segnosaur

I have an organization (the Federation of American Scientists) has 64 Nobel Laureates on its board of sponsors. The FAS has published an article (just last year!) that stated that Nuclear Power will lead to fewer deaths overall than Solar. How many Nobel laureates are there in the German government? For that matter, how many Nobel prizes have you won? I'll give them to you, right after you tell me the number of people who will fall off their roof just because they are using nuclear power. You'll have to forgive wyly. You see, he's lost this argument. Big time. (Who knew that if you only express opinions built on emotion, and ignore people giving actual real facts and data, that you'd end up looking like an ignorant blow-hard that can only chat "meltdown" and go "ooo.... scary radiation".) So as a result the only thing he can do is sit there ant try to pick on irrelevancies. Oh my god, I posted an older article? Not that he'd bother posting anything more recent. In fact, I can't recall a single thing he's posted in this thread that's actually supported by science.

Is this desperation on your part? OK sure, a 9.1 never hit Japan. There was no quake, no tsunami, and no nuclear catastrophe. It is ignorant to post that or more ignorant for me to reply to such ignorance? Wow.... just totally wow. In my last post, I admitted that I don't believe such a conspiracy exists. I posted it as an illustration why you shouldn't believe such conspiracy nonsense either. Its not desparation, its an attempt to use logic to try to get through to someone. Obviously its not working. Once again... tell me why you think that my "Greenpeace/big solar conspiracy" theory is wrong. Then, whatever reasoning you used to show why my conspiracy is wrong, apply to your own conspiracy regarding "radiation deaths at the Japanese plant". Not really. Its called Occaam's razor. I suggest you look into it. Paraphrased, it means the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The event has been highly covered. In order to assume that there were "radiation deaths" you'd have to assume that a large group of people (not only high up government officials, but lower-level workers, the families of those who supposedly died, medical staff, even the United Nations who investigated) would all have to agree to cover things up. (Keep in mind that some of those groups would actually be hostile to keeping radiation deaths secret, if they actually occurred.) So, what's more likely, that no radiation death had occurred in the immediate aftermath of the accident, or that there is a massive coverup requiring possibly hundreds/thousands of people, and not one of them has leaked anything to the press? I'm going to let you in on a little secret... radiation may be dangerous, and needs to be treated with respect, but it is not some all-powerful agent. Its not like the little girl in the movie The Ring, killing people who even get a slight exposure to it. The accident in Japan released far less radiation than the one in Chernobyl. There was less need for workers to "get to the core". Therefore, its quite possible (and in fact most likely) that they could have prevented deaths, by minimizing the the time people are allowed near the affected region. Except that they aren't reporting a bunch of "deaths by other causes". They aren't even saying there are deaths at all. I never denied that there wouldn't be problems in the future (although they would be fewer than occurred at Chernobyl.) But your earlier statement was regarding deaths from radiation that occurred during (or immediately after) the disaster. Correct and that is how we found out that the reactors went into meltdown way before it was even admitted. Once again you're missing the point.... Earlier you claimed that somehow Japan was suppressing immediate radiation deaths because they were "xenophobic/isolationist". The point I was making was that regardless of how isolationist the country is, they still a relatively free society. If there really were massive deaths from radiation immediately after the disaster, the media there could still report on it. Gunderson also made his reports to the IAEA, and they were practically ignored. Again, missing the point. Earlier I pointed out that the effects of the disaster (such as radiation released) were less than Chernobyl. You suggested there could be a coverup, and I pointed to the existence of foreign observers as reasons to assume the numbers were correct. Doesn't matter if people are ignoring the reports, the point is that the reports exist at all. People like Weightman are not TEPCO employees. They are not Government of Japan employees. They were observing the situation there and were not under the control of those running the reactor. It may have. Actually it did. Go back and read the stuff you referenced. It was referring specifically to reactor 1 where containment held. (That didn't mean it was contained in the other reactors, but if you go back and look at my post I was referring to one particular section.) Yup, there were fuel rods sent 'scattered'... but they weren't from reactor 1 (which was the section of the text I was referring to.) As for those scattered fuel rods... yes, they have to be cleaned up. Yes, care must be taken. But, its not like they will be causing instant death for anyone who goes within 100 miles of Japan. And this is different from Chernobyl, where there was a fire (which of course was partly due to the fact that they used flammable control rods.) A fire is going to mean a much more widespread dispersal of radiation. Reporting the issues and correcting the issues are two different things. And TEPCO seems to have a history of not bringing things up to code or addressing serious issues. Missing the point again. Once again, you claimed that there was some 'big conspiracy' to cover up radiation deaths following the accident. Yet here we have the government jumping in and pointing to problems. If there were such a big conspiracy (Surpress the truth! Make everything sound rosy!) then why were they pointing out any problems at all? Why wouldn't they keep their mouths shut? It would be like Nixon hiring Woodward and Bernstein. General rule of a conspiracy... don't involve people who are exposing your plan.

You know, I find it quite revealing that when someone provides some basic fact information, then your first and only resource is to attack his source of information. A more reasonable poster would actually go through the trouble of actually posting their own references to counteract what was posted. A failure to do so only makes a person look like an arrogant, opinionated blow-hard with no real knowledge to back up their statements. Kind of like a Fox-news commentator. About 30 seconds of searching has found multiple opinion polls showing that the results from Abacusdata are pretty much on par with that of other polling companies. For example: May2012 - Abacus: Con-35-37%, NDP 35%, Angus Reid: Con-37%, NDP-35% (See http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44851/conservatives-steady-ndp-gains-at-the-expense-of-liberals-in-canada/) So, in the past they've been willing to put out results that were quite similar to those of other pollsters. Perhaps you should change your name from wyly to Wally, as per the following Dilbert cartoon: http://www.dilbert.com/2012-10-07/

No, you don't. Your a friggin liar. I called you out. Now where's your proof?

How asinine can you get? A quake registering 9.1 rocks the entire planet. Yeah, but did you feel it? How do you know? What sources do you trust enough? We know the reactors were damaged. Why would you even deny that? Well, do you have any evidence discounting my "big solar" conspiracy theory? Why are you assuming my "big solar" conspiracy theory is any less plausible than your story of a reactor melt down? So when talking about the problems with nuclear power in your head is talking conspiracy theories against solar? Nope. But when I hear about someone claiming radiation deaths as "fact" even though they have no evidence, it makes me question their ability to think skeptically/logically. Answer is, I didn't. I don't really believe in a "big solar/greenpeace" conspiracy. I think the idea is idiotic. I kind of figured most people would pick up on the joke. But its got the same elements as your "unreported radiation deaths" claim... lack of hard evidence, long time frame for any 'suprise' evidence, and a requirement that a diverse group of people co-operate even if its against their best interests. Perhaps when you understand why you're rejecting the "big solar/greenpeace" theory, then you will understand why your "extra radiation deaths" theory most likewise be rejected. They are also quite isolationist and xenophobic in a sense. Doesn't really matter. I'm talking about people within Japan. (And regardless of how isolationist they are, they don't exactly have the ability to stop all information from getting out of the country.) Sure they have other observers, but did we hear from them? Yes we have. For example Mike Weightman (from the U.K.) did a report for the IAEA as early as the Summer of last year (and in case you think his findings were a whitewash, he did criticize Japan over several things.) You made the claim about 'communist governments' not eastern bloc nations. Do you really want to make that point? Seriously? Go back and look at the original post. It includes the sentence: Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time.. And even if I didn't say "eastern bloc" countries... East Germany at the time was a communist nation, AND it was a member of the eastern (or soviet) bloc. And they made really cruddy cars. The fact that you seem to be objecting to the point that soviet technology was less advanced/less sophisticated is really quite bizarre. It has been the western world which has had the lead in technical innovation for much of the last century... the microprocessor, the internet, fiber optics, etc. Sure no arguments there, governments love to downplay tragedies to save face. Always happens everywhere. The government can lie in a dictatorial system and get away with it. In a democratic system with freedom of speech, property rights, and freedom of assembly? Err... not so much. Watergate should have illustrated that. That has been relatively true for the most part once the USA's space program ramped up and surpassed the Soviets. It didn't really take them long to bypass the soviets in space. They may have had the first satellite and first human to orbit the earth, but that 'advantage' didn't last long. Couple of years at most. After that, most of their "successes" seem to be more or less publicity stunts that could have gone horribly wrong. And the space program was not the only thing they lagged behind in. Electronics, communications, avionics... And yes, they lagged behind in reactor design. Which was the point. TEPCO also has a history of not coming clean with the information regarding it's operations. This eludes to government complicity in the tragedy. The article I referred to earlier (showing plutonium levels that were not really that high) was done based on private research not paid for/funded by TEPCO, some of the people involved were affiliated with universities, and the results were published in an on-line journal associated with Nature (a well respected peer-reviewed source.) Ummm... ok. You do realize that what this is saying is that the containment vessel actually worked in this case? Ummm.... wait a sec... a while ago you were suggesting government complicity in covering up problems. Yet the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization is a government body, and they were the ones pointing to leaking. What type of conspiracy has one of the conspirators hiring people to expose the other conspirators?

First of all, I don't think its actually a very fair comparison. The U.S. has more deaths largely because its ships have been bigger and carried a bigger crew. (Not to mention that counting 'training deaths' is misleading because those include aircraft flights that had nothing to do with the actual direct preparation for space flight.) Secondly, the Russian space program in the 50s-70s was insane. They built a spacesuit for the first space walk, that wasn't designed to handle a vaccuum. They created a 2 person space craft by taking a 1 person craft and cramming in a second seat. There answer to the Apollo rocket was the N1, which failed on all 4 launch attempts. And one of the cosmonauts that was killed in flight knew it was a suicide mission (There were 200 known structural problems with the ship) but he still went up because if he didn't then the backup cosmonaut (and his friend) would have went up instead. For more information try: http://www.cracked.com/article_19142_5-soviet-space-programs-that-prove-russia-was-insane_p2.html The U.S. may have had deaths in its NASA program, but they've at least paid some attention to safety... testing each part of their program before moving on to the next one. The soviets tried to leapfrog the americans, with technology that wasn't up to the task.

How did I know? Hmm one huge quake followed by a tsunami taking the power offline so there is no power to keep the plants cool. How do you know thee was a Quake and tsunami? Were you there in Japan when it happened? And even if there was a quake, how do you know it damaged the reactor? It could be sitting there all safe and sound, with not a scratch on it. Now who is the conspiracy theorist. This does not seem to be a good representative of your knowledge in this particular field in which you claim you have some expertise. And why not? Maybe I read it on a blog some where. Do you have any proof it didn't happen that way? Fight the man! Don't be a sheeple! Big solar has you in its pocket! Why do you think people would come forward considering how TEPCO and Japan handled the situation? Ummm... because Japan is a democracy, with a relatively secure freedom of the press. Except of course its not just "the government" that was involved in providing the readings. They do have foreign observers there too. The Trabant was from East Germany. I know. That's why I specifically said "eastern bloc countries" rather than "Soviet Union". Thing is, they put the dog up in the capsule, and then lied about what happened. In general the soviets and other communist countries tended to lag the west in technology. I just picked out a couple of examples. You could also see: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-lOJ4kwkJGcC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=soviets+lag+technology&source=bl&ots=bF1M4zu9g_&sig=VML3NFKbfIqwb6xqD3e6O60Unb4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qSRvUNyVIaiU0QHG-YAw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=soviets%20lag%20technology&f=false (page 196) #3 reactor was a little different from the others at the Fukushima site. It is a mix of plutonium and uranium. Which doesn't really make much difference. Plutonium is a little different than Uranium (more "powerful" radioactively, slightly different chemical properties, etc.) But that does not mean that it will automatically be able to break containment. Then there's this article: From: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/08/science/la-sci-fukushima-plutonium-20120309 The levels of radioactive plutonium around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant aren't much higher than the amount of plutonium remaining in the environment from Cold War-era nuclear weapons tests, and it probably poses little threat to humans, a new study indicates. ... ...the total amount of plutonium-241 released from the power plant was about 10,000 times less than that from the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine.

Here's a question... did you actually read the article that was referenced? Yeah, I know, actually having references is something you don't believe in. But the article clearly states: ...two ministers, Environment Minister Peter Altmaier and Economy Minister Philipp Rösler, have cast doubt whether the targets are reachable... And I also notice you missed the part of the quote that said: "we will have to make adjustments if jobs and our competitiveness should become endangered." So, um... what exactly do you think those "adjustments" are?

You know, I decided to actually sit down and do some number crunching. In 2008, the total amount of electricity generated in the world was 20,261 TWh. (This was from wikipedia, but I don't think anyone will have a reason to dispute this. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation ) According to the 2011 article I posted (see post 124), the number of deaths that would occur from generating that much power, if we used one method only, is as follows: Nuclear: 800 (based on 0.04 deaths per TWh) Wind: 3000 (based on 0.15 deaths per TWh) Solar: 8900 (based on 0.44 deaths per TWh) Note that the value for solar might actually be higher, since he actually gives 2 figures. but I'm being generous to solar. So, if the world went to wind power instead of nuclear, it would cause an extra 2200 deaths per year. If they went to Solar power, it would cause an extra 8100 deaths. Now, the worst nuclear disaster ever was Chernobyl. Around 50 people died in the accident. (Not all were due to radiation, some were totally unrelated, but I'll be generous here.) So, to make up the difference between the deaths caused by Nuclear and that caused by Wind, you'd need 44 Chernobyl-scale accidents a year. Or 162 Chernobyl-scale accidents to make up the difference between nuclear deaths and solar. Last time I checked, we haven't had 162 Chernobyl-scale accidents this year. Now I hear some people complaining "what about cancer deaths"? Well, its a fair question. They expect roughly 4000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl. So yea, that changes the numbers a bit. (See http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf page 16) If you compare that with solar, you will have to have 2 Chernobyl-scale events per year in order for the death tolls to be anywhere near compatible. If you compare that with wind, you'd have to have Chernobyl happen every 1.8 years. Were there 2 Chernobyl-scale events this year? Nope, don't think so. So, how does that fit in with history? The first civilian nuclear power generator went on line in the mid-50s. That means we've been using nuclear power for more than 5 decades. (Its close to 6, but I'll say 5 because they were probably largely experimental in the first years. It actually harms my argument, but since my proof is so string it doesn't really mater.) And let us be reallly generous to the anti-nuclear people and consider all accidents above a level 5. (Not exactly fair to me, since none of those other accidents have had anywhere near the death toll as Chernobyl. But hey, I'm a nice guy.) There have been 6 accidents that have been rated as severity level 5 or greater. That is one "serious" accident every 8 years. As I pointed out, you would have needed 2 Chernobyl-scale nuclear accidents every year for the death toll of nuclear to match Solar. So we would have needed a total of 100 Chernobyls. We had 6. (And like I said, that's being extremely generous to the anti-nuclear people, since no accident has come anywhere close to Chernobyl.) We'd have to have 16 times the number of nuclear accidents to make things as bad as going solar.

Actually much lower as the prognosis for thyroid cancer is bettert than most cancers. Thyroid cancer has a 10-year survival rate of about 85%. If found at stage 1 or 2 it is almost 100%. Ironically, there may actually be a couple of people who's lives get saved due to these disasters. After all, they're probably doing a lot more screening now than they would have before, and they'll probably be a few people who would have had cancer even without the nuclear accidents that get tested and treated that otherwise wouldn't. Not that I'm suggesting nuclear accidents as a method to encourage better medical screening procedures.

But you don't understand... he used the word "meltdown". According to Wyly, regardless of what you say, the word "meltdown" is magical and automatically trumps everything anyone ever posted, regardless of how well thought out. Meeeeelltdooown!!!

As long as we're talking conspiricy theories with absolutely no evidence, how do you even know there was even an accident at Fukushima? How do you know it wasn't all some carefully orchestrated plot by Greenpeace, in collaboration with the Solar Panel manufacturing industry (also known as "big solar") to discredit Nuclear energy by creating a fake nuclear disaster? All they had to do is bribe a few people in the Japanese government, release a few radioactive isotopes in the air, and poof! Nuclear looks like the bad guy! Did I just blow your mind? Seriously, its been months and months since the accident. Don't you think that if there were deaths immediately attributable to radiation following the accident, that someone would have come forward? Some mother of a plant worker saying "where's my son?" Some disgunteled employee saying "I had to carry the bodies out"? Anyone? Its been reported by multiple sources. Are you suggesting there's some massive conspiracy, involving probably hundreds of scientists, to fudge their readings? All that shows is that Soviet-era technology was very poorly designed, and years/decades behind that of the west. Seriously, you're talking about the communist system of government, which gave such technological gems as the Trabant (a car that sometimes was eaten by goats) and a rocket capsule that actually baked its occupants alive (see Laika, the first dog into space). Technical innovation and safety were not strong suits of eastern bloc countries at the time. Once again: Chernobyl: no containment dome, graphite (flammable) control rods Fukushima: Containment, no graphite Why are we "forgetting" them? The numbers are the measured radiation levels. Keep in mind that a spent fuel rod is not like a stick of dynamite. It probably won't explode or catch fire the same way a regular explosive would.

Or they can be panicing over a non-issue because they think its a politically expedient thing to do. Governments don't always act rationally. Take for example, their decision to remove thiomersal from many vaccines. Was it because there was evidence of harm? Nope, they just because it contains an element people think sounds dangerous. They will take actions that look safe, even if there's no tangible benefit, or even if that action is actually harmfull in the long run.

The important thing is that I'm smarter than you. Yup, and nuclear power has the potential to produce huge amounts of power without people falling off their roofs and dying. Actually, no I'm not. I post references to articles and short segments (as per copyright restrictions) to highlight the point that I was making, but the vast majority of my posts have been in my own words. Well, that's one more piece of evidence than you've provided. Oh, and I've posted 2 more references since then that say the same thing. Both within the last 2 years. One gave actual statistics (showing solar power causes around 10 times the deaths of nuclear). Another (by the Federation of American Scientists, a group that includes multiple nobel laureates) makes the same claim (although they don't give actual figures. So, where's your proof that people have magically developed the ability to fly should they fall off a roof when installing solar panels? Or that they'll magically heal when they've been injured building a solar panel? The fact is, you're one step above a troll. You've had all your arguments debunked. (Rather simple, considering they were pretty vacuous to begin with.) That's why you're running away. You don't like to be proven wrong. Oh, and we're still waiting to hear about your awesome educational background.

It took them 6 months to admit that 3 reactors went into meltdown, how condifent are you that they are going to release accurate number of deaths related to radiation? So, in other words, when you said that it was a "myth" that there were no fallout-deaths, you were basically making a claim based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Good to see you have such a high threshold for "proof". By that measure, does Bigfoot and the Lochness monster exist? 1/4 ????? How does that math work out for you? First all all, it wasn't math, I was going by memory, based on articles I had read comparing the 2 disasters. Secondly, I was wrong... There was actually much less radiation released at Fukushima than I origionally claimed. From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228 Fukushima: 370,000 terabecquerels Chernobyl: 5.2 million terabecquerels So the amount of radiation released at Fukushima was closer to 1/10th the radiation released at Chernobyl. (I suspect the Fukushima number will go up a little, but since the reactor is shut down further releases will be small compared to the total.) As others have pointed out to you... the Chernobyl design was very bad. (Not something we would have deployed in the West.) No containment dome. I suspect the fact that Chernobyl used graphite control rods (which caught fire) probably also had something to do with that. Fukushima didn't use graphite.

Wow, congratulations... you looked at wikipedia. Of course, I find it quite ironic that you complain about other people's references, but you don't give any of your own to back up your claims. But lets consider them, shall we? Already dealt with. Reactor with design flaws that reactors in the western world don't have. This was at a plant for dealing with weapons. Not civilian nuclear power. Try again. Already dealt with. Not a power generating reactor. (And given the fact that the Chalk River facility is used for making medical isotopes, for which there is no alternative, you might want to give this one a pass. Another event that occured during weapons production, not civilian nuclear power. An accident at which nobody died. More people have died falling off their roofs installing solar panels in the past year than died at 3 mile island. But I guess since we can't use the scarry word "meltdoooowwn" those deaths don't really matter. No radiation release outside the site. (1980) You know, I'm just going to go ahead and say it... you're full of crap. Do you even know what the significance of each of the levels is? What they actually mean in terms of actual human and environmental damage? I suspect not. Anything classified at level 4 is designated: Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of panned countermeasures other than local food control. So all of those level 2,3 and 4s that you listed did not cause mass evacuations and huge areas left "unlivable". Edited to add: Forgot the reference. You know, the thing that wyly doen't provide because it would show how empty and vacuous his arguments are. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf

Please give me a reference for any radiation-related that have occured in Fukishima since the start of the disaster. There was a report from the UN that suggested an extra 6000 thyroid cancers (probably the most common with this type of radiation release) were attributed to Chernobyl. That's over about 20 years. Fukishma released (I think) roughly 1/4 of the radiation that Chernobyl did. If deaths happen proportionally, that would mean 1500 deaths in the same time period. http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html Again though, that must be weighed against an increase in injury and deaths that would have been caused by industrial and mining accidents that would have occurred if the nuclear plants were replaced by solar.

Ah yes, back to nuclear waste storage, even though I've dealt with that already. Once again, the problem with waste storage is largely political rather than engineering. Reprocessing would greatly reduce the volume, and a site like Yucca Mountain would be an adequate place to store the waste long term. The problem is not with the science or engineering, its political. And the problem of that nuclear waste must be weighed against whatever byproducts are produced in the creation of solar panels. (And because you need a lot of solar panels to make up for the electricity produced by a nuclear plant, you will have a lot more byproducts.)

Well, you could hope that, but that won't necessarily make it so. You'll also expect nuclear to become more efficient over time as well, as they bring in new reactor designs.

Ummm... I already pointed out why A: That may not necessarily be due to Bettman, and B: it may not necessarily be a "good thing" if its due to increasing ticket prices that make games unaffordable. Yes, there are some cities where the NHL draws better than the NBA. But, the NBA also has a much more beneficial TV deal. While the ratings have been good for it, they've also been fairly stable (fluxuating between 3.7-4.6 million viewers.) Perhaps it may grow in popularity, but it hasn't been around long enough to know for sure. And keep in mind that while Bettman might have supported it, it may not have been Bettman who thought of the idea. (According to Wikipedia, if you trust it, it was an NBC executive who came up with the idea.) Just out of curiosity, why exactly does it need to grow at all? How does putting a team in (for example) Florida or California make the game better for me, a current fan? In my opinion, there was already enough money (through gate receipts and tv contracts) for the league to remain viable if they handled their finances better, so its not like the league was going to go away. All it seems to do is dilute the talent pool (i.e. make the hockey I see less enjoyable) while making the league less stable. And yes, its possible that we may eventually see some additional kids start to play the game in the U.S. following the expansion, but in places where winters don't get very cold, I can't see enough new kids starting to play the game in the southern U.S. to make up for talent dilution. And why is that? They have a better TV contract, have implemented a salary cap, have a collective bargaining agreement that's relatively recent , and they're bringing in a new revenue sharing deal that looks much better than anything the NHL does.

Here's another interesting take on the subject: From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology. A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation. (The article goes on to point out that, as "green energy" makes up more and more of the grid, its advantages may decrease, as such methods will require things like additional storage methods, etc.) The article also references the following XKCD comic: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Some interesting parts: - You actually get more radiation from eating a single banana than you do from living 50 miles from a nuclear plant for a year - You actually receive almost as much radiation from living in a stone or concrete house for a year as you would have if you lived within 10 miles of Three Mile Island, or visited Fukishima town hall 2 weeks after the accident - You receive more radiation from a chest CT scan than you would hanging out in Chernobyl for an hour

Out of curiosity, could you please tell us what your background is in science? Yeah, he does seem to be quite eager to pick apart other people's posts, but doesn't seem to be exhibiting much ability to demonstrate basic knowledge himself. For the record, I myself have an M.Sc. And while I am not a nuclear technician, I have taken multiple university level courses in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Math. I would be willing to defer to someone with a more significant background (or even to someone who has references to back up their claims), someone who's sole claim to fame involves shouting "Meltdooooown" and ignoring everything else that's been posted isn't that person to defer to.

I should not need a license just to grow GMO foods. It's patented for controlling purposes. Wow, what a brain-damaged statement. Note that the orignal statement was by Manny: It's a money maker, and that's why they want to do it. Later on, you stated: All of that exactly applies to Golden Rice. (post 242) Your statement (that Golden Rice is a "money maker") is false. Farmers in developing world will not have to pay to replant it, and Monsanto (and the other companies who developed it) will not see one thin dime regardless of the number of times the rice is re-sown. The fact that you are getting caught up on the terminology and legal minutai shows how empty and vacuous your arguments are. "Oh my god, its 'licensed' to grow? Well then just let all those poor people die".

Then why are you responding? Seriously... over and over again you've illustrated that you don't bother paying attention to what other people say. (Yet strangely you object to being treated "like an imbecile".) If you're going to respond to a post, you should read the whole thing, because the answer to your question might have actually been dealt with before. And if they can't... just let them die. Sound about right? Of course, the problem with letting them "solve their own problems" is that the people most affected are often subject to corrupt governments or armed conflict not of their own making. But its ok if they die, as long as the problems get sorted out. Yup, and I'm sure the poor subsistence farmer trying to make a living has all sorts of money to go out and buy carrots. Yup. Sure. Yup, all the time putting out tons of CO2 and pollutants into the air when doing so. That's a really good model to follow. Of course the difference between Canada, the U.S., and countries in Africa/Asia is that the countries here tend to be A: more stable, and B: less corrupt. Makes it a bit easier to go to ship carrots to the local super market if you don't have to worry about some local warlord or corrupt government official stealing them. As I asked before (and as you ignored)... if you think its so simple, Why hasn't it happened yet? There's millions of people in Africa/Asia. Why do you think someone hasn't run down to the local store and bought a pack of carrot seen to cure all their country's problems? Could it be that the problems aren't quite as easy to fix as you are imagining them?

Nope. First of all, I work during the day. Secondly, I have heard enough from reputable stories to recognize that he's pushing quack medicine. He's a multi-time winner of the Pigasus award for goodness sake!! http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/01/just-in-time-for-april-fools-daydr-oz-an/ Errr.... no they don't. Or if they did, they certainly don't care. If he really "checked everything", then he would not have any homeopath, psychic or other scam artist on his show, because those things just don't work. And giving any credence to such scam artists destroys your reputation. Put it this way, would you pay any attention to a show on investing if they gave equal footing to Warren Buffet and Bernie Madoff? You aren't really helping your case here. Weil seems to have a reputation for pushing Quack medicine. For example, he was selling some fake medicine that was supposed to cure H1N1 flu, even though there was absolutely no evidence that it did. (See: http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm186837.htm) Then of course there was the time he was touting Fish oil supplements even though the Journal of the American Medical association claimed that they had no benefit. (See: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200606191.html)