Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:57 pm

Bobbo

AGW exists. What is nonsense is your assertions of idiocy such as 300 foot sea level rise, and humanity going extinct.

On predictions.
The best way to predict the future, and the way that is least likely to fail, is to look at long term trends and project them forward. The trend towards increasing technological capability is very long term, as is the trend towards increasing human welfare. Both are safe predictions.

Coming out with global disaster predictions fits into the category of almost certain failure. Indeed, there is a very established and very long term trend of global disaster predictions proving false.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:47 pm

Again....Sixth time.....you mix and match subjects. Trend lines "work" until they don't. No substitute for reality guessing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Aug 15, 2018 11:13 pm

This is an either/or situation, Bobbo.
If you are planning to make predictions, then trend lines are by far the best way.
Your technique appears to be by gut feel, based on your own pessimistic emotions. This is by far the worst way, and is nearly always wrong.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:04 am

Ok Lance: whats the trend line predicting the sea level that will cause the evacuation of first New Orleans, then Miami, then New York city?.....and of course what will happen is STORM SURGE will take these cities out decades before that.

What was the trend line for buggy whip production in 1910? Does your gut tell you anything about simply graphing those lines forward???????

Apply to AGW===>go!!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:14 am

The storm surge trend lines are available. There is a variability in individual events, of course, but no individual event will cause widespread evacuations. If it happens (unlikely), it will be the result of many events, and those can be predicted.

For much of Florida, there may need to be evacuations. Not for New York because there is too much money involved and the tycoons will spend what they need to, to protect their investments, meaning sea walls of substantial size.

Currently, sea level rise is 3 MM per year as global average. Some pundits claim this will increase substantially, though the empirical data to support that speculation is lacking. If it stays at no more than 3 to 5 MM, we can expect by 2100 AD, a sea level rise of no more than 400 MM above what it is at present, or just under half a meter. This is close to the most published prediction.

Of course, Bobbo, as you demonstrate so well, it is easy to depart from the established data and make alarmist claims that belong in fantasyland.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:19 am

You didn't include buggy whips. All your trend lines are charry picked with no appreciation for what ifs and a future beyond your immediate satisfaction.

Just like everyone else.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:54 pm

No Bobbo.

The problem lies with you. You ignore data and go with your emotions, which are geared to pessimism.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:56 pm

Oh Lance? "Can't we all just get along?"

You need to learn how to change gears. Being pessimistic is the most positive thing I can think of.

btw: would you throw the switch???? What does the data tell us????????????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:29 pm

If being pessimistic, hysterical and dire gets us to a means to an end...
That's no end I want any part of.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:50 pm

AGW: an end whether you want it or not.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:52 pm

Unless, you are pessimistic in the Lance way of characterization, and TAKE ACTION, to avoid it. You know: not being all cheerful and stuff.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:09 pm

There is no impetus to action in either optimism or pessimism. That comes from a different aspect of our humanity, and some of us are action geared and some are not.

A pessimist can take the new that action is pointless since we are all doomed anyway. An optimist can take the view that it will all work out properly so why bother. Both can rationalise inaction. But a person who has the dynamism to act will do so regardless.

Certainly global warming is real, and certainly action is required. That is no excuse to go into a pessimistic fantasy.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:12 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:AGW: an end whether you want it or not.
I don't want climate change, but it's going to happen regardless of what we want. The Medieval warming period was a time of great prosperity and expansion around the globe. The Little Ice Age was a time of starvation, wars and strife. Neither of those had anything to do with AGW. We can start planning to deal with it now like adults, or we can run around hysterically declaring the end of the world is nigh.
If that makes me a denier, I'll eat my winter coat.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:41 pm

No one is dealing with it now. When the destruction of hooman society IS COMING UNLESS WE MAKE CHANGES.....just when is hysteria warranted? your answer so far is: when its totally too late.

Being cheerful: I'd like it to be sooner: as in 30 years ago when Carter put on a sweater and put solar cells on the roof of the whitehouse. Regan took them down. Typical Puke. He was anti-pessimism too.

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:50 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No one is dealing with it now. When the destruction of hooman society IS COMING UNLESS WE MAKE CHANGES.....just when is hysteria warranted? your answer so far is: when its totally too late.

Being cheerful: I'd like it to be sooner: as in 30 years ago when Carter put on a sweater and put solar cells on the roof of the whitehouse. Regan took them down. Typical Puke. He was anti-pessimism too.

Silly Hoomans.
"Hysteria is warranted?"
No, it never is. What's your views on panicking?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:55 pm

both focus the attention. Something SORELY lacking now...……………………..
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:09 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:both focus the attention. Something SORELY lacking now...……………………..
What have panic and hysteria to do with focus?
Ever heard of calm reasoning?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:45 am

landrew wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:both focus the attention. Something SORELY lacking now...……………………..
What have panic and hysteria to do with focus?
Ever heard of calm reasoning?
What are you?....................stoopid???? "They focus the attention." Move it up to No 1 Most Important Issue. Not mired in the quagmire of "calm reasoning."

..............................Just ................................... Look. (Which you are NOT currentlhy doing.)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:47 am

Bobbo

As I have pointed out to you many times, there is a heap of action under way already, to combat global warming. Not enough, sure, but this is a slowly developing problem, and the action is slowly increasing.

What is needed is clear thinking. Hysteria, as landrew pointed out, is useless. Idiocy such as opposing nuclear power and genetic engineering, is counter productive. Embracing constructive change is required.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:51 am

Hysteria: Neurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions /// aka: NOT at all what is taking place.

So...………....IN CONTEXT: hysteria is what is actually taking place as characterized/labeled/spun by landrew and yourself. So...………...I go along with your nuttery. What is taking place right now is an attempt to focus the attention.

Always: a good thing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:28 am

Hysteria is nothing but a loss of composure. The emotions take over, and emotions have no IQ.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:35 am

YES, that is what I posted. Its not what is taking place right now, yet you call it that. You see the distinction?????????????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:04 am

Bobbo

You need to realise that your emotions are governing your opinions.
Your pessimistic ideas are not based on data. The data clearly shows a long term and very strong trend over time to increasing technological capabilities, and an increase in human welfare. To suggest this will suddenly turn to disaster requires back up data, and there is none. Just your emotional illogic.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:44 am

Emotions: Looking at trend lines Lance doesn't like.

the whole point of AGW is that it is not sudden, but slow and inexorable.

Nuttery: putting disagreements through a filter so that opposites in meaning become your reality.

………………...What shoe fits what foot?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:17 am

Give me data, Bobbo, to back up your assertions.

One of the big consistencies is that predictions of global disaster always bomb out. There have always been people who claim to know of such and they always prove to be wrong. From religious nutters who thought the year 1000 AD had to be the second coming and Armageddon, to all the nutters in the 20th century who predicted global disaster from all kinds of events, from pesticides to nuclear war to alien invasion. All proved to be wrong.

So tell me, Bobbo, with good back up data, why you are different. Why you are not just another nut case who is predicting global disaster from some kind of rush of blood to the head . Frankly, armageddon sick of all the bill-{!#%@}.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:01 am

IPCC.

projecting a trend line "is not data."

Name the prediction that had 97% agreement of the scientists qualified to opine that did not prove true.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:31 pm

Bobbo

Scientists do NOT predict 300 foot sea level rises, and they do NOT predict the extinction of humanity. Stick to the facts.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:22 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

Scientists do NOT predict 300 foot sea level rises, and they do NOT predict the extinction of humanity. Stick to the facts.
Of course they ARE: what is sea level if ALL the ice melts? IIRC....my last search said the number was more like 200 feet, so I assume 300 feet got referenced in error. Is that your quibble or more unhinged science deying optimism on your part that any and all sea rise can be adapted to?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:25 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:they do NOT predict the extinction of humanity. Stick to the facts.
All depends on what question/assumptions are put to them/responded to?

EG: what would happen if we burn all fossil fuel sources available to us? //// Note, I agree that will never happen, but that is not the question to which WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE is responsive to and accurate.

You don't make such distinctions in your normal catch all postings.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:09 pm

Bobbo

No climate scientist has predicted ALL the ice would melt.

Here is some information for you about ice in Antarctica, which contains 80% of the world's fresh water.

1. The vast majority is too far from the sea for warming seas to melt it. Warming air temperatures might, but .....
2. The vast majority is colder than minus 10 Celsius, and down to minus 60. A massive air temperature increase would hardly touch it.
3. The vast majority is in the form of incredibly thick ice sheets, from one to five KILOMETERS thick. Even an increase in air temperature of more than 10 celsius would barely touch such vastness.

Now, bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind that no climate scientist is silly enough to predict it will all melt, do you still believe that all the ice in Antarctica would melt ?

PS. You were right the first time with 300 feet. Although a scientist would say 90 meters. All the ice in the world, including Antarctica, Greenland, mountain glaciers etc, add up to a sea level rise of 90 meters if it all melted.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:13 pm

Lance: with your uniform evasion of any issue that is relevant, I do assume you know you don't have a supportable position and are just spinning as fast as you can.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE will happen well before all the ice melts.

"What happens when all the ice melts" is NOT a prediction that all the ice WILL melt. I posted a link above to the prediction that all the ice will in fact not melt. Try to be relevant.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:16 pm

When you say "We all going to die ", Bobbo, I assume you are talking of the extinction of Homo sapiens, and not just of each of us dying of old age ?

If so, you are ignoring data. History shows that our species is immensely adaptable, and immensely good at surviving. We are the only mammal species to colonise all the world's continents without assistance. We have adapted to everything from the frozen North, to equatorial heat, to desert dryness, and everything in between. Global warming will be a pain in the arse, and a definite problem. But it is NOT something that will cause extinction.

Recently a quote appeared our newspaper from a person living in Darwin, Australia, about North American and British complaints about their hot summer. The person said that the temperatures were what Darwin saw in their winter ! The point is that delicate Caucasian people, not evolved for hot weather, had adapted to a hot extreme in Darwin. They live good lives there. Humanity as a whole can survive and adapt to a 4 Celsius average global temperature rise with no problem.

Your constant whine about humanity dying is just plain silly, and based on your own emotions, a pessimistic temperament, and not on data. Get over it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:41 am

Yes you do assume as you do IN CONTRAVENTION of what I have expressly told you about five times now.

What do you call a person who creates their own BS?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:20 am

The answer is Bobbo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:10 am

Ha, ha...….……….good one. Interesting how the "turn back on itself" mechanics "always works." but really Lance......you don't come to grips with ideas/positions/answers that disagree with your initial positions. I HAVE TOLD YOU what "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE" means. Yet, you bring it up as never discussed. Aka: BS.

………………...Just look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11881
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:43 am

I looked back over most of this thread and see no description of WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE that is any different to what I expect it to mean. In other words, plain silliness.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:45 pm

Other threads directly between us. You remain fully engaged from one to the next...……………………..I assume?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by landrew » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:30 pm

There's no equating the dangers of nuclear power with a bursting hydroelectric dam. Except that human error plays a part in the vast majority of disasters with both. A correctly engineered and built dam doesn't break. Similarly, neither does a nuclear plant, however an unforeseen event, a tsunami was responsible for Fukushima.

There is no padded room. The human race is built to take risks. If we had the same safety-hysteria during the moon landings as we have now, we'd never have gone at all.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
TJrandom
True Skeptic
Posts: 10739
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by TJrandom » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:45 pm

landrew wrote:There's no equating the dangers of nuclear power with a bursting hydroelectric dam. Except that human error plays a part in the vast majority of disasters with both. A correctly engineered and built dam doesn't break. Similarly, neither does a nuclear plant, however an unforeseen event, a tsunami was responsible for Fukushima.

There is no padded room. The human race is built to take risks. If we had the same safety-hysteria during the moon landings as we have now, we'd never have gone at all.
I only take exception to your Fukushima unforseen event comment... a tsunami of sufficient size to cause the disaster was predicted two years in advance by the regulatory agency and the movement of the backup generators was the proposed corrective action - an action which was ignored by the Tepco officials except that they did `plan` to do so at some future date.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15596
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:19 am

another exception would be that hydro and nuke failures put huge numbers at risk. Not so the moon program.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?