Nuclear power - Page 14 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#391 Old 10-12-2012, 02:55 PM
Super Moderator
 
leedsveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds
Posts: 2,713

"We'll just call it Vishnu's Hypothesis for now X^D"

 

I like it t0mmy. thumbsup.gif

leedsveg is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#392 Old 10-12-2012, 07:11 PM
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Laughing at evidence, whether it is well-founded evidence or not, is failure in argument.

I do not recall laughing at evidence nor stating that I was laughing at evidence. Why do you continue twist my words and then argue against that? I stated that I'm laughing at the situation. However, quoting sayings like "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." seems to imply that because someone is laughing, you're right. To me that is a failure in argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

If you're stating a claim then burden of proof is on you. Care to elaborate?

I did not state that all your claims were countered. Here, I'll quote exactly what I did state:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

You've made claims and when countered, you simply dismiss them and claim that your original point still "stands strong."

You seem to imply that I stated that all your claims were countered. I did not. I do not have access to that information. What I was after was what is this point that still stands strong.

So again, as I've asked, what is your original point that stands strong? Is it that alternative energy options are 'better' (whatever that means) than nuclear fission energy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Are you just giving an example of a gross misdirection with that presumption, or are you being serious?

That's not a gross misdirection. Earlier you stated that in your experience the minority is correct in science:

You can review my response to you here:

http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/330#post_3182796

There was some back and forth but you continue with the only example being that of Galileo, who, as we've already demonstrated was correct in that the Earth orbits the sun, was incorrect with his given model. Although he wasn't the first, but was among a number of people dating back over a thousand years ago. You don't even show what you mean that the minority being correct in science (in your experience). When asked, by both myself and das_nut, you simply avoid the question.

So no, it's not meant as a gross misdirection. It was meant to actually get an answer to a question, among many that you simply ignore or give a red herring answer.

You seem to imply that with Galileo, you show that in science the minority is correct, because of his condemnation by the church. It's an odd example and it shows very little in terms of answering the question.



As for nuclear waste and elephants, I don't know why elephants equaling nuclear waste has come into the discussion. Why not just talk about the actual nuclear waste, but weights and volumes (or simply find the density)?

Also, where did this 2 tons per year from a 1GW reactor come from?

According to:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_waste
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devnine.html

high level nuclear waste is about 25 to 30 tonnes per 1 GW reactor.

According to this
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste_per_person.pdf
if all our electricity came from nuclear power it would amount to about 40 grams per person per year.

However, I believe this only takes into account the high level waste and not the low and intermediate level wastes. Based on my understanding the high level wastes are the approximately 30 tonnes per year per 1 GW reactor.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#393 Old 10-12-2012, 08:05 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post


As for nuclear waste and elephants, I don't know why elephants equaling nuclear waste has come into the discussion. Why not just talk about the actual nuclear waste, but weights and volumes (or simply find the density)?
Also, where did this 2 tons per year from a 1GW reactor come from?
According to:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_waste
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devnine.html
high level nuclear waste is about 25 to 30 tonnes per 1 GW reactor.
According to this
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste_per_person.pdf
if all our electricity came from nuclear power it would amount to about 40 grams per person per year.
However, I believe this only takes into account the high level waste and not the low and intermediate level wastes. Based on my understanding the high level wastes are the approximately 30 tonnes per year per 1 GW reactor.

 

I was trying to figure out that one myself.

 

Assume that fuel in = waste out (we'll ignore the small amount of fuel that is transmuted into energy).

 

This states that 5000 t of natural uranium (presumably metric tonnes) are required for a hypothetical 1GW reactor over a 30 year life.  Which gives a result of about 167 tonnes per year.  

 

Of course, a decent chunk of that is discarded in preprocessing (getting uranium from .7% U235 to 3.5% U235).  So that leaves us with 33.4 tonnes per reactor/year.  (The discarded 4/5ths of uranium is still problematic, but should be actually slightly less radioactive than the refined uranium ore.)

 

33.4 tonnes a year is similar to your figure.  Seems correct.

 

The waste profile may get it down to Tommy's 2 tons (separate out the low-level stuff that is on-par with the refined uranium ore, leaving the more radioactive isotopes behind).  Or maybe Tommy's source was using a breeder reactor, which should produce less waste for the same amount of energy.

 

I'm not sure which one is the case.

das_nut is offline  
#394 Old 10-21-2012, 09:17 PM
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
Quote:

Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post


I do not recall laughing at evidence nor stating that I was laughing at evidence

All the posts are still available to be reviewed if you wish.

 

 

Quote:

However, quoting sayings like "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." seems to imply that because someone is laughing, you're right. To me that is a failure in argument.

It would be a failure in argument if I used that as an argument itself, but if you use icons of laughing faces then it makes a fine rebuttal ;^]

 

Quote:
You seem to imply that I stated that all your claims were countered. I did not. I do not have access to that information. What I was after was what is this point that still stands strong.

No, that wasn't implied.

All posts are still available to the public to be reviewed if you wish.

 

Quote:

So no, it's not meant as a gross misdirection. It was meant to actually get an answer to a question, among many that you simply ignore or give a red herring answer.
You seem to imply that with Galileo, you show that in science the minority is correct, because of his condemnation by the church. It's an odd example and it shows very little in terms of answering the question.

First, I'd suggest a bit of conciseness if you want to avoid inklings of misdirections. No red herrings were ever given by me, I believe you have just disgraced the discussion with an attempt at projection (however, if you believe this to be the case then a proof is required, otherwise groundless accusations will go nowhere and continue to be ignored, and crying about being ignored won't benefit you any).

Second, Galileo was shown as an example of why a scientific consensus is not the end-all of a debate. The scientific community does not (or should not) determine reality with majority rule, and it won't fly here.

 

Quote:

As for nuclear waste and elephants, I don't know why elephants equaling nuclear waste has come into the discussion.

Ah, you missed out on the best part :^]

 

 

Quote:
Also, where did this 2 tons per year from a 1GW reactor come from?
According to:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_waste
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devnine.html
high level nuclear waste is about 25 to 30 tonnes per 1 GW reactor.
According to this
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste_per_person.pdf
if all our electricity came from nuclear power it would amount to about 40 grams per person per year.
However, I believe this only takes into account the high level waste and not the low and intermediate level wastes. Based on my understanding the high level wastes are the approximately 30 tonnes per year per 1 GW reactor.

That comes out approximately what I calculated as well - that if everyone were responsible for their share they'd have to carry a block of it around in their hands for the rest of their lives (probably wouldn't survive the year).

I took that approximation and applied it to all the 104 commercial reactors (not including the military, research, etc. reactors) in this country and figured the weight then illustrated it with how many fully grown elephants that would equal in a given period of time. Yeah, it's a lot of radioactive elephants! (yes, the amount was given in non-elephant units as well).

 

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by das_nut View Post


 

I was trying to figure out that one myself.

It's s'posed to be funny.

Elephants.... Funny....

Guess I forgot... the internet is serious biznis!

I'll leave you guys to tend to your ellyfants.


Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
#395 Old 10-21-2012, 09:25 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130

I'd recommend not carrying around the waste you're responsible for in your lifetime.

 

Probably very hazardous.

 

The applies to both nuclear and non-nuclear waste.  Even just limiting it to power generation, the CO2 burden alone (even for green energy) would probably kill you.

das_nut is offline  
#396 Old 10-23-2012, 01:15 PM
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

All the posts are still available to be reviewed if you wish.

Yes, all posts are available to be reviewed by anyone. With that I'll leave that nonsense behind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

First, I'd suggest a bit of conciseness if you want to avoid inklings of misdirections. No red herrings were ever given by me, I believe you have just disgraced the discussion with an attempt at projection (however, if you believe this to be the case then a proof is required,

I don't believe it to be the case that I made an attempt at projection, but if you do, then I agree, a proof is required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Second, Galileo was shown as an example of why a scientific consensus is not the end-all of a debate. The scientific community does not (or should not) determine reality with majority rule, and it won't fly here.

No one said that anything in science was the end-all of debate. Science is about learning, exploring, and understanding. Anyone studying science should (hopefully) know that and Galileo was completely unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

That comes out approximately what I calculated as well - that if everyone were responsible for their share they'd have to carry a block of it around in their hands for the rest of their lives (probably wouldn't survive the year).

So you were wrong in your earlier example (by underestimating nuclear reactor waste), yet the amount everyone would have to carry around in their lifetime would be the same? That's an amazing coincidence.

Care to show your work? Based on the one paper the block would be increasing by 40 grams per person per year. That was assuming all the energy was generated by nuclear power, not as you implied earlier just showing the current waste per person. Although I've been wrong before, and apparently there are a lot of mistakes or miscommunications. So to be clear can you be explicit and show your work?

Why would anyone ever want to carry that around is beyond me though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I took that approximation and applied it to all the 104 commercial reactors (not including the military, research, etc. reactors) in this country and figured the weight then illustrated it with how many fully grown elephants that would equal in a given period of time. Yeah, it's a lot of radioactive elephants! (yes, the amount was given in non-elephant units as well).

So are you saying the density of elephants and radioactive waste are the same? Why not just show the volume of nuclear waste generated per year? Let's compare that with other energy producing waste though, I think that would add something more to the discussion.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#397 Old 10-27-2012, 05:10 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130

This month's Analog has a good non-fiction article on Galileo, and the seven different theories of celestial motion at the time.

 

Was an interesting read.

 

T0mmy would hate it though.

das_nut is offline  
#398 Old 10-28-2012, 05:17 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 144

I support it and always have done.  I really don't understand the hysteria of those who oppose nuclear power stations, especially those who live in countries which can otherwise never be self-sufficient in energy use, without a sharp drop in living standards.

CovOx is offline  
#399 Old 10-28-2012, 01:53 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 144

Sorry, I didn't realise that there was already a thread, feel free to merge this one into it.
 

CovOx is offline  
#400 Old 10-28-2012, 02:15 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 14,328
MOD POST:

Threads merged. smiley.gif

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is online now  
#401 Old 10-31-2012, 11:49 PM
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

MOD POST:
Threads merged. smiley.gif

yay! fresh air! well maybe once CovOx has had a chance to catch up on their assigned reading they'll have something to ad?


* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is online now  
#402 Old 11-01-2012, 05:50 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

yay! fresh air! well maybe once CovOx has had a chance to catch up on their assigned reading they'll have something to ad?

 

We don't know CovOx's position on Galileo.  :)

das_nut is offline  
#403 Old 11-04-2012, 05:04 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

 

We don't know CovOx's position on Galileo.  :)

 

If you mean the EU satellite project, it is a total waste of money, like almost everything to do with the EU.

 

The Joint European Torus (JET) Project, at Culham Laboratory in Oxfordshire, is a project dating back to 1979, thus predating everything that is wrong with the European political project.  Whilst JET has an honourable aim, of producing a commercially viable fusion reactor, it has been on a rolling 50-year timescale ever since its inception over 30 years ago and they are still no nearer!  I remember being taught about it in a Physics lesson in school back in 1982 and a friend and I cycled down there from home hoping to be able to visit.  As it is, I visited it in 1989.

 

A new generation of fission reactors is badly needed by Britain.  Our ageing Magnox stations have now all closed down, the last being Oldbury-on-Severn, near Bristol which closed last year after a four-year life extension.  We can't rely on wind generation, because we don't have enough land area for on-shore wind farms, every wind turbine needing its own access road for maintenance vehicles.  In any case, there is no energy storage medium for when the wind doesn't blow, like on the coldest days in winter and the hottest days in summer when demand for electrical power soars, for heating or air conditioning.

 

Our North Sea gas supplies are dwindling because the 'free market' allowed the construction of combined-cycle gas turbine power stations (CCGTs) in the 1990's, which are now all on run-down.  Our coal-fired power stations, built in the 1960's are reaching the end of their lifespan.  Didcot 'A' in Oxfordshire (at 4 x 500MW), the second-largest in England, is due to close in 2014 (whereupon the Dreaming Towers will be knocked down); High Marnham and Thorpe Marsh in the former mining areas of the Trent and Don valleys have already closed down.

 

When the new generation of fission power stations is built it will be on the site of the former Magnox stations and connected into the grid at the same points.  These sites are all coastal or estuary in order to access cooling water and none of them lies on a continental tectonic plate.  It is very rare for Britain to experience an earthquake of anything as high as 6 on the Richter scale, so as long as they are constructed with that in mind we'll have no problems.

 

Other energy schemes like the Severn tidal barrage, which has been talked about since the oil crisis of 1973, have their own significant ecological issues; as well as the economic ones in terms of the huge capital cost.  The case for the Severn tidal barrage was that it would be paid for by building a causeway across the top.  Since the construction of the Second Severn Crossing the demand for such a causeway is no longer there and hence the capital cost wouldn't be repaid.
 

CovOx is offline  
#404 Old 11-09-2012, 10:45 AM
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

I'd recommend not carrying around the waste you're responsible for in your lifetime.

 

Probably very hazardous.

 

The applies to both nuclear and non-nuclear waste.  Even just limiting it to power generation, the CO2 burden alone (even for green energy) would probably kill you.

Happy to see you agree.

And to add: I'm pretty sure carrying around old orange peels and cardboard is very much less of a hazard than nuclear waste :^p

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

T0mmy would hate it though.

Because you decide what I hate? Nice try with the attempted slight, but the Galileo example is going to haunt you until you make a disavow the claim that majority rules in science.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post
 
No one said that anything in science was the end-all of debate. Science is about learning, exploring, and understanding. Anyone studying science should (hopefully) know that and Galileo was completely unnecessary.

Just to clarify it was not about the accuracy of Galileo or the impact of his work.

Was the example of majority rules in science overlooked?

 

 

Quote:
So you were wrong in your earlier example (by underestimating nuclear reactor waste), yet the amount everyone would have to carry around in their lifetime would be the same? That's an amazing coincidence.

Care to show your work? Based on the one paper the block would be increasing by 40 grams per person per year. That was assuming all the energy was generated by nuclear power, not as you implied earlier just showing the current waste per person. Although I've been wrong before, and apparently there are a lot of mistakes or miscommunications. So to be clear can you be explicit and show your work?

Why would anyone ever want to carry that around is beyond me though.

By my recollection the various calculations matched up on both sides and I believe it was even a close approximation of the resource I pulled up on a search engine of waste per person. I don't believe there was any errors, care to show where you think there might be one?

All the calculations I used were shown already, posted publicly here.

 

I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to carry around that nuclear waste, which was the point, calculation errors or not X^)

 

 

Quote:
So are you saying the density of elephants and radioactive waste are the same? Why not just show the volume of nuclear waste generated per year? Let's compare that with other energy producing waste though, I think that would add something more to the discussion.

I did not say that.

The elephants were used as a light-hearted example of a what could be seen as a serious subject. Therein lies the humor. I think I've had to explain this a couple times, ending with the comment of some sarcastic remark like "the internet is serious business".

Y so srs? lol.

 

Yeah, I believe the volume of nuclear waste was already shown and we moved beyond that and I found converting to units of radioactive elephants was a lot more entertaining.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post


Yes, all posts are available to be reviewed by anyone. With that I'll leave that nonsense behind.
I don't believe it to be the case that I made an attempt at projection, but if you do, then I agree, a proof is required.

 

Just so we're of the same understanding:

 

Psychological projection (or projection bias) can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]. The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.

 

From: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Projection_%28defence_mechanism%29

 

You'll see I had quoted you for the benefit of your understanding, but I will repost your initial post here for your benefit:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram:
 
So no, it's not meant as a gross misdirection. It was meant to actually get an answer to a question, among many that you simply ignore or give a red herring answer.

 

The claim that I ignore or give a red herring answer is a claim to which I disagreed with.

 

In order to change my stance you would have to prove to me that I ignore questions and give red herring answers to. Of course this should be as easy as posting a quote (as I have done with your statements), and should be very easy to find if your claim that there are "many" such examples you have witnessed.

Alas, since you did not respond correctly to my request, my stance is now shifting to a strong disagree.

 

It is also to be noted that when you made a claim against my character and I requested proof of claim to keep the claim from being a vacuous projection the response was to shift blame onto me ignoring and creating red herrings (which in itself ignored the question of proof and was itself a misdirection to put me on a trail of projection; a red herring).

 

So far I cannot say my opinion has changed at all, that the previous statements against me were simply misdirections of undesirable thoughts/feelings onto me in attempt to make me believe it was I who caused the problems.

 

With the hole dug deeper it seems to me that you have more proof on your claims. Please provide the evidence or jettison the claims so we can continue on the discourse of nuclear power.


Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
#405 Old 11-09-2012, 11:54 AM
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Just to clarify it was not about the accuracy of Galileo or the impact of his work.

That's interesting, because I thought you gave Galileo as an example for why the minority is correct in science. If he's inaccurate, how does that show he's an example of being correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Was the example of majority rules in science overlooked?

What example are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

By my recollection the various calculations matched up on both sides and I believe it was even a close approximation of the resource I pulled up on a search engine of waste per person. I don't believe there was any errors, care to show where you think there might be one?

What? My point was that your example of each nuclear reactor producing 3,600 seems off by at least one order of magnitude. You originally stated that here:
http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/360#post_3189340

You then took the weight and turned it into an example of elephants (hence my question about density). If the nuclear waste is denser than an elephant, you're being misleading with the volume.

Then you claim each person would "hold a block" in the hand for the rest of their lifetime. You showed no calculation there. Instead I gave an example. So, where is the calculation you showed that matched up?

You did try this calculation, if one can call it that. However, it's nonsensical. Weight per square foot? Molecular weight doesn't depend on any area either. So I don't know what it means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

You think two tons of iron is 2 sq. ft.? That's one ton per sq. ft.?
One square foot of iron has a molecular weight of 55.845 g/mol.
This is why I don't trust your middle school math arguments...

In my response, in this post:
http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/390#post_3190972

I correct the 2 tons per year to 25-30 tonnes per year. (difference by about one order of magnitude).

Based on the 25-30 tonnes estimate, we come to a block that's increasing by 40 grams per year, assuming all energy in the USA was from nuclear. Your block quote was based solely on the current estimate of 2 tonnes per year only for existing nuclear reactors.

So no, your calculations do not and cannot match up. You have none and refuse to show your block estimate. Unless you're using some peculiar estimates how can a difference of one order of magnitude smaller waste per reactor as well as based only on existing nuclear reactor waste (nuclear energy in the USA, I believe, is around 20%) end up with an amount larger than the calculation with a larger nuclear waste and all energy in the USA being from nuclear? I would sure hope the answer is that it cannot, but please let me know how. Especially since you continually demand evidence, yet when anyone asks it of you, you claim the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

All the calculations I used were shown already, posted publicly here.

So repost or quote them. I grow tired of this petty game. If you demand evidence, then you're going to have to provide it here or admit you're in error. Although you could do neither, but that would be dishonest and petty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to carry around that nuclear waste, which was the point, calculation errors or not X^)

There is a lot of waste no one would want to carry around calculations or not. Fecal waste, CO2 waste, etc. So why is that a relevant point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I did not say that.
The elephants were used as a light-hearted example of a what could be seen as a serious subject. Therein lies the humor. I think I've had to explain this a couple times, ending with the comment of some sarcastic remark like "the internet is serious business".
Y so srs? lol.

I thought you took issue with me laughing before. I was laughing at this discussion, which should hopefully at least somewhat indicate that I'm not "so srs. lol".

However, let's just agree to drop the elephant analogy. It's not useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Yeah, I believe the volume of nuclear waste was already shown and we moved beyond that and I found converting to units of radioactive elephants was a lot more entertaining.

Where was it shown? Can you link to the post? The burden of proof is on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Just so we're of the same understanding:

Just so we're clear, I don't think you "share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject" with me. I would think that is apparent based on my disagreement with you. So I don't see the relevance of that comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

The claim that I ignore or give a red herring answer is a claim to which I disagreed with.

In order to change my stance you would have to prove to me that I ignore questions and give red herring answers to. Of course this should be as easy as posting a quote (as I have done with your statements), and should be very easy to find if your claim that there are "many" such examples you have witnessed.
Alas, since you did not respond correctly to my request, my stance is now shifting to a strong disagree.

Well, you didn't answer all the questions in that last post. However, let's go back to some of the first interactions between us in this thread:

http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/150

You can read it for yourself, rather than me break down every quote. There are several questions which you don't respond to or attempt to turn it around on me. Like showing viable energy alternatives, or the hamster wheel nonsense, or the "pollution free energy", or when you suggested that every house be off-grid and I asked about the viability/pollution/etc of all those batteries, etc. That's just on the first page.

This is the last time I'll give examples. From now on though, I'll use your tactic, "All posts are still available to the public to be reviewed if you wish." or perhaps "All the calculations I used were shown already, posted publicly here." or something to that effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

It is also to be noted that when you made a claim against my character and I requested proof of claim to keep the claim from being a vacuous projection the response was to shift blame onto me ignoring and creating red herrings (which in itself ignored the question of proof and was itself a misdirection to put me on a trail of projection; a red herring).

What claim against your character? Where was my response that supposedly shifted the blame onto you and ignored and created red herrings? Please provide evidence or jettison the claims.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#406 Old 11-30-2012, 02:02 PM
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post


That's interesting, because I thought you gave Galileo as an example for why the minority is correct in science.

I believe you are mistaking my proposition that it can take a minority (that is even a single dissenting voice) to change the perspective of a majority, thus illustrating that a consensus does not prove anything - especially how I see the scientific community.

The minority can still be incorrect.

The majority can still be correct.

 

If the argument that a minority is proof enough to believe in I would point to how the quantum physicists as the majority and Einstein as a dissenting voice. It was seen that the evidence for the majority was stronger than Einstein's dissenting voice.

 

Accuracy does not come into play, this gets razor'd.

I hope now that the point has been clarified so much you can find closure in your side of the argument and my point may be left to stand.

 

 

Quote:
What? My point was that your example of each nuclear reactor producing 3,600 seems off by at least one order of magnitude. You originally stated that here:
http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/360#post_3189340
You then took the weight and turned it into an example of elephants (hence my question about density). If the nuclear waste is denser than an elephant, you're being misleading with the volume.

I don't believe the imaginary elephants' density was given - as they are imaginary they would theoretically have any property of density we want to attribute them, which would probably be given the density das_nuts provided (which was actually not the property density of the waste, to that all I can say is I'm not sure why he chose iron).

 

Quote:
Then you claim each person would "hold a block" in the hand for the rest of their lifetime. You showed no calculation there. Instead I gave an example. So, where is the calculation you showed that matched up?

My example of an undefined "block" was not meant to be calculated, as it was and off-hand comment meant to illustrate our fair share of nuclear waste to be carried around; a sensible person would prefer NO nuclear waste, or as little as feasibly possible given the circumstances. But I believe it was you that calculated the block of an average person's share, so thanks for that bit of info, though a bit superfluous for an off-hand comment.

 

 

Quote:

You did try this calculation, if one can call it that. However, it's nonsensical. Weight per square foot? Molecular weight doesn't depend on any area either. So I don't know what it means.

Who said it was dependent?

Not sure if you need help, but here:

http://www.ehow.com/how_5595689_calculate-weight-per-square-foot.html

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-a-square-foot-of-iron-weigh

 

However, I think your confusion may just be due to a hang-up on a typo that spawned several posts of calculations (which is where molecular weight and square feet came in). If so, sorry for your confusion.

 

Quote:
In my response, in this post:
http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/390#post_3190972
I correct the 2 tons per year to 25-30 tonnes per year. (difference by about one order of magnitude).

That was nice of you to attempt to 'correct' what you saw as a mistake. However, I believe the source I was using was not including transuranic elements and I believe was on the low-end of estimations. I provided my sources linked in my post, though they looked rather pro-nuclear that would still be favorable information for a pro-nuclear opponent. If you believe my calculations are incorrect, please illustrate. Thanks.

 

 

Quote:
So repost or quote them. I grow tired of this petty game. If you demand evidence, then you're going to have to provide it here or admit you're in error. Although you could do neither, but that would be dishonest and petty.

I don't believe it is my duty to provide your claims with evidence. That is what is referred to as burden of proof. When I make a claim you will note some text is in a blue color and/or "clickable", when clicked with the mouse hardware interface your web browser should direct you to the evidence I referred to.

 

Now, paying attention may be a "game" to you, but I respect the time my peers here put into their thoughts and I simply ask for the same respect in return.

If you are truly interested, please take the time to look over the posts I make for you, as this is what  I do for you - No more catch-22's (choice between your burden on to me OR being wrong/dishonorable).

Being wrong does not require a confession, if there is a proof it speaks for itself independent of confession.

Thanks.

 

However, this one time I'll help you out: http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/360#post_3189340

If you see an error there, let me know.

 

Edit: I noticed you were looking at that post I linked during your posting. Kind of odd you'd ask me to point you to my previous statements when you had just been looking at it. SMH

 

Quote:
There is a lot of waste no one would want to carry around calculations or not. Fecal waste, CO2 waste, etc. So why is that a relevant point?

Strange, I thought we do carry around fecal waste. lol

 

Looking into this, we seem to be at an impasse with these wastes you mention, as there's very little we can do about not expelling fecal matter. In contrast we can, and have, lived without nuclear waste and reasonably we should do away with it to accept future forms of superior energy productions. It doesn't even appear to be a matter of choice, as it seems inevitable that we will not have nuclear energy soon enough. The discussion at hand brings to realization how it's going to come to an end - perhaps we harmoniously reject and phase it out ushering in a new era of clean and safe energy production that was promised to us with nuclear industry... or we could be motivated to end things after a cataclysmic catastrophe (well, that's kind of already happened, see Germany's reaction to Fukushima for one such example).

 

However, the future of finding an alternative to pooping doesn't look so good. X^D

 

Quote:
However, let's just agree to drop the elephant analogy. It's not useful.

That's fine, it wasn't really written for you anyway.

And burden of proof would be on me if I wanted to prove anything to you, but I have not and am not making an argument of it. Since you brought it up, I do recall you questioning something about the volume before, which leads me to believe that it is actually you who wants this information, which then leads me to see it as a roundabout way of making me do your legwork. And that's not going to happen.

 

 

Quote:
Just so we're clear, I don't think you "share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject" with me. I would think that is apparent based on my disagreement with you. So I don't see the relevance of that comment.

I disagree with the conclusion and one premise. It is not defined that we have to agree/disagree on any given subject - please reread the definition and note the bold:

 

Quote:
can be defined as unconsciously assuming that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject. According to the theories of Sigmund Freud, it is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings—basically parts of oneself—onto someone else (usually another person, but psychological projection onto animals and inanimate objects also occurs). Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]. The principle of projection is well-established in psychology.


When you tell me what I think, believe, feel, or my stance on a subject it is simply an unconscious projection of your own psyche. The words are simply tools used to try to get me to agree with this and thus I am blamed for a projected (illusionary) behavior. This is why you will see me say "I do not agree" when people tell me who I am, how I think/behave - it is dispelling the illusions.

 

Now, if you believe you do not do this, then we can expect you not to tell me who I am or how I think. To help this, I keep in mind to attack the argument with logic and simply refrain from ad hominems - works wonders!

 

 

Quote:
There are several questions which you don't respond to or attempt to turn it around on me.

Understandable, and there's a reason to everything.

Maybe there was an interruption, maybe it was forgotten, not recognized, dismissed, excused, etc. (etc., etc. etc.)

I am sure you are aware of differing perspectives. A wise monk's answer many times falls upon deaf ears, one who cannot see an answer would say it was not given.

Now, I am not saying that all examples are that of the monk, however, as I could have been prevented from answering, had forgotten/overlooked it, or chose to politely decline an answer if it is a logical trap (see the false dichotomies I've pointed out).

For example: "Why are you so stupid?"

If you answer the reasons than it is assumed you are stupid, which may not be the case. If you refuse to answer it could be made out that this is some kind of fault of character.

 

In order to differentiate these causes, please specify what it is you'd like me to answer. Of course you may not be happy with an answer of "That, my good sir, is a catch-22". At which point I'd direct you to the description of one of our inalienable rights of silence as described in the 5th amendment.

As you can see... NOT answering a question is NOT inherently wrong. Though it would be understandable if you ask it again having been unsatisfied.

 

Quote:
What claim against your character? Where was my response that supposedly shifted the blame onto you and ignored and created red herrings? Please provide evidence or jettison the claims.

That I create red herrings.

http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/390#post_3190972

Please note the contrast of "you create red herrings" would be considered a projection onto me (telling me who I am), whereas "That is a red herring" is pointing out a fallacy, which would be the proper logical response in order to stay on topic and is NOT personal (not attacking the person, rather it attacks the argument).

Thank you for your considerations.


Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
#407 Old 11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130

^- What did I just read?

das_nut is offline  
#408 Old 11-30-2012, 07:45 PM
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I believe you are mistaking my proposition that it can take a minority (that is even a single dissenting voice) to change the perspective of a majority, thus illustrating that a consensus does not prove anything - especially how I see the scientific community.

Let us return to the original post that spurned this particular side discussion. I will quote your original 'proposition':
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Third, scientific consensus is argument ad populum, even if it is (claimed) a majority of scientists opinion, that's still just giving credence to a majority - it is my experience that the minority is usually correct in science, so I don't give a hoot about the majority (Galileo says hi).

You did not make a proposition that it can take a minority to change perspective (which I would agree with). What you did state is that scientific consensus is argument ad populum (which it is not and I already addressed) and you used the example (which I claimed was false and addressed) that the minority is usually usually correct in science, so you don't care about the majority.

I do not think that your quote is anything at all like what you claim your proposition was, so no, there was no mistake.

Scientific consensus does carry weight (but I would agree it is not absolute) and is no argument ad populum. Simply claiming it so does not illustrate that it is in fact that fallacy. If you want to continue with this, please validate your argument.

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

I think the following link actually has something useful regarding the claim that appealing to scientific consensus is some kind of fallacy (you claim argument ad populum, but even that is not demonstrated).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I hope now that the point has been clarified so much you can find closure in your side of the argument and my point may be left to stand.

What was your point? Because, like I stated, it sure seemed like you gave Galileo as an example of how the minority is usually correct in science (your proposition, not the one you claim above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I don't believe the imaginary elephants' density was given - as they are imaginary they would theoretically have any property of density we want to attribute them, which would probably be given the density das_nuts provided (which was actually not the property density of the waste, to that all I can say is I'm not sure why he chose iron).

Ahh, I understand, so since they are imaginary, we could theoretically claim any density so the answer is arbitrary. It could be anywhere from none to infinite. So basically it wasn't a very good example to use as a scare tactic to make people feel uncomfortable about an imaginary, theoretical elephant nuclear waste equivalent elephant with any property of density and therefor any number of said elephants (from none to infinite).

As to why he chose iron, I assumed it was a back of the envelope calculation of a dense material, probably comparable to nuclear reactor waste (not as dense as the actual radioactive decaying fuel, but more so than lighter common materials). That's just a guess, he'd have to verify that if he wants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

My example of an undefined "block" was not meant to be calculated, as it was and off-hand comment meant to illustrate our fair share of nuclear waste to be carried around;

This is counter to what you claimed earlier. Here, I'll quote this part of the thread of the discussion (bolding mine to show that what you're claiming now is counter to what you claimed earlier):
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

That comes out approximately what I calculated as well - that if everyone were responsible for their share they'd have to carry a block of it around in their hands for the rest of their lives (probably wouldn't survive the year).
I took that approximation and applied it to all the 104 commercial reactors (not including the military, research, etc. reactors) in this country and figured the weight then illustrated it with how many fully grown elephants that would equal in a given period of time. Yeah, it's a lot of radioactive elephants! (yes, the amount was given in non-elephant units as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

So you were wrong in your earlier example (by underestimating nuclear reactor waste), yet the amount everyone would have to carry around in their lifetime would be the same? That's an amazing coincidence.
Care to show your work? Based on the one paper the block would be increasing by 40 grams per person per year. That was assuming all the energy was generated by nuclear power, not as you implied earlier just showing the current waste per person. Although I've been wrong before, and apparently there are a lot of mistakes or miscommunications. So to be clear can you be explicit and show your work?
Why would anyone ever want to carry that around is beyond me though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

By my recollection the various calculations matched up on both sides and I believe it was even a close approximation of the resource I pulled up on a search engine of waste per person. I don't believe there was any errors, care to show where you think there might be one?
All the calculations I used were shown already, posted publicly here.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to carry around that nuclear waste, which was the point, calculation errors or not X^)


Perhaps it was just another error/typo/mistake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

a sensible person would prefer NO nuclear waste, or as little as feasibly possible given the circumstances.

Yes, a sensible person would prefer to not carry around any waste, nor an increasing size block of waste, regardless of the kind of waste (nuclear or any). This was the point that I'll get into later. So I don't know the point of your original example of a block of nuclear waste. Other than to perhaps show how much nuclear waste we, individually use. Which would be an interesting comparison to compare it to fossil fuels (coal and how much radioactive waste is generated from that), as well as other kinds of energy production methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

But I believe it was you that calculated the block of an average person's share, so thanks for that bit of info, though a bit superfluous for an off-hand comment.

No, I linked to a paper showing someone calculating the block to disprove a point you made.

You claim you made a calculation and now you claim it was an off-hand comment and that subsequent rebuttal was superfluous?

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Who said it was dependent?

This is getting old. You're making a claim here that shows a lack of understanding of density and molecular weight. You even reference the link (the chacha.com one after this statement) where you copied the molecular weight of iron as based on a one square foot piece. Then ridiculed das_nut's supposed "middle school maths arguments" (which sure seems like an ad hominem argument).
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

You think two tons of iron is 2 sq. ft.? That's one ton per sq. ft.?
One square foot of iron has a molecular weight of 55.845 g/mol.
This is why I don't trust your middle school math arguments...


Why would you think I need help from random links?

The first link is not relevant to the discussion. Load bearing capacities are not relevant to the idea that molecular weight depends on area (or volume for that matter), nor is load bearing in any way related to the density of iron.

The second link, that you quoted from earlier without referencing, is also not really useful. Iron, in and of itself has a molar mass of approximately 55.846 g/mol (which is the atomic weight times the molar mass constant). So stating "one square foot of X has a molecular weight of Y" simply doesn't make sense.

Especially, why bring up molecular weight (molar mass, or whatever you want to call it), in response to das_nut calculating how much 2 tons would be if it were iron, with the known density of iron?

Not sure it would help, but do you require me to provide links to help with the concepts of density, molar mass, atomic weights and basic chemistry/physics as well?


Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

However, I think your confusion may just be due to a hang-up on a typo that spawned several posts of calculations (which is where molecular weight and square feet came in). If so, sorry for your confusion.

Hang-up? So now you're telling me how I think? Interesting, I'll address this later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

That was nice of you to attempt to 'correct' what you saw as a mistake. However, I believe the source I was using was not including transuranic elements and I believe was on the low-end of estimations. I provided my sources linked in my post, though they looked rather pro-nuclear that would still be favorable information for a pro-nuclear opponent. If you believe my calculations are incorrect, please illustrate. Thanks.

I already showed, based on providing links that ~2 tons per reactor was not accurate. I have a number of links (that even supposed nuclear) that were an order of magnitude higher (25-30 tonnes)(please note: ton =/= tonne). So I already showed that your calculations were incorrect. Which I would think would benefit your general contention with nuclear, since it's an order of magnitude larger than your earlier claim of 2 tons per reactor.

To illustrate my issue, you made a calculation that each nuclear reactor generates about 2 tons yearly (I provided links showing it's actually 25-30 tonnes annually).
You then used that ~2 tons, and claim that just the energy in the USA coming from nuclear (I guess that means, "our fair share) to claim that it means each person would carry a block.
I linked to and quoted from a paper using the larger amount of waste and assuming all energy came from nuclear reactors, then the result would be that each person would carry around a block that increases by 40g/year/person.

So your calculations seem off based on (yours given first):
~2 tons vs 25-30 tonnes
combined with just current nuclear electricity vs assuming all electricity was from nuclear
yet each coming to about a block (although, yours was an undisclosed size/weight block other than having the ability to it into one's hand, while the referenced links indicated a 40 g/year increasing block).

Given that your assumptions were smaller (~2 tons and only current electricity) vs what I found (25-30 tonnes and all electricity) one would assume a different of a factor of 2.5-3.0 x about 3, which is about 100, or two orders of magnitude difference. The result (a block) was not two orders of magnitude different.

Now that I've shown that your calculations or off-hand comments were in error, "I hope now that the point has been clarified so much you can find closure in your side of the argument and my point may be left to stand."


Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

I don't believe it is my duty to provide your claims with evidence. That is what is referred to as burden of proof. When I make a claim you will note some text is in a blue color and/or "clickable", when clicked with the mouse hardware interface your web browser should direct you to the evidence I referred to.

What? I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim, not to provide my claims with evidence. Support your claim, that is what I asked. Supporting your claim would be you providing proof to support said claim. If you cannot, I must reject your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Now, paying attention may be a "game" to you, but I respect the time my peers here put into their thoughts and I simply ask for the same respect in return.

Again, you're intentionally misrepresenting me. You seem to be playing a petty game of demanding evidence, yet refusing to provide any. Then when evidence is provided, you claim yours was already provided. I find this petty and it seems like you're intentionally playing the game.

It has nothing to do with paying attention. You've shown little respect, so why do you expect more than little respect in return?
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

If you are truly interested, please take the time to look over the posts I make for you, as this is what I do for you - No more catch-22's (choice between your burden on to me OR being wrong/dishonorable).

Interesting you talk of a catch-22 and make comments like "If you are truly interested, please take the time to look over the posts I make for you" implying that not only that I don't look over the posts you make but that I am also not interested. Please let's avoid those comments if you ask not to have them in return. smiley.gif


Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

However, this one time I'll help you out: http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/360#post_3189340
If you see an error there, let me know.

Both myself and das_nut have responded to this a number of times. The last time is in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

Strange, I thought we do carry around fecal waste. lol

Looking into this, we seem to be at an impasse with these wastes you mention, as there's very little we can do about not expelling fecal matter.

It's an analogy. In attempting to understand an analogy I would hope that people would spend some time to see what it means and how it relates. So the example you gave, a block of nuclear waste for a lifetime of using nuclear energy. Now the analogy, would be to carry around a lifetime of other waste, in one of the cases, fecal waste. If we were talking simply about expelling or getting rid of nuclear waste, maybe I could see some relation, but we're not. The topic was carrying around one's "fair share" of the nuclear waste.

Perhaps you're claiming that you carry around your lifetime amount of it. I can't be sure since your claims sometimes vary from post to post (as I recently showed). lol X^D

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

When you tell me what I think, believe, feel, or my stance on a subject it is simply an unconscious projection of your own psyche.

I don't think I've told you what you think, believe, feel, nor your stance on a subject. I'm glad I cleared that up for you. Interesting you're trying to claim you know what I think or feel though. X^D

Quote:
Originally Posted by t0mmy View Post

That I create red herrings.
http://www.veggieboards.com/t/122977/nuclear-power/390#post_3190972
Please note the contrast of "you create red herrings" would be considered a projection onto me (telling me who I am), whereas "That is a red herring" is pointing out a fallacy, which would be the proper logical response in order to stay on topic and is NOT personal (not attacking the person, rather it attacks the argument).
Thank you for your considerations.

Two things here. The first is that it's interesting that the post you link to is a response to your earlier claim that your calculations were in error. I've referenced those several times, and feel free to refer back to it for any missing information.

Next, let's be clear, I did not state what you have in quotes: "you create red herrings". What I did state is the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

So no, it's not meant as a gross misdirection. It was meant to actually get an answer to a question, among many that you simply ignore or give a red herring answer.

I pointed out your actions (ignoring or giving a red herring answer). It's not attacking nor a projection, it was restating your previous actions. Born out because of frustration from not getting an answer to a variety of questions. From asking for viable, large-scale, alternative energy sources to why you think the minority is usually right in science, especially when given counter evidence and arguments.

I guess ultimately I'm done with the back and forth about what you think, I think, you think, I think about questions, projections, etc. If you care to discuss the matter at hand, please, let us discuss nuclear energy, the pros and cons. The comparisons to alternative energy sources and where we should go in the future.
cornsail likes this.

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#409 Old 01-26-2013, 02:15 PM
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogardsram View Post

You did not make a proposition that it can take a minority to change perspective (which I would agree with).

 

That was not my attempt, but if it really matters that you don't believe one man can make a difference, you are welcome to hold onto that opinion.

 

Quote:
What you did state is that scientific consensus is argument ad populum (which it is not and I already addressed) and you used the example (which I claimed was false and addressed) that the minority is usually usually correct in science, so you don't care about the majority.

con·sen·sus

noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.

1. majority of opinion:

 

From your given source (wikipedia): "is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so.""

 

Das_nut's argument was that scientific consensus (majority) concluded his proposition.

You have verified that my statement is truth-functional. Your assertion that it is false is therefore false.

 

Additionally, it is not an exclusive fallacy, that is it cannot be one and not the other. You have plenty of room to argue for an "appeal to authority" fallacy, and in doing so you have only strengthened my assertion that Das_nut's argument is fallacious.

Thank you.

 

usually

u·su·al

adjective

commonly met with or observed in experience;

 

So, yes, it has been my experience that this is to be the case. If you argue against this statement then you have to somehow have access to all my experiences and recall them more properly than I. A difficult proposition indeed.

 

Quote:
What was your point? Because, like I stated, it sure seemed like you gave Galileo as an example of how the minority is usually correct in science (your proposition, not the one you claim above).


I see you usually lose track of things here, I can only offer advice: Please pay attention to points.

If you need to, please review the posts made and specify for my clarification if you have lost your way.

 

 

Quote:
Ahh, I understand, so since they are imaginary, we could theoretically claim any density so the answer is arbitrary. It could be anywhere from none to infinite. So basically it wasn't a very good example to use as a scare tactic to make people feel uncomfortable about an imaginary, theoretical elephant nuclear waste equivalent elephant with any property of density and therefor any number of said elephants (from none to infinite).

Those who fail to find the humor in measuring waste with radioactive elephants units would probably mistake it for scare tactics.

But I am glad you finally figured it out as the entire ordeal was a waste of time that undermined the silliness of the illustration.

 

 

Quote:
This is counter to what you claimed earlier. Here, I'll quote this part of the thread of the discussion (bolding mine to show that what you're claiming now is counter to what you claimed earlier):

Were you really quoting the imaginary elephants with the imaginary blocks?

Ok.

 

 

Quote:
So I don't know the point of your original example of a block of nuclear waste. Other than to perhaps show how much nuclear waste we, individually use. Which would be an interesting comparison to compare it to fossil fuels (coal and how much radioactive waste is generated from that), as well as other kinds of energy production methods.

Feel free to compare it to fossil fuels, with that information we can see the health effects each produce. But be wary that a comparison can be misconstrued to be reason for one over the other: my stance has been that both are unacceptable.

 

 

Quote:
You claim you made a calculation and now you claim it was an off-hand comment and that subsequent rebuttal was superfluous?

I said all my calculations were made public. If I made a calculation, I posted it.

From what I recalled you were trying to measure imaginary blocks, but I'll guess not. Let me know if you get that done for your block of fossil fuel comparison.

 

 

Quote:
Not sure it would help, but do you require me to provide links to help with the concepts of density, molar mass, atomic weights and basic chemistry/physics as well?

First, the links were mostly there for das_nuts. Since he was calculating for sq. ft of iron I thought it'd be useful for reference.

Secondly, yes, go ahead and post whatever superfluous information you'd like. Feel free to post pictures of kittens and lolcats as well, or anything you'd like.

 

Quote:
Hang-up? So now you're telling me how I think? Interesting, I'll address this later.

Please re-read what I said (seems I offer this advice a lot due to misinterpreting my very clear and precise posts): "I think your confusion may just be due to a hang-up on a typo that spawned several posts of calculations"

 

That was in response to saying "So I don't know what it means."

 

That comes off as you communicating that you are confused (this is the source, nowhere did I tell you to tell you what to think unless you believe I am a psychic controlling your mind from a distance).

 

As I see it, I am trying to figure out where your confusion lies so it can be clarified. Keeping you from being confused by my communication here on the boards would be beneficial, yes?

 

If you could pinpoint where in that post I am tell YOU how YOU think, it would be most appreciated so I can recognize your sensitivity and circumvent it to avoid future defensive behavior on your part. Otherwise I will assume you are confused about your confusion, at which point it becomes so ridiculous I will simply back away and leave you to find your way out of that mess yourself.

 

Quote:
This is getting old. You're making a claim here that shows a lack of understanding of density and molecular weight. You even reference the link (the chacha.com one after this statement) where you copied the molecular weight of iron as based on a one square foot piece. Then ridiculed das_nut's supposed "middle school maths arguments" (which sure seems like an ad hominem argument).

It would seem that way, but that was when I misread his post because I was reading while working on a engineering project at the same time which lead to the sq. ft typo. Since it would be both grasping at straws and beating a dead horse to continue to cling to that I am sure you're over it and instead I should clarify how an ad hominem is used.

Ad hominem as a fallacy would be launching an argumentative attack on a person (translated "to the man") rather than on their argument (argumentum ad argumentum). To say the apparent math error was at a middle school level would not be "ad hominem" as it would be an attack on the math error (in this case the perceived error). Because the mistake was rectified the ad hominem dissolves and the math stands a stronger argument than the argumentum ad argumentum (not ad hominem).

You, yourself, even stated it was a ridicule of das_nut's argument, not at him specifically (see quote) - therefore you are mistaken, which (ironically) shows your accusation of an ad hominem against me is nothing more than... an ad hominem (seems we're hitting a "projection" problem again).

Seeing as I was the bigger man and rectified my typo I could expect you would do the same with yours and we could put this behind us.

 

 

Quote:
I already showed, based on providing links that ~2 tons per reactor was not accurate. I have a number of links (that even supposed nuclear) that were an order of magnitude higher (25-30 tonnes)(please note: ton =/= tonne). So I already showed that your calculations were incorrect. Which I would think would benefit your general contention with nuclear, since it's an order of magnitude larger than your earlier claim of 2 tons per reactor.

Yes, I understand we were using different sources and the calculations came out to be different.

If you like your calculations better, then go by your calculations. I believe your calculations actually bolster my argument they were being used for (thanks).

Would you like to find closure on this so my argument can still stand (stronger?)

 

 

Quote:
What? I asked you to provide evidence to support your claim, not to provide my claims with evidence. Support your claim, that is what I asked. Supporting your claim would be you providing proof to support said claim. If you cannot, I must reject your claim.

Perhaps it was worded unclearly, you can rephrase it if you are still interested in my response. If you want to just reject things off hand, go ahead, but it won't do your argument any good. Until then I'll assume you were trying to trick me into supporting your own claims (which would be foolish).

 

Quote:
Interesting you talk of a catch-22 and make comments like "If you are truly interested, please take the time to look over the posts I make for you" implying that not only that I don't look over the posts you make but that I am also not interested. Please let's avoid those comments if you ask not to have them in return. smiley.gif

No, it is not "interesting".

Implications have no grounding in arguments, no matter how interesting it is whatever it is you may be implying.

This post sounds like a subversive way of sneaking in ad hominems (which would be cowardly) by implying I am trying to snare you in a catch-22 - in reality this would simply just be a blame shift, where responsibility for an action (false dichotomy) is pinned on the person who caught them on the (false dichotomy).

This doesn't work.

=> Either heed my advice to adhere to logical processes and I'll communicate with you or don't

 

And if you want to direct insults at me, do it to my face. No need for subversive tactics.

 

Quote:
Again, you're intentionally misrepresenting me. You seem to be playing a petty game of demanding evidence, yet refusing to provide any. Then when evidence is provided, you claim yours was already provided. I find this petty and it seems like you're intentionally playing the game.

It has nothing to do with paying attention. You've shown little respect, so why do you expect more than little respect in return?

More ad hominems. I refute this fallacy that I am playing a petty game. These statements that formulating arguments using logic is simply a "petty game" has been asserted by you on more than one occasion (the posts are public and obvious, go back and see what you have stated). This leads me to believe that if the burden of proof is, shall we say, too burdensome, then to simply dismiss the whole argumentative process by calling it a "petty game" is simply just a cowardly way out of stepping up to verify propositions. At which point, exiting out of the logical arena ejects you into the world of rhetoric where we would find fallacies (like ad hominems) and illogical statements that exist only in a conceptual illogical world where we become confused (or confused about our confusion).

I am not part of that world.

 

Quote:
Both myself and das_nut have responded to this a number of times. The last time is in this post.

Cool, I'll let my response stand as it is then. Though the comparison was not needed.

 

 

Quote:
It's an analogy. In attempting to understand an analogy I would hope that people would spend some time to see what it means and how it relates. So the example you gave, a block of nuclear waste for a lifetime of using nuclear energy. Now the analogy, would be to carry around a lifetime of other waste, in one of the cases, fecal waste. If we were talking simply about expelling or getting rid of nuclear waste, maybe I could see some relation, but we're not. The topic was carrying around one's "fair share" of the nuclear waste.

Actually, expelling feces and expeling nuclear waste holds a lot in common.

http://www.care2.com/causes/weekly-mulch-what-s-in-your-water-nuclear-waste-coal-slurries-and-industrial-estrogen.html

http://www.wise-uranium.org/ufert.html

 

Kind of sad that it is advertized nuclear waste can be "recycled" so we think it is somehow cleaned up only to find that it is "recycled" into fertilizer and ends up on our dinner table.

"If we were talking simply about expelling or getting rid of nuclear waste, maybe I could see some relation..."

Granted, you did say "maybe", so I won't be holding my breath.

 

Quote:
I don't think I've told you what you think, believe, feel, nor your stance on a subject. I'm glad I cleared that up for you. Interesting you're trying to claim you know what I think or feel though. X^D


You may not think that, but my statement was just setting a foundation for the future. When you do this, it is a reflection on your own personal feelings of your identity being redirected to me. My advice would be to avoid doing such a thing if you don't want me pointing it out, because I will point it out and it will put your arguments into suspect.

 

 

Quote:
Two things here. The first is that it's interesting that the post you link to is a response to your earlier claim that your calculations were in error. I've referenced those several times, and feel free to refer back to it for any missing information.

First thing's first: It's not "interesting"

 

Quote:
I pointed out your actions (ignoring or giving a red herring answer).

 

No, you pointed out perceived actions. Just because you label something as a "red herring" does not make it such. It must adhere to the definition, which would mean you have to verify it (which was not done). If you make an accusation, you must prove it or simply be a false accuser.

 

 

Quote:
It's not attacking nor a projection, it was restating your previous actions.

I will perceive it to be so until verified. Either verify or just accept my perception. Simple as that.

 

 

Quote:
Born out because of frustration from not getting an answer to a variety of questions. From asking for viable, large-scale, alternative energy sources to why you think the minority is usually right in science, especially when given counter evidence and arguments.

All these were addressed. My simple opinion is that you are not getting the response you want (usually a logical trap), so you say I am not answering your question.

To this I say: You are correct!

I am not answering your questions, because I do not deal with traps, fallacies, and foolspeak. I leave those to be exposed for what they are until they dry up and are left to be forgotten; it takes too much energy to keep those alive whereas truth resonates full of life eternally.

 

Quote:
I guess ultimately I'm done with the back and forth about what you think, I think, you think, I think about questions, projections, etc. If you care to discuss the matter at hand, please, let us discuss nuclear energy, the pros and cons. The comparisons to alternative energy sources and where we should go in the future.

 

Fair enough, let those arguments stay, whatever truth is found in them will remain and the rest will be forgotten.


Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
#410 Old 01-28-2013, 07:01 AM
Super Moderator
 
leedsveg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds
Posts: 2,713

D'ya know, I feel really daft. I started reading this thread a long time ago, although it's probably not as long as it seems, thinking it would help me make up my mind over whether or not I should be pro, or anti nuclear energy.

 

 

Despite the best efforts of clearly highly intelligent, learned posters on the thread, I'm no wiser now as to how I should feel, as I was when I first started reading. 

 

 

Am I too stupid to be able to ever work out the answer, or should I persevere and carry on reading any further postings? Advice anybody?

leedsveg is online now  
#411 Old 01-30-2013, 10:59 PM
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:

Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

 

Am I too stupid to be able to ever work out the answer, or should I persevere and carry on reading any further postings? Advice anybody?

 

The answer is that discussions about nuclear power is a problem.  Quite frankly, humanity is not able to control these discussions, but have not found a safe way to dispose of them, away from all humans the discussion will harm if the discussion comes in contact with them.

cornsail likes this.
das_nut is offline  
#412 Old 01-31-2013, 01:39 AM
 
nogardsram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

D'ya know, I feel really daft. I started reading this thread a long time ago, although it's probably not as long as it seems, thinking it would help me make up my mind over whether or not I should be pro, or anti nuclear energy.


Despite the best efforts of clearly highly intelligent, learned posters on the thread, I'm no wiser now as to how I should feel, as I was when I first started reading. 


Am I too stupid to be able to ever work out the answer, or should I persevere and carry on reading any further postings? Advice anybody?

It's not about being daft or stupid. It's a complicated subject that can be confusing and there's plenty of misleading/misguided information an any side.

If one really wants to get into the details, I'd say, let's be clear on why a person would want to be pro or anti nuclear. Also can someone be pro and anti at the same time? As in pro some forms, yet anti others, or perhaps anti in general except a few cases or pro in general except a few cases?

To really get a handle, I think some issues would need to be clarified. What would the reasons be to be support or not some (or any?) or be opposed to some (or any) form of nuclear energy?

Some issues off-hand would be animal life impact (this would include human life impacts as well as non-humans) (this could mean in absolute deaths, but also the quality of life), environmental impact (from the use in general, production of energy, and in terms of harvesting the needed raw materials), how much energy produced per impacts as well as a comparison to other forms of energy production. As well as how important those are to a given person. Some might value human life over non-humans or environmental. Others might go the other way. In either case, the important starting point is to figure out the 'hard' facts.

I don't have my limited useful links right now, but I'm fine with helping to develop them. So let me ask as a starting point, what do you think and what is important to you?

I believe everything.
nogardsram is offline  
#413 Old 03-04-2013, 10:32 AM
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

D'ya know, I feel really daft. I started reading this thread a long time ago, although it's probably not as long as it seems, thinking it would help me make up my mind over whether or not I should be pro, or anti nuclear energy.

 

 

Despite the best efforts of clearly highly intelligent, learned posters on the thread, I'm no wiser now as to how I should feel, as I was when I first started reading. 

 

 

Am I too stupid to be able to ever work out the answer, or should I persevere and carry on reading any further postings? Advice anybody?

 



Wisdom doesn't come from the knowledge of others. It is the application of knowledge. Reading what has been posted here isn't imparting wisdom, it is imparting a communicated experience from others.

Your question shows that you've got an interest in learning the truth of the matter rather than adhering to a presupposed opinion, for that you are wiser than many. And because of this I would urge to continue forming an opinion based on fact rather than opinion (always ask why until you see an apparent truth).

Maybe there's no need to carry it on here, but carry on regardless; learning isn't a race, we go only as far as we want to journey.

Good luck.


Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off