So you admit you don't know the 9 things and that Ole Al was talking in general about stuff that is centuries away from happening? Oh, and let me add, even after 10 years we don't know for sure if what he seemed to have clamed was accurate or not? 10 years on we don't see evidence he was correct, you said so yourself.
That about sums up the movie... There where some serious flaws in the science and facts Al used. He implies a whole lot of stuff but parses his words carefully to lead the audience into believing stuff that is totally inaccurate even in the view of folks who believe in man made global warming/climate change or what ever they call it today. Then even after 10 years, all we know is that the number of issues with Al's little slide show just continues to grow. Face it, Al was pretty much just peddling hype and was mostly wrong... But let's not forget he made a nice chunk of change with all this....
Then you tell me that I'm not informed.... That's rich man...
Oh we have three reprocessing systems already. We used them for producing nuclear bomb material... I believe the Savannah River site has just been sitting there rusting since the military stopped using it in 2002 while the others are a few decades older...
Yea, but how is suggesting a law that has no racial component immediately draw the charge of racism? Racism.the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
I submit that there are a LOT of people who think voter ID laws are a good idea because they would prevent voter fraud, people voting for others or dead people. How's that motivation racist, it has nothing what so ever to do with anybody's race? Yet they routinely get branded as such because playing the "race card" shuts down the debate because the other side sets up the straw man argument and then brands their opponent with a charge of being racist. What do you do? Answer the ridiculous charge? Most folks just clam up, not prepared for the slight of hand, caught off guard by being accused of not being politically correct.
The same tactic is used for other social issues, where the real motives of the folks on one side of the issue are substituted with a straw man made up by the other side. They did it with the Gay marriage debate, the democrats invented the "War on Women" being waged by republicans and many more.
Surely you see what I mean.. Lying about your opponent's motives is common in politics. All is not true in the rhetoric you hear..
Seriously.. I don't put data on the web, in the cloud or anyplace I don't completely control and monitor unless it is absolutely necessary. IF it's necessary, it only goes encrypted. So here are my rules...
1. Don't put data on the net if you can help it. Avoid it at nearly costs.
2. When you *do* need/want to put data on the net, ENCRYPT it first, even if it's not sensitive.
3. NEVER put sensitive data on the net unless you have no other choices, then encrypted it using the best encryption possible.
4. REMOVE any and all data on the net you have no more need for right away.
We don't eh? Name one thing ole Al said was going to happen in 2006 that has in the last 10 years.... But before you do, name the 9 known scientific errors in his little film..
Actually, I know why, or at least the reason they claim. It is claimed that it would violate international agreements because it would provide a stockpile of weapons grade fissionable materials.
Since Carter's administration, it's been the policy that we don't reprocess fuel. But this has been stupid from the start. It leaves highly dangerous spent fuel assemblies languishing in cooling pools literally all over the place in varying levels of security and monitoring.
Well, now that's a different subject... Why do we need to keep using coal? Because it's cheap and our competition on the world economic stage has no problem using the option to best us if they can. We must compete, or be swept into the dustbin of irrelevance, where our collective wealth will evaporate into faint memories of better times as we are plundered by those more capable.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but he is right in that it is the economic might of this country which determines our place in the world. It is what we produce, the wealth we generate that matters because without it, we have no way to defend ourselves. We would have no resources to build arms, field military force and face those who would willingly dominate us by force.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's *only* coal, or that we shouldn't be environmentally careful in our choices of energy supplies, but that we need to be looking at the bigger picture and not throwing out the cheap energy resource we have in abundance out unless we are willing and able to still compete effectively with the rest of the world. If we choose wrongly, hobble ourselves too much, and lose, we loose much more than we loose if we just burned the coal.
Yea it was that pesky lack of electricity to drive the cooling pumps that really was the problem. Had they managed to keep or get a working generator on site, it would have been a non-event even though the earthquake they experienced was many times larger than the supposed design limits of the plant.
Problem is, we are seeing a unprecedented lull in "major storms" hitting the USA right now. So it seems that for the last decade, the actual damage from hurricanes has been at an all time low in the USA.
They will eventually start up again, but the problem here is that there is no way to know of forecast where the "outliers" will fall and how bad they will be. They are statistical anomalies and where we can guess they exist, we don't have enough information to accurately gauge the risks. So you build to what you know, plus some margin for safety. Problem solved.
Oh really... All this salt water incursion doesn't have *anything* at all to do with how much ground water is being pumped out of the ground? It's all due to global warming and sea levels going up?
Tell you what, build a couple more reverse osmosis plants and stop pumping ground and surface water and I'll be wiling to wager the progression of salt water will literally slow to a trickle in Southern Florida.
They think so.. Why else would they be pumping as fast as they can, driving world oil production though the roof and prices below subsistence levels for many of it's members? Something fishy is going on...
Me? REPROCESS the fuel assemblies and separate out the fissionable materials from the toxic waste and high level radio active materials. Hang on to the plutonium and uranium and other useful stuff, package up the rest in glass/ceramic blocks and bury it or dump it into the deepest part of the ocean where it will be safe for a few thousand years.
Yea, according to Al Gore's movie, we should all be just about dead now.. Either drowned by the sea, blow away by a hurricane or burnt to a crisp from the baking heat.
Ah yes... The "name is something that sounds good in the press releases" but what actually is in there is anybody's guess. Nobody is going to read that thing and who would come out and say they oppose "Clean Air" "Clean Water" or "Food for starving children"....
If data is just data... the whole point of net neutrality is it shouldn't matter if it's a movie or not. If 480p can be streamed without going against your data plan, then why not anything else that uses equal or less data?
So have you not yet realized that "Net Neutrality" isn't what you thought it was? That they sold you a bill of goods by putting a spiffy sounding name on it?
Not to mention that we don't hand out geographic monopolies to any company. We just auctioned off spectrum space to any and all bidders with money to pay for it.
Unless he's talking about LAND LINES, which, even in the states is so yesterday...
You are a credit to the English major lobby on Slashdot... Here's a gold star for your chart today..
My humble apologies for having frightful English composition skills, horrible spelling, terrible typing mistakes and inexcusable errors in word usage. I hope you are still able to understand the meaning of what I write..
These days, be prepared to be called a racist, even if you aren't. All it takes is opposing some political position which is tangentially related to race, or can be argued to be related. It's called "playing the race card" and it's been done a LOT by the current administration and the media supporting it.
Don't think so? What's all this hype about voter-ID laws? If I support imposing a voter ID rule, where you must show a picture ID to vote, in some circles that's considered a racist view. Or, one of my favorite examples is the guy who said "All lives matter" in response to the recent "black lives matter" movement. How's either idea racist by default?
I'm sure "The Donald" is not your choice then... Good, he's not my first choice either, but if faced with a bad Toupee over a loud mouth playing consertive or the liberal lying Clinton reruns, I'm taking the Toupee..
Lets just say it this way. Industrial electrical production is a mess no matter how it is done. In fact just about ALL industrial scale operations are an environmental mess in one way or another. And let it go..
Typically natural gas plants are huge boilers, just like coal plants, but use different fuel.. With the huge cooling towers and all.
What you are describing are the exception and not the rule, they are small inefficient affairs designed to provide local peek load coverage in a hurry. Being inefficient they are used as rarely as possible, but being small means they are flexible and can go from zero to full output in a very short time.
Neutron flux is pretty much non existent in the bulk of a containment structure and the parts that are close "cool" rapidly from a radio active perspective. The only time there is any significant issue is when you have a containment structure like Three Mile Island Unit 2, where the core material got out of the primary coolant loop, and where the abrupt shutdown of the chain reaction left undesired fission byproducts about that would normally be allowed to burn off by slowly reducing the power output. In the end, the difficulty of removing the materials is about the same as similar materials from other kinds of industrial plants, you just have to wait sometimes.
I assure you, the vast majority of the containment structure is totally safe to handle with the same protective gear you should use for jackhammering concrete the day after the fuel is removed from the reactor. For the rest, it's just a matter of removing the high level fuel assemblies and waiting for the containment structures to cool down radioactively. But all this is fully understood and the whole plant can be removed in time. IF that's what you want.
I watched them do just that as a college student, where they dismantled a research reactor in the nuclear engineering building, jack hammered the containment structure into little pieces and hauled it away. Nobody was wearing any special gear beyond hard hats and the dust masks you can buy at the local big box store. I think I saw film badges and a couple of guys scanning for radiation once and a while, but apparently nothing kept them from removing the huge block of concrete and building a bunch of class rooms there.
Pay a bit more attention to the arguments I'm using here. The ones based on private property ownership, freedom, and such. I know you don't think I'm right, but at least try and understand why I think what I do so you can address my concerns with meaningful, thoughtful discussion that might actually communicate why your position isn't logically what I say.
We have 18 Trillion in debt last time I looked. It worked out to about $58K per citizen (working or not) on the PRINCIPLE alone. Plus in the last 8 years the overall debt number has nearly doubled and shows no real sign of slowing down. We have an ageing population and are facing an explosion of retirees who are living longer and longer collecting Social Security and using Medicare, but have fewer and fewer people actually working and paying into the system. Projections say that very soon we will not collect enough in social security taxes to pay benefits so the money will have to be obtained someplace. Where do you suppose that is?
As your side is so fond of social spending, you are also often forced to admit that the only *real* way to pay for all this is to tax more, now or in the future. It's usually the future with you guys because increasing taxes doesn't play well politically for your side (or for any side). The problem with the technique is the same as the allure of low car payments and credit card debt. Eventually the payments must be made, with interest, and that $20,0000 in credit card debt cost you many times that to pay off when you keep making the minimum monthly payments.
So this discussion, which is about what limits you have, how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered by your side (heck, all sides in the political world). How far will you go to meet your goals? I don't see you saying there are really any limits, that your stated goal should be our only priority and any cost is worth it to you. Yet you don't admit that this idea really implies another form of government, one that doesn't honor personal property rights but discards it in favor of a "it's only fair" subjective test. If you don't see the risks in that, I'm not sure you are thinking hard enough.
"If I feed an animal 2000 corns/kg over its lifetime...
... then your greatest accomplishment is clearly having created a new unit of measurement, to wit,corns/kg.
I assume we're talking about cows.
Don't feed them corn. Let them eat the grass they evolved to eat. They'll be happier and the meat will taste better.
Depends on what your tastes are. Personally, having raised beef both ways and eaten the results, I prefer grain finished over grass fed. Grain finished turns out more tender, has more flavor because it has more fat content.
BTW, Cows ARE evolved to eat grain and greatly prefer it over grass because it is energy rich and takes a lot less energy to digest. It's the same as the average person's liking for sugar and starch because it's quick energy and evolution prefers that. Cows like grain so much that they will literally eat themselves to death if enough of it is available. So I don't think feeding them grain is counter to nature's design and if we can make a taster hamburger by doing it, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
So you admit you don't know the 9 things and that Ole Al was talking in general about stuff that is centuries away from happening? Oh, and let me add, even after 10 years we don't know for sure if what he seemed to have clamed was accurate or not? 10 years on we don't see evidence he was correct, you said so yourself.
That about sums up the movie... There where some serious flaws in the science and facts Al used. He implies a whole lot of stuff but parses his words carefully to lead the audience into believing stuff that is totally inaccurate even in the view of folks who believe in man made global warming/climate change or what ever they call it today. Then even after 10 years, all we know is that the number of issues with Al's little slide show just continues to grow. Face it, Al was pretty much just peddling hype and was mostly wrong... But let's not forget he made a nice chunk of change with all this....
Then you tell me that I'm not informed.... That's rich man...
Oh we have three reprocessing systems already. We used them for producing nuclear bomb material... I believe the Savannah River site has just been sitting there rusting since the military stopped using it in 2002 while the others are a few decades older...
Yea, but how is suggesting a law that has no racial component immediately draw the charge of racism? Racism.the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
I submit that there are a LOT of people who think voter ID laws are a good idea because they would prevent voter fraud, people voting for others or dead people. How's that motivation racist, it has nothing what so ever to do with anybody's race? Yet they routinely get branded as such because playing the "race card" shuts down the debate because the other side sets up the straw man argument and then brands their opponent with a charge of being racist. What do you do? Answer the ridiculous charge? Most folks just clam up, not prepared for the slight of hand, caught off guard by being accused of not being politically correct.
The same tactic is used for other social issues, where the real motives of the folks on one side of the issue are substituted with a straw man made up by the other side. They did it with the Gay marriage debate, the democrats invented the "War on Women" being waged by republicans and many more.
Surely you see what I mean.. Lying about your opponent's motives is common in politics. All is not true in the rhetoric you hear..
Seriously.. I don't put data on the web, in the cloud or anyplace I don't completely control and monitor unless it is absolutely necessary. IF it's necessary, it only goes encrypted. So here are my rules...
1. Don't put data on the net if you can help it. Avoid it at nearly costs.
2. When you *do* need/want to put data on the net, ENCRYPT it first, even if it's not sensitive.
3. NEVER put sensitive data on the net unless you have no other choices, then encrypted it using the best encryption possible.
4. REMOVE any and all data on the net you have no more need for right away.
We don't eh? Name one thing ole Al said was going to happen in 2006 that has in the last 10 years.... But before you do, name the 9 known scientific errors in his little film..
Actually, I know why, or at least the reason they claim. It is claimed that it would violate international agreements because it would provide a stockpile of weapons grade fissionable materials.
Since Carter's administration, it's been the policy that we don't reprocess fuel. But this has been stupid from the start. It leaves highly dangerous spent fuel assemblies languishing in cooling pools literally all over the place in varying levels of security and monitoring.
Well, now that's a different subject... Why do we need to keep using coal? Because it's cheap and our competition on the world economic stage has no problem using the option to best us if they can. We must compete, or be swept into the dustbin of irrelevance, where our collective wealth will evaporate into faint memories of better times as we are plundered by those more capable.
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but he is right in that it is the economic might of this country which determines our place in the world. It is what we produce, the wealth we generate that matters because without it, we have no way to defend ourselves. We would have no resources to build arms, field military force and face those who would willingly dominate us by force.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's *only* coal, or that we shouldn't be environmentally careful in our choices of energy supplies, but that we need to be looking at the bigger picture and not throwing out the cheap energy resource we have in abundance out unless we are willing and able to still compete effectively with the rest of the world. If we choose wrongly, hobble ourselves too much, and lose, we loose much more than we loose if we just burned the coal.
Yea it was that pesky lack of electricity to drive the cooling pumps that really was the problem. Had they managed to keep or get a working generator on site, it would have been a non-event even though the earthquake they experienced was many times larger than the supposed design limits of the plant.
Problem is, we are seeing a unprecedented lull in "major storms" hitting the USA right now. So it seems that for the last decade, the actual damage from hurricanes has been at an all time low in the USA.
They will eventually start up again, but the problem here is that there is no way to know of forecast where the "outliers" will fall and how bad they will be. They are statistical anomalies and where we can guess they exist, we don't have enough information to accurately gauge the risks. So you build to what you know, plus some margin for safety. Problem solved.
Oh really... All this salt water incursion doesn't have *anything* at all to do with how much ground water is being pumped out of the ground? It's all due to global warming and sea levels going up?
Tell you what, build a couple more reverse osmosis plants and stop pumping ground and surface water and I'll be wiling to wager the progression of salt water will literally slow to a trickle in Southern Florida.
Yea, and some of them don't think saving for retirement is necessary or that the federal debt doesn't matter too...
They think so.. Why else would they be pumping as fast as they can, driving world oil production though the roof and prices below subsistence levels for many of it's members? Something fishy is going on...
What would you like them to do about it?
Me? REPROCESS the fuel assemblies and separate out the fissionable materials from the toxic waste and high level radio active materials. Hang on to the plutonium and uranium and other useful stuff, package up the rest in glass/ceramic blocks and bury it or dump it into the deepest part of the ocean where it will be safe for a few thousand years.
Yea, according to Al Gore's movie, we should all be just about dead now.. Either drowned by the sea, blow away by a hurricane or burnt to a crisp from the baking heat.
Ah yes... The "name is something that sounds good in the press releases" but what actually is in there is anybody's guess. Nobody is going to read that thing and who would come out and say they oppose "Clean Air" "Clean Water" or "Food for starving children"....
Are we tired of typical politics yet?
If data is just data... the whole point of net neutrality is it shouldn't matter if it's a movie or not. If 480p can be streamed without going against your data plan, then why not anything else that uses equal or less data?
So have you not yet realized that "Net Neutrality" isn't what you thought it was? That they sold you a bill of goods by putting a spiffy sounding name on it?
Not to mention that we don't hand out geographic monopolies to any company. We just auctioned off spectrum space to any and all bidders with money to pay for it.
Unless he's talking about LAND LINES, which, even in the states is so yesterday...
You are a credit to the English major lobby on Slashdot... Here's a gold star for your chart today..
My humble apologies for having frightful English composition skills, horrible spelling, terrible typing mistakes and inexcusable errors in word usage. I hope you are still able to understand the meaning of what I write..
These days, be prepared to be called a racist, even if you aren't. All it takes is opposing some political position which is tangentially related to race, or can be argued to be related. It's called "playing the race card" and it's been done a LOT by the current administration and the media supporting it.
Don't think so? What's all this hype about voter-ID laws? If I support imposing a voter ID rule, where you must show a picture ID to vote, in some circles that's considered a racist view. Or, one of my favorite examples is the guy who said "All lives matter" in response to the recent "black lives matter" movement. How's either idea racist by default?
I'm sure "The Donald" is not your choice then... Good, he's not my first choice either, but if faced with a bad Toupee over a loud mouth playing consertive or the liberal lying Clinton reruns, I'm taking the Toupee..
Lets just say it this way. Industrial electrical production is a mess no matter how it is done. In fact just about ALL industrial scale operations are an environmental mess in one way or another. And let it go..
Um... No...
Typically natural gas plants are huge boilers, just like coal plants, but use different fuel.. With the huge cooling towers and all.
What you are describing are the exception and not the rule, they are small inefficient affairs designed to provide local peek load coverage in a hurry. Being inefficient they are used as rarely as possible, but being small means they are flexible and can go from zero to full output in a very short time.
For Pete's sake...
Neutron flux is pretty much non existent in the bulk of a containment structure and the parts that are close "cool" rapidly from a radio active perspective. The only time there is any significant issue is when you have a containment structure like Three Mile Island Unit 2, where the core material got out of the primary coolant loop, and where the abrupt shutdown of the chain reaction left undesired fission byproducts about that would normally be allowed to burn off by slowly reducing the power output. In the end, the difficulty of removing the materials is about the same as similar materials from other kinds of industrial plants, you just have to wait sometimes.
I assure you, the vast majority of the containment structure is totally safe to handle with the same protective gear you should use for jackhammering concrete the day after the fuel is removed from the reactor. For the rest, it's just a matter of removing the high level fuel assemblies and waiting for the containment structures to cool down radioactively. But all this is fully understood and the whole plant can be removed in time. IF that's what you want.
I watched them do just that as a college student, where they dismantled a research reactor in the nuclear engineering building, jack hammered the containment structure into little pieces and hauled it away. Nobody was wearing any special gear beyond hard hats and the dust masks you can buy at the local big box store. I think I saw film badges and a couple of guys scanning for radiation once and a while, but apparently nothing kept them from removing the huge block of concrete and building a bunch of class rooms there.
I'm not buying it.
Pay a bit more attention to the arguments I'm using here. The ones based on private property ownership, freedom, and such. I know you don't think I'm right, but at least try and understand why I think what I do so you can address my concerns with meaningful, thoughtful discussion that might actually communicate why your position isn't logically what I say.
We have 18 Trillion in debt last time I looked. It worked out to about $58K per citizen (working or not) on the PRINCIPLE alone. Plus in the last 8 years the overall debt number has nearly doubled and shows no real sign of slowing down. We have an ageing population and are facing an explosion of retirees who are living longer and longer collecting Social Security and using Medicare, but have fewer and fewer people actually working and paying into the system. Projections say that very soon we will not collect enough in social security taxes to pay benefits so the money will have to be obtained someplace. Where do you suppose that is?
As your side is so fond of social spending, you are also often forced to admit that the only *real* way to pay for all this is to tax more, now or in the future. It's usually the future with you guys because increasing taxes doesn't play well politically for your side (or for any side). The problem with the technique is the same as the allure of low car payments and credit card debt. Eventually the payments must be made, with interest, and that $20,0000 in credit card debt cost you many times that to pay off when you keep making the minimum monthly payments.
So this discussion, which is about what limits you have, how much personal property can the government really take to support your ideas about outcome equality, still remains unanswered by your side (heck, all sides in the political world). How far will you go to meet your goals? I don't see you saying there are really any limits, that your stated goal should be our only priority and any cost is worth it to you. Yet you don't admit that this idea really implies another form of government, one that doesn't honor personal property rights but discards it in favor of a "it's only fair" subjective test. If you don't see the risks in that, I'm not sure you are thinking hard enough.
... then your greatest accomplishment is clearly having created a new unit of measurement, to wit,corns/kg.
I assume we're talking about cows. Don't feed them corn. Let them eat the grass they evolved to eat. They'll be happier and the meat will taste better.
Depends on what your tastes are. Personally, having raised beef both ways and eaten the results, I prefer grain finished over grass fed. Grain finished turns out more tender, has more flavor because it has more fat content.
BTW, Cows ARE evolved to eat grain and greatly prefer it over grass because it is energy rich and takes a lot less energy to digest. It's the same as the average person's liking for sugar and starch because it's quick energy and evolution prefers that. Cows like grain so much that they will literally eat themselves to death if enough of it is available. So I don't think feeding them grain is counter to nature's design and if we can make a taster hamburger by doing it, why not?