Stuff that's true

[Guest]

12 hours ago, unixknight said:

To add to this, coal power plants actually emit a lot MORE radiation than any nuclear power plant.

Coal often contains radon gas, a radioactive gas that occurs in the ground.  When burned in a power plant, the resulting gases and ash contain radioactive gas.  Because it occurs naturally, the NRC and the EPA do not regulate it.

(I learned that from a former engineer at a nuclear power plant here in MD.)

So the next time someone says nuclear power is bad because of radiation, just tell them you hope they don't live downwind from a coal burning power plant...

The issue is a bit more complex than that.  While the conclusion is true (that coal plants could be considered more radioactive than nuclear plants) the reasoning is not complete.

Several sources of radiation exist in coal.  Radon is a very minor portion of it.  There are also other radioactive isotopes that make up a larger portion of coal and would be considered a greater threat.  Radon is "watched" but not regulated because of a different reason.  And there really is almost no radon in the ash.

Radon is such a small percentage that people who live downwind of a coal plant would be exposed to levels much lower than a person who gets their teeth x-rayed twice a year at the dentist.  Such a small level of exposure is not considered dangerous enough to regulate.

Other radioisotopes are solid byproducts (Thorium and Uranium) comprise such a small percentage that it is about the same as what is commonly found in the rocks around us.  In fact, the fly ash (the solid byproduct from coal combustion) is often used in concrete mixes which provide the concrete with highly desirable characteristics.  And it is no more radioactive than common building materials anyway.

The final product is C14.  This is probably the biggest radioactive constituent in coal combustion.  In any coal sample, most of it is C12 (non-radioactive).  But a small percentage is C14 (a radioactive isotope).

Bottom line is that if you count only the C14 alone, for each kW-hr produced, more radioactivity comes from coal combustion than an equivalent amount of radioactivity from a nuclear plant that generates the same amount of energy.

However, there is still a concern for nuclear plants that coal plants just don't have -- concentration.

When nuclear fuel is spent, the byproducts are so highly radioactive, that we cannot handle them without severe safety protocols.  Should this get spilled anywhere, it could become a major issue.  But if the radioactive byproducts of a coal plant could make up the same total, but it is such a small percentage of the byproduct at a given time, that it is not considered a health hazard.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

50 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

9/11 conspiracy people

The ones who want us to believe the 9-lovers hacked all the calculators to show an infinite repeat of 81, or the ones who say 11ths weren't a valid measurement before the socialists took over the government, or the ones arguing odd fractions don't really exist, or the zero-basers who say it should really be 8/10ths?  There are so many to choose from.  Maybe I'll go make up a new one....

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

The ones who want us to believe the 9-lovers hacked all the calculators to show an infinite repeat of 81, or the ones who say 11ths weren't a valid measurement before the socialists took over the government, or the ones arguing odd fractions don't really exist, or the zero-basers who say it should really be 8/10ths?  There are so many to choose from.  Maybe I'll go make up a new one....

That's it. @zil is now on my block list. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's it. @zil is now on my block list. 

Sweet!  Block party!  Are we going to have raspberry lemonade, cuz I love raspberry lemonade.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Sweet!  Block party!  Are we going to have raspberry lemonade, cuz I love raspberry lemonade.

Order whatever you'd like. Put it all on @Carborendums credit card. He said he'd pay. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[Ironhold]

1. Wearing a clothespin, puzzle piece, or anything else that signals your virtue won't actually change the world. Volunteering at a homeless shelter, hospital, food bank, or other such organization that helps the public will. 

2. If you think that using force to silence "Nazis" and other such groups is perfectly fine, you've sunk down to their level. And if you actually throw the first punch, you've just made them seem rational by comparison. 

3. If you're going to lecture someone on "privilege", stop to make sure that you're not actually in a more privileged state than your audience. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical. 

3A. If you're living in a mansion and comfortably paying the bills that go *with* a mansion, please don't bother broaching the topic at all. You'll just be laughed at on YouTube the next day. 

3B. If you're lecturing a person who has a physical or mental disability about how they are "privileged" because of their race or gender and you're in perfect health, karma will not be your friend. 

4. If you do not vote in an election, then you essentially voted for whoever and whatever won. 

[askandanswer]

14 hours ago, zil said:

  Inquiring minds want to know.....

..........why Zil didn't get one

[askandanswer]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

. After all, I deal with @mirkwood

You're failing in this important responsibility. He's still here!

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, unixknight said:

To add to this, coal power plants actually emit a lot MORE radiation than any nuclear power plant.

No, it's true.  Here's why.

Coal often contains radon gas, a radioactive gas that occurs in the ground.  When burned in a power plant, the resulting gases and ash contain radioactive gas.  Because it occurs naturally, the NRC and the EPA do not regulate it.

(I learned that from a former engineer at a nuclear power plant here in MD.)

So the next time someone says nuclear power is bad because of radiation, just tell them you hope they don't live downwind from a coal burning power plant...

I'll be sure to tell the people who lived in Chernobyl and in Fukushima that.  I'm sure they'll be delighted. 

If we're talking renewables, I think Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power are the way to go.  I am surrounded by Wind Farms where I live now.

 

Here is a small list of things I might say are true...

1) The North American Continent is North of South America

2) It can get below zero degrees in Antarctica

3) Liquid water is wet

4) I know that Joseph Smith jr. was a prophet

5) I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God

Debatably true? (things that make you go...whaaa...is that true or not)

1) Joseph Smith was born in 1771

2) The Earth does not orbit around the Sun, it orbits around the Barycenter

3) John Adams was the first acting president of the United States under the Constitution(not sworn in as president nor to perform the duties thereof, but sworn in 9 days before Washington...and in the absence of the president the vice president acts as...you got it....).

4) John Hanson is considered the first president of the US (though some would say it was Samuel Huntington and then Thomas McKean) as it was organized as a NATION (but not under the Constitution).

5) Joseph Smith was born in 1832

Edited February 16, 2017 by JohnsonJones
I added a list after being snarky and then got snarky again with my debatable list

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Debatably true? (things that make you go...whaaa...is that true or not)

Why are those debatable?  They ARE true.

[zil]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

..........why Zil didn't get one

It's hardly fair that I got two, but deal with it already.

[Jojo Bags]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here are some things that are pretty universally accepted as true by just about everybody, especially the people knowledgeable or experienced in these matters.  

* Nuclear power is safe and cheap, compared to other forms of energy production.  The world's 440 nuclear reactors produce around 11% of the world's electricity.  After the massive decline in new plants being built since 1991, the world is starting to get back in the nuclear swing of things, with 60 reactors currently under construction in 15 countries.  This is a good thing.

* Vaccines are effective, safe, and of immense benefit the the world's health, compared with the alternative.  You should vaccinate your children, unless they have a legitimate medical contra-indication (and odds are no, yours don't.)

* GMOs are safe, and a blessing to the world, compared with other ways humans feed themselves.  There are zero examples of harm coming to humans from consuming a GMO that has been brought to market.  The Organic movement started as a clever marketing ploy, and has morphed into a massive business full of hypocritical anti-science and anti-businenss crusade, enlisting the ignorant and the ill-informed.

God gave us grey matter in our skulls for a reason.  Nuclear power, vaccines, and GMOs, are examples of humans using their God-given brain powers in good ways that benefit the entire human race.  

Scientific illiteracy is not a Christian Virtue. 

And in other news Jimmy Joe Mugwump accidentally ran over his dog, Spot coming home in his new Dodge Ram 4X4.  He's giving a wake Thursday night for Spot. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

The only people I block from my FB feed are the anti-Vaxxers and 9/11 conspiracy people. I can deal with anything else but that. After all, I deal with @mirkwood

I guess you'd block my FB invite.  I don't vax my kids.

[anatess2]

Just now, Carborendum said:

I guess you'd block my FB invite.  I don't vax my kids.

I thought this was illegal...

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we're talking renewables, I think Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power are the way to go.  I am surrounded by Wind Farms where I live now.

With you on hydro power.  Hoover Dam rocks.  But for solar and wind, I guess it depends on what you mean by 'way to go'.  They generate energy.  They are growing a tad more efficient here and there as innovation an technological advancement occurs.  But they're not nearly as cost-effective as more traditional forms of energy production.  

In the emotional terminology of the green movement:
* Wind turbines are the cuisinarts of the air, killing eagles, owls, and even penguins if they can jump high enough.  They produce noise that disturb cattle and disrupt migration patterns of wild animals. 
* Solar power involves mining toxic chemicals from all over the world and combining them in an astonishingly costly manufacturing process, to make panels that last 10-20 years, get more ineffective every year, and require hazardous materials processes to scrap.  

(Full disclosure, I'm actually a fan of solar and wind.  I had my first solar panel battery charger 20 years ago.)

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

an astonishingly costly manufacturing process, to make panels that last 10-20 years, get more ineffective every year

Just recently "they've" declared enough of a track history to find that the 20 year estimate was somewhat under-estimating.  While panels do show decreased efficiency over time, the total productive lifespan of solar panels (and they're getting better every year) they are now considered more efficient over the long run than traditional Carbon based production.

They still have the disadvantage of up front capital being HUGE.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I thought this was illegal...

You thought wrong.

[zil]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I thought this was illegal...

No, you can block anyone on FB you want.

[unixknight]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'll be sure to tell the people who lived in Chernobyl and in Fukushima that.  I'm sure they'll be delighted. 

Indeed, but those are anomalies, and at least the the case of Chernobyl, completely avoidable through proper safety protocols and competent implementation.  A better reactor design would have helped too.

@Carborendum  All true.  It's just a way of gaining a better perspective and reminding the alarmists that radiation isn't exclusively the purview of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we're talking renewables, I think Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power are the way to go.  I am surrounded by Wind Farms where I live now.

This reminds me of some more true facts!

Solar power has its uses, but isn't the environmental miracle it's touted to be.  The process of manufacturing solar cells does ghastly things to the environment, and the technology still has a long way to go in terms of efficiency.  The problem is, even if you could create a solar cell with 100% efficiency, the amount of electricity you'd gain is still very small.  It's a good solution for small devices but as a large scale energy source it has many disadvantages.

Hydro power is just excellent.  It's too bad we can't use it in more places.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I guess you'd block my FB invite.  I don't vax my kids.

I'd block your Fb invite for many other reasons pal! 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'd block your Fb invite for many other reasons pal! 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You thought wrong.

I do know that in Florida, you can't get into Public or Private Schools including colleges without it.

[Guest Godless]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I do know that in Florida, you can't get into Public or Private Schools including colleges without it.

I think vaccination is required (in principle anyway) in all 50 states unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a kid can't receive a certain vaccine. However, many states, including Texas, give parents the option to file for a non-medical exemption for moral/religious reasons. 

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think vaccination is required (in principle anyway) in all 50 states unless there is a legitimate medical reason why a kid can't receive a certain vaccine. However, many states, including Texas, give parents the option to file for a non-medical exemption for moral/religious reasons. 

Ah yes.  In Florida there are 3 kinds of exemptions - Temporary Exemption for a medical condition, Permanent Exemption for a medical condition, and the Permanent Exemption for religious reasons.  The 1st and 2nd are issued by a Florida licensed physician, the 3rd is issued by the CHD which holds a list of religions with established religious practices that is in opposition to vaccination.  LDS is not on that list.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ah yes.  In Florida there are 3 kinds of exemptions - Temporary Exemption for a medical condition, Permanent Exemption for a medical condition, and the Permanent Exemption for religious reasons.  The 1st and 2nd are issued by a Florida licensed physician, the 3rd is issued by the CHD which holds a list of religions with established religious practices that is in opposition to vaccination.  LDS is not on that list.

In texas there are three kinds of exemptions: Medical, Religious, and Philosophical.

None of those applies because we homeschool anyway.