I’m guilty of it too I’m sure, but it would be nice to keep the US and the world as separate issues when appropriate, and when not.
You earlier cited a global (actually “member country”) study showing nuke is cheaper than everything but since the US has no recent experience building nuke plants and isn’t building any nuke plants it was all a complete guess and the study specifically stated that no one source of energy is the cheapest.
Construction costs in the US are going up at something like 15% per year, and there are absolutely no nuclear plans being considered for the US that acknowledge that fact. They’ll tell you how much China can build a nuke plant for, and then consult their astrologist and then imply we could build a nuke plant in the US for less than $10-15 billion over 10-15 years. As an additional insult they’ll ignore long-term storage, waving it away as something that will magically solve itself looooong before it becomes a problem except now everyone knows that it’s a huge problem and no solution exists either in the US or Japan. None.
Put *that *in your cost of nuke power pipe and smoke it!
If you want the discussion to stay within the US, you can’t cite construction costs for nuke because we aren’t building any nukes. You can’t guess what it would cost at all. Ixnay on atthay.
That there are various sources of radiation emitting different amounts at different energies in different ways?
A…fact.
The fact that you think that using facts is spreading ignorance is telling. You really don’t seem to care about the reality of the situation as long as it fits your perception.
You think people hadn’t already learned that in grade school, or hadn’t been recently reminded of this fact in 100 different news articles illustrated with 100 different analogies?
As they say, you can prove anything with facts. Facts can show you how dangerous radiation is, and facts can show you how safe radiation is.
Here is a fact for you: the news media wants you to read or listen to their news. They are going to say “new radiation found! Tune in to get the information you need, to keep your family safe!”
Once you watch the program, and they get their advertising money, you’ll roll your eyes because it turns out they were talking about less radiation than you get from a plane ride.
That’s how it works. Everyone should know this. How can you not?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
No see, what you’ll do is deny anything happened at Fukushima until you simply can’t deny it anymore.
[/QUOTE]
No, see this is YOUR strawman of me. The reality is that I’ll deny anything has happened until there is some sort of proof that it has…some sort of CREDIBLE proof that it has. I’m not going to go leaping off the cliff every time I hear some news source do the chicken-little dance. Me, I’m periodically checking the IAEA site, and basically going roughly on that, along with a few other places. You? Whatever sounds scariest at the time and that you think you can use to make whatever points you think you are making…or can use to deceive the largest number of people you THINK you are tricking. Whichever works best for you. Frankly, I don’t think it’s working out very well, except with the gonzomax/FXM crowd, but you go with what you think works for you best man.
It’s easy to pin me down. Show me facts from credible sites. Simple as that. As when I was just dead wrong and stupid about the argument I was having with 'luci…when I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit it and acknowledge I’m wrong. Citing some scary sounding news report with no context that runs contrary to what I’m reading on the IAEA website though is not going to get me to acknowledge I’m wrong.
You on the other hand have been shown to be wrong numerous times in this series of threads and I’ve yet to see you acknowledge it in any way…you simply move on to something else, and in a few cases then wait a few pages and bring up the same wrong bullshit again. I don’t know whether this is more of your deception tactic, or if you just refuse to learn or view your own cast in concrete preconceptions. Not that it matters which is the case, since the end result is the same.
Dude…do you know what the word ‘strawman’ MEANS?? Because you seem to use them all the time. I never said that there was no cause for alarm…never said that there is nothing harmful. Don’t think the authorities are saying that there is no cause for alarm or nothing harmful. What I’ve said is that you have to look realistically at what the actual dangers are, not go off half cocked on a chicken-little-esque rampage of fear and foam. Which is what you’ve been trying to do (though, to give you credit, a lot less than gonzomax and FXM, who are truly fear crazed AND stupid).
Because what you are saying IS ‘fear mongering’…of the first order. A clear assessment of what’s going on there is that it’s a serious problem akin to a major industrial accident or toxic waste spill, and that it’s taking considerable effort to prevent it from getting worse. And that it will take time and effort to clean up afterward. THAT is all reasonable, based on what’s known right now. Projecting that there will be a nuclear wasteland outside of the power plant for the next 1000 years, or that this is going to cause (some large scary number) of dim mak deaths in the future, or that it’s going to poison the oceans for (some large scary number of years and some large scary number of miles), or any of the other horseshit trying to be peddled in this thread is fear mongering at this point.
Here…here is the latest report from the IAEA (as of today) concerning the crisis:
Except it takes days of citing you the credible facts before you grudgingly acknowledge “maybe” then you start yelling about straw men again. You love that word.
Whatever sounds scariest? Like what? Forbidden words like radiation and reactors and uranium? I realize you’d like to censor those words right out but I’m not going to let you. If I let you have your way, everyone would think that nuke plant is actually a big tasty ginger bread house and it’s true, a banana fell off but it’s no cause for concern. Don’t fear monger!
I do but you discard them, like when I told you about the situation with the farmers affected by the ginger bread house banana boo boo, and you kept insisting “10,000 people are dead, don’t you care???” blistering counter argument.
Wrong about what?
When I point out your inaccuracies, with cites, that is not a straw man.
When have I claimed any of that? Take that up with whomever said that, not me.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Except it takes days of citing you the credible facts before you grudgingly acknowledge “maybe” then you start yelling about straw men again. You love that word.
[/QUOTE]
When you come up with credible sites I acknowledge it. Sadly, though, you haven’t come up with many to back up your positions. As for using the term ‘straw men’ a lot, I wouldn’t have to if you didn’t build so many.
Well, whatever you think you can use to deceive or obscure/muddy the waters with. Certainly if it sounds scarier then that’s a bonus for you. As for me, no…I don’t want to forbid any words. I just want to forbid the copious use of horseshit. Sadly I can’t, as shown by the fact that you are still posting it. As is FXM and The Gonz.
I actually didn’t weigh in on the great banana debate. I did point out that the the current death toll stands at 10-30k dead from the overall disaster, 0-3/8 (if we count the mystery deaths that are being covered up) for the ‘nuclear disaster’ part. 30k evacuated in the wake of detected radiation outside the plant…250k evacuated in the wake of the rest of the disaster. Some farmers who can’t sell their produce because of radiation contamination (which is dropping)…a lot of other people who have no businesses at all anymore because of earthquake and tsunami damage. Etc, etc. That you don’t get it…well, I’m not sure what that shows but it certainly means something…
Dude…you’ve been wrong so many times I can’t even count them anymore. And these threads have gone on so long that I’m not going to bother looking. If you think you’ve not been wrong in any of these threads then you are delusional…and if you have a cite that you acknowledged when you were wrong then feel free to post it, or even just describe the point and how you admitted you were wrong about it.
Nope, it wouldn’t be…except that usually your cites don’t actually show my inaccuracies, but instead are either from non-credible or quasi-credible news sources, or they are deliberate attempts at deception. Mostly the latter in your case, as that seems to be your standard mode of ‘debate’.
Possibly at the same time you say I claimed that nothing was going on at the power plant, that there was no crisis, that there was nothing to worry about, that I denied anything had happened, etc etc. It’s been a LONG series of threads, but the general theme I’ve gotten from you is what I said (obviously I took some liberties with exaggerations…for effect, mind. Plus I conflated your position with some others that you seem to support more than you dispute, so you get tarred with the same brush).
Did you read the cite I linked too btw? Did you at least read the parts I quoted? Thoughts?
