repoman0: Are you interested in an actual discussion or just disparaging those who disagree with you?
M: I'm not interested in either. I'm interested in debussing people of their insanity. The problem is that you're not going to like it because you don't see the limits and dangers of reason. You don't see how you can think of a million good reasons to do the wrong thing.
r: I like a lot of your posts but have to disagree with you here.
M: Disagree with what. Do you imagine I can't see all those good things you will argue for. The problem is that in my opinion I see far more, the hopelessness of reason, the utter frustration that logic has no real world effect when it comes to creating toxins that last for thousands and thousands of years.
r: Brovane pointed out an interesting reactor design that can actually help eliminate our stockpile of nuclear waste, and has fail-safes built in to prevent meltdowns similar to the couple that have happened in the past, and it is somehow unethical because ... reasons?
M: Try to understand that the notion we will ever clean up our nuclear mess is a joke. Just look at the problems shoving it down the throats of a few rattlesnakes in Nevada. All ten people who live within a 100 miles of there don't want it and won't let it happen. And you aren't going to drive a fucking nuclear waste carrying truck down my street. What is the definition of insanity, is it we will clean up the mess we have made before we produce any more or is it we will produce more and in the process we will clean up. You need to wake up. It costs money and a huge political capital that does not exist to clean up nuclear waste, because it is in somebody else's back yard and not mine. That is the rules of sliding ethics, I cross my fingers and tell you I will make more and clean up when clean up will never happen. You have been mesmerized and fallen asleep, and have had dangled before you promises that we will never keep. Wake up and smell the radiation.
r: The reality is no energy production is completely safe.
M: Irrelevant garbage. Compare Fukushima o getting shocked by a solar panel.
M: I found an interesting article that discusses in detail the economics and safety of many forms of power production, but focuses on solar and nuclear. The author's main point is that there is only one realistic way to reduce our carbon footprint. Can you refute or argue against it without attacks on his ethics? If you disagree with his idea of ethics, perhaps point out where he is wrong?
I am not interested in proving him wrong. I say that the innate nature of human beings is to abhor the production of toxins that last thousands of years for any reason at all. Do you really imagine if we all decided the atom shouldn't be split that we'd all go extinct?
And besides, nobody will build nuclear power plants without government guarantees. Nobody would take the risk. Do you want your tax dollars paying for some nuclear meltdown in some in some other place so long as it doesn't happen next door to you. Is that what you would call ethics? "I will build your nuclear power plants for a tidy profit so long as you cover my ass if anything goes wrong?" Right, that's some ethics.
Nuclear is a terrific idea that nobody would finance without a guarantee they would be free from consequences. As long as people have children they feel they would like to be healthy, you are barking up the wrong tree. You go play Russian roulette out in the desert all by yourself far away from people's kids and even the desert will kick you out. [/QUOTE]