POLL: VOTE FOR UNITED STATES PRESIDENT ★★★★★

That statement, i demand you source it. I do because i know its fucking bullshit.

 

i said court, which absolutely fits that last paragraph
same with wifi
http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_answers_science_questions

 

Well her responses in the reddit IAMA are still there so you're free to look at her answers. For a Dr and scientist she has an extremely 'on the fence' stance, which is just as bad as an anti stance imo.

 

1. Nuclear energy is the cheapest and safest energy source per KWh by far. By miiilleesssssss like actual fucking miles. If you dont think so you're dumb. Like actually dumb. No offence ment, but you're just plain dumb if you think otherwise.

2. Vaccinations are the most life saving healthcare invention 2nd to maybe antibiotics, although I dont know the actual numbers but those 2 are head to head I think.
If you think it causes autism, actual lets assume it causes autism, still doesnt fucking matter for the amount of people it saves. BTW IT DOESNT CAUSE AUTISM.


3. Wifi doesnt cause any cancers or any harm, neither does cellphone radiation. It probably causes as much damage as cosmic background radiation and natural radiation and i dont see you guys walking around in lead suits protecting yourself from the radiation coming from the bricks in your goddamn house.

 

and i didnt even get to GMOs

e: lol she did a facebook livestream with immortal technique jesus fuck

 

Fossil fuel is the best energy because internal combustion engines rock. You'll pry the keys to my 2 stroke out of my cold dead hands you hippie communist fucks.

 

Thats a bit of a unbased thing to say since youd need to consider running water systems and its impact.

 

Aaaay someone didnt read correctly

 

Technically, its not the cheapest, at least not in the U.S. That claim goes to hydropower. However, the biggest concern for nuclear is the risk of accidents. For example, the Fukushima cleanup has cost $40billion so far. I do personally feel that nuclear is still a good option since these concerns can be mitigated, but its not an all-purpose solution.

 

Well as long as you dont put them in hazardous areas it should be just fine.

*shrug*
Antibiotics are not an invention ,they are a discovery so guess whos more wrong here.

 

Thats only operation costs for plant, but thats not everything that goes into it, you need to add grid costs etc
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

Ok so, I concede I havent added hydropower to it because i got my stats from this
http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf
which doesnt include hydropower so I actually dont know for sure which is the most efficient.

But from that paper most renewables are expensive as hell if you measure complete systems, really important aspect, instead of only plants.-> its like saying your electric car is good for the environment without taking into account the cost of production , placing the factory etc etc


also the 2 big nuclear plant fuck ups ( chernobyl and fukushima ) were both human errors, like major human errors, that doesnt make up for the fact that they shouldnt add the cost of failure to their stats but I have a feeling if there was a full systems analyses that includes accidents 40 billion on fukushima alone is nothing, compare it to the 61 billion bp oil spill ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...48cdaa-49f0-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html )

 

Actually if you wanna play it that way some antibiotics are an invention, synthetic AB, and some antibiotics were a discovery. Also if you want to play it that way more water sanition isnt an invention its just applying scientific discovery.... So yes its an invention.

 

I want to play that game since , no they *are* a discovery. You said antibiotics, not *some* antibiotics. We created atoms that dont exist in nature, yet that doesnt make atoms an invention.
Youre not winning this semantics footsie you fool.
Also natural shit like penicilin is why antibiotics are up there, not synthetics.

 

Hydropower and geothermal usually come in as the cheapest, but aren't often analyzed because they are limited by geography. Besides Iceland, I don't know any country that's really expanding either significantly at the moment.

That study seems reasonable enough and the concerns due to the variability of wind/solar and grid expansion are legitimate. However, if I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to nuclear that the costs due to accidents can be adequately managed, then I don't see how I can't extend the same logic to wind/solar variability/grid costs. While the study does try to take a 'system-level' approach, I'd feel more confident of their results if they had included the costs of potential accidents for each technology. Nuclear accidents are one of those very low probability but very high cost events that really could skew the results.

 

I believe in a decentralized america

Their wifi stance is so stupid since the sun has been sending radio waves at the earth for the last 4.5 billion years. And the distribution of cell phone towers, radio stations, tvs, satellites sending radio waves across the world some wifi routers isn't going to matter. I'm just so amazed at the ability of american's to never get anything right. I should double check the Canadian green party's platform because I sort of root for them but I don't want to accidentally be supporting something really really stupid.

Standards for storage (at least here) only require that it can withstand 10000 years, which is only after one half-life. It can be considered already fucked up.

The amount of energy produced by nuclear can, in the short term, only be replaced by carbon based fuels such as coal and petroleum. Both of those are far worse for our environment than nuclear. More research and development is needed to develop more efficient renewable energy sources (especially ones that have pollution in the supply chain) before we can phase out nuclear.

 

Nuclear is the best option for now until we can switch to complete renewables. We need to start utilizing it.

Also, isn't there a procedure that was developed that most of the waste developed by a reactor can be re-used to produce energy once again?

 

they are just as kooky and if you followed canadian politics you can easily discern that from elizabeth may

quebec is run entirely on hydropower. depending on your politics that might count as a country...

nah lets induce earthquakes deep into the ocean instead. "frack" yes

 

like most things nuclear, people think it means that they're breeding plutonium for weapons and those reactors never get built

Damn, they're like the only party where the members actually believe in their position so I kind of respected them for that, but I guess they're just too crazy.

 

The Pacific NW in the U.S. is similar (like 80-90% hydro), but none of that is new. Its mostly legacy hydro that was built between the 1920s-50s. There is no new hydropower being considered so its an interesting footnote, but not really useful to discussions regarding new power.