Gary Johnson.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 11:33 PM
RE: Gary Johnson.
I saw him on Samantha Bee last week. She didn't even have to make fun of him. He's crazy all by himself.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
11-06-2016, 01:24 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 06:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 11:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The risks you mention are very real, but I would argue that they are both manageable and outweigh the potential costs by far. Consider that it took a magnitude 9.0 earthquake (of which there have only been six in recorded history) and a massive tsunami occurring at the same time to make the catastrophe in Fukushima happen. The simple fact is that in many, maybe even most parts of the world where nuclear power plants are used (e.g. France or Germany), natural disasters of this magnitude, let alone of this combination, are virtually impossible due to their location on the tectonic plates. Japan just happens to be an island with a very unfortunate positioning on the globe. Another thing to consider is that nuclear energy is getting more safe over time, not less. The R&D roadmap in the industry foresees that we will have an even safer generation of nuclear power plants available as early as 2030-2040.

[Image: quakeplates.jpg]

A massive tsunami often follows a massive earthquake. We often get tsunami warnings as a result of some earthquake somewhere in the pacific or in countries that neighbor the pacific.

My biggest concern isn't natural disasters though. My biggest concern is human error. And not just at the plant like what happened at Chernobyl, but through the entire process. And especially where they keep the nuclear waste.

Can you guarantee absolutely nothing will happen, either through human error or terrorism, for the next however many hundred of years we use nuclear power?
What happens when some terrorist group crash a plane into a nuclear power plant?
You gonna be fine with breathing the resulting radioactive dust cloud? I'm sure nobody even imagined they'd crash a couple planes into the two tallest buildings in the world yet they did.

We can only make it so safe. We can't prepare for the unknown and considering the resulting consequences (a large radioactive dust cloud floating around Europe for example causing generations of birth deformities and massive spike in cancer) are so drastic and so long lasting (that shit don't break down, at least we can deal with co2) I don't understand how people can defend it when there are better options.
Thumpalumpacus already addressed the airplane stuff, so I'll be focusing on the rest. The fact that there has only ever been a single catastrophic event in a nuclear power plant that was caused by human error in the past 60 years should tell you that this isn't a legitimate concern. It's fear-mongering at best.

The big problem is that we actually don't have better options right now. One ton of natural uranium can be used to produce more than 40 million kWh of electricity. It would take 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil to generate the same amount of electricity. As other people have pointed out in this thread before, renewable energies are not a viable alternative either because they also aren't anywhere near as cost-efficient or reliable as nuclear energy.

One very important fact that I don't think you're aware of is that even if we shut down every nuclear power plant in the world right now (which is quite frankly impossible because there are countries like France which generate a whopping 77% of their electricity with nuclear energy), the risks you mention would still be present for decades to come because the spent nuclear fuel needs to be cooled extensively before it becomes relatively safe.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 01:50 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 06:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I don't understand how people can defend it when there are better options.

Demand. I don't think you realise how much energy nuclear can produce. You simply cannot match that with other power generation methods. Add to that that fusion reactors are becoming feasible, pretty soon the issue with dangerous nuclear fuel might even go away.

People want electricity, they want it cheaply. They also don't want to fuck the environment by using coal or oil because that has obvious negative consequences. By comparison nuclear even as it exists now has a minimal environmental impact. If you were a government policy maker faced with these contradictory goals, what would you do? People don't want nuclear *either*, but their reasons for not wanting it are... not that rational IMO. Not that there *aren't* rational reasons to object - the ones you listed among them, but those reasons need to be weighed against the benefits.

I'm not advocating nuclear power all out, I just think that to discount it is premature. Sure, *if* policy makers weigh it all up and decide against, that's fair enough.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
11-06-2016, 02:09 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(10-06-2016 10:49 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Nuclear plants in America are designed to withstand (in theory) a direct hit from an airliner.

Sure wouldn't want to stress-test it, though.

So were the towers.
"yea but they did survive the plane crash, it's the fire that destroyed the building"
The fire started by the airplanes. They didn't survive the airplanes.

And are they going to remain structurally secure for their life time?
What about a bomber? Or heaven forbid a missile?

Quote:The fact that there has only ever been a single catastrophic event in a nuclear power plant that was caused by human error in the past 60 years should tell you that this isn't a legitimate concern. It's fear-mongering at best.

60 years isn't a long time in the grand scheme of things.
Not to mention what happened in Japan and there have been many minor disasters, mostly environmental ones. Put it this way, no one had gassed 6million Jews prior to the 30's-40's.

It's not fear mongering. Fear mongering is saying if you let gays marry the world would implode. These are legit concerns. The consequences of nuclear anything can be catastrophic why can I not question them?

Quote:The big problem is that we actually don't have better options right now.

In the immediate short term we don't have a better option (like, the next 10years).
That's what I'm saying, that's why we need to pass green reform now such as making all new homes have certain green standards (double glazing, insulation, solar panels), offering incentives for existing building owners, putting restrictions on large home appliances that must meet efficiency standards etc.. etc..

I'm not saying shut down all nuclear power plants NOW. I'm saying we need to phase them out and we need to start today. You don't fix the issue with 1 thing, you fix it with many things.

Quote:One very important fact that I don't think you're aware of is that even if we shut down every nuclear power plant in the world right now (which is quite frankly impossible because there are countries like France which generate a whopping 77% of their electricity with nuclear energy), the risks you mention would still be present for decades to come because the spent nuclear fuel needs to be cooled extensively before it becomes relatively safe.

Even more reason to phase them out asap.
Creating MORE nuclear plants, keeping the current ones or even expanding the current ones is not gonna help the situation.
"oh we're fucked already, what's a little more fuck" is stupid.

Quote:Demand.

You defend nuclear power because people want it?
That's the sheepish thing I've ever heard you say. How many people on this planet are religious? Do you defend religion? How many wanna kill westerners, do you support that? Do you support people that wanna kill Muslims?

Just because people "want it" (they don't want it, they want cheap power, it's irrelevant how they get it) doesn't mean it's good. People want Trump.

Quote:By comparison nuclear even as it exists now has a minimal environmental impact.

It's not about environmental impact. Well, I mean it's one part of it. But for nuclear the issue is not environmental, the issue is the consequences if something goes wrong. But side note, how environmentally friendly are uranium mines? I don't image they are and I don't imagine you or Vosur or anyone would be too keen to live next to one.


If people want cheap power than the best way to do that is my solution. Reduce the power used, make our homes and appliances more efficient and increase personal power generation. If less people demand power than supply goes up and the price comes down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 02:47 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 02:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Demand.

You defend nuclear power because people want it?
That's the sheepish thing I've ever heard you say. How many people on this planet are religious? Do you defend religion? How many wanna kill westerners, do you support that? Do you support people that wanna kill Muslims?
Tell me. If the power goes off at your place are you a. happy that the environment is getting saved a little? b. Pissed off with the power company? If you can't get petrol for your car are you a. Happy that the environment is getting saved a little? b. Pissed off? If a country has more power needs and a politican promises it versus one that doesn't, which politician gets elected?

We are a huge population of humans who have needs. You physically can't support the population without energy in some form - oil, gas, solar, whatever. Even if you say that boiling a kettle is now illegal, you need to get food to supermarkets, operate industry... Telling people to get used to saving power is ridiculous - you might cut demand by 20%, but the demand still outstrips supply.

Quote:It's not about environmental impact. Well, I mean it's one part of it. But for nuclear the issue is not environmental, the issue is the consequences if something goes wrong. But side note, how environmentally friendly are uranium mines? I don't image they are and I don't imagine you or Vosur or anyone would be too keen to live next to one.
Any mine is pretty environmentally unfriendly. Including the ones that will be required to supply the raw materials for making solar panels.

Quote:If people want cheap power than the best way to do that is my solution. Reduce the power used, make our homes and appliances more efficient and increase personal power generation. If less people demand power than supply goes up and the price comes down.
As I said, it's a good goal and tech may get there eventually, but right now and for the foreseeable future it is *not* there.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 05:44 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
We do have the ability to use "renewables" -- and probably close to 100% of what we use ---- but --- you're probably more likely to get the entire world to spontaneously and simultaneously quit smoking cigarettes - than to get them to go along with a plan that'll work.

Best bet --- wait for the oil to run out - and when 95% of the population dies off from starvation, dehydration - and simple fuckery -- there will be plenty to go around.....


Sure -- it's bleak...

What do you expect??

A fucking happy ending????


It's life, not TV.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(09-06-2016 03:19 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Consider -- if there's no differences between the way that people think and act, in different states ---- what's the point of having the redundancy of 50 extra governments????

Just have "The State Of America" -- and you've gotten rid of the overhead.....

There is no longer a point in having the redundancy of 50 extra governments. It's a relic from a time long gone, back when we were different agrarian economies all competing for the same market with a handful of very rich people at the top who didn't want to lose their stranglehold on those colony and early state economies. Since Reconstruction the need for individual states has continually dissipated until the point where the idea is no longer necessary.

That said, the massive size and infinite bureaucracy of the federal government is such a colossal goat fuck that there is virtually no chance the feds could manage things down to the local level and things would likely be less efficient. But, that's a distinct problem from the ones created by the individual state system. It's an idea whose time has come and gone.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
11-06-2016, 07:21 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 07:09 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 03:19 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Consider -- if there's no differences between the way that people think and act, in different states ---- what's the point of having the redundancy of 50 extra governments????

Just have "The State Of America" -- and you've gotten rid of the overhead.....

There is no longer a point in having the redundancy of 50 extra governments. It's a relic from a time long gone, back when we were different agrarian economies all competing for the same market with a handful of very rich people at the top who didn't want to lose their stranglehold on those colony and early state economies. Since Reconstruction the need for individual states has continually dissipated until the point where the idea is no longer necessary.

That said, the massive size and infinite bureaucracy of the federal government is such a colossal goat fuck that there is virtually no chance the feds could manage things down to the local level and things would likely be less efficient. But, that's a distinct problem from the ones created by the individual state system. It's an idea whose time has come and gone.

That makes a lot of sense but if the states are obsolete and the Feds are incompetent what do you suggest? Not that you're obligated to suggest anything...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2016, 07:23 AM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2016 07:28 AM by BnW.)
RE: Gary Johnson.
(11-06-2016 02:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  It's not fear mongering. Fear mongering is saying if you let gays marry the world would implode. These are legit concerns. The consequences of nuclear anything can be catastrophic why can I not question them?

Of course you can question is. But, then you have to listen to the totally legitimate concerns raised about solar energy.

Kidding aside, I think you make fair points. I'm a fan of using more nuclear energy but I'm not evangelical about it. I like that it's cleaner than fossil fuels, but it certainly is not without its own risks and I agree they need to be mitigated.

Regarding candidates - someone (I think Vosur) mentioned Jill Stein and her views on any science that is not global warming (specifically referencing homeopathy and vaccine safety in the thread). She's a total wackadoo. There is no way I would vote for her. Frankly, Sanders has this problem too. They both embrace unproven and usually completely debunked leftist scientific conspiracy theories about GMOs, vaccines, etc. (btw - and so does Trump). There is no way I'm voting for someone who lets hysteria trump evidence. Too scary to contemplate.

I have my issues with Johnson too but there are no perfect candidates and that's where I am currently living.

It's too bad Vermin Supreme isn't going to be on the ballot in my state, because I'd vote for this guy in a heartbeat.

Fred - regarding what to do about the states or feds --- I'm open to suggestions. There are no easy answers. At this point, probably leave it alone. My primary point was that we don't have to have states. It's not a necessity any more and it hasn't been for a very long time.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
11-06-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Gary Johnson.
Quote: Jill Stein and her views on any science that is not global warming (specifically referencing homeopathy and vaccine safety in the thread). She's a total wackadoo. There is no way I would vote for her. Frankly, Sanders has this problem too. They both embrace unproven and usually completely debunked leftist scientific conspiracy theories about GMOs, vaccines, etc.

I support Jill Stein but I'm 100% with you on those issues. Besides what I quoted already which leaves room for interpretation do you have any links to her expressing direct affiliation with the pseudoscience of the left. She directly calls for a "moratorium" on GMO's (what that would entail, I'm not sure) but can you give me something more direct on "vaccines" and "etc". And I'm not being snarky here, I'm serious, what are the "etc" you're concerned about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: