Radio waves were not 'invented'

Radio waves were discovered.

You can't tell if it's a troll?

Advertising to go to a chiropractor, in a discussion about cell phone apps, didn't give it away to you?

Sr. Systems Administrator here - large company.

0 certs, 0 degrees.

But then again, I also have a business I owned in the past on my resume.

As we like to say;
"Certs and degrees show how much you really know, like a wedding ring shows how you are monogamous."

This is not a left-right thing. This is a religious, non-religious thing. There are lefties that are religious, you know.

But back to my point. You are right that religious people do not think the world is perfect. I did a poor job explaining my position, upon re-reading it. I should have been more clear that religious people think the world WAS perfect, and its current state of imperfection, is caused directly by our actions. This is what I was referring to as the 'Broken Utopia' and this mindset comes directly from the creation myths of many, many religions. I believe the Precautionary Principle is a subset of what I am describing, and I do not want to give the impression that I think this is only on one side of the political spectrum. As you said, the lefties have their nonsense as well, and I think it is just as misguided for the exact same reasons.

Like I said, a broken utopia.

Speaking of not being able to correctly assess risks... How many people died mining coal last year?

Nothing is getting a 'pass'. Life is not a guaranteed experience, where only things that you want to happen, will happen. I'm not sure of the connection to tobacco here, although some are confused by my attribution of this mindset to religion... so you may have a point. Personally, I think 'radiation' is so misunderstood by the general public, that keeping news stories out of their view is more often than not, a GOOD thing. Because they have a poor understanding of it, they will make poor decisions. Look no further than the west coast of the US. The actual facts are that these people get more radiation on a daily basis from the smoke detectors in their houses(Americium), than any possible fallout from Fukushima. But nothing gets in the way of an irrational panic, so we saw stories about very possibly ONE ATOM being detected in sensors designed to test for above ground nuclear tests around the globe. Along with the nonsense of people rushing to buy and stockpile iodine tablets. Mass Stupidity.

Nuclear power is not 100% safe. Coal power is not 100% safe. Neither of those things is not safe because we MADE them unsafe. They are unsafe because the entire reality of existence is not 100% safe. If 'not safe' was some sort of measuring stick, cars would have been banned long ago, as they have killed upwards of 40,000 people a year in this country alone. Obviously, as a society we have decided the benefits of having them is worth the risks that go along. Given the deaths/year for nuclear power, it easily provides more of a benefit to us as a whole, than the risks that come with it. You think we would give it up? Put your money where your mouth is, and stop using products that are a direct result of it. Stop using anything that was produced with cheap power from nuclear energy. I have a feeling you have never worked this out as if it was true in your real life, and that you are just repeating something you heard.

I doubt 40,000 people(other than nagasaki and hiroshima) have been killed by nuclear power, even tangentially, in the entirety of its existence, let alone in a single year like automobiles have. Pretending it is 'dangerous' is based on nothing but your fear. You talk of not being able to asses risks correctly, but you somehow miss the incredible misjudgements you are making in regard to nuclear power. You don't hear about every single car accident where someone dies, because they happen so often, multiple times a day, all across the country. You do hear about a disaster at a nuclear power plant, because it does not happen at the same frequency, and this makes it much more dramatic. Because of this, you think nuclear power is more dangerous than driving, and should be banned? The hard numbers do not support that assumption at all, and I find it hard to believe that you aren't aware of this. In the first 100 years of the existence of the automobile, it had killed 3.2 MILLION people in the US alone. Yet this is not something you consider more dangerous than nuclear power? I find that fascinating.

Yep, no degree here.

I make more than both my sister and her husband combined. She has a degree in finance, and he has a degree in biology.

Am I lucky? I dont know. Do you think it's luck that I would spend 30hrs direct on a job until it was done? Was it luck that this was able to get me more clients than my competition, because my clients would pay nicely for that kind of turnaround?

I'm in the IT field now, and yes, I've seen many an employee with a degree pass through, and I seriously wonder how they manage to tie their shoes in the morning, much less use a computer. A certain subset of 'graduates' has only mastered one thing, and that is how to play the 'game' of school. The do wonderful at it for the years they are in school, but end up failing horribly when it is time to put that to practical use. If you have been in the upper levels of a decent sized company, you've seen it. Having a degree does not mean you are any better, just as not having one means you are any worse. It can be a nice get-in-the-door early in your career, but it certainly is not the only route to success.

You should read that again. There is quite clearly an intervening step.

Did your subconscious just gloss over it as if it was not there?

Of course they don't. I never claimed they did. But then again, not all nuclear power plants are located next to oceans and hit by tsunamis.

That didn't stop the crazy people from linking that ONE incident, to every single plant. Demanding their closure, or in this case, the exit of an entire country from this means of producing electricity.

There is no 100% safe way to do anything, much less generate electricity on a massive scale. Natural disasters will happen, but is no reason to go back to the dark ages of technology.

I wish people who were so adamant of these things could all live on an island with no electricity. As is seems they are unable to comprehend that there are benefits and trade-offs for the risk. Do I want clean drinking water(powered by electricity)? Do I want to keep my food safe from spoiling?

In all honesty, it's a symptom of a larger problem that seems to be a rather widespread thought process. I like to call it the 'Broken Utopia' model, where everything would be just perfect(literally perfect) if we didn't get involved with our 'sciency' ideas. In this line of thinking, the goal is an unattainable state of perfection, and anything less is cause to throw out the entire field. Be it nuclear energy in this case, or the motives of the 'anti-vaccine' crowd.

The fact that this parallels so closely with the creation stories of many major religions, is no accident. And is just further proof to me that religion does far, FAR more harm than it does good.

That's why France built the Fessenheim plant RIGHT on the border.

You could easily throw a rock from within its property, and hit German soil.

Nobody needs to repeat that study, because like you said, it's not relevant.

But you know what is relevant? Instead of all that stuff going up in smoke, it now gets stored in giant piles of waste. Usually on site, but sometimes at an offsite disposal facility. Such fun things as; arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.

Perfectly safe, until this happens that is.

always remain unknown?

You know, I have a friend just like you. He has worked in low level IT for so long, he lost touch with LOTS of things. One of those things is being able to understand your machine so well that you can TELL it what to do. When I try to explain this to him, he looks at me with confusion and just says 'I'll just go out and find the program I need to get it to work". But the following week, he will be wondering why this software doesn't do EXACTLY what he wants.

When I tell him to just write a simple driver for the interface, the response is 'thats impossible, nobody can do that'... as if somehow his knowledge is at the limit, and nobody knows more than him.

You seem to be well on this same path.

If you are worried about your patients taking advice from a place like this, that's your problem. Pushing your paranoia off on your patients when they had nothing to do with it, demonstrates that you are not very professional.

If I heard any of the doctors I knew were doing this, I would immediately leave. In fact, I'll be asking each of them on my next visit.

So. Who else clicked on the article to see if the guys name was 'John'?

Well then the competitor has a worse business model.

Yesterday was a perfect example of this. I am buying landscaping right now, and was pricing out bushes. The same bush that sold for $35 per bush at Home Depot, was selling online for $25 FOR TEN.

I am looking to do my job with the lowest cost to me, for the best quality. I am not looking to pay my money to subsidize a giant brick building being used to hold outdoor plants indoors.

It's that whole 'vote with your wallet' thing that people keep complaining that they are unable to do with the local phone/internet companies. Yet when they can do it, its suddenly unfair to the business that doesn't get chosen?

This is a classic!

I LOVE that first comment from John L. ( no spoilers here, seriously everyone should go read it, you won't regret it)

You win one internet for pointing this out to me.