Right, anything too expensive won't happen. And that's when you need to use some kind of objective metric to decide whether you can run the plant anyway.

If a nuclear plant has a probability of core damage of 1e-5 per reactor year, should we decommission it and build a new plant with 1e-7 probability? 100 times better is a lot, right? But if a core damage costs on average $100 billion, then the 1e-5 probability averages $1 million in disaster costs per year, and it's probably not worth it to decommission the plant and build a plant that will only average $10,000 per year. And it's DEFINITELY not worth it to decommission THAT plant and go for an even newer 1e-9 plant at $100/year in core damage costs. Somewhere, it just becomes good enough and it would be, in fact, irresponsible to add more safety (instead of going for extra road safety or something).

So where are we at? To my mind, we're quite good if we implement the cheapest lessons from Fukushima.

How long does it take to debug a new "state-of-the-art" design? I am pro-nuclear and would like to see new innovative designs, but I still trust a mass-produced reactor with 30 years of proven operation (and with any design flaws found during those years mitigated) to run safely for another 10 or 20 years more than I trust a new design to run safely its first 10-20 years. I agree we should probably let go of the earliest designs, but gen2+ is good enough.

You have stereotypically repeated your misrepresentation of my stance more than a dozen times. With your other post, you're up to at least 22 claims of me being a "liar" in total, and you're adding up to a (not so) respectable number of variations on "stupid" too. I'm beginning to feel bad, actually. Whether your disorder is obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, borderline or something else I can't say, but nothing good can come from me agitating it. I'm out of here.

Enough is known about nutrition to take a reductionist stand on this matter. Do you think your body need veggies, or do you think it need the fibers and micronutrients that some veggies are abundant sources of? Moderately intelligent and knowledgeable people should be aware of the implicit basics of the WHO text. I'm sorry your school failed to provide you with these tools.

I can only assume that the reason you keep pounding on your original misinterpretation is the fact that you cannot defend your original claim (that poor people need to eat bad food because they can't afford anything else) against my real stance. I've provided, as a counterexample, a cheap base diet that covers macronutrient needs, fibers and most micronutrients. It needs little variation to cover any micronutrient deficiencies. This diet is based on rice, whereas your examples had a nutritionally inferior potato/wheat base.

Btw, that's 3 more "liar", now we're at 20.

Again, you prove my point. Do you know how many times you have said I lie or called me liar? I counted to 17, but I probably missed some. You should seek help, both for you obsessive behaviour and for your sadistic streak (not that I hurt much, but anyway). And you should read up on nutrition.

I provided a citation earlier, but your "pretend ostrich" tactic makes you unable to acknowledge it. Btw, there ain't no such thing as "deficient in vegetables". You're looking ever-more ignorant.

It's a bit funny/sad to see how violently you react when exposed as a liar. And even sadder to see you talk about MY pride. You should see yourself.

A diet based on brown rice is quite superior to potato based and wheat based diets - that much should be clear even to you. And you have already looked at deficiencies in rice based societies, and I guess you've stumbled across stuff like this pubmed citation that gives indirect support: There are a few prevalent micronutrient deficiencies in poor rice based societies, and China and others are looking into fortified variants of rice to mitigate that. Another trivial possibility (at least in urban settings), is adding a few cheap complementary foods (and/or a multivitamin) that close the gaps.

I've made clear that I can present the numbers I've collected, but you reject that and demand proof by appeal to authority on the exact base diet example I provided, and I won't even bother to look for that. So we're stuck with your obsessive lies and abusive tantrums, aren't we?

I guess I was a bit too polite and subtle when I pointed out your references were irrelevant. My bad.

Your use of the "pretend ostrich" as an endgame tactic would've been more believable had you not been so obsessive earlier.

Why? I said "the smallest candidate get 100 parts of the money".

So childish. We both know I'm right, and that's good enough for me. I won't do a back-and-forth of "you lie, no you".

I think you did read - you're way to obsessive not to. I know my argumentation is effective when you aren't able to make a stand. You dish out abuse over me being insensitive to the poor, and then when I point out how that's all a figment of your imagination, you flee to safe ground by abusing me for not providing proof in the manner you demand (essentially you ask for the fallacy of "appeal to authority"), and when I answer that, you switch back again.

No surprise, really. Your combination of being abusive, wrong and dishonest can't ever prevail against calm, correct and honest opposition. The best you can hope for is getting the last word in before this thread is archived.

Btw, I mentioned my main takeaway from this thread earlier. The biggest laugh, however, was when you implied that you were big fish in this pond. You're a moderately good flame warrior, but you have issues that will prevent you from ever being great.

It would be easier to get that going when we really have confirmed a planet with life on it, so I propose we start with that.

I'd like to see crowdfunding of research like planet-finding. Let's say 100 million people give $1/month for planet-finding. Every month, the money is distributed according to these rules:
- All money is distributed within the highest category of planets that has any confirmed planets in it.
-The money is divided among the 100 smallest (radius) candidates (promoting resolution) with the smallest candidate getting 100 parts of the money, the next smallest 99 parts, and the last 1 part. (5050 parts in all, the smallest one gets almost $2 million per month).

Categories could be something like:
- any planet at all
- and around a star with suitable spectral class (F to mid-K) with low variability
- and within the habitable zone
- and directly imaged
- and whose images show surface- or atmospheric features or moons.
- and whose images show show signs of life (ie. green-blue or something).
- and has some kind of signs of intelligent life

Hopefully, this would create enough incentives to improve planet finding and imaging tech. (The Kepler life-cycle cost is estimated to a mere $600 million for 3.5 years, or $14 million per month.)

Of course, problems to be considered is confirmation of findings and false positives, and also how to create enough stability in crowd-funding. However, with a global GDP of some $60 trillion, it is a bit sad that most basic research in fusion/fission, astronomy, medicine and so on is based either on patent rights or on involuntary tax-based funding, and only some 2% of GDP in total. Crowd-funding should be able to supplant this to a great degree, if someone created a good enough system for it.

Now you lie, blatantly. I answered "sure, buy some carrots as well". I didn't say that nothing else is needed. The diet was intended as a base that would need little extra to close micro-nutrient gaps. I've told you so repeatedly, but you refuse to listen.

They obviously pick food as one of two, since else they'd die. Now if they pick M&C and french fries, as you suggested, instead of a rice based diet with some additions, then they don't do that for economic reasons. Why, then? One issue is how our evolutionary history set us up with regard to preferences of sweet and fat foods. Another issue is culture.