Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge > Politics & Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-07-2008, 07:34 PM   #256
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philabramoff View Post
CK...where you at??

Got another question for you, as being a "man of the left" as it were...

What's your position on nuclear ??
Sorry Phil, I wasn't ignoring you, I simply hadn't seen your recent posts here.

As for nuclear, I'm really not sold either way (due in large part to ignorance on the topic).

I would really need to learn more about the risks. I am well aware that it is relatively clean and efficient.

My major concern would be security.

If you have a "dog in the fight," please try to persuade me. This is one issue you might be able to win me over on :thumbup:
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 05:36 PM   #257
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
If you have a "dog in the fight," please try to persuade me. This is one issue you might be able to win me over on :thumbup:
We're back in business, then...

Okay...maybe I can sell you on nuclear. I didn't have a strong opinion
on it, either, until the past year or so.

Firstly, Obama's opinion has been something like "I'd be in favor of it,
except I'd be concerned about the waste."

Well, no kidding. The "waste" is the only objection people really
have to nuclear. That given, Obama's against it, then.

But, here's the bullet points that sell me on it.

*We need some alternative fuels. I'm in favor of drilling for oil. Drill.
Drill. Drill. But I'm also in favor of developing any kind of energy
source. Wind and solar can provide some, but not to meet our volume
of needs. Ethanol has been a disaster. Some other biofuels may be on
the horizon, but not here yet. Then, there's nuclear. The technology
is already here. We just have to do it.

*The safety problem is not what it used to be. We've all been scared by
3-Mile Island and Chernobyl, but these disasters occurred when we had
rather old technology. Current technology makes the probability of such
disasters negligible.

*The waste issue is not what it used to be either. I heard an expert
speaking about this, and we have the technology, now, to contain the
waste produced by a year's worth of production for one plant in the
container the size of a pickle jar, and have it placed in a safety container
good for upwards of 10,000 years. Figure, in 10,000, further technology
for those living then will likely be well able to deal with those pickle jars.

*Nuclear can provide a lot of energy, fast and now.
It won't replace the gasoline needed for our cars, but it can provide for many
of the many other entities that consume oil (factories, for instance).

*As I understand, France gains about 80% of it's energy needs from
nuclear. The United States, if I heard the stat right, only gains about
7% from nuclear.

*I don't think nuclear mining has the environmental impact that oil
drilling does, either, based on volume alone.

Go nuclear. Do it now. :thumbsup2:
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2008, 06:38 PM   #258
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

As you describe it, I really wouldn't have any objections. I would like to hear from someone with an opposing (knowledgable) view on the issue before I give judgement.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 09:52 AM   #259
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
As you describe it, I really wouldn't have any objections. I would like to hear from someone with an opposing (knowledgable) view on the issue before I give judgement.
Fair enough.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 11:59 AM   #260
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

We have a nuclear reactor here in Iowa at Palo. It has been operating for about 40 years and does so without any problems. Not sure how much electricity it generates, but it does so cleanly.
I would have no problem with other such generators being added here.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2008, 12:07 PM   #261
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
We have a nuclear reactor here in Iowa at Palo. It has been operating for about 40 years and does so without any problems. Not sure how much electricity it generates, but it does so cleanly.
I would have no problem with other such generators being added here.
That seems to be the overwhelming opinion of those with some knowledge on the subject.

Is there anyone on this site who has a problem with nuclear power? Please provide alternate opinions. :thumbup:
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 09:56 AM   #262
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Oh yeah, CK...another reason to support nuclear, from your point
of view...

Guess it wasn't on my radar screen, because I'm not all scared of
"global warming" like many other people are, but figure this.

Obama is in favor of biofuels, but not nuclear. But wait a minute...
don't you have to burn biofuels too? Don't they produce
"greenhouse gases" too, just like oil and coal?

Nuclear produces ZERO gases, or what it does is very minimal.
It's waste is toxic solids and liquids that can be safely contained
and buried. NO impact on the environment at ALL if we do it right.
:thumbup:
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 10:12 AM   #263
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Very good point phil. I'm doing research as we speaak
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 11:39 AM   #264
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

The problem with nuclear energy is the waste material. I have a potential solution to that problem as well. We have a lot of abandoned mines in the west that are not being used for anything. There is a way to put the waste in containers and take it to the bottom of those mines, below the water table, and seal it there. We are talking about 5,000-10,000 feet below the surface, and it would be stored in the rock layer.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 02:48 PM   #265
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

Personally, I've always been in favor of using NASA for something more obviously useful than space exploration (although I'm all for that, I understand it's not an obviously useful thing for current problems) and send our waste into space. Nuclear waste? Put it in a rocket and send it on a course for the sun. We could do that for regular garbage as well, and clean up some landfills.

Of course, as a friend pointed out, if we had a Challenger-type accident, that could mean raining dangerous, toxic waste back down onto us. But hey! Maybe it would just cause NASA to be more safety-conscious
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
I find it strange that people sit at home, around the dinner table and think, "Damnit! People are gay!"
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 02:54 PM   #266
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
Personally, I've always been in favor of using NASA for something more obviously useful than space exploration (although I'm all for that, I understand it's not an obviously useful thing for current problems) and send our waste into space. Nuclear waste? Put it in a rocket and send it on a course for the sun. We could do that for regular garbage as well, and clean up some landfills.

Of course, as a friend pointed out, if we had a Challenger-type accident, that could mean raining dangerous, toxic waste back down onto us. But hey! Maybe it would just cause NASA to be more safety-conscious
Hmmm... Something about sending nuclear waste to the sun just doesn't seem right to me...
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 05:17 PM   #267
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
The problem with nuclear energy is the waste material.
The waste has always been the only real cogent argument against
nuclear.

Cat, what you describe is what I've heard of already...the idea of
burying the material is waste-safe containers (that we already have
the technology to create, already) into the remote mountains of
the Rockies.

They would have to be hidden well, though, as I've heard that stray
nuclear waste material does have the potential to end up "in the
wrong hands" as it were.

As for the idea of launching the stuff into the sun...not sure what
CK's objection would be, as it wouldn't cause any "environmental
impact" since the stuff would be absolutely disintegrated and
obliterated by the ultra-nuclear powered sun. However, it would
be pretty dang expensive to keep sending up rockets.

The waste would take up very little space. Remote areas of the
Rockies, I believe, would be sufficient.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2008, 05:26 PM   #268
philabramoff
Exiled Packerfan in SoCal
 
philabramoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 537
philabramoff is on a distinguished road
Default

CK...generized question here...

What do you regard as a "flip-flop", and what would you
regard as "changing one's position based on a change of
circumstances".

EX: McCain changing his position on domestic drilling due to
the soaring oil crisis..."change of position".

EX: Obama changing his position on immediate withdrawal from
Iraq due to changing circumstances on the ground..."change of position".

EX: Al Gore saying that he picked tobacco his whole life when speaking
to the tobacco growers of Tennessee, but using his sister's cancer case
as an example of how bad tobacco is, when speaking in a different venue...
"flip-flop".

Personally, I get annoyed that whenever a candidate has some change
of position, it's automatically called a "flip-flop". Under that standard,
a candidate would never be allowed to change their mind.
philabramoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008, 09:26 AM   #269
CKFresh
Most Hated Member
 
CKFresh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 7,377
CKFresh will become famous soon enough
Default

Phil, I agree with you.

I would argue that issues like the war, economy, and energy are ever-changing. Therefore, if a candidate changes positions, it may be a very smart decision. I respect a candidate who can admit to being wrong, and change with the circumstances.

On issues like abortion, equality, or gay rights however - a change in position is a "flip-flop" and represents lack of character.

John McCain was pro-choice when it helped his image as an indpendent thinker. Now, he is pro-life becaus he needs consevative support.

John McCain opposed making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday when he was pandering to racists. Now, he is on a national stage and he apologizes for that vote.

These type of changes in opinion are nothing more than political pandering that show a candidates lack of moral fiber.

Just my thought.
__________________
Do yourself a favor, become your own savior.

Think Fresh.
CKFresh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008, 03:08 AM   #270
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,358
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKFresh View Post
Hmmm... Something about sending nuclear waste to the sun just doesn't seem right to me...


Why? Because the vessel carrying the waste would get burned up?

No problem: Do the dumping at night! :lol:
__________________
Patriotism is the Achilles heel of the American liberal
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hell in St. Louis bama4256 The Lounge 0 12-19-2007 10:11 AM
Conversation with myself Panthers-Rule The Lounge 3 10-14-2004 11:47 PM
Who should start in St. Louis? Marc National Football League 15 02-25-2003 11:16 AM
St. Louis Scores 28 Points in Fourth Quarter bama4256 National Football League 9 01-03-2003 04:17 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 PM.