, "ant" <dont...@evil.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>energy efficency technology is easy to implement and fast to deploy.
>>
>>And it WILL be deployed where practical. The thing is, energy
>>conservation has small impact on capacity.
>>
>the figures i have seen show a projected savings of almost %40 in energy
>usage if current energy effiecncy technology is evenly applied.
I believe the 40% figure is for domestic usage only. And it is
unrealistic to think that the technology will be "evenly applied" (by
which you mean exclusively applied, I think).
I have heard this argument 1000 times, and IMO it is wrong. Solar and
wind power CAN'T supply 17% of the worlds electricity (as nuclear
currently does) because it is an energy supplementary system. It
would be pressed to supply 5% even if people wanted to spend the
money.
On the other hand, nuclear CAN supply 100% if it was required. And it
could do it relatively safely and cleanly. That is why it attracted
the funding.
Also nuclear power had nothing to do with the Cold war, nor the
military.
>>>>There is nothing wrong with the economics of nuclear power
>>>>plants that cannot be cured by USD40 per barrel oil prices.
>>>
>>>
>>>well how about removing the public liability insurance cap that has been
>>>applied to nuclear energy to make it viable. ahh but i forgot the
>insurance
>>>industry will not insure it without liability protection from the
>government
>>>as they have done their own risk assessments on the nuclear industry and
>>>found it uninsurable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>And there is no bloody safety problem!
>>>>
>>>except the admitted small risk of a core melt down, a few thousand people
>a
>>>year who will die from the low level radiation released from the nuclear
>>>reactors during their normal operation, the uranium miners who will die
>from
>>>cancers they other wise would not have developed, the workers in the
>nuclear
>>>fuel processing sector who accidently recive leathal doses of radiation
>>>prove that there is no risk associated with nuclear power generation, even
>>>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of
>catastophic
>>>faliure.
>>
>>We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
>>
>which is why i find it strange that dizzy dosent get it.
I find it strange that YOU don't get it!
>or are you going to contradict the industrys own risk projections, on
>average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says the
>industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
>has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
>that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
>contained. considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
>countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
>unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these countrys
>is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
>world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
It is not a world view - it is YOUR view.
It is true that there are still reactors in operation that do not have
containment vessels, but that is not an argument against the continued
development of nuclear power. It is an argument against using
reactors without containment.
>>>after gregorys statements on the safety of white asbestos i have to
>>>question his claim of being a scientist and have no faith in his
>assertions
>>>on the safety of nuclear power generation, add greigs obvious conflict of
>>>intrest
>>
>>What conflict of interest? I thought I had explained - I'm an
>>engineer with a personal curiosity for the subject, but I don't work,
>>and never have worked, in the industry. Where is the conflict of
>>interest?
>>
>so you are not the Mr. Doug Ebeling, FAIE, CPEng. FIEAust.
No, I am not. That is my father.
>Burning natural gas with increased radiant efficiency
>(Patent Applied For)
>Radiant Tube Technology, an informal partnership of M.E.T.T.S., The
>Australian Gas Light Company and The Australian Nuclear Science and
>Technology Organisation (ANSTO), with investment from Australia's Energy
>Research & Development Corpotation, set out to find methods of burning
>natural gas with increased radiant efficiency, to improve the efficiency of
>devices that use gas as an energy source.
>
>During an investigation of options for converting a nuclear reactor to
>fossil fuel firing, the combustion of natural gas was considered as being
>one option for refuelling. The concept was to use the pressure vessel as a
>fire-tube boiler, and to as closely as possible replicate the 'nuclear fire'
>so as to avoid the complete scrapping of the heat transfer system, and to
>allow the operation of the plant at close to its original design mode and
>capacity. The conversion scheme was presented as an alternate scheme to the
>combined cycle concepts:- constructing gas turbines with waste heat boilers
>connected to the existing (but modified) turbine generator (2).
>
>as you have sometimes used the name Doug i assumed that there must be some
>sort of connection, considering that some of your posts originate with the
>same ISP and from the same area that the above mentioned company is based
>in, the logical leap was not to hard to make.
It is a logical leap, and it is wrong.
>also there was that article in the new australian enthusing on the russian
>idea of building floating nuclear reactors which was written by a Greig
>Ebeling which seemed to share some of your writing style.
Yes, I did write that article. I didn't know that The New Australian
published it. But I am not a journalist, nor do I have any commercial
interest in floating reactors.
Sorry ant, there is no conflict of interest there.
>
>>I think it is interesting that you should want to explain to yourself
>>why people have pro-nuclear views. You just can't accept that what we
>>are saying is actually correct - we must be insufficiently qualified
>>*, liers or...
>>
>the same could be said about your side of the argument, as you seem to
>dismiss any data that contradicts your opinion and attempt to discredit the
>messenger all to often
I can't dismiss any of your data, because you haven't presented any.
I keep asking you for numbers and details, but you never respond. eg
Where is your essay on the viability of solar power?
>>>and you are the only pro nuke in this argument with any credibility
>>>left, and that is because you have been relying on the clearly biased
>>>opinions of others instead of actually doing some research youself.
>>
>>We are all still waiting for you to present your research (on solar
>>power, hydraulic storage, etc). But I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>well as you pointed out solar is not cost effective when compared with
>fossil fuels, but wind and hydro are cost competitive. and given it has
>taken the nuclear industry 40 years to reach this level of competitiveness i
>have no doubt that energy storage systems and other renewable energy
>generation options will continue to fall in cost and increase in efficiency.
>surly the idea of clean no risk power is not a bad goal for society to work
>towards?
[Groan] Read the following carefully:
ENERGY
SUPPLEMENTARY
SYSTEMS.
That is what solar and wind power provide. For this reason they are
NOT an alternative to large scale energy production.
And energy storage systems are NOT going to drop in price
significantly, and nobody who has any understanding of the
technologies available would predict such.
BTW how is your hydraulic storage system going. I'm still curious
about its design.
>>* BTW what are YOUR qualifications, ant? Science or engineering
>>degree perhaps?
>>
>environmental science.
A BS then?
>with an interest in bio concentration and industrial pollutants, their
>effects on the environment and their concentration through the food chain.
>but what is a bit of paper worth anyway.
Ah, so you would be a big fan of tracing radioisotopes since they are
an invaluable tool in your area of study.
...Greig
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:59:43 +0800, Iskandar Baharuddin
> <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
>
> >You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
> >alternative power.
>
> home solar system can actually pay for itself in a few years, simply
> through not having to pay regular utility bills, to say nothing of the
> ability to be able to sell power *back* to the grid.
>
> Honestly, I really can't understand why more people don't do things
> like set up their own solar arrays, and buy rainwater tanks and
> composting toilets. Just think of it - the freedom of not having to
> answer to a government authority for your power, water, or sewage
> disposal. If we could only find some way of doing telephony without
> needing to bother any of the telcos, we'd be laughing.
>
> (Well, actually, I've got a fair guess at some of the reasons - high
> startup cost, long-term maintenance issues, living in rented property
> etc etc)
>
Well done. You have identified part of the reasons.
The remainder is that the alternative power sources are
inadequate.
Daniel
Greig Ebeling schrieb:
> And energy storage systems are NOT going to drop in price
> significantly, and nobody who has any understanding of the
> technologies available would predict such.
For a large share of nuclear power in electricity you would
also need a LOT of storage (as pump storage facilities,
batteries or whatever) to deal with the changing load,
because nuclear power plants cannot deal well with changing
load. Or you have to shut some plants down and start them
up frequently, but that is expensive. In fact, it would make
nuclear power more expensive than it is already today.
-Daniel
(daniel321 at my-deja dot com)
Meg Thornton
<bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
>You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
>alternative power.
Actually, there are quite a few who *do*. And profit thereby, since a
home solar system can actually pay for itself in a few years, simply
through not having to pay regular utility bills, to say nothing of the
ability to be able to sell power *back* to the grid.
Honestly, I really can't understand why more people don't do things
like set up their own solar arrays, and buy rainwater tanks and
composting toilets. Just think of it - the freedom of not having to
answer to a government authority for your power, water, or sewage
disposal. If we could only find some way of doing telephony without
needing to bother any of the telcos, we'd be laughing.
(Well, actually, I've got a fair guess at some of the reasons - high
startup cost, long-term maintenance issues, living in rented property
etc etc)
--
Meg Thornton (mag...@megabitch.tm)
Please do not email me "courtesy copies" of newsgroup posts.
Either I'll read the newsgroup and see it, or I've got you
killfiled, and I don't want to!
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Greig Ebeling schrieb:
> > And energy storage systems are NOT going to drop in price
> > significantly, and nobody who has any understanding of the
> > technologies available would predict such.
>
> also need a LOT of storage (as pump storage facilities,
> batteries or whatever) to deal with the changing load,
> because nuclear power plants cannot deal well with changing
> load. Or you have to shut some plants down and start them
> up frequently, but that is expensive. In fact, it would make
> nuclear power more expensive than it is already today.
>
> -Daniel
> (daniel321 at my-deja dot com)
Gee, I learn new things every day in this NG.
Scott Nudds
: Note: Chernobyl is not eligeable. It was a Russiam design without
: containment vessel, which is why the meldown released so much
: contamination. Pouring concrete on it *after* the fact doesn't count.
Perhaps he is thinking of the fact that western containment structures
would not have prevented an explosion like the one at Chernobyl from
breaching into the atmosphere.
Ian St. John
Scott Nudds <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:7p0201$irj$8...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
Ok. Scott. You want to discuss it? I was answering his statements of
fact which were invalid, but you may have a related point.
I could point out that there is no proof that the hydrogen explosion
at chernobyl was large enough to break a western containment vessel.
It is meters thick and reinforced. It can take a *lot* of
overpressure.
It is of concern, however, I will admit. This is why I favor SPS over
nuclear fission.
However, I also know that it took a series of disabling steps
including taking safety systems offline and some really stupid
decisions by poorly trained operators to make Chernobyl. Defense in
depth is what kept TMI from becoming a similar event.
If a hydrogen bubble does form, there are options. Catalytic
recombination surfaces could keep recycling the hydrogen/oxygen
mixture to prevent the larger explosion. The hydrogen could be flushed
by nitrogen to the atmosphere ( releasing radiation but preventing the
larger contamination ) The hydrogen bubble generated at TMI was
monitored during the crisis. It never grew to a large enough size to
crack the vessel, even if it had exploded.
Even in the event that it breaches the vessel, the likely result will
be a cracked shell, held together by the steel reinforcing, not the
open environment of chernobyl. Radiation would be easier to block by
pouring a temporary seal over the break.
There is a danger. There is always a danger. No technology is risk
free.
One 'result' of chernobyl was the elimination of the 'china syndrome'
fear. The melting fuel dissolved into other metals and materials and
diluted to the point where it could not melt anything else. This
effect might be used in the design of future reactors to ensure
another level of backup security.
After about six months operation, the fuel ( in a LWR ) is
sufficiently rich in secondary nucleotides that even shut down, it
needs cooling to prevent melting. Reprocessing of fuel after six
months or neutron activation reactors could keep the content of these
secondary products below that level so that in the event of a failure,
the system could shut down safely even with no coolant. Fuel is not a
large cost of nuclear, and increasing the fuel reprocessing rate would
not add much to the cost, while providing a buffer against this
problem.
Given a meltdown, the coolant water can generate a 'hydrogen bubble'
actually hydrogen and oxygen broken down from the cooling water ).
This is mostly a factor of the design of light water reactors. Sodium
cooled breeders would have no sources for the hydrogen.
Heavy water reactors ( Such as Canada's Candu ) are also not as
vulnerable. It takes a few minutes for a light water ( highly
enriched ) uranium pile to go critical in the event of cooling
failure. This is why there is such an emphasis on automatic passive
safety design in the US. In contrast, heavy water ( unenriched )
plants such as CANDU take a hour or two without cooling to reach
meltdown. This gives much more time to recognize problems and shut
down the reactor. With damping rods in place ( scrammed ) there is
little danger, even after years of operation. The fuel is not as 'high
octane' which makes it safer.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Alleluia! Another rational voice.
Greig Ebeling
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:59:43 +0800, Iskandar Baharuddin
><bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
>
>>You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
>>alternative power.
>
>Actually, there are quite a few who *do*. And profit thereby, since a
>home solar system can actually pay for itself in a few years, simply
>through not having to pay regular utility bills, to say nothing of the
>ability to be able to sell power *back* to the grid.
A home solar system will NOT pay for itself in a few years - maybe 15
to 20 years at a pinch. And it is not an attractive proposition
because of the huge capital outlay ($20-25k) for the infrastructure -
most people just don't have that sort of money lying around. Besides
the money works harder when paying off the mortgage or invested in
stocks.
>Honestly, I really can't understand why more people don't do things
>like set up their own solar arrays, and buy rainwater tanks and
>composting toilets.
Do you have one of these systems, Meg? If not, you may be able to
answer your own question.
>Just think of it - the freedom of not having to
>answer to a government authority for your power, water, or sewage
>disposal.
Solar power - ah wouldn't it be luvelly?
>If we could only find some way of doing telephony without
>needing to bother any of the telcos, we'd be laughing.
>
>(Well, actually, I've got a fair guess at some of the reasons - high
>startup cost, long-term maintenance issues, living in rented property
>etc etc)
Yep, you got it. How many people 1) own their properties, and 2)
intend to live in their properties long enough to take advantage of
converting them to solar.
...Greig
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37B1EB28...@highway1.com.au>...
>ant wrote:
>>
>> can we get this out of the politics groups and into a more relevant group
>> please.
>>
>> Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37b11418...@24.192.3.17>...
>>
>
>> >>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of
>> catastophic
>> >>faliure.
>> >
>> >We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
>> >
>> which is why i find it strange that dizzy dosent get it.
>> or are you going to contradict the industrys own risk projections, on
>> average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says
the
>> industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors
one
>> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based
on
>> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
>> contained.
>
>
>
reactor design are still in operation across the former soviet union.
>> considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
>> countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
>> unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these
countrys
>> is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
>> world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
>
>I presume you refer to Japan and France. Yes, less than
>exemplary in terms of environmental protection. However, they
>have yet to have a nuke go up.
give them time, there have been several near miss incidents in both of those
countrys.
but i was actually refering to countrys like brazil, argentina, mexico,
india, pakistan, both koreas, china, and the former soviet union nations as
countrys with nuclear power programs and bad enviromental and public health
records. but counting the numbers i see that these reactors make up only 108
of the worlds 436 operating nuclear reactors so i should have said one
quarter of the worlds reactors are in countrys with bad enviromental
protection records. as nuclear accidents don't respect borders it is unfair
of you to try and exclude all but the western designed and built reactors in
your claims about the safety of nuclear power.
it is also interesting to note that apart from france and japan, who both
have one commercial nuclear power reactor in construction, it is only the
former communist nations and other third world countrys that are activly
building new reactors. see
http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
>How many nukes in Africa?
two in south africa and one on order in egypt. but i am sure if they
compromised on design safety and construction quality they could afford to
build a few more if you want.
>
>> >
>> environmental science.
>> with an interest in bio concentration and industrial pollutants, their
>> effects on the environment and their concentration through the food
chain.
>> but what is a bit of paper worth anyway.
>
>Obviously not much.
>
as i predicted you just ignore or attempt to discredit instead of actually
answering questions, scientific credentials are no protection against bias
and prejudice. rather proves my point about not being able to take either of
the G's at their word, but then i forgot, they are telling you what you want
to hear so their opinions and assertions are beyond reproach.
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37B1EB28...@highway1.com.au>...
> >ant wrote:
> >>
> >> please.
> >>
> >> Greig Ebeling wrote in message <37b11418...@24.192.3.17>...
> >>
> >
> >> >>the nuclear industry itself admits that there is a small risk of
> >> catastophic
> >> >>faliure.
> >> >
> >> >We've only covered this 3 or 4 times now.
> >> >
> >> which is why i find it strange that dizzy dosent get it.
> >> or are you going to contradict the industrys own risk projections, on
> >> average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says
> the
> >> industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors
> one
> >> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based
> on
> >> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
> >> contained.
> >
> >
> >Chernobyl, Schmernobyl! Totally irrelevant to the safety issue.
> >
> why when an accident does not respect borders and plenty more of the same
> reactor design are still in operation across the former soviet union.
What the hell does crappy USSR technology have to do with the
viability of properly designed reactors?
>
> >> considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
> >> countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
> >> unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these
> countrys
> >> is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
> >> world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
> >
> >I presume you refer to Japan and France. Yes, less than
> >exemplary in terms of environmental protection. However, they
> >have yet to have a nuke go up.
>
> give them time, there have been several near miss incidents in both of those
> countrys.
> but i was actually refering to countrys like brazil, argentina, mexico,
> india, pakistan, both koreas, china, and the former soviet union nations as
> countrys with nuclear power programs and bad enviromental and public health
> records. but counting the numbers i see that these reactors make up only 108
> of the worlds 436 operating nuclear reactors so i should have said one
> quarter of the worlds reactors are in countrys with bad enviromental
> protection records. as nuclear accidents don't respect borders it is unfair
> of you to try and exclude all but the western designed and built reactors in
> your claims about the safety of nuclear power.
>
> it is also interesting to note that apart from france and japan, who both
> have one commercial nuclear power reactor in construction, it is only the
> former communist nations and other third world countrys that are activly
> building new reactors. see
> http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
>
> >How many nukes in Africa?
>
> two in south africa and one on order in egypt. but i am sure if they
> compromised on design safety and construction quality they could afford to
> build a few more if you want.
I meant in _African_ Africa. Sorry to have been unclear.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> environmental science.
> >> with an interest in bio concentration and industrial pollutants, their
> >> effects on the environment and their concentration through the food
> chain.
> >> but what is a bit of paper worth anyway.
> >
> >Obviously not much.
> >
> as i predicted you just ignore or attempt to discredit instead of actually
> answering questions, scientific credentials are no protection against bias
> and prejudice. rather proves my point about not being able to take either of
> the G's at their word, but then i forgot, they are telling you what you want
> to hear so their opinions and assertions are beyond reproach.
>
> ant
No one is above reproach when he/she gets it wrong.
Everyone is subject to reproach for endlessly repeating the same
discredited crap.
Excuse me, I have to take these pills…
ant
Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <37B2A23B...@highway1.com.au>...
>Meg Thornton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 04:59:43 +0800, Iskandar Baharuddin
>> <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >You must know that people will _not pay_ the high costs of
>> >alternative power.
>>
>> Actually, there are quite a few who *do*. And profit thereby, since a
>> home solar system can actually pay for itself in a few years, simply
>> through not having to pay regular utility bills, to say nothing of the
>> ability to be able to sell power *back* to the grid.
>>
>> like set up their own solar arrays, and buy rainwater tanks and
>> answer to a government authority for your power, water, or sewage
>> needing to bother any of the telcos, we'd be laughing.
>>
>> (Well, actually, I've got a fair guess at some of the reasons - high
>> startup cost, long-term maintenance issues, living in rented property
>> etc etc)
>>
>
>
>The remainder is that the alternative power sources are
>inadequate.
our current and future energy needs.
both you and the two g's duck and cover when that question is put to you. if
i remember correctly, the last time i asked you to prove the inadequacy on
renewable energy sources your comeback was to start a new thread in an
attempt to discredit me as an individual and side step the question.
and you have never answered my question about how many avoidable deaths from
cancer are an acceptable risk?
ant
ant
Gregory Greenman wrote in message <37B272FE...@home.com>...
>ant wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
>> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based
on
>> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
>> contained.
>
ahh, the selective snip rears its head again, lets look at your reply in the
light of the bits of my last post you removed. if you have no answer for a
point leav it there to show that you are only replying to selected points.
lets put the missing bits back shall we.
on average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says
the
industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors one
has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
contained. considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these countrys
is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
>Ant,
>
> Also note in the web page from the INSC - the International
>Nuclear Safety Center at Argonne National Lab:
>
>http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=9
>
>the following statement:
>
> "The most significant difference between the Soviet-designed
> RBMK nuclear plant design and most of the world's nuclear power
> plants is the RBMK's lack of a massive steel and concrete containment
> structure as the final barrier against large releases of radiation in
an
>accident.
>
> The effectiveness of American-style reactor containments was shown in
the
> 1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, when virtually all radiation was
>retained
> inside the containment building, despite considerable melting of the
fuel.
>In the
> Chernobyl accident, the RBMK plant's accident localization system (the
>RBMK's
> version of containment) could not withstand the force of the accident."
>
>[snip]
>
>Further evidence, that the Chernobyl Unit 4 accident is immaterial when
>discussing the safety of Western-style reactors.
>
but we are discussing the safety of the nuclear industry in general not just
the selected safest parts of it, so the soviet designed reactors are
relevant. why do you persist with these attempts to only include the western
nuclear reactors in the risk estimates?
there are over 100 reactors in third or second world nations and most of the
planned new reactors are in the same areas, these are the reactors that pose
the biggest risk to human health but you want to exclude them from the
argument, why?
not all of these new reactors under construction or being planned are modern
western designs, what do we know about Chinas reactor design for example? or
the reactors in India or Pakistan?
ant
ant
>> has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based
on
>> that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
>> contained.
>
ahh, the selective snip rears its head again, lets look at your reply in the
light of the bits of my last post you removed. if you have no answer for a
point leave it there to show that you are only replying to selected points.
lets put the missing bits back shall we.
:on average there should be a core meltdown every 15 to 20 years. or so says
:the industry risk estimates. so far in the two melt downs of power reactors
one
:has resulted in the containment vessel failing and one has not, so based on
:that there is a projected 50/50 risk that the next core meltdown will be
:contained. considering that over half of the worlds nuclear reactors are in
:countrys with less then exemplary historys of enviromental protection and
:unstable political systems the risks of an acciednt in one of these
countrys
:is highet than it is in western europe and america. when you consider the
:world view the nuclear industry poses an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
note the bit about the third world reactors that you seem to have
overlooked.
are the containment vessels(whent there are any) designed to withstand
artillery fire?
nuclear reactors make good military targets, especially to small
revolutionary forces as the disruption to society is high for a small input
of resources, imagine trying to fight a war against a group of revolutionary
extremists while you are busy evacuating a large city or two.
>Ant,
>
> Also note in the web page from the INSC - the International
>Nuclear Safety Center at Argonne National Lab:
>
>http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=rx_model&qvar=id&qval=9
>
>the following statement:
>
> "The most significant difference between the Soviet-designed
> RBMK nuclear plant design and most of the world's nuclear power
> plants is the RBMK's lack of a massive steel and concrete containment
> structure as the final barrier against large releases of radiation in
an
> accident.
>
> The effectiveness of American-style reactor containment's was shown in
Ian St. John
ant <dont...@evil.spam> wrote in message
<snip> >
> but we are discussing the safety of the nuclear industry in general
not just
> the selected safest parts of it, so the soviet designed reactors are
> relevant. why do you persist with these attempts to only include the
western
> nuclear reactors in the risk estimates?
> there are over 100 reactors in third or second world nations and
most of the
> planned new reactors are in the same areas, these are the reactors
that pose
> the biggest risk to human health but you want to exclude them from
the
> argument, why?
> not all of these new reactors under construction or being planned
are modern
> western designs, what do we know about Chinas reactor design for
example? or
> the reactors in India or Pakistan?
If someone in Pakistan builds a defective steam boiler, which
subsequently explodes killing thousands ( see history of the term
"engineer"), does that make coal fired power plants "unsafe"? Does the
collapse of buildings in Singapore or Malaysia due to inferior
construction materials make multi-story housing "unsafe".
Safety must be measured in terms of properly designed and constructed
facilities.
Iskandar Baharuddin
This reminds me of a project I managed several years ago. My
client wanted to start a logging operation in a third-world
country which did not have the proverbial pot. The only thing
one region had that anyone wanted was wood. The only possible
investment was in logging and a port.
But the politicians had grandiose ideas. They decided they
wanted to leap-frog the normal development path and plunge into
'value adding'. So they came up with a list of projects:
furniture factory, paper mill, charcoal briquettes, particle
board, chopsticks, toothpicks, every conceivable wood-based
product known to man. All of these had to be evaluated - full
feasibility studies on every one.
I was called in, took one look, and said: "Explain to them the
facts of life. For every single project the production costs and
transport cost will be far higher in XXXX than in competing
countries. None of them are feasible."
So we prepared a simple, clear, convincing presentation. And
they were not convinced. They wanted "proper" feasibility
studies - 23 as I recall.
So we went to work on what I (under my breath) called the
Non-Feasibility Study.
Went through everyone rigorously: fully costed, cashflow
projects over the next 20 years, discounted, NPV, IRR, the
complete catastrophe. Took a year and cost the client over
$US400,000.
And kept the people poor for another year.
The studies confirmed what was obvious on day one: the only
feasible investment was in logging, the port, and a sawmill to
supply the local market from reject logs.
After six months of deliberation the project was approved.
ant, have a look yourself at the capital costs and outputs of
alternative and renewable energy. If you cannot handle it, I am
willing to do the study for you, at 'mates rates' for a.p.
denizens of only USD 1,800 per day. I think I could do it
definitively in about two weeks.
However, considering how thick-headed you are I might need an
extra three months to explain it to you.
Daniel
Iskandar Baharuddin schrieb:
:
: "Ian St. John" wrote:
: >
: > I could point out that there is no proof that the hydrogen explosion
: > at chernobyl was large enough to break a western containment vessel.
: > It is meters thick and reinforced. It can take a *lot* of
: > overpressure.
Meters? I think for the older reactors it is more like 0.7 m and for
newer 1.5 m (please correct me someone if I'm wrong here). However,
the "containment" is not expected to withstand bigger explosions.
(Otherwise, why should all reactor accident studies consider thousands of
immediate deaths? Because they assume that the containment likely will
fail?)
: > However, I also know that it took a series of disabling steps
: > including taking safety systems offline and some really stupid
: > decisions by poorly trained operators to make Chernobyl. Defense in
: > depth is what kept TMI from becoming a similar event.
Well, some people say it the other way: Several (some) "small" problems made
fast a "big" problem.
: > If a hydrogen bubble does form, there are options. Catalytic
: > recombination surfaces could keep recycling the hydrogen/oxygen
: > mixture to prevent the larger explosion. The hydrogen could be flushed
: > by nitrogen to the atmosphere ( releasing radiation but preventing the
: > larger contamination ) The hydrogen bubble generated at TMI was
: > monitored during the crisis. It never grew to a large enough size to
: > crack the vessel, even if it had exploded.
The hydrogen bubble was pumped out of the building I think.
: > There is a danger. There is always a danger. No technology is risk
: > free.
: >
: > One 'result' of chernobyl was the elimination of the 'china syndrome'
: > fear. The melting fuel dissolved into other metals and materials and
: > diluted to the point where it could not melt anything else. This
: > effect might be used in the design of future reactors to ensure
: > another level of backup security.
: > After about six months operation, the fuel ( in a LWR ) is
: > sufficiently rich in secondary nucleotides that even shut down, it
: > needs cooling to prevent melting. Reprocessing of fuel after six
: > months or neutron activation reactors could keep the content of these
: > secondary products below that level so that in the event of a failure,
: > the system could shut down safely even with no coolant. Fuel is not a
: > large cost of nuclear, and increasing the fuel reprocessing rate would
: > not add much to the cost, while providing a buffer against this
: > problem.
TMI-2 went partly well because the fuel was relatively fresh (only 4
months), since the plant went online the 30th Dec 1978 to catch a tax
privilege.
Also, TMI-2 only had a temporary loss of coolant. With a complete loss
of coolant, the issue may have taken an other way...
: > Given a meltdown, the coolant water can generate a 'hydrogen bubble'
: > actually hydrogen and oxygen broken down from the cooling water ).
: > This is mostly a factor of the design of light water reactors. Sodium
: > cooled breeders would have no sources for the hydrogen.
: >
: > Heavy water reactors ( Such as Canada's Candu ) are also not as
: > vulnerable. It takes a few minutes for a light water ( highly
: > enriched ) uranium pile to go critical in the event of cooling
: > failure. This is why there is such an emphasis on automatic passive
: > safety design in the US. In contrast, heavy water ( unenriched )
: > plants such as CANDU take a hour or two without cooling to reach
: > meltdown.
Hmmm, I doubt that it takes so long ?!
: > This gives much more time to recognize problems and shut
: > down the reactor. With damping rods in place ( scrammed ) there is
: > little danger, even after years of operation. The fuel is not as 'high
: > octane' which makes it safer.
Maybe, but the problem with melting of the fuel is not how much enriched
the Uranium is, the problem is how much decay heat is generated from
fission products. Consequently the not-enrichment is not an argument for
slower melting, but it is maybe an argument regarding prompt criticality.
: Alleluia! Another rational voice.
Iskandar Baharuddin
> the selected safest parts of it, so the soviet designed reactors are
> relevant. why do you persist with these attempts to only include the western
> nuclear reactors in the risk estimates?
> there are over 100 reactors in third or second world nations and most of the
> planned new reactors are in the same areas, these are the reactors that pose
> the biggest risk to human health but you want to exclude them from the
> argument, why?
> not all of these new reactors under construction or being planned are modern
> western designs, what do we know about Chinas reactor design for example? or
> the reactors in India or Pakistan?
>
You really have me worried now.
Let's make the Chinese and Indians and Pakistanis stop!
And if they won't, let's nuke 'em!
littlefish
>> > > > littlefish wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > > > > You can't really blame people for being skeptical. But I'm sure
>> they
>> > > are
>> > > > > reassured when you make comments like: "If mankind has no
destiny,
>> it
>> > > does
>> > > > > not really matter if we destroy ourselves". :-)
>> > > >
>> > > > Perhaps I have been guilty of a bit of imprecision.
>> > > >
>> > > > It would matter while the process of self-destruction is going
>> > > > on, not after it is over.
>> > >
>> > > Of course it would matter. It would be an appalling tragedy even if
>> there
>> > > was nobody left to know it.
>> >
>> > Who would be the apallees?
>>
>> 'Apallees' are not necessary. Or do you think the tree falling in the
>> forest with nobody there to hear it makes no sound?
>
>Wallabies can hear.
>
>Not quite sure whether they can be appalled.
>
>My, you do take things seriously, don't you?
If you really got that impression, I'm sorry it came across that way. But I
suspect this is a case of the salesman trying yet another angle. (If you
can't paint those who question you as quivering luddites or wimps or bores
who harp on about data, paint them as overly-serious types who don't even
guffaw and slap their knees at the thought of humanity being wiped out.)
;-)
>> 'Apallees' are very poor judges of 'appallingness' anyway. Many of them
>> were probably less appalled by the Asian floods or Indian train crash
than
>> the death of Princess Di.
>>
>
>You are undoubtedly correct.
>
>Nice to be able to agree with you on something.
--
"Lund's [the engineer who expressed concern about the Challenger's O-rings]
first response was to repeat his objections. But then Mason said something
that made him think again. Mason asked him to THINK LIKE A MANAGER INSTEAD
OF AN ENGINEER (the exact words seemed to have been "take off your
engineering hat and put on your management hat.") Lund did and changed his
mind. The next morning the shuttle exploded, killing all aboard. An O-ring
had failed." Michael Davis, "Thinking Like an Engineer: the Place of a Code
of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession", Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 20 #2
littlefish
>> generation.
>> > > IMHO, all competing technologies need to be assessed on their true
>> > > long-term costs, risks and benefits. Unfortunately, the type of
people
>> > > mentioned above may distort the facts and make accurate assessment
>> > > difficult.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps the best bet is to try to reduce consumption of electricity
>> (solar
>> > > hot water systems, fluoros, more efficient appliances etc.) until
>> better
>> > > generation technologies are available.
>> >
>> > But while you are waiting for your campaign to bite, Australia
>> > faces the embarrassment of exceeding the generous increase in
>> > greenhouse gases allowed at Kyoto.
>>
quickly,
>> and cut consumption significantly. Likewise solar HW, which can reduce a
>> household's power consumption by up to 40%.
>>
>> >any realistic time frame is nuclear power.
>>
>
>They have been available off the shelf for years.
>
>The problem is that they stay on the shelf.
>
>People will not buy them on a scale which makes a significant
>difference.
>
>Now if you propose an emissions tax to internalize costs I will
>support you.
Nice to be able to agree with you on something else. :-)
I'm no expert, but on the face of it this appears to be a fair and sensible
application of the user-pays principle.
>But be warned: it will bugger coal.
If it really comes to that, it may be the price we have to pay.
Iskandar Baharuddin
Of course there is another price, for some people: they will
have to resign themselves to rapid growth of nuclear power.
Iskandar Baharuddin
> >> > littlefish wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Iskandar Baharuddin <bren...@highway1.com.au> wrote in article
Not at all! It was merely a semantic quibble. I do not
understand how there can be a tragedy without an audience.
>
> >> 'Apallees' are very poor judges of 'appallingness' anyway. Many of them
> >> were probably less appalled by the Asian floods or Indian train crash
> than
> >> the death of Princess Di.
> >>
> >
> >You are undoubtedly correct.
> >
> >Nice to be able to agree with you on something.
>
> --
>
> "Lund's [the engineer who expressed concern about the Challenger's O-rings]
> first response was to repeat his objections. But then Mason said something
> that made him think again. Mason asked him to THINK LIKE A MANAGER INSTEAD
> OF AN ENGINEER (the exact words seemed to have been "take off your
> engineering hat and put on your management hat.") Lund did and changed his
> mind. The next morning the shuttle exploded, killing all aboard. An O-ring
> had failed." Michael Davis, "Thinking Like an Engineer: the Place of a Code
> of Ethics in the Practice of a Profession", Philosophy and Public Affairs,
> Vol. 20 #2
I also agree with the sentiment in your quote.
I have been involved in many battles between managers and
engineers. On safety issues the engineers have always been
right.
Ian St. John
Daniel <ple...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:37B4B532...@no.spam...
>
>
> Iskandar Baharuddin schrieb:
> :
> : "Ian St. John" wrote:
> : >
> : > I could point out that there is no proof that the hydrogen
explosion
> : > at chernobyl was large enough to break a western containment
vessel.
> : > It is meters thick and reinforced. It can take a *lot* of
> : > overpressure.
>
> Meters? I think for the older reactors it is more like 0.7 m and for
> newer 1.5 m (please correct me someone if I'm wrong here). However,
> the "containment" is not expected to withstand bigger explosions.
> (Otherwise, why should all reactor accident studies consider
thousands of
> immediate deaths? Because they assume that the containment likely
will
> fail?)
Ok. Maybe that was a bit over the top. I only saw one actual number
2.4 m ) for a test reactor, and have made a point to look more
closely. The other example ( from
http://www.cannon.net/~gonyeau/nuclear/index.htm ) gave a thickness of
3/8 inch steel pressure containment backed by a little over a meter
3.5 feet ) of reinforced concrete. See:
http://www.nrc.gov/AEOD/pib/reactors/244/c/244c004.html.
The steel vessel is designed to deform and prevent leakage even in the
event of cracking of the concrete ( which also form radiation
shielding ).
Testing at Sandia on the steel pressure vessel seems to indicate that
it can withstand four times more than it's designed overpressure.
Partly I was going from another newsgroup thread relating to how easy
breaking it might be ( bomb, airplane crash, etc ). Not easy.
>
> : > However, I also know that it took a series of disabling steps
> : > including taking safety systems offline and some really stupid
> : > decisions by poorly trained operators to make Chernobyl. Defense
in
> : > depth is what kept TMI from becoming a similar event.
>
> Well, some people say it the other way: Several (some) "small"
problems made
> fast a "big" problem.
The reference above gives a lot of information including a full
description of TMI and Chernobyl accidents. It may be worth a look.
<snip>
> : >
> : > Heavy water reactors ( Such as Canada's Candu ) are also not as
> : > vulnerable. It takes a few minutes for a light water ( highly
> : > enriched ) uranium pile to go critical in the event of cooling
> : > failure. This is why there is such an emphasis on automatic
passive
> : > safety design in the US. In contrast, heavy water ( unenriched )
> : > plants such as CANDU take a hour or two without cooling to reach
> : > meltdown.
>
> Hmmm, I doubt that it takes so long ?!
Your doubts affect reality not at all... ;-)
<snip>
>
> Maybe, but the problem with melting of the fuel is not how much
enriched
> the Uranium is, the problem is how much decay heat is generated from
> fission products. Consequently the not-enrichment is not an argument
for
> slower melting, but it is maybe an argument regarding prompt
criticality.
At least an hour to reach meltdown, if nothing is done.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why is CANDU one of the safest designs in the world?
The CANDU system is a strong example of safety through both engineered
redundancy and passive design. The core has numerous triple-redundant
detectors that feed to two logically, conceptually and physically
separate shutdown systems (shut-off rods and high-pressure poison
injection). Each system is capable of shutting down the core within 2
seconds following a LOCA ("Loss-of-Coolant Accident" -- the
design-basis accident for CANDU reactors), without credit given to
operator intervention. See the next FAQ for a more detailed discussion
of the engineered CANDU safety systems.
In addition to engineered safety systems, CANDU reactors have a number
of inherent safety features that distinguish it from other reactor
designs (e.g. PWRs, BWRs):
The subdivision of the core into two thermalhydraulic loops (in most
CANDU designs), and hundreds of individual pressure tubes within each
loop, localizes a LOCA (Loss-of-Coolant Accident) to one small region
of the core, and reduces the reactivity effect of a LOCA accordingly.
Furthermore, the two core-passes per loop mean that only a quarter of
the core would likely suffer a mismatch between heat generation and
removal under such conditions (and only the highest-power fuel
elements within this one-quarter-core region).
The large-volume, low-pressure, low-temperature moderator surrounding
the pressure tubes acts as a heat sink in large LOCA scenarios,
rendering negligible the risk of "fuel meltdown". The moderator, in
turn, is surrounded by a thick light-water shield tank (used for
biological and thermal shielding) which can also act as a heat sink in
severe accident scenarios.
The moderator also provides a low-pressure environment for the control
rods, eliminating the "rod-ejection" scenarios considered in PWR
safety analyses. In addition, the location of neutronics measurement
devices in the moderator avoids subjecting this equipment to a hot,
pressurized environment.
Heavy-water neutron kinetics is slower by several orders of magnitude
than light-water kinetics, reducing the discontinuity between prompt
and delayed kinetic behaviour, and making control easier.
Criticality of CANDU fuel bundles in light water is impossible,
avoiding one concern of severe accident analyses that light-water
reactors must contend with. Furthermore, since the geometry of the
CANDU core is near optimal from a reactivity standpoint, any
rearrangement under severe accident conditions ensures shutdown.
On-power refuelling means that the power distribution reaches an
equilibrium within a year of start-up, and remains virtually unchanged
for the reactor's operating life. This greatly simplifies the analysis
of core behaviour as a result of postulated accidents.
On-power refuelling also allows defective fuel to be detected and
removed from the core, reducing the contamination of the reactor
coolant piping and simplifying maintenance.
The low excess reactivity of the CANDU core leads to relatively low
reactivity worth of the control devices, limiting the potential
severity of postulated loss-of-regulation accidents.
The positioning of the steam generators well above the core promotes
natural thermosyphoning (i.e. movement due to the coolant's own
density differences), which can remove decay heat if shut-down cooling
is lost. At the same time, the large amount of small-diameter piping
in the feeder network acts as a natural "radiator" under such
conditions.
---------------------------------------------
Gregory Greenman
A Western-style containment will handle artilery with no problem.
The containment can even survive the direct hit by a crashing
airliner.
>
> nuclear reactors make good military targets, especially to small
> revolutionary forces
Not unless the small revolutionary forces have a small nuke to
take out the containment - but if you've got the nuke - you can
be much much more disruptive than taking out the electricity.