Merged Home

[portlandatheist]

i find this glorification of nuclear technology very unsceptical.
its a good technology but its not as superb as most seem to belive.
what and where do you store the waste? we havent found a real solution yet.

And yet this doesn't stop us from burning coal.

the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. *

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Only with coal, we spew the waste into the air rather than neatly gathering it for storage.

 

[Dymanic]

The imagery is absolutely stunning. It's everything I wish Google Earth could be: real-time (or smooth time lapse) and most excellent rez. I'd hate to see anyone miss out due simply to personal bias against all things "greenie"; turn the sound off and put on your favorite music instead, but you gotta see this!

 

[Tapio]

I just finished watching the film. All I can say, Safe-Keeper, is DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH IT? Why am I asking? Because your "transcript"...

• Humans are destroying our climate/upsetting balance, etc (repeated 100 times throughout film).
• Various statistics about how long we've been here, how long the Earth's been here, etc.
• We're using too much oil (repeated 100 times throughout film).
• We need to change our habits, and we aren't.
• Fair Trade, whatever that is, is good.
• Eating meat is bad.
• Some stuff about various energy sources that are "in" right now.

Etc, etc, etc.

...as nice as it is, is definitely not one of the movie in question. In my opinion it's absurdly biased with no base in the actual film. However, your list sums up in a fairly decent manner a tiny fraction of how you perceived those parts of the film you couldn't emotionally connect to.

What about the indescribable beauty, elegance and deeply touching imagery...how can you skip all that and simply claim the movie to be "more same old"? How can you be so petty to just wave your hand to the actual plight of hundreds of million people described in the film, and stuff it into a box with a label of "making a one and a half hour long film about how humans are bad". I get the feeling you must indeed be a very sad individual.

Yes, the movie has an emotional appeal which I can understand to be unsettling for some. Yes, it occasionally uses almost a religious tone in dialogue to convey the acuteness of the disastrous affects human conduct has produced, and how so many humans live right in the middle of these disasters. Yes, there are generalizations and a lack of proper scientific explanations regarding some natural phenomena.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

The point, to me, is that the film uses in an incredibly skillful manner the tools of how to shake people up and get them active. You live in Norway, I live in Finland. We have nothing to actually worry about. At least not like someone living in Madagascar, Nigeria, The Maldives etc. So, as I see it, these kind of films* are a necessity to make us, living the dream, to wake up and face the nightmare that's daily reality for millions.

*actually this is one of the best I've seen, if not the best. So comparing it to others is kind of useless...

Watching the end now - seems to be more of the "fad" solutions everyone support without knowing much about them: solar panels on houses, "fair trade", wind farms, et cetera.

Could you please offer support for your assertion? As far as I know, Yann Arthus-Bertrand is a fairly educated man on the subject with a respectable group of experts around him helping to make these films.

I'm an environmentalist as much as the next guy, and very concerned about AGW as I live in an affected area, and I don't necessarily disagree with the film's points, but you shouldn't watch it because it adds anything new. It doesn't.

In my experience "the next guy" definitely isn't an "environmentalist". In my experience most people don't really give a damn, not if it means they would have to squeeze an inch off their waist, so to speak. To me, the way you've responded to this film makes you look like nothing more than one of them.

This goes for anyone who's on the edge of watching or not - WATCH IT. It'll be one of the most profound 1 1/2 hours spent.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I just finished watching the film. All I can say, Safe-Keeper, is DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH IT?

Yup.

I'm just asking because your transcript [...] as nice as it is, is definitely not one of the movie in question.

Actually, I feel it is. As I've written in my posts, I do emotionally connect with the issues, very much so. I live in a city negatively affected by AGW, and care about the issue deeply. I also did happen to deeply admire the imagery and music of the film. The reason I wrote the summary I did was because another forumite asked specifically about the film's opinions. He asked, I replied.

The point, to me, is that the film uses in an incredibly skillful manner the tools of how to shake people up and get them active.

The problem is that AGW isn't some backwater third world country in conflict, an obscure illness or some unknown animal in danger of extinction. It's front page news on every newspaper. It's been made into a blockbuster movie (cough, Al Gore, cough). "Raising awareness" is no longer needed, Al Gore took care of that years ago.

Look, I did love the beautiful and unsettling shots, and the music, and the fact that it discusses a serious issue. But it also does just parrot what's "in fashion" right now, without adding any new angles or anything. It does go over-the-top, which has turned lots off people away from the AGW issue already. This is legitimate criticism, I feel.

Could you please offer support for your assertion? As far as I know, Yann Arthus-Bertrand is a fairly educated man on the subject with a respectable group of experts around him helping to make these films.

Right, but still, lots of people push these solutions and issues for little better reason than that everyone else do, without really thinking critically about what consequences they entail.

This goes for anyone who's on the edge of watching or not - WATCH IT. It'll be one of the most profound 1 1/2 hours spent.

Oh, but I agree.

 

[Cuddles]

they showed thermal plants, water(tidal) solar and wind plants etc..

All of which are, in fact, opposed by environmentalists. Admittedly not always the same environmentalists, but certainly by people who use the same arguments and apply to themselves the same label.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Hydroelectric: requires huge dams to be built, or waterfalls to be put in pipes.

Windmills: offer birds of pray perches from which they can far more easily spot rodents and other food, giving them an edge and upsetting the balance of the ecosystem. Often occupy large land areas.

Solar panels: apparently come to be through a not-so-green construction process. Like windmill farms, they also take up large areas of land.

Geo-thermal: According to the Wiki, "Geothermal fluids drawn from the deep earth may carry a mixture of gases with them, notably carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. When released to the environment, these pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells in the vicinity of the plant. Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 122 kg of CO2 per MWh of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants.[6] Some are equipped with emissions-controlling systems that reduces the exhaust of acids and volatiles."

As for the suggestion of building coal plants for then to bury the emissions underground - if they can bury the harmful products of coal burning underground, they can bury nuclear waste underground, and as far as I know, nuclear power is far more effective than coal power. In addition, coal is a non-renewable resource.

 

[DC]

All of which are, in fact, opposed by environmentalists. Admittedly not always the same environmentalists, but certainly by people who use the same arguments and apply to themselves the same label.

?? what kind of environmentalists do you have around you?

sure non of those other ways is perfect. they all have a negative side.

 

[DC]

Hydroelectric: requires huge dams to be built, or waterfalls to be put in pipes.

Windmills: offer birds of pray perches from which they can far more easily spot rodents and other food, giving them an edge and upsetting the balance of the ecosystem. Often occupy large land areas.

Solar panels: apparently come to be through a not-so-green construction process. Like windmill farms, they also take up large areas of land.

Geo-thermal: According to the Wiki, "Geothermal fluids drawn from the deep earth may carry a mixture of gases with them, notably carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. When released to the environment, these pollutants contribute to global warming, acid rain, and noxious smells in the vicinity of the plant. Existing geothermal electric plants emit an average of 122 kg of CO2 per MWh of electricity, a small fraction of the emission intensity of conventional fossil fuel plants.[6] Some are equipped with emissions-controlling systems that reduces the exhaust of acids and volatiles."

As for the suggestion of building coal plants for then to bury the emissions underground - if they can bury the harmful products of coal burning underground, they can bury nuclear waste underground, and as far as I know, nuclear power is far more effective than coal power. In addition, coal is a non-renewable resource.

where is your nearest nuclear waste site? how is it build and how save is it? how is it paid for, how much tax money invested?

 

[Dancing David]

Also pretty biased and one-sided (humans are evil, period). Give us some good news and success stories. Why not also talk about how organic farming speeds up deforestation while not really having any advantages (at least if we are to believe Skeptoid)? It's also ironic how so many of my fellow environmentalists cry so loudly for others to "dare to think new" and "be bold" when it comes to finding new sources of power, yet are themselves terrified to "think new" by looking into nuclear power, one of the cleanest, safest, most effective source of electricity we have.

So true, so true.

Or turn off the air conditioner or leave the thermostat at 50F/10C (winter). Many are but many also drive their cars absolutely everywhere, etc..

 

[Dancing David]

i find this glorification of nuclear technology very unsceptical.
its a good technology but its not as superb as most seem to belive.
what and where do you store the waste? we havent found a real solution yet.

Excuse me, the waste can be dealt with, as opposed to generating huge amounts of CO₂ and broadcasting toxons over a wide area. Now the unintelligent ways of coping with it in the past are remarkable.

What problem with the waste are you thinking of?

 

[Tapio]

Yup.

Thanks for your reply. It certainly softens the edge I felt off your previous posts. I apologize for the unnecessary edge on mine . There's still some comments I'd like to discuss further.

{snip}
The reason I wrote the summary I did was because another forumite asked specifically about the film's opinions. He asked, I replied.

I understand, but I felt the reply you gave for TCS was way too one-sided and lacked in essential aspects of conveying what the film is about (to me Home is first of all an audiovisual experience, the content of the message comes after it).

I keep wondering just where did you derive these "opinions of the film" from? I listened closely, without hearing even once the word "bad", which you apparently heard hundreds of times . I felt the film to be very emotionally appealing, but still to succesfully keep from bringing the black and white morals of good/bad into question. To me it was more of simply stating how things are (though this is where I felt the film is lacking. To me a "how" always needs a complementing "why", or even an attempt at it, with sources provided).

Maybe how we interpret the films message depends on the already existing attitudes towards the issues discussed in the film...

The problem is that AGW isn't some backwater third world country in conflict, an obscure illness or some unknown animal in danger of extinction. It's front page news on every newspaper. It's been made into a blockbuster movie (cough, Al Gore, cough). "Raising awareness" is no longer needed, Al Gore took care of that years ago.

I agree to some extent. However, I would like to see you show inclusive evidence of your claim. I think people being "aware" of something doesn't mean they necessarily understand it, and even if they do, it's still a long way to where the majority alters their daily decisions based on actual knowledge of what's happening to/on earth. Also, measuring these things is difficult. This is where I think Home can really make a difference. It's humane and still not judging. It's crying for action without putting pressure on certain explicit ways of acting. I think Home can get peope active in ways that Inconvenient Truth could never have.

Time will tell...but to me calling the film "more same old" and to advocate not watching it "because it doesn't add anything new", are major understatements. I accept you feel that way, no prob. But that was just the reason why I lashed back.

Look, I did love the beautiful and unsettling shots, and the music, and the fact that it discusses a serious issue. But it also does just parrot what's "in fashion" right now, without adding any new angles or anything. It does go over-the-top, which has turned lots off people away from the AGW issue already. This is legitimate criticism, I feel.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by over-the-top. I'd be interested in hearing where you felt the film went "over-the-top" in ways that can turn people against it's agenda. Because I feel nowadays people are so utterly saturated by the mass of information they recieve, that if one wants to wake them up (ever more), the only way is to go (with taste) over-the-top, so to speak.

So if you have the will/time, please elaborate. It would be a valuable lesson for me in differing views.

Regarding alternatives to coal, I can only say I haven't got enough knowledge to actually debate on them. But the solar panels shown in the film were also on top of houses, and the windmill park was in the middle of the ocean, so I think these must not be either/or questions, but ones needing research to find where and when exactly what form of methods are most efficient. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Tapio]

Or turn off the air conditioner or leave the thermostat at 50F/10C (winter). Many are but many also drive their cars absolutely everywhere, etc..

Good point. I think Home just might be what these kind of people need to make them take steps like you suggested . I think the film is definitely not useless in this matter.

Regarding success stories, aren't there some provided in the end of the film? From Yann Arthus-Bertrand's website your sure to find more. I think these people can't be blamed for plain scaremongering without anything positive to add.

 

[Cuddles]

?? what kind of environmentalists do you have around you?

This kind. And this kind. And this kind.

Of course, there are also environmentalists who argue in favour of nuclear power.

sure non of those other ways is perfect. they all have a negative side.

Of course. And many other ways also have positive sides. Which is why sensible debate is preferable to simply going "Oh noes! The nuclears are going to kill us all!". The simple fact is that most renewable sources of power are just not appropriate as the main source in most places.

Hydroelectric is great, but only works if you have the rivers for it, and it potentially causes all kinds of environmental issues. Wind farms are great, but you need a lot of space for them, and they cannot provide base load because they are totally reliant on the wind. Solar power is great, but you need the Sun. There's also the slight problem that current solar cells use rare elements that there simply aren't enough of to actually provide all our power. Tidal power is great, but you need not only a coast, but also areas with enough of a tide to be useful, plus there's all the environmental issues. Wave power is great, but again you need a coast. Geothermal power is great, but you need convenient geology, as well as the environmental problems.

Nuclear fission power is great because it's ideal for providing the base load, and is easily possible everywhere with current technology. It's certainly not perfect and has several problems of its own, but in the short term it's really the only universally applicable option, and may well turn out to be so in the medium to long term as well. I fully support the use of renewable resources where possible and practical, but for the time being we need nuclear as well.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

where is your nearest nuclear waste site?

No idea, probably not anywhere near me since nuclear power is such a taboo in Norway we don't even feel comfortable with Russian, Swedish or British reactors since they're "so close to us".

I could tell you quite a bit about the trash burning plant on the other side of the fjord, though. I'd happily have it be torn down and replaced by a steam-emitting nuclear site any day.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I keep wondering just where did you derive these "opinions of the film" from? I listened closely, without hearing even once the word "bad", which you apparently heard hundreds of times .

She didn't literally use the word bad, but it certainly was the message of the film - that we humans are "exploiting" the resources, upsetting balance, driving animals to extinction, etc. All this is true, of course it is, but the way the film presented it was this typical one-sided approach (nearly one and a half hour about the damage we do, the last five minutes devoted to good news) view that could very well be summarized as "humans are bad".

I felt the film to be very emotionally appealing, but still to succesfully keep from bringing the black and white morals of good/bad into question. To me it was more of simply stating how things are (though this is where I felt the film is lacking. To me a "how" always needs a complementing "why", or even an attempt at it, with sources provided).

Maybe how we interpret the films message depends on the already existing attitudes towards the issues discussed in the film...

I'm sure it depends on a lot of factors.

 

[DC]

Excuse me, the waste can be dealt with, as opposed to generating huge amounts of CO₂ and broadcasting toxons over a wide area. Now the unintelligent ways of coping with it in the past are remarkable.

What problem with the waste are you thinking of?

we have several interim storage facilities and not a single endstorage.

 

[DC]

This kind. And this kind. And this kind.

Of course, there are also environmentalists who argue in favour of nuclear power.



Of course. And many other ways also have positive sides. Which is why sensible debate is preferable to simply going "Oh noes! The nuclears are going to kill us all!". The simple fact is that most renewable sources of power are just not appropriate as the main source in most places.

Hydroelectric is great, but only works if you have the rivers for it, and it potentially causes all kinds of environmental issues. Wind farms are great, but you need a lot of space for them, and they cannot provide base load because they are totally reliant on the wind. Solar power is great, but you need the Sun. There's also the slight problem that current solar cells use rare elements that there simply aren't enough of to actually provide all our power. Tidal power is great, but you need not only a coast, but also areas with enough of a tide to be useful, plus there's all the environmental issues. Wave power is great, but again you need a coast. Geothermal power is great, but you need convenient geology, as well as the environmental problems.

Nuclear fission power is great because it's ideal for providing the base load, and is easily possible everywhere with current technology. It's certainly not perfect and has several problems of its own, but in the short term it's really the only universally applicable option, and may well turn out to be so in the medium to long term as well. I fully support the use of renewable resources where possible and practical, but for the time being we need nuclear as well.

Nuclear power brings also problems with it, and many seem to handwave those negative aspects. But in my oppinion it is the best we have sofar.
In a place like the USA with huge areas without anypeople around, you have alot less trouble storng your waste. but we dont have such areas in switzerland or in europe in general. for us, end storage of waste is a big problem, defenetly a problem that deserves more than just a handwave.

 

[DC]

No idea, probably not anywhere near me since nuclear power is such a taboo in Norway we don't even feel comfortable with Russian, Swedish or British reactors since they're "so close to us".

I could tell you quite a bit about the trash burning plant on the other side of the fjord, though. I'd happily have it be torn down and replaced by a steam-emitting nuclear site any day.

when a country doesnt have a solution for the nuclear waste, then it is best nuclear power is a taboo in that country untill they have a solution for storage.

 

[DC]

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/G...ect=108&sid=10748951&cKey=1243501521000&ty=st

 

[Dancing David]

we have several interim storage facilities and not a single endstorage.

And that is a problem, because...