And while you might be prepared to throw a few people under the bus, in the name of the greater good, I doubt you'd feel the same way if it was you going under.
That's not to say vaccines in general are bad, you shouldn't skip out on e.g polio, etc. But these drummed up panic flues which mainly is about selling lots and lots of vaccine for the profit of big pharma? Nah.
You know that people have developed polio from especially the first generation vaccines?
You see, that's the real problem. Risk assessment. Especially since the vaccines have been effective enough that the killer childhood diesases were pretty well suppressed. So a lot of the time, people figured "No one gets these diseases any more, so why should I take the risk, however small?" Next up a resurgence of the diseases.
Anyhow, I agree with you on the bogus aspect of the flu vaccines. Unless you are old and frail, with a good chance of expiring from secndary problems like Pneumonia, you are better off to just get the flu du jour and be done with it. Or probably not, since you've likely had it already. People who have children get all manner of stuff during the preschool years, and it's been years since I had a flu.
He defeated Clinton who had been building her career up for this election over the course of 30 years, had unconventional, "ethics be damned" style support from mainstream media and DNC, raised a ton more money, etc. He picks up politics a year and a half ago and beats Clinton by a margin not seen since Reagan. He also beats the openly hostile press, both parties' establishments, and well over a dozen of other primary candidates, and does it with one third the money and people of the opponent. And then armchair politicians like you go to Slashdot and post drivel about him not knowing what he's doing. Enough already. The dude is pretty darn smart. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing.
Without giving anti-vaxxers any credibility, there are medical reasons that I support being allowed to choose not to vaccinate for certain illnesses and rely on herd immunity. Hear me out on this.
There is some research that suggests that certain vaccines can cause auto-immune diseases in genetically predisposed people.
And make no mistake - vaccines can kill people. Here's how I look at it. An anti Vaxxer has made the concious decision based upon the work of a now disgraced and unemplyed researcher in collusion with a lwayer in a get rich quick scheme along with a woman who's main talents was shooting softcore pornography - that they would rather have their child die than be autistic.
And the sad part is you are also okay with your child accidentally killing other children. I heard as much form you as I want to hear from moon landing haoxers and creationists. Go to the kids you've killed funerals and tell their parents it was okay, because Jenny McCarthy.
FWIW, I consider not vaccinating your children to be child abuse. Having suffered from Whooping cough as an adult, I would kill myself before inflicting that on any child, including yours.
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima.
And my point is that you are blatantly wrong here.
I see, Here's the thing though. Allow us to refer to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, or NAIIC. You really hve to do a little better than simply making sweeping pronouncements.
Let us first quote a little from the messge from the Chairman of the report, Kiyoshi Kurokawa:
"Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.
For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.
What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”
Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.
So we start.....
A “manmade” disaster
The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.” We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual.
Me again. Look up the word collusion in case you don't know exactly what it means.
The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements
Now back to me for a moment. This is exactly what I have been saying. If you want to argue the point have at the people who made this report. I concur 100 percent with it. Now let us proceed back to the report
Reforming the regulators
The Commission has concluded that the safety of nuclear energy in Japan and the public cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformation process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. Japan’s regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity.
Reforming the operator
TEPCO did not fulfil its responsibilities as a private corporation, instead obeying and relying upon the government bureaucracy of METI, the government agency driving nuclear policy. At the same time, through the auspices of the FEPC, it manipulated the cozy relationship with the regulators to take the teeth out of regulations.
There is a lot of other stuff in the report - I suggest you read it before more sweeping pronouncements, but let us jump a few paragraphs to the recommendations, number 4 in this case.
Monitoring the operators
TEPCO must undergo fundamental corporate changes, including strengthening its governance, working towards building an organizational culture whic
I don't, but I know some people who use it as a sleep aid. And given the reaction I get at least, if it was made illegal, there would be people selling it ona buying it.
I think you're missing the point that some drugs are useful for things, but aren't habit forming, therefore it's easy to walk away from them when you don't need them anymore; thus you remain in control. Other drugs typically get regulated in some way because they ARE habit forming.
There is a funny thing about drugs. Withdrawal symptoms might be a better term. There were some occasions when I was injured that I was put on opioid drugs for pain relief. The sensation that gets people interested is a sense of euphoria that hits when the drug takes effect. When I was finished, I stopped taking them, and suffered some mild withdrawalt symptoms. Sweaty and shaky mostly. But I never became addicted, and didn't even want them any more. I hope I never have ot take that shit again. Its worst drawbacks are it can raise your BP, and if a person has a prostrate issue, they have to be caeful because it can make it more difficult to pee.
Benadryl? Hell if you ask me, it has it all over opioids. Definitely has it all over ethanol. Kills anxiety, calms you down. Even then, I don't care to lose my edge. I'm a coffee guy mostly, and only take it when I need to.
Side note, I first found out about it when snorkling in the florida Keys when I got hit with a double whammy of getting hammered by a cigarette coral, and a sunscreen/saltwater in the eyes when my mask sprung a leak. Horrifying. The people on the boat told me to get Benadryl, and damned if it didn't clear the reaction up and gave me a boost of dont givadam.
The user of the drug expresses the desire to stop using the drug yet doesn't have the willpower.
There might be something called the addictive personality going on here. Some people, usually ones who might not be having a very good life, are more susceptible. Then when they wreack themselves as the dose to get high starts approcing or reaches the toxic level, they eventually have to withdraw. My limited experience from being on it for a week tells me that a long term use withdrawal has to be pure hell.
Cigarettes are a great example of what happens when an addictive drug goes largely unregulated.
Cigarettes as a perfect example. When they analyzed how they work, it became clear that they packed a double whammy of energizing a person, then calming them. A perfect drug. Way back I found out when I had a 4 pack a day habit. Quit cold turkey - 40 years ago.
Look at the strain on our healthcare system caused by long term smokers. If you care about other people lying in a hospital bed drowning in their own fluids, you might say this is already tragic. But if you don't, just look at what is coming out of your pocket to subsidize the healthcare of smokers. Every time you pay your insurance premium, you are subsidizing those who can't pay for it themselves.
I try not to go down that rabbit hole. While smoking is a socially acceptable way to hate on people, and we go to arguments about how mugh their evil habits cost society, what's next? Obesity? Yeah, a lot of people would gladly throw a fat person under the bus. Risky sexual behavior? Why not? Ever see what terminal syphilis does to a person? Of my own burden on the health system. Motorcyclists? Hell, I've already been told that I shouldn't be covered for riding one. Sports injuries. That's been my major burden on the system. An argument can be made there. I could have done yoga or swam instead of play Ice Hockey. But all riisky activities. All at bottom level a burden on the healthcare system.
Getting back to pot, maybe the risks aren't the same, but you can't say there is no risk.
You might want to try and spend a little more time considering your responses and a little less time getting all worked up, it'll help you make points more cognizant and likely to persuade.
First off I didn't post AC so... not sure what you are going for there.
Yes, I did make a mistake in replying to what I thought was an AC post. Thank you for pointing that out.
And here is the thing. You know I don't care if I make converts. You think that I'm going to make a conversion with some guy who just called me worked up, childlike, and immature, and making arguments based on emotion not logic? Talk about projection!
Funny how you focus on that, it is a time honored attack vector called deflection, and I wouldn't get all too high and mighty if I were you, using that and only that as a way to discredit my argument.
Which in fact, tellls me that you have no coherent approach to the problem, and even if I am all of the above, you are merely the equivalent of a spelling cop.
I'd love to have a nice coherent discussion with facts and figures and citations, but some people have a raving shitfit when I type "Kablooy" There's a difference between injecting a little humor and being childlike.
But sometimes their effects are not fun. Sometimes their effects hurt other people. Nobody really gives a shit if you drink a beer or smoke a joint.
Given that maryjewanna is a schedul one drug, it appears that many people do give a shit.
So you are arguing that we should hurry up the process of dying because we're all going to die anyway? Life is not all about having fun. That's an extremely immature and selfish attitude.
Do you have the cites that recreational maryjewanna use kills people? Are you a calvinist by the way? Also, I'd like some advice. I occasionally have to take benadryl, and it really makes me mellow and calm. Should I take it with syrup of ipecac so I'm miserable and vomiting instead of the good feeling it would otherwise induce?
People like all sorts of things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any rules to keep everyone safe.
Can you show me wher poster said we shouldn't have any rules to keep people safe? You high and seeing things dood?
Not that simple. Sometimes drug abuse is just a medical condition. But often drug abuse causes people to hurt others which is (and should be) a crime. See the difference?
That becomes a circular argument Make a drug illegal, and create a market for it. declar ewar on it, and militarize both sides and lotsa people get hurt.
One thing is for certain. Laws making meryjewanna a schedule one drug have destroyed a hellava lot more lives that simply using it ever has.
I'm not telling people what is good for them.
Yes, you are.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
And there we are. What do you mean "abuse"? I see bumper stickers that say "Impairment starts with the first drink" That's people who consider any use at all as abuse.
Meanwhile, we pay no attention to the fact that Jalapeno peppers are a gateway drug to scotch bonnet and - shudder - the ghost peppers. BTW - you can look it up - capsaicinoids are an actual drug that screws with dopamine receptors.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'.
Doesn't matter if it's alcohol or THC, these work by fidgeting with things in the brain that should obviously be left alone (for the sake of health - I think the recreational value is apparent).
We don't do surgery for the fun of it, we don't do blunt force trauma for the fun of it, why should altering our insides via drug or drink be considered 'safe' when no other internal alteration is, and who could possibly be dumb enough to think so?
So, so simple isn't it? Perhaps it is time to declare war on hot peppers? They have a pronounced effect upon dopamine levels, and yes, people who eat them get a rush from the capsaicinoids that are in them. Perhaps its time to make Jalepenos and Scotch bonnets schedule one drugs and fill our prisons with people who eat Mexican food (I'll avoid the obvious quip there).
Then there is benadryl. A remarkably powerful anti-anxiety drug that just so happens to be an important anti- allergic reaction over the counter drug. I occasionally get into some things I'm allergic to, and doctor says "take a couple Benadryls before calling, because that's what I am going to prescribe."
But I can tell you that the feeling of well being and relaxation I get from 2 Benadryl tablets is a hundred times better than any alcohol or opioid effect. Had a fight with the nurses and doctors in hospital once because after ankle surgery, I refused to use the pain pump.
But we better make Benadryl a schedule one drug as well. I'm seeing removing Mexicans and other lowlifes who partake of the evil pepper, and sending Benadryl junkies to jail as well.
I think he's inferring that denial of science is biased based on the perceptions of the person doing the denying. People who drive an F350 King Ranch Ford Pickup are more likely to deny climate change. Stoners are more likely to deny Marijuana causing a lowering of blood flow to the brain. I suppose there could be some overlap in those two examples.
Add anti-vaxxers to the mix, and you'll get a much bigger overlap.
side note: Anti Vaxxers are pretty evenly distributed between left and right wing. For different ideological reasons of course.
The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were.
That's an absurd claim to make. Higher walls and emergency generators protected from the particular failure mode of inundation by a large tsunami both would have worked.
Pay attention.
1. The area was a certainty for a Tsunami.
2. The height of Tsunami in that area were known both from Historical record and from rubble lines left by Tsunami in the past.
3. The Walls were not built to a height that would preclude likely Tsunami form overtopping them. They were simply not built high enough.
Call it absurd if you like, but do the research like I have. The citations are somewhere in slashdot history, so you can call the research absurd if you like, along with the source material
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima. It was like sending your children to go play on the interstate.
The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Notice the two obvious fixes above have nothing to do with location aside from making sure the sea wall was high enough for a 500 year tsunami at that location.
You know there is a fatal problem with your premise. THey didn't do that did they. They made a very amateurish mistake. 500 year Tsunamis don't actually only happen every 500 years. In my locale, we experienced 2 100 year floods in the space of ten years or so. Deciding that there wouldn't be a Tsunami during the lifetime of the Nuc plant was ovbiously 100 percent friggin' wrong, yes no? Here's a little on the fallacy of (probably) their argument in this matter. Its about flooding, but the same principles apply. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/100y...
Tl;DR version. It's a recurrance interval, a statistical frequency analysis, and should never ever ever be used to downgrade infrastructure.
The problem with such a superficial analysis as you gave is that every location is terrible in some way. Instead of trying to find that near perfect spot with no significant flaws, we can just engineer for the problems that good but not perfect locations have.
What you are saying is that since their is no perfect spot, a terrible location is equal to the best location. Because if you are trying to say that the location of the plant was even good - Yarbles. Its not even bad.
Somewhere in the slashdot annals I made a plausible location that would at least be safe from the effects of what happened. It is on a river, which would provide proper emergency cooling water, it is above the atitude of historical and rubble line records of Tsunami
The sad thing here is that the Fukushima location is even better now for nuclear power since the accident will clear out a lot of potential liability to its future operation. It still has great access to sea water for a cold sink (a huge consideration in nuclear power). And we can engineer for the problems of the location.
I sincerely hope that you are not working in the nuclear industry. Your ideas are interesting to say the least.
All great arguments; however, your arguments fail to take into account the US Navy Nuclear Program. They run nuclear reactors aboard ships and even submarines. I urge you to investigate their safety record. Perhaps the motivations they have put in place are sufficient to run a safe nuclear program?
I'm going to get crucified for this, but yes, you are correct. US Navy Reactors are well designed, well built, and well run by motivated and competent people. A wonderment indeed.
They are also not built according to the same constraints that commercial reactors are built to. That's what I will get crucified for, as it is contrary to Libertarian principles that the free market will always win over Government inefficiencies. They are designed, built, and manned to not be a problem when fighting the ship, but to enhance it's survivability.
Forgive me, but I thought the issue with this reactor was that the backup generators were in a basement and got flooded.
There's another plant just a few km south of there where the backup generators were in the containment building and things didn't go bad there...
The generators were the proximate cause, because they were flooded. The ultimate cause was all of the events leading up to the generator failure. The Tsunami, the seawall overtopping because they were not built high enough to withstand Tsunami that historically happened in that area, and being in a basement in a site with those sort of problems. This was simply going to happen.
Do you want this to not work? What if it does? Will the sanctimonious need to find a new target to deride?
I think that if it does work, it will increase the gap even further. Why aren't you thin? Just take the pill you slob...
I have had some success in weight control. But it hasn't been easy, and my wife, the ectomorph, probably eats as much as I do, is taller, and weighs nearly a hundred pounds less. Sounds extreme, but she is natually thin, and I am naturally muscle bound and turn to fat if I don't exercise an extreme amount. This is becoming an issue as old sports injuries are getting really pissed at me. I think I kinda wore myself out a little.
So yeah, if I could repopulate my gut with flora that would allow me to not have to go to the extremes I have to go to, I'd sign up in an instant. Not having to constantly resist the urge to eat. Not having to exercise like I do now. Hell, I might even calm down and quit being an asshole!
In the US, the group you describe is mostly the anti-religious nuts.
How odd. The people I know or know of who are really excited about the end of the world happening in their lifetime are far right wing socialist conservatives.
And one of their favorite enabling mechanisms is rabid support of Isreal. Not to demean Isreal's need for some support, but the reasons they support them so heavily is not for the benefit of the Jewish people http://www.discoverrevelation.... Probably won't be a good time to be Jewish at that point.
Now whether or not this bizarre story that these people are working toward is actuall prophecy, these people believe it, and want a war to end the world in the middle east.
And an anti religious person would have to be a true nut to espouse that. Most understand that they have one life, and that's here and going on now, so they might as well make the best use of their limited time. When you believe that you will have an eternal reward to live forever in a place that is better, for eternity, what does dying or even destruction of a silly planet mean to you? No more pain or suffering, just doing whatever it is you do in heaven.
I find myself in the strange position was wanting to eat shit.
I am really wondering about the possibility of hammering the gut with powerful antibiotics to kill the intestinal bacteria already there, then doing a transplant - or more likely after a while, laboratory grown poopy pills. Allowing the new bacteria to populate the GI tract and maybe a good outcome for people.
The insecure fat shamers might not like this however.
Newer plants are safer. Whether or not you agree to use them, we need to stop using the older ones. That is the most important lesson of Fukushima, well that and to not be totally incompetent.
Yes, they are safer. But retiring the old plants will cost a lot of money, as well as building the new ones. It's a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
"Hey, you'll have to move, and you might get a fatal dose of radiation. But just think of the cheap power you'll get until it goes kaboom and you have to pay the cleanup costs - unless you are dead, so maybe we can charge your estate. You showed wisdom posting as AC.
Altogether too many people seem to think that somehow, we have to have just megawatts shipped to our houses. Spend metric shitloads on heating. Ain't so!
I have an office full of computers and radios, and a outdoor spa, and I spend less than a hundred dollars per month electricity. I have a super-efficient gas furnace that for the heating season, heats my house for roughly the amount that the neighbors spend per month.
The house is really well insulated. The furnace is as I said, and managed to pay itself off after just a couple years. The hot tub is likewise well insulated. The lighting is LED, and has the side benefit of not having to get up on a ladder and change out bulbs.
Biggest users of electricity are the refrigerator, a really efficient freezer in the garage, and the hot water heater, which will get replaced in maybe 5 years. Probably with a super efficient gas version.
The only downside of this low cost is that it delays my going totally solar a little longer, as well as figuring out how to heat the hot tub well.
Nope, I neither need nor want the blessings of Kablooey power.
Slashdot Mirror
Never, now that we elected Trump. Thanks, America!
We'll build tankers to take that rum. And we'll make Castro pay for it. Ummm, the plan needs some work.
People do so all the time.
Holy shit!
And while you might be prepared to throw a few people under the bus, in the name of the greater good, I doubt you'd feel the same way if it was you going under.
That's not to say vaccines in general are bad, you shouldn't skip out on e.g polio, etc. But these drummed up panic flues which mainly is about selling lots and lots of vaccine for the profit of big pharma? Nah.
You know that people have developed polio from especially the first generation vaccines?
You see, that's the real problem. Risk assessment. Especially since the vaccines have been effective enough that the killer childhood diesases were pretty well suppressed. So a lot of the time, people figured "No one gets these diseases any more, so why should I take the risk, however small?" Next up a resurgence of the diseases.
Anyhow, I agree with you on the bogus aspect of the flu vaccines. Unless you are old and frail, with a good chance of expiring from secndary problems like Pneumonia, you are better off to just get the flu du jour and be done with it. Or probably not, since you've likely had it already. People who have children get all manner of stuff during the preschool years, and it's been years since I had a flu.
He defeated Clinton who had been building her career up for this election over the course of 30 years, had unconventional, "ethics be damned" style support from mainstream media and DNC, raised a ton more money, etc. He picks up politics a year and a half ago and beats Clinton by a margin not seen since Reagan. He also beats the openly hostile press, both parties' establishments, and well over a dozen of other primary candidates, and does it with one third the money and people of the opponent. And then armchair politicians like you go to Slashdot and post drivel about him not knowing what he's doing. Enough already. The dude is pretty darn smart. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing.
Are you masturbating while you write this?
Please read:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/common-anticholinergic-drugs-like-benadryl-linked-increased-dementia-risk-201501287667
Interesting. I''l hav eto dig up the original report. Thanks much.
Benadryl is actually illegal in either the Bahamas or Bermuda.
Seriously? Wow. That's amazing. I looked up to see its illegal in Zambia. Nutty people banning legit and pretty harmless medicine.
Without giving anti-vaxxers any credibility, there are medical reasons that I support being allowed to choose not to vaccinate for certain illnesses and rely on herd immunity. Hear me out on this.
There is some research that suggests that certain vaccines can cause auto-immune diseases in genetically predisposed people.
And make no mistake - vaccines can kill people. Here's how I look at it. An anti Vaxxer has made the concious decision based upon the work of a now disgraced and unemplyed researcher in collusion with a lwayer in a get rich quick scheme along with a woman who's main talents was shooting softcore pornography - that they would rather have their child die than be autistic.
And the sad part is you are also okay with your child accidentally killing other children. I heard as much form you as I want to hear from moon landing haoxers and creationists. Go to the kids you've killed funerals and tell their parents it was okay, because Jenny McCarthy.
FWIW, I consider not vaccinating your children to be child abuse. Having suffered from Whooping cough as an adult, I would kill myself before inflicting that on any child, including yours.
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima.
And my point is that you are blatantly wrong here.
I see, Here's the thing though. Allow us to refer to the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, or NAIIC. You really hve to do a little better than simply making sweeping pronouncements.
Let us first quote a little from the messge from the Chairman of the report, Kiyoshi Kurokawa:
"Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.
For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.
What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”
Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.
So we start.....
A “manmade” disaster
The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.” We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual.
Me again. Look up the word collusion in case you don't know exactly what it means.
The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements
Now back to me for a moment. This is exactly what I have been saying. If you want to argue the point have at the people who made this report. I concur 100 percent with it. Now let us proceed back to the report
Reforming the regulators
The Commission has concluded that the safety of nuclear energy in Japan and the public cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformation process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. Japan’s regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity.
Reforming the operator
TEPCO did not fulfil its responsibilities as a private corporation, instead obeying and relying upon the government bureaucracy of METI, the government agency driving nuclear policy. At the same time, through the auspices of the FEPC, it manipulated the cozy relationship with the regulators to take the teeth out of regulations.
There is a lot of other stuff in the report - I suggest you read it before more sweeping pronouncements, but let us jump a few paragraphs to the recommendations, number 4 in this case.
Monitoring the operators
TEPCO must undergo fundamental corporate changes, including strengthening its governance, working towards building an organizational culture whic
So do you take Benadryl recreationally?
I don't, but I know some people who use it as a sleep aid. And given the reaction I get at least, if it was made illegal, there would be people selling it ona buying it.
I think you're missing the point that some drugs are useful for things, but aren't habit forming, therefore it's easy to walk away from them when you don't need them anymore; thus you remain in control. Other drugs typically get regulated in some way because they ARE habit forming.
There is a funny thing about drugs. Withdrawal symptoms might be a better term. There were some occasions when I was injured that I was put on opioid drugs for pain relief. The sensation that gets people interested is a sense of euphoria that hits when the drug takes effect. When I was finished, I stopped taking them, and suffered some mild withdrawalt symptoms. Sweaty and shaky mostly. But I never became addicted, and didn't even want them any more. I hope I never have ot take that shit again. Its worst drawbacks are it can raise your BP, and if a person has a prostrate issue, they have to be caeful because it can make it more difficult to pee.
Benadryl? Hell if you ask me, it has it all over opioids. Definitely has it all over ethanol. Kills anxiety, calms you down. Even then, I don't care to lose my edge. I'm a coffee guy mostly, and only take it when I need to.
Side note, I first found out about it when snorkling in the florida Keys when I got hit with a double whammy of getting hammered by a cigarette coral, and a sunscreen/saltwater in the eyes when my mask sprung a leak. Horrifying. The people on the boat told me to get Benadryl, and damned if it didn't clear the reaction up and gave me a boost of dont givadam.
The user of the drug expresses the desire to stop using the drug yet doesn't have the willpower.
There might be something called the addictive personality going on here. Some people, usually ones who might not be having a very good life, are more susceptible. Then when they wreack themselves as the dose to get high starts approcing or reaches the toxic level, they eventually have to withdraw. My limited experience from being on it for a week tells me that a long term use withdrawal has to be pure hell.
Cigarettes are a great example of what happens when an addictive drug goes largely unregulated.
Cigarettes as a perfect example. When they analyzed how they work, it became clear that they packed a double whammy of energizing a person, then calming them. A perfect drug. Way back I found out when I had a 4 pack a day habit. Quit cold turkey - 40 years ago.
Look at the strain on our healthcare system caused by long term smokers. If you care about other people lying in a hospital bed drowning in their own fluids, you might say this is already tragic. But if you don't, just look at what is coming out of your pocket to subsidize the healthcare of smokers. Every time you pay your insurance premium, you are subsidizing those who can't pay for it themselves.
I try not to go down that rabbit hole. While smoking is a socially acceptable way to hate on people, and we go to arguments about how mugh their evil habits cost society, what's next? Obesity? Yeah, a lot of people would gladly throw a fat person under the bus. Risky sexual behavior? Why not? Ever see what terminal syphilis does to a person? Of my own burden on the health system. Motorcyclists? Hell, I've already been told that I shouldn't be covered for riding one. Sports injuries. That's been my major burden on the system. An argument can be made there. I could have done yoga or swam instead of play Ice Hockey. But all riisky activities. All at bottom level a burden on the healthcare system.
Getting back to pot, maybe the risks aren't the same, but you can't say there is no risk.
Nope, and I'd never say there is no risk
You might want to try and spend a little more time considering your responses and a little less time getting all worked up, it'll help you make points more cognizant and likely to persuade.
First off I didn't post AC so... not sure what you are going for there.
Yes, I did make a mistake in replying to what I thought was an AC post. Thank you for pointing that out.
And here is the thing. You know I don't care if I make converts. You think that I'm going to make a conversion with some guy who just called me worked up, childlike, and immature, and making arguments based on emotion not logic? Talk about projection!
Funny how you focus on that, it is a time honored attack vector called deflection, and I wouldn't get all too high and mighty if I were you, using that and only that as a way to discredit my argument.
Which in fact, tellls me that you have no coherent approach to the problem, and even if I am all of the above, you are merely the equivalent of a spelling cop.
I'd love to have a nice coherent discussion with facts and figures and citations, but some people have a raving shitfit when I type "Kablooy" There's a difference between injecting a little humor and being childlike.
But sometimes their effects are not fun. Sometimes their effects hurt other people. Nobody really gives a shit if you drink a beer or smoke a joint.
Given that maryjewanna is a schedul one drug, it appears that many people do give a shit.
So you are arguing that we should hurry up the process of dying because we're all going to die anyway? Life is not all about having fun. That's an extremely immature and selfish attitude.
Do you have the cites that recreational maryjewanna use kills people? Are you a calvinist by the way? Also, I'd like some advice. I occasionally have to take benadryl, and it really makes me mellow and calm. Should I take it with syrup of ipecac so I'm miserable and vomiting instead of the good feeling it would otherwise induce?
People like all sorts of things but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any rules to keep everyone safe.
Can you show me wher poster said we shouldn't have any rules to keep people safe? You high and seeing things dood?
Not that simple. Sometimes drug abuse is just a medical condition. But often drug abuse causes people to hurt others which is (and should be) a crime. See the difference?
That becomes a circular argument Make a drug illegal, and create a market for it. declar ewar on it, and militarize both sides and lotsa people get hurt.
One thing is for certain. Laws making meryjewanna a schedule one drug have destroyed a hellava lot more lives that simply using it ever has.
I'm not telling people what is good for them.
Yes, you are.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
And there we are. What do you mean "abuse"? I see bumper stickers that say "Impairment starts with the first drink" That's people who consider any use at all as abuse.
Meanwhile, we pay no attention to the fact that Jalapeno peppers are a gateway drug to scotch bonnet and - shudder - the ghost peppers. BTW - you can look it up - capsaicinoids are an actual drug that screws with dopamine receptors.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'. Doesn't matter if it's alcohol or THC, these work by fidgeting with things in the brain that should obviously be left alone (for the sake of health - I think the recreational value is apparent). We don't do surgery for the fun of it, we don't do blunt force trauma for the fun of it, why should altering our insides via drug or drink be considered 'safe' when no other internal alteration is, and who could possibly be dumb enough to think so?
So, so simple isn't it? Perhaps it is time to declare war on hot peppers? They have a pronounced effect upon dopamine levels, and yes, people who eat them get a rush from the capsaicinoids that are in them. Perhaps its time to make Jalepenos and Scotch bonnets schedule one drugs and fill our prisons with people who eat Mexican food (I'll avoid the obvious quip there).
Then there is benadryl. A remarkably powerful anti-anxiety drug that just so happens to be an important anti- allergic reaction over the counter drug. I occasionally get into some things I'm allergic to, and doctor says "take a couple Benadryls before calling, because that's what I am going to prescribe."
But I can tell you that the feeling of well being and relaxation I get from 2 Benadryl tablets is a hundred times better than any alcohol or opioid effect. Had a fight with the nurses and doctors in hospital once because after ankle surgery, I refused to use the pain pump.
But we better make Benadryl a schedule one drug as well. I'm seeing removing Mexicans and other lowlifes who partake of the evil pepper, and sending Benadryl junkies to jail as well.
Lord knows that shit is bad for you, but I don't need anybody trying prevent me from enjoying a few fingers of fine rum after a long day at work.
When are we going to be able to get the Cuban stuff? Rum that is.
I think he's inferring that denial of science is biased based on the perceptions of the person doing the denying. People who drive an F350 King Ranch Ford Pickup are more likely to deny climate change. Stoners are more likely to deny Marijuana causing a lowering of blood flow to the brain. I suppose there could be some overlap in those two examples.
Add anti-vaxxers to the mix, and you'll get a much bigger overlap.
side note: Anti Vaxxers are pretty evenly distributed between left and right wing. For different ideological reasons of course.
The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were.
That's an absurd claim to make. Higher walls and emergency generators protected from the particular failure mode of inundation by a large tsunami both would have worked.
Pay attention.
1. The area was a certainty for a Tsunami.
2. The height of Tsunami in that area were known both from Historical record and from rubble lines left by Tsunami in the past. 3. The Walls were not built to a height that would preclude likely Tsunami form overtopping them. They were simply not built high enough.
Call it absurd if you like, but do the research like I have. The citations are somewhere in slashdot history, so you can call the research absurd if you like, along with the source material
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima. It was like sending your children to go play on the interstate.
The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Notice the two obvious fixes above have nothing to do with location aside from making sure the sea wall was high enough for a 500 year tsunami at that location.
You know there is a fatal problem with your premise. THey didn't do that did they. They made a very amateurish mistake. 500 year Tsunamis don't actually only happen every 500 years. In my locale, we experienced 2 100 year floods in the space of ten years or so. Deciding that there wouldn't be a Tsunami during the lifetime of the Nuc plant was ovbiously 100 percent friggin' wrong, yes no? Here's a little on the fallacy of (probably) their argument in this matter. Its about flooding, but the same principles apply. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/100y...
Tl;DR version. It's a recurrance interval, a statistical frequency analysis, and should never ever ever be used to downgrade infrastructure.
The problem with such a superficial analysis as you gave is that every location is terrible in some way. Instead of trying to find that near perfect spot with no significant flaws, we can just engineer for the problems that good but not perfect locations have.
What you are saying is that since their is no perfect spot, a terrible location is equal to the best location. Because if you are trying to say that the location of the plant was even good - Yarbles. Its not even bad.
Somewhere in the slashdot annals I made a plausible location that would at least be safe from the effects of what happened. It is on a river, which would provide proper emergency cooling water, it is above the atitude of historical and rubble line records of Tsunami
The sad thing here is that the Fukushima location is even better now for nuclear power since the accident will clear out a lot of potential liability to its future operation. It still has great access to sea water for a cold sink (a huge consideration in nuclear power). And we can engineer for the problems of the location.
I sincerely hope that you are not working in the nuclear industry. Your ideas are interesting to say the least.
@#&$ moderators can't take a joke.
Seriously. A pathetic lack of humor genes in some people. Wasting mod points on obvious jokes.
All great arguments; however, your arguments fail to take into account the US Navy Nuclear Program. They run nuclear reactors aboard ships and even submarines. I urge you to investigate their safety record. Perhaps the motivations they have put in place are sufficient to run a safe nuclear program?
I'm going to get crucified for this, but yes, you are correct. US Navy Reactors are well designed, well built, and well run by motivated and competent people. A wonderment indeed.
They are also not built according to the same constraints that commercial reactors are built to. That's what I will get crucified for, as it is contrary to Libertarian principles that the free market will always win over Government inefficiencies. They are designed, built, and manned to not be a problem when fighting the ship, but to enhance it's survivability.
Forgive me, but I thought the issue with this reactor was that the backup generators were in a basement and got flooded. There's another plant just a few km south of there where the backup generators were in the containment building and things didn't go bad there...
The generators were the proximate cause, because they were flooded. The ultimate cause was all of the events leading up to the generator failure. The Tsunami, the seawall overtopping because they were not built high enough to withstand Tsunami that historically happened in that area, and being in a basement in a site with those sort of problems. This was simply going to happen.
Do you want this to not work? What if it does? Will the sanctimonious need to find a new target to deride?
I think that if it does work, it will increase the gap even further. Why aren't you thin? Just take the pill you slob...
I have had some success in weight control. But it hasn't been easy, and my wife, the ectomorph, probably eats as much as I do, is taller, and weighs nearly a hundred pounds less. Sounds extreme, but she is natually thin, and I am naturally muscle bound and turn to fat if I don't exercise an extreme amount. This is becoming an issue as old sports injuries are getting really pissed at me. I think I kinda wore myself out a little.
So yeah, if I could repopulate my gut with flora that would allow me to not have to go to the extremes I have to go to, I'd sign up in an instant. Not having to constantly resist the urge to eat. Not having to exercise like I do now. Hell, I might even calm down and quit being an asshole!
In the US, the group you describe is mostly the anti-religious nuts.
How odd. The people I know or know of who are really excited about the end of the world happening in their lifetime are far right wing socialist conservatives.
And one of their favorite enabling mechanisms is rabid support of Isreal. Not to demean Isreal's need for some support, but the reasons they support them so heavily is not for the benefit of the Jewish people http://www.discoverrevelation.... Probably won't be a good time to be Jewish at that point.
Now whether or not this bizarre story that these people are working toward is actuall prophecy, these people believe it, and want a war to end the world in the middle east.
And an anti religious person would have to be a true nut to espouse that. Most understand that they have one life, and that's here and going on now, so they might as well make the best use of their limited time. When you believe that you will have an eternal reward to live forever in a place that is better, for eternity, what does dying or even destruction of a silly planet mean to you? No more pain or suffering, just doing whatever it is you do in heaven.
I find myself in the strange position was wanting to eat shit.
I am really wondering about the possibility of hammering the gut with powerful antibiotics to kill the intestinal bacteria already there, then doing a transplant - or more likely after a while, laboratory grown poopy pills. Allowing the new bacteria to populate the GI tract and maybe a good outcome for people.
The insecure fat shamers might not like this however.
Newer plants are safer. Whether or not you agree to use them, we need to stop using the older ones. That is the most important lesson of Fukushima, well that and to not be totally incompetent.
Yes, they are safer. But retiring the old plants will cost a lot of money, as well as building the new ones. It's a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Because you don't get something for nothing.
"Hey, you'll have to move, and you might get a fatal dose of radiation. But just think of the cheap power you'll get until it goes kaboom and you have to pay the cleanup costs - unless you are dead, so maybe we can charge your estate. You showed wisdom posting as AC. Altogether too many people seem to think that somehow, we have to have just megawatts shipped to our houses. Spend metric shitloads on heating. Ain't so!
I have an office full of computers and radios, and a outdoor spa, and I spend less than a hundred dollars per month electricity. I have a super-efficient gas furnace that for the heating season, heats my house for roughly the amount that the neighbors spend per month.
The house is really well insulated. The furnace is as I said, and managed to pay itself off after just a couple years. The hot tub is likewise well insulated. The lighting is LED, and has the side benefit of not having to get up on a ladder and change out bulbs.
Biggest users of electricity are the refrigerator, a really efficient freezer in the garage, and the hot water heater, which will get replaced in maybe 5 years. Probably with a super efficient gas version.
The only downside of this low cost is that it delays my going totally solar a little longer, as well as figuring out how to heat the hot tub well.
Nope, I neither need nor want the blessings of Kablooey power.
Can't we just grab all them drones by the pussy?
When we're talking in the locker room.
Spark transmitter anyone? Mr. Marconi would be proud
That might do it.