Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Page 21 of 21 [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Previous topic | Next topic

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 Jul 2015, 8:44 pm

Fugu wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Yeah. I understand the concerns of anti-nuke folks, but they don't seem to care that all of their dire examples are based on 1960's technology.

And even the dire examples aren't very bad. Chernobyl wouldn't have led to any premature deaths outside of the immediate blast if the Soviet authorities had handed out iodine tablets. Tame events like Three Mile Island? Drops in the ocean.

Fewer people die per kilowatt hour using nuclear power than for any other form of electricity generation.


Yes, but when they do, we know about it, and it's vivid, and that plays into a standard human irrationality.

And most people can't be bothered to defeat their own irrationalities. What they feel is more true, period.

Fukushima isn't good, and i don't know how they might fix it.

And when people bring up that disaster, my standard answer is "Yes. We should not put the storage water above the reactor core. Also, if we were smart like the US Navy, we'd build it so that coolant pressure is what keeps the control rods out of the core. Lose coolant pressure? Reaction shuts down because gravity. In general, I agree that we should never build any 1960's reactor designs again."
there's already a low-maintence safe design(pool-type reactors) that don't require the use of boiling water towers.



Do you mean pebble bed reactors?

All of the nuclear power generation strategies i know of are essentially atomic tea kettles -- they boil water (or some other substance) to push steam through a turbine.



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

10 Jul 2015, 9:25 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Fewer people die per kilowatt hour using nuclear power than for any other form of electricity generation.

Yep. And while there were no radiation deaths as a result of the Fukushima disaster, there may have been deaths due to fear of radiation:

"No search parties went out the morning after the tsunami as they did farther up the coast; the rescue workers were also forced to evacuate."

"The explosion terrified local people and prompted the government to order mass evacuations within 20km of the plant. Kanouya-san’s hospital was just outside that area. Nevertheless, most doctors and nurses fled, all but abandoning Kanouya-san. For days, he shared a few rice balls with a handful of other remaining patients, all the time praying that his wife had survived."

(http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ ... ?page=full)

There's also California, where people are trying to get rid of the state's last nuclear plant, but not doing much to guard against tsunamis or earthquakes, which did kill a lot of people in Japan. (Lots of houses are built on the edges of sand cliffs, and plenty of oceanside parks and tourist traps would be hard to evacuate if there were a tsunami.)



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

10 Jul 2015, 10:38 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Fugu wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Yeah. I understand the concerns of anti-nuke folks, but they don't seem to care that all of their dire examples are based on 1960's technology.

And even the dire examples aren't very bad. Chernobyl wouldn't have led to any premature deaths outside of the immediate blast if the Soviet authorities had handed out iodine tablets. Tame events like Three Mile Island? Drops in the ocean.

Fewer people die per kilowatt hour using nuclear power than for any other form of electricity generation.


Yes, but when they do, we know about it, and it's vivid, and that plays into a standard human irrationality.

And most people can't be bothered to defeat their own irrationalities. What they feel is more true, period.

Fukushima isn't good, and i don't know how they might fix it.

And when people bring up that disaster, my standard answer is "Yes. We should not put the storage water above the reactor core. Also, if we were smart like the US Navy, we'd build it so that coolant pressure is what keeps the control rods out of the core. Lose coolant pressure? Reaction shuts down because gravity. In general, I agree that we should never build any 1960's reactor designs again."
there's already a low-maintence safe design(pool-type reactors) that don't require the use of boiling water towers.



Do you mean pebble bed reactors?

All of the nuclear power generation strategies i know of are essentially atomic tea kettles -- they boil water (or some other substance) to push steam through a turbine.
no, i mean pool reactors



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 Jul 2015, 10:57 pm

Fugu wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Fugu wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Yeah. I understand the concerns of anti-nuke folks, but they don't seem to care that all of their dire examples are based on 1960's technology.

And even the dire examples aren't very bad. Chernobyl wouldn't have led to any premature deaths outside of the immediate blast if the Soviet authorities had handed out iodine tablets. Tame events like Three Mile Island? Drops in the ocean.

Fewer people die per kilowatt hour using nuclear power than for any other form of electricity generation.


Yes, but when they do, we know about it, and it's vivid, and that plays into a standard human irrationality.

And most people can't be bothered to defeat their own irrationalities. What they feel is more true, period.

Fukushima isn't good, and i don't know how they might fix it.

And when people bring up that disaster, my standard answer is "Yes. We should not put the storage water above the reactor core. Also, if we were smart like the US Navy, we'd build it so that coolant pressure is what keeps the control rods out of the core. Lose coolant pressure? Reaction shuts down because gravity. In general, I agree that we should never build any 1960's reactor designs again."
there's already a low-maintence safe design(pool-type reactors) that don't require the use of boiling water towers.



Do you mean pebble bed reactors?

All of the nuclear power generation strategies i know of are essentially atomic tea kettles -- they boil water (or some other substance) to push steam through a turbine.
no, i mean pool reactors


OK, so instead of pumping coolant, they submerge the reactor in coolant at atmospheric pressure and let convection handle it.

I don't see how water pool reactors would be useful for anything but research and the manufacture of isotopes for medical and industrial use.

The sodium pool reactors work for power generation, but, big vat of molten sodium metal.



AgusCahyo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Posts: 139

15 Aug 2015, 2:43 am

Conservatives are anti freedom. Why? Because they want to run others' life.
Liberal are anti responsibility. Why? Because they are often people that choose really stupid choices in life and they want someone else to pay for it.
Libertarian support responsible freedom. You are free, but you are responsible for the result of your choice.

Sample:
Conservative would say no to abortion. They will claim that it's because they are pro life. The truth is they are just anti choice. If they are pro life, they would care about the child life after birth. Not that they should, however, that's what we normally think pro life is. They don't. They also don't give money to plenty of starving african kids.

Liberals would say yes to abortion. That's because they are anti responsibility. They often have sex and get pregnant and found out that they do not have money to support the child. So liberals insist that whoever do that have "choices". One of those choice is of course to give birth to the child. But then it comes with consequences. Who will pay the child support? Again, liberal will say societies will pay the child support. Such irresponsible behavior, having children without being able to afford it are choices that most shouldn't take. Liberals make it easy for people to make really really stupid choices irresponsibly.

Libertarian supports responsible freedom. A woman is free to be pregnant. She is free to pick a rich sugar daddy. Once she is pregnant with a child of a rich smart man, the choice of abortion is less relevant.

Notice neither liberals or conservatives support the responsible choice. If a woman get pregnant with sugar daddy, both liberals and conservatives will call that prostitution and will try to prohibit that. However, that is the one choice that will greatly reduce abortion. Neither of them are pro choice or pro life. If women can abort their baby, why can't she be prostitute? Why there are restrictions on women's right to simply pick the rich?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,645
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Aug 2015, 4:48 am

AgusCahyo wrote:
Conservatives are anti freedom. Why? Because they want to run others' life.
Liberal are anti responsibility. Why? Because they are often people that choose really stupid choices in life and they want someone else to pay for it.
Libertarian support responsible freedom. You are free, but you are responsible for the result of your choice.

Sample:
Conservative would say no to abortion. They will claim that it's because they are pro life. The truth is they are just anti choice. If they are pro life, they would care about the child life after birth. Not that they should, however, that's what we normally think pro life is. They don't. They also don't give money to plenty of starving african kids.

Liberals would say yes to abortion. That's because they are anti responsibility. They often have sex and get pregnant and found out that they do not have money to support the child. So liberals insist that whoever do that have "choices". One of those choice is of course to give birth to the child. But then it comes with consequences. Who will pay the child support? Again, liberal will say societies will pay the child support. Such irresponsible behavior, having children without being able to afford it are choices that most shouldn't take. Liberals make it easy for people to make really really stupid choices irresponsibly.

Libertarian supports responsible freedom. A woman is free to be pregnant. She is free to pick a rich sugar daddy. Once she is pregnant with a child of a rich smart man, the choice of abortion is less relevant.

Notice neither liberals or conservatives support the responsible choice. If a woman get pregnant with sugar daddy, both liberals and conservatives will call that prostitution and will try to prohibit that. However, that is the one choice that will greatly reduce abortion. Neither of them are pro choice or pro life. If women can abort their baby, why can't she be prostitute? Why there are restrictions on women's right to simply pick the rich?


Plenty of people will make irresponsible choices, regardless. You don't throw them - or especially their children - out to the wolves. Libertarianism is conservatism that doesn't sh*t on women getting abortions, or gays getting married. I'll stick with the liberals.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Aug 2015, 1:53 pm

AgusCahyo wrote:
Conservatives are anti freedom. Why? Because they want to run others' life.
Liberal are anti responsibility. Why? Because they are often people that choose really stupid choices in life and they want someone else to pay for it.


I don't think there is much difference between Conservatives and Progressives (I refuse to term Progressives as Liberals) in wanting to run others lives.

Quote:
Libertarian support responsible freedom. You are free, but you are responsible for the result of your choice.


My impression of many Libertarians is that they just don't want others to tell them what to do. Many would definitely support a "responsible freedom" but others clearly would not.



AgusCahyo
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 1 Jul 2015
Posts: 139

16 Aug 2015, 9:54 am

I would call it sustainable freedom. The kind of freedom society can afford.

You can have many children, by as many gadgets as you want, or have party you wish. You (or your dad) just have to be productive first before you do that.

Imagine someone choose to make tons of kids with government's money? That's not sustainable. Eventually, the productive people will be fed up and move to other countries.

Or what about someone choosing to prohibit drugs, enforce religious values, and so on. That too is not sustainable. Soon, everyone wants to run everyone else' life, and we end up in war.

Any non libertarian values are like cancer to societies. Any deviation from meritocracy will make things fall apart.