The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Current Events Latest news, current events, and headlines from around the world


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:32 PM   #21
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

As already shown, you quote mined that. And I'm still right regardless.
David is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:34 PM   #22
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
As already shown, you quote mined that. And I'm still right regardless.
What do you mean by quote-mined? And no you are not right- you just think you are right. And I'm not saying I'm right, I just think I am right.
myp is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:39 PM   #23
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
What do you mean by quote-mined? And no you are not right- you just think you are right. And I'm not saying I'm right, I just think I am right.
He didn't say nuke plants couldn't meltdown, he said we know how to build them right now. And yes I'm right, please show me where nuke accidents outnumber fossil fuel accidents.
David is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:41 PM   #24
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
He didn't say nuke plants couldn't meltdown, he said we know how to build them right now. And yes I'm right, please show me where nuke accidents outnumber fossil fuel accidents.
He said we build them right now and used that as an argument for why they are safe. I said they aren't necessarily safe as they can still meltdown.

And you can't compare the number of nuclear accidents with fossil fuel accidents outright. Not only are there more fossil fuel plants (thereby increasing the likelihood of disasters), but the cost of a fossil fuel plant disaster is drastically lower than that of a nuclear disaster. With fossil fuels you don't have to deal with the type of radiation and long-term health and environmental effects you do with nuclear.
myp is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:51 PM   #25
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
He said we build them right now and used that as an argument for why they are safe. I said they aren't necessarily safe as they can still meltdown.

And you can't compare the number of nuclear accidents with fossil fuel accidents outright. Not only are there more fossil fuel plants (thereby increasing the likelihood of disasters), but the cost of a fossil fuel plant disaster is drastically lower than that of a nuclear disaster. With fossil fuels you don't have to deal with the type of radiation and long-term health and environmental effects you do with nuclear.
You don't have to deal with the radiation, the chemicals involved however are just as toxic and almost as hard to clean up. That and when those plants blow they level everything around them, when nuke plants go, everything stays intact and usable (assuming you contain the radiation in time). And even after evening out the ratio, the odds are still better for nukes.
David is offline  
Old September 8th, 2011, 07:54 PM   #26
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You don't have to deal with the radiation, the chemicals involved however are just as toxic and almost as hard to clean up.
The "chemicals" in a nuclear event are often radioactive (radioactivity is like most other things forms of elements or subatomic particles)- the radiation is a huge difference that is the determining factor here anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
That and when those plants blow they level everything around them, when nuke plants go, everything stays intact and usable (assuming you contain the radiation in time). And even after evening out the ratio, the odds are still better for nukes.
A nuclear plant explosion can level more than a fossil fuel explosion. But even that aside, the cost of things getting leveled is not really the problem with either. More so is the cost of lives, the cost of healthcare, the cost to the environment, the costs of lawsuits, and future costs in these arenas. The physical building costs are nothing compared to those.

And you can't say the "odds" are better for nukes just because it is your opinion
myp is offline  
Old September 9th, 2011, 11:38 AM   #27
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

David, I think your primary miscalculation in supporting nuclear power to the point where you make it seem like an obvious solution (it is actually an arguable solution if anything) is in not realizing the effects of radiation. I did a bit more research on the specific isotopes that were released by the Fukushima plant in Japan just earlier this year (so as to show you even with modern tech it isn't a perfect solution). Among the isotopes released were I-131 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131), Cs-134 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-134#Caesium-134), and Cs-137 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137). They were released in enough concentration that there were notable concentrations in rainwater in even the United States after the disaster. Furthermore, some radiation continues to be released (from what I've read- not sure if that has changed now but it did for at least a few months) as with this sort of thing it is extremely hard to control such elements.

These isotopes can be extremely dangerous, especially if consumed. Considering that they can travel the world's air, that means they can also fall into rainwater that then falls onto farms and foods we eat. It is especially dangerous near the site and Japan has been forced to destroy a lot of food over the issue. Some of these isotopes were also released during Chernobyl, which has been linked to many cases of cancer as is expected with any such radiation. Free radicals and radioactive molecules can do a lot of damage to the body and environment due to their instability. I won't go into that much here, but look it up if you want.

An oil or gas plant malfunctioning would never have such a widespread affect as this.
myp is offline  
Old September 9th, 2011, 11:49 PM   #28
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
David, I think your primary miscalculation in supporting nuclear power to the point where you make it seem like an obvious solution (it is actually an arguable solution if anything).........
Funny: You sound like Rick Perry on global warming, saying that its not obvious, but rather arguable.

You don't believe in science!! LOL. How does it feel.

CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 10th, 2011, 08:53 AM   #29
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1

Hmmm..Interesting discussion you have here...I was reading all your reaction and it came out that all of you have good point although my personal take is I don't like nuclear plants too..It scares me..
JemmaGray is offline  
Old September 10th, 2011, 11:29 PM   #30
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Funny: You sound like Rick Perry on global warming, saying that its not obvious, but rather arguable.

You don't believe in science!! LOL. How does it feel.

Um choosing what form of energy to use is a matter of opinion- each has its benefits and costs. As such, it is arguable.

Global warming is not an opinion.
myp is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 06:50 AM   #31
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Um choosing what form of energy to use is a matter of opinion- each has its benefits and costs. As such, it is arguable.

Global warming is not an opinion.
In your opinion.
Get it?
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #32
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
In your opinion.
Get it?
No not in my opinion. There is empirical evidence behind it. You don't deny that the force of gravity is 9.8m/s^2 do you?
myp is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:22 PM   #33
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
No not in my opinion............
Yes, in your opinion
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:23 PM   #34
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Yes, in your opinion
Not how science works- stick to politics if you just wanna spout nonsense without evidence
myp is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:25 PM   #35
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Not how science works- stick to politics if you just wanna spout nonsense without evidence
No, he should stay out of politics as well if that's what he wants to do.
David is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:27 PM   #36
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
No, he should stay out of politics as well if that's what he wants to do.
I agree, but politics is the heartland of idiots who just want to pass off their opinions (or, more often, their opinions as dictated by who they sold them to) as fact. Just take a look at 99% of Capitol Hill.
myp is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:28 PM   #37
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,485

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
I agree, but politics is the heartland of idiots who just want to pass off their opinions (or, more often, their opinions as dictated by who they sold them to) as fact. Just take a look at 99% of Capitol Hill.
Thus my contempt for letting everyone vote.
David is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:31 PM   #38
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
Not how science works- stick to politics if you just wanna spout nonsense without evidence
Stick to your left wing stupidity, which is what you seem to be best at
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:32 PM   #39
Representative
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: California
Posts: 448

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
Thus my contempt for letting everyone vote.
LOL! Coming from a person who probably voted form the idiot we have in the White House now
CatholicCrusader is offline  
Old September 11th, 2011, 07:44 PM   #40
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
Stick to your left wing stupidity, which is what you seem to be best at
Science is not a part of any "wing".
myp is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Tags
japan , levels , radiation



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WMO: Record atmospheric CO2 levels in 2011 myp Current Events 27 December 6th, 2012 01:03 PM
China and Japan heading for war? David Current Events 14 October 23rd, 2012 11:07 AM
9k Marines being withdrawn from Japan. David Current Events 4 April 27th, 2012 09:15 PM
Treasury freezes CEO pay at AIG, Ally, and GM at 2011 levels myp Current Events 1 April 6th, 2012 10:53 AM
Radiation:Fukushima reactors update kowalskil Current Events 4 December 30th, 2011 07:58 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.