Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Tarsonis]

Check the thread. It was pretty obvious their response, stop with your distorting the facts like Trump does.

Trump bad.

Climate Change is THE reason I'll be a Democrat no matter what.

The Democratic Party has yet to put forward any credible solution to address climate change. Not sure what you hope to accomplish that way, aside from raising taxes on the 99% of people who are responsible for 0% of climate change. The Democrats continue to oppose reliable alternative energy sources, such as Nuclear, because they would actually fix the issue, rather than allow the party to string along voters for decades.

Nuclear has its own share of issues and risks

[Telconi]

Generally I don't go around grabbing guns that aren't mine, so it doesn't take up much of my day.

No, but your attitude towards gun control seems to be based on excessive paranoia.

It's not paranoid to believe that a political party wants to do what that particular political party explicitly states it wants to do.

[Telconi]

Trump bad.


The Democratic Party has yet to put forward any credible solution to address climate change. Not sure what you hope to accomplish that way, aside from raising taxes on the 99% of people who are responsible for 0% of climate change. The Democrats continue to oppose reliable alternative energy sources, such as Nuclear, because they would actually fix the issue, rather than allow the party to string along voters for decades.

Nuclear has its own share of issues and risks

While true, and obviously not a perfect solution, it is A solution.

[Tarsonis]

Nuclear has its own share of issues and risks

While true, and obviously not a perfect solution, it is A solution.

I mean, technically so is Thanosing the human population.

[Telconi]

While true, and obviously not a perfect solution, it is A solution.

I mean, technically so is Thanosing the human population.

You're not wrong, but I imagine a push to adopt atomic energy is probably a better solution than the murder of billions.

[Tarsonis]

I mean, technically so is Thanosing the human population.

You're not wrong, but I imagine a push to adopt atomic energy is probably a better solution than the murder of billions.

One could argue those endeavors are one in the same

[Telconi]

You're not wrong, but I imagine a push to adopt atomic energy is probably a better solution than the murder of billions.

One could argue those endeavors are one in the same

Not well, even in the worst state, atomic energy is a dangerous endevour which may cause the accidental death of people, it never really constitutes murder.

[Crockerland]

You're not wrong, but I imagine a push to adopt atomic energy is probably a better solution than the murder of billions.

One could argue those endeavors are one in the same

In the same way that one could argue vaccines are giving people autism - which is to say, not at all with any basic amount of scientific understanding, or information coming from any source other than Facebook memes and propaganda videos.

[Tarsonis]

You're not wrong, but I imagine a push to adopt atomic energy is probably a better solution than the murder of billions.

The only alternatives currently are:

• Fossil fuels (piss earth)
• Troglodyte anarcho-primitivist hell for 99% of people (pretty much the same thing as right now for the 1%)
• Destructionist warzone where 70% of the population dies so solar and wind power can actually sustain civilization on their own (based on their genocidal anti-GMO stance I'd say this is the one """environmentalists""" are aiming for)

One could argue those endeavors are one in the same

In the same way that one could argue vaccines are giving people autism - which is to say, not at all with any basic amount of scientific understanding, or information coming from any source other than Facebook memes and propaganda videos.

A. We still don’t have a reliable way of storing nuclear waste
B. A combustion blast from an over loaded nuclear plant (which is a possibility) has the potential to spread radioactive material into the upper atmosphere irradiating sizable portions of the planet.
C. Nuclear melt downs can irridiare sizsaboe portions of the planet through other means


You can’t dismiss this away with insults, when we’ve literally just had an hbo miniseries about one of the times these issues became more than theory. Nuclear energy has a body count, you can’t call it perfectly safe.

[Tarsonis]

One could argue those endeavors are one in the same

Not well, even in the worst state, atomic energy is a dangerous endevour which may cause the accidental death of people, it never really constitutes murder.

While true, I think you get the point

[Kowani]

The only alternatives currently are:

• Fossil fuels (piss earth)
• Troglodyte anarcho-primitivist hell for 99% of people (pretty much the same thing as right now for the 1%)
• Destructionist warzone where 70% of the population dies so solar and wind power can actually sustain civilization on their own (based on their genocidal anti-GMO stance I'd say this is the one """environmentalists""" are aiming for)

In the same way that one could argue vaccines are giving people autism - which is to say, not at all with any basic amount of scientific understanding, or information coming from any source other than Facebook memes and propaganda videos.

A. We still don’t have a reliable way of storing nuclear waste[
B. A combustion blast from an over loaded nuclear plant (which is a possibility) has the potential to spread radioactive material into the upper atmosphere irradiating sizable portions of the planet.
C. Nuclear melt downs can irridiare sizsaboe portions of the planet through other means


You can’t dismiss this away with insults, when we’ve literally just had an hbo miniseries about one of the times these issues became more than theory. Nuclear energy has a body count, you can’t call it perfectly safe.

Nuclear energy quite literally has a lesser body count than any other form of energy.

[Tarsonis]

A. We still don’t have a reliable way of storing nuclear waste[
B. A combustion blast from an over loaded nuclear plant (which is a possibility) has the potential to spread radioactive material into the upper atmosphere irradiating sizable portions of the planet.
C. Nuclear melt downs can irridiare sizsaboe portions of the planet through other means


You can’t dismiss this away with insults, when we’ve literally just had an hbo miniseries about one of the times these issues became more than theory. Nuclear energy has a body count, you can’t call it perfectly safe.

Nuclear energy quite literally has a lesser body count than any other form of energy.

When a coal mine collapses it kills a couple of miners. When a nuclear plant collapses, it kills a quarter of the US

[Kowani]

Nuclear energy quite literally has a lesser body count than any other form of energy.

When a coal mine collapses it kills a couple of miners.

Black lung, cancer, pollution…

When a nuclear plant collapses, it kills a quarter of the US

Reminder that 3 mile island didn’t actually kill anyone.

[Tarsonis]

When a coal mine collapses it kills a couple of miners.

Black lung, cancer, pollution…

When a nuclear plant collapses, it kills a quarter of the US

Reminder that 3 mile island didn’t actually kill anyone.

How long is it until the elephants foot is rendered safe? What 20000 years? I’m sure that time will just fly bye.

[The Chuck]

When a coal mine collapses it kills a couple of miners.

Black lung, cancer, pollution…

When a nuclear plant collapses, it kills a quarter of the US

Reminder that 3 mile island didn’t actually kill anyone.

Also a reminder that we won't get rid of coal due to Steel production for the other energy generating methods but that nuclear is indeed the way of the future. Issue is everyone shits a brick when you mention nuclear due to Chernobyl (Idiot was conducting an "experiment" that under no scientific reasoning should have been allowed), 3 Miles Island, Fukushima, Windscale England, etc.

But er... I don't think this is the Power Production Mega Thread guys... So eh... *cocks hammer on revolver* Move along...

[Kowani]

Black lung, cancer, pollution…

Reminder that 3 mile island didn’t actually kill anyone.

How long is it until the elephants foot is rendered safe? What 20000 years? I’m sure that time will just fly bye.

It’s not like the Soviet’s knew how to build reactors. They didn’t. Using Chernobyl against nuclear energy is like using early cars as an argument against automobile transportation.

[Tarsonis]

How long is it until the elephants foot is rendered safe? What 20000 years? I’m sure that time will just fly bye.

It’s not like the Soviet’s knew how to build reactors. They didn’t. Using Chernobyl against nuclear energy is like using early cars as an argument against automobile transportation.

well just as many people die in car accidents per year as are killed by guns, so I imagine some people here would be in support of such arguments

[Kowani]

It’s not like the Soviet’s knew how to build reactors. They didn’t. Using Chernobyl against nuclear energy is like using early cars as an argument against automobile transportation.

well just as many people die in car accidents per year as are killed by guns, so I imagine some people here would be in support of such arguments

I’m sorry, did you have a point?

[Crockerland]

A. We still don’t have a reliable way of storing nuclear waste
B. A combustion blast from an over loaded nuclear plant (which is a possibility) has the potential to spread radioactive material into the upper atmosphere irradiating sizable portions of the planet.
C. Nuclear melt downs can irridiare sizsaboe portions of the planet through other means


You can’t dismiss this away with insults, when we’ve literally just had an hbo miniseries about one of the times these issues became more than theory.

"nuclear energy scary"
"why"
"my tv told me so"

Exactly.

Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history and one of the only ones to kill anyone killed a whopping... 60 people. It was possibly related to a few hundred cases of Thyroid cancer, but that not only has a 99% survival rate, but more than likely it's just that the disaster got people to test for the cancer rather than causing it. Meanwhile one dam in China bursting killed 90,000 to 230,000 people. Similarly with radiation, coal power plants irradiate the surrounding environment at 100 times the rate of nuclear powerplants generating the same amount of energy. Nuclear is better and safer than both. Which is why even after suffering the worst nuclear accident in history, the Chernobyl powerplant kept 3 of its 4 reactors for years after the fourth melted down.

Nuclear energy has a body count, you can’t call it perfectly safe.

Again, aside from Facebook memes and propoganda videos, if we look at statistics, nuclear is the SAFEST form of electricity generation by a wide margin.

[Tarsonis]

well just as many people die in car accidents per year as are killed by guns, so I imagine some people here would be in support of such arguments

I’m sorry, did you have a point?

Yeah, that Nuclear power was not without issue. And it’s not. Why is that such a contentious statement?

[Kowani]

I’m sorry, did you have a point?

Yeah, that Nuclear power was not without issue. And it’s not. Why is that such a contentious statement?

Because the issues are less than literally every other form of energy generation?

[The Chuck]

I’m sorry, did you have a point?

Yeah, that Nuclear power was not without issue. And it’s not. Why is that such a contentious statement?

Tarsonis. I have a 200 Kw nuclear reactor that is literally behind my main classrooms and department on my college campus. My department of studies shares the building with the nuclear engineering department and I see nukers (nickname for nuclear engineers) coming and going all the time. I might be getting a couple more rads then normal due to usually being a more indoorsy person but at the end of the day I'm still getting less radiation from them carrying nuclear samples past me and sitting in a building with nuclear samples then if I were to stand outside and sunbath from dawn till dusk on a sunny day. Sure humanity has had issues with nuclear power like Chernobyl but it's this same kind of fear mongering that affects all of us here who enjoy our rights to bear arms. Sure firearms and nuclear power is dangerous if not properly taken care of and used. However if properly used, both are quite safe and beneficial to society.

[Tarsonis]

A. We still don’t have a reliable way of storing nuclear waste
B. A combustion blast from an over loaded nuclear plant (which is a possibility) has the potential to spread radioactive material into the upper atmosphere irradiating sizable portions of the planet.
C. Nuclear melt downs can irridiare sizsaboe portions of the planet through other means


You can’t dismiss this away with insults, when we’ve literally just had an hbo miniseries about one of the times these issues became more than theory.

"nuclear energy scary"
"why"
"my tv told me so"

Exactly.

Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history and one of the only ones to kill anyone killed a whopping... 60 people. It was possibly related to a few hundred cases of Thyroid cancer, but that not only has a 99% survival rate, but more than likely it's just that the disaster got people to test for the cancer rather than causing it. Meanwhile one dam in China bursting killed 90,000 to 230,000 people. Similarly with radiation, coal power plants irradiate the surrounding environment at 100 times the rate of nuclear powerplants generating the same amount of energy. Nuclear is better and safer than both. Which is why even after suffering the worst nuclear accident in history, the Chernobyl powerplant kept 3 of its 4 reactors for years after the fourth melted down.

Nuclear energy has a body count, you can’t call it perfectly safe.

Again, aside from Facebook memes and propoganda videos, if we look at statistics, nuclear is the SAFEST form of electricity generation by a wide margin.

You must work in the nuclear lobby. You know you have 1 in 77 chance of dying in a car crash? More over, you’re more likely to get struck by lighting twice than you are of dying in a plane crash.Yet a great deal of people are afraid of flying while nobody really thinks twice about driving. Because that’s not the stat that matters. What matters is that it’s far more probable to survive a car crash than a plane crash.

Yes, statistically, Nuclear power is the safest form of energy production by far. But we haven’t had a critical failure at the nuclear level, like we’ve had in other forms of power. And the potential consequences from that, completely eclipses the consequences from the others.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah, that Nuclear power was not without issue. And it’s not. Why is that such a contentious statement?

Because the issues are less than literally every other form of energy generation?

And? The fact that it issues means it’s not the perfect solution people tout it to be. I never said we should get rid of it, I said Nuclear power has its own issues, because it does, and we shouldn’t act like it doesn’t.

[Kowani]

Because the issues are less than literally every other form of energy generation?

And? The fact that it issues means it’s not the perfect solution people tout it to be. I never said we should get rid of it, I said Nuclear power has its own issues, because it does, and we shouldn’t act like it doesn’t.

Negligible issues. Heck, the “grand disaster” of Nuclear energy, Chernobyl, only happened because the plant was built badly, even for the standards of the time. The other one, 3-mile Island has no casualties.

Also, nobody is claiming that it’s a perfect solution.