Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/microwave-oil-recovery-could-unlock.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[sferrin]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/microwave-oil-recovery-could-unlock.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

If this takes off bricks will be ---- in the Middle East.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/microwave-oil-recovery-could-unlock.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

If this takes off bricks will be ---- in the Middle East.

Dunno why, 'cause if that technology "takes off", guess where it will be applied? Why the Middle-East of course... :

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/energy-tsunamis-threaten-to-drag-oil-down-to-10-engie-says

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWzdJ6CUIE

 

[bobbymike]

http://thebulletin.org/global-nuclear-power-database

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/terrestrial-energy-notifies-nuclear.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/bp-forecasts-world-economy-to-double-by.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/02/china-carrying-forward-with-large-scale.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[Jemiba]

In threads like this one, perhaps it would be good to give a short explanation, why the linked
article is relevant to the theme.
BTW, the title was changed a little bit, so protests against both civil and military use are includede now.

 

[bobbymike]

In threads like this one, perhaps it would be good to give a short explanation, why the linked
article is relevant to the theme.
BTW, the title was changed a little bit, so protests against both civil and military use are included now.

During the evolution of the thread the initial anti-nuke discussion morphed into anti-nuke/pro-nuke and ultimately discussions led to a general theme of the safety and efficacy of all major energy types. Invariably there are links (mostly by me I will admit ;D) that involve the general theme of energy development and technologies surrounding energy, along with which country is pursuing said developments and technologies.

So to be perfectly frank, it seems a good place (rather than starting thread after thread) to continue to post items like the prior link.

 

[Arjen]

The briefest of summaries might entice people to actually click on a link.

 

[Jemiba]

So to be perfectly frank, it seems a good place (rather than starting thread after thread) to continue to post items like the prior link.

I've recognised, that the thread has changed and modified the title therefore. But I was pointed to the fact, that
sometimes it's not quite clear, if a link posted by someone is an argument for or against nuclear weapons/energy.

"China carrying forward with large scale development of nuclear energy" ?

Besides the pure statement, how should it be interpreted in the context of this thread ?
"Well, then it is good, because China is keen to use the best and most modern technologies"
or
"Now even the chinese power industry is on the way, that leads to perdition"

So, this link could be used to support different opinions. Principally, by looking who has posted it,
it is clear, what is meant, at least for those, who followed the whole thread. But in a written discussion
a short explanation may be helpful.

 

[bobbymike]

So to be perfectly frank, it seems a good place (rather than starting thread after thread) to continue to post items like the prior link.

I've recognised, that the thread has changed and modified the title therefore. But I was pointed to the fact, that
sometimes it's not quite clear, if a link posted by someone is an argument for or against nuclear weapons/energy.

"China carrying forward with large scale development of nuclear energy" ?

Besides the pure statement, how should it be interpreted in the context of this thread ?
"Well, then it is good, because China is keen to use the best and most modern technologies"
or
"Now even the chinese power industry is on the way, that leads to perdition"

So, this link could be used to support different opinions. Principally, by looking who has posted it,
it is clear, what is meant, at least for those, who followed the whole thread. But in a written discussion
a short explanation may be helpful.

Unless I have a strong and clear opinion that I believe is both relevant AND members would find helpful I let a link generally speak for itself. While I (and others here I'm sure) would say I haven't always lived up to that posting standard I do attempt at least to be clear in my opinions.

Saying that Arjen provides a good suggestion that maybe, at the very least, a description by way of a couple of key quotes would be helpful and make clearer the links rationale.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I'm not convinced there is a topic here worth sustaining, there's 44 pages of posts almost entirely of links by one user on a variety of subjects. That's not a discussion.

I suggest

1) Post a summary of any links you post
2) Make meaningful topic titles
3) If your posts are entirely off-topic, consider if this is the correct forum for posting.