Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Climate Change, Vaccines, GMOs, Nuclear Power…
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 31, 2015 at 10:15 pm #821317
AJPParticipant“Liberal Cronyism” AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAH
Oh my goodness, the tears, the tears pouring down my face! Cause there’s no such thing as conservative cronyism!! NO such thing as rich old white men excluding everyone else from their plans . Nope. Never happened.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAHAH
January 31, 2015 at 11:34 pm #821318
VBDParticipantJTB, you bring up an excellent point. There is, unfortunately, plenty of bogus crap being passed off as science. There are active skeptic communities attempting to expose the frauds. Unfortunately, some of the frauds and quacks come from within the scientific community iself. Luckily, as you point out, they are usually found out. But not before some damage is done.
James Randi is a great example of the people making the effort to expose fraud and pseudoscience.
February 2, 2015 at 10:59 am #821319
HMC RichParticipantWakeflood.
Tell you what. I am going to do my own study. Why don’t you send me money. I have a BA from a liberal arts institution. I married up to a woman with a Masters. I will try really, really hard to get the findings you want. Most of my data will be from actual measurements but a few areas I will have to guess on. But please do not ask how I spend the money. I just need it. OK?
AJP. Do you hate old white men that only give to the right or do you also hate old white men who give to the left? Why you included race and wealth is beyond me but if that floats your boat, so be it. I am aging. Please don’t pinch my butt.
February 2, 2015 at 4:42 pm #821320
JoBParticipanti hate that old white men are making decisions about the lives of everyone else without ever bothering to consult those who will be affected…
unless of course you count the beneficiaries of their decisions.. those with fists full of campaign cash
February 2, 2015 at 4:43 pm #821321
JoBParticipantHMCRich
“Tell you what. I am going to do my own study. Why don’t you send me money. I have a BA from a liberal arts institution. I married up to a woman with a Masters. I will try really, really hard to get the findings you want. Most of my data will be from actual measurements but a few areas I will have to guess on. But please do not ask how I spend the money. I just need it. OK?”
you asked the wrong guy..
applications of this kind are gratefully accepted by the Heritage Foundation
they pay big bucks for “scientists” who know what they are looking for and make sure their data proves it ;-> ;->
February 2, 2015 at 7:56 pm #821322
JoBParticipantand in this morning’s mail
Scientist debunks climate change denier’s incorrect assumptions about his work
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/
February 3, 2015 at 4:43 pm #821323
VBDParticipantThe media is a huge part of the problem. Often, headlines reflect a single aspect of a scientific finding, and place an inappropriate weight on it’s result. An example would be when a statistical link is presented as cause and effect.
An example would be the classic; ice cream sales and drownings. It would be pretty common to see an association between the sale of ice cream and the incidence of drowning. I’m quite certain such link could be established in nearly every area of the US.
Any good scientist would caution against the inference that ice cream actually causes drownings, and quickly establish that the common factor is warm weather.
The media, however, has no obligation to consider confounding factors, and many will quickly make the logical leap that ice cream CAUSES drownings. Particularly if it crates an outrage and sells.
These sorts of logical oversights happen in the media all the time. The horrible part of the issue is that people often blame the scientific community, rather than the reporters, for the bad information.
February 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm #821324
wakefloodParticipantOr off leash dogs and park squirrel mortality. Causal relationship? Correlation?
Sorry, bad joke.
But VBD, do you have any thoughts regarding the apparent relationship some have found between the elimination of tetraethyl lead and reduction in violent crime?
Something there or still TBD?
February 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm #821325
JTBParticipantCutting to the heart of the matter, namely how we percieve things, Dilbert says, science failings
February 3, 2015 at 5:51 pm #821326
VBDParticipantJTB, that article lays it out pretty well. Except, it still lays too much blame on science.
In the nutrition world, there are tons of studies on what foods do and don’t do. Some show clear results, but most are very undetermined. The public loves nutrition studies, so regardless of how significant a finding is, the results get reported.
The big problem is that nutrition quacks are EVERYWHERE!! Many present themselves as scientists, or at least trained experts.
Some of the most popular are:
Joseph Mercola
“the Food Babe”
Dr Oz
Deepak Chopra
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/deepak-denies-that-hiv-causes-aids/
These guys are not only bad for science, they are just plain dangerous. But people love them and think they are good sources of health “science”.
People tend to not know the difference between science and snake oil. When confronted with the reality, they blame the scientists, not the quacks.
February 3, 2015 at 7:39 pm #821327
c@lbobMemberI have no quibble with the science of nuclear energy. Perhaps if scientists were to run the power plants, I’d have more faith in their safety.
I don’t think scientists did well with Hancock, but maybe we can look at that superfund site as a step in understanding radiation 65+ years ago.
Business people, however, are in charge of the bucks that go toward monitoring and maintaining the equipment in commercial nuclear power.
I’m not as worried about the water and air pollution from a meltdown thousands of miles away as by the potential of one here with Puget Sound Energy or some other company in charge.
It seems to me that maintenance and replacement of equipment was an issue at Fukushima, isn’t that true?
February 3, 2015 at 9:49 pm #821328
VBDParticipantSeveral oil spills will occur this year. An oil refinery will blow up again soon, as they do fairly often. People will die in petroleum related explosions and accidents.
Add to that the fact that simply using petroleum, without an accident, exposes the user to numerous toxins and carcinogens. The waste from fossil fuels goes right into the air.
And consider that more radioactivity is put into the air from fossil fuels than from nuclear power – including the waste from the accidents.
That’s right. We get greater radioactive fallout from Chinese coal than from Fukushima’s accident. A LOT more.
You might not trust nuclear power, but it’s safety and environmental record is far better than oil, gas, and coal.
Ohh…… but we NEED oil…… Sheesh!
February 3, 2015 at 9:52 pm #821329
VBDParticipantIn other news, a leading GOP candidate proves science is hard:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rand-paul-vaccines-can-lead-mental-disorders-n298821
February 3, 2015 at 10:19 pm #821330
JanSParticipantI’m going to assume he was vaccinated as a child, hence his mental illness? If he wasn’t vaccinated, what is his excuse?
February 3, 2015 at 10:21 pm #821331
JanSParticipantVBD…the fact that Dr. OZ has a popular show that many people swear by really gets to me. How could I possibly take him seriously as a cardiologist?
February 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm #821332
waynsterParticipantThen we have senators like this ……
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-effects/index.html
February 3, 2015 at 11:48 pm #821333
JTBParticipantJanS. You’re not supposed to take OZ seriously as a cardiologist (or cardiac surgeon, his specialty). You’re supposed to take him seriously as an entertainer. But then, I find it difficult to take him seriously in either capacity.:-J
(All joking aside there is actually a serious question concerning what case load a surgeon needs to maintain in order to keep their skill set up to par)
February 4, 2015 at 1:27 am #821334
VBDParticipantFebruary 4, 2015 at 5:25 pm #821335
c@lbobMemberVBD
You demonstrate the problem “really smart” people have enlightening dummies like me. You just can’t help yourself from calling others stupid. Maybe some facts are in order.
The nuclear waste from an entire reactor gives off about 10,000 rems per hour, even 10 years after it was first used in a nuclear plant. A human who is exposed to 500 rems at one time will die. This according to Charles Ferguson in his book on nuclear energy.
There are about 72000 tons of this waste, mostly stored at each plant, growing at about 2200 tons per year. Yucca Flats is supposed to be the answer, but there is justifiable concern about shipping truckloads of waste from all over the country on the interstates and local roads.
It may be necessary to start building new reactors in the US to alleviate carbon emmissions. But the Pollyanna-ish statements that come out of the industry need to be replaced with answers about how much they are willing to spend on safety and what they will do with the waste. How we regulate and keep regulating them is another issue. All of industry says regulation is onerous and politicians keep getting bought to relieve it. So, how about the state of maintenance and replacement at Fukushima?
I trust scientific evidence and always have, but just because science uncovers something doesn’t mean that it should be adopted into our daily lives. Accepting theory doesn’t isn’t the same as favoring implementation. Having the know how isn’t the same as working toward the best outcomes for all.
February 4, 2015 at 7:50 pm #821336
VBDParticipantc@lbob, I don’t remember calling anybody stupid. If something I said came off that way, I apologize.
I agree with your post above, in terms of lethal dose, and the amount of nuclear waste we have to deal with. Waste is a huge problem with nuclear power. However, waste is not the same as pollution.
From the beginning, it was established that the only acceptable pollution from nuclear power is zero. So all waste is captured. We have accumulated nearly 100,000 tons of waste in this country. That’s enough to fill 10 train cars to capacity. But the key issue here is that we have it. It isn’t 100,000 tons of pollution.
Contrast that to the consumption of coal in the US: nearly 2 billion tons. Most of the waste goes right into the air. Imagine the waste problem we would have if we held coal to the same standard we hold nuclear.
Now, to clarify: I am NOT saying nuclear waste is no more dangerous than coal waste. Nuclear waste, pound or pound is MUCH more dangerous. What I’m saying is that nuclear pollution is negligible, where coal (and gas/oil) pollution is enormous.
As for the radioactive part, all fossil fuels contain trace amounts of thorium and uranium. Even though there is only a fraction of a percent, the sheer volume of fuel burned sends up a significant amount of these radioactive elements into the air. And the fact is that the radioactive pollution from fossil fuels exceeds the pollution from nuclear.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
February 4, 2015 at 7:59 pm #821337
wakefloodParticipant“…when you merely wish to bury bombs, there’s no limit to the size. But the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret…WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL THE WORLD, EHH!!???”
February 4, 2015 at 8:51 pm #821338
VBDParticipant“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room.”
February 4, 2015 at 9:08 pm #821339
c@lbobMemberVBD
Your air, soil and water pollution comparisons are great arguments, I just don’t understand why you are directing them at me. In my original post I said:
“I’m not as worried about the water and air pollution from a meltdown thousands of miles away as by the potential of one here with Puget Sound Energy or some other company in charge.”
Now, that statement was triggered by your statements about Fukushima, but pollution from nuclear reactors isn’t my concern. You aren’t diminishing the threat to ground water from cooling pond leaks, are you?
This discussion begins with the trend of resisting scientific evidence after you posted a National Geographic article about a PEW poll on the subject.
My statements are meant to cast doubt on what the poll shows. Concerning the current measles outbreak, much has been made of the campaign against immunizations using the “findings” of one discredited study.
From interviews with doctors I’ve heard and read, parents who haven’t had their kids vaccinated aren’t as anti-immunization as they are ignorant of the way immunization works. They don’t understand the herd effect of protecting a population. Those people aren’t against science, they don’t understand it in this case.
I think nuclear power could lead to a fantastic amelioration of climate change.
I remember sitting in a classroom in 1954 watching an educational film about nuclear energy. The benefits of nuclear power were strongly emphasized and the conclusion of the movie was a shot of children literally dancing among homes and businesses using all the electricity the wiring could accommodate. Cooling ponds and reactor failures weren’t mentioned, as I recall.
My take on energy production (all production really) as a whole, producers really seem to keep profits up by skimping on safety and minimizing health risks.
As it appears now, we will have no choice but to utilize nuclear power at this stage of global warming. Survival trumps safety.
Why not be safe and survive?
February 4, 2015 at 11:37 pm #821340
waynsterParticipantNow we have a new one germ warfare… yes folks this senator from North Carolina thinks employees shouldn’t have to wash their hands after going to the bathroom if they post it……sorry no no no…
February 5, 2015 at 1:50 am #821341
JTBParticipantWaynster,
Your link omits the most important element of Tillis’ mindset—-an uncritical belief in the ability of “markets” to ultimately shape our society for the better. The telling quote from the WaPo account of his comments is, “I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom. The market will take care of that. It’s one example.”
The market. It’s amazing to me how anyone could miss the deadly consequences of market fundamentalism after 2008, particularly when Alan Greenspan issued last rites in saying, “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms . . . .”
Yet hear we have an addle-brained dimwit trusting markets over science to assure the public health. Given his fierce resistance to government regulation, I’m left wondering exactly what would compel Starbuck to even inform their customers of the high potential for nasties lurking on the fingers of their food servers.
In all honestly, I think the reliance on market fundamentalism to foster a wholesome society is indisputably foolish (or cynical) whether your measures are fiscal or public health.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.