That irrational fear comes from decades of people being told that their fears are irrational, of not having their concerns listened to, and of experts being flat out wrong, especially when disaster strikes.
Read the article, it is pretty certain that the fuel has not been contained.
As I stated before, I am a supporter of nuclear power. People like you are not effective supporters of nuclear power, in fact, you do more damage to your cause than any anti-nuclear nutjob ever could. I don't want you to denounce nuclear power, I just want you to shut up about it so we can actually have it, because when people like you open your mouths about nuclear power, your know it all, elitist attitude turns everyone off.
You really don't have anything but hatred, do you? Nothing logical or coherent, no new evidence, no refutation of logic, just a bad temper and a loud mouth.
You are still implying that the GE three did what they did to make more money, but now you are trying to deny it while you imply it. Watching your strained contortions is certainly amusing, but it doesn't really advance the discussion at all.
As you seem to have some sort of difficulty understanding basic logic, I will try to simplify things for you. Allow me to quote from your post:
So, were the three GE engineers who quit their jobs over the design of these reactor cores just running around screaming that the sky is falling?
The fact that they had to wait 34 years before they got their "told you so! look at all the people who could have sorta died. maybe." moment tends to suggest that they were, yes. Also, they certainly got step 4 down pat. Why bust your ass working as a nuclear engineer when you can be a "technical advisor" for Hollywood.
I asked, were these three engineers running around screaming that the sky was falling? And you answered, yes, because nothing bad happened. And I explained, maybe nothing bad happened because they blew the whistle on the bad things, and the bad things were changed. To which you replied, "Dur, huh ?"
I'm not the one appealing to emotion and screaming her head off, princess. I merely stated that you had never sunk to the level of calling me a homosexual before. I'm not offended, I just thought the attack illustrated both your character and your lack of debating skills, and so I pointed it out, so our readers are sure not to miss it. Funny old thing, the Interenet, the things you write on it are there for good. You leave behind a record, so anyone who cares to look can see what you really are.
If you are for it as part of the solution, try not to imply it would take paving over all the desert in the world, as that makes it sound like you are completely against it, to the point of ridiculing those who support it. The US currently has more square miles of paved roads than it would need in solar thermal power generating land.
Excuse me, you are right, it is really more an example of "poisoning the well," as that is a better general term for what you said, specifically,
"Also, they certainly got step 4 down pat. Why bust your ass working as a nuclear engineer when you can be a "technical advisor" for Hollywood."
Now, why exactly did you write that? What was your intention? What sort of information were you trying to convey?
You said
he fact that they had to wait 34 years before they got their "told you so! look at all the people who could have sorta died. maybe."
Which implies that they did not, in fact, need to quit because the reactors were safe. However, they did quit, and you have ignored the possibility that the only reason nothing worse happened is because they quite. So, while I can not claim with certainty, "them quitting and blowing the whistle made nuclear power more safe," you can not claim that the lack of nuclear accidents implies they were wrong.
As long as you're just running around directing everyone to the wikipedia page of your three boyfriends, I don't see any reason to take you seriously.
Gay slurs? Really? That's a new low, even for you.
Great example of argumentum ad hominem towards those three, trying to sully their name by implying they quite to make more money. You really are a class act.
You do realize that these three guys are one of the main reasons we haven't had anything worse happen? If they hadn't blown the whistle, do you think safety practices would have been changed? Do you think the Mark I reactors would have been retrofitted with better safety systems? I highly doubt it, corporations don't spend money on safety unless they are forced to.
Does the truth matter more, or less to you than being right does?
The reactor is housed inside of a containment vessel, which means that the melted material should be contained.
Ahem. TFA:
"Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak."
"Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached. "
Corium is a bitch. It's gonna burn down as far as it damn well pleases.
The crazy nasty-ass corium just doesn't give a shit.
Well, my numbers say that fifty gazillion people died or will die due to Fukushima, and my numbers are exactly as valid as yours, i.e. not at all. Care to try again?
Really? Have you been paying attention to the tone of certain commentators in the discussions here? They act like they want to shoot you in the face when you ask "Isn't there a safer way?" I mean, they practically froth at the mouth. I think they work for Greenpeace, and are simply trying to make all supporters of nuclear power look like utter wingnuts.
Huh, what would you call "sxposed to air and melted down" except for a containment failure? From the article, which I'm so very sure you must have read,
Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak.
"We will have to revise our plans," said Junichi Matsumoto, a spokesman for Tepco. "We cannot deny the possibility that a hole in the pressure vessel caused water to leak".
Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached.
I love that this is touted as being due to "extreme circumstances," as if there were nothing different that could have been done, like, oh I don't know, listen to these guys?
Is this where we get to tell all the "Nuclear Power at Any Cost" folks "I told you so?" Nuclear power can be safe and inexpensive, but just plugging your ears and yelling "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever anything goes wrong is not going to get us there.
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, or the one from yesterday? No, you did not. If you had read any of it, you would know why this is simply Apple PR FUD. Google owns the copyright. The Apache License doesn't require the release of source code. The freedom of the Apache license is the reason that Google is easting Apple's closed source, can't-look-under-the-hood lunch, so that is the thing Apple is going to attack, with lies and distortion if need be.
Thanks, now we have nothing on-topic left to discuss. I suggest we devote the rest of this thread to discussions of ponies. I like them stewed, how about you?
People would know if they could light their water on fire. Paint me a scenario where people were drinking flammable water for hundreds of years and not noticing.
Do you have any evidence to back that up, because that isn't what I've read? It wouldn't explain why many wealthier countries have below replacement rate in births right now.
Nope, we cooperate for all kinds of reasons, and not only when it is beneficial to us. Never heard of someone rushing into a burning building to save someone unrelated? We are not, of course, forcing anyone to help anyone. If anyone does not like the price they have to pay(taxes) for the service they get,(living in a free society) they can leave the store (the US). The idea that we must only appeal to the "selfish" part of our nature has been foisted on us by the selfish, the sociopathic, and the uncooperative. Some of the most meaningful and lastingly beneficial work that humans have ever done has been entirely unpaid, and did not benefit the person who did it.
I've found that people who push the idea that everyone is selfish are simply saying that to excuse their own selfish, antisocial behavior. We are only selfish in the sense that we all do nothing more or less than what we want to do in that moment, but most of us are not motivated primarily by ideals of selfish personal gain. Modern economic and games theory experiments have shown that most people are far, far more motivated by notions of reciprocity and fairness. Most people will accept actual harm to themselves as a price to pay for enforcing fairness. So, yes, we selfishly do what we want, but what most of us want is fairness and reciprocity, even if that means we personally get less.
By defending selfishness, you are telling the world what kind of person you really are. Don't think the world isn't listening.
Slashdot Mirror
That irrational fear comes from decades of people being told that their fears are irrational, of not having their concerns listened to, and of experts being flat out wrong, especially when disaster strikes.
Read the article, it is pretty certain that the fuel has not been contained.
As I stated before, I am a supporter of nuclear power. People like you are not effective supporters of nuclear power, in fact, you do more damage to your cause than any anti-nuclear nutjob ever could. I don't want you to denounce nuclear power, I just want you to shut up about it so we can actually have it, because when people like you open your mouths about nuclear power, your know it all, elitist attitude turns everyone off.
You really don't have anything but hatred, do you? Nothing logical or coherent, no new evidence, no refutation of logic, just a bad temper and a loud mouth.
You are still implying that the GE three did what they did to make more money, but now you are trying to deny it while you imply it. Watching your strained contortions is certainly amusing, but it doesn't really advance the discussion at all.
As you seem to have some sort of difficulty understanding basic logic, I will try to simplify things for you. Allow me to quote from your post:
So, were the three GE engineers who quit their jobs over the design of these reactor cores just running around screaming that the sky is falling?
The fact that they had to wait 34 years before they got their "told you so! look at all the people who could have sorta died. maybe." moment tends to suggest that they were, yes. Also, they certainly got step 4 down pat. Why bust your ass working as a nuclear engineer when you can be a "technical advisor" for Hollywood.
I asked, were these three engineers running around screaming that the sky was falling? And you answered, yes, because nothing bad happened. And I explained, maybe nothing bad happened because they blew the whistle on the bad things, and the bad things were changed. To which you replied, "Dur, huh
?"
I'm not the one appealing to emotion and screaming her head off, princess. I merely stated that you had never sunk to the level of calling me a homosexual before. I'm not offended, I just thought the attack illustrated both your character and your lack of debating skills, and so I pointed it out, so our readers are sure not to miss it. Funny old thing, the Interenet, the things you write on it are there for good. You leave behind a record, so anyone who cares to look can see what you really are.
If you are for it as part of the solution, try not to imply it would take paving over all the desert in the world, as that makes it sound like you are completely against it, to the point of ridiculing those who support it. The US currently has more square miles of paved roads than it would need in solar thermal power generating land.
Excuse me, you are right, it is really more an example of "poisoning the well," as that is a better general term for what you said, specifically,
"Also, they certainly got step 4 down pat. Why bust your ass working as a nuclear engineer when you can be a "technical advisor" for Hollywood."
Now, why exactly did you write that? What was your intention? What sort of information were you trying to convey?
You said
he fact that they had to wait 34 years before they got their "told you so! look at all the people who could have sorta died. maybe."
Which implies that they did not, in fact, need to quit because the reactors were safe. However, they did quit, and you have ignored the possibility that the only reason nothing worse happened is because they quite. So, while I can not claim with certainty, "them quitting and blowing the whistle made nuclear power more safe," you can not claim that the lack of nuclear accidents implies they were wrong.
As long as you're just running around directing everyone to the wikipedia page of your three boyfriends, I don't see any reason to take you seriously.
Gay slurs? Really? That's a new low, even for you.
Great example of argumentum ad hominem towards those three, trying to sully their name by implying they quite to make more money. You really are a class act.
You do realize that these three guys are one of the main reasons we haven't had anything worse happen? If they hadn't blown the whistle, do you think safety practices would have been changed? Do you think the Mark I reactors would have been retrofitted with better safety systems? I highly doubt it, corporations don't spend money on safety unless they are forced to.
Does the truth matter more, or less to you than being right does?
The reactor is housed inside of a containment vessel, which means that the melted material should be contained.
Ahem. TFA:
"Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak."
"Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached. "
Corium is a bitch. It's gonna burn down as far as it damn well pleases.
The crazy nasty-ass corium just doesn't give a shit.
Pave over ALL the desert? Really, if you don't know, don't act like you do. Or just google it, like I did:
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127
Whoopsie, there goes your argument against solar.
Well, my numbers say that fifty gazillion people died or will die due to Fukushima, and my numbers are exactly as valid as yours, i.e. not at all. Care to try again?
Really? Have you been paying attention to the tone of certain commentators in the discussions here? They act like they want to shoot you in the face when you ask "Isn't there a safer way?" I mean, they practically froth at the mouth. I think they work for Greenpeace, and are simply trying to make all supporters of nuclear power look like utter wingnuts.
Huh, what would you call "sxposed to air and melted down" except for a containment failure? From the article, which I'm so very sure you must have read,
Now the company is worried that the molten pool of radioactive fuel may have burned a hole through the bottom of the containment vessel, causing water to leak.
"We will have to revise our plans," said Junichi Matsumoto, a spokesman for Tepco. "We cannot deny the possibility that a hole in the pressure vessel caused water to leak".
Tepco has not clarified what other barriers there are to stop radioactive fuel leaking if the steel containment vessel has been breached.
Sounds like containment failure to me.
No, this is a demonstration that these guys were right.
I love that this is touted as being due to "extreme circumstances," as if there were nothing different that could have been done, like, oh I don't know, listen to these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Three
Notice which reactor cores these guys quit their freaking jobs over?
So, were the three GE engineers who quit their jobs over the design of these reactor cores just running around screaming that the sky is falling?
Is this where we get to tell all the "Nuclear Power at Any Cost" folks "I told you so?" Nuclear power can be safe and inexpensive, but just plugging your ears and yelling "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever anything goes wrong is not going to get us there.
Have you ever read the Apache license?
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, or the one from yesterday? No, you did not. If you had read any of it, you would know why this is simply Apple PR FUD. Google owns the copyright. The Apache License doesn't require the release of source code. The freedom of the Apache license is the reason that Google is easting Apple's closed source, can't-look-under-the-hood lunch, so that is the thing Apple is going to attack, with lies and distortion if need be.
Thanks, now we have nothing on-topic left to discuss. I suggest we devote the rest of this thread to discussions of ponies. I like them stewed, how about you?
She's dead. And cremated. A bit chalky, don't you think?
Did you read the post I was responding too?
If they don't sue or at least protest,they loose the trademark.
People would know if they could light their water on fire. Paint me a scenario where people were drinking flammable water for hundreds of years and not noticing.
Do you have any evidence to back that up, because that isn't what I've read? It wouldn't explain why many wealthier countries have below replacement rate in births right now.
Uh, no. You are simply wrong about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_mark#Maintaining_rights
You loose.
Nope, we cooperate for all kinds of reasons, and not only when it is beneficial to us. Never heard of someone rushing into a burning building to save someone unrelated? We are not, of course, forcing anyone to help anyone. If anyone does not like the price they have to pay(taxes) for the service they get,(living in a free society) they can leave the store (the US). The idea that we must only appeal to the "selfish" part of our nature has been foisted on us by the selfish, the sociopathic, and the uncooperative. Some of the most meaningful and lastingly beneficial work that humans have ever done has been entirely unpaid, and did not benefit the person who did it.
I've found that people who push the idea that everyone is selfish are simply saying that to excuse their own selfish, antisocial behavior. We are only selfish in the sense that we all do nothing more or less than what we want to do in that moment, but most of us are not motivated primarily by ideals of selfish personal gain. Modern economic and games theory experiments have shown that most people are far, far more motivated by notions of reciprocity and fairness. Most people will accept actual harm to themselves as a price to pay for enforcing fairness. So, yes, we selfishly do what we want, but what most of us want is fairness and reciprocity, even if that means we personally get less.
By defending selfishness, you are telling the world what kind of person you really are. Don't think the world isn't listening.