> This AP-1000 installation is the first new PWR reactor installation I have heard of for a long time. So when and where were these new commercial power reactors installed?
The USA had a moratorium on building reactors which was luckily overturned by Bush. Countries such as Korea continued to build nuclear power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea). Several other countries actively developed their nuclear power industry (e.g. France). China is probably the most rapidly expanding nuclear power country.
> Then there is also the Sulfuric Acid leech mining being used in Australia when it is illegal in the U.S and Russia.
So? Gold mining uses cyanide leeching.
How much sulpheric acid is formed by coal power stations? Acid rain is a phenoma of coal burning and its effects is much worse and more difficult to contain.
> You mean like Three Mile Island did, before it melted down.
How many people died in Three Mile Island (hint: none or almost none). How many people die yearly of coal mining? Direct effects is here:
For China alone:
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: More than 3,200.
This is just direct effects (not including secondary effects caused by pollution).
> but it's also a straw-man argument
It is not a straw man. Electric power must come from either Coal power stations or nuclear power stations. None of them are completely safe - but when the numbers are objectively compared it shows that coal power stations is much more dangerous.
> that brushes over bombing a country with Depleted Uranium warheads,
That has nothing to do with nuclear power. Several countries successfully use nuclear power without bombing people with depleted Uranium shells. The USA is the only exception to this rule.
> CFC114, a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02
Coal power plants do not only release CO2. It also release sulphur dioxide. This is especially true when low quality coal is burned (for example in South Africa). The lower the quality of coal the higher the sulphur content. But it is not just sulphur - it is particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, etc... Here is a quote from WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Radioactive_trace_elements):
> enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74pounds (34kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.
So, if you dislike uranium you should dislike coal power stations more.
> And the safety of Nuclear plants are because the radiation that workers are exposed to causes reproductive issues. So there is no actual apparent safety hazard working there, just birth defect for the workers children. Do birth defects count as safety issues?
Where is the proof of that? Where is the lawsuits? Most first world countries is highly litagatious - and lawsuits will arise because of that. You stated a fact, can you please back it up with evidence?
> I want to know why Nuclear advocates always point the finger at the coal industry and say 'look at how bad they are'.
The fact of the matter is that there is a huge need for electricity - it is the bedrock of our current civilisation. There is only two current practical methods of generating the large amounts of electricity - fossil fuel power stations and nuclear power. We should choose the one with the least risk and the highest safety (based on numbers and not feelings).
If you take the view of the last twenty years of reactor operation, you can say that that because you are examining the most trouble free portion of a reactors lifespan for the vast majority of reactors around the world.
Not completely. The nuclear reactor risks are decreasing because old (and bad) reactor designs are replaced with newer (and safer) reactor designs. There are fewer and fewer bad reactors running (mostly Russian RMBK reactors 12 running). Most modern reactors have a "negative void coefficient" meaning that the reaction slows down when cooling is stopped (i.e. not Chernobyl ver 2).
So when you include Uranium mining,
Uranium mining is usually open cast mining which is much safer than other types of mining (it also requires less labour). Although there are open-cast coal mines, the majority of mining is done underground (60%+) which is very dangerous work. Check the number of people in China that die yearly in coal mines - you will fall on you back when you see it. It is a horrible number.
the long term safety record for the nuclear industry looks increasingly pessimistic.
Several countries have used nuclear generation for a long time and have impeccable safety records. How many people died in France over the past 20 years? France generates 70%+ of its electricity from nuclear power.
with ageing reactor design and operational issues aside
There are several new reactor designs coming along now. Yet, that does not mean that old reactors is dangerous. Almost all current running reactors (except RMBK) is extremely safe.
every aspect of the industrial nuclear cycle has very sobering issues attached to it when looked at pragmatically.
Why are people looking the other way with coal power stations? Why the double standards? Coal power stations is the most significant contributor of carbon dioxide (i.e. global warming). Coal power stations release a lot of solid particles and other particles that severely affect the health of people. The best example of this is probably China - coal mining and coal power stations contribute to several diseases (such as lung cancer) that severely effects the quality of life and the life expectancy of people.
Some people (like me) who support the Israeli state do it for several other reasons. The main reason is that Israel is the only first world developed country in the Middle East. You would think that all the surrounding countries would be more developed with their abundance of natural resources - yet they are all Sharia law 3rd world shitholes.
I wonder how that countries would look like without their oil.
I see you haven't heard of the people that win the lottery either metaphorically, or literally.
That is actually why lotteries is so popular among poor people - it convinces them that they can live at a higher living standard than what they actually deserve.
but what happens if this begins to replace manual labor jobs as has been predicted for decades?
That is the general idea. The poor and the stupid will become obsolete. In the first 30 years they will probably breed like rabbits (thanks to higher food production). Thereafter the lumen proletariat will all probably be killed. This is a good thing for human advancement.
Without education infrastructure in place to train current generations, low cost robots will compete with unskilled labourers for work.
Again, this is not a problem. It is a waste in any way to waste education resources on someone without the innate ability. They should rather be castrated and put on a government grant system.
Will their quality of living be raised up since it will be cheap to produce things,
Quality of life is generally proportional to what you contribute to society.
Also, this would certainly make energy needs (and potentially metals/commodities) even more accute.
Robotics have the capability to be more energy efficient than people. Even if our overall energy needs rise, we just build more nuclear reactors (once the environmentalists starts to shut up).
perhaps we would just be thinning out the population,
Not only that. If there is increased competition between people and people who fail actually dies (instead of the dysgenic welfare system we have now) then we would probably speed up evolution. That is a good thing!
I completely agree. I have seen this in my country (where traffic is a lot like the wild west). I have been driving a particular 160km stretch of road fairly often.
These past couple of months have seen more aggressive implementation of the road rules (speeding tickets, pull-overs with license checks, weighing trucks, checking number of passengers in minibus taxis, etc...).
I can tell you that the traffic is much safer and the road is more pleasant to drive. There is no SUVs going 160+km/h sitting on your asses or overloaded and unroadworthy vehicles.
Traffic fines may be irratating - but it sure beats the alternative. I would actually prefer a points system in which drivers who do not follow the road rules loose their licenses (since traffic fines have a different effect on the poor and the rich in their SUVs). But for now traffic fines is cool.
The most unappreciated tool of mass murder is the motorvehicle. I have only read about one killing (in Japan) where a guy plowed into a group of children with a van (he them proceeded with a knife).
I was shocked when this happened. I mean - Michael Moore told me that these types of things would never happen in a country with strict gun control law. He also said that modern day Germany was fairly peaceful and the main culprit in American school shootings was American gun culture.
Yet two awful school shootings happened in Germany in the last 10 years. How could this happen? Germany with a population of 1 4th that of the USA have more school shootings.
I find it hypocritical of people who eat meat but dish people who like to hunt. Salami does not grow on trees.
Why is it "wrong" to hunt? A deer has a better quality of life than most farm cattle - and he has a good chance to escape. All other meat-eating animals in nature hunt.
Maybe we are programmed to like hunting because we are omnivores?
Or should we separate all animals and feed lions soy?
Some catastrophic event that causes enough scarcity and hazard for long enough will result in the intelligent ( = resourceful ) people surviving and thriving,
Unfortunately not. Most governments will not allow the poor to die of hunger. In any case - for democracy having a lot of offspring is a more successful strategy (power is equal to the number of offspring)
It makes evolutionary sense that low intelligence is correlated with large brood
What you are referring to is the r/K selection theory.
Nowhere did I claim that it is the same. Here is a definition of agnosticism:
âoeagnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) âoe
I do not know whatever the reason is that things (universe,etc...) popped into existence. I do not claim special knowledge about the matter. Some days I feel that there may be an underlying reason in all this (call that reason what you want) and some days not.
I call BS
I like how you like to deny everything. It is like a christian saying that there are not fundamentalist christians. I am not the only one claiming to have seen this âoeangry atheistâ phenomenon. If you doubt the level of angry atheists, I would like you to look around www.reddit.com/r/atheism for a while. Or maybe use google (search: angry atheist)
I suspect that you yourself may probably a fairly committed atheist and therefore will dismiss anything based on your belief (and not reason).
Nice story. Unfortunately, you are extremely biased, and your stories only show that you yourself hold a deep hatred of atheists, not because they are assholes, but because they dare to question your superstition.
Unfortunately not. I swing between atheism and agnosticism. I can however say that I do not have a hate for anybody.
These are just some anecdotal experiences from mine. Most of those far out bigoted responses were from my friends or people I know fairly well - I was just extremely surprised at the level of the hate.
Full disclosure: I am an ex-Christian now agnostic.
In my recent experience atheists have gone a lot further than religious people. Take for example this: every evangelical religious person that came up to me was friendly and sincere (usually from the USA or S. Korea funny enough). With most of those people you could have a nice civilized chat. I get the idea no matter how misguided their beliefs were that they at least that they care deeply about people and do so out of love. The one group actually just made a quick stop at the university â" they were helping out at a state hospital over the holidays.
Now switch back to the atheists (most of which study with me). When they speak about religion they have an inexplicable hate for Christians. They go so far as to say that religious people are less intelligent than atheists. It is a level of bigotry that is worse than the classic white-black racism. They will nag you to watch stupid films such as Zeitgeist or read Dawkins' books â" and when you point out the inaccuracies they will get angry without any reason. Every angry atheist I met thinks he is smarter than everyone and that he is special in some way. I sincerely don't know who or what made them so angry and full of hate.
They have this aura of superiority â" yet not one of the atheists I met spend his holiday slaving away in a state hospital.
"As long as the ring doesn't sound, what's the big deal? "
She will probably be texting one of her friends. At the minimum this is a huge sign of disrespect. When you are in someone's class or in a meeting you should switch of all communication devices and stop doing anything else.
"In college people text all class, play video games on their laptops, surf Facebook, etc. i.e. do whatever they want, and honestly it works out fine."
In college classes aren't mandatory - so if someone does not want to go to class they do not come. School is unfortunately mandatory - so people who do not want to be in class disrupts it. College admission also bars the most disruptive segments of society from entering.
Teachers nowadays are almost powerless to enforce any type of discipline and a lot of parents forces the disciplining (and raising) of their children onto the state.
Not at all (I use Wolfram a lot and I am not a mathematician).
I would not differ with you that WP is not readable - it is extremely readable. The editors of WP plagiarise from the best places.;)
My problem is that the good stuff from all the other sites gets copied to WP. WP authors are not the people who create the information - they just copy it from various resources.
There are numerous articles in WP which does this. It is also detrimental to other open content endeavours (such as PlanetMath).
Slashdot Mirror
> This AP-1000 installation is the first new PWR reactor installation I have heard of for a long time. So when and where were these new commercial power reactors installed?
The USA had a moratorium on building reactors which was luckily overturned by Bush. Countries such as Korea continued to build nuclear power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea). Several other countries actively developed their nuclear power industry (e.g. France). China is probably the most rapidly expanding nuclear power country.
> Then there is also the Sulfuric Acid leech mining being used in Australia when it is illegal in the U.S and Russia.
So? Gold mining uses cyanide leeching.
How much sulpheric acid is formed by coal power stations? Acid rain is a phenoma of coal burning and its effects is much worse and more difficult to contain.
> You mean like Three Mile Island did, before it melted down.
How many people died in Three Mile Island (hint: none or almost none). How many people die yearly of coal mining? Direct effects is here:
For China alone:
2004: 6,027 deaths. 2005: 5,986 deaths. 2006: 4,746 deaths. 2007: 3,786 deaths. 2008: More than 3,200. This is just direct effects (not including secondary effects caused by pollution). > but it's also a straw-man argument
It is not a straw man. Electric power must come from either Coal power stations or nuclear power stations. None of them are completely safe - but when the numbers are objectively compared it shows that coal power stations is much more dangerous.
> that brushes over bombing a country with Depleted Uranium warheads,
That has nothing to do with nuclear power. Several countries successfully use nuclear power without bombing people with depleted Uranium shells. The USA is the only exception to this rule.
> CFC114, a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02
Coal power plants do not only release CO2. It also release sulphur dioxide. This is especially true when low quality coal is burned (for example in South Africa). The lower the quality of coal the higher the sulphur content. But it is not just sulphur - it is particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, etc... Here is a quote from WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Radioactive_trace_elements):
> enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74pounds (34kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.
So, if you dislike uranium you should dislike coal power stations more.
> And the safety of Nuclear plants are because the radiation that workers are exposed to causes reproductive issues. So there is no actual apparent safety hazard working there, just birth defect for the workers children. Do birth defects count as safety issues?
Where is the proof of that? Where is the lawsuits? Most first world countries is highly litagatious - and lawsuits will arise because of that. You stated a fact, can you please back it up with evidence?
> I want to know why Nuclear advocates always point the finger at the coal industry and say 'look at how bad they are'.
The fact of the matter is that there is a huge need for electricity - it is the bedrock of our current civilisation. There is only two current practical methods of generating the large amounts of electricity - fossil fuel power stations and nuclear power. We should choose the one with the least risk and the highest safety (based on numbers and not feelings).
If you take the view of the last twenty years of reactor operation, you can say that that because you are examining the most trouble free portion of a reactors lifespan for the vast majority of reactors around the world.
Not completely. The nuclear reactor risks are decreasing because old (and bad) reactor designs are replaced with newer (and safer) reactor designs. There are fewer and fewer bad reactors running (mostly Russian RMBK reactors 12 running). Most modern reactors have a "negative void coefficient" meaning that the reaction slows down when cooling is stopped (i.e. not Chernobyl ver 2).
So when you include Uranium mining,
Uranium mining is usually open cast mining which is much safer than other types of mining (it also requires less labour). Although there are open-cast coal mines, the majority of mining is done underground (60%+) which is very dangerous work. Check the number of people in China that die yearly in coal mines - you will fall on you back when you see it. It is a horrible number.
the long term safety record for the nuclear industry looks increasingly pessimistic.
Several countries have used nuclear generation for a long time and have impeccable safety records. How many people died in France over the past 20 years? France generates 70%+ of its electricity from nuclear power.
with ageing reactor design and operational issues aside
There are several new reactor designs coming along now. Yet, that does not mean that old reactors is dangerous. Almost all current running reactors (except RMBK) is extremely safe.
every aspect of the industrial nuclear cycle has very sobering issues attached to it when looked at pragmatically.
Why are people looking the other way with coal power stations? Why the double standards? Coal power stations is the most significant contributor of carbon dioxide (i.e. global warming). Coal power stations release a lot of solid particles and other particles that severely affect the health of people. The best example of this is probably China - coal mining and coal power stations contribute to several diseases (such as lung cancer) that severely effects the quality of life and the life expectancy of people.
Some people (like me) who support the Israeli state do it for several other reasons. The main reason is that Israel is the only first world developed country in the Middle East. You would think that all the surrounding countries would be more developed with their abundance of natural resources - yet they are all Sharia law 3rd world shitholes.
I wonder how that countries would look like without their oil.
If by "several" you mean two. The Republican party took control of Congress in the 1994 election (I think, maybe it was 1996),
Didn't the Republicans win the majority in the mid term elections?
Also, Clinton started the Kosovo war during that time (1999) without Congressional approval. Setting a nice president that Bush would follow.
Also - the Democrats controlled the Congress for 2 years and they did nothing (except approve several different bailout programs).
So I see you're a free market capitalist.
No, actually a social Darwinist.
I see you haven't heard of the people that win the lottery either metaphorically, or literally.
That is actually why lotteries is so popular among poor people - it convinces them that they can live at a higher living standard than what they actually deserve.
They do not have any cabinet members, but they do have several people in correctional services.
but what happens if this begins to replace manual labor jobs as has been predicted for decades?
That is the general idea. The poor and the stupid will become obsolete. In the first 30 years they will probably breed like rabbits (thanks to higher food production). Thereafter the lumen proletariat will all probably be killed. This is a good thing for human advancement.
Without education infrastructure in place to train current generations, low cost robots will compete with unskilled labourers for work.
Again, this is not a problem. It is a waste in any way to waste education resources on someone without the innate ability. They should rather be castrated and put on a government grant system.
Will their quality of living be raised up since it will be cheap to produce things,
Quality of life is generally proportional to what you contribute to society.
Also, this would certainly make energy needs (and potentially metals/commodities) even more accute.
Robotics have the capability to be more energy efficient than people. Even if our overall energy needs rise, we just build more nuclear reactors (once the environmentalists starts to shut up).
perhaps we would just be thinning out the population,
Not only that. If there is increased competition between people and people who fail actually dies (instead of the dysgenic welfare system we have now) then we would probably speed up evolution. That is a good thing!
I completely agree. I have seen this in my country (where traffic is a lot like the wild west). I have been driving a particular 160km stretch of road fairly often.
These past couple of months have seen more aggressive implementation of the road rules (speeding tickets, pull-overs with license checks, weighing trucks, checking number of passengers in minibus taxis, etc...).
I can tell you that the traffic is much safer and the road is more pleasant to drive. There is no SUVs going 160+km/h sitting on your asses or overloaded and unroadworthy vehicles.
Traffic fines may be irratating - but it sure beats the alternative. I would actually prefer a points system in which drivers who do not follow the road rules loose their licenses (since traffic fines have a different effect on the poor and the rich in their SUVs). But for now traffic fines is cool.
The most unappreciated tool of mass murder is the motorvehicle. I have only read about one killing (in Japan) where a guy plowed into a group of children with a van (he them proceeded with a knife).
I was shocked when this happened. I mean - Michael Moore told me that these types of things would never happen in a country with strict gun control law. He also said that modern day Germany was fairly peaceful and the main culprit in American school shootings was American gun culture.
Yet two awful school shootings happened in Germany in the last 10 years. How could this happen? Germany with a population of 1 4th that of the USA have more school shootings.
Firstly, hunting is fun.
I find it hypocritical of people who eat meat but dish people who like to hunt. Salami does not grow on trees.
Why is it "wrong" to hunt? A deer has a better quality of life than most farm cattle - and he has a good chance to escape. All other meat-eating animals in nature hunt.
Maybe we are programmed to like hunting because we are omnivores?
Or should we separate all animals and feed lions soy?
Some catastrophic event that causes enough scarcity and hazard for long enough will result in the intelligent ( = resourceful ) people surviving and thriving,
Unfortunately not. Most governments will not allow the poor to die of hunger. In any case - for democracy having a lot of offspring is a more successful strategy (power is equal to the number of offspring)
It makes evolutionary sense that low intelligence is correlated with large brood
What you are referring to is the r/K selection theory.
Tell that to the Tibetans.
At least according to China Tibet and Taiwan aren't international issues.
Nowhere did I claim that it is the same. Here is a definition of agnosticism:
âoeagnostic - a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) âoe
I do not know whatever the reason is that things (universe,etc...) popped into existence. I do not claim special knowledge about the matter. Some days I feel that there may be an underlying reason in all this (call that reason what you want) and some days not.
I call BS
I like how you like to deny everything. It is like a christian saying that there are not fundamentalist christians. I am not the only one claiming to have seen this âoeangry atheistâ phenomenon. If you doubt the level of angry atheists, I would like you to look around www.reddit.com/r/atheism for a while. Or maybe use google (search: angry atheist)
I suspect that you yourself may probably a fairly committed atheist and therefore will dismiss anything based on your belief (and not reason).
Nice story. Unfortunately, you are extremely biased, and your stories only show that you yourself hold a deep hatred of atheists, not because they are assholes, but because they dare to question your superstition.
Unfortunately not. I swing between atheism and agnosticism. I can however say that I do not have a hate for anybody.
These are just some anecdotal experiences from mine. Most of those far out bigoted responses were from my friends or people I know fairly well - I was just extremely surprised at the level of the hate.
Dawkins holds that to be an intelligent scientific thinker you must hold to both strict naturalism and evolution apriori
I always thought that an intelligent scientific thinker must have no preconceptions and be critical of everything.
Full disclosure: I am an ex-Christian now agnostic.
In my recent experience atheists have gone a lot further than religious people. Take for example this: every evangelical religious person that came up to me was friendly and sincere (usually from the USA or S. Korea funny enough). With most of those people you could have a nice civilized chat. I get the idea no matter how misguided their beliefs were that they at least that they care deeply about people and do so out of love. The one group actually just made a quick stop at the university â" they were helping out at a state hospital over the holidays.
Now switch back to the atheists (most of which study with me). When they speak about religion they have an inexplicable hate for Christians. They go so far as to say that religious people are less intelligent than atheists. It is a level of bigotry that is worse than the classic white-black racism. They will nag you to watch stupid films such as Zeitgeist or read Dawkins' books â" and when you point out the inaccuracies they will get angry without any reason. Every angry atheist I met thinks he is smarter than everyone and that he is special in some way. I sincerely don't know who or what made them so angry and full of hate.
They have this aura of superiority â" yet not one of the atheists I met spend his holiday slaving away in a state hospital.
You are lucky!. My Honda Civic was also stolen (the model just before yours) unfortunately she was never found.
Seeing pictures of your car got me all teary eyed.
I think they want GM, Ford and Chrysler to fail slowly (i.e. not one instantaneous event).
"As long as the ring doesn't sound, what's the big deal? "
She will probably be texting one of her friends. At the minimum this is a huge sign of disrespect. When you are in someone's class or in a meeting you should switch of all communication devices and stop doing anything else.
"In college people text all class, play video games on their laptops, surf Facebook, etc. i.e. do whatever they want, and honestly it works out fine."
In college classes aren't mandatory - so if someone does not want to go to class they do not come. School is unfortunately mandatory - so people who do not want to be in class disrupts it. College admission also bars the most disruptive segments of society from entering.
Teachers nowadays are almost powerless to enforce any type of discipline and a lot of parents forces the disciplining (and raising) of their children onto the state.
I think that we can all agree that Group Think is bad.
"Yes, but they seem confident that a judge won't invalidate terms agreed to under duress."
In this case the contract was agreed to under caress.
MS does quite a bit of good basic (i.e. non-applied) research.
Not at all (I use Wolfram a lot and I am not a mathematician).
;)
I would not differ with you that WP is not readable - it is extremely readable. The editors of WP plagiarise from the best places.
My problem is that the good stuff from all the other sites gets copied to WP. WP authors are not the people who create the information - they just copy it from various resources.
There are numerous articles in WP which does this. It is also detrimental to other open content endeavours (such as PlanetMath).
WP goes further than that. They take content from Wolfram's site.
They also take content from PlanetMath. While this is legal it is sad - a nicer resource is raped by WP.