jojoe71 6/7/2014 10:48:40 AM Report
I think I just heard a toilet flush.
ThinkAgain 6/7/2014 11:29:03 AM Report
I have to buy better boots and a new shovel
ranny 6/7/2014 11:53:46 AM Report
I think we should just capture all the bears that are running loose in the city(Northern Ontario) and ship them to Ottawa and Toronto. Love to see how they really deal with wild bears roaming around their city.
blackspruce 6/7/2014 12:36:09 PM Report
just make sense. The spring bear hunt is an employment opportunity, better control of the nuisance bear situation, and an easier method to determine weather a mother bear has cubs. So win win for all good decision Dave
DavPic 6/7/2014 1:10:24 PM Report
I really hope people don't vote based on which local candidate they like; it's irrelevant, this isn't about the Soo.
Javaman 6/7/2014 1:29:41 PM Report
The only way locally to show the LIbs we have not forgiven them for the scandals and show the Cons we don't want them is to vote NDP
northernmale 6/7/2014 1:32:29 PM Report
Dav Pic Its not about the Soo??? So we vote for the party that will give the most to southern Ontario.. really good thinking du..And vote for a party that has no chance of getting in and tossing a minister , of the party that's going to get elected again.
asp 6/7/2014 1:41:12 PM Report
Orazetti shut up !!! Nature will come into the city no matter what, for centries human had to learn to cohabitat with animals. As cities grow the more we interrupt nature and will see animals. It a part of life.
DavPic 6/7/2014 2:04:36 PM Report
We are on a cruise ship heading towards an iceberg and people are concerned with who cleans their cabin the best.
The PCs are definately not out for just southern Ontario and neither are the NDP or the Liberals frankly... it's a fallacy we keep repeating.
DavPic 6/7/2014 2:06:59 PM Report
At least the PCs want to lower energy costs and fix the bloated healthcare bureaucracy so we can hire more front-line healthcare and home-care workers. These changes help the Soo more than bear-friendly policies.
northernmale 6/7/2014 3:41:00 PM Report
DavPic remember they all make promise's when wanting your vote , then they forget all about them. That's why I vote for the person who I think can help the Soo not the party..
ranny 6/7/2014 3:44:10 PM Report
@northernmale to bad Northern Ontario can't separate and be our own province. Tired of Southern Ontario making all the bad decision for us and we have to suffer. Milking all the natural resources.... using the north as a dumping ground for garbage and nuclear waste.
DavPic 6/7/2014 4:59:34 PM Report
Do you really think the other representatives will go to Toronto and not try and help the Soo? David O isn't the only one who will do things for our city. What we need is a ship captain who will try and improve things for all of Ontario.
I am not as cynical as you, I don't believe that 'all' politicians continuously lie just to get in power... The reason they want the power is because they believe in something and need the power to make it happen. If these guys really just wanted money they would work in the private sector where real money can be made.
Don't forget that the media makes politicians seem a lot more devious than they actually are, government office has no more corruption than any other workplace demographic... we just hear about it more.
I find it hard to believe that people actually vote for a local representative ignoring their party's reputation and overall philosophy... it's depressing.
DavPic 6/7/2014 5:04:50 PM Report
There is a lot of misinformation on nuclear waste, there has only ever been a football field worth of waste developed around the whole world in the history of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the way to go, it's incredibly cheap to operate and clean despite what the green propaganda tells you. Watch the documentary Pandora's Promiss.
If we were a separate province from the south and we had our nuclear power plants where we would put our waste? Up north under rocks where it wouldn't affect our environment and population adversely? Then we'd have the far north of Ontario wanting to separate from us. Everything isn't about us as much as we'd like to it be, and whether you like it or not the unpopulated empty mines of the north is the best place for that waste.
ducky58 6/7/2014 5:25:33 PM Report
It's all a bunch of B.S. They are all willing to say anything to get vote. DON'T BELIVE IT. RUN PEOPLE RUN FAST.!!!
guestwho 6/7/2014 5:48:54 PM Report
run forest, run
girlfriend 6/7/2014 7:07:54 PM Report
The liberals have had lots of time to do something about the spring bear hunt. Funny they are worried about it now! Just David, fishing for more votes! Lest we forget the lies and deceit that have come out of his party's mouths!!! David only gets involved if there is a photo op or big money involved. He does not care about the average family struggling with high hydro costs, ridiculous gas prices and out of control insurance fees! PC 's don't care either - Hudak couldn't even make it to the northern debate! He is in it for big businesses!
Vote NDP !!
IgnorantNortherner 6/7/2014 7:58:19 PM Report
@DavPic "there has only ever been a football field worth of waste developed around the whole world in the history of nuclear power."
Is that how we measure volume now? In football fields?
It sounds like you watched a documentary and figured out everything there is to know about the history of nuclear power. Too bad you didn't have the knowledge to pick it apart as the pure propaganda piece it is.
I suggest you head on over to www.enenews.com and spend a few hundred hours reading about nuclear power before you pretend to know something about it.
DavPic 6/7/2014 9:00:16 PM Report
Actually I'm an Electrical Power Generation technologist, in addition I've done two separate research reports on nuclear power during my time in school. I saw this documentary only recently.
And no, the volume is not "football fields" high, besides, we are close to developing a working thorium reactor which actually breeds its own fuel and next to no toxic waste.
DavPic 6/7/2014 9:06:15 PM Report
To further educate you let me also say that the toxic waste generated by thorium only lasts for approximately 0.8% as long as Uranium reactors. We should be investing money in developing these reactors and not wind/solar farms that have no hope to ever power heavy industry.
IgnorantNortherner 6/7/2014 10:06:25 PM Report
I still don't understand how 'football field' can be a measure of volume. Educate me some more, please.
What percentage of the world's nuclear reactors are thorium ones?
What is 0.8% of millions of years?
Answer: Some amount more than recorded human history
DavPic 6/7/2014 10:47:44 PM Report
Football field is obviously just a rough equivalent to give people an idea, not a measurement. It was never meant to be taken as an exact value -- obviously.
Thorium reactors only exist in the test stage, we will probably see this technology come out of india in the next decade or so since they have the world's largest deposites of thorium and are actively researching it.
The waste doesn't last millions of years.
In uranium reactors there is both U235 and U238, when U238 captures neutrons from the fissioning U235 it transforms into U239 for approximately 23.47 minutes before it decays into neptunium239 for 2.36 days before finally becoming plutonium239 for 24,000 years. Pu239 is highly toxic and can be used to create nuclear weapons. Even after the halflife of Pu239 it can remain toxic for up to 240,000 years, not millions. Even then these are small quantities much of which can be re-used in the core of the same reactor it was bred in. If you put this in the bottom of an abandoned mine there is 0 risk to the environment or our health.
Conversely when Th232 captures a neutron it becomes Th233 for a half-life of 21.83 minutes after which time it further decays through electron emission to protactinium233 for 26.97 days until finally becoming U233 which translates to more fuel. With no U238 in the reactor there will be no Pu239. Thorium reactors breed some toxic materials that last about 200 years at most, and don't have the 240k year toxicity that uranium reactors breed.
If you have any more questions let me know.
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 12:11:55 AM Report
I've always got questions, Dav and I appreciate the responses.
When you quote those time periods you realize you're quoting half life time, and that after the quoted time period 50% of the material remains, not 0? So it's half as dangerous after that time, but nothing approaching 0%.
How do you throw around 0% risk so casually? You can't imagine a situation where that material leaches into a groundwater source that people rely on? What do you do then?
Even down in a mine it has to breathe 24/7 ie. release hot particles into the atmosphere from which you breathe, so even when the system works as it should radioactive particles are released into the air. These are not harmless ie. >0% risk when everything goes right.
So then you know the thorium reactor is not a new technology and is actually at least five decades old? They had a working LFTR at Oak Ridge back in the 50s. Unless something has changed, all thorium reactors require some primer (fissile) material. U-233,235 or Pu-239.
U-233 has a half life of 159,000 year
U-235 has a half life of 704,000,000 years
Pu-239 has a half life of 24,000 years, as you note above.
So while they may have less of the most dangerous waste, they still have dangerous waste for a far longer period of time than all of recorded human history.
DavPic 6/8/2014 3:22:37 AM Report
Well at this point in the debate we have to switch gears and talk about the REAL controversy, which is that between left and right thinking.
I believe that human existence is more important than the Earth we stand on. I fully believe we need to preserve the world and be ecological but there is a point when we have to accept the fact that nothing we do will have no footprint at all. If we can consolidate our footprint to a few abandoned mines (which have been chosen based on their distance from water supplies, etc) it's a hell of a lot better than pumping megatons of Co2 into the atmosphere.
I don't want to live like the Amish, I like to have internet and computers to facilitate the dialectics that we are producing now.
At the end of the day there is no point in having a beautiful world with no humans to witness it, and there is no point in having humans with no evolution to define us.
If you want industry and you want technology but you don't want Co2 then you have to go Nuclear. There are no other options at the moment.
This shouldn't be about whether or not nuclear is perfect -- it isn't. This should be about being realistic about what we want and what our options are.
Solar is nice during the summer for air conditioning because the sun is up when it's hot and the demand is high, but it's useless when Essar is operating its motors at 3am. Wind power is just... a toss of the dice. Hydro dams destroy forests and ecosystems, coal plants produce ridiculous amounts of Co2. Eventually we have to accept that we want to exist and we want to be human. There is no perfect solution.
The fact is Nuclear power won't do irreversible damage to the world in a wide spread and apocalyptic sort of way. (disregarding nuclear warfare of course which is a separate issue).
This is why it is infuriating when people say they are voting for David O because "he is a nice guy"... they don't acknowledge the actual philosophical quandary we are facing. It's far far deeper than who is aware of the fucking bear problem. It's embarrassing that this is what we have reduced ourselves to.
I'm certain I've exposed my flank to a plethora of criticism by being so transparent but this is what it actually boils down to: Do we want to exist and how do we do it. This is why party politics matters more than who will best represent our riding, which is what spurred this debate in the first place. So all things aside I want to go back to my original point, vote NPD, Liberal, or PC... doesn't matter, but for the love of God, don't vote for the local representative with the nice smile and firm handshake -- it's a red herring.
Boomer4771 6/8/2014 8:47:46 AM Report
35 MILLION DOLLARS wasted over stupidity. Two year program isn't enough time to make a difference especially when the first year was unsure what was going to happen till the very last day before opening due to the fur huggers taking to court. You won't notice a difference for about 4 to 5 years into the program. This better not be a smoke screen by the Liberals and then state see after two years no diff.
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 9:38:24 AM Report
@DavPic, "I believe that human existence is more important than the Earth we stand on."
I certainly disagree with you on that, Dav. We're currently losing hundreds of species to extinction a day because of that thinking, imo. I'd rather a thriving Earth with zero humans than a completely dead one devoid of all life with all humans forced underground or to the Moon or wherever living off soylent green.
If our reactors were thorium ones I'd have a lot fewer issues with them...but they're not and they can't be converted. We have ZERO of the reactors we were discussing and no money to get rid of the WMD reactors we use now that are constantly releasing radionuclides into the air we all breathe under standard operating procedure.
It takes ingesting 1/1,000,000th of a gram of plutonium before you're pretty much guaranteed cancer. You can breathe in all the CO2 you want and it's not going to hurt you as long as you've got some O2 in there. I don't understand this war on CO2 (and there are plenty of other reasons to becomes less dependent on fossil fuels).
"The fact is Nuclear power won't do irreversible damage to the world in a wide spread and apocalyptic sort of way."
Again, I invite you to spend a bunch of hours over at ENENEWS.com reading about Fukushima. You'd change your tune pretty quickly, I bet.
"This is why party politics matters more than who will best represent our riding"
Which party is it that's talking and making promises about power from thorium and decommissioning old reactors? I'll toss them my vote.
You were the one who said "We are on a cruise ship heading towards an iceberg and people are concerned with who cleans their cabin the best."
A vote for NDP, Liberals or PCs is a vote for who you think looks best cleaning cabins, ignoring any and all problems that actually matter and I want no part in that.
DavPic 6/8/2014 10:52:50 AM Report
First of all we will never agree on anything if you think that humans are valueless.
Second of all there never should have been a nuclear power plant built in an earthquake tsunami zone, that was a bad choice in the first place. Canada has many areas where there are no fault lines and no natural disasters.
Thirdly in a lot of ways Fukushima is a success story, despite the accident our new safety methods prevented a Chernobyl type of event.
Lastly, there are chemicals under your sink that will probably kill you if you ingest a small amount, and there is Uranium in the ground that produces radon gas that can give you cancer -- naturally occurring.
DavPic 6/8/2014 11:04:23 AM Report
I did read several articles on enenews earlier when you posted it and there is a lot of information that is completely misleading. Perhaps you should diversify your research sources. Anti-nuclear advocates will always only see the negative and will make the negative seem worse than it is.
If you research you will find enenews has already been called out for warping facts to make them seem worse than they are. Enenews is crap my friend, you are not drinking from the well of knowledge here. I have respect for you for trying though. Better than most.
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 11:10:03 AM Report
I never said nor do I believe humans to be valueless. Not even close.
"in a lot of ways Fukushima is a success story, despite the accident our new safety methods prevented a Chernobyl type of event."
This right here tells me you have no clue what happened or what's going on over there, as it's many times worse than Chernobyl ever was. We've got three melt through leaching into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean every second of every day with not a clue of how to slow it down, let alone contain it. What new safety methods are you talking about? You really, REALLY should read up on Fukushima at enenews.com
"there are chemicals under your sink that will probably kill you if you ingest a small amount, and there is Uranium in the ground that produces radon gas that can give you cancer -- naturally occurring."
What is your point? That because there are things that can kill me all around me I should embrace unnatural sources of more things that can kill me/others? I should just kill myself, rather than try and prevent unnatural deaths?
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 11:12:30 AM Report
Dav, I'd welcome you to post any misinformation you find over at enenews.com
It's easily the best resource for Fukushima related info, since there is an overall media blackout on the issue and laws against talking about it in Japan.
DavPic 6/8/2014 12:53:50 PM Report
In one case they state that radiactive iodine is 3300% higher than what is normal ly found in rain, which isn't false but they don't give the whole story. 3300% is still over 20 times less than what would cause concern, and the iodine becomes non-toxic after only 8 days. As I said though, Japan is a bad place for a nuclear plant no one disputes that. Canada on the other hand is a great place and we should take advantage of our stable land mass and good climate.
Just because radiation is emitting from Fukushima doesn't mean it's dangerous.
There have been no deaths in Fukushima due to radiation, and studies show the radiation that is emitting is too low to cause cancer or birth defects:
There is nothing "unnatural" about nuclear power, infact the naturally occurring Oklo Reactor is what nuclear engineers used to learn how to build better reactors. You should read up on Oklo.
The misconception people have about nuclear power is that "radiation is bad", which is an unfair statement. There are beaches in the world with so much thorium in the sand they emit more radiation than can be found today at Chernobyl, people bury themselves up to the neck in the sand to help with joint pain. The sand hasn't given anyone cancer. It's understandable that people are frightened about this, but the hysteria is rooted in fear not fact.
The Canadian made CANDU reactor is among the best in the world, we should be really proud that we are leading the world in safe nuclear engineering. We shouldn't stop ourselves from doing what we can do safely because other people failed to do it safely.
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 1:34:21 PM Report
"3300% is still over 20 times less than what would cause concern"
I'm just wondering which nuclear agency you're referencing for "safe" levels.
"As I said though, Japan is a bad place for a nuclear plant no one disputes that."
Okay, so then certainly the Canadian nuclear industry must have been pretty vocal about not building any reactors there, since it would give the entire industry a bad rep. Same goes for nuclear industry everywhere else, too, right? NOT A PEEP. NOT EVEN NOW.
"iodine becomes non-toxic after only 8 days"
Again, you take half life time and turn it into some fantastical tale. You're flat out lying, whether you realize it or not, Dav. It's just as toxic (radioactive) per mole after eight days...there's just half as much left. The REASON it's half life is so short is because of how much radiation it is constantly emitting, hence how quickly it loses mass. So something with a half life of eight days is millions of times more dangerous than something with a half life of a few hundred thousand years.
"Just because radiation is emitting from Fukushima doesn't mean it's dangerous."
Oh no? So you believe it's safe? If you were presented with a million a year job in Fukushima prefecture you would not hesitate to move yourself and your family over there?
"The misconception people have about nuclear power is that "radiation is bad", which is an unfair statement. There are beaches in the world with so much thorium in the sand they emit more radiation than can be found today at Chernobyl, people bury themselves up to the neck in the sand to help with joint pain. The sand hasn't given anyone cancer. It's understandable that people are frightened about this, but the hysteria is rooted in fear not fact."
Right, and the sun gives off radiation that helps us build up VitD and provides all kinds of other benefits. But the sun and the examples you state ARE IN NO WAY SIMILAR TO THE EMITTED RADIATION FROM FUKUSHIMA. What we're talking about is radioactive, microscopic particles that get into the air, into the water, into the food supply and when you ingest them ARE CONSTANTLY BOMBARDING YOUR CELLS WITH IONIZING RADIATION 24/7. The sun can't do that, and the sand can't either, unless they're eating it.
DavPic 6/8/2014 1:50:36 PM Report
Forget Fukushima, we will never agree on how to interpret the same facts. This is about Ontario and Canada, and whether you want to admit it or not Nuclear is our best option for green renewable energy.
What it boils down to is that I think the risks are worth taking and you don't.
IgnorantNortherner 6/8/2014 2:11:38 PM Report
I think what it boils down to is that you think you know what you're talking about but you don't have a fucking clue.
PS, nuclear is not green, nor is it renewable any moreso than fossil fuels are green or renewable.