|
Caconym posted:That relative scariness thing is facinating. Death by radiation is apparently hundreds of times worse that death by traffic accident for instance. At least we as a society is willing to spend hundreds of times more to prevent one death by radiation than we are to prevent one death on the roads. Or by any other kind of energy production. To be fair, we're willing to spend a very respectable chunk of change to prevent a death on the roads, at least from the Department of Transportation design / signage / median / etc policy perspective. Between $5m and $12m, depending on the state and the circumstance. I mention medians in particular because while the space can be darn expensive, it's still pretty much the most cost effective method to save lives on the road.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Tias posted:Yeah, in a perfect world that would be a solved problem, but we somehow can't stop plants loving it up. You're wrong about this, and you're posting out of ignorance. Go to the Energy Generation Megathread and talk about this there if you're interested in learning more about why you're wrong, or if you're interested in challenging people who are pro-nuclear at least. Jack Gladney posted:Ignoring a problem isn't solving it, just like the us is ignoring both all the death and harm that coal causes AND the problem of just piling nuclear waste up in all our reactors because there's nowhere to put it. Seriously, go talk about this in the Energy Generation Megathread. People there are mostly very thoughtful and have a lot of very good resources that might make you question your opinions. I used to make the same kind of posts that you and Tias are making now, but then I stopped getting most of my information on nuclear power from The Simpsons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Tias posted:The world is not a perfect world. One meltdown is one too many, and yet they keep coming. By that standard, one day of coal power is too many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:Yeah, in a perfect world that would be a solved problem, but we somehow can't stop plants loving it up. You're not very practical if you can't accept like 2 deaths tops since the Soviet Union collapsed as an energy produced to deaths caused ratio on par with solar or wind. Especially when coal and even natural gas kills when it's working correctly when nuclear only kills the like 3 times in history things have gone super wrong, and one of them didn't have any fatalities or even injuries (or for that matter, long terms increases in death and disease). And when we don't exactly have a surfeit of suitable hydro power locations that aren't either already taken or way too environmentally sensitive to destroy with a dam resevoir. So cut the bullshit: just admit you hate it and will never ever support it instead of doing this weird hedging dance where it has to be utterly perfect before you'll support it. As mentioned France has been majority nuclear for several decades and never had an issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Also, there are literally hundreds of nuclear powered ships and subs out there, and there is only like a handful of reactor accidents and all are from Soviet subs of the 60s. Nuclear power gets mistaken for nuclear weapons by a lot of people, thinking reactors are basically bombs that are about to go off at any second. Which is incorrect because the engineering and physics of both are different. Explosion and Chernobyl was caused by a build up of radioactive steam. You know, I love the weasel words CTs use to avoid just screaming JEWS!!!!!!. Everytime I see some thing about "This is C Montgomery Rothschild, he has a billion zillion quadzillion dollars and is literally responsible for every bad thing that ever happened, from the Holocaust and JFK to that time your buddy borrowed your Fast 5 bluray and didn't return it for like a month" they always talk about his "bloodline" which is just code for JEWS!!!!!!!!!.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Nuclear power gets mistaken for nuclear weapons by a lot of people, thinking reactors are basically bombs that are about to go off at any second. Which is incorrect because the engineering and physics of both are different. Explosion and Chernobyl was caused by a build up of radioactive steam. Or if they don't think that a nuclear plant will explode like a nuclear weapon, then they think that a nuclear meltdown always looks like Chernobyl. Don't ask them if they've ever actually looked at the circumstances of how Chernobyl happened or whether or not such an event is even possible with a more modern reactor design
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're wrong about this, and you're posting out of ignorance. Go to the Energy Generation Megathread and talk about this there if you're interested in learning more about why you're wrong, or if you're interested in challenging people who are pro-nuclear at least. So what's the solution to the waste materials produced by the reactors? I don't think it's ignorant to say that there's currently no way of disposing of them? Are you disagreeing with what I said about coal power?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:So what's the solution to the waste materials produced by the reactors? I don't think it's ignorant to say that there's currently no way of disposing of them? Are you disagreeing with what I said about coal power? There are other reactor types that can further use the waste and, iirc, you end up with waste with a shorter half life. If you think there's no way to dispose of it then yes you are ignorant in that regard. We have built facilities that can hold the material but people bitch and moan. Yet many of those same people give a pass to coal and its by products like Fly Ash. Fly Ash spills can be pretty bad as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill Everyone knows about Three Mile Island (though many don't know it was contained) yet ask about disasters from coal plants and you'll get a vacant stare. People who are against nuclear are, by and large, CT idiots or people who only want a perfect solution while ignoring that they're using a worse solution (coal or nat gas) in the meanwhile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Or if they don't think that a nuclear plant will explode like a nuclear weapon, then they think that a nuclear meltdown always looks like Chernobyl. Don't ask them if they've ever actually looked at the circumstances of how Chernobyl happened or whether or not such an event is even possible with a more modern reactor design Or you know, how the vast majority of Chernobyl related deaths are because the Soviets didn't tell the people they sent to the accident site what the gently caress was going on, nor give them protection. Speaking of which there was an old consiracy theory that the Soviets intentionally caused the accident, because there were people int he teams that would be sent to try to clean it up and would die that someone wanted rid of. This was on a BBS long ago, though might have been on one of those message services that relayed conversations between different BBSes at regular intervals throughout a day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Or you know, how the vast majority of Chernobyl related deaths are because the Soviets didn't tell the people they sent to the accident site what the gently caress was going on, nor give them protection. Every single time somebody dies that way there is a conspiracy nut somewhere claiming that somebody important wanted that person gone because reasons. Because, you know, in Soviet Russia they had to resort to sneaky methods to get rid of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Or you know, how the vast majority of Chernobyl related deaths are because the Soviets didn't tell the people they sent to the accident site what the gently caress was going on, nor give them protection. I'm pretty sure there's much cheaper ways to get rid of people in the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:I'm pretty sure there's much cheaper ways to get rid of people in the USSR. The conspiracy theory is not the Soviet higher ups were being sneaky, but that they were being cruel. There's also a separate theory that they did it to punish that general region, or that it was done because some people knew the union would break up soon and they wanted to partially cripple and depopulate a region that would be free soon. That latter one, iirc, also alleges that they would have done it in the Baltic states and other soon to leave "republics" but they'd overplayed the hand with chernobyl or that the brave workers of other areas sabotaged the plans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Something similar recently showed up, but the variation was that the nearby Duga over the horizon radar antenna (aka the Russian Woodpecker or Brain Scorcher) was faulty so the Soviet government and the radar designer engineered the Chernobyl disaster so nobody would find out. Never mind that the second radar site they built on the other side of Russia was used until the Soviet Union collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Something similar recently showed up, but the variation was that the nearby Duga over the horizon radar antenna (aka the Russian Woodpecker or Brain Scorcher) was faulty so the Soviet government and the radar designer engineered the Chernobyl disaster so nobody would find out. Never mind that the second radar site they built on the other side of Russia was used until the Soviet Union collapsed. Man it'd be embarrassing if we made something faulty that caused health problems, let's cover it up by showing that something we made is incredibly flawed and have it cause huge problems!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:So what's the solution to the waste materials produced by the reactors? I don't think it's ignorant to say that there's currently no way of disposing of them? Are you disagreeing with what I said about coal power? Apart from the already-mentioned "just throw it in a breeder", there's Sweden and Finland. Building working waste casks: 1) measure how fast things corrode away in a known environment (in this case, bronze/copper in wet clay) 2) make walls thick enough that they won't corrode away till the contents stop glowing 2b) don't introduce dumbass weak spots like cheapass welds Building a good waste dump: 1) find a large chunk of rock that has been stable over geological time scales (they exist, e.g. most of Scandinavia and bits of Southeast England) 2) blast tunnel into rock 3) add some storage chambers to tunnel which consist of a clay capsule with waste casks in the middle 4) enjoy stable long term waste storage with option to dig stuff back up quickly and cheaply if your country builds a breeder Being a small densely populated country with rich conservatives and/or hippies on top of all stable chunks of rock but still storing waste responsibly: 1) make treaty with country that has existing good waste dump 2) pay them to take your waste Everything except the last part (looking at you,  and  ) is currently a thing or being implemented
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 11:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Apart from the already-mentioned "just throw it in a breeder", there's Sweden and Finland. In Norway we have the Dovre massif, a very stable mountain. So stable the official motto of Norway is "United and true untill Dovre falls" as a symbol of something "eternal". Then we went and made it both an artillery firing range, a bombing range and a proposed nuclear waste storage site (it's even riddled with abandoned mining shafts already). Very pragmatic, but the symbolism is perhaps not so great. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're wrong about this, and you're posting out of ignorance. Go to the Energy Generation Megathread and talk about this there if you're interested in learning more about why you're wrong, or if you're interested in challenging people who are pro-nuclear at least. I might, but that thread put me even further off because of the dogpile chucklefucks in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
In be completely honest, I made my previous post in the knowledge that it would definitely start a huge derail. D&D can't stand the thought of someone being Wrong About Nuclear Power. And I made this post in the knowledge that without this disclaimer, someone definitely would say "well, it's not actually derail, because the mindset of someone who doesn't like nuclear power is very similar to the conspiracy mindset bhgkhkdu4euyyyyyy". Be honest with yourself. Before you moused over this spoiler, were you thinking about making that post? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:In be completely honest, I made my previous post in the knowledge that it would definitely start a huge derail. D&D can't stand the thought of someone being Wrong About Nuclear Power. ooh, you sneaky puppetmaster you
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
It's not a goonspiracy if it's an actual thing that exists, hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Tias posted:I might, but that thread put me even further off because of the dogpile chucklefucks in there. Have you considered that if you constantly get dogpiled on the facts, it could be because you're wildly wrong?? Just saying!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Caconym posted:That relative scariness thing is facinating. Death by radiation is apparently hundreds of times worse that death by traffic accident for instance. At least we as a society is willing to spend hundreds of times more to prevent one death by radiation than we are to prevent one death on the roads. Or by any other kind of energy production. Exhibit A: Tias posted:The world is not a perfect world. One meltdown is one too many, and yet they keep coming. if we had no coal and oil, but a Fukushima style meltdown every twenty years, or even every five years, we would be doing way less damage to the environment and the human population than we are currently doing
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Building a good waste dump: At last, a worthwhile use for Stone Mountain Park.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Food labelling laws in general are hilariously arbitrary and hosed up. Not to say that companies shouldn't have to label stuff, but anyone who thinks that feel-good labels like fair trade, organic, GMO free etc are anything but gimmicks is delusional. What's even worse is we have no percentage of daily value on sugar on our labels thanks to sugar lobbyists. It's crazy how much sugar we dump into everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Given that it's the conspiracy thread I'll just say that Natural, Organic, and GMO-free are obviously astroturf introduced by the food industry to keep selling actually unhealthy things
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:What's even worse is we have no percentage of daily value on sugar on our labels thanks to sugar lobbyists. It's crazy how much sugar we dump into everything. There is no reason to have a separate daily value for sugars as compared to all digestible carbohydrates. This has nothing to do with sugar lobbyists, loading your fat rear end with 500 grams of complex carbohydrates has identical long term health effects as 500 grams of simple sugars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
but what about cellulose, which is technically a carbohydrate 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is no reason to have a separate daily value for sugars as compared to all digestible carbohydrates. This has nothing to do with sugar lobbyists, loading your fat rear end with 500 grams of complex carbohydrates has identical long term health effects as 500 grams of simple sugars. So why would it be a bad thing to have 250% next to the sugar of a bottle of orange juice?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Have you considered that if you constantly get dogpiled on the facts, it could be because you're wildly wrong?? Just saying! Have you considered that being an insufferable shitwizard towards people who politely ask you questions might turn them off from your position? blowfish posted:Exhibit A: Jesus loving christ, get over yourselves. Can I not be allowed to think coal and nuclear energy is bad at the same time? Forget I brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:So why would it be a bad thing to have 250% next to the sugar of a bottle of orange juice? Because it's as arbitrary as saying 25%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Tias posted:Jesus loving christ, get over yourselves. Can I not be allowed to think coal and nuclear energy is bad at the same time? You can if you want to be a hypocritical idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Tias posted:Jesus loving christ, get over yourselves. Can I not be allowed to think coal and nuclear energy is bad at the same time? You're free to be wrong in your assessment of nuclear power's problems, but you aren't free to not be called out on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:So why would it be a bad thing to have 250% next to the sugar of a bottle of orange juice? Because such a bottle ALREADY SAYS 250% next to the carbs, which includes the sugar! What aren't you getting there? Tias posted:Have you considered that being an insufferable shitwizard towards people who politely ask you questions might turn them off from your position? You aren't allowed to be wrong, you whiner. If you want people to stop mocking your stupidity, stop repeating your stupidity. And consider why you're so insistent on ignoring all scientific evidence while you're at it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Given that it's the conspiracy thread I'll just say that Natural, Organic, and GMO-free are obviously astroturf introduced by the food industry to keep selling actually unhealthy things As a guy who's worked in clinical nutrition most of my adult life, and spent a year working at a raw vegan restaurant. This is the simplest version of the conspiracy. Generally speaking, yes the quality difference between an organic product and a traditionally farmed one is astronomical, and yeah this leads to them being healthier. However the logic break comes in when people on the bandwagon can't grasp that everything has trade offs. There's critical practices of organic farming that cause it to be more expensive, and in some ways have a larger environmental impact then traditional farming methods, mostly in water usage (sorta a big deal here in California right now). So the conspiracies I run into while doing demos run the gambit from just bad causal links like they're feeding our kids garbage to make them weak and easy to placate (I mean the obestiy epidemic is real, I just don't think it's really intentional aside from good ole Crisis of Capitalism), to GMOs cause ADHD/autism/Flavor of the month thing, never mind that I've got me some horrid ADHD and I was born decades before GMO technology was even close to hitting the market. Lots of non-organic products are part of mind control types. My best clients remain the type who have moved it into a religious level where standard farming (also Flouride) has calcified our pituitary gland preventing mankind from opening it's 3rd eye and becoming the indigo generation. I mean mankind was so enlightened in the 1800s. . . alt punchline, because said Spiritual Awkening was totally possible before the food surpluses of the industrial age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You're free to be wrong in your assessment of nuclear power's problems, but you aren't free to not be called out on it. I'm not wrong when I say that nuclear plants have melted down, which was all I "assessed". A Fancy 400 lbs posted:You can if you want to be a hypocritical idiot. Yeah, because no other sources of energy exist 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:9/11 was a rehearsal orchestrated by Obama for the real travesty of our generation: Benghazi. It turns out that Obama is a huge EVE Online player and he wanted to take out Vilerat in order to hurt Goonswarm BoB Barack Obama Blue 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not wrong when I say that nuclear plants have melted down, which was all I "assessed". 1 which caused absolutely no injuries or deaths, 1 which caused 2 deaths and a few injuries, and 1 that caused a bunch of deaths primarily due to a corrupt government attempting to cover it up. This is over the course of nearly 60 years of nuclear power, while coal plants put out a similar death and injury toll on a weekly basis. There are no other sources of energy as perfectly fitted to sweep away garbage fossil fuel plants as nuclear. But hey, you're also an anarchist so it's not like being really stupid about how things work and having a really hosed up view of dangers and risks is strange to you. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not wrong when I say that nuclear plants have melted down, which was all I "assessed". No Solar ever, someone might fall off of a roof. One person falling is too many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Given that the K-T extinction event was (likely) caused by a meteor impact, and it was responsible for the death of three quarters of the life on the planet, more creatures than humans that have ever existed, it's actually more likely that you will die via meteor strike than nuclear accident. That's pretty much statistical fact. I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Because such a bottle ALREADY SAYS 250% next to the carbs, which includes the sugar! What aren't you getting there? Because it doesn't. Carbs are counted completely different than sugar to the AHA. I understand their basically the same, the populace does not. So again, why would it be a BAD thing to put the percentage next to sugar? computer parts posted:Because it's as arbitrary as saying 25%. How is it arbitrary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:27
|
|