>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?


I'll be honest...I don't give a shit I just want you to shut up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.


No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.
Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.


I don't think you realize how much power nuclear provides. At over 61,032 MW, and nearly 450 plants, there is a ton of data on how safe and clean they are. Japan proved that even in a case of a nuclear meltdown from a Tsunami that killed over 10k people, 3 explosions, and flooding...and only ONE person died (from a heart attack), that nuclear reactors are one of the great engineering examples in the world today. Not only that, but that reactor is over 40 years old, a gen 1 reactor. Many modern reactors not longer use regular water, or water at all as a coolant, so are much much safer. But even then, more people have died falling off roof tops installing solar panels than even in Fukushima. I think you have made up your mind already, but I challenge you to examine your opinion and see if it hasn't been formed by fear factor media hype instead of facts and evidence. I know I had similar to your opinion not to long ago. The evidence is pretty clear, nuclear power has the best track record of any power source in the history of man in terms of production and safety. There are still some bad reactors out there, but take that into consideration, there are 1000 different ways to do nuclear energy, just because one or 2 reactors designs are bad doesn't make the whole lot bad. That is like saying since Ford made a bad car once, not only are all Fords bad, but all cars, it is a reaction that is based more in emotion than evidence, and the evidence is that pound for pound, fission is the safest and cleanest energy around, even in spite of running on 50 year old tech ( you should see the stuff we have now). Think of how different cars and planes have gotten in 50 years, how much safer, how much more reliable!?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over.



No there isn't because we haven't had enough reactors for a long period of time to get a large enough date sample. The only reason Chernoble wasn't as bad as it could be here was because it wasn't placed in Downtown LA. Look I get it, it's cleaner than coal...it's not safe, don't try to make it sound safe. Japan proved it's not safe...lets put a few in tornado alley and see what happens...or maybe some on the San Andreas Fault.

Whatever data that's out there it's not a big enough sample size...it's like asking 100 people to represent that nations opinions. No Nuclear Power until we at least kill half the population.

What about reactors that can't melt down? What about Ford Pintos that exploded when you hit them from the rear, that isn't a story of why all cars are dangerous, only Ford Pintos. What about a plane lands on a city and kills thousands, or the super dome and 10s of thousands? What if what if what if. 50 million people is a little showing of being irrationality scared. Even in the worst designed reactor incident in history, it wasn't as bad as that. If you looked closely, as well, the chart shows that nuclear has historically been safer that solar and wind (and hydro if you include the Banqiao Dam incident).

With that said, I do wish to see old light water reactor technology phased out and new, walk away safe reactors phased in. Engineered safety is less preferred than intrinsic safety that many of the new reactors have. Also, lets not forget, most of the navy is nuclear...meaning they feel safe enough to be in war time situations with current reactors, so engineered safety can indeed be very safe.

I have irrational fears as well, I hate to fly even though I know statistically it is safer than driving. I would suggest that your fear of nuclear is of the same nature. The only way you can kill millions of people with current or future nuclear technology is with bombs, not reactors. The only way reactors can "explode" is from a steam explosion or a hydrogen explosion...so about as bad as a fuel plant exploding, most likely several orders of magnitude less. IE, reactors explode chemically, not via fission, making no more or less dangerous that that other kinds of tech, with the exception of the fission byproducts. The good thing about most of the new nuclear tech is the fuel burn up rates are very very high, meaning there is less fuel involved in most cases.

At any rate, don't take my word for it, there is lots of data out there to look over. For my part, I think nuclear is the cleanest, safest bet for energy needs. I submit that nuclear is only scary because of it was first developed as a fearsome weapon. But the even more fearsome weapon are thermonuclear weapons, which are actually fusion/fission hybrid bombs. I would imagine for whatever reason you aren't super scared of fusion, and would wager that if thermonuclear bombs were called fusion bombs, the world at large would have a different mindset towards it...irrationally.

But I leave you with the facts, nuclear has been the leading sources of clean power which has also caused the least amount of deaths than other technologies. There are many factors in that, including massively engineered safety that continues to improve, as well as highly trained crews that watch over them. Coal miners die all the time, pipelines explode, oil platforms explode, people fall off roofs, or fall off wind farm towers, or get electrocuted...but none of these deaths cause the downfall of those technologies. Nuclear still has more drama in our minds, so plays out much differently when something goes wrong, which isn't very often ( 6 fatal occurrences since 1961) .

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html


I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.
Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html



I'm sorry are you comparing death rates between Coal and Nuclear Reactors? What if there's a meltdown or a terrorist attack and suddenly there's 50,000,000 people dead? It only takes one reactor outside of LA to do catastrophic damage you cannot compare the two NOW when we don't have a Fuckton of Reactors near population centers.

Comparing the two at this point in time is just ridiculous, the numbers are so skewed it's not even funny.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Cool stuff. I'm still pro nuke.
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I don't know if you had the ability or desire to post some new nuclear stuff Bill Gates is sponsoring. It isn't a technology I am betting on myself, but investing into safe nuclear is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/23/economics-bi
ll-gates-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power/

I don't know if you had the ability or desire to post some new nuclear stuff Bill Gates is sponsoring. It isn't a technology I am betting on myself, but investing into safe nuclear is.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/23/economics-bill-gates-on-the-future-of-nuclear-power/

115 sift viewers are Apple owners. Or is that Vista lovers?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

The fact that you have to beg this one in the first place says the Sift has fallen low...

Do you have a better example in mind? I mostly use her as my go-to example because she's a name people will recognize, associate with being ridiculously rich, has a reputation for having a crap work ethic, and a reputation for being completely out of touch with how normal people live.

I have more nuanced reasons for picking her as well, but that's really more of a springboard into a discussion about what "work ethic" really means...

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I think you've picked the wrong example there. If you check out Miss Hilton's IMDB page, she hasn't spent her life sitting around the pool living off interest even though she could have.

Now you could argue that the people who have paid her modeling fees, salary, appearance fees, travel, expenses etc. have overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree, but it was their choice and that's not the argument you made.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
[...]
Instead, the real "entitlement society" is comprised of people like Paris Hilton. They don't really work, certainly they don't do hard work, or even seem to possess valuable skills. They just collect interest, and act like they're royalty, entitled to collect the vast majority of the fruits of our labor.

I think you've picked the wrong example there. If you check out Miss Hilton's IMDB page, she hasn't spent her life sitting around the pool living off interest even though she could have.

Now you could argue that the people who have paid her modeling fees, salary, appearance fees, travel, expenses etc. have overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree, but it was their choice and that's not the argument you made.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
[...]
Instead, the real "entitlement society" is comprised of people like Paris Hilton. They don't really work, certainly they don't do hard work, or even seem to possess valuable skills. They just collect interest, and act like they're royalty, entitled to collect the vast majority of the fruits of our labor.

I think it's worth reminding you of the context here.

For one, if work is the thing we want to encourage, then why should Mitt Romney's taxes be lower than it is on people whose income actually comes from wages?

All Romney's doing is collecting interest on investments. Worse than that, he claims it's all in a blind trust, which means not only is he not exerting any control over where his money is being invested, he doesn't even know where his money has been invested.

To me, the big problem I have with the picture of the "neighbor" who "won't work" is that they don't actually exist. Nobody is living high on the government dole. Welfare queens never existed, and never will.

Instead, the real "entitlement society" is comprised of people like Paris Hilton. They don't really work, certainly they don't do hard work, or even seem to possess valuable skills. They just collect interest, and act like they're royalty, entitled to collect the vast majority of the fruits of our labor.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

Socialized medicine FTW!

I have a friend in London who is pretty sick suddenly with a mystery illness (which happened when he flew to LA to meet Simon Cowell.. Hmm)

He went to the doctor, who put him in an ambulance and took him to Euston Hospital. They gave him a barrage of tests, and a week later brought him back in for some more specialized ones. He's waiting for the results now, hopefully he'll be fine.

How much did it cost him? NOTHING.
How much is he stressed about money? NOT AT ALL.
Does he feel like his society cares about his welfare or how much cash can be made off his suffering and death? GUESS.

>> ^Auger8:

Sorry but you obviously don't understand anything about Medicare fraud, because virtually 100% of Medicare fraud is perpetuated by the Doctors themselves NOT the patients.
Don't believe me look at your last hospital bill and ask them why it cost you $100 for a pillow $300 for a blanket $1000 for a pair of forceps, $500 for a meal.
I get shots at my doctor for pain that cost me $2500 a shot I asked the insurance company why they cost so much and they said they were listed as "experimental" so I asked my Doctor what they were and he told me they were just normal lidocaine shots like a Dentist uses, they probably cost the Doctor $20 bucks each.

Sorry but you obviously don't understand anything about Medicare fraud, because virtually 100% of Medicare fraud is perpetuated by the Doctors themselves NOT the patients.

Don't believe me look at your last hospital bill and ask them why it cost you $100 for a pillow $300 for a blanket $1000 for a pair of forceps, $500 for a meal.

I get shots at my doctor for pain that cost me $2500 a shot I asked the insurance company why they cost so much and they said they were listed as "experimental" so I asked my Doctor what they were and he told me they were just normal lidocaine shots like a Dentist uses, they probably cost the Doctor $20 bucks each.

And last time I checked Doctors don't need welfare.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Just Medicare fraud costs us 60 billion dollars a year. A YEAR. And no one seems to give a damn. Do you? So yeah, the "poor" with their two cars, appliances, 3 tvs, and most owning their own homes should be paying more than ZERO. Maybe they'll be less tolerant of their brethren grifting the system.






>> ^rottenseed:
That's kind of silly. I mean, here is a person that would be affected negatively by the tax adjustments he's proposing for the cause of aiding the US...and yet here you are, a nobody, with no money, nobody knows who the hell you are telling him that he's wrong. He's telling you that nobody in the super rich community is paying enough. He knows. He knows a lot better than any one of us. I don't get why people like you side with the uber-rich that don't want to pay more in taxes, unless you are a wealthy miser yourself. To be honest I don't even have a problem paying the taxes I pay. And increasing my tax bracket certainly isn't going to keep me from trying to make more money. The only thing I care about is where the money goes. That's where my distrust kicks in. Spending on a country's needs is fine, but squandering is not.
I do agree with you on the point that it shouldn't all be going toward social programs. Especially ones that have no way or desire to stop people milking the system. >> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

>> ^VoodooV:

QM is a troll. you can't reason with him. He contributes nothing to the sift yet he is allowed to continue to post.
If he actually presented reasoned arguments for his viewpoints, that would be one thing...but he doesn't.
He even said it himself. He is the One. He thinks he's a messianic Neo. Get rid of him.


One thing QM doesn't do on the Sift? Personally attack other people who disagree with him.

You are also describing a Videosift where only people of a certain type are welcome.

How utterly, mindnumbingly, boring.

World War 2. Without expanding the income tax, we'd all be speaking German now.>> ^yourhydra:

agree. more taxes? name one time a tax solved a complex social issue. read a book people.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell