Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment And I didn't say it was the letter R (Score 1) 6 6

because he has the correct consonant after this name

No, he sounds rational, and has demonstrated courage in the Army.

You think that a different guy who went to Harvard is the antichrist, because the consonant after his name is the mark of the devil himself.

No, because he's a no-talent rodeo clown (as demonstrated by his record) defended by putzes such as yourself.

you have established a pretty clear bias against reality, there.

Oh, that there is one sick burn. Owie.

Comment Re:Greenspan (Score 1) 9 9

You're pretty much a Greek in all but character encoding, as far as I can tell from your oral attachment to the public nipple.
And let me stipulate that I think that's perfectly acceptable as a choice. My chief gripe is the way MY tax dollars are taken to pour down the same little endless circular holes for the $18 trillionth time, while you are all on your high-horse about it.

Comment Re:Greenspan (Score 1) 9 9

I cannot tell whether you're outing yourself as politically left of damn_registrars, or just trolling. Yours is a refined temper tantrum. I suggest you look at Greece, and ask yourself if your Nietzsche-Piven "Will to Diaper" is going to succeed in crying your way to a Socialist Paradise.
Your safety net is a false god, and your austerity an ersatz satan. But sheep are going to believe the lies of Socialists, and culture burned for political power, until the culture gets so weak it implodes completely.
Childish blame is the low road, rather than responsibility. By all means: take it.

Comment Re:cue the nuclear fanbois (Score 1) 484 484

Your reading comprehension is incredibly bad.

Considering that you missed the point that the report is discussing Joules as opposed to Dollars I find the irony of your statement hilarious. Specifically EROEI, Energy Return On Energy Investment is the discussion at hand.

I'll also note that personal attacks on me aren't an argument that you are right, just that you are acting like an asshole.

The spot price of uranium oxide is $36.50/lb, which can produce 35,000,000,000 Btu of energy. Each and every pound.

Each and every pound of uranium produced takes different amounts of energy to produce. You are clearly missing the point. One kilo of Uranium from sandstone takes less energy to process than one kilo of uranium from granite. This is an energetic input cost not a financial cost. Below 200grams U per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable.

Which is from the same site that has the quote I pasted in it. Which says "measured over the full cradle-to-grave period". That includes waste storage and mothballing the site of the plant. It says so. And includes the duty cycle of the plant, in sentences just prior to the ones I quoted. There is no massive debt, by their own measure.

No, the study specifically says Large uncertainties exist with respect to the last phase of the nuclear chain: decommissioning and dismantling of the reactor. Preliminary estimates point to a multiple of the construction energy investments.

In other words the decommissioning/dismantling of the plant is an energetic cost deferred to the future and not fully known.

In other words, that site is full of self-contradictions and FUD and can't be trusted to be right about anything at all, since it can't get its own story straight.

Another possibility is that you skimmed one, maybe two pages of a peer reviewed study used to advise European Parliament (including France) that challenge the social proof and rhetoric that you commonly accept and decide to deride the report because the actual science takes a lot more mental energy for you to absorb and process than making baseless criticisms.

Additionally, FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report that you claim can't get their story straight:

Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics

Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich

UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University

If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 131 131

Your whole summary is quite telling. You say you use scientific methods to evaluate risk, yet you repetitively ignore probability. Probability is central to scientific evaluation of risk.

So is data. Where do you propose I get the data on the Fukushima fallout from to caclulate those probabilities if the Japanese government is withholding or not collecting it?

Without data you cannot calculate the probability so all you are left with is uncertainty. You said yourself [don't] tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do. Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability. I feel that is a hypocritical way of twisting the argument around and it is clear you are now becoming emotional because the premise of your argument has collapsed.

I'll let you follow with a strawman that completely avoids discussion of probabilities

No, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that a discussion of the probabilities can only be statistical and thus abstract without supporting data as opposed to the the discussion surrounding possibilities that are based on known facts and the known impact. To answer your accusation here is my abstract discussion of the probabilities:

  • Athletes eating this food will probably be ok and probably be used to justify that eating food from Fukushima is safe.
  • The entire exercise will probably be used by the nuclear industry as justification to not compensate the Fukushima farmers.
  • Screening tons of food produced will probably be expensive and ultimately inneffective.
  • Some people will probably die of cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will probably suffer from cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will pass transgenic disease to their offspring via damaged dna.

There is your discussion of probabilities, if it isn't what you think it should be - then you discuss the probablites. Your next predictable response will be to accuse me of spreading FUD from such an abstract discussion because I should magically know what you are talking about because you are too mentally lazy to.

And you demonstrate your ignorance to the actual risk by comparing eating this screened food to racing cars and bungee jumping. The risks of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater.

Really, and just how did you calculate that without data on how much and what type of radionuclides were released?

You can go on and on about bio-accumulation and generally state that it is going to result in all these horrible outcomes, but reality shows that those outcomes will almost certainly not occur from ingesting such small amounts.

The reality is until there is data on those amounts we don't know if it is a little or a lot. Everything you have said is speculation. Available data shows that the bio-accumulation is already occurring based on what is already happening to insect species. Existing peer reviewed studies on low level tritium emissions don't conclude what you are saying.

Interesting you talk of the body's ability to heal in a car crash but not the human bodies ability to remain healthy despite the biological interactions that your fear.

I welcome your citation of how this occurs. Please provide citiations on how the body remains healthy after ingesting radionuclies like pu-239 and sr-90 as these are the type of materials ejected in the Fukushima reactor explosion.

If you applied your same logic regarding zero exposure to radionuclides to other things our do, you would certainly avoid any unneeded exposure to sunlight/UV, because you, as you accuse me, must be stupid and ignorant to allow any at all to hit your skin because of the horrible outcomes that might occur, I can see the cancer growing in my mind!

It won't happen, because in summer I avoid the surf between 10am-2pm for that very reason. Very bad sunburn is not only very painful it also causes skin cancer - and that is a very real risk in my part of the world. We have the data to produce the statistics.

I think you would be surprised to find out about all the potentially harmful chemical and contaminants you eat from out normal food supply chains, and how those risks compare with eating this screened food from Fukushima.

Reapeating yourself doesn't make you right, it makes you insane.

And to top it off, you seem to think that you are so objective that you are not subject to skewed risk perception influencing your decisions. But you are fooling yourself because we all are subject to it, and those that are most likely to be skewed significantly by it are those that don't understand just how susceptible they are.

I find educating myself to be an excellent and pragmatic way to deal with skewed perceptions, so if you want to discuss probabilities as opposed to possibilities, bring some useable facts on how much radionuclides were released at Fukushima.

Do complain to me when that happens.

What a nasty cunt of a thing to say. I have been very civil and good humoured to you.

With that, I'll let you follow with another poor example, using some activity which is much much riskier,

Actually this conversation has little to offer me other than more ad hom attacks. You are unable to conduct a conversation based on the science of radionuclide absorbtion. You refuse to answer my questions and complain when I don't answer yours. You don't contribute facts, you are unable to challange the science behind the argument (bio-accumulation) and now that your premise (based on a car analogy) has completely collapsed the only thing you can do is attack me. You have nothing to offer but a droll, often repeated fanboi-ism as a result of being programmed by Nuclear Industry PR.

and I'll let you go on thinking that you are not taking any unnecessary risks in your life that are many times greater than eating the food of topic. I'll you you go on believing your own little facade that your absolute zero exposure philosophy is being equally applied throughout your decisions in life.

For being so gracious, I'll allow you to continue push your beleif system around with your dogmatic skepticism and remain in your ignorant bliss looking like a rambling fool.

You have clearly answered all my questions.

Yet, you are no wiser

Comment Greenspan (Score 1) 9 9

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

I'm all for the social safety net that is actually paid for, not lied about via borrowing. However, those into recreational genuflection have bought off on a medicare/social security plantation.
My recommendation is returning power to the states, where budgets are "balanced". The scare quotes acknowledge the speciousness of calling state budgets balanced when the public sector pensions aren't properly funded, and Janet's constantly yellin' for more printing at the Federal Reserve.

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann