Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[NorthNYMark]

I don't think he is running for anything at all. Bachmann was a moron, her stand on ths issue was only tangential to the overall Big Michelle Picture. It didn't take any sort of bias at all; at the time that was all taking place, I was still among those who would vote in the Republican primary, but I sure as hell wasn't going to be voting for her!

I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary).  One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right. It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.

[Gurn Blanston]

I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary).  One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right. It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.

  Well, I truly AM centrist: I despise left wingnuts at least as much as I do right wingnuts! I think one of the reasons centrist candidates struggle is because it is hard to define where the center is. It's easy to be a frootloop out on the fringe, but the middle is tough territory to stake out, because now you are actually talking issues, not just slinging rhetoric. I've about decided though, if I am going to get represented, I'll have to do it myself. I wonder if they would just let me sit in....

[Florestan]

Three Mile Island was the worst example in the US.

Thanks.

FWIW:

The health effects of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level. According to the official radioactivity release figures, average local radiation exposure was equivalent to a chest X-ray, and maximum local exposure equivalent to less than a year's background radiation. Local activism based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects, but a debate remains about some key data (such as the amount of radioactivity released, and where it went) and gaps in the literature.[1]


The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.

Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.

What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. 

But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. 

[Florestan]

To me, it is not a good comparison. I won't call it intellectually dishonest, because I believe in your intellectual honesty, even though I disagree with you.  I'd enjoy the same courtesy in return.

I certainly wasn´t refering to you personally, and the fact that you formulated it as a question rather than a statement showed me very clear that you were not a rigid ideologue but a person open to arguments and opposing views.

I´m not even sure that we disagree on the essential matters. 

[Gurn Blanston]

I don't necessarily agree about Three Mile Island: I think the ongoing disposal issues at the weapons manufacturing facility in Hanford Washington will be far worse in the long run. Of course, this isn't a power generating station, but 3MI is a drop in the bucket.

I only point this out because a lot of the resistance to nuclear power is based, not on nuclear power per se, but on how we have handled other nuclear issues to date. The answer to that is that we have handled them very poorly, and so why should we suddenly believe we will handle them well from now on? There is more to the nuclear power issue than nuclear power! 

PS: I am completely in favor of nuclear power, but I have trouble believing we won't screw the pooch also.

[NorthNYMark]

The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.

Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.

What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. 

But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. 

I'm really not following your logic here (and it has nothing to do with whatever ideology I might perceive you to have).  You seem to be saying that unless a major nuclear disaster has occurred--in that specific country(!!!)--we can safely assume that no major disaster can or will occur in the future.  The problem with that logic is that Russia could have made the same case the day before Chernobyl, and Japan could have made the same case the day before Fukushima.  To me it's more logical to think "if it happened there (and, we must remember, Japan is not exactly a third world country known for laxity or lack of technological prowess), it could happen here," than "Well, since it just recently happened there but hasn't happened here yet, it clearly cannot happen here."  It makes no sense to me.  How am I misunderstanding your reasoning?

[NorthNYMark]

I certainly wasn´t refering to you personally, and the fact that you formulated it as a question rather than a statement showed me very clear that you were not a rigid ideologue but a person open to arguments and opposing views.

I´m not even sure that we disagree on the essential matters. 

OK, thanks.  Sorry I misunderstood.

[Florestan]

I believe you! I was pleased that she didn't do well in the primaries (except in Iowa, which was kind of scary).  One thing I've found illuminating about these political discussions here, is that you, Todd, and Ken all seem to be centrist (or at least independent) libertarians, yet you usually disagree just as vehemently with one another as with those on the left or right.

Although I´m not a libertarian stricto sensu (and I doubt the three gentlemen you mentioned are, too), I am mostly in agreement with them, my frequent polemics with Todd notwithstanding. 

It's kind of refreshing to see that, in a way--I tended to think libertarians had a more unified/consistent outlook than lefties and righties, so these discussions give me a good sense of just some of the varieties of that line of thinking.

Lefties and righties are all the same --- they all pledge their allegiance to an ideology; they differ only in their choice of the respective ideology. 

[mc ukrneal]

Thanks.

FWIW:

The health effects of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level. According to the official radioactivity release figures, average local radiation exposure was equivalent to a chest X-ray, and maximum local exposure equivalent to less than a year's background radiation. Local activism based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects, but a debate remains about some key data (such as the amount of radioactivity released, and where it went) and gaps in the literature.[1]


The very few, and largely inconsequential, accidents that happened in the history of Western European and North American nuclear power plants do not warrant in any way their shutdown, much less banning any further NPP from being built.

Re global heating: scientists are not divided about it, they are divided about whether it is caused primarily by human activity, or by natural causes/cycles.

What is interesting, though, is that most leftists are also ecologists and most ecologists are also leftists. 

But given that I am a selfish, rich, cold-hearted, war-mongering, right-winger religious nut, I might be biased. 

In the 80-90's there was a power plant on Long Island that was planned to be put into operation (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant), but never went into operation (though it was fully built). Keeping in mind the Three Mile Island incident and Chernobyl later on, there was a lot of fear. On the other hand, because of Three Mile Island, there had to be an evacuation plan. Imagine 3m+ residents all fleeing in one direction, mostly using 3 main highways and other east-west local roads, all to get to the bridges of NYC, a huge bottleneck on a good day. Not to mention that Long Island uses water from the water table, which is quite close to the surface, so even relatively minor incidents could impact the water usage for millions. It was a stupid idea to put a nuclear power plant in such a place (in some of the most densely populated areas of the US, on an island with limited exits, etc.). But it shaped the opinion of many Americans who lives in the general vicinity (outside NY/NYC as well, after all, Connecticut was visible across the Long Island Sound to give you an idea of how close it was).

[Todd]

I don't think he is running for anything at all.

He doesn't have to.  He's a Kennedy offspring, and of one of the best of them, and by those very facts, and his penchant for publicity seeking, he's a lefty of note.

I think the ongoing disposal issues at the weapons manufacturing facility in Hanford Washington will be far worse in the long run.

Hanford is a dream gig for many contractors.  Some estimates of final decommissioning timelines are pegged at over 70 more years.  Incidentally, Hanford is where vitrification was scaled up and "perfected".  One of my relatives is making his career there.  I want to get on board that gravy train somehow . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

He doesn't have to.  He's a Kennedy offspring, and of one of the best of them, and by those very facts, and his penchant for publicity seeking, he's a lefty of note.




Hanford is a dream gig for many contractors.  Some estimates of final decommissioning timelines are pegged at over 70 more years.  Incidentally, Hanford is where vitrification was scaled up and "perfected".  One of my relatives is making his career there.  I want to get on board that gravy train somehow . . .

Oh, it was major and important, no doubt. We needed it then, but it's aftermath haunts us today. I think the Columbia River is major and important too, and that's without even being a tree-hugger!  Hell, if you can contribute anything of value to stopping that ongoing nightmare, I hope you can climb aboard too. All I have in good supply is sarcasm, and apparently they have plenty of that for now...

[NorthNYMark]

  Well, I truly AM centrist: I despise left wingnuts at least as much as I do right wingnuts! I think one of the reasons centrist candidates struggle is because it is hard to define where the center is. It's easy to be a frootloop out on the fringe, but the middle is tough territory to stake out, because now you are actually talking issues, not just slinging rhetoric. I've about decided though, if I am going to get represented, I'll have to do it myself. I wonder if they would just let me sit in....

Hmmm..can we expect an announcement soon? 

[Florestan]

I'm really not following your logic here (and it has nothing to do with whatever ideology I might perceive you to have).  You seem to be saying that unless a major nuclear disaster has occurred--in that specific country(!!!)--we can safely assume that no major disaster can or will occur in the future.  The problem with that logic is that Russia could have made the same case the day before Chernobyl, and Japan could have made the same case the day before Fukushima.  To me it's more logical to think "if it happened there (and, we must remember, Japan is not exactly a third world country known for laxity or lack of technological prowess), it could happen here," than "Well, since it just recently happened there but hasn't happened here yet, it clearly cannot happen here."  It makes no sense to me.  How am I misunderstanding your reasoning?

I´m not saying "It can never happen!". Shit happens everytime and everywhere. But if the only criterion for assessing the necessity / utility of a certain technology had been just how risky it was, then we would have still dwelled in caves, with no fire-heating at all, let alone bow-and-arrows hunting.

We must decide: do we want cheap power and heating? Are we willing to take the risks associated with them? Do the advantages outbalance the risks? I believe that the answer to all these questions is yes --- but of course YMMV.

[Todd]

I think the Columbia River is major and important too, and that's without even being a tree-hugger!

Me, too, but mostly because the biggest chunk of my cheap electricity is generated by the mighty Columbia.

[Florestan]

In the 80-90's there was a power plant on Long Island that was planned to be put into operation (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant), but never went into operation (though it was fully built). Keeping in mind the Three Mile Island incident and Chernobyl later on, there was a lot of fear. On the other hand, because of Three Mile Island, there had to be an evacuation plan. Imagine 3m+ residents all fleeing in one direction, mostly using 3 main highways and other east-west local roads, all to get to the bridges of NYC, a huge bottleneck on a good day. Not to mention that Long Island uses water from the water table, which is quite close to the surface, so even relatively minor incidents could impact the water usage for millions. It was a stupid idea to put a nuclear power plant in such a place (in some of the most densely populated areas of the US, on an island with limited exits, etc.). But it shaped the opinion of many Americans who lives in the general vicinity (outside NY/NYC as well, after all, Connecticut was visible across the Long Island Sound to give you an idea of how close it was).

This proves only that the location of a nuclear power plant must be carefully considered --- not that it should not be built at all.

[mc ukrneal]

This proves only that the location of a nuclear power plant must be carefully considered --- not that it should not be built at all.

I don't disagree, but the event (and unlucky timing) made it hard to consider ANY new such plants in the area. Would have been political suicide.

[Florestan]

I don't disagree, but the event (and unlucky timing) made it hard to consider ANY new such plants in the area. Would have been political suicide.

Politics poisons everything it touches. The most frightful aspect of modernity is the politicization of everything. One cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting. 

[Todd]

One cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting.

Everyone knows what I stand for when I engage in such behavior: Isolationism. 

[Gurn Blanston]

Politics poisons everything it touches. The most frightful aspect of modernity is the politicization of everything. One cannot anymore fart at one´s own ease in the privacy of one´s own home without being accused of supporting, or not supporting, certain policy by the mere fact of farting. 

You rightist bastard: contributing to global warming!!               

[Florestan]

Everyone knows what I stand for when I engage in such behavior: Isolationism.

I was actually talking about real farting. Mental farting is quite another thing.  ;