I remember the mayor of one of the Gippsland towns (maybe Morwell) saying that it is crazy given there is a fault line through Gippsland !!The people of Anglesea and the La Trobe valley are going to love there new nuclear power stations
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Anyone who proposes nuclear power has not thought it through.
250,000 years of toxic radioactive waste you not only have to work out some way of storing without leaking into the ground water or the like, but you also have to keep it secure as it can be used for dirty bombs.
50 years of uranium left at current usage levels, so, if nuclear increases (which at present it is doing the opposite) then less than 50 years of fuel left for nuclear power. Given it would take us more than a decade to get one of these things this looks completely silly.
Always knew the crunch would come when Dutton suggested some locations. Haven't looked at his proposed sites but I hope he knows nuclear power stations go through a hell of a lot of water. Siting them near where the power lines are is 1 thing, you also need a big reliable water supply.
I hear he has gone cold on the notion of small modular reactors. Probably a good thing given they are a fiction.
But, we always have to remember, this is just a distraction to keep fossil fuel electricity generation going for as long as possible - this is not a serious proposal, it is a lame excuse for a policy.
DS
Realistically the only policy the LNP have is to get into power and rort the system for themselves and mates/donors, what else have they done
He didn't because he can't. Once you start digging into nitty gritty of the politics and economics, (forgetting the environmental), which he would have had to do to make such a statement, cost and location, it all falls over. That's the thing, it might sound good at the broad conceptual level, but it doesn't stack up.
All this talk of sentiment abut nuclear softening, well, there was a pile of letters to The Age this morning which were all opposing nuclear power.
The sentiment may have softened when everyone knew it wasn't on the agenda, but once someone looks like they are serious about nuclear power the opposition strengthens, and with very good reason.
DS
The sentiment may have softened when everyone knew it wasn't on the agenda, but once someone looks like they are serious about nuclear power the opposition strengthens, and with very good reason.
DS
‘No country in the world has solved this problem’: can Australia make age verification work for social media?
Previously unreported documents suggest age assurance technology has not been successfully implemented anywhere in the world
Interested in other peoples thoughts on this. I'll position this that I think the state and federal governments have their hearts in the right place with this, but its franbkly unenforceable. The social media companies will not police it, they have age verification right now (you state your birth year) but they never check, they say they police it, but essentially they police it through exception, as in when a profile is flagged to their administrators then it comes down if its clear the kids aren't over 13.
I have 2 daughters (now 14 and 16) and both had social media before the ages of 13. They wanted it much earlier but for Snapchat in particular I refused. They got it when they got their 1st phones (as they graduated primary school, so they were 12). I know of many parents that allowed their kids to be on the likes of Snapchat well before that, some as young as 8 or 9.
I think better would be pushing the social media companies to change some of their practices. They need better verification practises that an account is actually the person it says it is, there are so many burner accounts which would be used for bullying far more than the actual individuals accounts as its essentially anonymous. Snapchat needs to remove the likes of their notifications when you screenshot a conversation for example, thats basically alerting your bully that you are about to inform on them for example.
Theres a very real problem, and frankly its scary as hell. I'm a relatively young parent at 42 with 14 and 16 year old kids, but it still feels like a massive timegap from when I was a child. Social media was very much in its infancy when we were kids, MSN messenger was probably the best that we had, the old asl line you'd put up when you were wanting to talk with someone, so whilst we may use social media, the kids these days know it much better than we do and can circumnavigate around many of the things that their parents do.
I remember watching an episode of A Current Affair a few years ago, and it scared me to my core. It was about how easily predators could gain access to our kids. When Tracy Grimshaw was told that 13 year old girls were being forced to "perform" on camera for hours on end you could hear her voice crack. There was 1 account in Canada where a 13 year old at 250k followers. The best thing we can do as parents is to educate, which I did from the start with my girls. They know I'll regularly check out their friends on their socials and they accept it, they know I'm not there to snoop but to protect and they know not to add any one they don't know in real life or they have not face timed with.
What are others thoughts? My view is the government have their hearts in the right place, but are attacking the issue from the wrong direction. It should be all about education IMO.
Unfortunately this is capitalism at its worst.‘No country in the world has solved this problem’: can Australia make age verification work for social media?
Previously unreported documents suggest age assurance technology has not been successfully implemented anywhere in the worldwww.theguardian.com
Interested in other peoples thoughts on this. I'll position this that I think the state and federal governments have their hearts in the right place with this, but its franbkly unenforceable. The social media companies will not police it, they have age verification right now (you state your birth year) but they never check, they say they police it, but essentially they police it through exception, as in when a profile is flagged to their administrators then it comes down if its clear the kids aren't over 13.
I have 2 daughters (now 14 and 16) and both had social media before the ages of 13. They wanted it much earlier but for Snapchat in particular I refused. They got it when they got their 1st phones (as they graduated primary school, so they were 12). I know of many parents that allowed their kids to be on the likes of Snapchat well before that, some as young as 8 or 9.
I think better would be pushing the social media companies to change some of their practices. They need better verification practises that an account is actually the person it says it is, there are so many burner accounts which would be used for bullying far more than the actual individuals accounts as its essentially anonymous. Snapchat needs to remove the likes of their notifications when you screenshot a conversation for example, thats basically alerting your bully that you are about to inform on them for example.
Theres a very real problem, and frankly its scary as hell. I'm a relatively young parent at 42 with 14 and 16 year old kids, but it still feels like a massive timegap from when I was a child. Social media was very much in its infancy when we were kids, MSN messenger was probably the best that we had, the old asl line you'd put up when you were wanting to talk with someone, so whilst we may use social media, the kids these days know it much better than we do and can circumnavigate around many of the things that their parents do.
I remember watching an episode of A Current Affair a few years ago, and it scared me to my core. It was about how easily predators could gain access to our kids. When Tracy Grimshaw was told that 13 year old girls were being forced to "perform" on camera for hours on end you could hear her voice crack. There was 1 account in Canada where a 13 year old at 250k followers. The best thing we can do as parents is to educate, which I did from the start with my girls. They know I'll regularly check out their friends on their socials and they accept it, they know I'm not there to snoop but to protect and they know not to add any one they don't know in real life or they have not face timed with.
What are others thoughts? My view is the government have their hearts in the right place, but are attacking the issue from the wrong direction. It should be all about education IMO.
Just take a look on a train in the morning.
There is very good content here on solutions.
This is from the creator of the social dilemma doco on Netflix.
Guides for Healthy Tech Use for Kids & Youth - Center for Humane Technology
We've provided a guide for educators to encourage more healthy and humane tech use with youth aged 13-25. However, this guide will be useful for anyone looking to encourage a more humane and sustainable future.
www.humanetech.com
You need the whole social group to not use it or you can’t opt out.
Yep, education is the way to go. I have heard of stories of people being compelled to perform on social media. I don't really know how that works but it does seem to me it would be blackmail so you need to educate kids before they have something they can be blackmailed over.
As for getting past any restrictions, I'm well into my 50s and it takes me 2 seconds to think of ways: VPN, TOR - pretty easy.
DS
As for getting past any restrictions, I'm well into my 50s and it takes me 2 seconds to think of ways: VPN, TOR - pretty easy.
DS
It's only the leftie loonies reading The Age David....
The interesting thing to me is the Pesutto is publicly saying nuclear is not on the agenda in Victoria. He knows that it is on the nose here.
It's only the leftie loonies reading The Age David....
The interesting thing to me is the Pesutto is publicly saying nuclear is not on the agenda in Victoria. He knows that it is on the nose here.
No state premier will touch it.
it will be interesting when Dutton eventually announces his proposed sites for nuclear reactors. i expect a lot of money in elections promises will follow to those electorates. A LOT.It's only the leftie loonies reading The Age David....
The interesting thing to me is the Pesutto is publicly saying nuclear is not on the agenda in Victoria. He knows that it is on the nose here.
The Libs are going to have to further their nuclear policy at some stage before the election, and part of that will include the sites. They will be announced, then the bribes to those electorates will follow, some at the same time- linked to the reactor sites, and some closer to the election as part of the usual vote buying politicians do. They wont want to include too much up front tho as this spending will be directly linked to their nuclear policy.
Expect most of the policy to be spending and action years down the track.
The problem is that all (I think) states have active legislation that bans nuclear power, do that's another hurdle for the Coalition "policy" to overcome. Of course he could just say "we'll deal with that issue with the states later".
I still have doubts that this will become official Coalition policy before the next election given the likely opposition at most levels of govenment/party/popular opinion.
They cant back away from it now- that will come down the track. I expect they will announce preferred sites, and as you say deal with the states later.
I imagine their commitment will be some studies in the next election cycle, possibly some contracts signed, before it all magically comes together maybe 10 years down the track.
It's happening in South Africa , votes still being counted from Wednesday's election. The African National Congress (ANC) is projected to receive less than 50 percent of the votes, necessitating a coalition with other parties to establish a government. The selection of a coalition partner will hinge on the additional support required to surpass the 50 percent threshold. Currently, it appears that the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) may become the coalition partner, potentially leading to Julius Malema assuming the role of Vice President. The EFF is known for its Marxist , anti west and black nationalist ideology.
Yep, interesting to see. I spent some time in South Africa years ago and most people had the view that the ANC would eventually split. Didn't happen but now they are facing the challenge of losing the massive support they have had. The ANC did have a difficult situation to deal with after the end of apartheid, but when you start putting up the likes of Zuma as President you deserve to lose support.
DS
<
China
|
Live Sheep Trade !!
>
