[...] radio emissions from wi-fi routers [...] used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs[...]
The gigawatts of infrared energy that courses through your body has about 500x more energy per photon than 2.4ghz microwaves.
wavelength and pulse duration are factors you don't account for. Mitachondrial DNA strands break with as little as 10-100 Gy of microwave energy. Humans evolved with infrared, not microwave, radiation.
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different.
Which is completely irrelevant. The nuclear industry was built on the back of the Nuclear Weapons industry which is the reason why we use Uranium instead of thorium to power reactors.
Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges.
What a laughable claim. The IAEA was formed to promote Nuclear power, it's like saying the Tobacco industry acknowledges that cigarettes have vitamin C in them which is good for you.
4th generation reactors are even better.
Yes, they have provided quite innovative tax relief for the oil and coal industry. Quick pull out the NIMBY/greenie argument and ignore the oil and coal lobbying to change the energy laws to prevent a competitor getting a foothold in the energy market. The US had a working prototype and the program was funded for destruction.
We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
So what? The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then
Apologies, I missed the last part of the sentence:
If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then you're not really contributing to the debate, just polarizing it.
"The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. "
You really don't understand how radioactivity works and what a half-life is, do you?
IIRC a half life is the decay cycle of a radionuclide as it decays through a cycle of daughter products and how many electron volts in the alpha, beta and gamma spectrum the transmuting element emits during each cycle. So it would depend on how many daughter products are produced to figure out how long a particular radioisotope remains radioactively energetic enough to cause damage. The more radioactive, the shorter the sum total of all the half life cycles will be.
I'm uncertain if you are talking about internal or external radiation exposure or if you talking about radio-isotopes that are organically bound via the process of bio-accumulation inside the body or the food chain. Distance and if there is a moderator, like water, present are also factors.
Radioactivity is fleeting. Chemical toxins are the gift that keeps on giving.
I don't disagree, Plutonium is chemically toxic however I'm fairly certain it isn't readily absorbed until it is a chloride, for example with the salt water used on the Fukushima reactor would have produced a lot of plutonium chloride. Once inside the body it may not be in a concentration high enough to be chemically toxic (it's an iron analogue) however it's an energetic alpha emitter and IIRC Oppenheimer's work suggests that it is fatal in the 1-10 microgram range.
As opposed to nonsense there seems to be growing consensus on this matter. You should educate yourself instead of relying on ideological rhetoric because it shows how little you know about nuclear power if you don't know about wifi.
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
To demonstrate how desperately wrong you are, see if you can answer this question:
What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?
Since you can't answer any of the points I've raised, lets agree that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about so that you don't humiliate yourself any further.
You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made.
You're attacking AN argument I made, you're ignoring the rest of it, which is how dogmatically ignorant your nuclear advocacy is. I think you thought that if you attack this one part of my argument you dismiss the entire argument.
Case in point of how ignorant, the IAEA itself produced one of the reports supporting my point, since you will require a citation to a paper you won't read. I'll point out that 2.4 Ghz is the same microwave spectrum that wi-fi routers use.
It shows how poorly prepared you are to make any arguments for unclear power because it demonstrates how poorly informed you are.
You're not even equipped to make an argument about the case for nuclear power, you have to use someone else's argument. I can argue your side of the argument better than you can.
The puff piece you referred me to has so many holes in it's reasoning it's like reading a slashdot post from a nuclear advocate posted 10 years ago, propagating the nuclear ideology again. They are top scientists in climate change, show me their peer reviewed work in Nuclear power systems.
Repeatedly, their arguments have been covered well before you ever posted here, let me guess, about 18 months, maybe two years ago? The same old problems that exist for nuclear power still exist and still haven't been resolved. Here is a few to start with:
Despite decades of assurances from the nuclear industry that spent fuel containment issues would be solved, they haven't.
We know a decommissioned Nuclear reactor has too cool for at least a decade and costs billions to demolish offsetting trillions of dollars of expenditure to future generations.
You can't even design a nuclear reactor that has more than 40 years of safe service life because of the way neutron bombardment makes the pressure vessel of the reactor core containing the fuel brittle and prone to failure.
Every form of uranium extraction is becoming more energy intensive to support the current "once through" fuel cycle
The only viable alternative nuclear technology was canned due to oil and coal industry lobbying.
and it goes on and on and on. Every time, guys like you answer with some sort of SyFy reactor technology that has *all the answers*. Any time you're ready to present some fresh argument that hasn't been heard before, please do so. As usual you are unable to answer these points, you'll call them bullshit because you are willfully ignorant.
So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
That's what you believe. You believe it because you project your idealism about nuclear power onto reality. You're an idealist and your nuclear advocacy is an ideology based in an ignorance of the facts. I know this because once you examine the facts and become educated about the Nuclear Industry you see how much effort it puts into avoiding responsibility whilst relying on the ignorance of people like you to defend it. You're one of their "useful idiots".
All you are interested in doing is push your idealism because you are arrogant enough to think you know better, you don't. Since the only thing you have left to argue with is rhetoric, you've decided to attempt to delude yourself that you are fighting a moral fight by attempting to box people into that argument. Typically, you will continue to falsify your reality to maintain your ideology when co
Wow. You want to ban wifi routers because they damage dna. WTF?
Yeah, pretty predicable response there. make a strawman argument and then burn it. same old everytime we see someone new from shill school. pathetic really. desperate.
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different.
Which is completely irrelevant. The nuclear industry was built on the back of the Nuclear Weapons industry which is the reason why we use Uranium instead of thorium to power reactors.
Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges.
What a laughable claim. The IAEA was formed to promote Nuclear power, it's like saying the Tobacco industry acknowledges that cigarettes have vitamin C in them which is good for you.
4th generation reactors are even better.
Yes, they have provided quite innovative tax relief for the oil and coal industry. Quick pull out the NIMBY/greenie argument and ignore the oil and coal lobbying to change the energy laws to prevent a competitor getting a foothold in the energy market. The US had a working prototype and the program was funded for destruction.
We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
So what? The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
The Nuclear Power industry releases radio-isotopes that damage Mitochondrial DNA in Humans. I can see no higher moral reality than protecting the DNA of the Human species from damage. The decisions made in this generation will effect the human race for the rest of time and imposing our will on those future human generations by damaging their DNA with radio-isotopes isn't moral.
To be specific, low energy beta emitters from radio isotopes accumulating in fat cells cause permanent damage to the heritable Mitochondrial DNA that extends from the present back through previous generations to the beginning of the human species. To be even more specific even the radio emissions from wi-fi routers and the X-ray scanners used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs carried in girls. Energetic emissions, even from low energy beta emitters, absorbed into the body damages reproductive cells in both sexes which causes transgenic diseases that can manifest in the next generation.
Considering that any damage done to mitachondrial DNA will be passed down to *all* subsequent human generations as an increased prevalence of many kinds of inherited diseases, accumulating the more we are exposed to it, it's a difficult to claim morality whilst promoting a power source that does this kind of damage our DNA. It is undeniable that the kinds of radio isotopes used by the nuclear industry does this kind of damage to human DNA. To claim otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people?
Why is death and cancer the only argument against Nuclear power that nuclear advocates are prepared to understand? Why don't we talk about the death caused to subsequent generations that haven't been born yet? What about the amount of failed or abnormal births caused by genetic damage? How do you count those deaths? This is a very good reason to oppose nuclear power that doesn't include death or cancer, even if you don't understand why. We were handed a carbon problem to deal with by previous generations, imposing genetic disease on subsequent generations is hardly a solution.
Every single industrial process the Nuclear industry uses, mining, enrichment, power generation and disposal leaks some volume of these radio-isotopes into the environment and a lot of the damage done to Human DNA is done by the very low energy emitters to manifest decades later with no clear way to track the effect from the cause.
These issues are regularly dismissed by nuclear advocates.
I don't see climate change as a good reason to permanently damage Human DNA as a justification to use Nuclear Power. I certainly don't think anyone who forces their will on a subsequent generation has a claim to morality for doing so.
To think that we're worthy of a visit is the arrogance of the highest order.
How do you know that the Earth isn't a huge park? Watch out for the native primates though, those motherfuckers are xrazy. Besides they like the steaks, it explains all the cattle mutilations.
They'll just destroy the solar system, and use the mass as fuel for the next trip.
C'mon, do you mutilate the parks after you visit them? Maybe the animals in the park are protected, even if they are hostile and dangerous.
Imagine the military relinquishing control over their weapons, budget and power to release information about peaceful advanced cultures who want to share with us technologies that free us from the monopoly that oil and coal companies have over our economy.
I'm certain they would do everything in their power to ensure everyone has access to these technologies.
Now that we've been introduced, whatever you disagree with me about your actions suggest your viewpoint is so flimsy it would fail if you needed to defend it against me. I'm happy to have triggered you.
I'm gonna guess you are one of the toxic misandric people I'm talking about and the worst thing I could possibly say to you is:
I had to reset my career in my late thirties due to an achillies tendon injury so bad that it took me two years to be able to walk again. I did that with a Masters in software design where I re-invigorated my childlike passion for technology and became even more capable. Even though I could answer your questions with theories about their domain, stories of CPU schedulers and the flow of data through custom ASICs in traffic weighted routers, during those times I wanted a junior role because I simply didn't have the energy or focus I needed for a senior role.
I love learning new IT stuff, it is so interesting, however all of the ageism concerns me and makes me wonder if IT will remain viable as a career unless I own the business.
This subject has been so tangled up in willful ignorance that whatever truth remains in the evidence it's unlikely anyone would actually accept it when confronted with it. People who try to do the right thing by sharing their experiences with everyone are treated with scorn, doubt and ridicule, left humiliated and worse than when they started because they said to themselves "I've got to warn everyone." Fundamentalist denial and dogmatic skepticism, that's how we treat the Truth.
Case in point: How long were we warned that various intelligence agencies were spying on us. How were these people treated by "Experts"? Then one day Snowden came forward with undeniable evidence and everyone who poured forth scorn sat there dumbfounded in their silence trying to figure out a way not to look completely stupid now that their assumptions were proven utterly, undeniably wrong. These people are the enemy of truth, they could not bare their shame and now we have tacit acceptance of the security state paid for with post tax earnings for some phone that spies on us for intelligence and advertising data because they are unwilling to confront the humiliation they dished out. We call that freedom.
In the meantime science and examination of the evidence has been polluted with the dogma of those trying to protect their book sales, their financial and fiduciary interests, their positions of prestige. Let's be realistic, whatever the truth is few are prepared to challenge the dogma and risk the scorn of having a dissenting opinion. We like being molly coddled, padded and protected from reality because it's comfortable. No one wants to give up their comfort so we accept the messages that keep the populous calm, like cows and sheep. That's the "truth" we deserve.
As for intelligent species sharing our planet, even if they hovered above every major city with lights in English flashing "WE'RE HERE" no-one would stare up from their phone screen into the light polluted sky to acknowledge it and would instead rant on facebook 'where's the hard evidence ?', ignore it when presented with it, then rely on some "Expert" to come in and comfort us when we are confronted with something disturbing.
Case in point: Look at the geometry of the megalithic structures around the world. The genius of them created at the dawn of our civilization is de-bunked by the "Experts" as co-incidence easily because we are too distracted and mentally lazy to challenge the notion of how stone age humans could encapsulate advanced knowledge as math into them. No, it's much easier to believe a bunch of extrapolations from fragments of evidence by some "experts" with arts degrees who are able to maintain their academic tenure so we can stay comfortable. That's how a "fringe" idea becomes mainstream.
So how do you think information about UFOs will be treated when that's how we treat evidence in stone that we can touch and measure? That's how we treat the dimensions you can take from the Great Pyramids, load into GeoGebra in less than a day and confirm that the basis of our entire history is a complete fabrication. That's how the "Experts" convince us that it makes perfect sense for stone age hunters with no knowledge, no engineering skills, no libraries, no farming, no experience and no business building anything so complex that it would take an international effort to build it now. Yet we all hold that contradictory idea in our head without a moments thought. We don't even challenge the established notions of Human history rationally. We're not even qualified for the subject of extra-terrestrials and their vehicles.
Of course the pilots who spend their time in the air, who are trained to recognize aircraft and who we trusted not to start a nuclear war should have their stories hand waved away by the "Experts" at S.A. Of course the high ranking military officials who control the budgets and read the reports should not be believed, what would they know compared to the "Experts"?
We should all trust the "Experts" to tell us what to believe because they know better than everyone.
So I ask again, when I'm looking to fill junior staff positions, why should I spend money alerting the part of the talent pool that in almost every case is either looking for more senior work or simply mediocre?
Presumably you mean that its defined that way now, however the way one second was defined is ancient.
A pendulum at one standard gravity swinging in a 30 degree arc defines one second (duration of swing), one metre (length of pendulum), and one royal Egyptian cubit (distance of swing at one metre). A remarkable co-incidence but much easier for ancient people to observe than the decay of an isotope.
You can try it at home, however YMMV depending on where you are in the world. The minute variations of gravity you experience locally might mean you get slightly more or less than 86400 seconds in one day.
"There are alien spacecraft that have visited us. they are superior to our technology in every way and if they decide to be hostile we would be dead already... so they obviously aren't hostile."
FTFY
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Yeah, the movies are real life, that explains everything.
There is the Bentwaters incident, incidents where nuclear missile bases were shut down by unknown entities that by-passed the back-up systems of dozens of missiles. There is the incident of Nuclear missile weapons testing of a UAV circling a nuclear warhead *in-flight* shooting it and deactivating it captured on high-speed film. There is the incident where the US and the USSR almost launched Nuclear Missiles until they both realized it was a UAV.
Witness testimony from the General in control of the Roswell incident discussing how he released the technology recovered from it into American Industry to be reverse engineered. Reverse engineered craft. The CEO of Lockheed Martin Skunkworks saying "We now have the technology to take ET Home".
These professionals don't call them "UFOs" and if we trusted these people to handle Billion Dollar budgets, Nuclear missiles, B-52 Bombers, Fighter aircraft, Aircraft carriers, Passenger jets we fly in who are we to discount what they say they have all experienced. I thought UFOs were cover for military operations until I saw what these ex-service men and women had to say. The secrecy may have been a good idea after 'War of the Worlds' broadcast in 1938 but not in the 21st Century.
The sheer weight of the witness testimony alone tells us there is a lot more going on than we are being told and I have gone from being a complete UFO skeptic to accepting these inevitable conclusions:
Why haven't they visited us?
They are already here and they have been here for thousands of years.
Can they travel FTL?
Yes, and so can we - apparently.
Are they Hostile to us?
Some are.
Do they mean to harm us?
No, We'd be dead already. All they would need is to push an asteroid in our way, no Avatar like finale necessary.
Why don't they just show up?
Because we are hostile, prejudiced primitive primates. We kill humans that are different. They are 'Intelligent' not 'Stupid'
What are their motivations
How would I know? But they haven't destroyed us so we are probably going to stay ok as long as *we* are not hostile.
Why is it more secret than nuclear weapons
It disrupts oil and coal's control over the worlds energy markets.
Even if you do discount all of this witness testimony you have to reason what 8.5 Trillion dollars worth of taxpayer money in Unacknowledged Special Access Projects paid for? Politicians are afraid to go near this subject and the ridiculous belittling of people who come forward to share their experiences is an insular primitive fear response to the unknown, not critical thinking processing the sheer volume of information laid before them.
The only way to really get to the bottom of this would be to support changes to law that relieve these personnel of secrecy oaths for unacknowledged (and illegal) projects that do not come under congressional control so that more of these people can come forward whilst still protecting the secrecy of the legal projects. It is time to end the secrecy simply because it costs too much to maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] radio emissions from wi-fi routers [...] used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs[...]
The gigawatts of infrared energy that courses through your body has about 500x more energy per photon than 2.4ghz microwaves.
wavelength and pulse duration are factors you don't account for. Mitachondrial DNA strands break with as little as 10-100 Gy of microwave energy. Humans evolved with infrared, not microwave, radiation.
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different.
Which is completely irrelevant. The nuclear industry was built on the back of the Nuclear Weapons industry which is the reason why we use Uranium instead of thorium to power reactors.
Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges. What a laughable claim. The IAEA was formed to promote Nuclear power, it's like saying the Tobacco industry acknowledges that cigarettes have vitamin C in them which is good for you.
4th generation reactors are even better.
Yes, they have provided quite innovative tax relief for the oil and coal industry. Quick pull out the NIMBY/greenie argument and ignore the oil and coal lobbying to change the energy laws to prevent a competitor getting a foothold in the energy market. The US had a working prototype and the program was funded for destruction.
We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
So what? The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then
Apologies, I missed the last part of the sentence:
If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then you're not really contributing to the debate, just polarizing it.
"The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. "
You really don't understand how radioactivity works and what a half-life is, do you?
IIRC a half life is the decay cycle of a radionuclide as it decays through a cycle of daughter products and how many electron volts in the alpha, beta and gamma spectrum the transmuting element emits during each cycle. So it would depend on how many daughter products are produced to figure out how long a particular radioisotope remains radioactively energetic enough to cause damage. The more radioactive, the shorter the sum total of all the half life cycles will be.
I'm uncertain if you are talking about internal or external radiation exposure or if you talking about radio-isotopes that are organically bound via the process of bio-accumulation inside the body or the food chain. Distance and if there is a moderator, like water, present are also factors.
Radioactivity is fleeting. Chemical toxins are the gift that keeps on giving.
I don't disagree, Plutonium is chemically toxic however I'm fairly certain it isn't readily absorbed until it is a chloride, for example with the salt water used on the Fukushima reactor would have produced a lot of plutonium chloride. Once inside the body it may not be in a concentration high enough to be chemically toxic (it's an iron analogue) however it's an energetic alpha emitter and IIRC Oppenheimer's work suggests that it is fatal in the 1-10 microgram range.
I've got a reasonably imperfect understanding.
As if you even know what the anti-nuclear argument is. All you have is your own falsified set of assumptions based on your ignorance.
Your Nuclear ideology is immoral.
Aren't you the guy that wants to ban wifi routers because they damage dna? I do not have to take your crazy nonsense seriously.
No need to. Here is an IAEA report supporting my position. What's this? Hey it looks like the Russian Federation has also produced a report , with the effects on males. One moment, looks like the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report, I must have forgot to mention that in my original post.
As opposed to nonsense there seems to be growing consensus on this matter. You should educate yourself instead of relying on ideological rhetoric because it shows how little you know about nuclear power if you don't know about wifi.
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
To demonstrate how desperately wrong you are, see if you can answer this question:
What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?
Since you can't answer any of the points I've raised, lets agree that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about so that you don't humiliate yourself any further.
Your Nuclear Ideology is immoral.
You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made.
You're attacking AN argument I made, you're ignoring the rest of it, which is how dogmatically ignorant your nuclear advocacy is. I think you thought that if you attack this one part of my argument you dismiss the entire argument.
Case in point of how ignorant, the IAEA itself produced one of the reports supporting my point, since you will require a citation to a paper you won't read. I'll point out that 2.4 Ghz is the same microwave spectrum that wi-fi routers use.
It shows how poorly prepared you are to make any arguments for unclear power because it demonstrates how poorly informed you are.
And of course if we do nothing about climate change millions will die. I want to stop that from happening. According to the world's leading scientists. nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change.
You're not even equipped to make an argument about the case for nuclear power, you have to use someone else's argument. I can argue your side of the argument better than you can.
The puff piece you referred me to has so many holes in it's reasoning it's like reading a slashdot post from a nuclear advocate posted 10 years ago, propagating the nuclear ideology again. They are top scientists in climate change, show me their peer reviewed work in Nuclear power systems.
Repeatedly, their arguments have been covered well before you ever posted here, let me guess, about 18 months, maybe two years ago? The same old problems that exist for nuclear power still exist and still haven't been resolved. Here is a few to start with:
and it goes on and on and on. Every time, guys like you answer with some sort of SyFy reactor technology that has *all the answers*. Any time you're ready to present some fresh argument that hasn't been heard before, please do so. As usual you are unable to answer these points, you'll call them bullshit because you are willfully ignorant.
So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
That's what you believe. You believe it because you project your idealism about nuclear power onto reality. You're an idealist and your nuclear advocacy is an ideology based in an ignorance of the facts. I know this because once you examine the facts and become educated about the Nuclear Industry you see how much effort it puts into avoiding responsibility whilst relying on the ignorance of people like you to defend it. You're one of their "useful idiots".
All you are interested in doing is push your idealism because you are arrogant enough to think you know better, you don't. Since the only thing you have left to argue with is rhetoric, you've decided to attempt to delude yourself that you are fighting a moral fight by attempting to box people into that argument. Typically, you will continue to falsify your reality to maintain your ideology when co
Wow. You want to ban wifi routers because they damage dna. WTF?
Yeah, pretty predicable response there. make a strawman argument and then burn it. same old everytime we see someone new from shill school. pathetic really. desperate.
They are dismissed because they are bullshit.
Like your claims to morality.
They are different. They do not use the same radioactive materials. Uranium for nuclear energy is only enriched to approximately ~1%-4%. Weapon materials needs to be enriched to ~80%+. So they are different. They also function differently. The mechanics and physics are different.
Which is completely irrelevant. The nuclear industry was built on the back of the Nuclear Weapons industry which is the reason why we use Uranium instead of thorium to power reactors.
Nuclear energy is also the safest form of power including solar and wind. That is a statistical fact that the IAEA acknowledges. What a laughable claim. The IAEA was formed to promote Nuclear power, it's like saying the Tobacco industry acknowledges that cigarettes have vitamin C in them which is good for you.
4th generation reactors are even better.
Yes, they have provided quite innovative tax relief for the oil and coal industry. Quick pull out the NIMBY/greenie argument and ignore the oil and coal lobbying to change the energy laws to prevent a competitor getting a foothold in the energy market. The US had a working prototype and the program was funded for destruction.
We are not moving the goal posts. You anti-nuclear people are moving the goal posts. 5 of those example occurred before I was even born and the last two occurred with technology older then I am.
So what? The radioactivity of the radio-isotopes that were release will still be energetic and toxic long after all of us here are dead. If you are not learning about the history of Nuclear power then
Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.
The Nuclear Power industry releases radio-isotopes that damage Mitochondrial DNA in Humans. I can see no higher moral reality than protecting the DNA of the Human species from damage. The decisions made in this generation will effect the human race for the rest of time and imposing our will on those future human generations by damaging their DNA with radio-isotopes isn't moral.
To be specific, low energy beta emitters from radio isotopes accumulating in fat cells cause permanent damage to the heritable Mitochondrial DNA that extends from the present back through previous generations to the beginning of the human species. To be even more specific even the radio emissions from wi-fi routers and the X-ray scanners used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs carried in girls. Energetic emissions, even from low energy beta emitters, absorbed into the body damages reproductive cells in both sexes which causes transgenic diseases that can manifest in the next generation.
Considering that any damage done to mitachondrial DNA will be passed down to *all* subsequent human generations as an increased prevalence of many kinds of inherited diseases, accumulating the more we are exposed to it, it's a difficult to claim morality whilst promoting a power source that does this kind of damage our DNA. It is undeniable that the kinds of radio isotopes used by the nuclear industry does this kind of damage to human DNA. To claim otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
Why are anti-nuclear people disappointed to learn that nuclear power hasn't killed more people?
Why is death and cancer the only argument against Nuclear power that nuclear advocates are prepared to understand? Why don't we talk about the death caused to subsequent generations that haven't been born yet? What about the amount of failed or abnormal births caused by genetic damage? How do you count those deaths? This is a very good reason to oppose nuclear power that doesn't include death or cancer, even if you don't understand why. We were handed a carbon problem to deal with by previous generations, imposing genetic disease on subsequent generations is hardly a solution.
Every single industrial process the Nuclear industry uses, mining, enrichment, power generation and disposal leaks some volume of these radio-isotopes into the environment and a lot of the damage done to Human DNA is done by the very low energy emitters to manifest decades later with no clear way to track the effect from the cause.
These issues are regularly dismissed by nuclear advocates.
I don't see climate change as a good reason to permanently damage Human DNA as a justification to use Nuclear Power. I certainly don't think anyone who forces their will on a subsequent generation has a claim to morality for doing so.
To think that we're worthy of a visit is the arrogance of the highest order.
How do you know that the Earth isn't a huge park? Watch out for the native primates though, those motherfuckers are xrazy. Besides they like the steaks, it explains all the cattle mutilations.
They'll just destroy the solar system, and use the mass as fuel for the next trip.
C'mon, do you mutilate the parks after you visit them? Maybe the animals in the park are protected, even if they are hostile and dangerous.
Imagine the military relinquishing control over their weapons, budget and power to release information about peaceful advanced cultures who want to share with us technologies that free us from the monopoly that oil and coal companies have over our economy.
I'm certain they would do everything in their power to ensure everyone has access to these technologies.
War. War never changes...
...because Humans won't evolve.
You can't even talk about talking about the truth without being censored.
Now that we've been introduced, whatever you disagree with me about your actions suggest your viewpoint is so flimsy it would fail if you needed to defend it against me. I'm happy to have triggered you.
I'm gonna guess you are one of the toxic misandric people I'm talking about and the worst thing I could possibly say to you is:
Have a great Christmas
Thank you, very interesting.
I had to reset my career in my late thirties due to an achillies tendon injury so bad that it took me two years to be able to walk again. I did that with a Masters in software design where I re-invigorated my childlike passion for technology and became even more capable. Even though I could answer your questions with theories about their domain, stories of CPU schedulers and the flow of data through custom ASICs in traffic weighted routers, during those times I wanted a junior role because I simply didn't have the energy or focus I needed for a senior role.
I love learning new IT stuff, it is so interesting, however all of the ageism concerns me and makes me wonder if IT will remain viable as a career unless I own the business.
This subject has been so tangled up in willful ignorance that whatever truth remains in the evidence it's unlikely anyone would actually accept it when confronted with it. People who try to do the right thing by sharing their experiences with everyone are treated with scorn, doubt and ridicule, left humiliated and worse than when they started because they said to themselves "I've got to warn everyone." Fundamentalist denial and dogmatic skepticism, that's how we treat the Truth.
Case in point: How long were we warned that various intelligence agencies were spying on us. How were these people treated by "Experts"? Then one day Snowden came forward with undeniable evidence and everyone who poured forth scorn sat there dumbfounded in their silence trying to figure out a way not to look completely stupid now that their assumptions were proven utterly, undeniably wrong. These people are the enemy of truth, they could not bare their shame and now we have tacit acceptance of the security state paid for with post tax earnings for some phone that spies on us for intelligence and advertising data because they are unwilling to confront the humiliation they dished out. We call that freedom.
In the meantime science and examination of the evidence has been polluted with the dogma of those trying to protect their book sales, their financial and fiduciary interests, their positions of prestige. Let's be realistic, whatever the truth is few are prepared to challenge the dogma and risk the scorn of having a dissenting opinion. We like being molly coddled, padded and protected from reality because it's comfortable. No one wants to give up their comfort so we accept the messages that keep the populous calm, like cows and sheep. That's the "truth" we deserve.
As for intelligent species sharing our planet, even if they hovered above every major city with lights in English flashing "WE'RE HERE" no-one would stare up from their phone screen into the light polluted sky to acknowledge it and would instead rant on facebook 'where's the hard evidence ?', ignore it when presented with it, then rely on some "Expert" to come in and comfort us when we are confronted with something disturbing.
Case in point: Look at the geometry of the megalithic structures around the world. The genius of them created at the dawn of our civilization is de-bunked by the "Experts" as co-incidence easily because we are too distracted and mentally lazy to challenge the notion of how stone age humans could encapsulate advanced knowledge as math into them. No, it's much easier to believe a bunch of extrapolations from fragments of evidence by some "experts" with arts degrees who are able to maintain their academic tenure so we can stay comfortable. That's how a "fringe" idea becomes mainstream.
So how do you think information about UFOs will be treated when that's how we treat evidence in stone that we can touch and measure? That's how we treat the dimensions you can take from the Great Pyramids, load into GeoGebra in less than a day and confirm that the basis of our entire history is a complete fabrication. That's how the "Experts" convince us that it makes perfect sense for stone age hunters with no knowledge, no engineering skills, no libraries, no farming, no experience and no business building anything so complex that it would take an international effort to build it now. Yet we all hold that contradictory idea in our head without a moments thought. We don't even challenge the established notions of Human history rationally. We're not even qualified for the subject of extra-terrestrials and their vehicles.
Of course the pilots who spend their time in the air, who are trained to recognize aircraft and who we trusted not to start a nuclear war should have their stories hand waved away by the "Experts" at S.A. Of course the high ranking military officials who control the budgets and read the reports should not be believed, what would they know compared to the "Experts"?
We should all trust the "Experts" to tell us what to believe because they know better than everyone.
So I ask again, when I'm looking to fill junior staff positions, why should I spend money alerting the part of the talent pool that in almost every case is either looking for more senior work or simply mediocre?
How do you fill senior roles?
I took two years off because one of my kids was sick. Killed my career.
Were you able to recover?
I took two years off to learn to walk and it was a nasty experience starting again.
The second is defined based on caesium atoms.
Presumably you mean that its defined that way now, however the way one second was defined is ancient.
A pendulum at one standard gravity swinging in a 30 degree arc defines one second (duration of swing), one metre (length of pendulum), and one royal Egyptian cubit (distance of swing at one metre). A remarkable co-incidence but much easier for ancient people to observe than the decay of an isotope.
You can try it at home, however YMMV depending on where you are in the world. The minute variations of gravity you experience locally might mean you get slightly more or less than 86400 seconds in one day.
Seriously, is there a point to this article?
To make you less productive.
The article in post fails to mention the New York Times story which has DOD video from an F-18 sensor recording of a UAV they are tracking.
The BBC article posts a link to the CIA declassifying 13 million documents under the CIA's CREST archive.
Enjoy!!
"There are alien spacecraft that have visited us. they are superior to our technology in every way and if they decide to be hostile we would be dead already... so they obviously aren't hostile."
FTFY
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Yeah, the movies are real life, that explains everything.
We were stuck with cu and beating the bits out with sticks against trees.
Shouldn't the flag icon in the title be at half mast?
No, it should be upside down. The land of the free just voted to repeal more freedom.
Watch the Sirrius Disclosure project. All of the witnesses are either Airline Pilots, ex-Military, two former Astronauts and Police talking about their observations UAVs (Unidentified Aerial Vehicle), UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) . There is over 35 *hours* of testimony from highly trained personnel, retired Generals, Lords of the Admiralty about dozens of incidents in England, the US and all over the world.
There is the Bentwaters incident, incidents where nuclear missile bases were shut down by unknown entities that by-passed the back-up systems of dozens of missiles. There is the incident of Nuclear missile weapons testing of a UAV circling a nuclear warhead *in-flight* shooting it and deactivating it captured on high-speed film. There is the incident where the US and the USSR almost launched Nuclear Missiles until they both realized it was a UAV.
Witness testimony from the General in control of the Roswell incident discussing how he released the technology recovered from it into American Industry to be reverse engineered. Reverse engineered craft. The CEO of Lockheed Martin Skunkworks saying "We now have the technology to take ET Home".
These professionals don't call them "UFOs" and if we trusted these people to handle Billion Dollar budgets, Nuclear missiles, B-52 Bombers, Fighter aircraft, Aircraft carriers, Passenger jets we fly in who are we to discount what they say they have all experienced. I thought UFOs were cover for military operations until I saw what these ex-service men and women had to say. The secrecy may have been a good idea after 'War of the Worlds' broadcast in 1938 but not in the 21st Century.
The sheer weight of the witness testimony alone tells us there is a lot more going on than we are being told and I have gone from being a complete UFO skeptic to accepting these inevitable conclusions:
Why haven't they visited us?
They are already here and they have been here for thousands of years.
Can they travel FTL?
Yes, and so can we - apparently.
Are they Hostile to us?
Some are.
Do they mean to harm us?
No, We'd be dead already. All they would need is to push an asteroid in our way, no Avatar like finale necessary.
Why don't they just show up?
Because we are hostile, prejudiced primitive primates. We kill humans that are different. They are 'Intelligent' not 'Stupid'
What are their motivations
How would I know? But they haven't destroyed us so we are probably going to stay ok as long as *we* are not hostile.
Why is it more secret than nuclear weapons
It disrupts oil and coal's control over the worlds energy markets.
Even if you do discount all of this witness testimony you have to reason what 8.5 Trillion dollars worth of taxpayer money in Unacknowledged Special Access Projects paid for? Politicians are afraid to go near this subject and the ridiculous belittling of people who come forward to share their experiences is an insular primitive fear response to the unknown, not critical thinking processing the sheer volume of information laid before them.
The only way to really get to the bottom of this would be to support changes to law that relieve these personnel of secrecy oaths for unacknowledged (and illegal) projects that do not come under congressional control so that more of these people can come forward whilst still protecting the secrecy of the legal projects. It is time to end the secrecy simply because it costs too much to maintain.