^I didn't think it was TMI, I thought it was sweet .

TMI:- Too Much Information

TMI?

^ persephone this might be verging on TMI

"Sorry, but wtf? They feel they can't afford to be vulnerable, themselves, real? Are you saying that their need to remain attractive forces them to act in a certain way? That's just vanity." [quoting dannym3141]

in my experience, the need to remain SAFE (sometimes emotionally, sometimes physically) forces me to act a certain way at times, closing off my natural openness in meeting people for one thing. gaining weight or losing weight at different times to try to be invisible, body modifications that put people off, not taking care of my appearance at all -- those are some of the options i've exercised to avoid "flattering" attention based solely on my looks. i'm NOT saying i've ever been one of the uber-hot, btw. but i can empathize with them based on my own experiences.

sorry if that was TMI, but that's a lot of what i like at VS: real thought-and-discussion-provoking videos, not *just* cute kittens, though that's great too.

Well, my name isn't exactly gender-neutral, but I stop by anyway...

I'm always thinking about sounding off in other women's threads. I almost posted a ton to persephone's birth video, but I realized for 99.999 of the users it would have been way TMI (I did drugless birth, can chatter about it forever).

deedub: funny, I like you too. My salient point, however, is not so much whether some people (because ya gotta admit it's not just gays and it sure isn't gays as some kind of secret-society group) are on a mission, the salient point is what is that mission? My contention is that generally speaking, the only encompassing "mission" would be being able to be truthful about who you are. If you feel that someone taking a name online that reflects a part of their identity (and remember being gay is a categorical identity marker by dint of society - its not necessarily the choice of identification of the gay person) well welcome to the internet! It's how online "life" is; people often choose names they feel reflect upon their "inner" self. A lot of those names are TMI but there you are - people thumbing their nose at politeness and tact when online; that's certainly nothing new!
Sure, some people are on a mission, but to constantly yammer that gays are "forcing" straights to do anything except let them be gay without fear is rather silly. Gays couldn't force straights to do a damned thing being as gays are, you know, in the minority and all.

deathcow: TMI!

Thanks, arvana.

I hope Lucky doesn't start filtering those out!

Nothing to worry about there. The default css file was just intended to be a very basic skeleton without overloading our CSS-inexperienced channel owners and charter members with tmi. I hope it's not too little to be of enough use for everyone without hacking through the site's CSS/HTML to figure things out. Anyhow, feel free to redecorate any elements on the page that you so desire.

The only unwritten restrictions are that you musn't make it unusable (e.g., using white text on a white background) or intentionally, disgustingly unattractive. (No example for that; I guess you'll know it when you see it.) After all, the channels are official, full sub-websites of VideoSift now and we don't want to turn the Sift into a joke.

netean: TMI.

"btw i would rather have one nuclear power station than seven gajillion acres of inefficient turbines. They are not made of recycled paper, you know?"...

"If you like progress, and you think a fucking windmill is progress, then you're mental."

You're comparing plastics with nuclear waste and you're calling me mental? At least plastic can be recycled. Nuclear power plants aren't made of recycled paper either, and they must continually be re-fueled every 18 months. Do you think they that fuel grows on trees? Wind turbines require no fuel, and need very little maintenance.

Progress is building more safe, renewable resources for power such as wind, hydro and solar power plants, not building more nuke plants.

I know all about Chernobyl and nuclear reactors, I used to work at one. I know the designs are different, my point is that it only takes one accident and the effects on the environment and life lasts for generations. Do you realize how many nuclear accidents there have been, besides the two major ones (TMI and Chernobyl)? There's more than just accidents at nuclear plants, accidents occur during the manufacturing, transport, storage, and disposal of the nuclear fuel. They may not be as big as Chernobyl, but the damage to the environment has been done, and the "pollution" will be around longer than you or I.

Here's a list of just some of the nuclear accidents in just the US alone:

July 1959 - Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility in Ventura County, California, A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown, which led to the release of the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine-131 in nuclear history.

July 1956 - Sylvania Electric Products' Metallurgy Atomic Research Center, Bayside, Queens, New York, nine people were injured when two explosions destroyed a portion of the facility.

December 1958 - Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico. A nuclear criticality accident killed 1 operator.

1959 - Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Simi Valley Hills, California. A partial sodium reactor meltdown occurred.

January 1961 - National Reactor Testing Station in Arco, Idaho. A reactor explosion, killed 3 technicians, and released radiation. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were buried in lead coffins.

October 1966 - Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown.

November 1971 - Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota. The water storage space filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River.

1972 - The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie.

March 1972 - A routine check in a nuclear power plant in Alaska indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

December 1972 - A plutonium fabrication plant in Pauling, New York. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, after a major fire and two explosions occurred resulting in its permanent shutdown.

May 1974 - The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."

March 1975 - Browns Ferry reactor, Decatur, Alabama. A fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

1979 - The Critical Mass Energy Project tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, 17 involving radioactive contamination.

March 1979 - Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. After cooling water was lost, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses. A study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

July 1979 - Church Rock, New Mexico. A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream.

August 1979 - A nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. Highly enriched uranium was released. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period.

January 1980 - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (where large amounts of nuclear material are kept). An earthquake caused caused a tritium leak.

September 1980 - Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York.

1981 - The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981.

February 11, 1981 - Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee, 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building, which led to the contamination of eight men.

July 1981 - Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 in New York state. A flood of radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup.

January 25, 1982 - Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and radioactive steam escaped into the air after a steam generator pipe broke.

January 1983 - Browns Ferry power plant, Athens, Alabama. About 208,000 gallons of water with radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River.

February 1983 - Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey. A catastrophe was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before. Other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

December 1984 - The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio. The Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.

1986 - A truck carrying radioactive material went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

6 January 1986 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma. A container of highly toxic gas exploded, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment.

December 1986 - Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia. A feedwater pipe ruptured, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility.

1988 - It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987.

November 1992 - The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows.

March 1994 - A nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York. A fire resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment.

February 2000 - Indian Point II power plant in New York vented radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured.

March 2002 - Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water.

Do you honestly think that more of this is worth not having to look at a field of wind turbines (they're not windmills btw, yes I get the refrence )? As far as I know, wind turbines have not killed anyone or released toxic and radioactive materials into the environment.

"If you want to see an extremely safe and efficient use of nuclear power, check out the U.S. Navy's Nuclear Powered Submarine Program. Zero tolerance for mistakes, never an incident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_%28SSN-589%29

I could probably throw the Thresher in there too, but I won't because, officially, it wasn't a nuclear-related accident. Also, most don't know about the SL-1 accident that happened in 1960 in Idaho. It was part of our studies, as well as TMI and the Scorpion, when I was training at NPTU there. Accidents happen all the time in the Navy, most of the contaminated spill variety. I remember a spill at NPTU Idaho that crapped up the whole starboard side of plant just because someone forgot to close a valve at the charging station while injecting chemicals to the primary loop. We had to stand our watches in full anti-c's (anti-contamination clothing) during the cleanup.

That said, 100% proponent of nuclear power. There are new types of reactors that are so inherently safe, you couldn't cause a meltdown if you tried. None have built as yet (afaik) because it takes forever in this country to get approval, not to mention the general fear from the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/logos20-1/passive01.htm

There recently was a show on Discovery called "Battle of Chernobyl" that you may want to check out. Outstanding look at the accident, the efforts to contain it, and the human toll it caused. Scary stuff, but that was then and there.

tmi, legacy ...

Actually, mlx, I hadn't even thought of you when composing this blog posting (sorry).

The whole point was just to get other people's points of view and see if there's any competing views or ideas I hadn't thought of behind commenting.

Having said that, you inadvertently sort of point something else out: people will not always be thinking the same thing you have on your mind, which leads to hilarious instances of miscommunication.

darkrowan makes a really good point about not needing a "valid reason" - I guess I'm just wondering if people do have certain specific reasons for posting or whether it's done "just because"

Other reasons - technical clarification, context and background - are valid too. I think I must've considered them "too obvious" to mention initially - which is the other reason I was looking for people's comments, to kick out those 'too obvious' points my mind suppressed...

And then you have comments from the "TMI" category: http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=8610#20228