DailyDirt: Playing With Technological Fire...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Sometimes people really leap before looking -- and that can be especially dangerous when it comes to technologies that we don't fully understand. Not too long ago, we created rivers so polluted that they'd actually catch on fire. We seem to be tuning in to the environmental repercussions of the chemical industry, but we might be making analogous mistakes when it comes to nuclear or biological technologies. Too much, too soon -- and we'll be cleaning up the aftermath for generations (if it can be cleaned up). Here are some quick links to some potentially concerning activities. By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Andy Roon (profile), Mar 29th, 2011 @ 5:56pm

    I refer you to this: http://reason.com/archives/1999/04/01/precautionary-tale

    Remember, anything can be proven dangerous, nothing can be proven 100% safe. Without forward thinking, there will be no progress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Michael Ho (profile), Mar 29th, 2011 @ 8:06pm

      Re:

      The Precautionary Principle takes things to a risk-averse extreme... there's always a balance to be found, but getting that balance right can be tricky.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 29th, 2011 @ 10:17pm

    Re Playing With FIre...

    Prometheus, who gave humans fire and paid dearly for it, was the Greek god of foresight.

    The was also a Greek of hindsight, called Epimetheus.

    I think his eyesight was pretty good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      d_mat (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 3:50am

      Re: Re Playing With FIre...

      Yep, and although we keep experiencing that difference from our own actions over and over, we don't seem to be learning from it. We still want to move as fast as possible in every direction, without the proper amount of time to make sure we can deal with the consequences. Be it selling weapons, using pesticides, or building nuclear plants. I'm not against technology, I just think we should be a hell of a lot more careful about what we do with it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 4:59am

    Fracking is not a very good idea. In several instances it is highly likely to have caused local drinking water to contain flammable compounds. There are many videos of people setting fire to water exiting their faucet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Mar 30th, 2011 @ 5:03am

    I, for one, welcome our new dinosaur-looking chicken-lizard overlords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    d_mat (profile), Mar 30th, 2011 @ 9:11am

    Options?

    I really don't think the conversation has to be on natural gas versus coal. If you look at where the technology is today, despite the lack of big investment in the 20th century, I think we have a lot of other options. I am not going to list them here, you can find them anywhere; but for those who say those technologies are not enough and that we need other sources, just look at the case of Germany, where all of a sudden it is no problem to take 5 nuclear power plants off the grid after 2 years of politicians and "experts" insisting it would be impossible. And East Germany now has a problem of too much power flowing into the grid due to wind turbines.

    But this topic is a nice contrast to the article. We need to be careful and bring change gradually, but this is an area where we need to speed up a bit, because the rash decisions in energy policy of 20th century are really hurting us now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bob Webster (profile), Mar 31st, 2011 @ 8:33am

    Naturally burning creeks

    "Not too long ago, we created rivers so polluted that they'd actually catch on fire." Not too long ago, creeks in some oil-rich areas of the U.S. could be set on fire because of naturally oozing oil -- pollution not required.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This