07 May 19
@humy saidTechnically a lie is any untruth. So an honest mistake counts as a lie. Anyone who says something untrue is a liar, so anyone who has ever made a mistake is a liar - and that's everyone. So I tend to reserve the word liar for someone who willfully and habitually lies. I think metalbrain has different criteria.
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?
07 May 19
@wildgrass saidSo are automobiles and opioid use. Your point is largely irrelevant.
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
How many gallons of radioactive water is being stored at Fukushima and how radioactive is that water?
07 May 19
@deepthought saidNow it is habitually? Isn't willfully enough?
Technically a lie is any untruth. So an honest mistake counts as a lie. Anyone who says something untrue is a liar, so anyone who has ever made a mistake is a liar - and that's everyone. So I tend to reserve the word liar for someone who willfully and habitually lies. I think metalbrain has different criteria.
Does the following statement make sense?
"He only willfully lied once so he is not a liar."
07 May 19
@metal-brain saidI feel the need for a pattern of offending to label someone as a liar. Over what time period did the person only tell one lie? For me to feel a label of liar I'd have to think it likely they won't tell the truth in the face of certain stressors or incentives. So if they've only told one lie in ten years and told the truth the rest of the time I'm going to tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now it is habitually? Isn't willfully enough?
Does the following statement make sense?
"He only willfully lied once so he is not a liar."
07 May 19
@deepthought saidOne only needs to lie deliberately once to be a liar. That is why we have the term "habitual liar".
I feel the need for a pattern of offending to label someone as a liar. Over what time period did the person only tell one lie? For me to feel a label of liar I'd have to think it likely they won't tell the truth in the face of certain stressors or incentives. So if they've only told one lie in ten years and told the truth the rest of the time I'm going to tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think you are trying to excuse a deliberate lie by fooling yourself. I created a thread on the debate forum about Trump lying about tariffs. He is a habitual liar, but he only has to deliberately lie once to be liar.
I can excuse an unintentional false statement. We all have done that from time to time and that is a mistake since there was no intent to lie. That we can agree on.
07 May 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI don't know the answer to your question. Experts seem to think the radioactive water will be harmless if released slowly into the Pacific Ocean. I agree with them.
So are automobiles and opioid use. Your point is largely irrelevant.
How many gallons of radioactive water is being stored at Fukushima and how radioactive is that water?
Black lung is relevant. Similar to meltdowns, it is a direct result of energy production.
07 May 19
@wildgrass saidIf you don't know the answer to the question how can you know it will be harmless? Who are these experts and how did they come to that conclusion?
I don't know the answer to your question. Experts seem to think the radioactive water will be harmless if released slowly into the Pacific Ocean. I agree with them.
Black lung is relevant. Similar to meltdowns, it is a direct result of energy production.
You have faith in so called experts you know next to nothing about. I am not interested in faith based conclusions. Take it to the spirituality forum.
07 May 19
@metal-brain saidBear in mind that I'm talking about a natural person. There are circumstances where lies are acceptable, for instance we don't expect the stories of a stand up comedian tells as part of their act to be true. There are contexts where the truth is expected and even being mistaken isn't acceptable - such as a government minister who ought to know the truth. Organizations are meant to have information control, how forgiving I am depends on the context.
One only needs to lie deliberately once to be a liar. That is why we have the term "habitual liar".
I think you are trying to excuse a deliberate lie by fooling yourself. I created a thread on the debate forum about Trump lying about tariffs. He is a habitual liar, but he only has to deliberately lie once to be liar.
I can excuse an unintentional false statement. W ...[text shortened]... that from time to time and that is a mistake since there was no intent to lie. That we can agree on.
07 May 19
@metal-brain saidYou're fear mongering again. If it were dangerous to release it, as you seem to imply, certainly there would be some citable source that indicates this. The Pacific Ocean is pretty big and we dump lots of stuff in there every day. The solution here seems simple: dilute it and dispose of it. Is there any evidence that approach would negatively impact human health anywhere near the magnitude of black lung disease?
If you don't know the answer to the question how can you know it will be harmless? Who are these experts and how did they come to that conclusion?
You have faith in so called experts you know next to nothing about. I am not interested in faith based conclusions. Take it to the spirituality forum.
08 May 19
@wildgrass saidDo they have any other choice but to release it slowly? Tell me what the alternatives are and how practical it is.
You're fear mongering again. If it were dangerous to release it, as you seem to imply, certainly there would be some citable source that indicates this. The Pacific Ocean is pretty big and we dump lots of stuff in there every day. The solution here seems simple: dilute it and dispose of it. Is there any evidence that approach would negatively impact human health anywhere near the magnitude of black lung disease?
08 May 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidAs I've stated on numerous previous occasions, the proffered solution appears safe, practical and reasonable. I cannot say the same as it relates to coal-induced issues related to black lung disease, in addition to the human health issues that DeepThough has eloquently outlined for your review.
Do they have any other choice but to release it slowly? Tell me what the alternatives are and how practical it is.
08 May 19
@wildgrass saidHow is that any different than saying burning coal is safe, practical and reasonable. It is better than getting cancer from eating radioactive fish.
As I've stated on numerous previous occasions, the proffered solution appears safe, practical and reasonable. I cannot say the same as it relates to coal-induced issues related to black lung disease, in addition to the human health issues that DeepThough has eloquently outlined for your review.
Deepthought pointed out that dumping mercury into lake Michigan was bad policy since it can be contained instead. The argument for not containing the radioactive water is because there is too much of it.
Having too much radioactive water isn't helping you win your argument here. Furthermore, supporting releasing radioactive water into the environment is contrary to pro-environment minded people like democrats and greens.
Your support for nuclear because of an erroneous assumption CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere has undercut the very ideology of your leftist base, protect the environment.
You seem to be arguing in circles and only getting support from a few people on this forum who are taking your position more because it is against mine than because they are for yours. I think that is the only reason you have fooled yourself into believing you can sell Nuclear power to your leftist base.
Go ahead and keep trying to sell nuclear to people who care about the environment. Sooner or later they will realize what I have and ignore you. For that reason alone I don't feel the need to waste my time debating this anymore. People die from all sorts of things and nobody really cares about a death count. Automobile deaths are an acceptable risk for people who drive them. Opioid deaths are an acceptable risk of prescribing them so people get relief from pain so drug corporations can get rich. Soldiers from the Iraq war get cancer and they just happen to have been exposed to depleted uranium our military uses in anti tank weapons. You don't hear about it on the news so you don't care.
Make your case to your fellow leftists. Maybe they will be foolish enough to buy into it. Then you have to make the case to conservatives who don't like over budget projects and they are all waiting to see how much the NPPs that are under construction will cost in the end.
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-nuclear-option
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-projects-at-georgias-plant-vogtle-to-continue/
Debate in circles with someone who has the time for it. Until the Vogtle plant is finished there will be no new NPPs started. Cost is still an issue as well as radiation from meltdowns and nobody is going to forget about all that radioactive water. 😢
08 May 19
10 edits
@metal-brain saidWho of any relevant reputable scientific credentials said burning coal is simply 'safe'?
How is that any different than saying burning coal is safe, practical and reasonable. It is better than getting cancer from eating radioactive fish.
And in what way would be getting and/or dying from a disease from air pollution from burning coal be any "better" than getting cancer from eating radioactive fish?
And why ignore the fact that, but any sane estimation, VASTLY greater numbers of people get sick and/or die of air pollution from coal than eating radioactive fish? Even taking account all nuclear disasters put together, it must surely be extremely rare for someone to get sick and/or die from eating radioactive fish while MUCH more common for someone to get sick and/or die from coal pollution! I challenge you to show ANY single one reputable source of scientific information to the contrary...
And, although this isn't actually relevant according to MY 'logic' but YOURS, can you name any person that has died of eating radioactive fish or has "death by eating radioactive fish" (or any words of that effect) on their death certificate? If not, then, for the same (erroneous) reason why you said not many people die of air pollution (which was, according to you, because I cannot name one and because no one has that on their death certificate), not many people have died from eating eating radioactive fish (YOUR logic, NOT mine). It is indeed true that not many people have died from eating radioactive fish; but not because of your logic being valid. You cannot validly use one kind of 'logic' to justify your belief of one thing but then use a different and completely contrary kind of 'logic' to justify your belief of a different thing.
08 May 19
@metal-brain saidYou have not shown, nor have I seen, any evidence that releasing that water into the ocean is bad for the environment or human health. That runs completely contrary to evidence that coal mining causes premature death due to black lung disease, and that coal burning produces pollution that harms human health and has caused numerous disasters over the years that have killed thousands.
How is that any different than saying burning coal is safe, practical and reasonable. It is better than getting cancer from eating radioactive fish.
Deepthought pointed out that dumping mercury into lake Michigan was bad policy since it can be contained instead. The argument for not containing the radioactive water is because there is too much of it.
Having too much ra ...[text shortened]... well as radiation from meltdowns and nobody is going to forget about all that radioactive water. 😢
Reduced CO2 emissions is only one of the many benefits of nuclear power. You can decide to ignore the research in that area, but regardless of that the other benefits still outweigh coal.