Reviewed by EDF engineer on misinformation tf1

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 03/11/08, 12:19

ah yes I see you let the others find in your place, and during this time you consume donf ...
in any case it was not you who raised the problem!
...
it's a bit like remundo who dares to maintain that the activity of power plants does not release harmful products into the environment ... whereas he does not live near a power plant! or a fuel transformation / reprocessing plant (not mentioned in its list of problems, therefore harmless like tricastin this summer ...).
I'm not talking about the few uranium electric cars today I'm talking about FUTURE ELECTRIC CARS WITH PLUTONIUM!
because the MOX used contains reprocessing plutonium (extremely polluting activity), you did not go to see the links that I had already put?
rather than talking about the failure of the phoenix and super phoenix? an entire speculators industry by the way.

wait I'll give them to you ...
0 x
C moa
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 704
Registration: 08/08/08, 09:49
Location: Algiers
x 9




by C moa » 03/11/08, 14:40

jonule wrote:ah yes I see you let the others find in your place, and during this time you consume donf ...

Aaaaaah jonule and his legendary tact ... : Mrgreen:
Well then I find you a little bad faith as you can read on the following link https://www.econologie.com/forums/projet-laigret-avancement-et-chronologie-t6366.html we are a few to act. Will it lead to something, we don't know yet but don't blame me for not trying.

It is all the more difficult since we do not have the means of your friends of greenpeace or to get out of nuclear power. They manage to find millions to organize demonstrations / symposia of all kinds but they have still not toured France in the municipalities or set up a laboratory to develop alternative sources. It is certain that it is easier and less risky to claim !!!
in any case it was not you who raised the problem!
To each his cross my dear Jonule : Lol:
Personally, I consider that the main environmental problems are:
- The use of conventional petroleum products (mainly for transport which is aberrant);
- The supply and protection of water reserves;
- The production and treatment of waste (whatever it is).

I think that with the Laigret project I am in line with my convictions.

FYI, the use of conventional oil leads to significant releases of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but not only. We know perfectly well that it is responsible for the growth of childhood asthma (ozone peak for example) and a certain number of its components are highly carcinogenic (benzene for example) that we can breathe easily by doing full (especially volatiles like super SP).

when he does not live near a power plant! or a fuel transformation / reprocessing plant (not mentioned in its list of problems, therefore harmless like tricastin this summer ...).
I'm not talking about the few uranium electric cars today I'm talking about FUTURE ELECTRIC CARS WITH PLUTONIUM!
because the MOX used contains reprocessing plutonium (extremely polluting activity), you did not go to see the links that I had already put?
You are so close that you did not understand that the use of MOX made it possible to recycle part of the PU from waste. In a MOX pencil there is approximately 4% of PU at the entry and after use, there is only 2% of it, the other two% were consumed in the reactions.
As a reminder, Super phoenix was a prototype which was to allow recycling of this PU of more important and more efficient material. It is weird when on one side there is the PU which annoys us and when we find a solution to recycle it, the anti-nuclear are still against .... : Shock:

Well yes but at the same time we will still not remove their business ...

wait I'll give them to you ...
I don't need it thanks.
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/11/08, 09:43

It was not for you that I wanted to hand them over, but for remundo.
ditto the remarks, don't take them "only" for yourself, you're not the only reader of this thread, I hope.
but I see that you are at the same stage as remundo in fact: you do not want to recognize that the reprocessing of plutonium is an activity of the + polluting for the environment, ie us.
either you completely hide it, or you don't understand anything technically, which I don't fully believe.
find out about the polluting activities of hague and tricastin? if not, is it really that you are defending this system, by daring to say that it is "recycling" ... renewable plutonium?

no: radiocative electricity.

superphenix, monumental failure, right? as ITER will be, right? what could all this money have been used for? support unemployed? .............
anti-nuclear business, it's really a caricature anyway, I think they would not be happy with all the independent information work they do you think? finally ...

for alternatives to petroleum and electricity, looking for laigret or other petroleum is nothing: we must act, once again take it not for you, I also take it for myself; do not wait for the alternative from others otherwise you will have nothing, lousy.

"sheep are made to be sheared" I read on this forum : Lol:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/08, 09:50

Image
0 x
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 04/11/08, 10:31

: Shock: oops, that scares all these red dots, it's like rubella .. :D
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/08, 10:37

Well there are several things to say about this map, the most obvious is surely: nuclear = rich countries and that there is therefore a huge disparity between the countries ...

I will leave a comment on the rest ...
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 04/11/08, 10:38

not rubella, but the distribution of abnormal increases in cancer, leukemia, etc.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/08, 10:40

Ah well here it was not long ...

: Cheesy:

How funny: are there none in Australia? Anyone have an idea of ​​pkoi?
0 x
the middle
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4075
Registration: 12/01/07, 08:18
x 4




by the middle » 04/11/08, 10:41

It would be interesting to superimpose the same map, with the risk of an earthquake ... :?
0 x
Man is by nature a political animal (Aristotle)
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/11/08, 10:48

Good idea just but not precise enough at the global level, it must be done on a case by case basis ... ie country by country.

Example for France:
Image
http://www.bouches-du-rhone.pref.gouv.f ... article=80

Image
https://www.econologie.com/le-nombre-de- ... -3296.html

It is far from being "correlated" ...

Hey pkoi there is no nuclear power plant in Corsica? : Mrgreen:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 206 guests