Author Topic: I hope that oil will cost $ 100 per liter soon! (Read 38508 times)

fujiko · « **Reply #175 on:** March 14, 2012, 14:56 »

Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 13:54

Quote from: fujiko on March 14, 2012, 13:50
Numbers can't lie, adjustments can.

Deaths per watt? That's a really disgusting joke.

Next thing we hear is war deaths or crime deaths adjusted by the money gained. Deaths per dollar.

Why a joke?! You need to produce X energy to satisfy the needs of a certain country, if you produce it using nuclear power, you can expect a certain number of deaths, if you produce it using coal you can expect 4.000 times more people DEAD. What will you choose?

You always have the option of turning off your PC and live in a cave without electricity. Please try to be logical and not hysterical.

I'm not saying that I prefer coal over nuclear. I just find disgusting to use this kind of numbers and adjustments.
To me both coal and nuclear are a limited resource that will run out.

The numbers you pointed out are so adjusted and manipulated that it's hard to have a logical conversation using them.

If I have to chose nuclear or coal, I choose nuclear. I prefer it because the error margin is so small that companies have to be very careful to prevent any accident. With coal, companies don't have the same gun pointing at their heads and don't do everything to prevent pollution and make combustion cleaner. Combustion pollution is easier to clean than radiation but because governments allow much higher ratio of pollution than radiation and are lenient when it comes to hunt and punish companies that pollute the air, it turns out that companies have to incentive to pollute less and so radiation is safer. If coal had the same high operating standards as nuclear, coal would be much cleaner than it is today.

From the first time we used fire, we got used to smoke pollution. We are not used to radiation and it's much better for us that it stays that way or we will get relaxed and make a huge mistake.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #176 on:** March 14, 2012, 15:02 »

Sell your car, don't throw out anything you cannot patch or repair, stay away from plastics, recycle everything you can and don't fly. That will allow you to remove yourself from much of the fossil fuel equation that is destroying nations, people and animals. That's what we do and I'm less bitter. For a family of 4 we produce one tiny bag of garbage per week. Whether the cost of oil goes up or down, we are rarely directly effected.

Quote from: borg on March 07, 2012, 05:15

To finally end up that story!

This morning I watched an Italian documentary film ... The expedition was traveling by trucks from Italy to the Pacific and back ...
This episode was in Iraq ...
They showed the place where the bomb shelter hit by U.S. "smart" bomb and killed 1,200 people inside ...
I am from Croatia, my country has gone through the war 20 years ago, although I have not seen or heard anything of war, only through the TV, because I live in a part of country where wasn't war, but this is something different...
This morning I saw in that documentary what is really terrible, shocking, disgusting ...
What "advanced" western civilization can make to the poor part of this world ...
They showed little children hands "glued" to the walls, they were carbonized on 2000 degrees Celsius, which was produced by that airplane bomb ...

But we are still talking about RPI, PRD, intoxicated with our "gentle" lives, angry if oil jumps 1% ...
People..., their little hands are still there, fossilized on the walls and ceilings in 3D!!!
I am desperate .... $:-\$

Fran · « **Reply #177 on:** March 14, 2012, 15:29 »

Quote from: TheDman on March 14, 2012, 14:36

This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3

GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #178 on:** March 14, 2012, 15:51 »

Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 15:29

Quote from: TheDman on March 14, 2012, 14:36
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3

GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.

Again.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths

This is the official Version and statet like that on Wikipedia an various other real science sites. 50.000 cancer cases. How can you be so cynic?

Fran · « **Reply #179 on:** March 14, 2012, 16:00 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 14, 2012, 15:51

Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 15:29
Quote from: TheDman on March 14, 2012, 14:36
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3

GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.

Again.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths

This is the official Version and statet like that on Wikipedia an various other real science sites. 50.000 cancer cases. How can you be so cynic?

Again. This estimation has been proven incorrect. How can you be so blind?

velocicarpo · « **Reply #180 on:** March 14, 2012, 16:08 »

Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 16:00

Quote from: velocicarpo on March 14, 2012, 15:51
Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 15:29
Quote from: TheDman on March 14, 2012, 14:36
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3

GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.

Again.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths

This is the official Version and statet like that on Wikipedia an various other real science sites. 50.000 cancer cases. How can you be so cynic?

Again. This estimation has been proven incorrect. How can you be so blind?

Well. I say it is proven that you ahve a yellow nose and red teeth. All the photos you provide had been manipulated. All scientific prove you bring is manipulated. Furthermore, I am the only person holding the truth. Everyone else is wrong, they just don`t realise the truth about your red teeth.

TheDman · « **Reply #181 on:** March 14, 2012, 18:19 »

Quote from: Fran on March 14, 2012, 15:29

Quote from: TheDman on March 14, 2012, 14:36
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3

GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.

How does posting a link to a different website prove that the previous link wasn't a conspiracy site? Doesn't even make sense.

The first site contained info on "Chemtrails" and other goofiness that conspiracy whackjobs are always harping about. So I think it did indeed work.

VB inc · « **Reply #182 on:** March 15, 2012, 15:46 »

ummm from all the people who prefer nuclear over coal. would you be willing to have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood and all the excess buried near by? Lets be realistic... who would be willing to have a nuclear plant in their neighborhood if that was the only way???

Perry · « **Reply #183 on:** March 15, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: VB inc on March 15, 2012, 15:46

ummm from all the people who prefer nuclear over coal. would you be willing to have a nuclear plant in your neighborhood and all the excess buried near by? Lets be realistic... who would be willing to have a nuclear plant in their neighborhood if that was the only way???

If I had to choose between a nuclear plant or a coal power plant in my neighborhood, I would choose the nuclear alternative. I'll rather live with the risk of complete meltdown than almost certain health problems caused by the coal plant.

And did you know that coal power also emits radiation? From Wikipedia: It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements

VB inc · « **Reply #184 on:** March 15, 2012, 16:15 »

Forget oil and gas and coal for a second.... the real danger to humanity is humans.
We make all these great progress through technology but technology itself isn't the best for man kinds future.
We invent huge trawlers that pretty much picks up everything on the ocean floor so that we can consume fish on the cheap. Scientists say we will decimate ocean wild life by 2050. Im beginning to see a lot more farmed fish than ever before. cheaper food, mass consumption, longer life span.
Same thing goes for farming technology. seeds and crops yield a whole lot more now a days on 1 acre of land than ever before. cheaper food, mass consumption, longer life span.
In the past, we had plagues and wars that kept our population in check. Generally speaking, average lifespan has risen. Mom and pop not hungry, lets pop out babies =P The threat of a nuclear holocaust is preventing an all out war. Mass unchecked population growth that is living beyond our means. Thats why there is a general feeling that our kids will have it worse.
Previous poster talked about a virus that wipes out half the population which reminded me of "12 monkeys". Either mother nature or man made, a virus or a resource war will surely decrease our population.
Back on oil, I believe thats whats happening now in IRAN. Less dependence on oil, Iran's position in the world is weakening, so in their self interest, they are looking to go nuclear.

wut · « **Reply #185 on:** March 15, 2012, 16:28 »

If what you're saying is true (especially in the last paragraph), then they're just trying to protect themselves

VB inc · « **Reply #186 on:** March 15, 2012, 16:40 »

Quote from: Perry on March 15, 2012, 15:56

And did you know that coal power also emits radiation? From Wikipedia: It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#Radioactive_trace_elements

Sorry, i think thats just a bad comparison... How many coal plants are in the US during that time period? 50? 100? 1000? i dont even know. During 1982 means all the coal plants combined output for a whole year in comparison to that one event that was how long?

Perry · « **Reply #187 on:** March 15, 2012, 17:00 »

Quote from: VB inc on March 15, 2012, 16:40

Sorry, i think thats just a bad comparison... How many coal plants are in the US during that time period? 50? 100? 1000? i dont even know. During 1982 means all the coal plants combined output for a whole year in comparison to that one event that was how long?

No it's not a bad comparison. It was just to illustrate that even a serious meltdown cannot be compared to the radiation of coal power. (and that's just the radiation, not the other bad pollution coal causes).

(source: http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ )

I don't like nuclear power but at the moment it's the best choice. I wish we could satisfy our needs with solar/wind etc., but it's just not enough.

VB inc · « **Reply #188 on:** March 15, 2012, 17:21 »

im more worried about the harm to to planet and future of humanity. not necessarily what i can get by breathing bad air. nuclear waste lasts way too long for any good. im thinking long term

Perry · « **Reply #189 on:** March 15, 2012, 17:35 »

Quote from: VB inc on March 15, 2012, 17:21

im more worried about the harm to to planet and future of humanity. not necessarily what i can get by breathing bad air. nuclear waste lasts way too long for any good. im thinking long term

Do you believe in global warming?

borg · « **Reply #190 on:** March 16, 2012, 05:31 »

Quote from: Perry on March 15, 2012, 17:35

Quote from: VB inc on March 15, 2012, 17:21
im more worried about the harm to to planet and future of humanity. not necessarily what i can get by breathing bad air. nuclear waste lasts way too long for any good. im thinking long term

Do you believe in global warming?

No! But I believe in "Kony 2012 campaign"...

It is obvious that world is struggling for last energy resources...
We can see fall of moral standard because of that in powerful countries... Deja vu! Similar pre-world war condition...

Birocracy always moves in war direction... Why!? There is no problem in fact in energy, we have today excellent technology to switch it on appropriate resources...
They need our money! They need us to finance their "fictive" jobs... They don't produce anything, but they need money and materials things like every other man on this planet...
So your Cherokee burns 18 liters/100km, my Peugeot 9 liters... Your gasoline is twice cheaper than mine, but your kilometer (or mile) cost exactly like mine...
There is their another "tax" that they can finance their rich lives....

Stop drive you cars, they will rise taxes and oil price... That is obvious...
Just ask yourself: Who and how many people have jobs, good standard, material things, but does not produce anything or in any way not contributes to the production ?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #191 on:** March 16, 2012, 05:57 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 08, 2012, 17:31

Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right? and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.

Maybe not a nice prospect, but he could very well be right (especially if you pick up the narrative in 1944). I seem to recall reading years ago that one of the prime objectives of the invasion was to hold the line for the West against Russian influence.

I have no idea if Britain would have survived up to '44 without lease-lend (contrary to a previous comment, I believe we finally paid that off about 10 years ago ... contrast that with Germany which was allowed to default on its financial obligations at the time of reunification, when its wartime debts were forgiven, so that now Merkel can lecture Greece on financial responsibility).

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #192 on:** March 16, 2012, 06:12 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 12, 2012, 01:49

The problem is: all this rubbish, electric cars, biofuel, ecco friendly products, etc, etc, is that its paved the way for thousands of companies who are nothing but con-artists, charging three times the price for everything, just pop down to your local health-product store and see their prices for useless roots and so called health products.
Certain politicians are leading us to believe that the car, is resposible for just about everything, so they raise taxes for just about everything concerning cars. In Europe we drive on 95 and 98, octane which is so clean it cant be any cleaner. Its all BS, form a new type of cons. Thats all.
Nuclear power for example, is the cleanest way of industries, yet some politicians wants us to go back and use coal, wood, etc. $:-\$ and even worse, many people are actually swallowing this garbage.

That's like saying oil is just rubbish because have you seen the mark up on Lambourghini cars, or cotton is rubbish because of the mark-up on Versace fashions. Anything that capitalists can spin a profit on from gullible consumers they will take advantage of (remind me to photograph some ginseng to help them along), the fact that people are being taken advantage of says nothing about whether there is underlying value to the base product.

A study in New Scientist a year or two ago showed that renewable energy sources can easily replace oil as the main fuel source at a comparable cost. Of course that is horrendous for oil companies, who can be relied on to do everything to persuade people that a no-oil future is no future at all. What makes me laugh is that the oil companies manage to persuade so many people that they are purely altruistic and that "green energy" is being promoted by * profiteers. It's purely Orwellian, straight from the Ministry of Truth.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #193 on:** March 16, 2012, 06:21 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 10, 2012, 12:38

Electric cars aren't the best option but I suppose the price of electricity will shoot up when we all have them.

Where is the electricity going to come from? It's the energy production method that matters, not the end-use. An electric car powered by electricity from an oil-fired power station will almost certainly consume more oil than a car with an internal combustion energy. A solar-powered one won't.

(sorry about these diverse posts, I'm still reading the thread)

Microbius · « **Reply #194 on:** March 16, 2012, 06:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 05:57

Quote from: lagereek on March 08, 2012, 17:31

Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right? and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.

Maybe not a nice prospect, but he could very well be right (especially if you pick up the narrative in 1944). I seem to recall reading years ago that one of the prime objectives of the invasion was to hold the line for the West against Russian influence.

I always thought that was one of the main objectives, the US helped against Nazi Germany, but really saved half of Europe from the Soviets. Everyone in Western Europe owes the US a huge debt of gratitude for that!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #195 on:** March 16, 2012, 06:50 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 14, 2012, 14:13

Oh man! this is getting heavy! all this because some OP, wishes the oil price to escalde? KInow the biggest killer on earth? anybody? I will tell you, FOOD, and ofcourse the wrong food.
According to all health authorities, food, kill more people on a global scale then alcohol, smoking cars, etc, put together.

have a big-Mac and chips, very healthy.

BTW, Im not joking.

Or it could be smoking... I once saw the official health authority figures for deaths in Scotland from smoking or second-hand smoke and was surprised to discover, after a certain amount of number crunching to present the figures in a different way, that every single death in Scotland is a consequence of people smoking. But figures, of course, cannot like. Methodologies might, though.
Health stats sometimes strike me as being a bit like those experiments designed to show whether light is a particle or a wave: you always find whatever it is you wanted to look for.

rubyroo · « **Reply #196 on:** March 16, 2012, 07:15 »

...or what you've been paid to "find".

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #197 on:** March 16, 2012, 12:59 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 16, 2012, 06:27

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 05:57
Quote from: lagereek on March 08, 2012, 17:31

Fran, what youre in actual fact is saying, thanks to the red army, etc, we could have won this war without the US, right? and then what, Hitler replaced by Stalin! not a very promissing prospect, is it, to replace one evil with another.

Maybe not a nice prospect, but he could very well be right (especially if you pick up the narrative in 1944). I seem to recall reading years ago that one of the prime objectives of the invasion was to hold the line for the West against Russian influence.

I always thought that was one of the main objectives, the US helped against Nazi Germany, but really saved half of Europe from the Soviets. Everyone in Western Europe owes the US a huge debt of gratitude for that!

The funny thing is, that if Hitler had won then today everybody would be grateful to him for saving Europe from the monstrous Stalin, from that imperialist sponsor of terrorism Churchill and from the murderous war criminal Dowding (all of whom would have hanged). We would also be praising him for being tough on undesirables, thus maintaining law and order, for finally bringing a long era of peace by uniting Europe after centuries when there were European wars every 10 or 20 years and possibly for liberating half the world from British tyranny.

Don't believe me? Think about it - and remember that it is the victor who writes the history books, the news agenda and the school curriculum.

Microbius · « **Reply #198 on:** March 16, 2012, 15:56 »

Oh I do believe you. It is very easy to write the history books when you have eradicated all your critics.

lisafx · « **Reply #199 on:** March 16, 2012, 16:11 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 16, 2012, 15:56

Oh I do believe you. It is very easy to write the history books when you have eradicated all your critics.

So true.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I hope that oil will cost $ 100 per liter soon! (Read 38508 times)

fujiko

Tryingmybest

Fran

velocicarpo

Fran

velocicarpo

TheDman

VB inc

Perry

VB inc

wut

VB inc

Perry

VB inc

Perry

borg

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

Microbius

BaldricksTrousers

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

Microbius

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors