Please stop. Please stop with strawman jokes and arguments. Respond to actual arguments made by other posters.
Nuclear energy is not one of my hot button issues, so I don’t care who “wins” this thread. But your debating techniques of…
[INDENT]1. Mocking extreme positions that no one (essentially) here actually holds
These Fukushima threads, here and in GD, are examples of industrial strength stupidity.
On the one hand, we’ve had links provided which discuss the various dangers and risks of radiation, what levels are immediately harmful, what levels are indisputably lethal and admissions that no level of radiation is absolutely without risk. We’ve also had rational comparisons of the levels of radiation produced by the operation of nuclear plants as compared to the higher levels produced by the operation of conventional plants. We’ve had mention of the greenhouse gases produced in large volume by power production using fossil fuels versus the miniscule releases from nuclear. We’ve even had risk comparison of the very high potential/low probability of environmental and health damage from nuclear versus the medium potential/absolute awful certainty of environmental and health damage from coal.
On the other hand, we’ve had that information and those discussions characterized as complete denials of risk and blind faith in the governments which subsidize and fail to adequately regulate oil and coal.
Fuck the idiots, the engineer-haters, the unthinking little fearmongers holding fiercely to their ignorance. Fuck the piss poor risk evaluaters. They’re going to drag us all down with them.
No they are not. Because nothing anyone says or does effects decisions made by those who hold the power, especially nuclear power. Protesters and Greens didn’t stop or damage nuclear power plants. No amount of hippies waving signs or writing letters was going to stop construction, or operation of nuclear power. That is still true. What has always done nuclear in, is the consequences of nuclear power, consequences which often take a long time to become clear. Above ground testing didn’t stop because of protesters. Construction never stopped due to protesters. No amount of screaming and yelling will stop the nuclear reactors that are being built right now. Nor will it damage the ones running all over the world. You can blame people all you want, but the ordinary man never did anything to stop nuclear power plants.
The best example is happening right now. China didn’t stop construction of it’s nuclear power plants. Just like it hasn’t stopped the coal fired plants.
And nothing anyone says or does or writes or screams about is going to change their mind a bit. If your concern right now is “nuclear power”, rather than people, don’t worry. Nuclear power always wins.
Of course coal and gas also always win.
Any reasonable alternatives to generating electricity? Or do you expect us all to sit in mud huts with an open fire pit as illumination? Will you then blame the village headman because you are suffering smoke inhalation and have pneumonia?
Why would anyone in their right mind ever listen to a hippy?
Maybe because he likes getting up in the morning to a steaming cup of coffee made in his electric coffee maker, with a slice of toast made in his electric toaster, and some yoghurt stored in is electric refrigerator. See a theme here? I doubt you do. :rolleyes:
Well, what I’ve learned from the pro-nuke side here, is that bananas have radiation, and nuclear power plants have radiation, and nobody is askeert of bananas, right? Of course, if someone accidentally dropped a godzillion tons of bananas on you, you might get a boo-boo, but that’s no reason to hysterically ban either bananas or nuclear power.
That’s about the best the pro-nuke side is doing here.
We are a profligate and wasteful people is problem number one. We have accustomed ourselves to the notion that the purpose of progress is to provide us with more loud, shiny crap. If the problem with Paris Hilton is that she spends a million dollars a month on cocaine and Gucci, an argument over the most efficient means to increase her allowance rather misses the point.
If you look at the worlds power plants, you can take the percentage generated by nuclear plants, and discover how much electricity everybody would need to stop using.
Or how much electricity would be needed from solar cells and windmills to continue using electricity as we do.
But based on real conversations I have had with nuclear fanatics, nothing will change their minds. And they certainly aren’t going to reduce their power use.
You’re an idiot, so I’ll keep this simple. Of the 104 nuclear power plants now in operation in the US, ground was broken for the construction of each of them prior to 1975. The last reactor currently under construction is at Watts Bar, Tennessee, and was begun in 1974. It may be completed next year. Two other plants have had ground broken for their construction in the three decades since the others were begun.
The abolute halt in new nuclear construction and licensing is a direct effect of the politics of public fears regarding nuclear. That is the main driver for the lack of cost competitiveness of nuclear power. You can count that as a victory for the coal industry, really, rather than for “the people”, but the enablers of that victory were definitely those people waving signs, writing letters and voting.
ETA: And yes, the fact that we’re profligate consumers of power on top of that assures our dependence on the coal that’s killing us.
I know exactly how much electricity I need. I get a bill for it every month. Telling me to turn off my TV because you are a nervous nelly isn’t a compelling argument or one that I’m pretty sure the ‘ordinary’ man will listen to, either.
Reducing power use is a laudable goal. But you need to approach things intelligently. Screaming and arguing incoherent banalities may soothe your spleen, but it isn’t an intelligent plan.
You’re afraid of nuclear power, cool. But an intelligent person should base getting rid of a major source or carbon neutral power on something more sturdy than your pissy, hysterical fears.
No I don’t. I have nothing to do with people reducing power, increasing their power use, building or not building power plants, or anything else involved with nuclear power. No rational argument, or wild ranting will makie the slightest bit of difference.
Public sentiment is necessary to build new plants. How many new nuclear power plants have been built in the US since the 80s?
If you want to convince people you need to have arguments that make sense, not irrational frothing.
You can make the choice to be a monkey screaming at things and throwing your poop, or to be a human cooperating with others. Perhaps if you’re real good at the human stuff, other humans might begin to base some of their actions on your ideas.
But that’s some hard shit right there. On second thought, you don’t seem up to it, never mind.
You don’t know me at all. Don’t judge.
That’s the thing about written forms of communication; you base conclusions on what’s on the screen or the page.
I know. That’s probably why I am so sarcastic. The stupid crap I read, it is annoying.
You might want to adjust that. You’re not coming across as sarcastic.
You may be correct. Only people that know me, or who are extremely perceptive, realize that it’s a mixture of sarcasm, satire and fact, and it takes effort to understand which is which.
Of course long logical arguments are completely ignored, so it’s way more fun to vent a little. In any case, it makes the same amount of difference.
Going back in time, like over a week ago:
If I had made a logical argument that the authorities were obviously liars, and that when they act like they don’t know, they are deceiving everyone, and mentioned the high tech equipment that we know exists, people would call me bad names and try to label me.
Now that it’s obvious that the officials are both liars and fools, people want to ignore it. Either way, logic or sarcasm, it seldom matters. People don’t change.