Just out of curiosity, who believes that the whole environmental approach will succeed? I mean that we, as an entire world, will stop polluting in time to halt, or even slow, the environmental collapse of the planet? The way it is right now, today, is catastrophic, and I don't believe we will ever change that, let alone in time.
So, be honest, be realistic, what do you think personaly?

Dear Max,

Will we stop polluting in time?

I hope so. But realistically, I don't think so.
Greed is a human foible - and hard to control.
Most of us now have a lifestyle far beyond
scarcity, and as Tor Hundloe points out in his
book, "From Buddha to Bono: seeking sustainability.":

"Some of the most eminent economists, psychologists,
and philosophers have made clear what should be most
obvious: we don't become happier if life is led in
search of the next material object, in conspicuous
consumption..."

"...It will not be sustainable with an expected world
population of over nine billion. We will overshoot...
the globe's carrying capacity."

As Hundloe stresses, unless we reduce the human population
and return our ecosystems to sustainable health - we shall
suffer as will the natural world.

This is something we all know - but will we do it?
Somehow I doubt it.

I for one think the targets they are setting are flerting with danger.

If we even consider cutting emmisions by 20% we will see mass unemployment as not only will our own industry slow dramaticly, but we as a nation will become so anti-comtetetive our exports will dwindle.

How an earth can we even think we can continue to sustain our current population, let alone our predicted growth without keeping the wheels turning on our industries.

In my opinion we should be seeking ways to deal with emmisions rather than cutting them by up to 40% as some suggest.

Unless the whole world gets serious and aims for the same reduction targets, any cuts for us will cause pain for many.

Imagine for one minute if we went to China and said, "sorry, we can't fill the rest of that order as we have reached our emmisions target for the month'.

It's time we got serious and stopped kidding ourselves I think!

I'm resigned to the belief that our species will consume its way into an apocalypse.

The natural resources that have underpinned our global society have peaked and begun declining within a lifetime, but we are too addicted to luxury to address it.

All is not lost, though. There is more than enough popular support for the necessary changes, but industry won't tolerate the loss of share price, and can fairly much buy and sell our political process as it pleases. Dissenters to the growth-without-end philosophy are painted as life-despising nihilists, which fits nicely with the neo-theocratic philosophy of the contemporary Right.

What it means is that gen Y will have to save the game for us if we want anything like life as we know it to continue.

Good luck, kids.

maximillion>>Just out of curiosity,who believes that the whole environmental approach will succeed?>>that is a rather vague term please define what you mean?WHAT ENVIRON-MENTAL approach,..by who[where]..how much does it cost, who pays?

<<I mean that we,as an entire world,will stop polluting in time to halt,or even slow,the environmental collapse of the planet?>>again rather vague..[are you talking about polution,or chem trails,or poisen in our air waters,foods,medicines..or the global warning co2 farce[the poisen[we make]that gives plants life,or methane,or benzine,..name names dude

i will presume you dont care about the other polutants,rainforrest destruction,fishing the seas empty,the one BILLION starving,but are mearly talking about the con about carbon dioxide causing global warming[or is it cooling]..which computer model?by who?using what data?

if so please definitivly narrow your concerns..[or present where we really had the debate..[i sort of missed the actual proofs and actual debate,..im asking for REAL proof..[not computer modeling

i will be called a global warming/holocaust-denier..[such emotive language dosnt suit the debate]..about science being fraud to get research funding and the neo[new]tax on carbon..[that the derivitives traitors will speculate into as much as you can afford to pay

<<The way it is right now,today,is catastrophic,>>..again the right way is rather vague..PLEASE DEFINE YOUR VERSION of/the RIGHT way..[pay carbontax?,..pay/feed the primitives..[or their leaders bank accounts..lol..to not develop their impoverished under-development, so the ngo can bank the proffits while their people die?

or perhaps eat vego/stuff..[that must be grown in torn down amazon rainforrests]..just like soy currently is..[how much extra soy will need to be grown..so we can eat a salted-up/soy'meat'replacement?

see your being so vague,..please give the definitive cure we should be paying carbon tax for,..seeing as we must DO IT RIGHT NOW,TODAY

[DO WHAT TODAY?]stop breathing?..take out swine-flue shots[stop breeding..kill off half the worlds poor?..please define what YOU THINK we MUST BE doing right now

Not a chance. A collapse is inevitable.
Too many selfish, greedy people who dont care.
Nature will put us in our place.

It's simple, we're very close to the penultimate generation in the Petri dish. That one has enough to eat (barely) and can find at least some places where the excrement hasn't piled up over their heads. The next one chokes on it while starving.

Sadly, unless we all stop breeding or the swine flu kills a lot more than just the "swines", that time is not far off.

That's about the size of it mikk.

I'm with the doomsayers on this one.

We've had a good run, in the cosmological scheme of things.

There has clearly never been any guarantee associated with any life form that has ever evolved on our planet, but in our case there are additional problems of our own making.

Our use of resources has been forever unevenly distributed, and we are not by any means the first generation or tribe to be guilty of this - just take a peek at how the Pharaohs lived, or the Mughal emperors. It is a human trait, apparently, to maximize our own comfort through exploitation wherever we can. And due to the development of our brain, we have found ever-more-ingenious ways to achieve this.

So yes, it is twilight time. Even the concept of population control will ultimately fail, as economies dwindle to subsistence level and individual/group/tribe/national resentment increases.

I'd give us another 250 years, maximum. And the last hundred of those will be pretty horrible.

Pericles
"I'd give us another 250 years, maximum. And the last hundred of those will be pretty horrible"
You are very pesimistic. We come from very far and we are going even further!
Do not forget the genetic engineering, we will remove all the crazy genies from our bodies, we will colonize the space and spread our civilization to many planets and space...rocks.
We will be victorious!
Eviva human stupidity which drive us to our destination!
I am happy from our direction, soon or later we will realize that we are going to nowhere, soon or later we will realize that we have to use our brain!
We have brain even when we do not use it! That's our advantage!
We are honest in our dreams!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I think it depends on who "we" is. If you mean mankind in general, then the answer is "yes", as mankind has been hitting this wall forever. In the past we had the starving millions in Africa. Right now the underlying cause of the problems in the Solomon Islands is population growth: "one ethnic group, the Malaitans, had little choice but to squat on the ‘unoccupied’ lands of other tribes". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8790#139350 Other countries around us are growing at a similar rate to the Solomon's, so I'd say what we have seen in the Solomon's is a taste of what is to come in most of our pacific neighbours. The Solomon's have another problem: they are already a net food importer. If things continue the way they are, by 2050 6 billion people will live in countries that have food deficits _today_. http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m15/m15chap3.shtml Mind you I think that particular statistic might be wrong, as our good friends the 4 horsemen might step in before we reach it - just as they tried to do in the Solomon's.

However, if by "we" you mean Australia, then the answer isn't so obvious. We produce 4 times as much food as we consume. Our natural population growth is negative so shrinking our population painlessly by reducing immigration is politically easy. Although we are facing peak oil, for a few decades we can get away with substituting other products - providing we don't sell them all off. Given the rate of new developments those few decades would seem to give us enough time to develop alternatives.

Despite all that, if we continue doing what we are doing now there is no doubt we will hit the same wall everyone else will by the end of this century. But right now we can choose to not hit that wall. We are one of the few countries that have such a choice - a lucky country indeed. Being the eternally optimistic person I am, I can't help but think we will make the "right" choice. Mind you, there is absolutely no sign of us doing it now.

Such doom, gloom and pessimism. I personally remain optimistic about humanities future and our ability to sustain a future for our species. I’m being absolutely honest and I am most definitely a realist.

There is always the possibility that Mother Nature will wipe us out with a meteorite or a neutron star going super nova in our immediate vicinity (within 100 light years that is).

That said I’m absolutely baffled by the rampant fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) that pervades our society. Is this because our media is so negative? Is it because we, as individuals, can get access to unfiltered information via the internet which frightens us? Could it be because we feel vulnerable and disenfranchised? Could it be that because society is so complicated and multi-layered, that as individuals we feel we cannot influence things?

As a rampant realist, I don’t feel the fear shared by so many; as a consequence, I don’t feel the need express such negativity about a whole raft of important global issues. Nor do I need to be critical of other humans for just being human. Our greed, envy, aggression and all the other bad bits have been recognized for millennia. So have our compassion, heroics and ingenuity.

For thousands of years we have created rules to mitigate our bad bits and capitalize on our good bits. Such as religious, social, political and industrial rules.

As a realist I feel somewhat fortunate that I’m not tortured by those things I cannot and should not seek to influence. I am optimistic that we will eventually evolve into a benign species without baggage. I will take time, perhaps millennia, and there will be some major hiccups along the way.

One of my favorite “rationalisers” is to imagine myself looking back at one of the great issues we face now, from say 2,000 years in the future. In the same way we look back at what we were up to 2,000 years ago. It’s actually quite rewarding, often amusing and ultimately very positive. Try it.

Many writers agree that the "solution has to be
to improve the knowledge of people across the
board."

According to the experts the answer lies in
challenging the next generation to higher standards
of ethics and science. "Nothing other than knowledge
is going to save the planet..."

Perhaps through education in renewable technologies
and carbon-neutral lifestyles and a wish to implement
them lies our hope for the future.

i largly agree with the spin doc sentiment[and sure we need to educate people,but the thing i hate is the spin type buzz words

im not picking on you foxy..[but are chosing to use your words to make my point,quote<<..renewable technologies>>yeah thats a great word we all know what your saying[yet]renewable means just what egsactly[i renew my cuboard of consumables regularilly],but the ideal is not to create new[ables].

.but to make do with the old..[so as to not input more carbon into the system,..simply in obtaining them and crating the NEW renewables

take the new renewable wind-mills..[how much energy it going to take to make new a 'suss-tain-able'-'re-new-able'-teq-knowledge-gee

dig up the iron/copper;..[raw materials]transport them to germany..[get them to build wind-mills[or solar/cells]..[using new energy[needing extra energy consumption[and or means of supply],..then transport them to tassie,..build a new POWER/line into some windy field,and hook it into the grid..[how much extra carbon all that create?

when doing the same..[we now do]..costs the same[..NOT more..[or reducing as industry adjusts from con-sumerism to actually sustain-ing that we all-ready got

[or reducing the emissions[polution]..by capuring the carbon etc[by filtering,capturing the REAL poisens[feeding the smoke through wood chip,s..catching the coal carbon[reclaiming poisens at point of use

[putting it back where it came from[locking the carbon away..NOT CREATING EVER MORE of it..making ever new SUSS-tainable teqnologies[sure as the old wears out,replace with better..[but look at the words they use to spin us into consumerism]

<<carbon-neutral lifestyles>>oh dear..how carbon neutral is killing all the animals-[then becoming[veggo]..ve-get-airian..[killing the rain forrests of the world to grow soy..[or palm oil,or ge corn to run cars

<<and a wish to implement>>..how about the wish to make do?

<<.impliment]..them lies..our hope for the future>>?

funny how the truth is revealed..simply by spacing the words appart
words are sacred../sacred/swords=..s/words=..swords
we been hypnotised by too many spin[buzz]-words]

we;..all use them..[un-thinkingly]..all of us.[im not picking on you dear foxey..[only using the words others planted in all our minds]..spin from the spin-merchants

..[who sold us whitter than white..[global/warming..[global/cooling..then finally..[climate-change..carbon tax..

sold us on con-sumerism..sellouts..willing to sell us anthing

[anything we will swallow..
[con-sum-e]

A class action by honest people against the media for negligence toward humanity could inspire constructive news debate and real solutions to degradation of the environment and impact on the economy.

Failing to report honestly in major media licensed to publish news could constitute negligence with intent to ignore degradation of the environment and associated impact in order to allow financial gain and damaging development to continue.

Do we all just have to sit back and allow our valuable ecosystem of our planet to be destroyed? Such a class action could be challenging and very interesting.

Dear OUG,

Again you've given me something to think
about. Thank You.

It's an interesting concept -
when you spread the words.
Especially - the "swords,"
and the image of destruction - that brings up

not sure i intended to work a subliminal
but one appears just abouve

note i finished my pose with con-sum-e[when i read the next post i read it subconciously as ...con-su-me....sue me being the subliminal

to explain quote JF Aus>>>..A class action by honest people<<<

yeah ok grasping at straws..[but words really are tricky]

but i agree with you [to a point jf,ie re..<<A class action..against the media for negligence toward humanity>>i often want to sue for all their lies..[but who to sue[they run the boys club court system,just like they run everything else..[the judge would simply say vexatious anf frivilous and say case dismissed[then get his fellow mason mates to by him a drink..or get an honour of australia]

only us correcting their lies,unveiling their vile, live time<<<could inspire constructive news debate and real solutions to degradation of the environment and impact on the economy.>>..sadly its up to each of us to make corrections where we see them[one straw at a time,one lie corrected at a time]

<<Failing to report honestly in major media licensed to publish news>>..is..<<negligence with intent to ignore degradation of the environment and associated impact in order to allow financial gain and damaging development to continue.>>

<<Do we all just have to sit back and allow our valuable ecosystem of our planet to be destroyed?>>NOT MUCH WE COULD DO about it really[pre the web]..but the web has many boys club censors still doing their colluded vile treasons..[thats why i value uncensored site such as this one]...i see free speech as our only hope..[web 2 is a huge theat]

<<Such a class action could be challenging and very interesting.>>it sure would be..[but it simply wouldnt be allowed to happen..[the lawyers work with those who dispense the cash]and those with the cash own the banks..[via the banks they bought the whole world]

so the boys/club runs the world as their own fiefdom,..dumbing us down ever further,..till we become the perfect soviet man..party loyalist..[eat work sleep..[dont question..read dumbing down education post][or google the term[there is a free e-book that reveals the scam]

Human produced waste and its value is in the eye of the inventive beholder who knows a profit when he sees it.

Denialists have ramped up their efforts recently to hijack science for political or ideological reasons and in doing so, are besmirching science’s public image. They are good at doing this, and they are exerting a disproportionate influence on global climate policies.

Groups with vested interests, (pollutant industries such as mining and fossil fuel lobbyists etc) are endeavouring to push so-called “scientific evidence” to support their claims. In fact they are at best drawing selectively on a small part of the evidence, or at worst relying on “junk” science – that is, outdated, discredited or fabricated data and ideas.

If confronted with good science, deniers sidestep valid critiques and ignore counter-evidence (or dismiss it by deferring to other discredited ideas). Now they are using the economic crisis to scare people witless.

They are hard to pin down because they don’t want a serious scientific debate. A typical example this week was Tony Jones’ interview with sceptic, mining geologist and academic, Ian Plimer, who is also a company director of several mining companies and lists his interests as “an ore-body in Broken Hill.”

Rock doctor, Plimer has duped the public into believing he is an expert on climate science. Frankly, if one has taken an interest in the science on climate change and pollution, then one would be as dismayed as I, listening to Plimer’s hubris, though Tony Jones had done his research and wiped the floor with him.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm

What makes the current threat of climate warming so special is its speed.

The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1,000 years – yet now CO2 has risen by more than 30 ppm in just the last 17 years.

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, with contributions from cement manufacture, are responsible for more than 75% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times (IPCC) and the industrial barons et al, with their heads in the sand - (or would that be "trough?") intend to keep it that way.

Attention all scientists, or science minded persons.

So let's say we cut emmisions by 20%.

Does anyone have any real idea what impact this will have on our day to day lives.

There would appear to be one possible solution, nuclear power.

Now my understanding is that nuclear power is a clean sourse of power generation. Is this correct?

If so, why don't we adopt it?

If we did adopt it and stop all fossil fuels from being extracted and used, how much would this cut our emmisions by?

It would appear that the real threat of nuclear power is the handling and disposal of the waste. Is this the only real issue and surely there is a way to control this.

It is also my understanding that we have one of, if not the largest supply of urainium in the world. Is this correct?

How far from the end user could the nuclear plant be located?

If distance is no problem then there is plenty of arrid country out there to put these plants.

Is the risk of one major nuclear disaster in 50 years a better option than the continued poluting of our world?

Surely we are better equipped and more knowledgable to handle any such disaster now.

Just a thought.

Dallas:"Human produced waste and its value is in the eye of the inventive beholder who knows a profit when he sees it."

Exactly! My business is all about dealing with the waste produced by one industry and creating a useful product from it for consumption by another industry.

It's just as well I'm a bloke, though, since according to Foxy, if I was a sheila, I'd never be able to have started my business in the first place and if I had, I'd be paying myself much less (in the absence of a board to make sure I was undervalued).

Far too much whingeing goes on about problems and far too little effort goes into finding solutions for many people. We live in a very cossetted world, in which our comfort is seen as a paramount consideration and all the former milkmaids are now "princesses", quick to point out the pea under the multiple mattresses and expecting someone to immediately jump to and remove it.

However, there still remains the problem of overpopulation, which is not so easily addressed. Perhaps if the peas aren't removed tout suite, the bed will become less comfortable and the first cause of overpopulation will wither...

oh dear the over population pherphy
primitive man builds horosontally
future men build verticlly

grow their food in buildings, hydrophonicly, manage their cattle in sky scrapers..[sky scrapers like the twin towers grow ocians of food[recycle rivers of water, house millions on a few acres

ok thousands on a few hundred meters

there is no need to murder..[we just dont all get our quater acre]
that stupid island SINKING we se on the media every king tide is blasting its own foundation to use itself to destroy itself [but they could grow up abouve the water by sinking piles and building up

im sick of sickos thinking the world over populated whole cities will be in buildings[like mided people shareing every huiman need]duty and treasure,
loving neighbour, minding/feeding teaching each others kids..bying whole sale getting bulk discounts..[harvesting their own ccrap, doing it for them selves and each other..[not the tax man the banker or the lawyers, public serve-ants nor politics and their policies nore parties

rehctub: "Now my understanding is that nuclear power is a clean sourse of power generation. Is this correct?"

As you are undoubtedly aware, you will get a lot of argument about how clean it is. But there is a bigger problem. There isn't that much Uranium in the ground. If we somehow magically switched all our power generation over to nuclear fission overnight, we would run out of Uranium to fuel those plants in 10 years or so. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_uranium_depletion_outlook

You will often see nuclear supporters poohoo that number. Essentially they say while 10 years is correct if we use existing technology, newer methods can extend those 10 years into 100's or 1000's. Most of those methods are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

The only issue is, right now, no one has got any of these new methods to work. My guess is there is a good chance one or more of them can be made to work in the future. But there is also good chance solar, wind, hot rocks or any number of other methods could be made to work in the future as well. And unlike fission, they really are clean, and they don't produce by-products that can be used by terrorists and rogue nations to blow us off the face of the planet.

Dear Rehctub, Just had to let you know I’ve had to add your name to my spell check dictionary, you should see what it comes up with as word options, sorry about that. Just thought it was funny.

Anyway, your questions about nuclear options. Waste is now much less of a concern, the global nuclear waste inventory over the past 60 years amounts to (in metric volume) the equivalent of a single layer of containers on the area of a footy pitch. The good news is that having never disposed of it we can now use it again as fuel in the new Gen. IV reactors.

Gen III and IV reactors are gas cooled and don’t need to be near water (populated areas). In addition to eventually replacing fossil fuel which accounts for about 40% of emissions, nuclear energy can produce commercial volumes of hydrogen to begin to address the transport emissions.

Many nations are now fast racking nuclear build programs as the old negative perceptions are replaced with modern reality. As far as I’m able to determine, there has never been a safety incident with a Gen. II, III or IV reactor but this remains a major issue for the public.

In my view you are right to raise the question of available, non polluting energy. The objections to nuclear energy are sadly as divisive as the AGW debate itself and seem to me to be and opportunity turned into an obstacle.

A class action by honest people against the (polluters) for negligence toward humanity….”

JF Aus – I trust you don't object to me replacing the word "media" with “polluters?”

We in Australia revere the polluter. Several industrial barons have been awarded OBEs even knighthoods for exposing unwitting citizens to lethal chemicals and for the destruction (with impunity) of this nation’s ecosystems. Yet unremorseful industrial corporations remain the greatest opponents to the Emissions Trading Scheme, despite the fact that the largest polluters will receive massive credits for minute mitigations of their hazardous emissions.

Rudd’s five percent emissions’ reduction ETS will not be effective, however, it’s better than nothing but shall we soon witness a litigious nation, more so in the resource states?

Already 300 citizens have commenced a class action against an international polluter in WA because governments have failed to enforce the EPA legislation. Lawyers are seeking pro bono cases to assist citizens who until now, have remained impotent in their quest for justice. In the future, I envisage a class action against the WA government for crimes against humanity.

Citizens around the world are suing Australian based mining companies for billions of dollars. International NGO’s are reporting to the UN and Rudd's government on Australian mining companies which have trashed the environment and people's livlihoods in poor nations:

http://www.oxfam.org.au/media/articles.php?dep_id=7&cat_id=15

Last year, the state of California commenced a class action against their federal government (Bush) who denied California and 16 other states a waiver that would have allowed the states to enforce their own emission standards to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.

However, this year, the USEPA announced that carbon dioxide is a health hazard and in January, a Stanford scientist spelled out the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality due to ground level ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air.

The “descent of man” in this nation is due to his absurd belief that an environmental toxic brew is “good” for your health because it’s good for your pocket. We hasten in earnest towards the lemmings’ cliff.

It will take a good lawyer to sort a case to overcome the blatant disregard for the ocean environment and people who depend on seafood. It is government sewage systems that are dumping the nutrient pollution. Politicians consider government pollution is not a tenable issue. They savvy media will not report news of government sewage pollution and impact. Severe impact of sewage nutrient pollution includes devastation of the SW Pacific Ocean environment, including the RAMSAR seagrass site in Moreton Bay Queensland. Following Moreton Bay RAMSAR devastation in 2000, mass starvation of mutton birds occurred with mortality extending along coastline from Rockhampton Qld, down the SE Qld and NSW coast, around the Victorian and along South Australian coast, and around the coast of Tasmania. Wildlife officers in 4 states were shocked by severity of the mortality but the massive and significant event was only reported by one TV station. If the event had been honestly reported the public would call on politicans to find the cause and solutions. Instead the conspiracy of silence has led to no solutions and no debate and a recent 69% increase in maternal mortality in Solomon Islands. In reality the SW Pacific Islands have now lost their traditional available staple food resources of essential protein. Malnutrition and anaemia and disease is worsening unchecked. Poverty is becoming chronic for many more people, all under Australia's watch on security and regional 'assistance'.

The system of reporting damage to the environment is broken down. The SW Pacific is being trashed. Majopr media is not reporting eastern Australia longshore current transporting nutrient pollution past Fraser Island into GBR waters where coral bleaching is occurring. Media is not reporting that GBRMPA science does not research the longshore current inflow because the GBRMPA southern boundary excludes Fraser Island. Media is instead blaming global warming for coral bleaching. Media is also blaming farmers for agricultural nutrient runoff pollution without southern city nutrient input to the region even being mentioned. We are being deceived by media business and great damage to the environment and the economy is resulting and is well advanced.

Dear Rehctub, Just had to let you know I’ve had to add your name to my spell check dictionary, you should see what it comes up with as word options, sorry about that. Just thought it was funny.

Well you needn't have bothered, all you need to do is spell it backwards and it spells butcher.

We butchers, or rehctub's as we are known within the industry, have a whole different language that we speak, some of which you may have heard while in a butcher shop.

Anyway, some interesting info on nuclear power, esspecially the suposed lack of unrainum.

Yeah but its funnier if you let Microsoft make the suggestive jokes for you.

“As far as I’m able to determine, there has never been a safety incident with a Gen. II, III or IV ……”

With respect Spindoc, Generator 1V nuclear reactors have not yet been built and currently there are only two Generator 111 commercial reactors operating in the world and these are in Japan. They are the advanced boiling water reactors which are modifications of existing reactor types.

Gen. 1V reactors are expected to be commissioned between 2020 and 2030. There is a history of problems and delays. Australia will be lucky to commission one reactor by 2020.

The UK are planning 10 new reactors but currently the costs for decommissioning aged reactors and cleaning up nuclear waste has amounted to 83 billion pounds which has now been passed on to taxpayers. The president of France wants to export French nuclear know-how around the world, however, its nuclear industry continues to be buffeted by a series of embarrassing mishaps.

“The good news is that having never disposed of it we can now use it again as fuel in the new Gen. IV reactors.”

The bad news is that oceans are teeming with radioactive wastes which have been disposed of in the past and continue to wreak havoc on the planet. Following are merely a few examples:

Radioactive waste – marine dumping:

United States:

Atlantic Ocean :1951-67: 33,998 containers – estimated atomic activity 79,482 curies

Pacific Ocean: 1946-1967: 52,530 containers – estimated atomic activity 14,677.3 curies

United Kingdom

1951-1967: 50,570 containers – Alpha 3,331, Beta 44,096

After the 2004 tsunami, hundreds of drums containing hazardous waste and radioactive substances, washed ashore in Somalia. Somalians who attempted to open the drums were burned, sickened or killed.

The situation is urgent – we need to demand enforcement of existing regulations for polluters and seek immediate solutions (not futuristic ones) but first we need to clean up the mess we've made. Twiddling our thumbs for the next 15 to 20 years whilst waiting for just one useless nuclear reactor in Australia will be at our peril.

Hadn't heard much about this before, Protagoras.

>>oceans are teeming with radioactive wastes which have been disposed of in the past<<

Do you have some links I could follow?

This one, though, was just a little misleading:

>>After the 2004 tsunami, hundreds of drums containing hazardous waste and radioactive substances, washed ashore in Somalia.<<

Two things. You make it sound as though the drums had previously been in the ocean, and it was the tsunami that brought them ashore. And that their main purpose was to get rid of radioactive waste.

First of all, dumping toxic waste has been a part of the Somali economy for some years.

"...contracts signed by two European companies and representatives of the then President, Ali Mahdi Mohamed, to dump in Southern Somalia 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million."

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/4719

And in a United Nations report...

"Most of the waste was simply dumped on the beaches in containers and disposable leaking barrels which ranged from small to big tanks without regard to the health of the local population and any environmentally devastating impacts."

I agree that this illegal dumping is a major problem. I also agree that companies who participate in the exploitation of LDCs in order to cut costs should be made to suffer, big time.

But this example is not specifically about nuclear waste, which is the topic you were discussing.

Poetic licence is one thing. But this is misleading.

I look forward to your providing the links on "Radioactive waste – marine dumping".

pericules as far as i see it this topic has perfect relivance [but re your request for more info here is a seach i just did for you..[noting this is just the ussr atomic/waste

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&ei=PIX6SfqgC4Xm7AOkr_i3Ag&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ussr+atomic+waste+dumped&spell=1

i also appriciated your revelations re somalia waste-dumping[and would add other dumping practices..that while not strictly radioactive are causing huge problems,[like that big ship dismanteling site[in india?,or computer dismanteling in china

polution is one of the really big issues that people need to get honest about,..the heading is BE HONEST,..so lets at least be honest here

one thing i would like to get honest is labeling these anual scares [sars bird flue foot anmd mouth, poluted ground water,y2k,the list is endless..[but where i would appriciate your honest input and word skills is re the buzz-words..we regularilly get fed

one that comes readilly to mind is pandemic..[but surelly before we reach the pandemic stage we need a basic epidemic,..or an outbreak, or episode or episodes..[seems the media goes straight for pandemic with just a few episodes]

same double/speak with polution and polutants..[calling co2 the major polutant is an extreemist dis-honesty],..we have many more worse polutants that simply speaking may not be raised[..we banned hydro carbons,..yet we can compost 100 times worse than co2 from our home composting ...methane producing..compost bins straight into the atmosphere

or disregard that 1000 times more damaging polutant..[used for cleaning solar/cells]..into the sky,unthinkingly..[or end meat/eating to eat faux meat made from soy..[grown on torn down amasonian rainforrest's

its really time we got honest about the real polutions/polutants..[the real deceptions[like AIR/cooling nuke power-stations..dont that put heat straight into the atmosphere?..direct?

ok they dont use h2o..but they create heat..[while were on the heat thing dont all this labd clearing change the temp foot print?,

how can temp mesasures be proved consistant,..with all these changing heat foot prints arround the globe?..[water temp increase from a power station outlet..[where none was before]..for egsample

have you heard the reef is rebulding itself..[lol]..they told us quick when they thought it was dying..lol

lets BE HONEST eh,..great topic

Protagoras,
If I didn't worry before I certainly should now. Thanks for the info I think.

Every body
One shouldn't forget the massive subsidies given to this industry to make them viable.
Lest us also not forget those sites that have started, run out of money or the ones built but never commissioned.
In short given the lead times the problems the ooopses and the limited life span and the decommissioning fees oh yes the waste.
I wonder dogmatism aside how realistic are they as a now option

I note on realclimate.org the latest predictions suggest we need an 80% drop in CO2 to avoid the non linear change in temp, sea water rises and acidity etc.
What is missing in all these calculations is that if one of the super volcanoes threatening to blow does then their contribution + existing levels is a recipe for disaster.

Reading some of vulcanologist sites there are three that are of concern. Rabaul(PNG) is one. the ensuing tsunami would almost wipe out the east coast of Australia. Oh yes the CO2 levels would ensure GW. Yes it has happened before.:-(

rehctub: "Anyway, some interesting info on nuclear power, esspecially the suposed lack of unrainum."

I was puzzling over that comment. It looked like it was addressed to spindoc, but spindoc didn't deal with the lack of uranium.

Spindoc: "the [total] global nuclear waste inventory ... [is] a single layer of containers on the area of a footy pitch"

This got me looking. As far as I am aware, after 60 years of nuclear power generation there is still no long term solution for disposal of high level waste. This page says the first possible solution might come online in 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste This disposal problem is _the_ political issue for the nuclear industry, yet they still don't have a solution after 60 years. You'd be dumb if this didn't make you feel uneasy.

Oh, and Sweden's 2010 solution which presumably does work: it costs AUD$0.18 / KWhr just for disposal, which is more than the total cost I pay for electricity delivered to my house now. http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower The same article says the US allows 15% of plant cost for decommissioning, but it is costing Britain 100% to do it. Still, it ain't all bad news. At worst nuclear costs AUD$0.60 / KWh. That puts an upper limit on the cost of energy from renewables, which they may have trouble meeting.

That wikipedia article says about "a basket ball court covered with 2 layers of double decker buses" or high level waste per year is produced, or about 3700 cubic meters a year. By comparison a football field of containers is 12500 cubic meters - or about 3.5 years worth. Yet you say the football field holds 60 years worth. Even allowing for the increase in production over time that is a stretch. Also Gen III reactors are water based, not gas based unless you count steam as a gas (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor ). Gen IV reactors are but a gleam in some engineers eye. I guess that at least makes your claim that "there has never been a safety incident with a Gen IV reactor" true. Methinks you chose your nick well.

Yeah but its funnier if you let Microsoft make the suggestive jokes for you.

Mate, what ever floats your boat!

“Do you have some links I could follow?” (Pericles)

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad8e.html (and more)

“This one, though, was just a little misleading:” No – it is you who is misleading Pericles. I am the messenger. If you disagree with the contents, advise rather than make insidious innuendo, then you may take your grievances to the authors for I am not here to mislead.

“Two things. You make it sound as though the drums had previously been in the ocean, and it was the tsunami that brought them ashore. And that their main purpose was to get rid of radioactive waste.” Yes – what is your innuendo?

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/afrikan-world-news/37727-waste-dumping-off-somali-coast-may-have-links-mafia-somali.html

http://www.infowars.com/is-toxic-waste-behind-somali-piracy/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/7/681250/-Pirates-of-Somalia:-Curse-of-the-Mafia-Nuclear-Waste-Dumps-and-Thanks-for-All-the-Fish-

“First of all, dumping toxic waste has been a part of the Somali economy for some years.” Yes – why do you continue wasting my time? It’s also been part of Russia's, the UK’s, US’s and other countries’ economies.

Your link: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/node/4719 also includes the following: “The Tsunami that hit the coast of Somalia in 2004 destroyed coastal towns and villages but uncovered a secret that some must have hoped would remain forever buried at sea, toxic dumping”

“And in a United Nations report..” Yes Pericles and in a UN report in my possession is the following: “the urgent need remained for a more comprehensive assessment of the natural environment of Somalia, which would include further investigations of alleged toxic waste sites on land, and dumping of toxic waste at sea”. What is your innuendo?

“But this example is not specifically about nuclear waste, which is the topic you were discussing.” If you wish to discuss the other topics in *your* example, feel free.

“While in Europe, Ms. Hasan met in Rome with news editors who broke some of the horrific stories about the hazardous and nuclear waste dumping in Somalia. However, the UNEP falls short of naming the corporate culprits responsible for the dumping of the radioactive waste.”
.
“Poetic licence is one thing. But this is misleading.” Yes I rest my case Pericles. Please spare us from anymore of your poetic licence.

ok im not a great one for atomic generation BUT must correct the aberation[miss info] of radioactivities permance[see the liquid from the joe fuel cell can NEUTRALISE radioaCTIVITY, there are a few hints about the topic
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=joe+cell+water+neutralised+radioactivty&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

but its a suppressed teqnology, because the other thing the joe cell can do is give free energy..[run your internal combustion auto's engine for free]..and special petro cartels intrests dont like that idea

see the joe cell makes a unique liquid..that when ignited inside a space creates a vacume..see it implodes not explodes[the only modification needed from the petro engine is advancing the engines timming 25 degrees]..so it ignites at compression, not expulsion stage of the cycle..[so the engine piston gets sucked [instead of pushed],it can be used to suck liquids up hill..etc by the same means;imploding creating a vacume..and[when put into poluted streams it cleans up the polution,..just sucks it up so to speak[its a funny liquid,..it actually 'burns' cold]

but hey we dont need solutions like that do we but in the sake of honest disclosure dont say you wernt told[and yes our leaders know of it [told rudd personall]and yes he thinks im nuts too, so will just go back to other stuff you would only disbelieve as well

joe put his fuel into a sandard datson at surfers drag races broke all the records but then got banned [cause they said he must be cheating...lol..add it to the stuff the world should know but the media's bosses say no they musnt, free energy,...what would happen to the poor energy cartels..lol

Nobody seems to be sick or dying from nuclear pollution in the ocean but many are diseased and dying due to inadequate nutrition resulting from nutrient pollution. Nutrient pollution is feeding algae that in turn is smothering estuary and bay seagrass food web nursery and baitfish on which migratory animals including tuna depend. Many indigenous coastal and island people have now fundamentally lost their traditional staple food and associated subsistence trade.

Nuclear pollution is certainly a problem but it is not the immediate or sole critically urgent problem that needs to be addressed. Evidence indicates it is not nuclear pollution devastating the ocean ecosystem and natural remaining supply of food on this planet. Nuclear pollution can not be blamed for fish shortfall in supply causing higher prices and feed-meal producers turning to cheaper meat-offal from abattoirs to make meat-meal in place of fish-meal, cattle then eating brain from their own species, resulting in mad cow disease and CJD in humans. Who knows whether cheap low-nutrition feedmeal is or is not sustaining the immune system of industrial or home caged pigs, and whether pig/swine/hog lung disease might mutate as a consequence and enter humans.

Many poverty stricken people suffer disease and death because they can not afford to nourish themselves due to cost of food, so would their animals get adequate nutrition? Lets be honest about all the issues, all the pollutants, all the risk all consequences and all benefit from solutions.

“Evidence indicates it is not nuclear pollution devastating the ocean ecosystem”

Hi JF Aus

There has been little research released to the public on the impacts of nuclear pollution on marine life. However the little I have on file indicates that marine life is in fact contaminated.

Marine mammals from many locations were found to be contaminated with anthropogenic radionuclides. Since marine mammals are mainly at the top of the food chain, the contamination is a good indication that the smaller fish they feed on are also contaminated.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es030362h

The environmental catastrophe of Chernobyl, 23 years ago, continues to contaminate sheep in Scotland, 1,400 miles away.

http://www.robedwards.com/2009/04/chernobyl-still-contaminating-scottish-sheep.html

I agree with you that the livestock industry has become an abomination – both for the animal and the consumer. With the advent of intensive farming, new and re-emerging diseases striking humans are now some 67% zoonotic in origin and the super bugs are regularly blamed for the massive use of antibiotics in food animals.

These industries lack the will to return to more sustainable and humane farming practices. Profits are paramount.

Posters may be interested in learning that motor vehicles are one of the highest emitters of pollution in the nation. They are predominantly responsible for emitting several of the greenhouse gases of concern and other carbon based chemicals which all oxidize to CO2 when burnt.

Motor vehicles; (1) = the highest nationwide

Benzene (1)
Toluene (1)
Dioxins (5)
Carbon Monoxide (2)
Oxides of Nitrogen (2)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (2)
Total Volatile Organic Compounds (2)

Keeping the car in the garage, share arrangements and public transport would see a staggering mitigation in Australia’s carbon emissions and a carbon reduction of emissions of which the nation could be proud. A sacrifice as such would be far less uncomfortable than those we face in the near future if we maintain our current dependency on fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, we too lack the will; the libertarians object to regulation or enforcement and so the cliff draws ever nearer.

Hi Protagoras,

I do not understand radioactive pollution especially because I can not understand how people are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As for devastation of world ocean food supply it has been accidental finding of malnutrition amongst people living on a Pacific island surrounded by sea without enough fish to catch and eat, that stunned me in 1982. Years of investigative general research later it is now apparent from researched evidence of substance that whole world ocean fish stocks are devastated and that there are critically serious social, environment and economic consequences.

Australian science needs to come out of the dark age and take a whole of ecosystem approach because obeying a 'boundary' and ignoring southern city nutrient pollution that is devastating GBR and islander food supply where malnutrition and disease and death is occurring, is a total disgrace.

Evidence indicates what is happening in the SW Pacific has already happened elsewhere. In other words there is evidence the whole world ocean environment now is in an advanced state of collapse.

It is amazing to me there is a boundary-jurisdiction existing between the southern Great Barrier Reef and Fraser Island that is stopping Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 'science' from understanding eastern Australia alongshore current that transports food into GBR waters to feed coral growth, or alternately, that is transporting nutrient pollution killing coral and seagrass. I am also totally amazed how the GBR has not been included in the Asia/Pacific islands Coral Triangle research project. It is incredible the Coral Sea is not included either.

To take matters toward solutions, on what justifiable grounds is the southern GBRMPA boundary situated between Fraser Island and the Swains Reef? What does James Cook University science say about the boundary stopping longshore current research? Can anybody answer these questions?

What an amazing response, I was half-expecting to be howled down, thanks to all the posters, it's been fascinating!
It would seem more a question now of "when", not "if", so, I'll run a Sweep, I'm putting my money on 20 years,MAX, that's all I'll give us before Total Melt-down, environmental and "civilisation as we know it" etc.
Any other guesses?

Maximillion: "I was half-expecting to be howled down"

You were?

There aren't too many topics we have general agreement about here at OLO. Euthanasia, population, resource depletion and censorship would be about it. You picked one of those.

I don't think we are too far out of step with the rest of the population, but in each one of those issues our popularly elected pollies are leading us in the opposite direction. I often wondered how that could be so in a democracy, but have never figured it out.

That's because our "democracy" is an illusion, after all, we can only vote for those put up by the "Party System", and the odd, powerless Independent. This system lends itself to corruption, and influence-peddling, hence the results we all live with. Money speaks louder than voters, full-stop!

Thanks for the interesting post JF Aus. I confess, residing at the other end of the nation, I am quite ignorant on the state of the Barrier Reef.

What hasn’t escaped my attention are those who insist that the reef is in excellent condition such as Bob Carter (marine oil and gas geologist) and Jennifer Marohasy who continue to write articles and/or publish articles by those who insist the GBR is “looking good.”

One would prefer to accept this “good” news if the same sceptics refrained from telling us that pollution is good - even tobacco and organochlorines!

Jennifer Marohasy (IPA director) says the Amcor/Visy corrugated box cartel was OK and questioned the evidence over whether the Murray River needed saving.

Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recommendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River.

In 2008 and in response to criticism, IPA, Chris Berg, the editor of the IPA's journal, was quoted in the Age newspaper:

"Andrew Crook weirdly asserts that the Institute of Public Affairs has been 'effectively frozen out of the national debate' since Kevin Rudd won office. If being frozen out of the national debate is getting more than 200 op-eds published in the national media during the year and having had hundreds and hundreds media mentions and media appearances -- then we're pretty happy with that…..”

The IPA's Forum continues to be embroiled in controversy over failure to disclose its donors.

The IPA and its affiliates worldwide care nothing about the plight of your Pacific islanders JF, or of the mass fish deaths from pollution and overfishing.

The IPA and its parasitical corporate connections do not flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot, no matter how sordid and are flat out mobilising a dangerous international cabal of tyrannical but influential climate despoilers who are spreading the seeds of deception around the planet, convincing governments that climate change is a conspiratorial hoax perpetrated by the science establishment.

And I believe they’re winning.......God help us........any God will do!