Part time Enviromentalists rant look at the frowny face

People who honestly care about the environment and are trying to help people and do their RESEARCH may leave now I have no beef with you people. You part time protesting corny save the whales but only till I have to work, nuclear power is bad because I believe what television tells me, not knowing anything **** slingers is where I have my problem.
I'm in the grocery store looking for some donuts and what do I find? dolphin free tuna. The first thought that crosses my mind is great I don't want any of those nasty tasting dolphins in my tuna anyway (which isn't true, I've eaten dolphin and it's pretty damn good). But how does dolphin free tuna make any sense? What about the tuna? Well it seams that we say screw poultry and screw beef. Now hard core Vegans are less hypocrites than everyone else cause they only wear organically grown clothing (which brings up the issue of how plants are any less sentient than animals but we'll say screw the plants at this rant). So how is tuna any less of an animal than dolphin? It isn't as cute.
Fur, I read somewhere that it requires 50 animals to make 1 coat. And lot's of people are like oh no, those poor seals. I watched a national geographic video the other day, killer whales where eating seals, the average killer whale eats over 100 seals a day, and before they eat them they play catch with the seals and beat them back and forth over the beach to tender their meat up. Where are you bleeding hearts for those seals?
Nuclear power is one of the best forms of power we have. It produces massive output with little waste. Air and solar power are the cleanest but don't produce much power. Sewage power (burning the methane given out by crap) is probably the best, methane burns clean and is abundant, but it's not a widely excepted idea yet as there are only a few in existence. Here are a few facts for you. A coal power plant produces more radiation than a nuclear power plant, a coal power plant produces more air pollution than a nuclear power plant and a coal power plant doesn't produce as much power as a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants cannot explode, I repeat they cannot explode. Now nuclear power is by no means perfect and meltdowns do happen, but when they do people blow the event out of proportion, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl leave sour tastes in peoples mouths but they are the extremes and they really weren't that bad.

Hitler was a vegetarian, he didn't smoke, didn't drink.
:cool:

to discredit Chernobyl as being exagerated is equivalent to saying that the holocaust is a myth. We have seen many times the power of nuclear energy to destroy. Whether in the form of warheads or in the form of energy plants. To say that a nuclear power plant produces no waste is equivalent to claiming that dumping toxic waste into rivers provides nutrients to aquatic animals. Nuclear power plants created much toxic waste that needs to be disposed of. Right now it is being burried in concrete silos, what if an earthquake should damage the silo, we would have quite a tremendous disaster. Lucky for me, here in Quebec, we have an abundance of water and create a huge amount of hydro electricity, so large that new york, vermont, new hampshire, newfoundland and ontario purchase our clean, waste free electricity. As for the dolphins, when I purchase a product, I expect that product in full. When the label says TUNA, I do not want a grinded up boot plus tuna. I suppose the reason why we don't tend to eat dolphin is the same reason why we do not eat primates. As humans we have a sense of morality which allows us to have compassion for other creatures. Luckily someone has compassion for seals and outlawed beating them to death and extinction with bats. We certainly cannot begin to impose our sense of morality upon creatures we believe to have no ability to empathize. The whales must survive, and eating seals is how they get nurished. In our human case, seals were not being used as nurishment but for their furs. I am sure if seals were a needed source of food, they would be hunted just for that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oblio
to discredit Chernobyl as being exagerated is equivalent to saying that the holocaust is a myth.

---

Chernobyl killed less people over all than car crashes kill in a day.

Quote:

---

We have seen many times the power of nuclear energy to destroy. Whether in the form of warheads or in the form of energy plants. To say that a nuclear power plant produces no waste is equivalent to claiming that dumping toxic waste into rivers provides nutrients to aquatic animals. Nuclear power plants created much toxic waste that needs to be disposed of. Right now it is being burried in concrete silos, what if an earthquake should damage the silo, we would have quite a tremendous disaster.

---

Nuclear plants have much more stringent regulations than coal plants do.

Quote:

---

Lucky for me, here in Quebec, we have an abundance of water and create a huge amount of hydro electricity, so large that new york, vermont, new hampshire, newfoundland and ontario purchase our clean, waste free electricity.

---

Hydro electric plants cause more damage than nuclear could ever hope too. They displace the enviroment around them for up to 10 miles at the point of the dam, they cause sediment to build at the base causeing errosion on a large scale basis. More than 1 ecosystem has been annihilated do to this "clean" power source

Quote:

---

As for the dolphins, when I purchase a product, I expect that product in full. When the label says TUNA, I do not want a grinded up boot plus tuna. I suppose the reason why we don't tend to eat dolphin is the same reason why we do not eat primates.

---

I don't want hormones that cause ulsers in cows in my milk but it doesn't mean it's not there.

Quote:

---

As humans we have a sense of morality which allows us to have compassion for other creatures. Luckily someone has compassion for seals and outlawed beating them to death and extinction with bats.

---

so how is that any more compassionate than slowly poisening cows with hormones that cause ulsers and bleeding before we run them through a stockade and put a iron bar thru their skull

Quote:

---

We certainly cannot begin to impose our sense of morality upon creatures we believe to have no ability to empathize. The whales must survive, and eating seals is how they get nurished. In our human case, seals were not being used as nurishment but for their furs. I am sure if seals were a needed source of food, they would be hunted just for that.

---

We don't need to use cows for leather but we do, seals are cute and they do little human like things your spared, cows are ugly so their walets. (Denise Leary)

Do your research next time

Lets not forget, it takes the skins from 2000 animals for a pro football team (american) to play one season.

==================================
Hitler was a vegetarian, he didn't smoke, didn't drink.
==================================

Jim Jones, the man responsible for a mass suicide in Guiana (spelling sucks) was a christian.
whats your point?

i don't find it necessary to take life to stay alive or be healthy in today’s society. too me, and i speak only for myself, its a waste of life. and a sin against nature when done for pleasure, like because it tastes good.
so i think the label should read, "No tuna are killed during our genocidal slaughter of tuna”

I have no comment.. I like football, so if 2000 pigs need to die to give me my SuperBowl, than I say "DIE, PIGGY, PIGGY, DIE!"
As for Dolphin safe tuna and all the rest I'll let those Greenpeacers ride their old barges that pumps more filth into the ocean than anything the tuna people could possibly kill. So have at it, you tree huggers.

I want my IN-N-OUT burgers, my beer, etc. etc.

You people can go without if it makes you feel better, but I swear that if you are in a picket line and in my way when I want my 4X4, animal style w/ a chocolate shake I will think nothing of running you down. So beware.

End rant.

certainly most people don't live in an ethically consistent manner, but despite this I feel that we make relative choices, and this is what leads to disagreement.
personally I have no problems with nuclear power, but at the same time I am very encouraged to see many countrys moving over to truely clean power unlike hydroelectric. Best off all both britain and germany are commited to providing over five percent of their power requirement from wind and tidal power by 2010. Moves such as this can only be positive to my mind

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KorpDeath
I have no comment.. I like football, so if 2000 pigs need to die to give me my SuperBowl, than I say "DIE, PIGGY, PIGGY, DIE!"
As for Dolphin safe tuna and all the rest I'll let those Greenpeacers ride their old barges that pumps more filth into the ocean than anything the tuna people could possibly kill. So have at it, you tree huggers.

I want my IN-N-OUT burgers, my beer, etc. etc.

You people can go without if it makes you feel better, but I swear that if you are in a picket line and in my way when I want my 4X4, animal style w/ a chocolate shake I will think nothing of running you down. So beware.

End rant.

---

That statement says it all haha! :)

run 'em down KorpDeath!

Unfortunatly for your argument the death rate concerning automobile collisions has nothing to do with the production of electricity harming the environment.

Next, the differences between the regulations concerning nuclear energy and the regulations set forth for coal producing plants is completely irrelevant to this debate. I stated that nuclear energy has a far more devastating potential to destroy than any other form of energy. Now concerning your claim of regulation, would you please provide something to support this claim.

As for your claim of hydroelectricity destroying more than it protects, while true, many species are forced to relocate their living spaces, the overall impact on the ecosystem here in Quebec is virtually unchanged. We happened to be well known for our rivers and forests and we also happen to be at the same time, the worlds largest producer of hydro electricity, and I do not see how nuclear power does anything less. Their sizes are enormous, they require the use of major quantities of water and they also expell their used water back into the source.

The thing with cows being used for leather, those same cows are also processed for food. There is no waste. As for growth hormones given to cattle, I am seriously against such things and I strive to eat much organic food although a nice 16oz cut of roast beef is rather tasty.

Finally in retort to your "do your research next time", it doesn't appear to me that you have done any sort of research at all. You provide arguments, while valid, are not very well thought out and expanded upon.

Whichever power source produces the cheapest power
in money terms should be presumed to have the least
total environmental impact, unless you can prove
otherwise. Capitalism always seeks the most profitable
way to supply us with products, and this is morally
superior because the market is ruled by the actions
of consumers seeking the cheapest price.
No other system even comes close.
Environmentalists want to make less electricity
and still make it ridiculously cheap (for themselves)
less gasoline, less tuna.
Who cares if the "working class", can't afford the
dolphin free tuna?
Who cares if the rednecks all starve?
They're living in a fantasy, hoping to live in luxury
in a depopulated earth listening to their
old beatle records.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oblio
Unfortunatly for your argument the death rate concerning automobile collisions has nothing to do with the production of electricity harming the environment.

---

The point wasn't about the harm done to the enviroment by electricity, it was the that chernobyl is minor compaired to the ammount of people killed every day.

Quote:

---

Next, the differences between the regulations concerning nuclear energy and the regulations set forth for coal producing plants is completely irrelevant to this debate. I stated that nuclear energy has a far more devastating potential to destroy than any other form of energy. Now concerning your claim of regulation, would you please provide something to support this claim.

---

ok. read this http://www.hecweb.org/ccw/indexccw.htm
nuclear regulations. read this http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html

Quote:

---

As for your claim of hydroelectricity destroying more than it protects, while true, many species are forced to relocate their living spaces, the overall impact on the ecosystem here in Quebec is virtually unchanged. We happened to be well known for our rivers and forests and we also happen to be at the same time, the worlds largest producer of hydro electricity, and I do not see how nuclear power does anything less. Their sizes are enormous, they require the use of major quantities of water and they also expell their used water back into the source.

---

Used water isn't the problem in nuclear plants, most of it is expelled as steam. It's the waste that's the issue. Water is used as a coolent and to move the turbine (via steam) not as a transport for solid waste like most coal plants use it for. I'm not saying that nuclear power is perfect, there is no perfect source of power. Either the output is to low or the cost is too high.

Quote:

---

The thing with cows being used for leather, those same cows are also processed for food. There is no waste. As for growth hormones given to cattle, I am seriously against such things and I strive to eat much organic food although a nice 16oz cut of roast beef is rather tasty.

---

Just because there is less waste doesn't mean that it is humane

Quote:

---

Finally in retort to your "do your research next time", it doesn't appear to me that you have done any sort of research at all. You provide arguments, while valid, are not very well thought out and expanded upon.

---

I could say the same to you