Part time Enviromentalists rant look at the frowny face

[rcgreen]

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.

[zepherin]

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.

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

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.

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

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