Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Solution! (Score 1) 151

That coal should be left in the ground, and not foolishly burned for energy. It is criminal to turn such a valuable concentrated carbon resource into ash, particulate, and CO2 and disperse it into our environment.

If you're not using it, then it's not valuable. And that carbon concentrates just fine in living plants. The argument that burning coal pollutes is fairly sound. The argument that we have a bunch of highly valuable carbon that we'd be using for some other purpose, if we weren't burning it first, just doesn't make sense.

Comment Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 1) 230

In other replies in this thread I pointed out the basic argument why most scientists believe that even very low doses of radiation cause a small risk of cancer and also gave a link to recent review which summarized the discussion and a study which shows an effect for patients which had CT scans. Giving you the right pointers to learn the facts is all I can do. Discussing this further is a waste of time.

Again, where's the evidence to support your claim? The study doesn't show what you think it shows. I get tired of people who confuse opinion and confirmation bias with evidence.

Comment Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 1) 230

You are equating "very low risk" with "safe".

Something can be high risk and still be rationally considered safe.

This is OK in personal life but not if you talking about a large number of affected people.

Sure, it can. We do it all the time, such as in this discussion about radiation exposure.

If something causes an additional very low statisitical risk of death to a high enough number of people, then some of them will die because of this.

Unless, of course, that doesn't actually happen to be the case.

And this needs to be considered.

Not if the cost is well below background noise.

Comment Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score -1, Troll) 230

It is the common view of the scientific community that no amount of ionizing radiation is safe.

That is incorrect. It is one of several common views. Argument from consensus is not scientific, especially when the consensus doesn't actually exist.

This is a fallacy. The threshold should be set on the estimated benefits of a higher threshold vs the estimated harm from the additional radiation. The background radiation has nothing to with it.

I agree. But a high natural background radiation indicates that the estimated harm is likely very overstated.

Comment Re:Fukushima (Score 1) 151

Ah, yes. Your hypocritical ad hominems are quite pointless, you should know. And what "science and reality" went into you going off your rocker here?

It's so peculiar a failure mode that I have to quote the whole thing:

All this "NIMBY" greenpeace anti nuke fags really just don't know what they are taking about, anyone who knows about nuclear reactors will tell you that they are really great, super reliable and that the only reason that we have to pay for electricity is because it's waaay too cheap to meter it from a nuclear reactor and the utilities had to pay for meters.

I've often thought, "I would like some strontium 90 on my breakfast cereal" because it is tasty and good for you, plus you will win every fart contest. Recently it was conclusively *proven* that not only can you get a great suntan from the core of a reactor, but that radioisotopes have Vitamin C in it, so my advice to people would be if you are feeling a bit of a sniffle coming on, get yourself to a local nuclear reactor and ask to cuddle up to a couple of fuel rods and get toasty.

Chernobyl and Fukushima proved how safe Nuclear power is and we should all want one near us. Whilst evacuations of these areas have occurred Bruce Willis proved that you won't die at all from fallout from a nuclear reactor in "A good day to die hard". He lived and was stronger so we should move people back there so they grow up to be just like Bruce Willis.

Nuclear is perfectly safe and we can all have a nuclear future, in our back yards, today!

You really need to learn how to reason with someone who doesn't fully share your worldview. Free association babble just doesn't work.

Comment Re: How about (Score 1) 385

You do realize that it would be fairly trivial for a business to of sufficient size to acquire some bit of the internet pipeline that all data goes through?

And it is of similar difficulty to lay more "internet pipeline". I don't see the point of arguing monopolies in a situation where barrier to entry is so low.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Working...