Let's nuke climate change!

@wildgrass said
Where's the strawman? Do you know what that means?

You said "radiation is destructive to life" but it's not. It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that thi ...[text shortened]... eline rates are anticipated".

https://newatlas.com/radiation-explained-food-sources-danger/46233/

This is your strawman:

" It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that this increase was/is bad. Releasing radiation slowly into the Pacific Ocean probably isn't going to harm anything. Pacific salmon are perfectly safe to eat."

You are claiming that radiation from meltdowns is safe by using the fallacy that the doses are too low to be harmful. You are doing that by comparing it to natural radiation in the environment as if that is a fair comparison.

Pacific salmon are from a vast ocean. Some are not safe to eat. All of the articles you cite that makes that claim catch the fish off the coast of California or Canada. What about the fish caught near Fukushima?

How many gallons of radioactive water is at Fukushima and how radioactive is it? Since you support releasing it into the ocean you should at least know the answer to that question before claiming it is safe. I'm calling you on your fallacy.

Your fallacy is your strawman. You prefer to attack fallacies in a vain attempt to suppress the truth.

@deepthought said
Actually, I remember seeing a statistic about that in one of the references on air pollution. They were pointing out that the number of people killed by air pollution exceeded the number of people killed in crashes. I can't remember the figure. On a number of people killed per year basis nuclear power stations do probably kill fewer people in a year than car crashes.
...[text shortened]... reasingly bored of you projecting your bad behaviour onto everyone else in every thread you post in.

"You've started going on about strawmen again. Do that much more and I am going to make a complaint to the moderators. I am getting increasingly bored of you projecting your bad behaviour onto everyone else in every thread you post in."

Go ahead and complain to the moderators. There is nothing wrong with complaining about others using strawman arguments. You have resorted to becoming a whiny crybaby because you can't handle truthful criticism. Ironically, that is a sign of narcissism.

Go ahead crybaby, complain to the moderators that I called you on your BS and you couldn't take it like a grown adult. Humy has been far worse to me than I have EVER been to you. He overtly insults people in an abusive way and you are just fine with it. How many times has he called me stupid, a moron, an idiot, an imbecile and many other things? Sonhouse has called me cretin, ignorant, stupid and many other overt insults. Not because I deserved it, but merely because they didn't like my opinion. Nothing more.

The moderators will laugh at your immaturity and thin skin all because you cannot handle being exposed as being the dishonest person you are.

@metal-brain said
"You've started going on about strawmen again. Do that much more and I am going to make a complaint to the moderators. I am getting increasingly bored of you projecting your bad behaviour onto everyone else in every thread you post in."

Go ahead and complain to the moderators. There is nothing wrong with complaining about others using strawman arguments. You have resor ...[text shortened]... ity and thin skin all because you cannot handle being exposed as being the dishonest person you are.

This is from my post on page 23:

I am not demanding that you agree with me - aside from anything else I am as capable as anyone else of error - I'm asking for basic levels of courtesy in your posting style. If someone insults you feel free to insult them back on an insult by insult basis, but try to wait until they do. I've learned that it's generally more constructive to avoid rising to insults, but that is my policy, I don't think of it as compulsory.

I am aware that humy has a habit of resorting to insult rather quickly, but did he start it or did you? Random insults are not what I'm talking about. What I mean by abuse is your habit of accusing people of engaging in behaviours you exhibit yourself. Self-deception is a major part of abuse, the abuser projects their own bad behaviour onto other people. I became conscious of that tendency in myself something around 10 to 15 years and cut it out. I do not always behave perfectly. I do not frequently throw insults. But you accuse everyone around you of falsehoods, trying to hoodwink you with jargon, and constructing strawmen arguments - despite apparently not knowing what a strawman is. You attack wildgrass in this way and he has never insulted you, at least that I've noticed. I have insulted you in the past because I have limited patience with being abused, but not in practically every post I make. I am one of the few people in these forums capable of having a rational debate with Duchess64. Now, if humy or sonhouse insult you, feel free to insult them back. I'm concerned that you cannot see your own behaviour and project what you are doing onto everyone else. For your own sake you need to get a grip on this. If you only engage in this behaviour online that's fine, but if this is happening in "real life" as well it can cause you all sorts of problems with relationships (of all types).

@deepthought said
This is from my post on page 23:[quote]I am not demanding that you agree with me - aside from anything else I am as capable as anyone else of error - I'm asking for basic levels of courtesy in your posting style. If someone insults you feel free to insult them back on an insult by insult basis, but try to wait until they do. I've learned that it's generally more co ...[text shortened]... ing in "real life" as well it can cause you all sorts of problems with relationships (of all types).

You are projecting your projection onto me. Please feel free to point out any hypocrisy I may have engaged in. If I were really doing that in a habitual way I think that would have been exposed quickly by humy or duchess. They are both eager to catch me make a mistake. You surely have noticed humy is eager to call me a liar when I have done no such thing. His motive is simple, I caught him in many lies and exposed him for it. I have done the same thing to you, although less frequently.

Humy started insulting me before I ever insulted him. His insults have become more frequent the more I prove him wrong. Like you, I never made him make false claims and try to BS people with jargon. I only proved him wrong multiple times. Is that bad behavior?
If you notice someone making a false statement don't you feel obligated to correct them? Duchess once called me an "abusive troll". She knows I have never abused her. She makes that statement habitually to many she debates. You are doing something similar by accusing me of bad behavior. There is a big difference between being right and defending a winning position and being insulting for no reason than to lash out, most often in an ad hominem attack.

Humy and sonhouse both accused me of strawman arguments before I accused anyone of it. The irony is that they were using the term incorrectly and I pointed it out to them. Later you claimed I used the term incorrectly. I don't think I was, but I did look it up and realized you and others have been using strawman arguments all along and all 3 of you were at the height of hypocrisy on this forum.

I make no apologies for exposing hypocrisy. If you can prove I insulted someone without provocation go ahead and do it. I rarely engage in that type of behavior, but given constant insults are hurled at me from humy with very little pause from it I think an occasional infrequent insult from me is not unreasonable.

I challenge you to find any abuse by me to anyone on this forum that has not started the abuse first. If you can prove I have engaged in bad behaviour I projected onto others go for it. I have been remarkably reserved considering the abuse I have been subjected to by others.

I think you have been dismissing the constant abuse others have subjected me to because of a bias you have in regards to global warming theory. Now that I have finally had enough of you 3 ganging up on me I am exposing every lie you and humy have told and I'm not going to stop until you own up to yours.

Metric Tensor is a description and nothing more. You used a description for your strawman argument to BS me into thinking I was wrong because of that. It is still possible I am wrong, but not for the bunk reasons you asserted.

I don't have a problem being wrong as long as I find out the reason why. I'm glad to be wrong as long as I learn from it. You didn't give a reason why though. You fed me BS in an attempt to pretend you knew more about something than you did.

Be honest with me and I will be nice to you. Be dishonest and I will expose you for it. Try to deny your deceit and I will give you crap about it.

It all comes down to this: Respect me and I will respect you. You didn't do that, so don't expect respect until you own up to the truth.

@metal-brain said
You are projecting your projection onto me. Please feel free to point out any hypocrisy I may have engaged in. If I were really doing that in a habitual way I think that would have been exposed quickly by humy or duchess. They are both eager to catch me make a mistake. You surely have noticed humy is eager to call me a liar when I have done no such thing. His motive is si ...[text shortened]... e and I will respect you. You didn't do that, so don't expect respect until you own up to the truth.

You are projecting your projection onto me.

Your first instinct is to accuse me of what I pointed out.

Anyway the rest of your post represents a slight improvement. The words "[The] Metric tensor is a description and nothing more." are problematic because so is every quantity in physics. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory the wavefunction has no reality, it's just a calculational tool. In relativity the metric is real, meaning that in a given coordinate system its components give you the gravitational field strength. I assure you that my reasons for thinking you are wrong are objective. It's a little paranoid of you to think that because I'm saying that your, non-standard, idea is wrong and I'm arguing against it I must be using "BS". What possible motive would I have for protecting Einstein's theory if I knew, or thought it was wrong.

@metal-brain said
This is your strawman:

" It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that this increase was/is bad. Releasing radiation slowly into the Pacific Ocean probably ...[text shortened]... ur fallacy is your strawman. You prefer to attack fallacies in a vain attempt to suppress the truth.

This is your strawman:
" It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that this increase was/is bad. Releasing radiation slowly into the Pacific Ocean probably isn't going to harm anything. Pacific salmon are perfectly safe to eat."

My statement was accurate and relevant to the discussion.

Pacific salmon are from a vast ocean. Some are not safe to eat. All of the articles you cite that makes that claim catch the fish off the coast of California or Canada. What about the fish caught near Fukushima?

I did not post any frankenfish articles, but you did and I read them. I think you were posting articles about the dangers of radiation. In the article, the amount of Fukushima radiation in the fish was miniscule and well below any dose that has proven harmful.

"My fallacy is my strawman?" What does that even mean? If you think that I'm misrepresenting the dangers of radiation, please post a real rebuttal rather than conjecture and anecdotes.

@deepthought said

You are projecting your projection onto me.

Your first instinct is to accuse me of what I pointed out.

Anyway the rest of your post represents a slight improvement. The words "[The] Metric tensor is a description and nothing more." are problematic because so is every quantity in physics. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory the wavefunctio ...[text shortened]... at possible motive would I have for protecting Einstein's theory if I knew, or thought it was wrong.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
-Albert Einstein

@wildgrass said
[quote]This is your strawman:
" It's naturally everywhere. At high dosages, it can kill living tissues. Everyone knows that. At low dosages, it's virtually harmless. Yes, the Fukushima disaster increased the amount of radiation in the water surrounding the plant, but there's no evidence that this increase was/is bad. Releasing radiation slowly into the Pacific Ocean probab ...[text shortened]... esenting the dangers of radiation, please post a real rebuttal rather than conjecture and anecdotes.

"I did not post any frankenfish articles, but you did and I read them"

I don't recall posting any frankenfish articles. I think you are confused.

@metal-brain said
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
-Albert Einstein

I suspect that, in your case, for you to understand it, it has to be explained to you SO simply that it is impossible to explain it that simply. Tensors are a very subtle concept even for many if not all physicists. Some things cannot be explained 'simply' to a layperson even if they are understood perfectly by the experts and, in at least that narrow sense, what Einstein's quoted there is wrong. Albert Einstein wasn't always right about everything because not even geniuses can be right all the time!

@humy said
I suspect that, in your case, for you to understand it, it has to be explained to you SO simply that it is impossible to explain it that simply. Tensors are a very subtle concept even for many if not all physicists. Some things cannot be explained 'simply' to a layperson even if they are understood perfectly by the experts and, in at least that narrow sense, what Einstein's quot ...[text shortened]... t Einstein wasn't always right about everything because not even geniuses can be right all the time!

You admitted you don't understand it and you see fit to lecture me about something you know nothing about? I caught him in his BS. Stop defending liars just because you do so habitually.

How long have you been a cheerleader? Is that all you can do?

@metal-brain said
You admitted you don't understand it and you see fit to lecture me about something you know nothing about?

No. I am not lecturing to you about tensors.
And, like vertually all laypeople, neither of us really understands tensors. In your case, you apparently don't even understand what a straw man is, which is a MUCH simpler concept than that for tensors! So what chances have you got to properly understand tensors? -vertually none for sure.
Deepthought is one of the relatively few people that actually does understand tensors.

Stop defending liars just because you do so habitually.

I am not trying to defend him. This is because since there is currently no effective attack on his position (by you or anyone else), he clearly doesn't NEED defending.
And are you implying Deepthought is a liar? If so, what do you claim he lied about? And, especially if its about/involving tensors/relativity which you clearly don't understand well, how do you know its a lie? You do know he is a proper physics expert, right?

@metal-brain said
"I did not post any frankenfish articles, but you did and I read them"

I don't recall posting any frankenfish articles. I think you are confused.

Evidence that Fukushima radiation is bad for human health?

@humy said
No. I am not lecturing to you about tensors.
And, like vertually all laypeople, neither of us really understands tensors. In your case, you apparently don't even understand what a straw man is, which is a MUCH simpler concept than that for tensors! So what chances have you got to properly understand tensors? -vertually none for sure.
Deepthought is one of the relatively few pe ...[text shortened]... don't understand well, how do you know its a lie? You do know he is a proper physics expert, right?

" In your case, you apparently don't even understand what a straw man is"

More of your psychological projection. I first pointed out to you that you were using the term incorrectly and you were. I was using it correctly. My comparisons did not involve fallacies as yours did. That is why you falsely accused me of making a strawman argument and I correctly accused you of it. You constructed a fallacy and I did not.

You do the same thing with lying. You lie and get upset because I exposed you as a liar and you falsely accuse me of it when I am being truthful.

You are like a child.

@humy said
I suspect that, in your case, for you to understand it, it has to be explained to you SO simply that it is impossible to explain it that simply. Tensors are a very subtle concept even for many if not all physicists. Some things cannot be explained 'simply' to a layperson even if they are understood perfectly by the experts and, in at least that narrow sense, what Einstein's quot ...[text shortened]... t Einstein wasn't always right about everything because not even geniuses can be right all the time!

So now in an irrational effort to slander me you even point out Einstein's flaws? I think you have a lot more flaws than Einstein.

@metal-brain said
"I did not post any frankenfish articles, but you did and I read them"

I don't recall posting any frankenfish articles. I think you are confused.

Health risks of Fukushima radiation are largely hypothetical. If the health risks of Fukushima radiation are fair game for this discussion, which overwhelmingly affected plant employees, then certainly the alternative of black lung for coal workers is much much worse. 1 in 5...

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304517