Re: Alaska PFD

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:19:04 -0700, EVIL ELVIS wrote:

On Sep 5, 4:43 pm, Steve Harder-Kucera <st...@no-spam-pretty-por-favor-
con-sucar-betterwaywebsites.com> wrote:

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying we should compare nuclear
power - which powers 70% of France, a good portion of the United States
and most of our submarines and aircraft carriers - to the chances of
falling off a motorcycle or a building? That's what I get to work with?
Apples to airplanes?

Life is risk. As Al Pacino once said, "You could get killed walking
your doggie."

Actually I'm not saying anything. Just asking you to clarify your (rather
simplistic) statement that nuclear power is "clean and safe", a position
that you have now qualified, or rather changed to "is dirty and with
risk".

100 miles away from Vegas is not remote enough? Where do you propose we
put the waste?

Well, if it's clean and safe then that's really a non-issue. Now of course
if it's risky and dirty, then we certainly need to take that into
consideration. I know we're told that Yucca Mountain is a fantastic
option, but you and I are conservatives and as conservatives we don't put
a lot of faith in the Federal Government, the entity that is assuring us
Yucca Mountain is the answer. You're not going all Liberal on me are you?

BTW, I am more "at risk" than you since nuclear waste is currently being
stored in about 4 known places here in NM. There are none in NV (to my
knowledge).

That shouldn't be a problem, considering the cleanliness and safety thang.

Then by that token, stop operating your car because you could get carbon
monoxide poisoning (VERY deadly) and could get in a wreck. Automobiles
cause more damage than any nuclear reactor ever has. Garage shops have
tons of chemicals that could also be very deadly to you. Thousands of
trucks cross into Albuquerque every day that carry very dangerous
chemicals. I guess they should all just stay home too. Airplanes carry
very toxic fuel which could kill you (not to mention they could fall out
of the sky). Hospitals contain tons of nuclear reactivity, x-rays and
chemical & bio hazards. Better stay away from them too. And don't even
get me started on Sweet & Low. That stuff has cancer causing chemicals
and could kill you.

I would have to refresh my memory of the specifics of critical thinking to
accurately label the tactics you've used in the preceding paragraph, but
for now let's just put it under the broad category of intellectual
dishonesty. I believe "Straw Man" is what I'm looking for. You've built
several of them here recently. Thus, no need for me to respond.

Gosh, I think the Sun leaks more radiation in a day than a nuclear
reactor does... ever.

But let's just leave all of the dirty barrels of waste scattered around
the 120 plants we have instead of storing it in one safe place. Wind,
solar & "alternative" energy are really neat-o things until you realize
they really don't work too well.

You've just applied the word "dirty" to something you previously asserted
was "clean".

But don't take my word for it. I believe you are a pretty big Penn &
Teller fan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM

Love Penn and Teller, but not to the point of letting then do my thinking
for me. They offer a refreshing an entertaining alternative viewpoint to
many subjects, and quite persuasively. What I like about them most, and
what I miss about Penn's radio show, is their respect for the art of
discourse. They strike me a very honest critical thinkers, yet I don't
accept their word as gospel.

Name one person to die as a direct result of a nuclear reactor in the
U.S. ONE! I bet you cannot.

Perhaps instead I could provide a list of foods, drugs, chemicals and
facilities that were sold to us as "safe", by our Federal Government that
have turned out to be otherwise. However, from a tactical standpoint, I
give you credit for qualifying your assertion with the caveat "within the
U.S.". Reality of course does not respect borders.

So, there is my answer. Hopefully that will satisfy what you were
asking. Now, let me ask you... do you support Yucca Mountain and, do
you support the building of more nuclear power plants?

I remain skeptical of virtually everything that is sold to me as being
safe. I'm a conservative, free market guy who believes my Federal
Government is beholden to interests far beyond the safety and welfare of
the citizenry. I believe that Half Life is the greatest damned video game
in history, outside of that I don't consider it a great measure of
"cleanliness".

I believe that we are living with infrastructure and paradigms that were
developed during a time of, and based on the principle of, infinite
supply. I believe that we are smart enough to realize that the concept of
infinite supply is perhaps not the best basis to build upon.

I believe it is stupid to build houses in Las Vegas using the same
building principles that we build houses in Northern California. I've been
inside beautiful homes with all of the luxuries and conveniences of modern
life, including indoor swimming pools, that are completely off of the
power grid. I know, not believe, that homes can be built in Las Vegas that
have zero (0) heating and cooling costs throughout the year. And I believe
that is the smarter approach to the problem, not figuring out new ways to
sustain old ways of thinking.

And I believe that my believing all of these things is in no way a
reflection of whether my political leanings are to the left or to the
right. Not that you asked or implied that, at least not of me.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alaska PFD
    ... Are you saying we should compare nuclear ... power - which powers 70% of France, a good portion of the United States ... if it's clean and safe then that's really a non-issue. ... tons of chemicals that could also be very deadly to you. ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Re: McCain-Lieberman nuclear power grab
    ... David Nebenzahl wrote: ... electrical power is nuclear and has been for years. ... power is as safe as it's cracked up to be. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Solar powered lasers in space
    ... In point of fact you could get rid of New York ... When you can fly ballistically at 1 gee to any point on Earth in 20 ... have computers of fantastic power, ... LBJ hadn't cut back on nuclear propulsion systems, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: unions
    ... They're only probationary members of the nuclear club at this point. ... don't get the full prestige of being a nuclear power. ... Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian ... North Korea did what it did because of the Bush Administration's ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: This months popular science - hydrogen powered hyper jet
    ... fuel and petro-based ag-chems vs. ethanol yield. ... However the nuclear plant has an economic lifespan of less than 40 years. ... Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to ... Nuclear power plants in a "war" situation are very attractive targets. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Loading