Let's nuke climate change!

@metal-brain said
@wildgrass
I noticed Andrew Yang wants to nuke climate change just like you.

BTW, Trump is killing the USDA, forcing hundreds of scientists to move to Kansas NOW, no warning much at all, move in two weeks or quit, your choice. Their papers are being suppressed, not allowed to be published, where recent research has shown for instance, increase in CO2 levels reduces nutrients in Rice, the main food for hundreds of millions of people and there are dire predictions about their health if rice has lowered levels of protein and vitamins but Trump could care less and is in the process of killing the USDA as well as EPA, already eviscerated.
This is clearly the actions of a treasonous president. He is VERY dangerous, both to science in the US and the credibility of the US in the eyes of the world. He has already caused so much trouble internationally the US may never recover it's former influence, baton passing to China, which BTW is reported to have about double the US GNP by 2040. The US is going into endgame now. There of course will still be a USA in 2050 but our influence will be out the window with a treasonous POTUS more interested in photo ops with his lover Kim and kissing Putin's ass.
These are dangerous times now 100% because of Trump. He should be ARRESTED as a traitor, don't even bother with impeachment. He needs to be taken off to prison awaiting sentence not just kicked out of office.

@sonhouse said
BTW, Trump is killing the USDA, forcing hundreds of scientists to move to Kansas NOW, no warning much at all, move in two weeks or quit, your choice. Their papers are being suppressed, not allowed to be published, where recent research has shown for instance, increase in CO2 levels reduces nutrients in Rice, the main food for hundreds of millions of people and there are dir ...[text shortened]... ith impeachment. He needs to be taken off to prison awaiting sentence not just kicked out of office.

"increase in CO2 levels reduces nutrients in Rice, the main food for hundreds of millions of people and there are dire predictions about their health if rice has lowered levels of protein and vitamins"

What a load of BS! Do you believe anything you read? Right, they suppressed a load of BS so they are evil. Get a hobby!

@wildgrass said
who?

The guy that got the least speaking time in the debates and had his mic cut off and could not be heard. That is how the establishment makes sure you don't know who he is.

@metal-brain said
The guy that got the least speaking time in the debates and had his mic cut off and could not be heard. That is how the establishment makes sure you don't know who he is.

You're right. The "nuclear energy is the solution to sustainable carbon-free emissions" message is hated by both sides of the spectrum. On the right, they don't like the carbon-free thing for some reason. On the left, they think its not safe for some reason. Both opinions are wrong.

@wildgrass said
You're right. The "nuclear energy is the solution to sustainable carbon-free emissions" message is hated by both sides of the spectrum. On the right, they don't like the carbon-free thing for some reason. On the left, they think its not safe for some reason. Both opinions are wrong.

Fukushima proves it is not safe. The left has not proven co2 causes GW. They keep making up lies like the one about hurricanes getting worse and no matter how many times they are proven wrong they still believe the lies. Then after they are proven wrong about hurricanes and forest fires they insist there is a consensus proving the majority of climate scientists say man is the main cause. This is also a lie.

If you want people to take alarmists seriously you need to urge your side to stop repeating lies. I honestly do not know why alarmists are so dogmatic after so many lies have been exposed coming from their side. Sea level rise is not even a problem. Every time your side claims islands are disappearing because of sea level rise I know there must be another cause and I always find it, every single time! For example, there some islands in the Pacific that are sinking because of tectonic plate shifts. Naturally the alarmists blamed it on sea level rise.

If you want people to believe you stop promoting lies. You cannot do it despite the lies. I don't defend irrelevancies on my side. I'll point out that termites being a major source of CO2 is irrelevant. It is part of the natural carbon cycle and that CO2 would make it's way into the atmosphere with or without termites. I would like Piers Corbin to stop bringing it up because it makes my side look foolish. Don't you wish Al Gore would admit co2 lags behind temps in the ice core samples instead of continually promoting that lie that CO2 was the cause?

How is your side going to gain traction on this issue if you all condone lies? By condoning lies you are destroying your own credibility.

@metal-brain said
Fukushima proves it is not safe.

If that's true then coal mining accidents prove coal isn't safe; -your logic.

@humy said
If that's true then coal mining accidents prove coal isn't safe; -your logic.

By your logic nothing is safe unless it never kills anyone. It is all relative. Aspirin is not safe but cannabis is.

Is coal safer than automobiles? If not, you have no point. Everybody accepts risk of death as long as it isn't likely death.

If you want to promote nuclear propose a plan to make NPPs safer. I'm sure there are ways to reduce the risk. Gravity fed water would be a good idea, right?

@metal-brain said
By your logic nothing is safe unless it never kills anyone.

No, by my logic, 'safe' is always a relative term and there should always be an intelligent trade-off between safety and risks and/or costs.
According to your logic this is clearly not the case.
Your argument is that nuclear is wrong because it has killed some people but coal mining has also killed some people thus according to your own logic coal power is also wrong and any form of energy production is also wrong!
My logic says, although some can be wrong, none are wrong merely simply because it has killed some people and its just a matter of choosing whichever ones, according to our best and most thoughtful judgments, seems to have the greatest benefit-to-cost ratio where that 'cost' can be defined in terms of the approximate number of people likely to be killed per GWh (giga watt hour) of energy produced; in other words, the GWh-to-number-of-deaths ratio. Especially if taking into account deaths via air pollution, coal happens to have wildly by far one of the lowest GWh-to-number-of-deaths ratios and I have shown you links showing that. That's why, according to my logic, that is one good reason why nuclear is better than coal power; its because it leads to less number of deaths per GWh generated. Personally I think it would be better to go renewable with perhaps only some nuclear to compliment that but, regardless of whether I am right about that, more coal power is certainly NOT the answer!

@metal-brain said
By your logic nothing is safe unless it never kills anyone. It is all relative. Aspirin is not safe but cannabis is.

Is coal safer than automobiles? If not, you have no point. Everybody accepts risk of death as long as it isn't likely death.

If you want to promote nuclear propose a plan to make NPPs safer. I'm sure there are ways to reduce the risk. Gravity fed water would be a good idea, right?

Aspirin is not safe but cannabis is.

What do you mean by this?

@deepthought said

Aspirin is not safe but cannabis is.

What do you mean by this?

Aspirin overdoses kill people, cannabis overdoses do not.

@humy said
No, by my logic, 'safe' is always a relative term and there should always be an intelligent trade-off between safety and risks and/or costs.
According to your logic this is clearly not the case.
Your argument is that nuclear is wrong because it has killed some people but coal mining has also killed some people thus according to your own logic coal power is also wrong and any ...[text shortened]... that but, regardless of whether I am right about that, more coal power is certainly NOT the answer!

Nuclear has killed more people since Chernobyl than coal. It has also damaged the environment more than coal. Nuclear is also expensive.
3 reasons nuclear is undesirable. Add uninhabitable land to that and it is a no brainer, nuclear has to become more safe or it will be rejected by the left and the right.

If you want to promote nuclear propose a plan to make NPPs safer. I'm sure there are ways to reduce the risk. Gravity fed water would be a good idea, right?

@metal-brain said
Nuclear has killed more people since Chernobyl than coal.

Something as provocative as this deserves a reference, no? At least the available data I have shows that fatalities are dramatically lower with nuclear.

The fatality rate due to coal at >100x higher than nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#557b138b709b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

@metal-brain said
Nuclear has killed more people since Chernobyl than coal.

False.
Think air pollution.

@humy said
False.
Think air pollution.

False.
Think radiation air, land and water pollution. Coal fired plants do not make land uninhabitable and fish unsafe to eat.

@wildgrass said
Something as provocative as this deserves a reference, no? At least the available data I have shows that fatalities are dramatically lower with nuclear.

The fatality rate due to coal at >100x higher than nuclear.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#557b138b709b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

https://wakeup-world.com/2015/11/16/a-million-cancer-deaths-from-fukushima-expected-in-japan-new-report-reveals/

If you want to promote nuclear propose a plan to make NPPs safer. I'm sure there are ways to reduce the risk. Gravity fed water would be a good idea, right?