Fukushima plume heading across Pacific to U.S. and Canada

The smugness has more to do with perspective than pride or arrogance in my case. Like watching a lot television, sooner or later you can gpretty much guess the plot and ending of any show. Just variations on a theme but in the end nothing ever changes.

As for supposedly doubling down or ameding my commentary. Again I'll ask what's the point? None of this conversation is going to make a difference because no one is going to clean up Fukushima and no one is going to take to the streets demanding that it be cleaned up. (I've been trying in real life too and no one cares)

Unfortunately I'm a hopeless hopeful and I keep hoping that some bit of information I put up online or someone I talk to in the street will trigger off an avalanche of caring. It's a different kind of prayer for help, one made directly to my brothes and sisters in humanity.

But in the end everyone agrees about the problems but their lazyness to do anything and their cheap talk only makes me long for the solace I find in Allah(swt).

So I pray and I talk to Allah(swt) and He listens to me and He answers me. He knows that I cry every day for the pacrific sea lions, the victims in Syria/Afghanista/Iraq/Libya, the impending freedomless generations that will be vicitms of state surveillance and that I even cry for the prostitute who works near the tube station not too far from me.

Allah(swt) gives me great solace and takes care of me. Whereas none of you lot do.

 

And that's where I'll say you're wrong.

We do care, and lots of people do, but we are a minority, on that point you are correct.

But it's not just laziness, to say that's the sole cause, is an over generalization and a lie. Laziness is part of it, but lots of other people feel powerless to do anything even though they do what they can.

Also keep in mind that lots of the tasks and knowledge needed to bring about the next phase of human development, is very complex stuff to know; not everybody has the intellectual capacity to understand high level mathematics and science on their own, when education is so poorly funded in the USA.

You have logical points I agree with, it's your tone and your discouragement that gives off a vibe of apathy to the rest of society that is offensive and contradictory to the notion that you care. Remember this is only text communication, the rest of us reading your posts can't see you crying for humanity, but we see the syntax of your words and the level of openness or close-mindedness when we respond to your posts.

As for the TV comment, yeah sure there's a lot of garbage TV nowadays, even game shows are at least educational because the audience can learn something, but reality TV is junk, I don't watch it. But at the same time I know those shows keep TV crews employed so they can feed and shelter their families so I can't hate on it in the same way you seem to be.

I do think the USA should reduce the defense budget and invest in new domestic technologies to help the infrastructure of the nation and to help the poor, perhaps inclusively solving both problems at once, on this we agree.

---

And like I said before, Fukushima was horrible, and the appropriate blame should be laid two main issues:

1. The design of the power plant used.

2. The type of fuel used (specifically the specific element)

Instead of the over generalized claim you made: All nuclear is bad don't do it.

 

So what are you going to do about it?
Tell me what you're going to do and I'll join you.
Otherwise I'm going to do the only thing that can be done... Go and pray.

 

Well I am pursuing math and science in my academic career, a friend of mine is a business major, and I've also considered a political career.

You never see candidates raise specific knowledge about technology, I'd like to go do that. But given the unrealistic views that that might happen, what I can do in the present is to raise awareness and talk among young 18-25 year old demographics and tell them why politics should matter to them and how backing a candidate that embrace Technology A, B, and C, will impact their bottom line $ wise at the household level.


A good place to start would be cell phone chargers, since everyone relates to not having enough power for their mobile device and because that matters to young people.

Once you have their attention, expand the concept to other topics, show them you're a smart guy, the next steve jobs, secure some investment seed money and start inventing the products you described are possible from the junk we have lying around.

See if you can inspire others with your projects for local science fairs.


It'll be slow but it's not impossible.

 

I wish you all the best in life and may great blessings be bestowed upon you.

 

Yes, and i think most of us here do that at one point.

Doesnt most people's perspective work that way? Your perspective is influencing how you're debating, is it not?

 

For me part of it's also found in the old expression *not stooping to someone else's level.*
Now I'm not saying that everyone that attempts conversation with or disagrees with me is a beneath my level. But there's a fair number of clowns that really only look for fault and reasons to attack so as to relieve their boredom.

Also my revelation and subsequent conversion to Islam was to some small degree documented on this forum. In the begining when I was what I refer to myself as being, **a silly and flirty brainless tart.** there was no shortage of people that wanted to be my friend. But none of them gave a single care about me... Which more or less is still the situation today, they don't give a lollypop hoot about me. However at least now there's an element of honesty in the situation.

Sure they'll clam all kinds of things and pull all kinds of arguments out of their backsides. But it all more or less comes down to that they're angry becase a that the flirty tart of a few months ago would have put dirty pictures of herself on line for a bit of attention now wears niqabs and burkas. It's easy to have friends when you let others exploit you for their own personal entertainment..

 

I knew you didn't read it -- you didn't have time to.


Nuclear Power - Your Thoughts?

 

Yes to an extent, but my perspective tries it's best to be inclusive and does not adopt the platform of dogmatic idealistic beliefs when it comes to politics. My perspectives and views of the world amend themselves as more knowledge and world perspectives are acquired that make logical sense.

If a counter perspectives challenge my views, I would either see that statement as one made from a majority of facts and logic, or a statement with minimal facts made from an idealistic/principled point of view, probably based in fear.
The latter is less likely to be accepted by me, because I find that most people who say they stand on principles, are or are supporting someone in politics who is a hypocrite.

To reiterate, not all perspective arguments/views are equal because their foundation in ethos and logos, are not equal. That would determine if a counter perspective would be trustworthy enough to spar or even amend the views I held before hearing that point of view.

In addition, I separate my faith/religious views from politics, and consider one an individual's spiritual journey, while the other respectively is a civil matter relating to worldly issues. I say this because I frequently encounter those who do not have this veil of separation when they discuss politics and it leads to illogical participation in various pushes for legislation, candidates, and argumentative conversation to which genuine emotion is triggered in them in a fit of passion; be it rage, joy, sadness, depression, pride or worse apathy. That state of being in a "fit of passion" is detrimental to any Democracy in my humble opinion.

That state of emotional being is what got the Philosopher, Socrates killed by Athens. It's what enraged the South to feel so entitled that slaves were their property in the U.S.A civil war, to die over it, when in an alternate reality perhaps if war were adverted, more human labor and resources could've been used more productively.

Anthropologists, now know for a fact that racism as a way to determine superiority is a lie. Yet, there are clusters of individuals on the face of the Earth that still feel race purity is an important issue to defend. They have the right to their opinion, but their wrong.

In the same way people who support "Supply-side economics" are wrong, because Reagan tried it in the 80's and it didn't create the jobs and widened the wealth disparity to the point where near the end of his Presidency, he raised taxes, something that today would get him slapped with the label of a RINO. Yet, the concept of supply-side hasn't been abandoned as an economic philosophy upon the first real world example of it's inadequacy, instead it has been adopted into myth and legend among both the Republican and to some extent the Libertarian party.

On the political left though and even centerist left, Keynesian economic plans begin to at least slowly heal damaged economies, albeit their seems to also be a widening of the wealth disparity in this economic recovery policy as well, but the difference is that some job creation is created for the middle class.

 

Thanks for the link.
After going through the thread my opinion is the same.

I did notice one thing though, your main objection seems to be more "I don't trust the government" rather than anything based in science, research or history.
Then when confronted with any type of opposition you fall back on this;

yet you fail to actually provide anything that would indicate that fact nor did you provide anything but opinionated rhetoric, leaving me to come to this same conclusion;

So after reading through that thread, my opinion is not only the same, but has been bolstered.

Too bad that intelligent and articulate people like TheMadCapSyd get ousted for displaying it here.

 

I find your attitude ignorant and insulting. What was the last book you read about energy policy, asshole?

Anyone in favor of nuclear power has to realize that nuclear waste must be separated from the biosphere or else it will increase cancer rates. The only entity that will ever be in charge of that is the government. So, if you are favoring nuclear power that means you trust the government to protect your life and your descendants perfectly for your lifetime and for 10,000 years. You really trust the government that much? I doubt it.

It's not just a scientific question. It comes down to human factors.

 

@Noxious I'm not really in the middle of this between you and sun, but...I have to ask that thread as 26 pages long.

Did you read it or skim it?

I ask because this kinda bugs me when I am debating someone, I link them a thread and tell them to read it, and they in return reply to me when in reality I find out later in the argument/debate that they only skimmed when I specifically told them to read it.


---

So with progress made by Space X, and other private sector people, why haven't we started taking our nuclear waste and throwing it into the Sun which is a nuclear helium and hydrogen ball of radiation anyway?

You'd think the US military would consider nuclear waste and disposing of it safely, part of something the military industrial complex could profit from as a viable service while at the same time politicians who'd support such a program would gain immense political capital.

Is the problem that Earth's gravitational field would just pull back any nuclear waste we'd try to throw into the sun?

 

and yet again you present opinion and tired rhetoric in place of rational thought and actual research, all the while slamming your fist on the table demanding your right...

You need to distinguish between the possible human factor AND the science.
The science does not support your conclusions concerning the safety of nuclear energy.
That is not to say that there aren't horrendous risks, most of all involve the human factor, but that does not change or negate the science.

You would think a graduate from MIT would understand that.

 

Both, I skipped the pages worth of lame opinion and one liners and read the posts that actually contained some type of substantive content. I was hoping to find some good information and such from Sunfighter, but was disappointed to find for the most part only things similar to the above, or links/info from seemingly biased sources.

I will admit I didn't read all the linked articles, but a few.

 

I realize that throw at the sun was the lie our parents and grandparents were told but I still have to ask you.

Did you really believe that anyone is going to build a rocket and hurl nuclear waste at the sun?

And if any government actually did want to do just that.. How long do you think it would before some other nation start accusing them of secretly trying to launch nuclear weapons at them? Or perhaps accusing them of just putting them in space to be activated later if need be?

With that in mind how long do you think some government might just say "Hey! I got a great idea while we're lauching our nuclear waste at the sun can we just loose control of a couple of those rockets and have them come crashing down on our enemies ?

Come on these things are NOT that hard to figure out.

 

First off those are different scenarios, and there would be logical indicators that would give off warnings that HEY country __ is mobilizing weapons.

Your claims are all based in fear, when really everyone is already afraid of dying from all the above methods anyway, no new method of warfare or killing people is created by anything I've suggested that doesn't already exist.

Nuclear waste is a hot potato, you either hold it and it's gonna burn you or you gonna throw it and it's gonna burn someone else. That's the situation Earth finds itself in, except everyone gets burned because we share the same planet.

Also any nation that makes the claim that, another nation is positioning nuclear weapons in space, would know to check the flight trajectory first, and would consult other nations with space-intelligence gathering satellites if that claim was true or false.

I also imagine webcams on the International-Space Station would love to stream live footage of nuclear waste going into the sun. It probably would be a viral sensation online among internet users.

 

It's very revealing that I present a strong argument based on science and history and you don't even address it because you are so driven to be right (and insulting again).

This has been one of the stupidest threads I have read recently (apologies to monkjr, who has shown some reason here). I think I will head elsewhere for some real discussion.

 

Well I looked through your posts in this and the other thread...again.
You posted 4-5 quotes from news headlines and from the Rocky Mountain Institute, a very decidedly biased source, a chart from the same RMI and a couple of links, I think both for RMI.

The rest of your posts are the same anti-government, personal opinion laden biased rhetoric.

So could you please point us to the "strong argument based on science and history" that you claim to have made.



oh and claiming to have a degree from MIT does NOT invalidate any information whatsoever, like you tried to do with MadCapSyd;

 

Do what I did and put him on ignore.

 

No, but saying he's from MIT, does establish his Ethos as a speaker. It is important to say and it does have merit. You can't trivialize it entirely because it does mean something.

If information invalidates itself it is due to the fact that the logic of an argument failed. Physics or math in the observable world made a claim or hypothetical fall flat on it's face which is what happened in that thread.

Ex: the whole storing of nuclear waste in certain geological formations claim, omitted the most likely scenario that techonic forces negated the claim of that method of storage being "safe". (paraphrased of course)