Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

[Quantum Quack]

The nuclear reaction ended decades ago. They built that structure to prevent leaching

True they built the sarcophagus to prevent leakage but have you read about what is happening inside, below the remains of the reactor4?
Also did you know that they had to build a new floor from below to prevent the melting core ( which is still today occurring and will for centuries to come) from continuing it's journey downwards further into the earths surface?
1986-2019
The Elephants foot:

Is It Still Hot?

• The nature of radioisotopes is that they decay into more stable isotopes over time. However, the decay scheme for some elements might be slow, plus the "daughter," or product, of decay might also be radioactive.
• The corium of the Elephant's Foot was considerably lower 10 years after the accident but still insanely dangerous. At the 10-year point, radiation from the corium was down to 1/10th its initial value, but the mass remained physically hot enough and emitted enough radiation that 500 seconds of exposure would produce radiation sickness and about an hour was lethal.
• The intention was to contain the Elephant's Foot by 2015 in an effort to diminish its environmental threat level.
• However, such containment doesn't make it safe. The corium of the Elephant's Foot might not be as active as it was, but it's still generating heat and still melting down into the base of Chernobyl. Should it manage to find water, another explosion could result. Even if no explosion occurred, the reaction would contaminate the water. The Elephant's Foot will cool over time, but it will remain radioactive and (if you were able to touch it) warm for centuries to come.

src: https://www.thoughtco.com/corium-radioactive-waste-4046372​

So the nuclear accident is far from over...no solid public information is available about the containment floor that was built to prevent downward journeying of the melt, we can assume that it failed by what the above quote states.
Every piece of media has been edited, altered, removed and otherwise obfuscated since 1986. And it still is even today. The political fall out seems to be a higher problem than the remains of reactor#4

Even with all the science and technology we have available to us we still have no idea how to stop this ongoing reaction and prevent an explosion that would involve some 30 tons of uranium and Plutonium that are in there with it. We are playing Russian roulette at Chernobyl, hoping and doing the best we can.

Recall also that at the time over 10 similar power plants were in operation in the Soviet Union at the time.
All of them had the same inbuilt inadequate safety provisions.

Shortly with in 4 years, after Chernobyl accident the Cold War was over and those 10 other power stations were upgraded or closed down. I doubt the USSR had the technology nor economic resources to perform the upgrades necessary whilst in a hostile position with the West ( in particular the USA) so ending the hostilities would have been necessary IMO.

This monster, they called the Elephants foot and the 30 tons of U and Pu , still has the potential to do some serious damage and containment is all we have at the moment to minimize but not remove the risk.

So far we have been lucky...

The potential at Fukushima was far worse, not only was the powers station an older model to Chernobyl the fuel rods being used were considerably more potent in reactive capacity and potential fallout. ( according to my sources) and it was only the brave suicidal actions of certain engineers that stayed behind that prevented a massive nuclear catastrophe. The disaster there is still being contained. (apparently)

 

[Bells]

no not really. I blame the human condition, human nature and a serious lack in wisdom ( vision).

Which has nothing to do with 'science' as much as it does with humans themselves.

Once again, your argument makes little to no sense.

I mean how could an ignorant prehistoric man know that the stick he just picked up to kill his neighbor would lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and potentially the extinction of the human race due to climate change...?

Because his picking up that stick had nothing to do with Hiroshima and climate change.

But his immaturity of intellect does not change the fact that it is the science of his actions that enables his unwise actions and his avarice and insecurities that drives them.

Bollocks.

Sorry, but that is utter bollocks.

There is no "science" in his actions, not in the way that you are trying to argue at any rate.

So...uhm... what happened to the science of "sustainability and environmental symbiosis" ?

This was already addressed. Why did you choose to ignore it all?

Or the science of enabling "recycling" what we manufacture as an included science in that manufacturing?

You are literally not making any sense whatsoever.

oh come on... there are way too many examples of scientists standing up and claiming "something to be perfectly safe","we know what we are doing" and then being proved totally wrong in the subsequent disaster. CFC's is a classic example. Thalidomide another, Lithium, Nuclear power stations another ( Chernobyl, Fukushima etc) the list is endless...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Scientists can only go with what they know. You are demanding that scientists can or should somehow look into the distant future and apply discoveries that have yet to be discovered or encounter issues they could not dream of encountering.

For example, you want scientists to know that CFC's would affect the ozone layer without the use of satellites? That's some real crystal ball rubbish right there.

Thalidomide, for example, was introduced as a drug for a variety of illnesses and issues, including morning sickness and within a few years, when it was discovered to cause birth deformities, was removed from the market. We are talking about an age where human testing for such drugs was virtually non-existent. It is still used today to treat a variety of illnesses. The only thing they later discovered was how it affected pregnancies.

What's wrong with lithium?

And nuclear power stations are relatively safe.

Frankly, you're coming across as an anti-vaxxer type.

Just look at the history of illicit drug manufacture, aka heroin, Morphine, and other opioids. Massive opioid problem in the world due to what exactly?
Human addiction to escapism enabled by a science that facilitates it. Perhaps...

You're blaming drug addiction on "science"?

Do you blame science when you are constipated as well?

No I meant genetic degradation but now that you mention it, genetic erosion can go next to it...thanks..

You failed to understand.. What is "genetic degradation"? Or did you make it up?

And I do not think you actually understand what genetic erosion actually means given your statement..

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you cited as an example:

Example:
Gene editing is the latest disaster waiting to happen...

Have you seen the images of what happens when cloning fails? ( no, I wont post them here, as to me, they are way too traumatic)...and now we have some nutter, biophysicist He Jiankui, attempting gene editing on viable human fetuses with out any consideration to how those children will live with the conditions he may be installing.(Nov -2018)
Do you think he is the only one playing around with unethical backyard gene editing?
Of course he isn't.
The human fascination with Eugenics is alive and well...

Did you watch any of the "Black Mirror" series streaming on NetFlix?

What?

What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

You said something earlier in this thread that actually applied to you:

it is about the arrogance of humans who believe they are right when in fact they are wrong.

You are literally living up to this statement.

No big deal... netflix is full of reasons not to trust science... most of the science created zombie films are fun any way...

Let me guess, you get your scientific evidence on youtube?

Personally, I prefer Darwinism, the brutal process of natural selection, when it comes to most of these things.

Let me guess, you don't drive or ride in any motorised vehicles, you take no medicine, you are not vaccinated, etc? You know, if you preferred Darwinism that is.

If science was more observant and respectful of natural evolutionary processes and principles they might actually generate more sustainable outcomes..

How exactly is "science" meant to do this? Do you think "science" acts of its own accord? Do you think science identifies as a person or entity?

After all, is that not what natural evolution is all about.... Sustainability...

Umm no.

Ok.. so I can conclude that you are unaware of a bacterias auto immune system and how that system develops resistance to attacks like any good naturally evolving bug should and would. It's a pity that humans are not as good at it as our pervasive bugs are.

I'm sorry, but what?

Or are you talking about anti-biotic resistance?

 

[billvon]

You really could benefit by looking up the definition of eugenics, then perhaps re-address the issue ...in the context of our discussion.

I did. Eugenics uses artificial selection to improve humanity's phenotype. Guiding evolution, in other words - selecting for traits desirable to humanity, rather than letting natural selection take its course. (Note that natural selection is currently selecting for poor impulse control and stupidity.)

You are probably falling into the trap that "since the Nazis used it, it must be bad." But keep in mind that before World War II, the US was one of the leaders in eugenics.

Ok.. so I can conclude that you are unaware of a bacterias auto immune system

"Auto immune" means that an organism's immune system attacks the organism instead of foreign invaders. Rheumatiod arthritis, for example, is an example of an auto immune disease - your body attacks the surfaces in your joints.

So I assume you don't mean that.

I suspect what you do mean is that bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics. It is worth noting that this does NOT happen via the sort of specific immune response that humans have. It happens due to evolution. Bacteria that are susceptible to (for example) vancomycin die when that infection is treated with vancomycin, which is why we take antibiotics to begin with. The bacteria that, due to random mutations, are less susceptible to vancomycin survive. After several generations, there are more bacteria resistant to vancomycin. This has become a serious problem in hospitals, where VRE is on the rise.

Compare that to a human's immune system, that has both a specific and a general response. The specific response allows you to develop a response against specific pathogens; these pathogens are recognized by antibodies specific to that pathogen, and those antibodies serve as signals to mobilize the body's other defenses to fight that specific pathogen. This is not evolution; this is acquired immunity, and it is how vaccines work.

we still have no idea how to stop this ongoing reaction and prevent an explosion that would involve some 30 tons of uranium and Plutonium that are in there with it.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Here are two definitions you may find useful:

1) Nuclear reaction. This is a reaction caused by free neutrons bombarding an unstable nucleus, causing it to fission and produce both energy and more neutrons. Managed well, this is how a nuclear reactor works. Allowed to progress as fast as it can, this is a nuclear bomb. This is not happening within the former Chernobyl nuclear plant, since the nuclear fuel can no longer reach critical mass.

2) Radioisotope decay. This is the process of unstable isotopes decaying on their own. It generates heat and radiation. Radioisotope thermal generators, of the type used on the Voyager space probes, use this process to generate heat and power for spacecraft. It is not a nuclear reaction. This is happening within the former Chernobyl nuclear plant, since many radioisotopes produced during reactor operation are now decaying.

They are two different processes. Brand new nuclear fuel is not very radioactive, because it's made of uranium 235 and 238, and that stuff has a fairly long half-life. You could hold it in your hand for a few minutes with no ill effects. But it's very useful in reactors because it can participate in a nuclear reaction. Spent nuclear fuel is not useful in a reactor, because it no longer has enough active material (U-235) to participate in a chain reaction. However, it is _extremely_ radioactive, due to all the radioisotopes that neutron bombardment created in the fuel. It would kill you within a few minutes if you held it in your hand.

Chernobyl, when it was operating, was sustaining a nuclear reaction. As soon as the core blew apart, the reaction stopped, since there was no longer a critical mass of uranium anywhere in the remains of the core. The core remained very hot, since the radioisotopes produced during reactor operation kept the fuel very hot. And it remained very radioactive from all those isotopes, which is what killed almost everything in the Red Forest.

Fukushima, when it was operating, was sustaining a nuclear reaction. Then the earthquake hit and the plant automatically shut down. At this point the nuclear reaction stopped. All was well for several hours. Then the tidal wave hit and destroyed the diesel generators and the incoming power lines. The cooling pumps for the reactors ran on batteries for about a day, then ran out of power. At that point the reactor could not get rid of its waste heat that was generated from radioisotope decay. The reactors overheated and several of them were damaged.

The risk for Chernobyl is not that the 30 tons of uranium and plutonium will react and explode like a nuclear bomb. Can't happen. The risk is that hot melted core (corium) will fall into a pool of water or something while it's still hot. The hot material hitting water will boil the water (bad) or if it's hot enough cause a steam explosion (worse.) Boiling water can loft particulates into the air; a steam explosion could do that even more effectively. That's why keeping water off the remains of the core is important.

it was only the brave suicidal actions of certain engineers that stayed behind that prevented a massive nuclear catastrophe.

No, Fukushima was a BWR (boiling water reactor) which, by design, cannot go prompt-critical. (i.e. explode like a bomb.) The actions of the crew of Fukushima was certainly admirable. By restoring cooling quickly, they prevented release of radioisotopes that would have occurred if the cores had been allowed to melt down further than they did. They prevented the release of more radioactive water; they did not prevent a "massive nuclear catastrophe."

 

[Quantum Quack]

I did. Eugenics uses artificial selection to improve humanity's phenotype. Guiding evolution, in other words - selecting for traits desirable to humanity, rather than letting natural selection take its course. (Note that natural selection is currently selecting for poor impulse control and stupidity.)

You are probably falling into the trap that "since the Nazis used it, it must be bad." But keep in mind that before World War II, the US was one of the leaders in eugenics.

yes it's a fascinating history....the USA were world leaders in many things...good and bad...

Your response to my post is to be anticipated. I am not talking about eugenics I am talking about learning from the process of evolution to aid human evolution generally and non-specific.

For example learning how to use gene editing ( as this is inevitably the tool of the future) to promote auto inoculation against various viruses with out the need for vaccines. Is this eugenics? I guess it a vague sort of way it may be construed as such.

Imagine a world were vaccinations and antibiotics are no longer needed.

"Auto immune" means that an organism's immune system attacks the organism instead of foreign invaders. Rheumatiod arthritis, for example, is an example of an auto immune disease - your body attacks the surfaces in your joints.

So I assume you don't mean that.

I suspect what you do mean is that bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics. It is worth noting that this does NOT happen via the sort of specific immune response that humans have. It happens due to evolution. Bacteria that are susceptible to (for example) vancomycin die when that infection is treated with vancomycin, which is why we take antibiotics to begin with. The bacteria that, due to random mutations, are less susceptible to vancomycin survive. After several generations, there are more bacteria resistant to vancomycin. This has become a serious problem in hospitals, where VRE is on the rise.

Compare that to a human's immune system, that has both a specific and a general response. The specific response allows you to develop a response against specific pathogens; these pathogens are recognized by antibodies specific to that pathogen, and those antibodies serve as signals to mobilize the body's other defenses to fight that specific pathogen. This is not evolution; this is acquired immunity, and it is how vaccines work.

yes.. the bacteria's auto immune response is evolution based, where as the humans attempts to circumvent the natural evolutionary processes. So we agree even if semantic problems exists...

You don't know what you are talking about.

Here are two definitions you may find useful:

1) Nuclear reaction. This is a reaction caused by free neutrons bombarding an unstable nucleus, causing it to fission and produce both energy and more neutrons. Managed well, this is how a nuclear reactor works. Allowed to progress as fast as it can, this is a nuclear bomb. This is not happening within the former Chernobyl nuclear plant, since the nuclear fuel can no longer reach critical mass.

2) Radioisotope decay. This is the process of unstable isotopes decaying on their own. It generates heat and radiation. Radioisotope thermal generators, of the type used on the Voyager space probes, use this process to generate heat and power for spacecraft. It is not a nuclear reaction. This is happening within the former Chernobyl nuclear plant, since many radioisotopes produced during reactor operation are now decaying.

They are two different processes. Brand new nuclear fuel is not very radioactive, because it's made of uranium 235 and 238, and that stuff has a fairly long half-life. You could hold it in your hand for a few minutes with no ill effects. But it's very useful in reactors because it can participate in a nuclear reaction. Spent nuclear fuel is not useful in a reactor, because it no longer has enough active material (U-235) to participate in a chain reaction. However, it is _extremely_ radioactive, due to all the radioisotopes that neutron bombardment created in the fuel. It would kill you within a few minutes if you held it in your hand.

Chernobyl, when it was operating, was sustaining a nuclear reaction. As soon as the core blew apart, the reaction stopped, since there was no longer a critical mass of uranium anywhere in the remains of the core. The core remained very hot, since the radioisotopes produced during reactor operation kept the fuel very hot. And it remained very radioactive from all those isotopes, which is what killed almost everything in the Red Forest.

Fukushima, when it was operating, was sustaining a nuclear reaction. Then the earthquake hit and the plant automatically shut down. At this point the nuclear reaction stopped. All was well for several hours. Then the tidal wave hit and destroyed the diesel generators and the incoming power lines. The cooling pumps for the reactors ran on batteries for about a day, then ran out of power. At that point the reactor could not get rid of its waste heat that was generated from radioisotope decay. The reactors overheated and several of them were damaged.

The risk for Chernobyl is not that the 30 tons of uranium and plutonium will react and explode like a nuclear bomb. Can't happen. The risk is that hot melted core (corium) will fall into a pool of water or something while it's still hot. The hot material hitting water will boil the water (bad) or if it's hot enough cause a steam explosion (worse.) Boiling water can loft particulates into the air; a steam explosion could do that even more effectively. That's why keeping water off the remains of the core is important.

I didn't say that the 30 tons of U and PU would explode I said that the elephants foot may explode, with 30 tons of U and PU in close proximity.
Perhaps I need to be more specific and write a peer reviewed white paper on the subject before posting anything here?

Obviously if there was an explosion 30 tons of U and PU ( mostly dust (?)) being caught up in the subsequent fall out, the outcome would be utterly devastating.

Also I was talking about "reaction" not Nuclear Reaction ( as per your definition offered)
Context: The reaction that is involved in the Radioisotope decay regarding this Elephants foot is rather dramatic and extreme don't you think?

Bottom line is that after 33 years we still have a reaction at Chenobyl that is melting it's way down into the Earth's surface running a significant risk with 30 tons of U and PU and we simply have no ability to stop it.

But regardless, the crisis is there and we are discussing that crisis, as with climate change, because the crisis was enabled by unwise science.

...continued​

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, Fukushima was a BWR (boiling water reactor) which, by design, cannot go prompt-critical. (i.e. explode like a bomb.) The actions of the crew of Fukushima was certainly admirable. By restoring cooling quickly, they prevented release of radioisotopes that would have occurred if the cores had been allowed to melt down further than they did. They prevented the release of more radioactive water; they did not prevent a "massive nuclear catastrophe."

Firstly, the information available on this disaster as with most nuclear accidents is heavily doctored for mainly political reasons and to minimize and prevent mass hysteria. I tend to rely on the immediate news that happens as the events unfold for base info that is less likely to be doctored or other wise censored. In other words, the truth about Fukushima ( or Chernobyl ) is unavailable to be researched adequately via public sources. The term "Classified" becomes the norm.

Secondly, to me, a major Nuclear Disaster also includes the release of contaminated water in vast quantities in the ocean that then circulates around the globe. Nuclear fallout can be air born or water born either way it is still fall out.
Fukushima is a good example of scientific stupidity. IMO.

Thirdly, the type of fuel used in these reactors is hybrid and considerably more potent than those used in Chernobyl. How much so is open to debate and mainly speculation but the fact remains that the Nuclear fuel industry R&D has not been idle since Chernobyl 30 odd years have passed. The sort of info needed to glimmer the actual reality is impossible to gain due to secrecy provisions.
=====

You may recall a spike in Ruthenium was observed in Oct-Nov. 2017 originating apparently from the Ural mountain regions of Russia.

European monitoring networks declared increased radioactivity levels in Europe, coming from Eastern Europe, in the first days of October:

• the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) reported increase of radioactive particles of ruthenium-106 since 25 September[4]
• The Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety of France, indicated that the relatively high levels in the beginning of October have steadily decreased from 6 October, while no radioactive element was detected after 13 October.[1][2]

An assessment of the French nuclear safety institute IRSN indicated that while there was no health risk for the vast majority of people in Europe, the radioactive quantity released was significant, estimated from 100 to 300 terabecquerels, which would require an evacuation of people from a radius of several kilometers from the source, as yet then unidentified.[1][2][5] The source of the aforementioned 100–300 TBq activity corresponds approximately to 1–3 grams of the ruthenium-106 isotope.[2]​

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_radioactivity_increase_in_Europe_in_autumn_2017

The only way that this enormous fall out of Ruthenium (relatively harmless) could have occurred is because of a failure in reactive containment. ( either processing fuel or actual Nuclear reaction)
The most likely research and development facility involved is the notorious base, Mayak. ( Near or in the Urals)
As evidence of on going research and development it is pretty obvious the Russians made an error and given the amount of Ruthenium involved a big error indeed.
Then we find out that a nuclear submarine fails and kills 14 naval officers.
details kept secret.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...killed-submarine-fire-vladimir-putin/11286390

And then shortly after we have the well published, heavily censored report of a nuclear explosion occurring killing many, shutting down rad sensors reportedly due to an alleged Russian experiment in a Nuclear powered rocket ( missile).

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rus...explosion-alarming-monitors/story?id=65079519


What fuel the Russians were experimenting with is any ones guess...
It is not to big a reach to see the time line correlation of events in the recent Russian rocket disaster...



again ... unwise science at work...that has global health implications. Perhaps people need to broaden their definition of the term "Globalization"...and ensure scientific discoveries and outcomes are included.

edit: I can not remove the blue font color due to a forum software glitch.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Which has nothing to do with 'science' as much as it does with humans themselves.

Once again, your argument makes little to no sense.


Because his picking up that stick had nothing to do with Hiroshima and climate change.


Bollocks.

Sorry, but that is utter bollocks.

There is no "science" in his actions, not in the way that you are trying to argue at any rate.


This was already addressed. Why did you choose to ignore it all?


You are literally not making any sense whatsoever.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Scientists can only go with what they know. You are demanding that scientists can or should somehow look into the distant future and apply discoveries that have yet to be discovered or encounter issues they could not dream of encountering.

For example, you want scientists to know that CFC's would affect the ozone layer without the use of satellites? That's some real crystal ball rubbish right there.

Thalidomide, for example, was introduced as a drug for a variety of illnesses and issues, including morning sickness and within a few years, when it was discovered to cause birth deformities, was removed from the market. We are talking about an age where human testing for such drugs was virtually non-existent. It is still used today to treat a variety of illnesses. The only thing they later discovered was how it affected pregnancies.

What's wrong with lithium?

And nuclear power stations are relatively safe.

Frankly, you're coming across as an anti-vaxxer type.


You're blaming drug addiction on "science"?

Do you blame science when you are constipated as well?


You failed to understand.. What is "genetic degradation"? Or did you make it up?

And I do not think you actually understand what genetic erosion actually means given your statement..

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with what you cited as an example:


What?

What does this have to do with what we are discussing?

You said something earlier in this thread that actually applied to you:


You are literally living up to this statement.


Let me guess, you get your scientific evidence on youtube?


Let me guess, you don't drive or ride in any motorised vehicles, you take no medicine, you are not vaccinated, etc? You know, if you preferred Darwinism that is.


How exactly is "science" meant to do this? Do you think "science" acts of its own accord? Do you think science identifies as a person or entity?



Umm no.


I'm sorry, but what?

Or are you talking about anti-biotic resistance?

From the OP:

Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

The problem is similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect: The less competent a person is at something, the smarter they think they are.

“Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,” David Dunning and Justin Kruger wrote in their 1999 paper describing the phenomenon, “but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...-the-least-but-think-they-know-the-most-study

Could many woo purveyors be suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? It seems that the less people know (about any given subject, in this case_science) the more they think they know. It's curious how people develop an inflated view of what they know, when they know very little, in reality. The article is interesting, because it discusses how many people may believe they know more than they do, simply because they don't grasp the depth and complexity of a particular subject matter.

The effect in discussion also applies to pro-science and in fact I would argue and have been arguing that it is considerably more dangerous, and corrupting when it does.

 

[billvon]

Your response to my post is to be anticipated. I am not talking about eugenics I am talking about learning from the process of evolution to aid human evolution generally and non-specific.

"Aiding" (directing) evolution is eugenics.

For example learning how to use gene editing ( as this is inevitably the tool of the future) to promote auto inoculation against various viruses with out the need for vaccines. Is this eugenics? I guess it a vague sort of way it may be construed as such.

No, because that's not breeding. It should also be noted that you were vehemently against gene editing a few posts back because of the potential mistakes.

yes.. the bacteria's auto immune response is evolution based

Again, "auto immune" means a malfunction in the immune system of an organism, where it attacks the organism rather than a foreign invader.

I didn't say that the 30 tons of U and PU would explode I said that the elephants foot may explode, with 30 tons of U and PU in close proximity.
Perhaps I need to be more specific and write a peer reviewed white paper on the subject before posting anything here?

No, just know what you are talking about before you post it.

Obviously if there was an explosion 30 tons of U and PU ( mostly dust (?)) being caught up in the subsequent fall out, the outcome would be utterly devastating.

No. There will never be "an explosion 30 tons of U and PU." There might be a steam explosion caused by hot corium hitting water. That might loft some dust, which might be radioactive. It will not be utterly devastating. Indeed, it would likely not even be noticed, because there's already a lot of contaminated stuff around the sarcophagus.

Context: The reaction that is involved in the Radioisotope decay regarding this Elephants foot is rather dramatic and extreme don't you think?

No.

Bottom line is that after 33 years we still have a reaction at Chenobyl that is melting it's way down into the Earth's surface running a significant risk with 30 tons of U and PU and we simply have no ability to stop it.

That's not true at all. That's like saying that after Musk launched his Tesla into space, it is on a collision course with Earth that could kill millions and we simply have no ability to stop it. You have to stretch the truth VERRRRRRRY far to have that even have a hint of truth in it.

But regardless, the crisis is there and we are discussing that crisis, as with climate change, because the crisis was enabled by unwise science.

And if you decide that nuclear power is horrible because of this, and start shutting down nuclear power plants, then climate change will get worse, guaranteed.

Firstly, the information available on this disaster as with most nuclear accidents is heavily doctored for mainly political reasons and to minimize and prevent mass hysteria.

Your conspiracy theory bullshit belongs in another forum.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's not true at all. That's like saying that after Musk launched his Tesla into space, it is on a collision course with Earth that could kill millions and we simply have no ability to stop it. You have to stretch the truth VERRRRRRRY far to have that even have a hint of truth in it.

so we don't need to build a sarcophagus, we don't need to be concerned about a potential explosion that could spread 30 tons of U and PU , is that what you are saying?

They don't know what will happen just like they don't know how to solve this problem...they work on probabilities and speculations that are founded in a little knowledge but mainly ignorance.
That's the reality, like it or not...

No, because that's not breeding. It should also be noted that you were vehemently against gene editing a few posts back because of the potential mistakes.

and I am still strongly opposed to unwise science. It is unfortunately a reality that I have to accommodate somehow.
Do you think gene edited humans do not go on to breed? Surely you know that the gene pool will be permanently impacted on once gene editing becomes common place. ( after all that is what is intended isn't it?)

Just yesterday in the media NPR was an article about a scientist researching the gene editing male sperm.
Scientists Attempt Controversial Experiment To Edit DNA In Human Sperm Using CRISPR
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/22/746321083/scientists-attempt-controversial-experiment-to-edit-dna-in-human-sperm-using-cri

First it was human embryos. Now scientists are trying to develop another way to modify human DNA that can be passed on to future generations, NPR has learned.
Reproductive biologists at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City are attempting to use the powerful gene-editing technique called CRISPR to alter genes in human sperm. NPR got exclusive access to watch the controversial experiments underway.
The research is aimed at finding new waystoprevent disorders caused by genetic mutations that are passed down from men — including some forms of male infertility. The team is starting with a gene that can increase the risk for breast, ovarian, prostate and other cancers.
​

How long before these discoveries fall into black market eugenics, especially in the USA ?
How long before the human gene pool is thoroughly compromised?
How many previously unknown diseases start to pop up all over the place?
How many generations do you think it will take given human nature, greed etc to turn this so-called altruistic intent into an unmitigated disaster?
Don't know! Why don't you know?
To me even though I am pro-science these developments are incredibly unwise an d unfortunately impossible to stop given human nature as it is... But you know the saying "eye's wide open" and all that.
The scientists know that they can not contain the knowledge they discover. The genie once out of the bottle is impossible to put back. So remember the head of the lab stated:

"I think it's important from the scientific point of view to investigate in an ethical manner to be able to learn if it's possible," says Gianpiero Palermo, a professor of embryology in obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, who runs the lab where the work is being conducted.​

when the sh*t hit's the fan a few generations from now...

 

[billvon]

so we don't need to build a sarcophagus, we don't need to be concerned about a potential explosion that could spread 30 tons of U and PU , is that what you are saying?

Not at all. I have no idea how you got that from what I posted.

They don't know what will happen just like they don't know how to solve this problem...they work on probabilities and speculations that are founded in a little knowledge but mainly ignorance.
That's the reality, like it or not...

No one is 100% sure of anything. Not the designers of the sarcophagus. Not your doctor who tells you to diet and exercise. Not the guy who designed your airbag, or the elevator you take at work. No one. They are all working on probabilities, founded on knowledge.

I am still strongly opposed to unwise science.

Cool, I am too.

Do you think gene edited humans do not go on to breed?

Some certainly do.

Surely you know that the gene pool will be permanently impacted on once gene editing becomes common place. ( after all that is what is intended isn't it?)

?? No. If your gene edits do not affect somatic cells, the modification is not passed on. For example, there is now a treatment for leukemia where white blood cells are removed, modified genetically to target leukemia, and reintroduced. This often cures the cancer. Those edits are not passed on.

How long before the human gene pool is thoroughly compromised?

Never.

How many previously unknown diseases start to pop up all over the place?

That's happening right now. New diseases appear all the time due to evolution and genetic mutation.

How many generations do you think it will take given human nature, greed etc to turn this so-called altruistic intent into an unmitigated disaster?

Never.

Don't know! Why don't you know?

Are you talking to yourself?

You've been watching too many science fiction movies. I recommend the periodicals Nature and Cell as better sources for your information. Science Digest is a more readable version if you prefer.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How long before the human gene pool is thoroughly compromised?

Never.

How many generations do you think it will take given human nature, greed etc to turn this so-called altruistic intent into an unmitigated disaster?

Never.

how can you say that when the questions asked and your answers given relate to the proposed experiments on reproduction?
The article excerpt states quite clearly:

Now scientists are trying to develop another way to modify human DNA that can be passed on to future generations ( NPR ),

and you put your entire intellectual credibility on the line with the statement "never"!???
Why did you do that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

No one is 100% sure of anything. Not the designers of the sarcophagus. Not your doctor who tells you to diet and exercise. Not the guy who designed your airbag, or the elevator you take at work. No one. They are all working on probabilities, founded on knowledge.

ah But you are mistaken,
we can be
100% certain that there is a reaction going on below a destroyed reactor 4,
100% certain it is a reaction we can not stop.
100% certain it is a reaction we started.
100% certain that there is enormous risk involved.

When the risk become 100% it is no longer a risk but a fact.
When we talk about human nature ensuring the corruption of the gene pool using CRISPR technology the risk is 100%. There is no risk involved. It is not about "if" it is only about when.
The scientists already know this but proceed regardless for short term, immediate reward.
This is terribly unwise science...
Example:
Most GM crops are supposed to be sterile. (Can we trust them?) They would stay that way until some smart arsed geneticist works out a way to get them to re-modify the crop to reproduce.
Human nature never ends does it...
or someone decides to buy GM cropping seeds illegally from a country that doesn't have the same regulatory control because it is less expensive or from the black market... cheaper again..
Chances of corrupting our food chain = 100%
It is not about IF it is only about WHEN.
At the moment:

There is a scientific consensus[6][7][8][9] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food
​

but of course they do not know what the long term impacts may be as typically they have a short term vision of about 1 or possibly 2 generations. ( more like only 15-20 years)
And here is the rub...their endorsement is based on a genetic science knowledge that is far from adequate, to make that determination.
We can be 100% certain that they are unqualified to make that determination.

Perhaps science should invest more time in modifying Human nature... oops... sorry that is another can of worms..

 

[RainbowSingularity]

suicidal actions of certain engineers

Perhaps science should invest more time in modifying Human nature... oops... sorry that is another can of worms..

Cambridge analytica ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

plastic nappies
plastic single use childrens toys
super market marketing of plastic wrap colour cards & plastic toys
Food waste
Food Charity
Product dumping
Diesel engine exhaust giving children A.I.D's
...

This definitely rates about a 9.0 on my weird-shit-o-meter.

but people seem to enjoy it
like domestic abuse & knowingly deliberately under funding schooling & food for the sick, mentally ill & unemployed, its a really popular activity.

Bigs ups to my man Boris & Emm for telling the Burning Brazilian he is chaffing the worlds ass & gassing the planet.
and... all those hundreds of millions donated to save the rain-forests ...probably time that was stopped.

they dont need millions of dollars to buy more matches to burn more Forrests.

ive met a few Brazilian people over time and they are super nice.
they are the lucky ones who made it out of Brazil. Those left seem to be trying to vote in a military mentality to combat poverty.
it never works, it just leads to war.

Deliberately burning down the forests to chase off the indigioness people to steal their land ?
Ethnic cleansing ?

if you or your company donate money to Brazilian rain forests you are directly funding ethnic cleansing.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49452789

A decree issued by President Jair Bolsonaro authorises the deployment of soldiers in nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas in the region.

The announcement comes after intense pressure from European leaders.

It came after France and Ireland said they would not ratify a huge trade deal with South American nations unless Brazil does more to tackle blazes in the Amazon.

thats really good news or really bad news ...

lets see what happens about the ethnic cleansing issue

i disagree with all the web sites saying that donating to Brazilian charity's is the way to put out the fires and stop ethnic cleansing.

i would simply hit the stop button on ALL donations(except direct payment of wages to people on the ground in Brazil) until the Brazilian Government put military resources into fire fighting with the civilian fire fighting and sought global fire fighting assistance on the ground and with Drones with video etc.

i think it is too easy for militarized commercially funded gangs to be ethnic cleansing.

you cant be serious about business without being serious about regulation
otherwise its like throwing loose cash over a motorway & main commercial transport roads and watching people run into the trucks & cars etc...

 

[billvon]

ah But you are mistaken,
we can be 100% certain that there is a reaction going on below a destroyed reactor 4,

Since that is false, no, we can't.

100% certain it is a reaction we can not stop.
100% certain it is a reaction we started.

See above.

Science isn't your thing, is it.

When we talk about human nature ensuring the corruption of the gene pool using CRISPR technology the risk is 100%.

Nope.

We've had CRISPR/CAS9 for at least five years now. If the odds were 100% it would have happened already. It hasn't - nor will it.

In the 1950's, there were a lot of people who were 100% convinced that interracial marriage would corrupt the gene pool. That didn't happen either.

Example:
Most GM crops are supposed to be sterile. (Can we trust them?) They would stay that way until some smart arsed geneticist works out a way to get them to re-modify the crop to reproduce.

Right. And if you do that, the human gene pool will not be corrupted.

or someone decides to buy GM cropping seeds illegally from a country that doesn't have the same regulatory control because it is less expensive or from the black market... cheaper again..
Chances of corrupting our food chain = 100%

Nope. You will be able to buy non-GMO food if you want it. Guaranteed.

We can be 100% certain that they are unqualified to make that determination.

About the only thing we can conclude 100% from this thread is that you have a lot of misconceptions about nuclear power and genetics.

 

[billvon]

and you put your entire intellectual credibility on the line with the statement "never"!???
Why did you do that?

Because having you believe in my "intellectual credibility" means precisely zero to me. It would be like Donald Trump telling me I am a moral person.

CRISPR/CAS9 will not corrupt the human genome any more than interracial marriage, viruses, antibiotics, obesity or GMO's will. It's a non-issue. Most gene therapies will not affect somatic cells. If a CRISPR treatment damages someone's genome (including somatic cells) to the point that they cannot reproduce, then evolution will remove that genome from the gene pool. If a CRISPR treatment renders someone more fit to reproduce, evolution will favor that advantageous trait. That's how evolution works. You may not like the result (say, interracial children) but that's a far cry from "corrupting the gene pool."

 

[Quantum Quack]

We've had CRISPR/CAS9 for at least five years now. If the odds were 100% it would have happened already. It hasn't - nor will it.

I talk about 2 to 3 generations you talk about 5 years...explain?

 

[billvon]

I talk about 2 to 3 generations you talk about 5 years...explain?

If there was a 100% chance that using CRISPR would "corrupt the gene pool" we would have seen at least one case of it already. You are claiming it will corrupt most of the 7.5 billion human genomes out there in 40-60 years (say 5 billion of them) - but after five years there isn't even any evidence of ONE such event?

It's like claiming that electric cars will kill most whales in the world. No one quite knows how, and you can't provide even a single incident where an EV killed a whale - but you just know it will happen, because of that misused technology. After all, no one can be 100% certain that won't happen!

 

[Quantum Quack]

If there was a 100% chance that using CRISPR would "corrupt the gene pool" we would have seen at least one case of it already. You are claiming it will corrupt most of the 7.5 billion human genomes out there in 40-60 years (say 5 billion of them) - but after five years there isn't even any evidence of ONE such event?

It's like claiming that electric cars will kill most whales in the world. No one quite knows how, and you can't provide even a single incident where an EV killed a whale - but you just know it will happen, because of that misused technology. After all, no one can be 100% certain that won't happen!

Nah! You're over reaching, and conflating your response.
A corruption doesn't have to manifest negatively nor immediately to be a corruption. What starts out as positive may very well end up terribly negative...

If Crispr is successfully applied it will very quickly go global as a technology (legit and illegal ). Perhaps within a few years thousands of individuals will be edited and breeding. With in 2 to 3 generations the human genome will be irredeemably corrupted.
It is quite a logical progression and easy to see if one looks past immediate or short term predictions.
Rhetorical Question:
If Crispr is successfully applied how many people will be genetically modified in 10 years, or 20 years or 30 years?
What would be your guess?
Take your answer allow for breeding expontentiality and estimate subsequent generations.
At what point do you claim the gene pool to be corrupted by gene editing tech, at the start or later?
At what stage does it become irredeemably corrupted?

It really doesn't matter. It is impossible to stop once you start. And well...as you have stated, we have already started.
Like taking off in a aircraft and having no ability to land...you'll just have to keep on flyin' until you solve the problem...of running out of fuel.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Since that is false, no, we can't.

since ....yes we can....
quick google :
"In a nuclear decay reaction, also called radioactive decay, an unstable nucleus emits radiation and is transformed into the nucleus of one or more other elements."
src: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book:_Chemistry_(Averill_and_Eldredge)/20:_Nuclear_Chemistry/20.2:_Nuclear_Reactions

So yes we can claim with 100% certainty that a reaction is ongoing in what remains of reactor 4...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nope. You will be able to buy non-GMO food if you want it. Guaranteed.

lol... you can't even guarantee it today. Labeling laws are so hard to enforce...at the best of times let alone when a company deliberately attempts to hide the truth about it's ingredients list. Or the food company itself is unaware that some of the products they use are GM

Right now it is a total lottery....based only on good will...