if you could take your own advice, this catastrophe of a thread might not have occurred
I stand firm.
Recycling nuclear waste doesn't prevent it from being created. There is nothing inherent in recycling that can change that. You can try to say recycling a small bit reduces the total badness, but its crap. We know how the world works... bad shit happens all the time. Even when we're REALLY careful, space shuttles get destroyed. Its the same thing as saying taking a cup of water from an ocean reduces the overall size of that ocean. Yeah, true... but completely impotant against some argument "the beach sucks! (because of the ocean)."
And so, thus, you can finally see you were wrong, yes? About your straw man argument?
c-nuke waste bad
y-recycle
OR
x-death is bad
y-we can live healthier
^---y gives straw man responces
I don't even need to know what you think you're arguing against to know the response is, and has been since I called it out, a straw man fallacy.
Nuclear power produces near eternal deadly waste. The following responces would not have been a straw man:
1) no, they don't 2) no, it isn't 3) there's a new process, waste is no longer produced 4) yeah, sucks 5) but we do have a way to recycle it
oops, 5 is actually a straw man response because original statement never mentioned that we need to do something with it... if anything, all its, and I'm saying and said it we need to stop making it.
You must see the difference between:
1) waste is bad, we should stop making it
and
2) waste is bad... if only there was something we could do with it...
RENT a server, with all the specs you need, housed in climate controlled goodness... possibly in another country, possibly on another continent. Never worry aboit it again... you just rent it, who cares if it breaks?
Get a satellite (or possibly cell?) network service. Buy 4 cheepo laptops, set up identically, but work off of, keep all your work/data on the rented server (nxserver, or vnc or remote desktop) When the 1st cheepo laptop dies, move onto the next. Live carefree.
I have no personal ax to grind with nuclear power, but all those other clean energies that don't have that issues (among what ever issues they have).
Nuclear technology shouldn't be abandoned in its entirety, just this energy/waste thing. Once nuclear energy becomes an essential part of the world economy (it has, via cheap power, plant workers, need for quality education, etc.), it becomes permanent, or rather difficult to abandon... esp. by nuclear engineers and the like. And if we just recycle or even safely temporarily store it, there's a whole economy around that. If there's FUD about nuclear energy, I say use it... its just a bad choice... all these other choices, sure more expensive now. Worth it. Bargain. For the piece of mind that someday there will be no more new nuclear waste.
perhaps meaningless antidote...
old abandoned industrial site... been "cleaned up" and repurposed. Janitor finds a small, heavy object, not knowing what it is, puts it in his back pocket. A short time later, surely after he had gone home, changed clothes, showered... anyway, at some relatively short time later, whatever that interesting object was, it ate his ass off before killing him.
Nuclear power is creepy. Its bad for me, its bad for you, and we need all the smart careful humans (who could presumably provide us with safe carefree nuclear power/waste cycle) for lots of other things. I bet a 2 year tech degree recipiant could run a solar plant, esp if solar plants were common... zero risk there of killing everything in a 5-50 mile radius with those, so less education needed. And because those nuclear resources are freed up, who knows what amazing technologies might appear (derived from smart people no longer wasting time coming up with complex or elagant ways to... deal with deadly waste).
I never get beyond that first point... if deadly waste exists, and all the good intentions of our best can still make mistakes or get swindled or there is thing that can go wrong... why even still consider it when there's 20+(whatever, many) valid viable technologies that have nothing to do with deadly waste, of which there's a:.... lot of
don't insult the full notion that we're making superduperdeath in accumulating small and larger amounts by saying recycling makes it safer. You've heard of that large growing island of floating plastic in the Pacific? I bet ya somewhere in there theres already some radioactive trash... why, as a rational species, are we still fucking with something that could end us?
Why should any source be trusted? Whether its Sony's root kit, Microsoft's updater, Apple's updater, Google's updater... I might say a definition of malware is any software installed without explicit user intent. And if no networked computer is really safe... not even official software repositories and factory fresh ipods... would the story be any more or less surprising if the source of the trojan was Adobe? or Symantec?
I'll try again. my argument is that deadly waste is created.
my argument is not "we need a way to recycle waste," but that is what you seem to think my argument is. That is a straw man you are arguing against and not my position.
Try it this way: my argument is using plastic creates plastic garbage.
But you say we can recycle plastic.
I'm aware of that. But if we can recycle plastic, why is not all plastic recycled? There's plastic garbage everywhere....and because I didn't say "we need a way to recycle plastic," if you claim to have solved my problem, you argued against a position that wasn't precisely mine... if you said "we'll stop using plastic" or even "no it doesn't" you would be, and you would not be making a straw man argument.
If the alternate universe didn't show you what you both think I said, and you can't see the difference between the meaning of
1) Nuclear reactors make deadly waste
and
1a) Nuclear reactors make deadly waste and we need a way to recycle the waste
then it is hopeless.
They are 2 different statements, with different meanings.
Also, if you think that because some waste is recycled, all waste is safer, you also have some deeper flaws in understanding logic. If your street is cleaner, it doesn't make all streets any less dirty.
You were arguing that nuke plants are a "bad thing" because of problems with the waste.
No, I wasn't. And its certainly not a straw man just because I say it is. Nuclear power produces deadly nuclear waste. Recycling the deadly waste doesn't change that. As long as it is made, it can be stolen, or it can I don't know what, get in your ham sandwhich... recycling nuclear waste doesn't make nuclear waste any safer.
statement [a]: More nuclear reactors are a good thing.
False. Here's why: argument [XB]: 1. nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste, and we need some way to change that waste into something that's not so deadly.
2. the waste is deadly, effectively, forever, and we need a way to take that nuclear waste - that's made with current methods of harnessing fission energy which produces that nasty long term deadly waste, and somehow shorten the lifespan of its deadliness.
3. we can't find a safe place to store it 4. we can't safely move it to storage (thus, statement [a] must be false)
argument [c]: But we can recycle the waste! Check it out... 1) "resulting debris are constituted by light, natural and stable elements" - i.e. not radioactive
2) won't take long! "can be of the order of minutes per pellet of radioactive waste" - i.e. not years 3) won't have to! 4) won't need to!
argument [a] is valid (if blah blah blah good thing blah blah blah). RESOLVED.
...meanwhile under a bridge somewhere...
And that's where you're wrong, because his arguments mean that your points no longer support your antithesis.
Because you(s guys) have changed what my points are, and argued successfully against those points (rather well, I should add), I'd have to agree with you... the points in argument [XB] no longer support anti-statement [a]. But the points I made were argument [X].
So long as fission power produces nuclear waste, nuclear reactors are an awful idea. Change the process, so that its no longer produced, so the waste is just not there, and you've got something. Even if its successfully recycled, this doesn't make it safe or safer, nor does it reduce its current risk to do seriously bad stuff to you. Even if the process works, there's always the risk that some of it could be used for ill purposes, and, of course, there's always room for mistakes.
That also wasn't a fallacy, but some of us have to work for a living, which limits our troll-baiting time. Time's up!
as if... If you have a street sweeper, it doesn't mean all streets are clean. If you successfully recycle any amount nuclear waste, it doesn't make nuclear waste any safer. Does recycling nuclear waste make turning waste into a weapon of mass destruction impossible? Then it isn't any safer.
statement [a]: More nuclear reactors are a good thing.
False. Here's why: argument [B]: 1. nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste 2. the waste is deadly, effectively, forever 3. we can't find a safe place to store it 4. we can't safely move it to storage (thus, statement [a] must be false)
argument [c]: But we can recycle the waste! This crackpot process would work if only there wasn't this conspiracy.
rebuttal [D]: That's a straw man argument because, in fact, its not actually a response to any of the points I made, yet it IS a response to SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT points that I have NOT made, thus making it APPEAR as though the opposition has responded to my points, but have not.
review: argument [B]:1 nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste
the response: recycling nuclear waste (regardless of fact/fiction, whatever process you'd like) will make nuclear waste safe.
FALLACY (straw man) Recycling the waste doesn't speak to whether or not nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste. They still do, and will.
Interestingly, there's another fallacy at work as well, comes up in the response to [B]:2... token/type, explained in previous post... pretty sure you got that, because you didn't refute it.
The summary:... Me - straw man. That isn't a straw man argument. His facts may be in error, he may be making some other kind of logical fallacy, but unless he's restating or reinterpreting your position in order to make it easier to argue against, he isn't making a straw man.
Um... sure is. Here's why... To make this simple for you, lets forget his initial statement about more nuke reactors being good... and lets say the first statement of our argument is what I said... Nuclear power needs to solve these 4 problems. Jurily enters his straw man argument immediately following... His response is (in the form of a "look at this!" link)... he props up an issue that wasn't introduced before (what I was referring to as 'conspiracy'). I can't really argue against this accusation of conspiracy, can I? So... what I interpreted Jurily was saying was: Its clear recycling nuclear waste is a good thing. Politicians and Scientists are conspiring against recycling nuclear waste. Therefore, recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe.
Do you see it now?
It's either/or. I found most of this paragraph incomprehensible, but I'll try:
if you are saying that recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe Recycling clearly makes it safer. If Jurily's technology exists as advertised, then it would be completely safe.
There you go again perpetuating Jurily's straw man argument! But there's another one slipped in here as well. The straw man is separate from the token/type fallacy. No, recycling nuclear waste does NOT "clearly make it safer." Nuclear waste is not a singularity. Its a bunch of stuff. You may take this kilo of waste... put it through recycling, and bam! That kilo of waste is no longer dangerous, because its something else! What you are Jurily are saying is that if you can make this kilo of waste safe, all nuclear waste is safer. Does disarming a bomb make all bombs safe? No, not really.
There's now technology to, like a switch, drop radioactive rods to non-radioactive isotopes within hours? That sounds like fantasy. Same to me. But even if it is pure fiction, your early posts don't count as an argument against him, because they've completely ignored him.
Well, that's like... your opinion, man. I recognized the straw man early, and claimed correctly that whatever that link provided, didn't answer to, for instance, my claim that nuclear waste is really dangerous. It introduced a whole new thing about some miracle process that's being suppressed. And for a few more posts you and he basically repeated yourselves.
But I'm still seeing Jurily's response, whatever you want me to call it,... as a straw man argument response You can gripe about a flaw in his response all you want, but as long as you use the wrong name for that flaw, I'll keep pointing it out.
And I will keep schooling you as well... until you see it. You're stuck on both fallacies, failing to see that introducing conspiracy into the argument is a straw man, and failing to recognize the difference between token and type.
It is a myth that there is an overflow. The volume of waste is in fact very small: the stuff is really dense.
What are you talking about? This has been well documented since whistleblowers started coming out of the industry in the late 80s. We've been producing waste since 1940-ish, and guess what? It doesn't go away. We still have all of it. Yes, the temporary containment facilities at every single operating nuclear reactor facility in the US are full. Not myth. Fact.
You are perpetuating the straw man. You don't know the meaning of "straw man" [wikipedia.org], do you?
Please let me rephrase. Obviously I have lost you with my cunning prose and left you in a state of false understanding. What I meant, and still mean, is that you are now standing behind Jurily's straw man argument (pointed out in the now great grandparent post)... because that's where you interrupted. I was not referring right there to any new argument (within the straw man argument) that Jurily or you were trying to make, only that you bought, lock, stock and barrel, Jurly's straw man argument.
The summary: Jurily - more nuke plants are a good thing Me - no, we got 4 problems, the waste, its really dangerous... for a long long long time... can't store it safely... can't move it safely. Jurily - nonsense... look at this link... we can recycle nuclear waste, but they won't let us, scientists have received threats, its a major world wide conspiracy... ! Me - straw man.
a mountain of waste is NOT made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it Who's making that claim?
It's either/or. Either Jurily's conspiracy against recycling nuclear waste is a straw man, OR, if you are saying that recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe, you and Jurily have made this claim. If "we can recycle nuke waste!" is the argument that negates "1) doesn't make nuclear waste any safer," then, yes, I think, you and Jurily have claimed that (yes, me putting the precise words, but not the underlying meaning, which you infer): "a mountain of waste is made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it." If just because there is the ability to recycle nuclear waste says nothing toward the danger of the existing waste, yet, and I admit you both neither specifically claim this, but you infer that the ability to recycle nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe enough that more nuclear power plants would be a good thing (Jurily's original crazy statement that was finally outed to be sarcasm... at least I thought). The analogy I used before was with Windows, I think it still applies... It doesn't matter if your antivirus is good (against the token virus), it doesn't eliminate viruses (the type).
How, exactly, do you safely transport the waste to this theoretical nuclear waste recycling plant Again, nobody is suggesting that anything be transported anywhere.
You've missed something I think... or I have. Are these nuclear waste recycling plants mobile or portable or something? Because the nuclear waste, that toxic crap that I'm bitching about, is all over the place. Presumably, in order for nuclear waste recycling to work, one would have to actually... recycle... the nuclear waste... right? So... How would we get it there? That's the problem. The crap is dangerous. Too dangerous for us to safely move. Its a real pickle. It keeps piling up and we need to do something about it because its so dangerous... but we can't because its too dangerous.
What was it you wanted to do with the waste currently overflowing the temporary containment pools? Convert it into non-radioactive isotopes.
Right there? in the temp containment pools? On site? I think I did miss something. There's now technology to, like a switch, drop radioactive rods to non-radioactive isotopes within hours? That sounds like fantasy. I can't believe I just slept through the grand stroke brilliant solving of one piece of the nuclear problem. Oh, wait... its not my fault I missed it... there's a massive conspiracy (that I mistook for a straw man) covering it up... all those scientists and politicians railroading the idea
I don't know if you're trying some kind of trolling or have a severe learning disability.
Probably a little of both. But I'm still seeing Jurily's respon
Let's say a nuclear recycling plant went online yesterday. The 110 or so nuclear power plants and however many nuke plants on aircraft carriers and submarines still continue to produce the bad stuff. And the places we "safely" store the stuff is still overflowing (so to speak... its not necessarily liquid but I believe most of the mass is in spent rods).
How do we get safely, day in day out for years and years, transport what there is to our new nuclear recycling plant?
I think we need to do both. Once we solve the transport problem, recycle the waste (to reduce the cumulative mass and volume), but also phase out current plants (that aren't absolutly necessary) with solar/solar thermal/wind/hydro/geothermal energy plants. And our energy appetites be damned!
All 4 responces you made are fallicious because a mountain of waste is NOT made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it.
How, exactly, do you safely transport the waste to this theoretical nuclear waste recycling plant that goes online in 2029? How many more nuclear power plants were you hoping to build in the mean time? What was it you wanted to do with the waste currently overflowing the temporary containment pools?
What nuclear proponants are failing to realize is we've already screwed ourselves... we need to NOT increase the amount of waste we already make. We need to bite the bullet and find simpler, cleaner energy... at our own expense.
You do understand the sentence "radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time", right?
And you understand this 1) doesn't make nuclear waste any safer 2) doesn't matter whether its 500 years or 10,000 years, whatever "short period" means, its going to be "a long, long time" 3) doesn't make transporting the waste any safer 4) doesn't provide a safe storage method
Recycling the waste does NOT solve these very critical problems such that we could now full steam ahead carefree and build 100 more reactors to satisfy our energy needs.
So, again... I strongly disagree with your OP, but, sure, think recycling the current surplus of waste is a great idea, too... but if its meant to counter the claims I've made, or support your statement that more reactors are a good thing, then it is a straw man argument, i.e. a fallicious argument.
Thank you for keeping a civil tone in this discussion
Excellent that you noticed.
I did read the site before. And I believe nuke waste recycling should be pursued. But it doesn't answer to any of the 4 problems I pointed out (even if we can recycle it, doesn't solve that the waste is deadly, its deadly for a long time, no safe place for storage, no safe way to transport it to storage).
Further, developing technology to safely recycle nuclear waste lends no positive support to the blind statement "more nuclear reactors would be a good thing" (such as the obvious benefit of more power for consumers). Its kind of like saying MS Windows is good because we have antivirus.
The response is a straw man, and doesn't speak to the salient details I spelled out (1,2 & 1,2).
Ah! So you are informed? You are aware that recycling nuclear waste is itself an enourmous task, dangerous, sure, but will require millions, maybe billion of dollars, and many many motivated and brilliant people over decades to pull it off successfully and safely rid ourselves of deadly nuclear waste, only to replace it with smaller amounts of even deadlier waste? Then your post was sarcasm? apologies, I missed your subtle humor (along with half who replied to your now outed sarcasm).
THANK YOU FOR BEING RATIONAL AND INFORMED....now, if wecould just do something about that sense of humor of yours...
This might help: there is effectively no difference between merely pretending to be an jerk... and actually being a jerk. Effect is the same: everyone thinks you're a jerk.
We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
Your opinion is astoudingly, but unsurprisingly, uninformed.
No matter how safe something that is incredibly dangerous is made... it never stops being incredibly dangerous.
So far, nuclear anything has 2 major problems compounded by 2 obvious ones. First, the obvious: 1) nuclear waste is deadly 2) nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Now, the major problems: 1) How do you safely store something deadly for that amount of time? 2) If location is solved, how can deadly material be safely transferred from all over to that location?
The answers to these two major issues are currently easily answered. 1) right now? You can't. No one knows how. 2) right now? It can't. There's so much of it that in transporting it, there's bound to be an accident (consider that the current best method, using railways, is unsafe... 3000 train wrecks per year in the US).
Now, add as a preface to the problem that every single TEMPORARY holding tank at every single operating nuclear plant in the US is at capacity, i.e. ALREADY FULL (and afa I know, have been for years) and it might start to dawn on you that there are probably better options than more nuke plants.
What gets me is if half the resources spent by our government in the 50's developing nukes had been spent on say developing better solar energy, then right now we would all have cheap solar energy RIGHT NOW.
Nuclear Power is like magic beans. Sure, only three of them and just look at that massive bean stalk... we'll never need beans again! But that giant keeps climbing down and eating people's heads off... until Solar Jack comes along and destroys both the giant and the beanstalk, and gives us his energy laying solar goose.
Not sure about Pike, but its obvious from the trqiler I saw that a jr officer Kirk assumes command after something bad happens, and commands and gets them out of the scrape, then is formally given the command because he's so good at it.... dang, I don't even really need to see it, so it better be good.
Slashdot Mirror
if you could take your own advice, this catastrophe of a thread might not have occurred
I stand firm.
Recycling nuclear waste doesn't prevent it from being created. There is nothing inherent in recycling that can change that. You can try to say recycling a small bit reduces the total badness, but its crap. We know how the world works... bad shit happens all the time. Even when we're REALLY careful, space shuttles get destroyed. Its the same thing as saying taking a cup of water from an ocean reduces the overall size of that ocean. Yeah, true... but completely impotant against some argument "the beach sucks! (because of the ocean)."
And so, thus, you can finally see you were wrong, yes? About your straw man argument?
c-nuke waste bad
y-recycle
OR
x-death is bad
y-we can live healthier
^---y gives straw man responces
I don't even need to know what you think you're arguing against to know the response is, and has been since I called it out, a straw man fallacy.
Nuclear power produces near eternal deadly waste.
The following responces would not have been a straw man:
1) no, they don't
2) no, it isn't
3) there's a new process, waste is no longer produced
4) yeah, sucks
5) but we do have a way to recycle it
oops, 5 is actually a straw man response because original statement never mentioned that we need to do something with it... if anything, all its, and I'm saying and said it we need to stop making it.
You must see the difference between:
1) waste is bad, we should stop making it
and
2) waste is bad... if only there was something we could do with it...
RENT a server, with all the specs you need, housed in climate controlled goodness... possibly in another country, possibly on another continent. Never worry aboit it again... you just rent it, who cares if it breaks?
Get a satellite (or possibly cell?) network service. Buy 4 cheepo laptops, set up identically, but work off of, keep all your work/data on the rented server (nxserver, or vnc or remote desktop) When the 1st cheepo laptop dies, move onto the next. Live carefree.
LOL
now we are talking
I have no personal ax to grind with nuclear power, but all those other clean energies that don't have that issues (among what ever issues they have).
Nuclear technology shouldn't be abandoned in its entirety, just this energy/waste thing. Once nuclear energy becomes an essential part of the world economy (it has, via cheap power, plant workers, need for quality education, etc.), it becomes permanent, or rather difficult to abandon... esp. by nuclear engineers and the like. And if we just recycle or even safely temporarily store it, there's a whole economy around that. If there's FUD about nuclear energy, I say use it... its just a bad choice... all these other choices, sure more expensive now. Worth it. Bargain. For the piece of mind that someday there will be no more new nuclear waste.
perhaps meaningless antidote...
old abandoned industrial site... been "cleaned up" and repurposed. Janitor finds a small, heavy object, not knowing what it is, puts it in his back pocket. A short time later, surely after he had gone home, changed clothes, showered... anyway, at some relatively short time later, whatever that interesting object was, it ate his ass off before killing him.
Nuclear power is creepy. Its bad for me, its bad for you, and we need all the smart careful humans (who could presumably provide us with safe carefree nuclear power/waste cycle) for lots of other things. I bet a 2 year tech degree recipiant could run a solar plant, esp if solar plants were common... zero risk there of killing everything in a 5-50 mile radius with those, so less education needed. And because those nuclear resources are freed up, who knows what amazing technologies might appear (derived from smart people no longer wasting time coming up with complex or elagant ways to ... deal with deadly waste).
I never get beyond that first point... :.... lot of
if deadly waste exists, and all the good intentions of our best can still make mistakes or get swindled or there is thing that can go wrong... why even still consider it when there's 20+(whatever, many) valid viable technologies that have nothing to do with deadly waste, of which there's a
don't insult the full notion that we're making superduperdeath in accumulating small and larger amounts by saying recycling makes it safer. You've heard of that large growing island of floating plastic in the Pacific? I bet ya somewhere in there theres already some radioactive trash... why, as a rational species, are we still fucking with something that could end us?
from an untrusted source
Why should any source be trusted? Whether its Sony's root kit, Microsoft's updater, Apple's updater, Google's updater... I might say a definition of malware is any software installed without explicit user intent. And if no networked computer is really safe... not even official software repositories and factory fresh ipods... would the story be any more or less surprising if the source of the trojan was Adobe? or Symantec?
c/ we're aproaching a wall, we need to stop
y/ no we don't, we have brakes, we can slow down
c/ hooray for slowing down, but that's an answer to a straw stuffed man's argument, not mine. my argument is we need to stop.
y/ occam's arrow?
c/ still not stopping
y/ what about altering our angle of approach?
c/ is that stopping?
y/ no, but its ....better than heading straight at it...
c/ ok, but we still need to stop
y/ why?
c/ because of the wall, approaching fast, we should just stop
y/ I already said we have brakes!
I'll try again.
my argument is that deadly waste is created.
my argument is not "we need a way to recycle waste," but that is what you seem to think my argument is. That is a straw man you are arguing against and not my position.
Try it this way:
my argument is using plastic creates plastic garbage.
But you say we can recycle plastic.
I'm aware of that. But if we can recycle plastic, why is not all plastic recycled? There's plastic garbage everywhere....and because I didn't say "we need a way to recycle plastic," if you claim to have solved my problem, you argued against a position that wasn't precisely mine... if you said "we'll stop using plastic" or even "no it doesn't" you would be, and you would not be making a straw man argument.
If the alternate universe didn't show you what you both think I said, and you can't see the difference between the meaning of
1) Nuclear reactors make deadly waste
and
1a) Nuclear reactors make deadly waste and we need a way to recycle the waste
then it is hopeless.
They are 2 different statements, with different meanings.
Also, if you think that because some waste is recycled, all waste is safer, you also have some deeper flaws in understanding logic. If your street is cleaner, it doesn't make all streets any less dirty.
yes, because clearly "problems with waste" has the exact same meaning as "existence of waste" or "production of waste."
You seemed to have grasped 2, 3, & 4 but are completely ignoring
1) nuclear reactors produce deadly waste
You were arguing that nuke plants are a "bad thing" because of problems with the waste.
No, I wasn't. And its certainly not a straw man just because I say it is. Nuclear power produces deadly nuclear waste. Recycling the deadly waste doesn't change that. As long as it is made, it can be stolen, or it can I don't know what, get in your ham sandwhich... recycling nuclear waste doesn't make nuclear waste any safer.
Somewhere in a parallel universe...
statement [a]:
More nuclear reactors are a good thing.
False. Here's why:
argument [XB]:
1. nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste, and we need some way to change that waste into something that's not so deadly.
2. the waste is deadly, effectively, forever, and we need a way to take that nuclear waste - that's made with current methods of harnessing fission energy which produces that nasty long term deadly waste, and somehow shorten the lifespan of its deadliness.
3. we can't find a safe place to store it
4. we can't safely move it to storage
(thus, statement [a] must be false)
argument [c]:
But we can recycle the waste!
Check it out...
1) "resulting debris are constituted by light, natural and stable elements" - i.e. not radioactive
2) won't take long! "can be of the order of minutes per pellet of radioactive waste" - i.e. not years
3) won't have to!
4) won't need to!
argument [a] is valid (if blah blah blah good thing blah blah blah).
RESOLVED.
And that's where you're wrong, because his arguments mean that your points no longer support your antithesis.
Because you(s guys) have changed what my points are, and argued successfully against those points (rather well, I should add), I'd have to agree with you... the points in argument [XB] no longer support anti-statement [a]. But the points I made were argument [X].
So long as fission power produces nuclear waste, nuclear reactors are an awful idea. Change the process, so that its no longer produced, so the waste is just not there, and you've got something. Even if its successfully recycled, this doesn't make it safe or safer, nor does it reduce its current risk to do seriously bad stuff to you. Even if the process works, there's always the risk that some of it could be used for ill purposes, and, of course, there's always room for mistakes.
That also wasn't a fallacy, but some of us have to work for a living, which limits our troll-baiting time. Time's up!
as if...
If you have a street sweeper, it doesn't mean all streets are clean.
If you successfully recycle any amount nuclear waste, it doesn't make nuclear waste any safer. Does recycling nuclear waste make turning waste into a weapon of mass destruction impossible? Then it isn't any safer.
REQ: Star Trek (workprint) (AAC/mp4 2000kb/s)
TIA !!!!!
statement [a]:
More nuclear reactors are a good thing.
False. Here's why:
argument [B]:
1. nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste
2. the waste is deadly, effectively, forever
3. we can't find a safe place to store it
4. we can't safely move it to storage
(thus, statement [a] must be false)
argument [c]:
But we can recycle the waste! This crackpot process would work if only there wasn't this conspiracy.
rebuttal [D]:
That's a straw man argument because, in fact, its not actually a response to any of the points I made, yet it IS a response to SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT points that I have NOT made, thus making it APPEAR as though the opposition has responded to my points, but have not.
review:
argument [B]:1 nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste
the response: recycling nuclear waste (regardless of fact/fiction, whatever process you'd like) will make nuclear waste safe.
FALLACY (straw man) Recycling the waste doesn't speak to whether or not nuclear reactors make dangerous, deadly waste. They still do, and will.
Interestingly, there's another fallacy at work as well, comes up in the response to [B]:2... token/type, explained in previous post... pretty sure you got that, because you didn't refute it.
The summary: ... Me - straw man.
That isn't a straw man argument. His facts may be in error, he may be making some other kind of logical fallacy, but unless he's restating or reinterpreting your position in order to make it easier to argue against, he isn't making a straw man.
Um... sure is. Here's why... To make this simple for you, lets forget his initial statement about more nuke reactors being good... and lets say the first statement of our argument is what I said... Nuclear power needs to solve these 4 problems. Jurily enters his straw man argument immediately following... His response is (in the form of a "look at this!" link)... he props up an issue that wasn't introduced before (what I was referring to as 'conspiracy'). I can't really argue against this accusation of conspiracy, can I? So... what I interpreted Jurily was saying was:
Its clear recycling nuclear waste is a good thing.
Politicians and Scientists are conspiring against recycling nuclear waste.
Therefore, recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe.
Do you see it now?
It's either/or.
I found most of this paragraph incomprehensible, but I'll try:
if you are saying that recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe
Recycling clearly makes it safer. If Jurily's technology exists as advertised, then it would be completely safe.
There you go again perpetuating Jurily's straw man argument! But there's another one slipped in here as well. The straw man is separate from the token/type fallacy. No, recycling nuclear waste does NOT "clearly make it safer." Nuclear waste is not a singularity. Its a bunch of stuff. You may take this kilo of waste... put it through recycling, and bam! That kilo of waste is no longer dangerous, because its something else! What you are Jurily are saying is that if you can make this kilo of waste safe, all nuclear waste is safer. Does disarming a bomb make all bombs safe? No, not really.
There's now technology to, like a switch, drop radioactive rods to non-radioactive isotopes within hours? That sounds like fantasy.
Same to me. But even if it is pure fiction, your early posts don't count as an argument against him, because they've completely ignored him.
Well, that's like... your opinion, man. I recognized the straw man early, and claimed correctly that whatever that link provided, didn't answer to, for instance, my claim that nuclear waste is really dangerous. It introduced a whole new thing about some miracle process that's being suppressed. And for a few more posts you and he basically repeated yourselves.
But I'm still seeing Jurily's response, whatever you want me to call it, ... as a straw man argument response
You can gripe about a flaw in his response all you want, but as long as you use the wrong name for that flaw, I'll keep pointing it out.
And I will keep schooling you as well... until you see it. You're stuck on both fallacies, failing to see that introducing conspiracy into the argument is a straw man, and failing to recognize the difference between token and type.
It is a myth that there is an overflow. The volume of waste is in fact very small: the stuff is really dense.
What are you talking about? This has been well documented since whistleblowers started coming out of the industry in the late 80s. We've been producing waste since 1940-ish, and guess what? It doesn't go away. We still have all of it. Yes, the temporary containment facilities at every single operating nuclear reactor facility in the US are full. Not myth. Fact.
You are perpetuating the straw man.
You don't know the meaning of "straw man" [wikipedia.org], do you?
Please let me rephrase. Obviously I have lost you with my cunning prose and left you in a state of false understanding. What I meant, and still mean, is that you are now standing behind Jurily's straw man argument (pointed out in the now great grandparent post)... because that's where you interrupted. I was not referring right there to any new argument (within the straw man argument) that Jurily or you were trying to make, only that you bought, lock, stock and barrel, Jurly's straw man argument.
The summary:
Jurily - more nuke plants are a good thing
Me - no, we got 4 problems, the waste, its really dangerous... for a long long long time... can't store it safely... can't move it safely.
Jurily - nonsense... look at this link... we can recycle nuclear waste, but they won't let us, scientists have received threats, its a major world wide conspiracy... !
Me - straw man.
a mountain of waste is NOT made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it
Who's making that claim?
It's either/or. Either Jurily's conspiracy against recycling nuclear waste is a straw man, OR, if you are saying that recycling nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe, you and Jurily have made this claim. If "we can recycle nuke waste!" is the argument that negates "1) doesn't make nuclear waste any safer," then, yes, I think, you and Jurily have claimed that (yes, me putting the precise words, but not the underlying meaning, which you infer): "a mountain of waste is made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it." If just because there is the ability to recycle nuclear waste says nothing toward the danger of the existing waste, yet, and I admit you both neither specifically claim this, but you infer that the ability to recycle nuclear waste makes nuclear waste safe enough that more nuclear power plants would be a good thing (Jurily's original crazy statement that was finally outed to be sarcasm... at least I thought). The analogy I used before was with Windows, I think it still applies... It doesn't matter if your antivirus is good (against the token virus), it doesn't eliminate viruses (the type).
How, exactly, do you safely transport the waste to this theoretical nuclear waste recycling plant
Again, nobody is suggesting that anything be transported anywhere.
You've missed something I think... or I have. Are these nuclear waste recycling plants mobile or portable or something? Because the nuclear waste, that toxic crap that I'm bitching about, is all over the place. Presumably, in order for nuclear waste recycling to work, one would have to actually ... recycle ... the nuclear waste... right? So... How would we get it there? That's the problem. The crap is dangerous. Too dangerous for us to safely move. Its a real pickle. It keeps piling up and we need to do something about it because its so dangerous... but we can't because its too dangerous.
What was it you wanted to do with the waste currently overflowing the temporary containment pools?
Convert it into non-radioactive isotopes.
Right there? in the temp containment pools? On site? I think I did miss something. There's now technology to, like a switch, drop radioactive rods to non-radioactive isotopes within hours? That sounds like fantasy. I can't believe I just slept through the grand stroke brilliant solving of one piece of the nuclear problem. Oh, wait... its not my fault I missed it... there's a massive conspiracy (that I mistook for a straw man) covering it up... all those scientists and politicians railroading the idea
I don't know if you're trying some kind of trolling or have a severe learning disability.
Probably a little of both. But I'm still seeing Jurily's respon
I agree with you.... but...
Let's say a nuclear recycling plant went online yesterday. The 110 or so nuclear power plants and however many nuke plants on aircraft carriers and submarines still continue to produce the bad stuff. And the places we "safely" store the stuff is still overflowing (so to speak... its not necessarily liquid but I believe most of the mass is in spent rods).
How do we get safely, day in day out for years and years, transport what there is to our new nuclear recycling plant?
I think we need to do both. Once we solve the transport problem, recycle the waste (to reduce the cumulative mass and volume), but also phase out current plants (that aren't absolutly necessary) with solar/solar thermal/wind/hydro/geothermal energy plants. And our energy appetites be damned!
You are perpetuating the straw man.
All 4 responces you made are fallicious because a mountain of waste is NOT made safe instantly just because someone has a good idea of what to do with it.
How, exactly, do you safely transport the waste to this theoretical nuclear waste recycling plant that goes online in 2029? How many more nuclear power plants were you hoping to build in the mean time? What was it you wanted to do with the waste currently overflowing the temporary containment pools?
What nuclear proponants are failing to realize is we've already screwed ourselves... we need to NOT increase the amount of waste we already make. We need to bite the bullet and find simpler, cleaner energy... at our own expense.
Umm...
You do understand the sentence "radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time", right?
And you understand this
1) doesn't make nuclear waste any safer
2) doesn't matter whether its 500 years or 10,000 years, whatever "short period" means, its going to be "a long, long time"
3) doesn't make transporting the waste any safer
4) doesn't provide a safe storage method
Recycling the waste does NOT solve these very critical problems such that we could now full steam ahead carefree and build 100 more reactors to satisfy our energy needs.
So, again... I strongly disagree with your OP, but, sure, think recycling the current surplus of waste is a great idea, too... but if its meant to counter the claims I've made, or support your statement that more reactors are a good thing, then it is a straw man argument, i.e. a fallicious argument.
Thank you for keeping a civil tone in this discussion
Excellent that you noticed.
I did read the site before. And I believe nuke waste recycling should be pursued. But it doesn't answer to any of the 4 problems I pointed out (even if we can recycle it, doesn't solve that the waste is deadly, its deadly for a long time, no safe place for storage, no safe way to transport it to storage).
Further, developing technology to safely recycle nuclear waste lends no positive support to the blind statement "more nuclear reactors would be a good thing" (such as the obvious benefit of more power for consumers). Its kind of like saying MS Windows is good because we have antivirus.
The response is a straw man, and doesn't speak to the salient details I spelled out (1,2 & 1,2).
Well done. I thank you.
Ah! So you are informed? You are aware that recycling nuclear waste is itself an enourmous task, dangerous, sure, but will require millions, maybe billion of dollars, and many many motivated and brilliant people over decades to pull it off successfully and safely rid ourselves of deadly nuclear waste, only to replace it with smaller amounts of even deadlier waste? Then your post was sarcasm? apologies, I missed your subtle humor (along with half who replied to your now outed sarcasm).
THANK YOU FOR BEING RATIONAL AND INFORMED. ...now, if wecould just do something about that sense of humor of yours...
This might help: there is effectively no difference between merely pretending to be an jerk... and actually being a jerk. Effect is the same: everyone thinks you're a jerk.
We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
Your opinion is astoudingly, but unsurprisingly, uninformed.
No matter how safe something that is incredibly dangerous is made... it never stops being incredibly dangerous.
So far, nuclear anything has 2 major problems compounded by 2 obvious ones. First, the obvious:
1) nuclear waste is deadly
2) nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Now, the major problems:
1) How do you safely store something deadly for that amount of time?
2) If location is solved, how can deadly material be safely transferred from all over to that location?
The answers to these two major issues are currently easily answered.
1) right now? You can't. No one knows how.
2) right now? It can't. There's so much of it that in transporting it, there's bound to be an accident (consider that the current best method, using railways, is unsafe... 3000 train wrecks per year in the US).
Now, add as a preface to the problem that every single TEMPORARY holding tank at every single operating nuclear plant in the US is at capacity, i.e. ALREADY FULL (and afa I know, have been for years) and it might start to dawn on you that there are probably better options than more nuke plants.
What gets me is if half the resources spent by our government in the 50's developing nukes had been spent on say developing better solar energy, then right now we would all have cheap solar energy RIGHT NOW.
Nuclear Power is like magic beans. Sure, only three of them and just look at that massive bean stalk... we'll never need beans again! But that giant keeps climbing down and eating people's heads off ... until Solar Jack comes along and destroys both the giant and the beanstalk, and gives us his energy laying solar goose.
Microsoft will find a way to pay them with copies of Windows XP.
almost right...
make the bots pay and you've got something
Not sure about Pike, but its obvious from the trqiler I saw that a jr officer Kirk assumes command after something bad happens, and commands and gets them out of the scrape, then is formally given the command because he's so good at it.... dang, I don't even really need to see it, so it better be good.