That’s based on the assumption that’s your only account, though. Not that I’m calling you a shill, just pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic. Any actual shill would have sockpuppets to spread out their comments and hide their history.
You’re a bad person and you should feel ashamed. Especially given the current season. Repent or the ghosts of measurements past present and future will be paying you a visit soon.
There’s something horribly offensive about the way the units were converted in this example
Even then. NATO cannot rely on a country that potentially flip flops every 4 years.
Why, though? The usual reasoning for abolishing the death penalty is the argument that we might make a mistake and mistakenly sentence innocent people to death. But what about crimes like this, where the crime is entirely on paper, fully documented, and with no risk that you’re prosecuting the wrong person?
Edit: I’m not sure why I’m getting downvoted with no replies. I’m asking an actual question here, if you disagree why not state your opinion?
It’s great for people who are into it, but what if you just hate gardening?
On the contrary, I would rather NOT go to war. You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military that bullies like Putin and Xinnie will think very very carefully before launching a ‘special military operation’ into your country.
Don’t forget the postcard to Russia inviting them over for tea
This post uses a gift link which is likely to have a view count limit, and no archived copy is presently available.
Next time, just archive the gift link?
His story is pretty unique and he’s already on their hunted list. The pic makes absolutely no difference
You’re missing the point, which is that we don’t normally measure reserves in centuries. We prospect as needed, and there is no reason to think that we would be unable to locate new deposits as necessary. All this and more is covered in the source you linked.
Will get back to you once I’ve had a chance to read through them, but I have no reason to think you’re mistaken.
I did not make any claim. As I said in my first comment, I have no idea what the environmental impact of uranium mining is. My point in the previous comment is merely that using an example from the 1950s is useless as we can find similar environmental disasters for any mineral we were mining in that era.
You did not show any such thing in your other link, rather the exact opposite.
By your logic about environmental impact, we should then stop ALL mining and processing activities because they caused pollution a century ago. That’s obviously not realistic, practical, nor even helpful. It should be based on the technology and environmental impact of today.
You appear to be severely misunderstanding the source. You may want to take the time to read through it again.
Also, did you think we checked each and every resource we industrialised to make sure we had a few millenia worth before we started using them? Last I heard, our known lithium resources are only sufficient for a decade or two at current rates, never mind the increasing usage.
The early and mid 20th century was the era of thousands of Superfund sites. This particular incident doesn’t seem any worse than average. We’re still dealing with the toxic aftermath of mining and processing all sorts of minerals with no regard for the environment during that time. Is uranium actually any worse than any other mineral in that sense?
Dude. Read the rest of your source.
Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data, as well as current geological knowledge, are likely to prove extremely conservative
In recent years there has been persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the abundance of mineral resources, with the assertion that the world is in danger of actually running out of many mineral resources. While congenial to common sense if the scale of the Earth’s crust is ignored, it lacks empirical support in the trend of practically all mineral commodity prices and published resource figures over the long term. In recent years some have promoted the view that limited supplies of natural uranium are the Achilles heel of nuclear power as the sector contemplates a larger contribution to future clean energy, notwithstanding the small amount of it required to provide very large amounts of energy.
Of course the resources of the earth are indeed finite, but three observations need to be made: first, the limits of the supply of resources are so far away that the truism has no practical meaning. Second, many of the resources concerned are either renewable or recyclable (energy minerals and zinc are the main exceptions, though the recycling potential of many materials is limited in practice by the energy and other costs involved). Third, available reserves of ‘non-renewable’ resources are constantly being renewed, mostly faster than they are used.
Literally half the page you linked discusses how we’re not going to run out of resources anytime soon.
Known reserves are sufficient for 90 years because nobody wants to bother with further prospecting when supply hugely exceeds demand.
fissile material is still a finite resource
We have reserves that will last centuries, and it can literally be extracted from seawater just like lithium if the economics allow for it. Can’t comment on the mining impact, though. Is it any worse than rare earth metals?
It’s not ‘now’, it’s at the time that he was first elected.
What the other guy said. I repeat, I’m not actually calling you a shill. I even agree with your point about JF, I’m just pointing out your logic is faulty.