Who's sick & tired of 'cancel culture' drop a comment here

[dpAtlanta]

A wise man once said "Political Correctness" will be the death of our society."
Are we on the way, or will the pendulum swing back the other way before it's to late?

Sponsored

 

[Bikeman315]

A wise man once said "Political Correctness" will be the death of our society."
Are we on the way, or will the pendulum swing back the other way before it's to late?

I’m not an overly religious person but I will be praying for this to pass.

 

[Mach VII]

I remember awhile back we were having an energy conversation when the topic of nuclear power came up. I was against it as my knowledge of np was back from the Three Mile Island days. One of our members was employed in the industry and posted some new updated articles about np today. Honestly, it changed my tune. If np can be produced safely than I'm all for it.

One word - Fukushima

When things go wrong, they go wrong in a hurry. I live near one of the first commercial atomic plants in the US, decommissioned in 1992... still no answer on how to dispose of old fuel and the cost to decommission are steep at the end so there is that to be considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Station

 

[Burkey]

The facts support either opinion. I could present a set of facts for or against. The reality is economics don’t support the green movement. It just makes the peasants life more expensive. Green energy is replaceable energy. Solar loses performance from the day it’s installed and wind has a similar performance life of about 20 years.

If the solution consumes more oil than it saves it actually has the opposite effect on climate change. We don’t have variable options yet besides nuclear. BTW I am all for less pollution but not at the expense of diminished standard of living for more pollution.

China also produces as much CO2 in 18 days as Australia produces in a year. India is quickly catching up. Also where have you been man?

I don’t think economics will support the green movement in our lifetime. The simple harsh reality is that fossil fuels have made our lives MUCH easier than they ever should’ve been.
Erm...Solar panels don't typically lose “all” performance over a 20 year period. They lose a percentage.
Plenty of peer-reviewed studies show that the green options don’t use more oil than the fossil fuel alternatives, even when the EV’s (for example) are entirely powered by a coal power plant.

I‘ve been waiting for someone to make a statement that is DEMONSTRABLY false, that’s where I’ve been.
Opinions don’t bother me, obfuscation of actual FACTS and then basing those opinions on the spurious evidence (“alternative facts”) shits me to tears.

Anyways, the topic at hand was something about cancel culture. IMO it has a time and a place. Like everything, it’s not all good or all bad. A middle ground can actually exist and reasonable people are likely to measure their responses accordingly.

 

[Hobohunter]

I remember awhile back we were having an energy conversation when the topic of nuclear power came up. I was against it as my knowledge of np was back from the Three Mile Island days. One of our members was employed in the industry and posted some new updated articles about np today. Honestly, it changed my tune. If np can be produced safely than I'm all for it.

It has been, consistently in the US. TMI has been our only commercial accident and nobody has died from it. The only commercial deaths we've had in this country have been no different from deaths from other forms of energy. For example, around 2012 a nuclear plant in Arkansas accidentally dropped a turbine they were lifting and killed a guy. Tragic and preventable, for sure, but not caused by nuclear power. TMI didn't kill anybody. The only nuclear accident deaths we've had were from experiments developing weapons, and military reactors, google the "demon core" and "SL-1".
We've had a bit over 100 commercial reactors, and at least as many military reactors with only what happened with SL-1 in the sixties, I think, as our only accident causing death. It's a fantastically strong safety record. The only real difference is that regular power casualties generally don't make the national news, and might not even make local news.

 

[UserName]

It has been, consistently in the US. TMI has been our only commercial accident and nobody has died from it. The only commercial deaths we've had in this country have been no different from deaths from other forms of energy. For example, around 2012 a nuclear plant in Arkansas accidentally dropped a turbine they were lifting and killed a guy. Tragic and preventable, for sure, but not caused by nuclear power. TMI didn't kill anybody. The only nuclear accident deaths we've had were from experiments developing weapons, and military reactors, google the "demon core" and "SL-1".
We've had a bit over 100 commercial reactors, and at least as many military reactors with only what happened with SL-1 in the sixties, I think, as our only accident causing death. It's a fantastically strong safety record. The only real difference is that regular power casualties generally don't make the national news, and might not even make local news.

While I agree with you, I’d also like to make an alternative observation. I’d say the oil and petrochemical industry as a whole has caused far more wholesale death, disease and destruction as a whole. Not because of oil itself, but simply due to asbestos exposure in the industry.

#cancelasbestos

 

[Hobohunter]

One word - Fukushima

When things go wrong, they go wrong in a hurry. I live near one of the first commercial atomic plants in the US, decommissioned in 1992... still no answer on how to dispose of old fuel and the cost to decommission are steep at the end so there is that to be considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Rowe_Nuclear_Power_Station

The old fuel literally doesn't have to go anywhere, it just sits in it's storage. There's no cooling for it, it's just ambient air temperature. It is just a number of fuel bundles, sitting in a can, dry.
You're absolutely right that it costs money to decommission a nuclear plant, but it costs money to decommission any power plant. Nuclear has different concerns. If there's anything concerning about nuclear power and disposal of radioactive materials, it's all the other waste that's generated. Nuke plants have to run their coolant through ion exchanging resins that end up radioactively contaminated, and all the really low level waste like anti-contamination suits, gloves, and other stuff generated during operation.

 

[Hobohunter]

While I agree with you, I’d also like to make an alternative observation. I’d say the oil and petrochemical industry as a whole has caused far more wholesale death, disease and destruction as a whole. Not because of oil itself, but simply due to asbestos exposure in the industry.

#cancelasbestos

Eh, asbestos isn't particularly oil related. It's been literally everywhere, because of it's flame-resistance. It's been in flooring materials, and roofing materials, hell, there's gaskets made of asbestos at my job.

 

[UserName]

Eh, asbestos isn't particularly oil related. It's been literally everywhere, because of it's flame-resistance. It's been in flooring materials, and roofing materials, hell, there's gaskets made of asbestos at my job.

As far as I’m aware, industrial uses of asbestos were and are the most common exposure experience. Household exposure was usually from someone that worked with or around asbestos and brought that crap home. Generally speaking the asbestos in household products is encapsulated, for lack of a better term at the moment, and poses almost nil risk as long as it’s not disturbed. Start grinding grandma’s trivets (and numerous things from that era) down and you may have a problem.

I point to the petro chem stuff because the refineries had upwards of millions of pounds of asbestos on site. They are on the hook to this day in case you missed all the asbestos commercials.

Edit: there was additional text added.

 

[Burkey]

That’s exactly what I just said. I can find a study that says the opposite. I had the offer to invest in a small solar project a few years ago. After some research I concluded it wasn’t viable. And it isn’t to this day. A friend of mine invest and he will end up losing money. Production sources that loses money actually increases the fossil footprint since dollars are directly converted into energy one way or another.

Just like the cancel culture can think so many thing are completely wrong but other see no problem. They are using a different belief system and different set of facts. Everyone always thinks there view is correct.

I’m well aware that you can “find a study” to support almost any position. The difference is WHERE it was published (respected journal vs crappy online/predatory journal) and whether it has actually been peer-reviewed.
I’m not aware of a single study that been published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, where the case is being made AGAINST the use of solar/EV’s etc etc.
If you can pomit me at one, I’d appreciate it.

On to the solar ”debate”. Your location is EVERYTHING when considering it’s viability. Living in one of the sunniest areas of one of the sunniest countries, it was a no-brainer for us. Electricity prices, feed-in tariffs and possible government rebates will obviously also have their impacts.
I don’t imagine it would offer much advantage during winter months in a climate where you’d have to scrape the snow off the array twice a day.

Anyways, in parting, I’ll just share a video that highlights precisely why you need to read the actual study itself, rather than relying on an interpretation being provided by a source who may or may not have a dog in the fight.
It’s really quite interesting to see how badly someone can manipulate the factual data of a decent study in order to make their conclusion “work”.
Disgusting really.
More disgusting is that people just lap it up because it confirms the position they already hold. It’s simply more evidence of just how right they were all along...

 

[HoosierDaddy]

More disgusting is that people just lap it up because it confirms the position they already hold. It’s simply more evidence of just how right they were all along...

So stop doing that.

 

[Hobohunter]

As far as I’m aware, industrial uses of asbestos were and are the most common exposure experience. Household exposure was usually from someone that worked with or around asbestos and brought that crap home. Generally speaking the asbestos in household products is encapsulated, for lack of a better term at the moment, and poses almost nil risk as long as it’s not disturbed. Start grinding grandma’s trivets (and numerous things from that era) down and you may have a problem.

I point to the petro chem stuff because the refineries had upwards of millions of pounds of asbestos on site. They are on the hook to this day in case you missed all the asbestos commercials.

Edit: there was additional text added.

I get what you're saying. I don't know much about the oil business, specifically, but I would imagine most of their asbestos materials are piping gaskets and insulation, and you'll find similar materials in just about any industrial setting more than a few decades old.

 

[Sivi70980]

.

 

[Sivi70980]

Having spent the last couple hours detailing the winter trash off the car I'd like to cancel all the damn rocks that chipped my car to hell. I count 10...TEN...ONE ZERO!! new chips over the last few months. I basically need a new car now. I do also realize just typing the word "chip" on here just put a nice new blemish on my paint but damn, I barely even use the freeway. Gonna order my next car without paint so I don't have to worry about chips.

 

[charlied]

Cancel culture has ruined comedy.

Sponsored