Australian Greens, a disaster for the worlds climate.

Ummm.... o.k (*backs away slowly*)

I just asked a question, which you have not answered.

But, thanks for the link, I guess you purposefully left out this tid-bit:

"After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety."

So 10,000 years later, the waste is safe.

Yeah, sounds like a great idea.
 
So 10,000 years later, the waste is safe.

Yeah, sounds like a great idea.

Howdy King brown. And Winston.

Wow!,, Winston came up with some ripper info there. Not much else to say really.

King Brown, in say 100 years, when energy is unlimited due to nuclear fusion, or maybe some other source not even thought of yet, I'm sure the worlds residents won't mind the radiation dumps if it means the worst case global warming scenario has been stopped. Perhaps by then they may have a safe way of injecting it into space or something, although you wouldn't consider doing that now considering the space shuttles success rate. [it's a flying time bomb].

See ya's.
 
Not sure how to get around the problem of organic farming not producing enough food to feed 6 billion people, but we have to figure out something, because we can't keep feeding ourselves chemicals all the time.

Although there's no unrefutable data yet, a whole lot of science folk and medical folk blame the chemicals we've been eating so much of in the last 30 years (that we put into the ground, that we spray onto crops, that we add during processing) for alarming increases in breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, IBS, etc. etc.

G'day Luce.

Herbicides and pesticides were introduced to the world with the green revolution 60 years ago. Also, just before then was chemical fertilizer. The stuff back then was far nastier. Stuff like DDT, dieldren, 10 80, even agent orange was a herbicide back then. All this stuff has since been banned. Todays chemical use may be higher, but this is mainly just roundup, which has been a great boon for the environment.

All this chemical was why crop yields took off. It took one thousand years for average wheat yields in England to rise from .5 to 2 tonnes per hectare. It then took just 50 years to rise from 2 to 8 tonnes per hectare.

Burnt toast causes cancer don't it? Red meat? Beer? Seriously, if agricultural chemicals were that bad, I think it would be shown by now. There must be a million greeny scientists all trying to prove how bad they are to elliminate the scourge, and they have no proof yet.

Average life spans are still increasing. Cancer is too, because we are living longer.




If people really want to reduce chemicals, then GM crops are the answer. Canadian canola growers grow GM crops that are bug free and can be sprayed with roundup. This roundup spray eliminates 3 other chemical applications and the crop needs no insecticide. The really crazy thing, that annoys Aussie farmers is that the Canadians get exactly the same per tonne for their grain. This tells me that the consumer has spoken, the consumer doesn't care.

Australia is currently importing Canadian canola due to the drought.

Even more remarkable, Australia generally exports 350 000 tonnes of canola to Japan. But, Japanese delegates were here recently trying to convice Australia to remain GM free, even though the Japanese import much more Canadian GM canola than Aussie canola. No one cares.


http://www.producersforum.net.au/n_calendar.htm

........"Japan is Australia's biggest export market and Japan imports GM canola. Japan is the largest importer of canola in the world. Over 85% of canola imported into Japan comes from Canada and is considered to be totally GM.
Australian and Canadian canola receives the same price in Japan. There are no price premiums for Australian canola see the chart below. If GM canola was not accepted it would trade at a discount to conventional canola, in everyday terms "you couldn't give it away." But research studies have shown conventional and GM canola trade at the same price".......

See ya's.
 
Last edited:
Hey Topcropper,

Sorry but I am very GM cynical.

You mention that Deildrin and other nasties were once classified as safe. As was CCA Pine, Lead Paint, Lead Petrol, etc...

You would have to admit little is known about GM and it could also be scary. What do your say to the claims:

  1. GM has not been around long enought to know the real results yet.
  2. GM companies are not about to tell us any bad news they find unless forced.
  3. GM crops are sterile seeds and have to be bought each year giving a monopoly to companies for our basic food

Regards, peter 14.7
 
You would have to admit little is known about GM and it could also be scary. What do your say to the claims:

  1. GM has not been around long enought to know the real results yet.
  2. GM companies are not about to tell us any bad news they find unless forced.
  3. GM crops are sterile seeds and have to be bought each year giving a monopoly to companies for our basic food

Regards, peter 14.7

Yeah, 1 and 2, could be the case.

As for point 3, no big deal. All the summer crops I grow, usually sorghum, but could be sunflowers or corn, are hybrids, so they can only be grown once anyway. The winter crops, wheat, barley, canola, etc is mostly protected by plant breeder rights, as in the farmer has to pay the breeder to plant the variety anyway, and it can't be on-sold, so point 3 will be no different to GM. GM seeds aren't sterile either. Some green/anti GM groups claim a terminator gene could be added to make the seeds sterile, but this hasn't happened, and I would be dead against something as stupid as that happening in case it passed on to the general seed bank. Sterile seeds would be good for seed companies because farmers would have to buy seed every year and it would stop China stealing the technology, which they currently do.

I'm not neccessarily a big GM fan. I'm just pointing out an option if people want to reduce chemical use. I don't really want Monsanto and other chemical/seed companies getting too much power. Plus GM increases production, which is bad for prices farmers get. I'm enjoying the undersupply of food for once.

See ya's.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, how long does the radioactive waste from Nuclear power last in the environment?
Before it becomes waste it is merely radioactive dirt, normally very close to the surface. It is only there now because it doesn't decay quickly. If it did, nuclear would not be an option, obviously. :D

The nuclear cycle removes it from it's near surface environment where cattle and roos graze in close proximity and, after concentration and use it becomes a highly compact waste which can be be dumped miles underground in old gold/salt mines where it can continue it's natural decay. I may be technically incorrect here but I doubt the radioactivity, in total, has increased but rather it's concentration, which reduces the problems. It is easier to dump a few kilos of radioactive waste safely than a few megatonnes of CO2.
 
There are methods of burning coal without having any emissions............................

Please enlighten us as to the details of this technology.

Oh, and you may care to explain (with factual information to back yourself up), why we aren't being blessed with this technology now.

:cool:
 
lost opportunity - if Aus focussed on exporting and reprocessing refined nuclear material we could close up shop on everythign else and head for the beach. have my backyard for it if you will - $500m will do the trick
 
KB,

It depends on what sort of waste you are talking about.

I think 239U has a half life of about 24,000 years.

Makes you wonder, what we as a civilisation have built so far that would last that long, let alone contain the crap.

Nuclear power is the ants pants as long as...........

1) You're prepared to live with the waste it produces

2) You can build a facility that won't malfunction - pretty much impossible as everything we build malfunctions either through human, mechanical, electrical error.....look up *reason theory*.......:cool: Simply put - **** happens, and maybe even moreso in a profit driven company.

Maybe we could just give the natives a few four wheel drives (like we used to) and they would let us run a spiral decline into Ayers rock.....that's a pretty stable monolith that ain't going anywhere for a while.......:cool:

ciao

Nor
 
I like being a bit controversial.

It surprised me to see on this forum how many intelligent people were going to give their vote to the greens. I always thought green voters were less intelligent, non working, pot smoking, no hopers, but I was wrong. Highly successfull, above average intelligence people were voting green. Mainly in the name of the environment. I think the greens are the worst possible solution for our environment, and here is why I think that.

See ya's.

The problem with the Greens is that they want us all to stop cutting down trees for paper and houses, live in tents, use kero lamps and hole-in-the-ground toilets, grow our own veges, stop killing animals for food and clothing, don't make dams so we can drink water, walk everywhere and not use cars and planes etc.

This is all done, of course, while they live in houses made of wood, drive their cars to the protests, wearing their leather belts and shoes, carrying mountains of pamphlets made of paper to give out, drinking water and coke and organic orange juice which was bought from a shop that uses electricity to run it's business, writing protest letters on their computers under electric lights to the Govt on paper.
 
Nuclear power is the ants pants as long as...........You're prepared to live with the waste it produces

Can't we just do what the French and English did to the Pacific Islands and us respectively ??

Simply send it all over to the other side of the world and job sorted. I'm thinking under some nice chataeu in Bordeaux or under the desolate moors in Northern England ??

It was good enough for both of them.....but hang on, you need a military with nuclear capabilities before you start throwing your weight around like that. Sorry, scrub that idea.
 
L.A Aussie I didn't read any of those policies about the greens, can you provide a link which suggests they would implement the use of kero lamps, it's 2007.
Round up is glyphosate , resistance to this chemical has been around for a while.

Was found to severely damage DNA
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38205

I will stick to my vegie patch.
As mentioned before DDT was a great idea at first. Asbestos was great too. MMMM Round up tastes yummy mum.
 
L.A Aussie I didn't read any of those policies about the greens, can you provide a link which suggests they would implement the use of kero lamps, it's 2007.
.

Adam, the greens want to ban coal exports. I would imagine they wouldn't like coal burning for power either. Nuclear is definately out, no more dams, not that we have the water anyway. So what are we left with for base load power?

Agricultural policies that would cut our food production by two thirds. So we could still feed ourselves, but what about Africa, what will they eat? What about the 20% export income agriculture provides?

Haven't you greenies thought about the implications of green policies?


Roundup? Hey, go and drink the stuff and I'm sure it will do real nasty things to you. Farm chemicals need to be assessed in real situations. No one is drinking or eating roundup.

See ya's.
 
LA Aussie, Top-cropper

Without providing links, you're coming across as baseless, head-in-the-ground, fear mongers....and we know how that works out, check out John Howard for a recent example.
 
He wasn't being realistic but just getting a point across.

I saw an add on facebook a couple of weeks ago for the greens

It had Howard "Nuclear Power"
Rudd "Coal Power"
Greens "People Power"

This made me think of a few things

1. Maybe the matrix power system could work for us and harvest power from human beings.
2. Get everyone on treadmills and making power that way like a hamster.
3. That they don't have any solutions past coal and nuclear.

I think they were trying to say that if they have enough people supporting them then they would aim to put a stop to both nuclear and coal plants which are the evils of the world. Coal causes global warming and a nuclear plant will give the country cancer.

If they had of been able to provide me with a viable solution to our power needs i might have been more inclined to vote that way not that i agree with any of their other policies either
 
LA Aussie, Top-cropper

Without providing links, you're coming across as baseless, head-in-the-ground, fear mongers....and we know how that works out, check out John Howard for a recent example.

That's a bit tough KB. TC is a knowledgeable, thoughtful farmer. I don't know a lot about the industry but I could pick a BSer fairly quickly and TC isn't one.

And I agree with his opening post. Very little the greens put forward would pass scrutiny as being logical and practical.
 
LA Aussie, Top-cropper

Without providing links, you're coming across as baseless, head-in-the-ground, fear mongers....and we know how that works out, check out John Howard for a recent example.

Kingbrown, just google 'greens'. All their policies are there. I didn't think I would need to provide a link for something as basic as that.

See ya's.
 
Back
Top