Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#102 Mar 02 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it.

Again, my intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong. I'm just showing everyone else how wrong you are. When the best you have is "He didn't answer the exact way I say he should have answered so it doesn't count!", you make my job really easy. Thank you for that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Mar 02 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Charlotte Business Journal wrote:
Vogtle, being built by Southern Co.’s Georgia Power Co., is the lead AP1000 project in the United States. Initial work has been done on the site, and the state has already approved the plant.


****, that Obama sure does hate nuclear power!


*cough* That plant was approved in April of 2008. Oops!

I'll also point out that the site where those plants are being built already contains two nuclear power generators, and had always intended to build a third and fourth unit. It just took a really long time to break ground.

To be fair, final approval for construction was granted in 2009, and I suppose Obama could theoretically have jumped in to stop it if he wanted to. So there's that. But that's hardly an example of being for/against it, so much as it would have taken herculean efforts to do anything to stop it by that point. This really says nothing to us about helping or hindering future construction at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Mar 02 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Depends how much they value damages caused by other energy industries at. Commercial nuclear power doesn't kill that many people.


I'm referring to people who think that Three Mile Island was as bad as Chernobyl (very possibly confusing the two entirely). I think it might be difficult to argue that other energy industries contend with that level of damage were they hypothetically on the same playing field.
Three Mile Island wasn't nearly as bad, you're correct. Also worth noting that Chernobyl resulted in a significant explosion that killed two people immediately, and it's worth reminding that it took place in the Ukraine, not the US (no idea who doesn't know that, but it's worth pointing out). The town is now almost entirely abandoned, so is nearby city Pripyat.



Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 4:12pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#105 Mar 02 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it.

Again, my intent isn't some vain attempt to get you to admit that you're wrong. I'm just showing everyone else how wrong you are. When the best you have is "He didn't answer the exact way I say he should have answered so it doesn't count!", you make my job really easy. Thank you for that.


Huh? The point is that he used words which managed to make every single member of the largely anti-NAFTA audience he was speaking to believe that he was firmly anti-NAFTA. Yet, sometime later when a leaked conversation revealed that he wasn't really anti-NAFTA at all he insisted that this wasn't a flip-flop because he never said he was. And sure enough. You go back and read the transcripts of what he said that night, and he didn't actually commit to an anti-NAFTA stance.


My point is that this doesn't happen accidentally Joph. He deliberately chooses language designed to do this. And yeah. That's deceptive.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 1:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#106 Mar 02 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
*cough* That plant was approved in April of 2008. Oops!

The reactors haven't been approved yet but the memo to streamline the process on them was from Jan 30, 2009. Oops! Must have been that nuclear-hatin' Obama!

Quote:
To be fair, final approval for construction was granted in 2009, and I suppose Obama could theoretically have jumped in to stop it if he wanted to.

Yeah, or not had the DoE approve eight billion dollars in loan guarantees (as opposed to the zero dollars the Bush era DoE approved). Oops! Man, he sure does HATE nuclear power!

Or not budgeted the DoE to approve many times that number for additional jobs. Again, as opposed to the zero dollars previously set for be loaned out. Oops! How DOES he keep getting away with this?!

Quote:
This really says nothing to us about helping or hindering future construction at all.

I heard once that human beings can rationalize all sorts of things to themselves to avoid having to face the truth...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Mar 02 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
My point is that this doesn't happen accidentally Joph. He deliberately chooses language designed to do this.

You can jump up and down and insist that he is, but I'm not buying it. Come to think of it, neither is anyone else.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Mar 13 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Hands up all those who are still in favour of building nuclear reactors all over the place.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#109 Mar 14 2011 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
/raise
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#110 Mar 14 2011 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#111 Mar 14 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise
You gotta kind of wonder about the wisdom of putting them nuclear plants on the coast of an island that experiences more earthquakes than anywhere else in the world.

I think chances are good for there to yet be a radiation catastrophe in Japan.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#112 Mar 14 2011 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Supposedly, the plant was built to withstand earthquakes, it just wasn't built to withstand an 8.9 quake with a tsunami that wiped out its backup power sources. Live and learn, I guess.

Luckily, both 8.9 earthquakes and tsunamis are vanishingly rare here in the Prairie State.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113varusword75, Posted: Mar 14 2011 at 8:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not to worry. As we speak Obama has a fleet of attorneys headed to Japan to set things right.
#114 Mar 14 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Supposedly, the plant was built to withstand earthquakes, it just wasn't built to withstand an 8.9 quake with a tsunami that wiped out its backup power sources. Live and learn, I guess.

Luckily, both 8.9 earthquakes and tsunamis are vanishingly rare here in the Prairie State.
It's also important to realize that even with this horrific combination of disasters the plants still have not had a catastrophic failure. Pretty impressive really.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#115varusword75, Posted: Mar 14 2011 at 9:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) back on topic;
#116 Mar 14 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hang on, I've got another "lolrasmussen" in this drawer someplace...

There it is...

lolrasmussen
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 Mar 14 2011 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/*****************************

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 12:03pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#118 Mar 14 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/*****************************

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 12:03pm by Xsarus


Good read. I find this stuff pretty fascinating.
#119 Mar 14 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/*****************************

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.
Good read. I had just recently done some reading about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, only about 2 weeks ago now. Very interesting topics, particularly given their severity. Glad to hear how how things have been resolved safely. If anything, I'd say that our advances in technology and the lessons learned from previous disasters have made nuclear power very safe and viable, provided tight enough regulations enforcing these safety procedures.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#120 Mar 14 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
bsphil wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/*****************************

A good explanation of the nuclear situation in Japan. So yeah, I feel pretty good about nuclear power plants out here.
Good read. I had just recently done some reading about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, only about 2 weeks ago now. Very interesting topics, particularly given their severity. Glad to hear how how things have been resolved safely. If anything, I'd say that our advances in technology and the lessons learned from previous disasters have made nuclear power very safe and viable, provided tight enough regulations enforcing these safety procedures.
Be aware that this blog was written two days ago (I was emailed this same link this morning)...before todays hydrogen explosion. The explanation of nuclear plants is good, but the author makes some pretty bold claims about the current 'safety' of these nuclear plants.

However, minutes ago the IAEA released a statement:
Quote:
IAEA: No signs Japan nuclear fuel melting at present
Published: 03.14.11, 19:47

I think at this time we don't have any indication of fuel ...currently melting," James Lyons, a senior nuclear safety official at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told a news conference on the situation in Japan. (Reuters)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#121 Mar 14 2011 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
I'm sensing cross-thread shenanigans......
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#122 Mar 14 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm pretty sure you're violating the cross thread policy of this forum right now, Elinda.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Mar 14 2011 at 1:00 PM Rating: Excellent
It's all paulsol's fault.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#124 Mar 14 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I've been against nuclear power plants most of my life, until I did some reading and saw a little documentary on pebble bed reactors. I don't know enough about the safety risks of mining and getting thorium to processing plants, but I'm totally happy about the safety to humans and the environment of pebble bed reactors. If the plants suffers even the most catastrophic event, the radiation in the "pebbles" isn't going to go anywhere. The pebbles sit just fine non radiating away when not in operation, and coolant failure is not an issue for them.

The only issue would be if they got vaporised in a meteor strike or something, and quite frankly, a meteor that could vaporise enough of a "pebble" would be a bigger problem than the radioactive vapour it mushed into the air.

So I'm all for pebble bed plants above coal and gas plants. It's just a shame that since you can't get weapons material as a by-product out of a pebble bed reactor, it may be a long time before they take off.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#125 Mar 14 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I've been against nuclear power plants most of my life, until I did some [research of my own]

It's cool. Most liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought. Congratulations of coming around though.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#126 Mar 14 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
/raise


Jophiel wrote:
A non-catastrophe caused by one of the worst earthquakes in modern history and the subsequent tsunami?

/raise


Do we win the trifecta on this?

/raise

See! I didn't even make a comment about Obama's wishy washyness on this. Oops!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)