Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

Yeah but it's better not to be addressed at all then lol...

Glucose spontaneously breaks down into CO2 and H20 on its own accord, and yet mammals would cease to exist as we know them without enzymes to speed up the process.

The universe will, in all likelihood, cease to be capable of supporting atomic vibration some billion years from now. Surely we should all off ourselves immediately and skip the funny business.

Time scales are something of a big deal. Your non-points are laughably fallacious.

Because there is no historical precedent of church/state merging being a bad idea and the polls showing 40-60% (depending on the poll) of Americans believing we're in the 'end times' are clearly things worth ignoring.

Don't get me wrong... I don't advocate it at all... many times before I have said there should be a separation... But I don't think that the current involvement or even proposed involvement will bring the "end times"

The end of times? Surely not. A gigantic wrench in machine that is the progression of our species? Quite possibly.

I don't foresee a religiously-catalyzed Armageddon, but I am reluctant to dismiss the possibility of a modern-day Christian Dark Ages.

Forgive me, I'm sure it must be because I'm not a smart as you, but if you're suggesting that 10 years isn't enough to establish a definitive trend as evidence against an anthropological cause of planetary warming, then how is 50 years any more a valid case FOR it?

Many believers would disagree with you on the 'end times' bit and still others feel any move towards greater church influence over the state (like the current Republican party) is dangerous and of immediate concern for the long-term health of this nation.

The 'end times' wont be a result of greater church/state relations but unneeded bloodshed, ruined lives, backwards progression and an overall worse position in the US are reasonable potential outcomes of it.

I think that's an overstatement as well... I think the only major opposition to advancement that Christianity is opposed to is stem cell research... I'm sure it's possible that there are other such oppositions but nothing that would compare to the dark ages... Correct me if I'm wrong...

Religion isn't as opposed to technological advancement as it once was... The world is a very different place...

France, a nation slightly larger than Texas, has Nuclear Plants. Perfectly maintained and operated Nuclear Plants. In cities even. We do too, you just don't hear about them, because it's not interesting to hear about a Nuclear Plant that is running perfectly. We need more.
Waste disposal is problematic, but you can refine and reuse tons of it, and I'm sure if we looked into it more readily, it'd be easier to contain/reuse/dispose.

Technological advancement is only one aspect of what could be held back once you use one specific interpretation of Christian doctrine to lead a country. There is a reason that social issues are of such importance to those on the far right after all.

I think it's important to note the 'one specific interpretation' part though.

I don't think it's so much a matter of technological advancement and the fruit it bears, but rather the ideology of setting subjective and moral positions into law that can be enforced and prosecuted against others, when things simply aren't black or white.

Japan does too... and look what happened there... and yes it is unlikely that incidents like that come up but when they do they are highly damaging... If something happens the fear of a greater fallout is always there...

If it was significantly cheaper then there would be a lot more interest but it really isn't... Also, there aren't as many people out there to run/maintain plants like this and run/maintain them well...

Edit: I don't hear much at all about anything significant in regards to refining and reusing...

Nothing is cheap until the government makes it cheap.

Religion aka Republicans are only opposed to technological advancement when the vast majority of the GOP are against it. Take Romney for example and his flip flopping on stem cell research. Gotta love how he went from supporting the ban on stem cell research to now supporting it, with the exception of embryonic stem cell research.

I don't necessarily disagree with you nor do I advocate the combination... I just don't agree with the exaggeration that some attach to certain opinions... feels more like a political debate where someone is trying to scare people onto their side...

Nuclear is the cleanest, cheapest, safest power that we have by far.

You know how many people died because the reactor in Japan was hit by an earthquake and tsunami? ZERO. ZERO ZERO ZERO.

Let me repeat that again so you can understand.

ZERO. It looks like this in numerical form: 0.

The nuclear waste issue is the same as the landfill issue. There isn't one. We are near infinite space for trash. In thousands of years there might be an issue, but by then I would hope that we would have developed technology to take care of it.

In regards to producing power though without subsidizing it... it's still not cheaper as compared other contemporary ways of generating power...

Didn't a couple guys die already? The ones that went in there to perform whatever actions were necessary to shut it down and make it safe again? not to mention anyone else that was exposed that might suffer from long term effects... They also had to displace a great deal of people for a longer amount of time because of it...

It is not the cheapest...

The nuclear waste issue is not the same as the landfill issue... it is not just a space issue...

Actually its not. While the process of nuclear energy is somewhat clean. The mining of Uranium is highly toxic to the ecosystem.

We need to use more nuclear energy, that's an understatement. The plants we still use are ancient and while have been upgraded are still old.

Waste disposal only seems to be an issue of the US, where our solution is burying it, which is ridiculous.

Japan's incident would have been much less of an issue if the politics would have allowed foreign assistance much sooner, but hey that's politics. Not to mention that will the clusterfuck of issues they had, they're lucky they didn't go into full meltdown. Not many places have to worry about the fault like the size that's near Japan, or tidal waves. They use nuclear energy, because it's the only thing that really generates the power they use. If that earthquake had happened a month later, it wouldn't have been an issue, those reactors were scheduled to be decommissioned because they were old.


Nuclear energy is insanely cheap in comparison to any other form of energy, if we built just 6 reactors in the US it would drive energy prices down (not to mention create jobs, lots of jobs).

As for solar: it's a near unlimited amount of abundant energy, however we have 2 issues: 1. lack of an ability to properly harness it, 2. lack of an ability to properly store it (can't use it at night, and batteries aren't efficient enough).

tbh if we found a proper resolution to the latter of those two issues, we could harness electrical discharge in the atmosphere not to mention have proper electric vehicles and many other things.

With our current system (plagued by special interest, corruption, greed etc (oil companies, republicans (and democrats aren't 100% innocent either))) the only way to really fund this things is via the government, to make them cheap enough for the private sector to pick it up, however they won't unless they can profit off it regardless of bettering the country/humanity.


Fortunately there's a lot of people that hope for a better world, and while promising there's a lot that like it the way it is, or would have it regress further.


Gah my idealism and realism are colliding, /panic.

Doubt it, as they were wearing suits, and during the entire incident the radiation levels weren't that high.

Nobody was within range of the plant to actually feel any effects, the amount of radiation blown by the wind is negligible.

(really it sounds scarier than it is).

They did have to displace people, it's Japan, they don't have that much land mass, 1st world problems.

Nuclear waste is nowhere near the level of the landfill issue, it's insane that businesses in the US aren't required to do much more recycling, amount of business/construction trash is insane (just from the few projects I've seen).

I can't say I agree with Jet entirely, but he hit the nail on the head with regard to Japan's incident. Using island nations on top of major faults as an example of the unsafe nature of nuclear power is kinda' silly.

Hello. Inconvenient facts guy here again. I'm a little late on the global warming issue, but I'll post this anyways.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Basically, you can agree with the scientist, or you can agree with the GOP, who are heavily funded by the oil industry.

Man, tough choice.



That's just lol. To think that death is the only gauge to danger. Let's ignore the fact that the entire area within hundreds of miles is no longer inhabitable by human beings, and won't be for a very long time. It's completely safe as long as you get people as far away from it when something happens. That's like saying nuclear weapons are safe as long as it doesn't detonate near anyone.

Did you know that, even though they had radiation suits, they were mostly sending in older men and leaving out the younger guys? That's because it was more favorable for an older man to develop radiation poisoning than it is for a younger man.

His hyperbole may deter from the point, but lets remember what that point actually is:


Nuclear power is currently very safe- imagine if we actually put some money into it.

Nuclear power, the way we do it, is not currently very safe. The theory, yes, but not in practice.

One, when they were built, they were never meant to operate for as long as they do now. Safety standards have fallen way behind over the years.

Two, we have a problem with corruption in our government, if you all weren't aware. Government safety regulations now regularly get hired by the facilities they're supposed to be regulating after they leave their government job. Do you know what that means? That means, from the perspective of the regulators, everything is a-okay and will continue to be a-okay, even if it isn't, until the day they get hired by those they're supposed to be regulating for a much higher salary.

In short, it's a process of self-regulation, where they get to decide if they're being safe or not.

Also
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li9ysyMjKf1qas8z9o1_r2_1280.png

Saying that nuclear power is currently unsafe by virtue of it's implementation and regulation is akin to saying that petroleum is currently the best possible fuel to burn through. Artificial emergent factors are what make the reigning champs what they are, and artificial emergent properties are what make superior alternatives lesser choices.

Our technology currently allows for very safe nuclear power. Politics is keeping it back, just the way politics is keeping prehistoric algae up and running. If a major paradigm shift were to occur tomorrow, we could be a nuclear species almost immediately.

that just simply isn't true...

even parts of Chernobyl (which imo was still a much worse incident) was still in operation until a few years ago.

Minjo is taking logical leaps that no rational person would take, so I'm not going to follow him there. This is what happens when you try to argue a point from a preconceived standpoint. Rather than argue something rationally, you make leaps that only people who already agree with you could, and would follow.

And Jetackuu is...not using his head. At all. People were told to abandon their homes due to the radiation fallout, and that stuff doesn't go away anytime soon when a large amount of it sinks into the soil and water in an environment. Regardless of whether or not Chernobyl is still operational, they won't be able to return to their home and will have to set up some place else.

I wouldn't say he's making any leaps.

I am using my head, you don't seem to understand that people get a normal amount of radiation anyway, and that the evacuation range is 20km, which is about 12 miles.

You exaggerate, and talk of things you don't understand based in fear, it's disgusting and the type of behavior that prevents new plants from being built, which would help prevent and stop these types of incidents.

Clean up (as of Feb. is estimated to be 20-30 years, and I'm more concerned with the farm land and water than their actual homes, but ***happens when a place gets hit with 2 earthquakes stronger than a place was designed to withstand, and then a tidal wave, they knew the dangers of living in the area.

Not saying the incident isn't awful, but you're blowing it way out of proportion.

Reading through all my various posts that I've made in this topic, are you sure you want to stick with your accusation that I don't understand that people are exposed to a certain level of radiation each day?

Can you tell me how much radiation I'm exposed to from eating a banana? Because I can tell you if you don't know.