Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Eko

(7,272 posts)

12. Yup,

Reply to hunter (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 05:46 PM

Oct 2017

Dead is dead. There is plenty of waste that can kill us all around. I never said there wasn't. I just dont like to sit by while someone acts like nuclear waste's shit don't stink also. I would be interested to hear about these non nuclear wastes that have a toxic half life of forever. Seriously, if you answer one question from me I would like that one answered.
Well, you have your own personal crusade, that's fine. You say you wont post those pictures, but you did post some equating wind turbines with smokestacks from 1876.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Minor Problem For Sound Science of the Effect of Offshore Windfarms on Seabirds: There Isn't Any. [View all] NNadir Sep 2017 OP

Some new stuff. Eko Sep 2017 #1

The trouble is that people see wind turbines as a symbol of progress... hunter Sep 2017 #2

I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right. NNadir Sep 2017 #3

Wow Eko Sep 2017 #4

I live in California. The hills are littered with dead Enron-era wind turbines... hunter Sep 2017 #6

What do you mean by dead turbines? Eko Oct 2017 #11

Here, too, is another picture from Nature, of the realities of the wind industry. NNadir Sep 2017 #5

Yes, this is much better. Eko Sep 2017 #7

Here you go, way awesome. Eko Sep 2017 #8

The toxic wastes of a careless high energy industrial society suck. hunter Oct 2017 #10

Yup, Eko Oct 2017 #12

How about arsenic? Arsenic has a half life of forever. hunter Oct 2017 #13

Nope. Eko Oct 2017 #14

Seriously? You think the arsenic goes away? hunter Oct 2017 #16

Well, Im sure Eko Oct 2017 #19

The same sorts of processes that decrease the bioavailability of toxins like arsenic and lead... hunter Oct 2017 #20

This was your statement. Eko Oct 2017 #23

I would ask you to take a second Eko Oct 2017 #15

I'm some kind of quixotic Luddite and evolutionary biologist. hunter Oct 2017 #17

Yes you have said that many times. Eko Oct 2017 #18

Except they don't reduce the use of gas. hunter Oct 2017 #21

Gas is profitable without wind. Eko Oct 2017 #22

You'd be okay with more gas. I get it. hunter Oct 2017 #24

Wow. Eko Oct 2017 #25

So what? Eko Oct 2017 #26

Your enthusiasm for solar and wind augmented gas power plants is clear. hunter Oct 2017 #27

Yes, because somewhere I am sure Eko Oct 2017 #28

I'd happily see Ivanpah removed, and the landscape restored to the best of human ability. hunter Oct 2017 #29

Natural gas is successful without solar and wind. Eko Oct 2017 #30

We are not "buying time." hunter Oct 2017 #31

Of course we are. Eko Oct 2017 #32

Going back to the original argument... hunter Oct 2017 #33

Of course you are because it's not about global warming Eko Oct 2017 #34

Welcome to the twenty first century. It's a messy place... hunter Oct 2017 #35

Not afraid. Eko Oct 2017 #36

It would be silly to be afraid. hunter Oct 2017 #37

And I am not a silly person. Eko Oct 2017 #38

Im not even going to post the pictures from this. Eko Sep 2017 #9