Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
Read this, and try to take it seriously, just for laughs. After all, it's on the BBC News website, it must be real news, right?

I don't know what the world is coming to, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I've read in quite some time... People take some things way too seriously...

And then read this, and specifically, this part:
There is now more chance of an attack on a nuclear facilty or vessel since September 11
No. There isn't. There's more awareness of the possibility of such an attack, but the likelihood remains exactly the same. I hate people who try to claim cause and effect when it doesn't apply - just because terrorist attacks happen doesn't increase the chance that more will, as such. I mean please.....

The funny thing is, I'd an environmentalist (I mean come on, I'm a nature-based pagan, how much more environmentalist do you get?), I care deeply about it all yadda yadda, but if I had my way, I'd sink Greenpeace's boats down to the last one. Because a lot of the time they really don't help a thing. And I object to the notion that those idiots speak for me
Our intention is to convey the message that our oceans must not be used a method of transporting hazardous nuclear material
Why? Because one can target things in the oceans? Well you can do that with roads too... And if you fly stuff in, that's really risky in the event of a crash or something. Ultimately, sea transport is probably the safest one. So, Mister Environmentalist, sit down, shut up, and think before you try to speak on behalf of nature. Perhaps Gaia doesn't need your ill-considered self-righteous input.

  • 1
(Deleted comment)
well I bought DORITOS from sellafield, and ATE them! so :P

(Deleted comment)
hehe. and look at me NOW! superfit, slimline and busting into the new millenium, cause i'm empowered, baby.

*ahem*

*scrapes at tongue*

(Deleted comment)
But, the fact that 9/11 was a 'success' in terms of the terrorist group involved raises the chance that more people will think that any action by them may also be successful, thereby perhaps raising the chances of them deciding to go ahead with any proposed action. Tenuous, but probably some truth in it.

I hate people who try to claim cause and effect when it doesn't apply

I think it was Immanuel Kant who said that 'cause and effect' is simply not present in our world, and that we see and experience events in a completely different order and from a completely different perspective than we think. The concept of 'cause and effect' is just our brain putting them into an order which we can understand, and it's not nessecarily the way things actually happen.......I kinda liked that. Not that it has a lot to do with what you're saying, but I like combining philosophy and politics, it's funny :o)

Perhaps Gaia doesn't need your ill-considered self-righteous input, said Mr Pompous.

Although you are probably right, Gaia probably doesn't need help. It's us humans who do. I think you'll find that when radioactive "stuff" (see I'm getting all technical) moves by road or rail there are demonstrations. Obviously the Rainbow Warrior tends not to be used much under those circumstances. I don't think that they ever use aeroplanes to move the stuff, everyone agrees that flying is really risky.

but if I had my way, I'd sink Greenpeace's boats down to the last one. Because a lot of the time they really don't help a thing.

Blimey! What would you do if they never helped, or worse still, did some harm? Still, it must be nice to know that you share the same view as the French government did when they sank the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand. A by-product was that there would be one less idiot to speak out - they killed him.

The answer to your "Why?" question is because Greenpeace (and me) don't believe that nuclear material should be transported at all. The potential risk is enormous.

Yeah I agree with this guy, without nuclear power we could burn more fossil fuels! And everyone loves loverly big fires! And there are absolutly NO sideaffects! Excluding global warming... but who really gives a shit about that, I mean REALLY!

I mean someone said something sometime about fossil fuels running out... BUT NOT IN OUR LIFE TIME.

*Burn more coal, I want some fucking smog baybe... that stuff kicks ass!

In concluesion... nuclear power SUCKS! Burn Trees and stuff instead, i heard that amazonian stuff is the bomb!

Quick suggestion - read the comment before adding one of your own.
At no time did I mention fossil fuel. That's because, as you know already, it is bad for the environment. In fact, at no time did I refer to the generation of energy. What I actually said was that when transporting nuclear materials, whether fuel or waste or anything that has a half-life measured in thousands of years, "the potential risk is enormous".

Should the debate move onto the methods of generating the ridiculous amounts of energy that we (including me) use here in the west then perhaps I'll get on my "renewable sources" hobbyhorse.

PS The amazonian stuff MUST NOT BE BURNED. It is far better to turn it into furniture :-)

Yeah i take you points and actually agree with you, i was just trying to say there is no real alternative to nuclear power at the moment.

dont get on the renewable energy horse, its been flogged hard enough already) : p

I was thinking practical solution, if the government whats to pay for every worldy occupant to have that fine example of an environmentally friendly home then fine... i would live in one.
I however dont really have the fabric to purchase myself one.

in the everworld story:

"Adventuring in EverQuest is FRAUGHT with danger"
as a title under a picture all serious is the funniest part

hee hee, fraught. noone ever uses that word.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account