+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65
Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Lego: Everything is NOT awesome. in Fun Stuff; Originally Posted by abillybob I do eat meat again not wanting to change my lifestyle but I am very careful ...
  1. #46


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    I do eat meat again not wanting to change my lifestyle but I am very careful on the amount of meat (and where it is from) that I consume. Please go back a page I updated my previous post but while writing a lot of people have posted since then!
    So someone's choice is to burn methane is 'disgusting', but you as a meat eater who contributes to a lot of methane production because you eat meat, is OK because while you are shocked at what other people are doing to the planet, don't want to change your own lifestyle.

    And that dear @abillybob is pretty much why I have given up.

  2. #47

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    3,185
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 438 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    So someone's choice is to burn methane is 'disgusting', but you as a meat eater who contributes to a lot of methane production because you eat meat, is OK because while you are shocked at what other people are doing to the planet, don't want to change your own lifestyle.

    And that dear @abillybob is pretty much why I have given up.
    Meat Eaters & Carnivores = Destroying the planet, because y'know logic and stuffs.

    Edit: I eat meat as we are like it or not Carnivores thats what we eat and that's where we get the biggest source of energy and growth from, it's how our bodies where designed, our teeth and our facial features are all that of a carnivore.... No crime in it. They where doing it for fun and a "laugh" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA so funny and entertaining, I eat to stay alive and I like to eat meat, I eat veggies too don't worry your point is?
    So to round things off your saying that me eating meat is the same as someone poking holes into a natural methane reserve to let it out because YOLO and things.... Okay as I said LOGIC.
    Last edited by abillybob; 25th July 2014 at 04:21 PM.

  3. #48

    ICTDirect_Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ribchester
    Posts
    1,986
    Thank Post
    361
    Thanked 348 Times in 279 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    Meat Eaters & Carnivores = Destroying the planet, because y'know logic and stuffs.
    Sorry mate, that's kinda true. As meat eaters we support the farming and mass breeding of cattle, which is just about the worst source of methane gas going.

  4. #49

    featured_spectre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,501
    Thank Post
    1,684
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 1,491 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    464
    I am a meat eater, however, I have drastically cut down on consumption. From 1 - 2 times a day, to 2 - 3 times a week. Meat is great and everything, but proteins can be found elsewhere. Plus the fact I actively trap and fish for food as well certainly helps (Squirrels are very very nice!)

  5. #50

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    3,185
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 438 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by ICTDirect_Dave View Post
    Sorry mate, that's kinda true. As meat eaters we support the farming and mass breeding of cattle, which is just about the worst source of methane gas going.
    I know meat eaters contribute to a huge problem but @pcstru is suggesting because I've just filled my belly full of beef it's the same as me purposely letting methane gas out of a natural reserve for no other reason than for my own entertainment... don't think so, very short sighted argument and case there.

    I don't eat meat all the time and I have massively cut down on it but I am still a meat eater because I eat it maybe 5 times a week.

  6. #51


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    +1 but thorium micro breeder reactors will never happen thanks to decades of uninformed fear and the persisting use of 1950s tech for nuclear generation. Germany were the shining light in this but have now gone all renewable so that is pretty much done.
    It is I'm afraid, spin. Thorium won't happen because it is not actually vastly cleaner than MOX and introducing another nuclear fuel cycle is horrendously expensive. Germany did operate a pebble bed Thorium reactor and had to shut it down after an accident and escalating costs. Thorium reactors still produce fissionable products suitable for making bombs (it's a nuclear reactor - they pretty much all do that), they are just more difficult to extract from the bulk of the 'waste'. There are also relatively simple ways to take the waste and enrich it to produce weapons grade material. To light up a thorium reactor you need a source of neutrons, either from a normal fuel cycle reaction or a rather large particle accelerator. In any case, you will be dealing with high level radioactive waste for thousands of years. There might be a less waste than MOX but since we already have all the infrastructure for MOX and have a MOX legacy to deal with, the only real advantage to thorium for the UK would be if our access to uranium was interrupted. It is not 'uninformed fear' that drives the use of MOX over thorium, it is simple economics.

  7. #52


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    Meat Eaters & Carnivores = Destroying the planet, because y'know logic and stuffs.

    Edit: I eat meat as we are like it or not Carnivores thats what we eat and that's where we get the biggest source of energy and growth from, it's how our bodies where designed, our teeth and our facial features are all that of a carnivore.... No crime in it. They where doing it for fun and a "laugh" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA so funny and entertaining, I eat to stay alive and I like to eat meat, I eat veggies too don't worry your point is?
    So to round things off your saying that me eating meat is the same as someone poking holes into a natural methane reserve to let it out because YOLO and things.... Okay as I said LOGIC.
    You are not a carnivore, you are an omnivore. You are quite capable of surviving without eating any meat - in fact you will very likely be healthier as a result. Meat production accounts for around 30% of man made Methane on the planet (annual production), almost equal to the methane involved in the production and distribution of fossil fuels. Your choice to eat meat almost certainly involves the production of more methane than that chap burned. And he burned it - which reduced it's effect as a green house gas. Methane is 30 times more powerful as a GHG than CO2, so the best bet if you do find some methane that might escape into the atmosphere is, burn it!
    Last edited by pcstru; 25th July 2014 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Clarity

  8. #53


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    I know meat eaters contribute to a huge problem but @pcstru is suggesting because I've just filled my belly full of beef it's the same as me purposely letting methane gas out of a natural reserve for no other reason than for my own entertainment... don't think so, very short sighted argument and case there.
    It is YOUR value judgement that your unnecessary luxury eating habits are more worthy than someone's entertainment. In actual fact the entertainment was probably lessening the impact of a methane release whereas your eating meat doesn't.

  9. #54

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    3,185
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 438 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    It is YOUR value judgement that your unnecessary luxury eating habits are more worthy than someone's entertainment. In actual fact the entertainment was probably lessening the impact of a methane release whereas your eating meat doesn't.
    I understand where you're coming from though when looking at the world at a much larger scale are you going to be able to persuade everyone they can't eat meat? No.

    The whole concept and the only way we can save the world is to find a way of still being able to deliver these luxuries without it impacting on the environment take renewable energy for an example it dosen't impact on the environment yet it still allows us to keep the luxury that is electricity, the only issue is storing that energy which practically we should be finding out a way to do so on the highest priority!

    So saying to people they can't eat meat won't work, think of a way to help rather than dictate and more people will listen that's the goal!

  10. #55

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,271
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,322 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    It is I'm afraid, spin. Thorium won't happen because it is not actually vastly cleaner than MOX and introducing another nuclear fuel cycle is horrendously expensive. Germany did operate a pebble bed Thorium reactor and had to shut it down after an accident and escalating costs. Thorium reactors still produce fissionable products suitable for making bombs (it's a nuclear reactor - they pretty much all do that), they are just more difficult to extract from the bulk of the 'waste'. There are also relatively simple ways to take the waste and enrich it to produce weapons grade material. To light up a thorium reactor you need a source of neutrons, either from a normal fuel cycle reaction or a rather large particle accelerator. In any case, you will be dealing with high level radioactive waste for thousands of years. There might be a less waste than MOX but since we already have all the infrastructure for MOX and have a MOX legacy to deal with, the only real advantage to thorium for the UK would be if our access to uranium was interrupted. It is not 'uninformed fear' that drives the use of MOX over thorium, it is simple economics.
    Not vastly cleaner but if dealt with properly much less likely to sink us all under the ocean or have us all dyeing from prehistoric viruses released from the no longer existing ice caps and perpetuated by the nice warm, rainforest everywhere climate. Compared to fossil fuels nuclear actually has far less chance of killing us all than the continued use of filthy peek power plants burning coal in places like the US and China. I like to wine as NZ is basically all hydroelectric and wind byt we do get the lovely occasions every so often where it has not rained enough in a while and the countries batteries are low... something that does not happen is major manufacturing economies, we also export a stack of coal and cope to be burnt in the steel furnaces of places like China and Korea so despite our own systems we are not really helping, especially with all the oil and gas exploration going on so we can be grateful to let a US company mess the environment, take 95% of the profits and the oil and leave us with 4% and almost certainly higher fuel prices.

    As a measure of hypocrisy, I eat meat, mostly Chicken and fish but still, and happily enjoy the #$%^ out of driving my 2.8L 4WD sports saloon car. It does not mean that I don't want cleaner safer energy like that provided by micro nuclear reactors, solar (grapheme based or otherwise) and definitely fusion but I still want to enjoy the chunk of life I have left as well.

    Personally I would like my government to invest in the simple renewable capacity harvesting tech, like pumping water back up the hydro dams with extra solar capacity for use during the non-generating times and to regulate solar payback so we got a subsidy and got paid back at decent rates rather than paying consumer rates for power used and only getting paid back at industrial smelter rates, about 1/10 payback from the grid opposed to what we pay. There are also stupid regulations where you can't generate more than x amount of power or you have to be registered and taxed as a power company.


    I would love for all of this stuff to be possible but no one in our government system is selling sense, coming up to our election we have the main parties, the we'll help unions, teachers and a select group of minorities party at the cost of fiscal stability, the we'll actually keep the country solvent and treat everyone unfairly equally party (actual democracy despite the wineing) and the collection of we have one good idea and several hundred bat-excrement crazy ideas parties. Unfortunately the ecological ones are in this group so they have a few decent policies but never make the appropriate value judgments to stop at greener policies and not delve into psydoscience, fear and random enforcement of vegetarian hippy train-riding fetishes.

    As anyone who has tried public transport in NZ knows, it is a great way to show up damp, exhausted, deaf and an hour an a half late to anything you were actually going to.
    Last edited by SYNACK; 25th July 2014 at 06:47 PM.

  11. #56


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    I understand where you're coming from though when looking at the world at a much larger scale are you going to be able to persuade everyone they can't eat meat? No.
    You seem to be far from understanding where I am 'coming from'. Of course not everyone will stop eating meat, not everyone will stop driving a car, move closer to work, stop jetting off on holiday, stop changing their phone every year, stop leaving the telly on while they nip out top the shops (probably drive 400 yards) to buy apples that have been shipped half way round the world. In fact - so few people in the west are willing to make ANY concessions at all, that the battle is already lost. Yet they will happily say "Oh, the world is terribly overcrowded and we must stop those poor people in poor countries from breeding and starving". It's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem.

    The whole concept and the only way we can save the world is to find a way of still being able to deliver these luxuries without it impacting on the environment take renewable energy for an example it dosen't impact on the environment yet it still allows us to keep the luxury that is electricity, the only issue is storing that energy which practically we should be finding out a way to do so on the highest priority!
    So YOU are, disgusted with the behaviour of some other individuals contribution to AGW burning methane for amusement, but when it comes to your own contribution - oh wait, no it's someone else's job to invent and deploy a large scale energy storage structure. You have a huge, powerful computer just for YOUR entertainment - what do you think that runs on, faery dust? How is that different to burning methane for entertainment? You just get your kicks a different way. But it's just a different luxury, a different unnecessary luxury.

    The solution to AGW is hugely more complex than energy storage. Just one example - do you think your beef grows on electric cows?
    So saying to people they can't eat meat won't work, think of a way to help rather than dictate and more people will listen that's the goal!
    I told you, I have given up. I signed the final papers to my giving up when a few weeks ago I bought a car that barely manages over 30mpg. I might even renew my passport and rekindle my love affair with middle Italy. That is MY entertainment, my meat eating. Why should I feel guilty? Someone else needs to come up with solutions or ... well, or damn the world to a hot house hell! The only difference between us is - I actually seem to know what I am doing, you are in denial.

  12. #57

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    3,185
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 438 Times in 302 Posts
    Rep Power
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    You seem to be far from understanding where I am 'coming from'. Of course not everyone will stop eating meat, not everyone will stop driving a car, move closer to work, stop jetting off on holiday, stop changing their phone every year, stop leaving the telly on while they nip out top the shops (probably drive 400 yards) to buy apples that have been shipped half way round the world. In fact - so few people in the west are willing to make ANY concessions at all, that the battle is already lost. Yet they will happily say "Oh, the world is terribly overcrowded and we must stop those poor people in poor countries from breeding and starving". It's always someone else's fault, someone else's problem.


    So YOU are, disgusted with the behaviour of some other individuals contribution to AGW burning methane for amusement, but when it comes to your own contribution - oh wait, no it's someone else's job to invent and deploy a large scale energy storage structure. You have a huge, powerful computer just for YOUR entertainment - what do you think that runs on, faery dust? How is that different to burning methane for entertainment? You just get your kicks a different way. But it's just a different luxury, a different unnecessary luxury.

    The solution to AGW is hugely more complex than energy storage. Just one example - do you think your beef grows on electric cows?


    I told you, I have given up. I signed the final papers to my giving up when a few weeks ago I bought a car that barely manages over 30mpg. I might even renew my passport and rekindle my love affair with middle Italy. That is MY entertainment, my meat eating. Why should I feel guilty? Someone else needs to come up with solutions or ... well, or damn the world to a hot house hell! The only difference between us is - I actually seem to know what I am doing, you are in denial.
    To be honest with you what was an adults debate you have turned into a childs playground pointing fingers and the rest of it I'm out before I say something that may involve a mod.

    One thing though I would like to say is I don't believe you're right.

  13. #58


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Not vastly cleaner but if dealt with properly much less likely to sink us all under the ocean or have us all dyeing from prehistoric viruses released from the no longer existing ice caps and perpetuated by the nice warm, rainforest everywhere climate. Compared to fossil fuels
    I wasn't comparing nuclear to fossil fuels, I was comparing Thorium to MOX, both as nuclear fuels. I keep seeing Thorium touted as a magic bullet to nuclear's problems - waste, weapons and risk (accidents). It is not. It might be a bit 'cleaner' but it doesn't eliminate the problem of dealing with waste, it is not of itself inherently safe (and no process involving a nuclear reaction is inherently safe!) and you can use it as part of a process to produce weapons grade material. Unfortunately, as well as not solving any of the problems, it would certainly involved hundreds of billions of investment and decades of infrastructure development just to get to where we are with MOX. Thorium is actually a distraction. I suspect it might be a meme promulgated by same interests that so well fund the AGW denial lobby - (@seawolf should just love that conspiracy theory!).

    I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power because of the accident risk but I would concede that for the next few decades it is less of a risk than burning fossil fuels *if that was an option*. One of the (many) big problems with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that it is a problem on a global scale - it needs everyone to switch. I don't see any signs that that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. We just don't want to change.

  14. #59


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,391
    Thank Post
    301
    Thanked 917 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    To be honest with you what was an adults debate you have turned into a childs playground pointing fingers and the rest of it I'm out before I say something that may involve a mod.
    I'm not entirely sure what you are accusing me of?! Would you care to point out where I resort to insult, invective, or other ad hominem rhetorical device? I'm having a perfectly polite discussion about issues which are difficult and complex. Do you expect not to have your statement and ideas challenged? What exactly did I do that was "childs playground"? I point out that you burn gas for your entertainment but you express disgust with someone else who does exactly the same thing. Sure you might characterise that as finger pointing and I'm sure the truth of it is difficult for you, but that does not put me in a playground for pointing it out. You perhaps need to chill a little! :-).

    One thing though I would like to say is I don't believe you're right.
    Sure. But you really need to actually address the points people make if you want that to carry any real weight.

  15. #60

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,271
    Thank Post
    884
    Thanked 2,749 Times in 2,322 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power because of the accident risk but I would concede that for the next few decades it is less of a risk than burning fossil fuels *if that was an option*. One of the (many) big problems with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that it is a problem on a global scale - it needs everyone to switch. I don't see any signs that that is going to happen in the foreseeable future. We just don't want to change.
    I agree thorium is no magic bullet and it can all be made into weaponised nukes with a bunch of work. I was more looking at the micro-reactor tech that is much safer due to smaller amounts of everything and the continual containment for the lifespan of the reactor thanks to not needing to change out the fuel. Of course there are still all sorts of issues and waste and overall I would be happier if most of the stuff ran on rechargeable renewable like I described in my post earlier but there should still be a place for nuclear if only for science and exploration.

    The use of deep space probes is becoming tenuous thanks to the lack of easily accessible uranium for thermal reactors. Stuff like the voyager probe would be difficult now thanks to not only the fear but also the shortage of material. Its thermal reactor allow it to keep running a large distance from the sun where solar panels would not work and stuff like the first mars rovers were crippled and lost because of their sole reliance on solar and battery. We should be using the clean renewable tech as much as possible but we should not close off other avenues of progress incase we miss something great or loose the ability to explore or progress. Fire was and is dangerous too but we have learned to harness it reasonably safely. Whether the human race as a whole is evolved enough to harness nuclear tech safely is another matter but without it we are giving up all sorts of opportunities and potentially offsetting scientific progress by hundreds of years while we get something better.

    If everyone had decided to stop using coal to fuel the industrial revolution and decided to wait till we had ubiquitous hydro electric and wind power how far would humanity have come and would any of us have clean power at all. As with anything, there is a balance to be struck between caution and progress. Or I could get all SciFi and quote Babylon 5 "Who are you? and What do you want?".
    Last edited by SYNACK; 25th July 2014 at 07:41 PM.



SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. This copy of windows is not Genuine
    By Kyle in forum Windows
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 20th June 2007, 07:55 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th May 2006, 06:56 PM
  3. why your internet is not working
    By russdev in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22nd February 2006, 08:18 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th January 2006, 06:13 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •