No, I'm saying it does have an effect, but that effect is not creating a new protected class. I repeat that it's effect is to prevent employers creating a new discriminated against class.
A distinction without a difference. A law prohibiting discrimination, by definition, creates a protected class. It does not matter whether the discriminated-against class was pre-existing or is new.
Needless to say, this discussion has gone far past the point of being productive.
The illegality of discriminating against non-impaired people does not create a new protected class at all.
You're basically saying that Prop. 19 Article 5 11304(c) has no effect, and that it does not create a new protected class. In that case, why is this section included in the Proposition at all? If it has no effect, then eliminate the section. Eliminating the section costs you nothing, since the section has no effect, and I will vote for Prop. 19, and we will both be happy.
Rather is prevents employers creating a new unjustly discriminated against class.
If they are under-performing or impaired then is just cause. If they are not, then there isn't just cause.
Your arguments, even if completely true and valid (which they are not), still don't justify why marijuana users need special protections. Surely any anti-discrimination laws that apply to marijuana users should also apply equally well to tobacco smokers. Let's make one anti-discrimination law that covers all drug users. It's bad public policy to make separate anti-discrimination laws for each drug.
All I'm saying is, very simply, legalization and anti-discrimination are two separate issues. I refuse on general principle to support any proposal that combines two unrelated issues, or that attempts to use one issue as a lever to pass a bill on another issue.
Go read the 21st amendment to the US Constitution, which legalized alcohol. Do you see anything about anti-discrimination in that amendment? Of course not. Anti-discrimination is addressed in other amendments (e.g. 14th). There are good reasons for treating separate issues separately, and I have explained those reasons at great length. It's a pity that you do not understand them.
Sure, but you're still delaying the onset of full legalization for the country.
My position all along is that the fault for the delay lies with the authors of Prop. 19, for trying to do too much with one proposition. If full legalization as soon as possible is really the ultimate goal, then give me a proposition that maximizes the probability of success. Give me a proposition that is about legalization and only legalization.
It's not my job as a voter to compensate for a lack of willingness to compromise on the part of the authors of the proposition.
While that may be the case, personally I think the greater harm in this situation is the drug law, not the clarity of the proposition repealing it.
If the authors of Prop. 19 had acted in accordance with your philosophy, then they would have written the proposition in such a way as to minimize side effects, in order to maximize its chances of passage.
The fact that they did not do this leads me to suspect that they themselves perhaps do not consider the drug law to be the greatest evil.
Thank you for your even response, I agree with your points wholeheartedly. I would still argue that you might be throwing out the good for the perfect, but I can understand your objection.
I think in this case the authors of Prop. 19 are guilty of that, rather than me.
The status quo is that marijuana is illegal. An incremental approach would be to first legalize the drug, and then worry about discrimination as a subsequent matter. Instead, the authors of Prop. 19 chose to put forth a "perfect" law, one that addresses both issues simultaneously. As I explained, I object to this approach.
Ah yes, absentee voting. I'm a mail-voter myself, but I haven't gotten my ballot yet... If you got yours, I should probably look into that.
I live overseas (temporarily, of course), and they send out international ballots earlier than in-state ballots.
I think that text is in Prop. 19 to address the question of drug testing, specifically the fact that so many companies will not hire someone that does not pass a marijuana screening. What is the point of making it legal if nobody that uses it can get a job?
I say, let's first legalize marijuana and then see if it is a problem, rather than pre-emptively passing legislation in anticipation. There is nothing radical or unreasonable about my position.
Would you support testing for alcohol and not hiring/firing anyone that failed the screening? I think if a big enough percentage of companies implemented nicotine or alcohol screening we would see the law changed to protect those people as well.
I think that, if necessary, there should be a separate law addressing discrimination on the basis of drug usage. If different drugs require different treatment (e.g. secondhand smoke), then we can address such differences within a single otherwise uniform legal framework. What I don't want to see is one entirely separate anti-discrimination law for each different drug. That's what Prop. 19 gives us.
Your version is worded as a limitation on the employer. The real version is worded as restatement of the continuance of an existing right of an employer.
The real version is a continuance of only one single existing right of an employer, namely the right to discriminate against impaired employees. All other existing rights, and in particular the existing right to discriminate against non-impaired marijuana users, are removed by Prop. 19.
You have a funny definition of "protected class". You want employers to have the right to fire anyone for actions not related to their job which is not a right they have now unless the employee is hired at-will. Marijuana is currently an exception to this and you're mad the exception is going away. Employers who want to discriminate against marijuana users are the protected class currently.
Marijuana is not currently an exception. Existing law does not address marijuana discrimination at all, but it does allow employers to discriminate against lawbreakers. Since marijuana is currently illegal, this means employers can discriminate against marijuana users.
As I said below, I actually agree that employers should not be able to fire people for off-duty behavior, but I don't agree that this issue belongs in Prop. 19. It belongs in a separate law, and it should be a single general provision that covers all off-duty behavior, not just one single narrow exception for marijuana use (or worse, dozens of separate clauses, one for each drug).
Civic democracy depends on clarity of political discourse for efficient functioning. Two separate issues should not be combined into one single proposition, law, statute, or bill, or proposal.
It might be legal to hire/fire someone based on the fact that they smoke, but some of us might consider that wrong to begin with, and don't see any reason to make the same mistake with weed.
That's a valid opinion, and I actually agree with it, but it should be a separate law. As a side benefit, if you make it a separate law, you can have one single law that covers all drug usage, instead of fifteen separate laws, one for each drug.
If the two issues of legalization and anti-discrimination were in separate propositions, then that's a whole different story. My opposition is based on the fact that two unrelated issues are needlessly mixed in a single statute.
Also, I was wondering why in your original post you say you voted against Prop 19? Last I checked, the election is next month...
Doesn't strike me as any different than the status quo -- employers have plenty of reasons to unload a problem worker without discriminating.
Yes, that reinforces my point. I've been saying all along that existing legal protections are sufficient, and that no new wording is required in Prop. 19.
Given that existing legal protections are sufficient, why is this section present in Prop. 19? The best-case scenario is that it has no effect. In my opinion (which lies somewhere in between the best and worst case scenarios), it has the unintended consequence of creating extra and undesirable legal protections for marijuana users. The worst-case scenario is that the section was added to Prop. 19 specifically for the purpose of advancing a non-obvious, hidden agenda.
If cannabis supporters want to legalize marijuana, give me a clean, single-purpose statute that addresses legalization and only legalization. Don't give me a bill loaded with unrelated crap that gives the appearance that you have something to hide.
It will be clear to other readers that this doesn't mean what you claim it does.
Regardless of what you or I say, I think other readers and (more importantly) other voters will be smart enough to see the truth.
The text says clearly and specifically that only "consumption that actually impairs job performance" may be addressed. This is not my interpretation. This is not something I made up. This is an actual quote.
The text clearly and specifically forbids discrimination. It clearly and specifically uses the word "discriminated". If this does not constitute creation of a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes, then I don't know what does.
Under existing law, it is legal for me to fire or refuse to hire smokers based solely on the fact that they smoke. I do not need to defend my decision on the basis of job performance. Hell, I can even legally fire someone based solely on the fact that their spouse smokes. Even you, despite all our disagreements, seem to agree that Prop. 19 bans this practice with respect to marijuana use. I see no reason why Prop. 19 needs to address this issue. Legalization of tobacco or alcohol is not tied to anti-discrimination laws in any way. Why does there need to be a link for marijuana?
The phrase that you cite is in fact a limitation. Your interpretation is the one that is wrong.
Without Prop. 19, an employer has two existing rights. One is the right to discriminate against employees using marijuana. The other is the right to discriminate against employees whose job performance is impaired. If Prop. 19 passes, then the quotation that you so accurately cite only preserves the second right. It does not preserve the first right.
Make no mistake: Prop. 19 does create an affirmative protected category of worker. Indeed, if your interpretation really is correct, that Prop. 19 changes nothing about existing law, then why is that section needed at all in the first place, if existing protections are left unchanged by it? If you are correct (which you are not), then they would have been better off leaving that section out, since it has no effect, and can be misinterpreted.
Unfortunately, the implementation of Prop. 19 is seriously flawed, even for those of us who generally support marijuana legalization.
Prop. 19 creates a new protected class of worker (Article 5, 11304(c)). It explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of marijuana use unless the employer can prove that the usage affects job performance. This is a very high standard of proof, and more than we currently require for alcohol and tobacco.
This blatant overreach is why I voted against Prop. 19, even though I support marijuana legalization in general. Existing anti-discrimination laws are already very strong, and adequate to cover cases of genuine disability. legalization should do just that: make marijuana legal. There is no need for side effects such as creating new protected classes of workers.
The theoretical speed for a momentum-limited, 100m orion craft would be 3,3% of the speed of light, so... no. No it wouldn't.
You missed the point completely. 3.3% of the speed of light isn't enough to get there within our lifetimes, but it's a lot faster than the estimate of "180,000 years based on current space flight technology" quoted in the summary.
And make no mistake, Project Orion is completely feasible with present-day technology. The only reason why people avoid mentioning it is because it contains the dirty word "nuclear".
1. Telephone companies can and do routinely trangulate from towers or use GPS-enabled smartphones to establish the position of a cellular phone. It's not rocket science to integrate those measurements over time and obtain the velocity of a cellular phone.
What you describe is called differentiation, not integration. Integration is the exact opposite: using velocity measurements to determine position.
2. Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
As others have already mentioned above, this approach would block text messages from passengers as well as drivers, and from passengers on buses and trains as well as cars, which is probably not what you intended.
H. Sapiens has a built in fear of heights. Take a six month old kid and try to get him to crawl over a pane of glass suspended at a meter's altitude - no go. It's been tested, after reaching a certain age he won't do it. He has figured out the dangers of the Z coordinate.
Uh, what? Here's an article with a picture of a kid crawling over the glass floor of the CN Tower, suspended at an altitude of over 300 meters.
I've visited the CN Tower several times, and I can confirm -- the kids have absolutely no fear. It's the adults who are scared to stand on the floor.
I'm not saying AGW is impossible. It sure as hell isn't an undisputed fact. And guys like you frothing at the mouth... is that "sticking it to the man"? Toeing the AGW line is so NOT punk rock.
The consequences of AGW are so dire that, unless you can rule it out as impossible, it is worth spending some serious effort to avoid the possibility.
The very uncertainty of climate modeling makes it flat-out ludicrous for anyone to claim that AGW poses no risk. To your credit, you do not claim this, but a lot of global warming skeptics do.
Spending (say) 1% of global economic activity (about 600 billion dollars a year) on carbon reduction is well within the range of any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, based on our current imperfect understanding of global climate.
I might also mention, by the way, that the same argument is used to support anti-terrorism efforts, at least in the US: the consequences of a terrorist attack are portrayed to be so dire as to be worth paying almost any price to prevent. It is very interesting that the US Republican Party is willing to go to absurd lengths to thwart terrorist attacks, but opposes any measures whatsoever to combat global warming.
I can be reasonably sure that the wind turbines in my farm aren't going to explode, due to fault or bad management, and pollute my property for decades.
Can I be sure that the Rossatom-built and operated nuclear power plant in a different country across the river with an unstable government and serious ethnic problems will be as safe?
Yes, I'll take that side of the bet any day.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is also not something to be ignored. I'm more likely to die from coal pollution than a nuclear explosion, by a factor of about a few thousand. A new nuclear plant, even in my backyard, is a good tradeoff for me. At least (unlike with coal pollution) I can move and avoid the effects.
That is the problem. Nuclear energy has never-ever been tested in the free market. It is largely a byproduct of the nuclear weapons industry, in which costs were never a consideration.
All modern-day energy technologies, including nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and even oil and coal, benefit from past and ongoing government support. It is not reasonable to insist on government-free nuclear power, unless you are also willing to apply the same standard to the alternatives.
For the record, I am willing to adopt this position. I would like to see NO future government support or interference in any energy technologies whatsoever (perhaps with an exception for basic research).
Yes, in the context you try force on it, I did not raise the issue. You focus on past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results.
The real issue is that the only easily available way to have "cheap" nuclear energy is to cut safety costs. The numerous projects in countries that have less than stellar record in industrial safety is certainly something to be aware of./
Hence my comment on "safe and financially reasonable", I am not questioning the past record of the nuclear industry so much, as worrying about its future.
I don't think it's possible, even in theory, for any energy technology whatsoever to prove its future safety according to this standard.
A lot of people (including you) do not understand the fact that, unlike coal plants, in which you basically burn what you dig, uranium ore has to undergo a complex processing in which only a very very small fraction of it ends up as usable fuel.
True without breeder reactors. Absolutely untrue with breeder reactors. Breeder reactors use up 100% of the uranium that you put in.
That means that the production of the proverbial "pound of uranium", which contains energy of untold tons of coal, requires a huge and very expensive infrastructure to get it out of the earth, make it into yellow cake, and further enrich and process that until it is usable as fuel.
True. Nuclear power is more expensive than oil and coal are today (if you ignore the effects of fossil fuel pollution), because of all the processing. However, oil and coal will soon become much more expensive, while nuclear power will not increase in price very much, even if fuel becomes more expensive. The cost of fuel input is negligible compared to the processing costs.
Raw uranium is about as common as lead. Literally.
There is only so much cheaply available ore, and the proportion of uranium that is usable in it is very small.
The proportion of uranium that is cheaply usable is very small. You will not be able to get cheap nuclear fuel for billions of years. But you will be able to get expensive nuclear fuel for billions of years. This is not true of any other energy technology (except solar -- until the sun burns out in 5 billion years).
Alternatives like breeding reactors have been around for a long-long time, but a reactor that produces fuel more economically than shifting gigatonnes of dirt and operating a complex and dangerous refinement process.
If mining uranium from dirt from the ground is cheaper than breeder reactors, then we should continue mining uranium.
Eventually, mining new uranium will become more expensive than using breeder reactors. At that point, breeders will indeed be more economical than shifting gigatons of dirt.
Then the fuel will jump in cost a lot. If the current contracts and proposals of Rosatom in Turkey and Eastern Europe are any indication, the increase will make even the photo/wind alternative energy options seem cheap by comparison as early as 2030.
I'm happy to let the marketplace sort this out according to the normal laws of economics.
Nuclear power generates one sixth of the world's electricity. Solar and wind are untested at that scale, and they have other problems that nuclear power does not have: What do you do when it's night, cloudy, or windless? The problems with solar and wind might be solvable, but nuclear power is available today and does not require the development of new technology.
If at some point the technology for solar/wind/etc. power works out, I'm all for it. Until then, even if we just stick with what we already know can be done, nuclear power will satisfy human energy needs for billions of years.
The only big nuclear disaster in human history is Chernobyl. It killed 56 people directly, and arguably 4000 people indirectly due to long-term radiation. Coal mining kills 5000 people each year. Coal pollution kills 24000 people each yearin the United States alone.
To call nuclear power unsafe in light of the (easily verifiable) facts to the contrary is the height of irresponsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm saying it does have an effect, but that effect is not creating a new protected class. I repeat that it's effect is to prevent employers creating a new discriminated against class.
A distinction without a difference. A law prohibiting discrimination, by definition, creates a protected class. It does not matter whether the discriminated-against class was pre-existing or is new.
Needless to say, this discussion has gone far past the point of being productive.
Yes, "an" does mean "only one single".
The illegality of discriminating against non-impaired people does not create a new protected class at all.
You're basically saying that Prop. 19 Article 5 11304(c) has no effect, and that it does not create a new protected class. In that case, why is this section included in the Proposition at all? If it has no effect, then eliminate the section. Eliminating the section costs you nothing, since the section has no effect, and I will vote for Prop. 19, and we will both be happy.
Rather is prevents employers creating a new unjustly discriminated against class.
If they are under-performing or impaired then is just cause. If they are not, then there isn't just cause.
Your arguments, even if completely true and valid (which they are not), still don't justify why marijuana users need special protections. Surely any anti-discrimination laws that apply to marijuana users should also apply equally well to tobacco smokers. Let's make one anti-discrimination law that covers all drug users. It's bad public policy to make separate anti-discrimination laws for each drug.
All I'm saying is, very simply, legalization and anti-discrimination are two separate issues. I refuse on general principle to support any proposal that combines two unrelated issues, or that attempts to use one issue as a lever to pass a bill on another issue.
Go read the 21st amendment to the US Constitution, which legalized alcohol. Do you see anything about anti-discrimination in that amendment? Of course not. Anti-discrimination is addressed in other amendments (e.g. 14th). There are good reasons for treating separate issues separately, and I have explained those reasons at great length. It's a pity that you do not understand them.
Sure, but you're still delaying the onset of full legalization for the country.
My position all along is that the fault for the delay lies with the authors of Prop. 19, for trying to do too much with one proposition. If full legalization as soon as possible is really the ultimate goal, then give me a proposition that maximizes the probability of success. Give me a proposition that is about legalization and only legalization.
It's not my job as a voter to compensate for a lack of willingness to compromise on the part of the authors of the proposition.
Well, your position is rational, but it most definitely is also unreasonable.
Cannabis cures cancer.
Medical marijuana is already legal under California state law, so it is not directly relevant to the debate over Prop. 19.
While that may be the case, personally I think the greater harm in this situation is the drug law, not the clarity of the proposition repealing it.
If the authors of Prop. 19 had acted in accordance with your philosophy, then they would have written the proposition in such a way as to minimize side effects, in order to maximize its chances of passage.
The fact that they did not do this leads me to suspect that they themselves perhaps do not consider the drug law to be the greatest evil.
Thank you for your even response, I agree with your points wholeheartedly. I would still argue that you might be throwing out the good for the perfect, but I can understand your objection.
I think in this case the authors of Prop. 19 are guilty of that, rather than me.
The status quo is that marijuana is illegal. An incremental approach would be to first legalize the drug, and then worry about discrimination as a subsequent matter. Instead, the authors of Prop. 19 chose to put forth a "perfect" law, one that addresses both issues simultaneously. As I explained, I object to this approach.
Ah yes, absentee voting. I'm a mail-voter myself, but I haven't gotten my ballot yet... If you got yours, I should probably look into that.
I live overseas (temporarily, of course), and they send out international ballots earlier than in-state ballots.
I think that text is in Prop. 19 to address the question of drug testing, specifically the fact that so many companies will not hire someone that does not pass a marijuana screening. What is the point of making it legal if nobody that uses it can get a job?
I say, let's first legalize marijuana and then see if it is a problem, rather than pre-emptively passing legislation in anticipation. There is nothing radical or unreasonable about my position.
Would you support testing for alcohol and not hiring/firing anyone that failed the screening? I think if a big enough percentage of companies implemented nicotine or alcohol screening we would see the law changed to protect those people as well.
I think that, if necessary, there should be a separate law addressing discrimination on the basis of drug usage. If different drugs require different treatment (e.g. secondhand smoke), then we can address such differences within a single otherwise uniform legal framework. What I don't want to see is one entirely separate anti-discrimination law for each different drug. That's what Prop. 19 gives us.
Your version is worded as a limitation on the employer. The real version is worded as restatement of the continuance of an existing right of an employer.
The real version is a continuance of only one single existing right of an employer, namely the right to discriminate against impaired employees. All other existing rights, and in particular the existing right to discriminate against non-impaired marijuana users, are removed by Prop. 19.
You have a funny definition of "protected class". You want employers to have the right to fire anyone for actions not related to their job which is not a right they have now unless the employee is hired at-will. Marijuana is currently an exception to this and you're mad the exception is going away. Employers who want to discriminate against marijuana users are the protected class currently.
Marijuana is not currently an exception. Existing law does not address marijuana discrimination at all, but it does allow employers to discriminate against lawbreakers. Since marijuana is currently illegal, this means employers can discriminate against marijuana users.
As I said below, I actually agree that employers should not be able to fire people for off-duty behavior, but I don't agree that this issue belongs in Prop. 19. It belongs in a separate law, and it should be a single general provision that covers all off-duty behavior, not just one single narrow exception for marijuana use (or worse, dozens of separate clauses, one for each drug).
Civic democracy depends on clarity of political discourse for efficient functioning. Two separate issues should not be combined into one single proposition, law, statute, or bill, or proposal.
It might be legal to hire/fire someone based on the fact that they smoke, but some of us might consider that wrong to begin with, and don't see any reason to make the same mistake with weed.
That's a valid opinion, and I actually agree with it, but it should be a separate law. As a side benefit, if you make it a separate law, you can have one single law that covers all drug usage, instead of fifteen separate laws, one for each drug.
If the two issues of legalization and anti-discrimination were in separate propositions, then that's a whole different story. My opposition is based on the fact that two unrelated issues are needlessly mixed in a single statute.
Also, I was wondering why in your original post you say you voted against Prop 19? Last I checked, the election is next month...
It's the magic of absentee voting.
Doesn't strike me as any different than the status quo -- employers have plenty of reasons to unload a problem worker without discriminating.
Yes, that reinforces my point. I've been saying all along that existing legal protections are sufficient, and that no new wording is required in Prop. 19.
Given that existing legal protections are sufficient, why is this section present in Prop. 19? The best-case scenario is that it has no effect. In my opinion (which lies somewhere in between the best and worst case scenarios), it has the unintended consequence of creating extra and undesirable legal protections for marijuana users. The worst-case scenario is that the section was added to Prop. 19 specifically for the purpose of advancing a non-obvious, hidden agenda.
If cannabis supporters want to legalize marijuana, give me a clean, single-purpose statute that addresses legalization and only legalization. Don't give me a bill loaded with unrelated crap that gives the appearance that you have something to hide.
It will be clear to other readers that this doesn't mean what you claim it does.
Regardless of what you or I say, I think other readers and (more importantly) other voters will be smart enough to see the truth.
The text says clearly and specifically that only "consumption that actually impairs job performance" may be addressed. This is not my interpretation. This is not something I made up. This is an actual quote.
The text clearly and specifically forbids discrimination. It clearly and specifically uses the word "discriminated". If this does not constitute creation of a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes, then I don't know what does.
Under existing law, it is legal for me to fire or refuse to hire smokers based solely on the fact that they smoke. I do not need to defend my decision on the basis of job performance. Hell, I can even legally fire someone based solely on the fact that their spouse smokes. Even you, despite all our disagreements, seem to agree that Prop. 19 bans this practice with respect to marijuana use. I see no reason why Prop. 19 needs to address this issue. Legalization of tobacco or alcohol is not tied to anti-discrimination laws in any way. Why does there need to be a link for marijuana?
Without Prop. 19, an employer has two existing rights. One is the right to discriminate against employees using marijuana. The other is the right to discriminate against employees whose job performance is impaired. If Prop. 19 passes, then the quotation that you so accurately cite only preserves the second right. It does not preserve the first right.
Make no mistake: Prop. 19 does create an affirmative protected category of worker. Indeed, if your interpretation really is correct, that Prop. 19 changes nothing about existing law, then why is that section needed at all in the first place, if existing protections are left unchanged by it? If you are correct (which you are not), then they would have been better off leaving that section out, since it has no effect, and can be misinterpreted.
Prop. 19 creates a new protected class of worker (Article 5, 11304(c)). It explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of marijuana use unless the employer can prove that the usage affects job performance. This is a very high standard of proof, and more than we currently require for alcohol and tobacco.
This blatant overreach is why I voted against Prop. 19, even though I support marijuana legalization in general. Existing anti-discrimination laws are already very strong, and adequate to cover cases of genuine disability. legalization should do just that: make marijuana legal. There is no need for side effects such as creating new protected classes of workers.
The theoretical speed for a momentum-limited, 100m orion craft would be 3,3% of the speed of light, so... no. No it wouldn't.
You missed the point completely. 3.3% of the speed of light isn't enough to get there within our lifetimes, but it's a lot faster than the estimate of "180,000 years based on current space flight technology" quoted in the summary.
And make no mistake, Project Orion is completely feasible with present-day technology. The only reason why people avoid mentioning it is because it contains the dirty word "nuclear".
1. Telephone companies can and do routinely trangulate from towers or use GPS-enabled smartphones to establish the position of a cellular phone. It's not rocket science to integrate those measurements over time and obtain the velocity of a cellular phone.
What you describe is called differentiation, not integration. Integration is the exact opposite: using velocity measurements to determine position.
2. Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
As others have already mentioned above, this approach would block text messages from passengers as well as drivers, and from passengers on buses and trains as well as cars, which is probably not what you intended.
H. Sapiens has a built in fear of heights. Take a six month old kid and try to get him to crawl over a pane of glass suspended at a meter's altitude - no go. It's been tested, after reaching a certain age he won't do it. He has figured out the dangers of the Z coordinate.
Uh, what? Here's an article with a picture of a kid crawling over the glass floor of the CN Tower, suspended at an altitude of over 300 meters.
I've visited the CN Tower several times, and I can confirm -- the kids have absolutely no fear. It's the adults who are scared to stand on the floor.
I'm not saying AGW is impossible. It sure as hell isn't an undisputed fact. And guys like you frothing at the mouth... is that "sticking it to the man"? Toeing the AGW line is so NOT punk rock.
The consequences of AGW are so dire that, unless you can rule it out as impossible, it is worth spending some serious effort to avoid the possibility.
The very uncertainty of climate modeling makes it flat-out ludicrous for anyone to claim that AGW poses no risk. To your credit, you do not claim this, but a lot of global warming skeptics do.
Spending (say) 1% of global economic activity (about 600 billion dollars a year) on carbon reduction is well within the range of any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, based on our current imperfect understanding of global climate.
I might also mention, by the way, that the same argument is used to support anti-terrorism efforts, at least in the US: the consequences of a terrorist attack are portrayed to be so dire as to be worth paying almost any price to prevent. It is very interesting that the US Republican Party is willing to go to absurd lengths to thwart terrorist attacks, but opposes any measures whatsoever to combat global warming.
I can be reasonably sure that the wind turbines in my farm aren't going to explode, due to fault or bad management, and pollute my property for decades. Can I be sure that the Rossatom-built and operated nuclear power plant in a different country across the river with an unstable government and serious ethnic problems will be as safe?
Yes, I'll take that side of the bet any day.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is also not something to be ignored. I'm more likely to die from coal pollution than a nuclear explosion, by a factor of about a few thousand. A new nuclear plant, even in my backyard, is a good tradeoff for me. At least (unlike with coal pollution) I can move and avoid the effects.
And sorry for the dimwit, I got carried away.
Hey, no problem, I got carried away too.
That is the problem. Nuclear energy has never-ever been tested in the free market. It is largely a byproduct of the nuclear weapons industry, in which costs were never a consideration.
All modern-day energy technologies, including nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and even oil and coal, benefit from past and ongoing government support. It is not reasonable to insist on government-free nuclear power, unless you are also willing to apply the same standard to the alternatives.
For the record, I am willing to adopt this position. I would like to see NO future government support or interference in any energy technologies whatsoever (perhaps with an exception for basic research).
Yes, in the context you try force on it, I did not raise the issue. You focus on past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results. The real issue is that the only easily available way to have "cheap" nuclear energy is to cut safety costs. The numerous projects in countries that have less than stellar record in industrial safety is certainly something to be aware of./ Hence my comment on "safe and financially reasonable", I am not questioning the past record of the nuclear industry so much, as worrying about its future.
I don't think it's possible, even in theory, for any energy technology whatsoever to prove its future safety according to this standard.
Because it is a requirement, dimwit.
Do you still deny that you raised the issue of safety?
If you had read my comments and understood what was being discussed, you would have noted that safety is not an issue that is the point of discussion.
If you're not discussing safety, then why did you use the word "safe" in your comment?
A lot of people (including you) do not understand the fact that, unlike coal plants, in which you basically burn what you dig, uranium ore has to undergo a complex processing in which only a very very small fraction of it ends up as usable fuel.
True without breeder reactors. Absolutely untrue with breeder reactors. Breeder reactors use up 100% of the uranium that you put in.
That means that the production of the proverbial "pound of uranium", which contains energy of untold tons of coal, requires a huge and very expensive infrastructure to get it out of the earth, make it into yellow cake, and further enrich and process that until it is usable as fuel.
True. Nuclear power is more expensive than oil and coal are today (if you ignore the effects of fossil fuel pollution), because of all the processing. However, oil and coal will soon become much more expensive, while nuclear power will not increase in price very much, even if fuel becomes more expensive. The cost of fuel input is negligible compared to the processing costs.
Raw uranium is about as common as lead. Literally.
There is only so much cheaply available ore, and the proportion of uranium that is usable in it is very small.
The proportion of uranium that is cheaply usable is very small. You will not be able to get cheap nuclear fuel for billions of years. But you will be able to get expensive nuclear fuel for billions of years. This is not true of any other energy technology (except solar -- until the sun burns out in 5 billion years).
Alternatives like breeding reactors have been around for a long-long time, but a reactor that produces fuel more economically than shifting gigatonnes of dirt and operating a complex and dangerous refinement process.
If mining uranium from dirt from the ground is cheaper than breeder reactors, then we should continue mining uranium.
Eventually, mining new uranium will become more expensive than using breeder reactors. At that point, breeders will indeed be more economical than shifting gigatons of dirt.
Then the fuel will jump in cost a lot. If the current contracts and proposals of Rosatom in Turkey and Eastern Europe are any indication, the increase will make even the photo/wind alternative energy options seem cheap by comparison as early as 2030.
I'm happy to let the marketplace sort this out according to the normal laws of economics.
Nuclear power generates one sixth of the world's electricity. Solar and wind are untested at that scale, and they have other problems that nuclear power does not have: What do you do when it's night, cloudy, or windless? The problems with solar and wind might be solvable, but nuclear power is available today and does not require the development of new technology.
If at some point the technology for solar/wind/etc. power works out, I'm all for it. Until then, even if we just stick with what we already know can be done, nuclear power will satisfy human energy needs for billions of years.
Worse, none have even shown that the respective technology has the potential to become safe and inexpensive.
Excuse me? You think nuclear energy is unsafe? Are you criminally insane?
Do you know how many people have died worldwide from nuclear accidents in the past twenty years?
Hint: it's in the single digits.
Do you know how many people have died from oil rig explosions in the past twenty years? Natural gas explosions? Coal mining accidents? Pollution from coal plants?
The only big nuclear disaster in human history is Chernobyl. It killed 56 people directly, and arguably 4000 people indirectly due to long-term radiation. Coal mining kills 5000 people each year. Coal pollution kills 24000 people each year in the United States alone.
To call nuclear power unsafe in light of the (easily verifiable) facts to the contrary is the height of irresponsibility.