On Jill Stein and Nuclear Energy

[Belmaria]

Starting a thread to continue a discussion that started in the Clinton-Recount thread.

If you want to talk about Jill Stein, or nuclear energy, have at it.

The initial conversation, for reference.

[Aethrys]

The green party's policies are a mixed bag between bad and awful. Anti Nuclear energy, anti vaccinations, anti GMOs, anti science. They have no redeeming qualities and every day is better simply by virtue of the greens having no political clout.

[Belmaria]

The green party's policies are a mixed bag between bad and awful. Anti Nuclear energy, anti vaccinations, anti GMOs, anti science. They have no redeeming qualities and every day is better simply by virtue of the greens having no political clout.

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

[Geilinor]

The green party's policies are a mixed bag between bad and awful. Anti Nuclear energy, anti vaccinations, anti GMOs, anti science. They have no redeeming qualities and every day is better simply by virtue of the greens having no political clout.

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

That is not a reason to be opposed to GMO's, it is a grievance against intellectual property law. The only cases where farmers have been sued are where they planted GMO seeds.

[Bhikkustan]

She's a joke. I expect that she would say something like mandatory veganis,. She does whatever she thinks people will like. No free will.

[Shonburg]

The green party's policies are a mixed bag between bad and awful. Anti Nuclear energy, anti vaccinations, anti GMOs, anti science. They have no redeeming qualities and every day is better simply by virtue of the greens having no political clout.

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

Conventional Nuclear Power is the most heavily regulated and one of the most efficient in safety vs energy energy output.

Being anti-corporation is not the same as having a heart attack over your food being modified directly rather than through generations of breeding.

[Philjia]

My thoughts on nuclear power summed up.

Pros:
- Lots of electricity.
- No greenhouse gas

Cons:
- Currently, waste will have to be securely stored for longer than human history before it's safe.
- Colossal start up costs.
- Plants take years to build.
- Finite, scarce, fuel.

Additional sticking points:
- Construction in areas prone to natural disasters may cause nuclear accidents.
- Without in country expertise, plant construction may have to be outsourced to foreign parties.

Overall, I'm indifferent to nuclear power. If the problems can be properly mitigated, it will be a good medium term energy solution. However, I personally feel that it's still just storing up problems for later, which is what we've been doing for years. It'll buy us some more time, but the more we rely on it, the less time we'll have.

[Licana]

- Finite, scarce, fuel.

It's also one of the most energy-dense sources of fuel on the planet.

[Astrolinium]

The green party's policies are a mixed bag between bad and awful. Anti Nuclear energy, anti vaccinations, anti GMOs, anti science. They have no redeeming qualities and every day is better simply by virtue of the greens having no political clout.

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine

No, she's just fine with pandering to anti-vaxxers the same way Trump dogwhistles racial terms to the Neo-Nazis.

[The Liberated Territories]

Jill Stein is the Green Party's greatest disaster. But I guess they can only run Nader so many times on the ballot.

Nuclear energy has been proven to be safe and reliable form of energy, and is the future, contrary to what the "progressives" want you to believe.

[Kitzerland]

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

Conventional Nuclear Power is the most heavily regulated and one of the most efficient in safety vs energy energy output.

Being anti-corporation is not the same as having a heart attack over your food being modified directly rather than through generations of breeding.

Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after STUDY has shown no difference between GMO foods and other foods. How on earth would one cause a heart attack?

[Orostan]

Jill Stein is the Green Party's greatest disaster. But I guess they can only run Nader so many times on the ballot.

Nuclear energy has been proven to be safe and reliable form of energy, and is the future, contrary to what the "progressives" want you to believe.

Hi, i'm a progressive.

There are the stupid Green Party progressives, who deny science, and us.

The sensible people.

Personally I support Nuclear power


Marx did nothing wrong.

[Shonburg]

Conventional Nuclear Power is the most heavily regulated and one of the most efficient in safety vs energy energy output.

Being anti-corporation is not the same as having a heart attack over your food being modified directly rather than through generations of breeding.

Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study after STUDY has shown no difference between GMO foods and other foods. How on earth would one cause a heart attack?

"Heart attack" was meant sarcastically and to be satirical about how anti-GMOers act in regards to them.

[The Liberated Territories]

Jill Stein is the Green Party's greatest disaster. But I guess they can only run Nader so many times on the ballot.

Nuclear energy has been proven to be safe and reliable form of energy, and is the future, contrary to what the "progressives" want you to believe.

Hi, i'm a progressive.

There are the stupid Green Party progressives, who deny science, and us.

The sensible people.

Personally I support Nuclear power


Marx did nothing wrong.

NSG has admittingly been very good and consistent in supporting nuclear power. Though I had less luck at Bernie Sanders rallies and just out in the city.

[Threlizdun]

GMOs are safe and are the future of agriculture. Nuclear energy is safe and is the best source of energy we currently have available. It's frankly embarrassing that the Green Party and Jill Stein try to promote themselves as a scientifically literate party that is actually trying to seriously address climate change, while also backing anti-science positions based purely on conspiracies and pseudo-science. It's imperative that the environmentalist movement re-evaluate their positions on these issues, and recognize what the science actually says on these issues.

[Val Halla]

Jill Stein is an idiot and partly the blame as to why people who prefer political options beyond the weak centre left are painted like loonies. Same with the UK Greens, who are also pretty dumb.

[Estorya]

Speaking as a general supporter of the green platform, I don't see the party as being anti-science or anti-vax; there are certainly those who do, but I view the Green Party as primarily advocating an approach wherein people and the environment come before corporations or the economy.

I personally think that nuclear power is a fantastic solution to the clean energy problem: it's relatively harmless to the environment 99% of the time; it creates jobs for construction, operation, uranium mining, etc; and it would generally improve the quality of life for all people. An opposition to nuclear energy by greens and pretty much anyone else is probably born out of a pessimism nearing paranoia of catastrophic meltdown, and I don't think such fears are well-founded- at least, not well enough to found an entire anti-nuclear power campaign.

And then there's GMOs. GMOs are good, GMOs are great, everyday there's GMOs on my plate. I like them. There is the odd copyright exploitation by megacorporations here and there, but I'm not opposed to the modification of crops to make them more suitable for human growth and consumption- heck, it's just a sped up more lrecise version of the artificial selection of domestication which we've been using for hundreds of years. I would say, however, that I'm opposed to unlabeled GMOs- while every study ever has shown that they are harmless, people deserve to be paranoid about what they consume, even if they're blatantly wrong.

[Belmaria]

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

That is not a reason to be opposed to GMO's, it is a grievance against intellectual property law. The only cases where farmers have been sued are where they planted GMO seeds.

Not true. Farmers whose fields exist across from GMO fields can be sued if the seeds from the opposing field are blown into theirs by the wind.

https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos/far ... pollution/

Jill Stein is not anti-vaccine, being against unsafe conventional nuclear energy isn't a bad thing, and it's perfectly logical to be against GMOs when the corporations that propagate them abuse intellectual property law to harass innocent people (some of whom have nothing to do with GMO crop production). As for being anti-science, that's a pretty broad claim.

Conventional Nuclear Power is the most heavily regulated and one of the most efficient in safety vs energy energy output.

Being anti-corporation is not the same as having a heart attack over your food being modified directly rather than through generations of breeding.

Conventional nuclear energy is a joke whose existence is entirely dependent upon the logistical impracticality of switching to a better system of nuclear energy generation. We only use the reactor designs that are popular today because of the possibility of collecting weapons-grade nuclear material from the reaction process. Thorium would be preferred.

[Greed and Death]

My thoughts on nuclear power summed up.

Pros:
- Lots of electricity.
- No greenhouse gas

Cons:
- Currently, waste will have to be securely stored for longer than human history before it's safe.
- Colossal start up costs.
- Plants take years to build.
- Finite, scarce, fuel.

Additional sticking points:
- Construction in areas prone to natural disasters may cause nuclear accidents.
- Without in country expertise, plant construction may have to be outsourced to foreign parties.

Overall, I'm indifferent to nuclear power. If the problems can be properly mitigated, it will be a good medium term energy solution. However, I personally feel that it's still just storing up problems for later, which is what we've been doing for years. It'll buy us some more time, but the more we rely on it, the less time we'll have.

The biggest reason I view Nuclear as the short term winner in the fight against climate change is it does not require a massive grid upgrade.

[Dooom35796821595]

That is not a reason to be opposed to GMO's, it is a grievance against intellectual property law. The only cases where farmers have been sued are where they planted GMO seeds.

Not true. Farmers whose fields exist across from GMO fields can be sued if the seeds from the opposing field are blown into theirs by the wind.

https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos/far ... pollution/

Nonsense, farming isn't done by the wind, and any cross contamination would make up a very small percentage of their total yield. It's like a corn farmer complaining about wheat seeds being blown into his fields.

Conventional Nuclear Power is the most heavily regulated and one of the most efficient in safety vs energy energy output.

Being anti-corporation is not the same as having a heart attack over your food being modified directly rather than through generations of breeding.

Conventional nuclear energy is a joke whose existence is entirely dependent upon the logistical impracticality of switching to a better system of nuclear energy generation. We only use the reactor designs that are popular today because of the possibility of collecting weapons-grade nuclear material from the reaction process. Thorium would be preferred.

What the hell are you talking about? Current nuclear plants produce vast amounts of energy from very small quantities of fuel. Yes there may have been better designs, but they would take time and money to get to the level of development that current plants are at. And thorium is like relying on fusion, they don't exist yet.

[Belmaria]

Not true. Farmers whose fields exist across from GMO fields can be sued if the seeds from the opposing field are blown into theirs by the wind.

https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos/far ... pollution/

Nonsense, farming isn't done by the wind, and any cross contamination would make up a very small percentage of their total yield. It's like a corn farmer complaining about wheat seeds being blown into his fields.

The link I cited supported my claim. If you would read what others post, you would avoid a condition colloquially known as mouthfoot.

Conventional nuclear energy is a joke whose existence is entirely dependent upon the logistical impracticality of switching to a better system of nuclear energy generation. We only use the reactor designs that are popular today because of the possibility of collecting weapons-grade nuclear material from the reaction process. Thorium would be preferred.

What the hell are you talking about? Current nuclear plants produce vast amounts of energy from very small quantities of fuel. Yes there may have been better designs, but they would take time and money to get to the level of development that current plants are at. And thorium is like relying on fusion, they don't exist yet.

Nuclear power in its current state isn't nearly as efficient as it could be, and thorium reactions are not a form of fusion. It's much easier to produce efficiently. I get the feeling you like arguing from a position of ignorance, which I find very annoying.

[The United States of the South Pole]

Like the constitution party, the green party's cause is fair, just, and an overlooked necessity that many politicians like to forget or put on the sidelines, who had the bad fortune to be picked up by narrow minded, my way or the highway, science deniers with an undeserved sense of pride and pretty radical leanings in their left-right direction.
Calling myself an environmentalist would be going a tad too far for a phrase, and like my constitutionalist ideals I only recently adopted them when I become more patriotic and nationalistic. But I really don't know whether I'd ever be able to vote for a green nationally or even locally with their strong left, open border, and opposition to most forms of energy policies.However, I do like that they're also protectionists with the common sense to not want to play world police. I think Stein, as well as Johnson, is retiring this year from running for the presidency and a new candidate will pop next election. That that'll be pretty interesting, I'll hopefully keep an open mind towards whoever they put out.

[Pope Joan]

Nuclear energy is a positive good. There is no carbon footprint. It is safe. It reduces dependence on carbon based fuels (domestic and foreign). Eastern Washington is begging to receive the byproducts of these operations, into its alkaline deserts.

[Kravanica]

Jill Stein is an idiot and there is no logical reason to oppose nuclear energy.

[Kravanica]

Jill Stein is the Green Party's greatest disaster. But I guess they can only run Nader so many times on the ballot.

Nuclear energy has been proven to be safe and reliable form of energy, and is the future, contrary to what the "progressives" want you to believe.

Hi, i'm a progressive.

There are the stupid Green Party progressives, who deny science, and us.

The sensible people.

Personally I support Nuclear power


Marx did nothing wrong.

Marx was scum.