Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#127 Mar 14 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
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




Non-catastrophe? Smiley: dubious




____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#128 Mar 14 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident (including both refinery and plant explosions) in the world should suggest that we're really comparing apples to oranges.

Let me put this to you another way: Remember the film on the first day of the earthquake showing a refinery on fire? The total harmful health effects from that explosion and fire will almost certainly be greater that those caused by what's going on at that nuclear plant. It's just that pollutants and the lung disease caused by them are so common in one case that we accept them, while the harm caused by radiation poisoning is rare so we make note of it.

Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it rationally.

EDIT: Oh. And both the short and long term negative health effects of the fully natural disaster dwarfs both of those. Put things in perspective.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 4:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Mar 14 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes. Can we wait for the blighted radioactive wasteland to actually exist before declaring that it's already so?
Financial Times wrote:
But Mr Amano added his voice to those playing down the risk of a catastrophic event. “The reactor vessels have held and radioactive release is limited,” he said.

John Gittus, a nuclear risk expert at Swansea University in Wales, estimated that there was a 1 per cent chance of a serious radiological disaster occuring at the ********* No 2 reactor.

In the worst case, Prof Gittus said, the fuel rods in the core would melt, fracturing the reactor’s pressure vessel and then breaking the concrete and steel containment around it. That could release large amounts of radioactive material into the environment.

“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” he said, “But if it does happen the most likely consequence would be a few dozen people dying of radiation poisoning and a large area of land contaminated.”


Edit: The earthquake was upgraded from an 8.9 to 9.0 which would make it (so I've heard) the 4th worst earthquake in modern history and the worst in 130+ years in Japan.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 7:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Mar 14 2011 at 11:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
847 posts
I dunno, Obama, I think is going to have a hard time winning re-election in 2012.

The economy hasn't improved much, and employment is still quite a ways down. Under Obama, the deficit has ran up to never before seen levels (think WWII levels). And his foreign policy record isn't exactly stellar so far either.

Still, to Obama's credit, he's no dummy. He did do what he said he would do, for the most part, but there's still alot that people don't like about him. If 2010 is any indication, Obama's re-election will have a difficult time.

That's not to say he's a "dead cat President" just quite yet. Things can still change between now and 2012, and it really does depend on who the Republicans field to against him.
#131 Mar 15 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Keylin,

Quote:
The economy hasn't improved



Quote:
employment is still quite a ways down



Quote:
deficit has ran up to never before seen levels




Fact is Obama's done what he wanted to. It really doesn't matter to him if he wins the next time around or not. Obamacare was his vision and he accomplished it, doesn't matter if it's good for the people and industry or that most of the people don't want it. Liberals have been trying to accomplish this for over 50 years and Obama was the one that pushed it through.
#132 Mar 15 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama disappointed us all today when he took advantage of the crisis in Japan to follow in the tracks of nations like Germany and sent his socialist energy secretary out to announce the suspension of all planned nuclear power plants in the US.
Bloomberg wrote:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the U.S. doesn’t need to suspend work on new nuclear permits while investigating the crisis in Japan, where officials are struggling with reactors damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission review is long enough that revisions can be made to reflect findings from the examination of failures at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Daiichi nuclear station, he said.

“If you look at the process in which the NRC approves going forward with construction projects and nuclear reactors, it’s a thoughtful process,” Chu told reporters today. “It’s a multiyear process and because of its very nature, I think these things can proceed.”
[...]
Chu reiterated the administration’s support for nuclear power and said new reactor designs similar to Southern Co. (SO)’s Vogtle unit are safer because they rely less on electric power to pump cooling water to prevent overheating.

The planned Vogtle plant, which received $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the Energy Department, would use the AP 1000 reactor design by Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric Co.


Well... I was close!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#133 Mar 15 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think the fact that the "second worst nuclear accident in history" will in all probability have a lower death toll and negative overall health effect on the surrounding area than the 100th worst coal accident (including both refinery and plant explosions) in the world should suggest that we're really comparing apples to oranges.

Let me put this to you another way: Remember the film on the first day of the earthquake showing a refinery on fire? The total harmful health effects from that explosion and fire will almost certainly be greater that those caused by what's going on at that nuclear plant. It's just that pollutants and the lung disease caused by them are so common in one case that we accept them, while the harm caused by radiation poisoning is rare so we make note of it.

Stop looking at this emotionally and look at it rationally.

EDIT: Oh. And both the short and long term negative health effects of the fully natural disaster dwarfs both of those. Put things in perspective.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 4:56pm by gbaji


This.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#134 Mar 15 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Oh, is Varus still talking about how he wants to make the approval process for nuclear plants quick and super easy so business will flourish?

I don't think he is.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#135 Mar 15 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obama disappointed us all today when he took advantage of the crisis in Japan to follow in the tracks of nations like Germany and sent his socialist energy secretary out to announce the suspension of all planned nuclear power plants in the US.
Bloomberg wrote:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the U.S. doesn’t need to suspend work on new nuclear permits while investigating the crisis in Japan, where officials are struggling with reactors damaged by an earthquake and tsunami.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission review is long enough that revisions can be made to reflect findings from the examination of failures at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Daiichi nuclear station, he said.

“If you look at the process in which the NRC approves going forward with construction projects and nuclear reactors, it’s a thoughtful process,” Chu told reporters today. “It’s a multiyear process and because of its very nature, I think these things can proceed.”
[...]
Chu reiterated the administration’s support for nuclear power and said new reactor designs similar to Southern Co. (SO)’s Vogtle unit are safer because they rely less on electric power to pump cooling water to prevent overheating.

The planned Vogtle plant, which received $8.3 billion in loan guarantees from the Energy Department, would use the AP 1000 reactor design by Toshiba Corp. (6502)’s Westinghouse Electric Co.


Well... I was close!


Oh, I know that facility. If I went to the top of the closed, no-longer-used landfill about 2 miles from my house, and stood at the gates at the apex of the hill on a clear day, I could see the cooling towers, about 40 miles away. It was kinda cool. (We used to break into the dead landfill because *******[/i] it was great dirt bike riding back there.)

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 6:18pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#136varusword75, Posted: Mar 16 2011 at 10:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Timey,
#137 Mar 16 2011 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Who is "they"? A host? Guest? Administration spokesperson? Power company rep? Greenpeace activist?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Mar 16 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Who is "they"? A host? Guest? Administration spokesperson? Power company rep? Greenpeace activist?


The voices in his head. They keep the skull from deflating.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#139 Mar 16 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Timey,

Quote:
Oh, is Varus still talking about how he wants to make the approval process for nuclear plants quick and super easy so business will flourish?


Just heard on npr this morning that the US is planning to build a few new nuclear plants....over the next 30yrs. They actually said that.

Well, it's not like you can pop up a dozen nuke plants overnight, like a new housing development. "Over thirty years" can include "starting tomorrow". Did you get anything more specific than "a few"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#140 Mar 16 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm still wondering about "they". Why even start to quibble over numbers if "they" was a random caller or the janitor?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141varusword75, Posted: Mar 16 2011 at 3:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#142 Mar 16 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Quote:
was a random caller or the janitor


Not unless npr is trying to pass off janitors as reporters. Renee Montain is the one who was asking the questions.

But who was answering the questions?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#143 Mar 16 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Renee Montain is the one who was asking the questions.

So she said "three in thirty years" or someone else did? Is someone else, who?

Transcript of this morning's Morning Edition segment with Renee Montagne talking about nuclear energy. Someone said we hadn't built a plant in thirty years because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and that projections are for four or five new nuclear power plants by 2035 (4 to 5 in 24 years, not 3 in 30 years) because gas turbine plants are significantly cheaper.

NPR wrote:
As NPR's Chris Arnold reports, it's not just fear that's keeping nuclear power in check in the U.S., it's also economics.

CHRIS ARNOLD: The biggest recent obstacle to building new nuclear power plants is that it just costs way too much money to build a modern super-safe nuclear reactor. That is, when you can build much cheaper power-plants that burn natural gas.
[...]
Mr. ROBERT EYNON (Energy Information Administration): The bulk of all the new capacity that we're projecting between now and 2035 is gas-fired technology.

ARNOLD: The EIA projects the growth of different types of power plants -natural gas versus hydroelectric versus nuclear or coal - and it predicts some growth in nuclear, about five gigawatts from four or five new nuclear power plants.
[...]
ARNOLD: And the driver there is just basic economics, that it's just natural gas is cheaper and it's cheaper to build natural gas power plants.

Mr. EYNON: That's correct.
[...]
ARNOLD: John Longenecker is a consultant. He used to work for the U.S. Department of Energy and later for the private company General Atomics. He explains that a few nuclear power plants are under construction now, but before that the U.S. hadn't built a new one in more than 30 years. And for a long time that was because of fears stemming from the disaster at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

But since then, a safer track record and concern about global warming has made nuclear power look more attractive.

Mr. LONGENECKER: The nuclear plants are not a carbon emitter. So when you're worried about clean air, it's one of the cleanest sources that you find.

ARNOLD: In fact, the government is now offering tax credits and guaranteed loans as incentives to build nuclear power plants. But natural gas has been more plentiful and falling dramatically in price lately. Also, the recession curbed power demands somewhat. And lawmakers failed to pass tough carbon emissions legislation.

Mr. LONGENECKER: Clean air legislation has not passed and so the thought was that the cap and trade or some type of carbon tax would be a strong incentive and advantage to a nuclear power plant that is a non-carbon emitter. So the downturn in the economy, the lower price, the lower demand and the lack of a carbon tax have all been negatives to nuclear power.


There ya go. The GOP hates nuclear power and are holding it down by backing carbon-emitting power plants!

Edited, Mar 16th 2011 5:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Mar 16 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Lol. They're presenting the same sort of twisted logic you use. Let's blame the GOP not passing a bunch of nutty environmental laws for why we're not building a bunch of nuclear power plants which are mostly opposed by those same nutty environmentalists.

Look. I get that some Democrats play lip service to the need for nuclear power. I even get that it's possible some Democrats actually do *want* to build nuclear power plants. But the largest opposition to nuclear power by far in this country comes from the active political left, not the right. The Dem's may play the whole "sure we'll build them" game, but they also put in so many obstacles that it takes vastly longer to build them and costs so much more that very few if any can or will be built.

Did the segment discuss why those costs are so high? You don't see how dismissing this as just economics kinda misses the full picture here?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Mar 16 2011 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's blame the GOP...

I was making a joke, ******. They didn't mention the GOP at all and were simply speaking about the industry. The guy who mentioned the failure of a carbon tax law as a reason why investment will remain in gas power was previously a consultant for General Atomics:
General Atomics wrote:
General Atomics was conceived in 1955 at San Diego, California for the purpose of harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of mankind. General Atomics’ basic research into fission and fusion has matured into competence in many technologies, making GA and its affiliated companies one of the world’s leading resources for high-technology systems development ranging from the nuclear fuel cycle to remotely operated surveillance aircraft, airborne sensors, and advanced electric, electronic, wireless and laser technologies.

Here's his little write-up (PDF) describing himself on his energy consulting firm website
Longenecker wrote:
President Bush appointed Mr. Longenecker in December 1992 to serve as Transition Manager for the United States Enrichment Corporation, a government owned, for-profit corporation that provides uranium enrichment services to electric utilities throughout the world.
[...]
In the area of commercial nuclear power, Mr. Longenecker served from 2001-2004 as a member of the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Energy Institute. In addition, from 1997-1999 Mr. Longenecker assisted Ontario Hydro Nuclear in developing and implementing a more effective regulatory compliance strategy for their 20 nuclear power plants. In 1997, Mr. Longenecker chaired OHN’s Regulatory Impact Task Force, reporting to the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.


Sounds like a real nuclear hatin' Democrat out to blame the GOP while sabotaging any progress in nuclear technology!

This is where you embarrass yourself for ten posts insisting that my comment was REAL SERIOUS!

God, you're fucking stupid when you get all ideological and just start knee-jerk screaming about the Democrats without having a fucking clue what you're talking about. Don't you ever just take a deep breath and look into something before the yelling starts?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Mar 17 2011 at 4:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
God, you're ******* stupid when you get all ideological and also most other times.


Fixed for brevity/clarity.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#147varusword75, Posted: Mar 17 2011 at 7:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#148 Mar 17 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
So now you know where I get my news.

Given how inaccurate you were, I suppose it's safer to say that now I know where the seeds are from which you make up the news.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149varusword75, Posted: Mar 17 2011 at 9:00 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#150 Mar 17 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
Given how inaccurate you were, I suppose it's safer to say that now I know where the seeds are from which you make up the news


You have to use creative listening skills to get to the bottom of things.



More like subjective interpretation than creative listening, really.

Creative listening would be like... I dunno, using a something to convert sound waves into colors.

So, basically listening while high Smiley: nod

Edited, Mar 17th 2011 11:18am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#151 Mar 18 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Let's blame the GOP...

I was making a joke, ******. They didn't mention the GOP at all and were simply speaking about the industry. The guy who mentioned the failure of a carbon tax law as a reason why investment will remain in gas power was previously a consultant for General Atomics:


For someone just making a joke, you sure did spend a lot of time insisting that the guy making the statement you joked about isn't a partisan liberal. Kinda strange how often your jokes mean so much to you.

Quote:
Sounds like a real nuclear hatin' Democrat out to blame the GOP while sabotaging any progress in nuclear technology!


Yup. Spending a lot of time defending a joke, aren't you?

Quote:
This is where you embarrass yourself for ten posts insisting that my comment was REAL SERIOUS!


Ah. But you made this statement, so I guess that just solves everything, doesn't it? I don't have to spend any time insisting anything. You spent tons of time on it yourself. How about this: I'll take your jokes just as seriously as you take them. Sound ok?


And while spending a huge amount of effort and page space attacking my two line response to your joke, you kinda managed to ignore the meat of my post:

Quote:
Look. I get that some Democrats play lip service to the need for nuclear power. I even get that it's possible some Democrats actually do *want* to build nuclear power plants. But the largest opposition to nuclear power by far in this country comes from the active political left, not the right. The Dem's may play the whole "sure we'll build them" game, but they also put in so many obstacles that it takes vastly longer to build them and costs so much more that very few if any can or will be built.


Decent attempt at spin though. I'll give you a 4 out of 10 on this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)