You have something right, it's all about the money with nuke all right.
Those interested in teh truth rather than sticking their head up their nether regions and denying everything they don't want to admit should have a look at this summary.
It give some updates on the severity of the ongoing crisis and points out how it could get worse still and the incredible amount of radiation leaked into the environment.
One of the most respected annalists on the subject known for fact rather than opinion has had ongoing reports and infomation posted here:
It makes for extremely interesting viewing. Of particular interest is how this guy has questioned and and disagreed with the official stories since day one and in time, TEPCO and others have come to admit and prove him right all along.
Makes for some scary thinking of his future concerns given his perfect prediction record so far.
I am not sure where you get your information, but coal of all types accounts for only about 3% of Australia's GDP.
The service industry is the backbone of Australia's economy at about 69% of GDP
Coal provides about 85% of Australia's electricity production. Australia is the world's leading coal exporter. Without coal, Australia's economy would be in deep trouble. The pro-coal, anti-nuke bias is fully understandable. The toxic pollution from Australia's coal far exceeds the pollution from nuclear power plants. Prevaricating and equivocating simply proves it.
I see you have been doing some research. It is actually closer to 75%.
Can you be more precise. What kind of deep trouble were you thinking about?
How does prevarication and equivocation prove that the toxic pollution from Australia's coal far out exceed the pollution from nuclear power plants.
When you say "Australia's Coal" I assume you are not counting the coal Australia sells. Once the coal is sold it is completely up to the owner what they do with it.
Yup, if Australia couldn't burn dirty polluting coal at least 75% of their economy that runs on coal-fired electricity would come to a grinding halt. Yeah, dirty coal isn't the backbone of Australia's economy it's the heart.
Number of people killed or injured by nuclear power vs.
Number of people killed or injured by coal fired pollution
Anyone can master Google and do the math.
Nuclear power in Australia is a heavily debated concept. Australia currently has no nuclear facilities generating electricity, however, Australia has 23% of the world's uranium deposits and is the world's second largest producer of uranium after Kazakhstan. At the same time, Australia's extensive, low-cost coal and natural gas reserves have historically been used as strong arguments for avoiding nuclear power.
Nah, no bias in Oz. Puking toxic coal pollution isn't a problem. Oh yeah, and about that uranium... "shush, we don't want to talk about that" Hypocrisy is alive and well down under.
Could the radiation escaping from Fukushima be from Australian uranium.
Oh my, that would be inconveniently embarrassing wouldn't it?
Ah yes, when it comes to toxic pollution Oz has all the bases covered.
Pollution is just so profitable isn't it?
Surely you did not believe sergio58 when he said that it was only 75%.
Of course not, that's what 'at least' implies.
Quibbling over a few percent doesn't change the disastrous effect it would have. If Oz was clever they would be trading minerals with China for solar PV to displace a significant amount of the coal Oz burns. Oz has a fortuitous solar potential which can combine well with natural gas fired electricity for the lower nighttime loads.
I wonder how they're coming along with that?
To me it implies that you are going along with sergio58's 75% instead of your 85%
It's nice that you do. I hope it gives you an overwhelming sense of satisfaction in your life. Have a nice day.
But What about the hypocrisy John?
Explain that to us and how it relates to your previous posts About Australia and the reality of power generation and exports of Canada.
Dying to see how you spin doctor that one.
Oh my john,
Is your face going to be red.
"The fall-out (both radioactive and political) from last month's Fukushima nuclear plant disaster continues to be felt around the world as well as in Japan.
One of the three countries which supply uranium to Japan is Canada, whose Cameco Corporation is the world's biggest "yellowcake" provider.
Indeed Tepco - the utility responsible for operating the failed Fukushima plant - has itself partnered with Cameco in "developing" Canada's huge Cigar Lake uranium mine."
It looks like the uranium in the Fukushima disaster was Canadian.
That is so sad.
Wild monkeys to monitor radiation levels in Japan
- Sat, Dec 17, 2011
How do you measure the radiation level at the Fukushima power plant, without endangering people in the process? Researchers found quite a creative way of doing this: they tagged wild monkeys which hang around the place anyway with radiation sensors.
Takayuki Takahashi explained that he and his team are planning to put radiation-measuring collars on three such monkeys, as well as GPS devices that also measure the distance from the ground. The information will help scientists understand how grave the radiation is and how it may affect the environment (humans, plants and animals).
This idea is extremely creative and interesting especially because monkeys walk on the ground and climb trees as well, and can measure radiation at ground level and higher above it. The next step in the work is to also employ the help of wild boars, which have the advantage of moving around quite a lot and being very resistant.
Canada has no problem with mining, using, and exporting uranium, or safe reliable nuclear power technology developed in Canada. Canada embraces nuclear power, so there is no hypocrisy involved in uranium exports, unlike Australia which doesn't use uranium for moral or ethical reasons, but hypocritically has no problem exporting what they consider as poisonous technology to the rest of the world. That's hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually practice.
Top Suppliers of Japan’s Imported Uranium 2010
The top 3 trade partners supplying nuclear fuel to Japan accounted for almost 95% of uranium shipped to the Land of the Rising Sun during 2010. America, the number one nuclear power resource, generated almost three-quarters of Japan’s imported uranium.
United States … US$967.8 million, up 16.9% from 2009 (73.3% of total)
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4% (11.1% of total)
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2% (10.5% of total)
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3% (2.3% of total)
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6% (1% of total)
South Korea … $4 million, up 70% (0.3% of total)
Germany … $2.3 million, down 10.7% (0.17% of total)
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3% (0.08% of total)
Czech Republic … $303,449 up 388 % (0.02% of total)
Russian Federation … $194,928 down 11% (0.015% of total)
India … $185,585 up 233.4% (0.014% of total)
China … $82,570 down 40.9%(0.006% of total).
Among the top 12 exporters of radioactive supplies, 9 increased their percentage sales to Japan last year.
Fastest-growing Sources of Imported Japanese Nuclear Fuel
Three of the smaller suppliers posted triple-digit gains in imported uranium sales to Japan, although Australia has some of the world’s largest uranium mines.
Czech Republic … US$303,449 up 388%
Australia … $1.1 million, up 378.3%
India … $185,585 up 233.4%
South Africa … $13.3 million, up 76.6%
South Korea … $4 million, up 70%
Canada … $29.7 million, up 39.3%
United Kingdom … $138.4 million, up 20.2%
United States … $967.8 million, up 16.9%
France … $145.8 million, up 2.4%
Wrong again John!
Geez your certainly on a roll of sticking your foot in it and making yourself look silly aren't you?
The reason why Australia actually has no nukes is because of the obscene cost of building the things!
Nothing to do with your again flawed and invented reasoning designed to make yourself look clever.
There has recently been talk here of building a reactor by 2020 but it hasn't gone far for the basic reason that we are just a little hick backward country and can't afford it.
What a shame!
Well I have to hand it to you john, you certainly got that one down pat.
I bet when they put out the next edition of the dictionary, you handle on this forum will be given as an example.
So, Australia supplies $1.1M worth of Japans Uranium.
Now I have no idea of the cost of Uranium but I'm thinking it's got to be pretty expensive stuff.
Exactly how much Uranium would you get for $1.1m?
A bucket full?
A drum full?
I'm thinking for that small an amount of uranium it was probably more for medical than power generations use anyway.
I see from the site you referenced above, that " Dirty Polluting coal" is Canada's number 9 export earner.
Top Canadian Exports by Dollar Value
The following top 15 product categories accounted for 48.3% of total Canadian exports in 2010.
Crude oil … C$51.9 billion, up 21.3% from 2009 (13% of total exports)
Passenger vehicles … $38 billion, up 43% (9.5% of total)
Liquefied gases … $18.4 billion, up 0.1% (4.6% of total)
Non-crude oil preparations … $14.8 billion, up 23.5% (3.7% of total)
Gold … $13.8 billion, up 65.4% (3.5% of total)
Vehicle parts … $9.1 billion, up 30.1% (2.3% of total)
Airplanes, helicopters and spacecraft … $6.9 billion, down 11.1% (1.7% of total)
Aluminum … $6 billion, up 23.9% (1.5% of total)
Coal … $5.99 billion, up 20.8% (1.5% of total)
Fertilizers … $5.2 billion, up 41.9% (1.3% of total)
Lumber … $5.1 billion, up 28% (1.3% of total)
Chemical woodpulp … $4.96 billion, up 36% (1.2% of total)
Wheat … $4.7 billion, down 22.4% (1.1% of total)
Gas turbines (includes turbo-jets) … $4.1 billion, down 7.8% (1% of total)
Medications … $4 billion, down 29.3% (1% of total).
Read more at Suite101: Top Canadian Exports in 2010 | Suite101.com http://daniel-workman.suite101...375744#ixzz1gsRxosa4
Almost 6 Billion in Dirty polluting coal exports from Canada.
That sounds a lot of coal doesn't it John?
And look, Uranium doesn't make the list!
That means Canada Export more Dirty polluting coal than clean, safe uranium!
Ohh the hypocrisy, the Hypocrisy!!!
Like you said John, There's money in pollution and don't forget about all that clean, enviro friendly OIL Canada exports.
Is your backside smarting and red raw yet from being kicked or would you like to come back for another butt whooping with your flawed facts and BS?
Oh, and here's a nice picture of that clean, safe nuclear power you were talking about.
Japan tsunami debris expected on Alaska shores soon
A few items with higher sail areas have hit B.C., Washington beaches.
By MIKE DUNHAM
Anchorage Daily News / adn.com
Published: December 18th, 2011 10:35 PM
Last Modified: December 18th, 2011 10:36 PM
Debris from the March 11 Japan tsunami has reached Washington state and British Columbia. According to predictions from a leading oceanographer, Alaskans can expect to see flotsam -- perhaps tons of it -- washing up on coastal beaches soon.
On Tuesday, a black float about the size of a 55-gallon drum was displayed in Port Angeles, Wash., on the Olympic Peninsula where it had been found a few miles east of Neah Bay.
On Wednesday, Canadian television showed photos of bottles and metal containers that washed up near Tofino, in the middle of the west coast of Vancouver Island. One resident interviewed said he had "never seen such a large quantity of debris at once."
An even larger quantity is out there. Much larger.
In September, the Russian ship Pallada reported encountering a vast stretch of debris 2,000 miles from Japan. The Pallada -- a tall-masted sailing ship used to train sailors that visited Kodiak and Sitka in July of this year -- took seven days to pass through the flotsam. By some estimates the area of the mass is twice the size of Texas.
No tsunami-related debris has been reported in Alaska, according to the Center for Alaska Coastal Studies in Homer and the Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation in Juneau. But that may speak more to the absence of observers than to the oceanographer's predictions.
"We have not seen anything as of yet," said Dave Gaudet with the Marine Conservation Alliance on Friday. "But of course our weather, being what it is, people really aren't out there looking. December is not prime beachcombing time in Southeast Alaska."
The panhandle has been plagued with a lot of storms this fall, he said. The area around Craig, on Prince of Wales Island 500 miles north of Tofino, is a likely candidate for the first landfall in Alaska. But Gaudet said he had been in touch with parties in Craig who told him bad weather was making it impractical to scout around the sprawling and sparsely inhabited island.
Earlier this year, Seattle oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, retired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration where, among other things, he tracked the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as it was picked up by ocean currents, predicted the debris would hit America's west coast from Puget Sound to the Gulf of Alaska. He initially expected it to arrive by Halloween.
"By Pearl Harbor Day (Dec. 7), none had been reported," he noted on his website, beachcombersalert.org. In fact the Neah Bay float had been found, but not yet identified as tsunami flotsam.
On Tuesday Ebbesmeyer appeared with colleague Jim Ingraham at the Port Angeles event. They asked members of the public to be watching for large deposits of debris that might include everything from houses and boats to pieces of cars and "just about anything else that floats."
Including shoes that could contain the feet of tsunami victims.
"All debris should be treated with great reverence and respect," Ebbesmeyer told the Port Angeles Peninsula Daily News. Families of victims are anxious for any information that can be gleaned from traceable items.
Caution is also in order. The earthquake and tsunami damaged nuclear power facilities and experts warn that water contained in items might be radioactive.
The float found near Neah Bay and the bottles washing up in Tofino are among the first items to arrive because they're light enough to float high in the water where they are more exposed to winds that can speed their progress. But bulkier items can also be expected, even improbably heavy ones. Among the things the crew of the Pallada reported bobbing in the water was a television set. Slower moving items might not reach America until 2013.
The Radiation Network
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4|