1:04 AM What they fail to offer is PROOF. Of ANY of this. "More than 1,200 million people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclear power since its inception and more than 10 million victims a year will continue to die if this carnage is allowed to continue." Big vague number (1,200 million? Really? And 1.2 billion was just too much work because...?) + Dark and Serious Predictions of the Future + podium-pounding wordage = You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
1:06 AM This is what pisses me the fuck off about most of my community. When these are the facts we read and this is the news we spread, no wonder the more thoroughly-educated other classes think we're bleating infantile rebels.
1:09 AM robert.maiar: Ugh. :sigh:
1:10 AM LOL, jesus, look at the clustering in France.
Some people just can't get education through their heads. They have to believe in the magical power of something or other to be the cause or the cure for so many yada different problems.
1:11 AM me: "Nuclear material includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases."
1) There are 109 elements that we have discovered. No more.
2) Huge quantities of our yearly radiation dosage comes from the ground, the air, and the sunlight.
3) I would like to see medical proof of these oh-so-scary "biological effects".
1) There are 109 elements that we have discovered. No more.
2) Huge quantities of our yearly radiation dosage comes from the ground, the air, and the sunlight.
3) I would like to see medical proof of these oh-so-scary "biological effects".
::shakes head:: I don't get it.
1:12 AM And seriously, I tried. I was well on the way to joining these folks, but you know what kept me sane when I tried? Education.
robert.maiar: Hrungeh.
Uh-huh.
Knowing what the fuck you're talking about really tends to help you not sound like an ass-wipe.
me: Uh huh.
1:14 AM It's one thing to sit aghast at the idiocy of flat-earth fundamentalists, but coming face-to-face with the willfully ignorant and sheerly stupid within your _own idealogical stomping grounds_... really makes you sympathize with not-asshole Christians.
1:15 AM "The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation."
... Did I read that right? Since when does cellular mutation have an *incubation time*??
... Did I read that right? Since when does cellular mutation have an *incubation time*??
1:16 AM And... whti..shanlnb.a....dkjgh... ::brain melts:: There's just nothing salvageable in that statement. Nothing.
1:17 AM robert.maiar: Æryn, dear... this site doesn't pass the horse laugh test. stop reading it or your brain will melt.
1:18 AM me: But... but the...
It's like a train wreck.
robert.maiar: Haha.
1:21 AM me: "20 years after the fallout we are facing a cancer epidemic. Governments try to deny its existence and blame smoking or excessive sunbathing as major causes."
Yes. Because cigarettes contain carcinogens which cause problems with your cellular structure. And UV radiation from sunbathing directly impacts your cellular process. And both of these sources have direct contact with millions of people on a regular basis.
Yes. Because cigarettes contain carcinogens which cause problems with your cellular structure. And UV radiation from sunbathing directly impacts your cellular process. And both of these sources have direct contact with millions of people on a regular basis.
robert.maiar: You should put your responses on your blog.
me: Oooh. Good idea.
robert.maiar: Also, that's just....
At that point I start to wonder about parody.
1:22 AM me: I doubt it. It's that T-shirt company, which got promoted by the Environmental News Network, who are generally pretty sane.
1:23 AM robert.maiar: :loooooooong sigh:
(With my barrel chest I really can make a sigh very long. :nods:)
me: Hehe.
1:24 AM "!Did you know that? - the industry doesn’t know what to do with its waste?" So, that proposal I read that outlined the exact protection measures in development for deep-geological burial was... just a fluff piece?
1:25 AM robert.maiar: Hah.
1:26 AM Damn you! Hurry up and cool down pizza bagel!
me: "None of these is safe or deals in any real way with solving the problem of what to do with all the existing waste which will remain poisonous for thousands of years."
Yeah, well, the point is, we have it, and we have to deal with it *somehow*. How do you propose we deal with it? I would like solutions please, not an endless barrage of threats. Oh, wear a T-shirt saying "stop nuclear power"? Great.
Yeah, well, the point is, we have it, and we have to deal with it *somehow*. How do you propose we deal with it? I would like solutions please, not an endless barrage of threats. Oh, wear a T-shirt saying "stop nuclear power"? Great.
1:28 AM robert.maiar: You know, maybe you should actually email these people, mention how much you support the environmental protection movement, and love many of their shirts. But that their entire screed about Nuclear power is entirely out of line and quite simply factually incorrect.
me: I should.
I'd have to provide support for my arguments, of course - seeing as that's exactly what I'm berating them for not doing.
1:29 AM robert.maiar: Also, I've always wondered. Yes, reactor waste stays radioactive for thousands and thousands of years. But you know what also stays radioactive for thousands and thousands of years? The giant churning mass of it that fuels our planets tectonic activity.
Uh-huh.
me: lol, Exactly. Also the giant fusion reactor in the sky.
1:30 AM robert.maiar: And the couple billion of them in the other direction.
Well, visible in the other direction.
me: Uh huh.
In every direction, really.
robert.maiar: There's another couple billion in the direction of the near-by one. And some in every other direction, yeah that too.
1:32 AM me: ::sigh:: I resent the terminology used to describe deep-geologic burial. "Dumping" suggests carelessness.
1:33 AM robert.maiar: Uh-huh.
It'd be nice if we got a bean-stalk. It'd be easy to hurl it into the sun.
1:34 AM me: A "dump" is an open pit where waste is piled in from all sides. A deep-geological burial site is a closely-monitored and well-shielded facility in a carefully-chosen area far from the water table and any nearby agriculture, residence, or abundant wildlife.
robert.maiar: :claps:
me: ::bows::
robert.maiar: Good point.
1:36 AM Ahhh.
me: At the moment, most of our nuclear waste is held in derelict facilities in decaying barrels within spitting distance of rivers and residence. Would you like it to stay there? No? Then give us something else to do with it. XP (I'll be done soon, I promise.)
robert.maiar: Haha.
| 5 minutes |
1:42 AM me: "Evidence has been piling up for years that there is no safe dose of radioactivity." A) Define safe. B) Define dose. Safe dose to eat? breathe? take a bath in? C) I repeat: Most of our radiation comes from radon and phosphorus within the earth and our own bodies, and UV from the sun.
1:44 AM "Sloppy maintenance in the nuclear industry raises serious concerns"
Finally, you make something like a truthful statement.
Finally, you make something like a truthful statement.
robert.maiar: That really is... this isn't related to any kind of real objective reality. This is some poor dumbass pouring their subjective "knowledge" ont the internet.
1:47 AM me: I know. It's painful how little grasp this person has of what radiation, cancer, and nuclear power actually is or does.
robert.maiar: Uh-huh.
1:48 AM me: Radioisotopes = not a word.
1:49 AM robert.maiar: I saw the bomb blast images. Does he try and say anything like a melt-down being a nuclear explosion, or a nuclear plant running on controlled nuclear explosions?
me: "There is evidence that the fallout caused a significant increase in stillbirths and in infant mortality." Can you present or describe this evidence? Can you drew a logical line of reasoning from cause to effect?
1:50 AM robert.maiar: Can you present any evidence that nuclear plants cause any kind of "fallout" at all/
*?
me: Not directly, but they seem to indicate nuclear power and nuclear weaponry pretty much interchangeably.
1:51 AM robert.maiar: Like with fallout.
me: Uh huh.
::sigh::
1:52 AM If anybody or anything has the power to destroy our civilization, it is the willfully ignorant. Of this I become increasingly certain.
1:53 AM robert.maiar: Say it again brutha, amen.
1:54 AM me: "Nuclear power also emits other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide with far stronger global warming consequences, such as CFCs." Does it? How? Honestly, *how*?
1:55 AM robert.maiar: :writhes:
Ohoatnshkbarsoex cr.dcipyb5pbd
CLOUROFLOUROCARBONS AREN'T EVEN A GREENHOUSE GASS,IRXK'., G,XG8
me: LOL
1:56 AM That's right, they're the ones that fuck up the ozone.
robert.maiar: :nods:
Which we've managed to stop.
me: ::sigh::
I know! That's one of the (few) success stories of American environmentalism.
robert.maiar: In five years, the chances of melanoma in the general population will've gone down by 5%.
me: Woot.
1:57 AM robert.maiar: 5% doesn't seem like a big number. But millions die of melanoma and other UV caused cancers.
me: You know, I think I need to keep this site around. It's certainly a nice bit of validation on the side of my education actually being worth something.
robert.maiar: Hahaha.
Awesome.
1:59 AM me: "Nuclear power only produces electricity and can only possibly displace electricity plants, not the bulk of CO2 emissions which come from cars, trucks, factory smokestacks and home furnaces."
Electric cars? Electric furnaces? Replacing coal? Anyone? C'mon, people, where's your imagination?
Electric cars? Electric furnaces? Replacing coal? Anyone? C'mon, people, where's your imagination?
robert.maiar: HOEUKBSO
2:00 AM YOU ARE MELTING MY BRAIN
me: lol
robert.maiar: NOW MY EYES ARE BLEEDING
ARE YOU HAPPY!?
me: LOL. I'm sorry.
robert.maiar: Seriously though, what the fuck is up with that non-sequitor? Like, solar panels somehow generate magical blow-job leprechuans or something?
2:01 AM me: LOL
Yeah, there's a huge contradiction of priority here.
robert.maiar: Uh-huh.
me: Because four lines down they toute the necessity of solar and wind power, and other alternative sources.
2:02 AM robert.maiar: Electric heating is less efficient than on site combustion... but if the electricity is clean, the impact should be much lower in total.
2:03 AM me: Exactly.
robert.maiar: What are the byproducts of natural gas combustion, for instance?
2:04 AM Doesn't that produce some carbon-dioxide?
me: And no one's saying we shouldn't invest in other sources of energy *too*. No one's saying either that we should abandon all conservation efforts because, oh, we can just get it from nuclear. The point is to use a whole bunch of things instead of relying on a non-existent miracle pill.
Yeah. Not as much as oil, but some. And I think there's some other things... methane, maybe? I can't remember.
2:05 AM robert.maiar: Hmm.
me: Or maybe not.
I'm not sure.
robert.maiar: Well, natural gas is a mixture of different chemicals.
2:08 AM Well, almost everything we use for anything is a mixture of multiple molecules, but I mean that there's more than one that combusts in the natural gas mixture.
me: Uh huh.
2:09 AM robert.maiar: Oh man. Whenever I sneeze it wreaks carnage on my throat.
Hmm. I should probably go to bed.
me: Me too.
Just one more.
2:11 AM "Studies need to be peer-reviewed by experts in the field to be published in journals and become considered science. As these experts tend to be funded either by the nuclear industry or the State, these referees tend to exclude information which threatens their beliefs and by consequence it is nearly impossible to publish papers arguing that radiation is dangerous."
-That's not quite how the peer-review process works.
-The people who know the nuclear industry are likely to be in the nuclear industry. Is there a possibility for dishonesty here? Yes. That's why we peer-review.
-It's difficult to publish those papers because most people educated on the matter have the scoop on radiation already and know that it's not the evil magical doom-spell that will darken the earth and kill our babies.
-That's not quite how the peer-review process works.
-The people who know the nuclear industry are likely to be in the nuclear industry. Is there a possibility for dishonesty here? Yes. That's why we peer-review.
-It's difficult to publish those papers because most people educated on the matter have the scoop on radiation already and know that it's not the evil magical doom-spell that will darken the earth and kill our babies.
2:12 AM robert.maiar: :snicker:
2:13 AM me: Ok. And on that note, I'm going to bed.
2:14 AM I'll copy this chat into my blog and make it a proper entry... sometime... later...
