What, exactly, is the argument against nuclear power?

[techs]

And the NUMBER ONE reason to be against nuclear power is.......
Enron.
Yep, just what we need guys like Fastow and Lay running our nuclear power plants.
So are they an aberration?
How about the Vioxx guys?
Or the Ford guys who built the Explorer...or maybe the problem was the Firestone guys who built the tires.
Wait, I know lets get the NASA guys who launched the Challenger on a cold morning to try and meet their quota.
Or the NASA engineers who confused meters with feet and crashed the Mars explorer?
Or maybe the guys who built the collapsing roof of the Hartford Civic Center?

It is not a question of if a major nuclear accident will occur in the U.S. it is a question of when.
Before ThreeMile Island they told us it was once in 10,000 years.
Wrong.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: techs
And the NUMBER ONE reason to be against nuclear power is.......
Enron.
Yep, just what we need guys like Fastow and Lay running our nuclear power plants.

They weren't running anything but financial operations. When I go to the beach, I am not swimming in oil from Enron spills, so that's null.

Originally posted by: techs
How about the Vioxx guys?

Vioxx is a damn good drug. If they put the warning on it, and used it appropriately, it would've still caused the same couple of dozen deaths, but wouldn't have been a big deal at all. Considering the number of people who were on it, the number of issues it has caused is miniscule.

So that is rebutted as well.

Originally posted by: techs
Or the Ford guys who built the Explorer...or maybe the problem was the Firestone guys who built the tires.

Originally posted by: techs
Wait, I know lets get the NASA guys who launched the Challenger on a cold morning to try and meet their quota.

Originally posted by: techs
Or the NASA engineers who confused meters with feet and crashed the Mars explorer?

... or the guys who designed the transistor... or people who made the nuclear bomb... or people who built the first reactors... or people who are working on genetically altered fruit... etc.. etc.. etc..

You're not making rational risk assessments - you're vilifying science and engineering. According to your philosphy, we have no reason to trust anything designed by (Moon's words) "pinhead scientists". But if that's the case, why the f-ck are you pushing electrons around?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
And the NUMBER ONE reason to be against nuclear power is.......
Enron.
Yep, just what we need guys like Fastow and Lay running our nuclear power plants.

They weren't running anything but financial operations. When I go to the beach, I am not swimming in oil from Enron spills, so that's null.

Originally posted by: techs
How about the Vioxx guys?

Vioxx is a damn good drug. If they put the warning on it, and used it appropriately, it would've still caused the same couple of dozen deaths, but wouldn't have been a big deal at all. Considering the number of people who were on it, the number of issues it has caused is miniscule.

So that is rebutted as well.

Originally posted by: techs
Or the Ford guys who built the Explorer...or maybe the problem was the Firestone guys who built the tires.

Originally posted by: techs
Wait, I know lets get the NASA guys who launched the Challenger on a cold morning to try and meet their quota.

Originally posted by: techs
Or the NASA engineers who confused meters with feet and crashed the Mars explorer?

... or the guys who designed the transistor... or people who made the nuclear bomb... or people who built the first reactors... or people who are working on genetically altered fruit... etc.. etc.. etc..

You're not making rational risk assessments - you're vilifying science and engineering. According to your philosphy, we have no reason to trust anything designed by (Moon's words) "pinhead scientists". But if that's the case, why the f-ck are you pushing electrons around?

This is a about risk management. And I trust the guys who made the transistor. But transistors don't always work.
I am not villifying science but calling attention to the almost religious belief in many people of its infallibility. And of the absolute FALLIBILITY of people and their institutions.
We are not dealing with a car that might turn over, or 10 astronauts on a shuttle, but 10-20-30 MILLION people and a large swath of America as barren as the moon.
If there were a compelling reason to build reactors now it would be one thing.
But to build something that will create more expensive electricity and has a risk factor off the scale versus a modest investment in cleaningup coal fired plants is just ludicrous.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

 

[1EZduzit]

Meuge and Moonbeam, nice debate. I have to say that I've always been a proponent of Nuclear generated electricity, but Moonbeams arguments have got me thinking. If it wasn't for Meuge's rebuttals I think Moonie would have changed my mind by now.

I need to mull it over, but I think Moonie has "switched" me into submission. Nothing against your debating skills Meuge, it's just a gut feeling type of thing. My "common sense" is telling me that we NEED that power, but my "horse sense" is telling me it might not be worth the RISK at this point in time.

Damn good debate though. :thumbsup:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Meuge and Moonbeam, nice debate. I have to say that I've always been a proponent of Nuclear generated electricity, but Moonbeams arguments have got me thinking. If it wasn't for Meuge's rebuttals I think Moonie would have changed my mind by now.

I need to mull it over, but I think Moonie has "switched" me into submission. Nothing against your debating skills Meuge, it's just a gut feeling type of thing. My "common sense" is telling me that we NEED that power, but my "horse sense" is telling me it might not be worth the RISK at this point in time.

Damn good debate though. :thumbsup:

I beg you to reconsider... simply because you HAVEN'T seen a good debate. If you notice, I've used back-of-the-napkin calculations (which one can of course refine) and real-world evidence. Moonbeam, on the other hand, hasn't presented a single (!) piece of evidence that suggests that the risks of nuclear power as as great or as likely to be fatal, as he suggests. If you read carefully, you will realize that while I present evidence, he presents nothing but rhetoric.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nuclear power if for the insane who would gift their children with the massive burden of managing their waste and potential ecological disasters. Insanity in this form is known a hubris.

Dictionary.com:

"Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: ?There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris? (McGeorge Bundy)."

Others it seems have recognized the pinheaded nature of scientists so up in their heads they have lost their human hearts, so much so in fact that they've put them in the dictionary.


The notion that man MUST walk down the path of insanity because he needs the energy is just more of the same insane. We do not HAVE to do anything of the kind. This would be like saying we must shoot ourselves in the head because of an oncoming tiger. No, we need to run up a green tree.

Instead of a path that creates potential disaster and toxins for unborn generations we need to do things that are sane. We need to begin the war for green energy. That must be done with renewable energy that doesn't create radioactive wastes and more efficient energy use. The two together will create a much better future, one we can be proud to pass down.

A genius can discover things that can be done. A wise man does what he should. It is wisdom and not scientific prowess alone that will allow us to survive. It was science, was it not, that designed ovens so effective that they burned 6 million Jews? Let us not, like the most technological civilization of its day, be governed by hubris. Your children will thank you. The world is not a play toy, it is a sacred obligation, at least if your heart is alive.

I know, I know. Toys are so fun. But don't forget, the children of the future would also like to play. Make sure they can.

Did you read what the actual volume of nuclear waste is? Even if you increased it by an order of magnitude it wouldnt be a very serious issue to properly store. On top of that, breeder reactors could reuse the vast majority of the fuel, reducing nuclear waste.

Yes, I watched as the wand of hubris was waved over that. I was thinking what might happen if that tiny little volume of waste were sprinkled over NYC. What an elegant storage facility that would make.

Are we suddenly flying this waste over NYC with the intent of giving them a shower?
What a silly argument to make.

Simplified version for those who lack imagination. The compact size, deadly toxic and relatively permanent nature of nuclear waste make it an ideal substance for use in terrorism. For every genius level protection designed my man, there will come a genius level terrorist who will find a way to exploit it. It is stupid to produce deadly toxins and leave them around for thousands and thousands of years. There is nothing that says we must play Russian Roulette.

If we bury it in boreholes several km deep or within seabed subduction zones that becomes much less of a problem.

Yes, but not nearly as small a problem as not creating the waste at all.

Pretty damn close if the geology says that it won't see the light of day for millions of years.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Meuge and Moonbeam, nice debate. I have to say that I've always been a proponent of Nuclear generated electricity, but Moonbeams arguments have got me thinking. If it wasn't for Meuge's rebuttals I think Moonie would have changed my mind by now.

I need to mull it over, but I think Moonie has "switched" me into submission. Nothing against your debating skills Meuge, it's just a gut feeling type of thing. My "common sense" is telling me that we NEED that power, but my "horse sense" is telling me it might not be worth the RISK at this point in time.

Damn good debate though. :thumbsup:

I beg you to reconsider... simply because you HAVEN'T seen a good debate. If you notice, I've used back-of-the-napkin calculations (which one can of course refine) and real-world evidence. Moonbeam, on the other hand, hasn't presented a single (!) piece of evidence that suggests that the risks of nuclear power as as great or as likely to be fatal, as he suggests. If you read carefully, you will realize that while I present evidence, he presents nothing but rhetoric.

You've convinced me that it's safe enough in moderation. I think it's a good idea whose time has not yet come. If we really started exploiting the technology we will be leaving future generations with a hell of a mess. We need to learn how to take care of that mess.

That is why my soul overrides my common sense here, because I deeply believe our purpose on this earth is to make it a better place for those that follow us and leaving behind a toxic mess just doesn't fit in with that. Isn't that kind of like the first rule of medicine, do no harm?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

Here comes the hubris again, Meuge, your blind faith in the notion that we've seen the worst disaster. Neither you nor I can possibly imagine all the things that can happen. What we do know without any doubt at all is that all things being equal we are much better off without nuclear. I say we don't open the stupid door till we have put real and concentrated effort into alternatives. To jump up and down about nuclear with your blithe indifference to the future is simply not very mature. Pretend for a second that no energy is released by splitting an atom. What are the solutions now. Apply your pinhead to that question. You might surprise yourself and find a new toy. I would have thought a pinhead like your, for example, would have already realized that the CO2 from burning coal means we won't need to burn it any more to heat our homes in winter. Nobody will want Nuclear Winter.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

Here comes the hubris again, Meuge, your blind faith in the notion that we've seen the worst disaster. Neither you nor I can possibly imagine all the things that can happen. What we do know without any doubt at all is that all things being equal we are much better off without nuclear. I say we don't open the stupid door till we have put real and concentrated effort into alternatives. To jump up and down about nuclear with your blithe indifference to the future is simply not very mature. Pretend for a second that no energy is released by splitting an atom. What are the solutions now. Apply your pinhead to that question. You might surprise yourself and find a new toy. I would have thought a pinhead like your, for example, would have already realized that the CO2 from burning coal means we won't need to burn it any more to heat our homes in winter. Nobody will want Nuclear Winter.

Here comes Moonbeam with more insults, since he has no valid arguments.

Underlined, you see yet more baseless statements... with no proof or justification. Tell me, do you think that if you say it enough times, it'll become true?

And in bold, is the continued proof that his inferiority complex is the primary driving force in his arguments with those who are better informed than he is.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

If you use the fallout pattern from Chernobyl and direct it from Indian Point Nuclear plant south you wipe out the Bronx and Westchester county and more. Chernobyl was relatively islolated compared to the proximity of nuclear power plants to large population centers in America. And when you add the precarious drinking water balance a nuclear event could wipe out drinking water for an even large area for weeks or months.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

If you use the fallout pattern from Chernobyl and direct it from Indian Point Nuclear plant south you wipe out the Bronx and Westchester county and more. Chernobyl was relatively islolated compared to the proximity of nuclear power plants to large population centers in America. And when you add the precarious drinking water balance a nuclear event could wipe out drinking water for an even large area for weeks or months.

Chernobyl was a larger reactor than Indian Point... and it didn't have a protective dome. It's was also an old plant, lacking many safeguards.

New plants, which would use a thermal expansion moderator, are literally meltdown-proof.

So if you want to talk about risk - I'd much rather have a new plant that was half the distance away from me, compared to the Indian point reactor where it is now. That's the whole point with regards to the moratorium on new reactors - we're missing out on SAFER, more efficient, and cleaner nuclear power. Heck, I am not a big fan of the older plants either... but the thermopolymer/pebble bed reactor designs make a meltdown with the resulting fallout, impossible.

This is akin to saying that because Sherman tanks tended to catch fire after being hit once, we shouldn't build any more tanks, because the crew could get hurt.

There are other issues in play here.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Simplified version for those who lack imagination. The compact size, deadly toxic and relatively permanent nature of nuclear waste make it an ideal substance for use in terrorism. For every genius level protection designed my man, there will come a genius level terrorist who will find a way to exploit it. It is stupid to produce deadly toxins and leave them around for thousands and thousands of years. There is nothing that says we must play Russian Roulette.

Radioactive water is not very radioactive per unit mass, its density is very low (compared to solids), and it has a short halflife. That, and the radiation is mostly beta, and can be stopped by <1mm of light shielding (such as leaded rubber gloves, or polycarbonate).

Radioactive uranium rods, which emit highly penetrating gamma radiation (as well as neutrons), are heavily guarded... they are VERY heavy, and would are hard to transport without well... dying very quickly. The rods are also solid metal (which is also flammable), and would have to be processed under insanely radioactive conditions if the contents are to be dispersed. In short, acquiring these materials for terrorists would be about as difficult as acquiring weapons-grade uranium.

And finally, there is an inverse relationship between the area that is affected, and the radioactive effects. With the likely amount of material used in an attack not exceeding 10kg, if that amount of radioactivity would be sprinkled around NYC, it would do... precisely... nothing. I can draw up some calculations if you desire. I'd venture a guess that the level of radioactivity would not be much higher than 2-3X background... which is far far far within safety levels.

I don't believe there is a safe level of radiation. See this:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RLA92.html
Some of the basic messages of Gofman's work on low-level radiation are that official permitted levels of exposure are too high, that there is no safe level of exposure, and that such radiation may account for one out of every four cancers and be the single most important carcinogen to which very large numbers of people are exposed. Gofman is very critical of the way in which much current research in this area is conducted, including the Chernobyl research carried out by the International Atomic Energy Authority and the World Health Organisation. He has also expressed grave concern about the retro-active alterations to the data on Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims by the responsible organisation, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation

In radiation research, nearly all the work is sponsored by the governments which are defending and promoting nuclear power . . . Ionizing radiation may well be the most important single cause of cancer, birth defects and genetic disorders . . . The stakes for human health are very, very high in radiation matters. It is essential that people take no chance that conflict-of-interest is producing radiation databases which cannot be trusted.'

JOHN GOFMAN

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I don't believe there is a safe level of radiation.

Believe all you want, but you missed my point altogether. I know quite a bit about ionizing radiation, due to the fact that I have to learn about its effects, use it, and also be exposed to it in my line of work. My take on the safety scale is simple - if it's within an order of magnitude of background, then it's relatively safe. Remember - we get hit with ionizing radiation all the time... so the measure of safety is the point at which the amount of damage radiation produces is significantly (in statistical terms) higher than what is produced by background radiation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs
10-20-30 MILLION people

Three pages ago I asked you to provide some evidence to substantiate this claim, and you failed to do so... now - you're repeating it again.

The worst imaginable disaster already happened at Chernobyl, in the absence of a safety dome, and under the worst conditions. Yet only 20-30 thousand people were seriously affected.

So tell me... where, in your apparently much more advanced knowledge of nuclear engineering and disaster management, did you find a number that is 3 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER!

Here comes the hubris again, Meuge, your blind faith in the notion that we've seen the worst disaster. Neither you nor I can possibly imagine all the things that can happen. What we do know without any doubt at all is that all things being equal we are much better off without nuclear. I say we don't open the stupid door till we have put real and concentrated effort into alternatives. To jump up and down about nuclear with your blithe indifference to the future is simply not very mature. Pretend for a second that no energy is released by splitting an atom. What are the solutions now. Apply your pinhead to that question. You might surprise yourself and find a new toy. I would have thought a pinhead like your, for example, would have already realized that the CO2 from burning coal means we won't need to burn it any more to heat our homes in winter. Nobody will want Nuclear Winter.

Here comes Moonbeam with more insults, since he has no valid arguments.

Underlined, you see yet more baseless statements... with no proof or justification. Tell me, do you think that if you say it enough times, it'll become true?

And in bold, is the continued proof that his inferiority complex is the primary driving force in his arguments with those who are better informed than he is.

Oh boy, I based the justification of my arguments on the stupidity of creating deadly poisons that we need not make. That is what is referenced in the underlined words. I know its must be tempting to pretend I've made no case but you will be have to think a little if you wish to understand. As to my inferiority complex, please understand, I was making a joke in the hope you might lighten up. You have, out of your own inferiority, I'm afraid, mentioned pinhead scientists a number of times in different threads and I realized you were feeling defensive and offended. You probably imagine yourself to be far more scientifically literate than me, but I designed my first nuclear reactor in the 4th grade. Its purpose was to create the energy to destroy of whole cities. I was as a child, you see, a profoundly precocious pinhead. But lucky for me I started to notice that the rest of the world was as insane as me. For that and other reasons I began to wonder about many other things.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh boy, I based the justification of my arguments on the stupidity of creating deadly poisons that we need not make. That is what is referenced in the underlined words.

It's your opinion, which is not substantiated by facts... logically defined as a prejudice. It will remain such, for as long as you don't cite actual evidence.

Originally posted by: MoonbeamI know its must be tempting to pretend I've made no case but you will be have to think a little if you wish to understand.

I know you think that the above was a retort, but it was just more smoke. You're assuming that your judgement is correct, without referencing any facts that helped form it.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You probably imagine yourself to be far more scientifically literate than me, but I designed my first nuclear reactor in the 4th grade. Its purpose was to create the energy to destroy of whole cities. I was as a child, you see, a profoundly precocious pinhead. But lucky for me I started to notice that the rest of the world was as insane as me. For that and other reasons I began to wonder about many other things.

Umm... maybe you should increase the dosage?

 

[imported_PowerPigg]

Originally posted by: Meuge
New Chinese reactors use a synthetic metallopolymer moderator, instead of water or graphite. This material has the amazing property of being able to expand in a near linear fashion, up to 10 times of its volume, with the rising temperature. Thus, if a reactor is overheating, the moderator will expand. This will, in turn, physically move the uranium rods away from each other, reducing the efficiency of neutron transfer, and lowering the temperature. It has been shown in several papers that this material literally makes meltdowns impossible, because the linear range of its expansion extends beyond the minimum separation distance between the rods, which can still sustain a reaction.

I think this is the first time I've read *anyone* in any discussion of this type make this point outright. Chance of a meltdown is always assumed to be a given. Thank you!

Please note that this means:

• * This feature can't be shut off--it requires no additional power source to operate.
  
  * This feature can't be screwed up by an operator--it is a physical property that acts immediately and automatically.
  
  * This feature can't be sabotaged without destroying the ability of the reactor to generate power at all. Again, no meltdown.

This does not eliminate other risks, but it's clear that whoever continues to argue against new nuclear power plants on the basis of a possible meltdown is speaking out of self-serving and willful ignorance.

 

[cjgallen]

"The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant [Three Mile Island] was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island

The Chernobyl plant had a dangerously large positive temperature coefficient, which lead to thermal runaway. All our reactors are built with low negative temperature coefficients.

 

[CheesePoofs]

There really is no reason to not use nuclear power. It can be safe if we invest the money in making it safe, it can produce power for cheap, and using fast neutron reactors we can consume all the waste from previous reactors as fuel, leaving very little waste behind. The only reason we dont' use nuclear power more is because people are afraid of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
There really is no reason to not use nuclear power. It can be safe if we invest the money in making it safe, it can produce power for cheap, and using fast neutron reactors we can consume all the waste from previous reactors as fuel, leaving very little waste behind. The only reason we dont' use nuclear power more is because people are afraid of it.

More like don't want it and for sound reasons. To say that people's rational attitude toward nuclear power is fear is just a technique that poor losers use to pretend they are superior to their opposition. On my side, we like to say that people who believe in nuclear power are mentally deficient and stupid money grubbing soulless thugs who relish the murder of millions of kids.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh boy, I based the justification of my arguments on the stupidity of creating deadly poisons that we need not make. That is what is referenced in the underlined words.

It's your opinion, which is not substantiated by facts... logically defined as a prejudice. It will remain such, for as long as you don't cite actual evidence.

Originally posted by: MoonbeamI know its must be tempting to pretend I've made no case but you will be have to think a little if you wish to understand.

I know you think that the above was a retort, but it was just more smoke. You're assuming that your judgement is correct, without referencing any facts that helped form it.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You probably imagine yourself to be far more scientifically literate than me, but I designed my first nuclear reactor in the 4th grade. Its purpose was to create the energy to destroy of whole cities. I was as a child, you see, a profoundly precocious pinhead. But lucky for me I started to notice that the rest of the world was as insane as me. For that and other reasons I began to wonder about many other things.

Umm... maybe you should increase the dosage?

Why, I'm already putting out enough rems to see through you now.

 

[imported_goku]

If only my dad was a member on these forums... I'm sure he'd be able to explain most if not all the questions pertaining to this...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: goku
If only my dad was a member on these forums... I'm sure he'd be able to explain most if not all the questions pertaining to this...

Maybe you should invite him

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Here comes Moonbeam with more insults, since he has no valid arguments.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More like don't want it and for sound reasons. To say that people's rational attitude toward nuclear power is fear is just a technique that poor losers use to pretend they are superior to their opposition. On my side, we like to say that people who believe in nuclear power are mentally deficient and stupid money grubbing soulless thugs who relish the murder of millions of kids.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why, I'm already putting out enough rems to see through you now.

Thanks for playing. Game over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Meuge

Here comes Moonbeam with more insults, since he has no valid arguments.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More like don't want it and for sound reasons. To say that people's rational attitude toward nuclear power is fear is just a technique that poor losers use to pretend they are superior to their opposition. On my side, we like to say that people who believe in nuclear power are mentally deficient and stupid money grubbing soulless thugs who relish the murder of millions of kids.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why, I'm already putting out enough rems to see through you now.

Thanks for playing. Game over.

Yes, quite typical.....

As you arrogate to yourself the notion that you in your left brained linear blindness has sole claim on the propriety of human destiny, it will give you also a sense of meaning, I'm sure, at the thought you control the rules of the game. You will find I think, however, that the slippery eels of a wider vision are hard to fit in your box.