Science is not a perfect institution

Then you would have been better off to reply as you have done here, not to tell him that the whole subject was irrelevant when it was plainly and directly relevant to your comments. I don't take issue with your disagreeing about the context or what you percieved as a misunderstanding. I do take issue with you saying that the topic was irrelevant when you were the one who brought it up.

By the way, I did not get that same impression from the post at all. My impression of the point of his post is that he wanted clarification about what you meant by the phrase "common man". That is how he both began and ended his post. Since your post only described the "common man" in terms of his quest for God, the focus on religion seemed quite natural to me. I just thought that he was providing himself as a counter-example: a common man with no particular drive to join any religion. I could be wrong about his intentions as well, but I definitely did not see it as a statement that you were on the "religion side".

-Dale

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My daddy writes in complete sentences, and respect has to be earned (perhaps you can get "respec!" for free).

You are the one who began the ad hominem game by calling me "naive".

The fact that you are an adult makes your poor writing inexcusable. I was trying to be generous and suggest that your immature writing might be due to youth. Perhaps you have some other severe handicap or language barrier. If so, then you will need to spend much more time than the average person in order to overcome your disadvantage. If not, then writing as bad as you do is deliberately inconsiderate and lazy. If you want readers to take you seriously then you must take your own writing seriously.

-Dale

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear knowledge has been twice the cause of a large number of cancer cases, among those surviving the blast and fire etc prompt deaths. Non nuclear knowledge was responsible for many more deaths, during WWII. I think it useful to distinguish between the intentional deaths caused by nuclear energy from the accidental ones, like Chernoble's nuclear deaths. If this is done, it is clear the number of lives extended by nuclear medicine is order of magnitudes greater than those that have been accidentally shortened.

Brazil is not extreme third world and has only one nuclear power plant site, plus a few small research reactors. It produces most, if not all, of the isotopes used in medicine in Brazil and 10s of thousands of lives have been extended or at least benefited by nuclear isotopes used diagnostically. The only accidental deaths I know of are about 5. (I forget the exact number.)

Some medical diagnostic company went bankrupt. A junk dealer broke in and stole the unguarded lead "pig" that still held the isotopes (I forget which, but they gave off a blue glow, which he later discovered at his house.) He gave to some friends portions of the glowing powder. Soon several were sick. Fortunately a better educated doctor learned of the "glowing powder" and the authorities recovered most of it. Most of the exposed recovered, but a few may yet die of their ignorance. Let us be pessimistic and say a total of 10 do and only 10,000 have been saved by nuclear medicine. 1000 to 1 saved-to-killed ratio is not as good as it should be, but it is ignorance, not nuclear knowledge, that killed those 10.

Sharpen you aim. Go after ignorance, not nuclear knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

let us be clear. callin anothe poster naive is NOT ad hominem. how else can you communicate someone isn't seeing the bigger picture?.....thi is not to create a flame war with DaleSpam, i am just saying. call me naive if you wanna. it aint ad homiinem...'cunt' 'prick' 'whacko' etc is....goddit? good. about the nuclear info being promoted here. i have heard OTHER info: "The health hazards of nuclear power are of an ecological nature and operate on an extremely large scale, both in space and in time. Nuclear power plants and military facilities release radioctive substances that contaminate the environment, thus affecting all living organisms, including humans. The effects are not immediate but gradual, and they are accumulating to more dangeros levels all the time" ((The Turning Point, Fitjof Capra)))

I very much regret nucleear technology. NOW tewy use te waste, 'depleted' uranium iin their illegal wars, causing damage to environment for millions of years, damage to poples health, including teir own soldiers who they lie to about it, hence doging having to compensate----this is all documened for you to reead and make up your own mind. DU also causes absoltely horrifying genetic damage. towphotographs , i've seen, of Iraqi children affected, have been SO shocking, i haven't been able to look at them for long!

 

actually, it is. ad hominem attacks are attacks on the person, instead of the person's ideas.

so you are against the fusion in the sun sending radiation towards the earth to heat it. nuclear reactions don't only occur due to man's intervention, it happens naturally. the chemicals we use to fuel nuclear reactions occur naturally, though in far less quantity.

again, the argument is actually about how people use the technology, not the technology itself.

 

everything is connected somehow. i know science and state are intertwined because most of the time state is in charge of funding for scientific research. its not like some government goon is standing behind a researcher, looking over his shoulder to make sure he says the right things in his report. though that may happen in some place in the US, and probably happens in some countries around the world, it is not what science is supposed to be. but then again, nothing is what it is supposed to be, so i have no idea why you are making the accusations you are. of course there is corruption, of course there are mistakes, of course there is misunderstanding; we're only human.

the fact is, the only way science could work as it is meant to be, would be if we could all know what each other knows and if there was no possibility of someone lying. but we all know that's not gonna happen anytime soon, so we need to just keep adapting, keep evolving our methods and ideas.

this is one man's idea of another man's theory of how things should be done. there are millions of scientists with millions of different ideas out there and none of them think exactly like this except for one. though galileo's ideas spurred what we now think of as scientific research, it does not debunk all of science. if anything at all, it only puts the theories and findings of science into a new light to be judged differently. if you look at one side of a coin for days on end and then one day find that there is another side, it does not mean the first side is false.

my personal opinion on the subject is that science studies only half (or some part) of our observable universe. emotion and feeling monitor another part (or another aspect) of the universe. both are needed to find truth and to advance the species. humans would have gone extinct thousands of years ago if they had not had the motivation to learn from their environment and to use that knowledge to help their survival. the motivation is the emotion. learning is the science.

 

You seem to be unable to recognize the fact that I agree that nuclear waste is a bad thing. Even so, that does not mean that the scientific method is to blame.

-Dale

 

Perhaps you do not understand that DU is less radioactive than the natural uranium it was made from? Yes, there is natual radioactivity. K40 is one of the strongest in the enviromant and like other potasium chemically, so there is some in your body now. If you live in many areas, the natural Radon is after you also, but there is hope - It comes from natural uranium and with more use of nuclear power, mankind will be removing some of the uranium from the environment and transforming it with controlled storage of the residual radioactivity.

 

Duendy doesn't know the first thing about DU. She actually pictures it as being made from what's left of expended fuel rods. Precisely the other end of the process of where it actually comes from.

Please forgive her ignorance and lack of intelligence (as if I would!).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

She cannot help being stupid - all she knows, she has said - came to her by using LSD.

 

Science is not an institution. Some posters here should be in one.
Duendy, pay attention when I'm talking to you.

 

NO, its about both.

 

but they have been separated,and that's the main problem we are talkin about

 

Billy T, Whatr are your qualifications for assewrting what you do about DU. Over a time i have noted a cross section of QUALIFIEDpeople, etc who Do know what they are talking about concerning the very real danger of DU.....So i am asking for your qualification and sources for what you assert please?

 

by the way you'll with inteligence---IFyou want to havea lesson of what trolling and ad hominem REALLY is, i suggest you keep your eye on Light's posts to me..........also, the best thing to do with these sad people is just ignore them or they fuk up athread when it degrades into flame war

 

Inspite of the obvious fact that I don't see eye to eye with you on various issues, the impression I have of you is that you're quite knowledgable, and could be a pleasure to discuss things with. You know, people who teach you a lot just by opposing you!

By posts like this why do you want to come down to the level of Light and Huwy. They don't have much to say, but you can give a REAL opposition.

 

I have a Ph.D in physics and have been involved with several different energy systems but never worked with fission power. The following animated graphic shows what happens to the U235, that was removed from natural uranium to make DU. I.e. it is placed in a nuclear fission reactor and destroyed:
http://www.ccnr.org/fission_ana.html

DU is mainly the U238, or dominant part of natural uranium, which is too stable to use as in a fission reactor; but if placed in one, it can be converted to Pu239 which can be burnt up in a fission reactor. A sub page of the above site shows an animation of this destruction of U238. You will find more subpages, some of which will scare you, but the radioactive waste can be safely handeled and disposed of in deep ocean trenches that will take it out of the bio-sphere from millions of years.

Thus, the only economically viable way to reduce the natural radioactivity of the Earth‘s uranium, which is not much of a problem directly because it has such a long “half-life,“ is to operate nuclear reactors for electric power production.

Natural uranium is not a serious threat to health directly as it decays too slowly; but when it does so, one of the “daughters” it produces is Radon, a radioactive gas, with a much shorter half-life. In the two states I know something about, MD and PA, you can not sell a house with a basement without first getting it tested for Radon. Both the house I sold in MD and the one my daughter bought in PA had to have forced ventilation of their basements to pass the Radon test.

In my prior post, I told how ignorance about radioactivity killed 5 people in Brazil. Make sure you know about the dangers of Radon where you live, and also try to get the environment improved by restarting the US nuclear power industry to destroy natural uranium (U238 + a few % 235) as a side effect, but work for one like the French have, not like the less save one run by profit motivated CEOs in the USA.

PS- I have overstated the case for nuclear power because you appear to be very biased againist it and ignorant of its potential - sort of a balancing or off-setting approach; but I do support it, when done correctly, as it can be a safe, cheap aid to the environment, especially when fossil fuels are the dominant alternative in use, as is true today. France gets about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power and still has some to sell to Germany, earning foreign exchange for their economy. It is 30+ years since the US built a nuclear power plant and may need French help to get back up to speed.

 

hey Billy T, all about depleted uranium (DU) i came to discover and research about
post 9/11......like i said i have read very highly qualitifed people speak of the HORRENDOUS danger of DU

i want to just fous on tis for te moment not to make tings too complicated. i do NOY in any way agree with the nuclear industry....and te full stop is the very fact Tony schmukin Blair is pushin it....te very same war criminal who pushes preemptive illegal wars with his mate WBush, where D has been dropped in tons..actually in BOYh Gulf war 1 & 2, adn Kosovo, and Afghanistan

so i am asking you a direct question. i am not repedning on your information however, i just need to be cler where your coming from

are you claimingthat the use of DU by the military forces of UK and USA is not in any way harmful?

 

I call it humour. It amuses me. I like Duendy, even though at times I would have happily killed her. She is far too wrapped up in her agenda to see what's really going on. I shall continue to prod and probe in various ways till I break that barrier, if only for a millisecond or two.

I came to this website originally for serious scientific discussion. I rapidly discovered there was precious little of that here. I support Light's attacks on the stupidity, short-sightedness, lack of objectivity, etc of many threads. I really can't see how you can describe 'their level' as being low when you are guilty of the most twisted application of logic and disregard for scientific principles in your own posts. That's what I shall attack, using facts, scientific theories, humour sarcasm, rhetoric, logic and any other weapon that comes to hand.

[By the way, the title under my name - moth eaten old grump - was taken from one of Duendy's descriptions of me. Credit where credit is due.]

 

If you support light's ways (They're more like the ways of a terrorist --- if I don't agree with someone, I will not let that discussion go on!) then I'm afraid I misjudged you.

Your first post that I read was quite objective.

You may not agree with another's post, but if the other person is talking using evidences and logic (even if wrong), then to prove it wrong if you think resorting to personal attacks or disruptive measures is a valid strategy, then I'm afraid you cannot be taken seriously, and anything positive that you may have to contribute will also be lost because of a negative image.

And of course, there is no point in just opposing because something doesn't suit you or is not conducive to your personal interests. When we are discussing larger issues you have to validate what you're saying. Getting angry isn't quite a smart move.

 

Although, I can see that the post about Duendy was just a joke!

By the way, Duendy is a guy.