The problem is the so called solution may be worse than the so called problem. I have to return a defective lithium battery I bought for a vehicle. I well have to sign a document, a very technical document, stating what is listed is true and if it isn't I could go to jail. How am I supposed to know if what the seller told me is true? That is the easiest of the 20 thing to comply with to ship it. These new batteries are light and can go a long way BUT they apparently are so dangerous one should not recharge them near anything that can burn.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out.

Disposal is the problem of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

---

And I, of course, think bigotry of low expectation is wrong. In this case, we have a very sexist remark which is allowed to stand for reasons which are misguided.

Free contraception and abortion is being encouraged by one of our richest activists: George Soros. He has apparantly given $1.2 BILLION to PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Now, I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do with his money what he wants to do with it. He can contribute what ever of *his* money to whomever he wants.

George Soros is encouraging something, which if you look into it a bit further you will see some rather shocking information. First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

But this is what liberalism produces and liberalism is winning these days.

----------------

Server message: Your request to waive the 2,000 post limit rule has been temporarily granted.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.

Who knows where it starts? Todays article claims to be quoting two scientific reports. It also claims to quote a 1978 scientist where the word disaster is used. Are these the words of the reporter or in the source reports?

Frequently they are the words of the reporter, and as such are limited to the reporter's grasp of the topic at hand and their own biases and political leanings or just looking for a sensational story to boost their readership (and their income).

I have trouble understanding why a 10' rise over....say 150 years could be a disaster. A nuisance perhaps, but certainly something mankind can work around (assuming we last that long).

In brief, a 10' rise may not seem like much, but it certainly can be enough to offset the delicate balance of nature. It's like asking "What good is a desert and who cares if we get rid of them by planting all sorts of flora to help offset the cutting of the rainforests?"

If we got to the moon in ~65 years of flight, surely we can solve this problem before it becomes a disaster.

Well, possibly. That's why there's all the reports from the scientists trying to tell everyone of the situation. In order to solve the problem, real money needs to be spent to take action. If they can't gain the trust of the laymen to vote with their money to take care of the problem (in other words, if people keep refusing to believe there's a problem), then there can be nothing to pay for the research or help develop the answer.

I agree with you on nuclear power. The USN has been using it safely for many years. It's not without its problems, but I have doubt that they can be solved. My son is a nuclear engineer working for the Navy. Not that it means anything here.....just an aside.

I also think Obama should immediately approve the Keystone pipeline from Canada. I'd rather do business with our Canuckle-head friends to the north than the terrorist regimes in the Middle East.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

As much as the Libertarian in me hates most Government regulation, I'd be perfectly OK with an edict stating that all nuclear energy creating companies are required to safely store their nuclear byproduct, then every 5-10 years are required to jettison the waste into Sol. Of course this would cost real money, and the cost would be passed along to the customer, but I think it is a viable solution to the problem.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

It seems he is. Guy is a master of non-sequitur comparisons.

I remember being shouted down a couple of years ago when i suggested that charities should provide free vasectomies to poor Africans alongside their aid packages of grain etc. Surely preventing excess people from being born is a better option than having them starve to death. But no, apparently that was infringing human rights, i'm a fascist, i want to kill all Africans, etc.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

As much as the Libertarian in me hates most Government regulation, I'd be perfectly OK with an edict stating that all nuclear energy creating companies are required to safely store their nuclear byproduct, then every 5-10 years are required to jettison the waste into Sol. Of course this would cost real money, and the cost would be passed along to the customer, but I think it is a viable solution to the problem.

Until the rocket carrying the waste up explodes 30 seconds after launch, dumping all the toxic waste right into the upper atmosphere. On top of that, doing that instantly makes nuclear energy so expensive it drives all nuclear energy providers out of business. Unless of course, that is exactly what you want.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Guy made that comparison.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Just another silly/unthinking example of erecting a 'Straw Dog', and then knocking it down.

First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

As much as the Libertarian in me hates most Government regulation, I'd be perfectly OK with an edict stating that all nuclear energy creating companies are required to safely store their nuclear byproduct, then every 5-10 years are required to jettison the waste into Sol. Of course this would cost real money, and the cost would be passed along to the customer, but I think it is a viable solution to the problem.

Until the rocket carrying the waste up explodes 30 seconds after launch, dumping all the toxic waste right into the upper atmosphere.

There's always a chance for disaster. Human life is at risk every time we launch a shuttle into space, but we accept those risks anyway. As always, we learn to clean up the mess, (hopefully) learn from our mistake and move forward.

On top of that, doing that instantly makes nuclear energy so expensive it drives all nuclear energy providers out of business. Unless of course, that is exactly what you want.

I do not believe the cost would be that prohibitive, and surely the scale of economics would allow the cost to come down over time, and perhaps by driving the costs down for this project, it can drive the costs down for more manned shuttles as well.

Just another silly/unthinking example of erecting a 'Straw Dog', and then knocking it down.

It is not silly/unthinking, it is an organized Machiavellian plot of a cabal.

---

There's always a chance for disaster. Human life is at risk every time we launch a shuttle into space, but we accept those risks anyway. As always, we learn to clean up the mess, (hopefully) learn from our mistake and move forward.

If we shoot humans into space the worst that can happen is that all astronauts die, which is a tragedy. If we shoot rockets filled with nuclear waste into space the worst that can happen is that it rains radioactive material.

I do not believe the cost would be that prohibitive, and surely the scale of economics would allow the cost to come down over time, and perhaps by driving the costs down for this project, it can drive the costs down for more manned shuttles as well.

It costs millions to make a rocket, it costs millions to fill that rocket with fuel. And you need to do that every 5 years. Perhaps requiring multiple rockets thanks to the amount of nuclear waste material. Its super expensive and a waste of material because each rocket you fire off never comes back.

...
The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

...

yet somehow I get the feeling that you aren't a supporter of giving women free access to contraception and abortion.

I really hope I'm wrong.

Of course you're wrong. Making a silly little political remark regarding a HUGE increase to 7 Billion people is, of course, wrong.

aren't most of your posts "silly little political remarks?

Of course it looks bad on you that you missed the point.

The birthrate drops in countries where women have control over their fertility and the population actually declines as women decide that they don't actually want to be breeding factories. The only way they can do this is successfully is by access to contraception and abortion.

This is simply a fact.

Of course I thought that Jack might have been against it because so many of the posters in this thread seem to have the politics of Duck Dynasty. You have to admit that climate change deniers are usually in the same Fox News lovin' group and spout such opinions wholesale. Excuse me if I'm a little cynical when I hear more of the same.

Sorry if you missed the obvious.

---

Reality Internet Personality

And I, of course, think bigotry of low expectation is wrong. In this case, we have a very sexist remark which is allowed to stand for reasons which are misguided.

Thank you for coming to my defence. Clyde's remark was sexist, but I decided to let that part of it slide.

Free contraception and abortion is being encouraged by one of our richest activists: George Soros. He has apparantly given $1.2 BILLION to PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Now, I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do with his money what he wants to do with it. He can contribute what ever of *his* money to whomever he wants.

George Soros is encouraging something, which if you look into it a bit further you will see some rather shocking information. First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

But this is what liberalism produces and liberalism is winning these days.

Why are you comparing planned parenthood to the mass murder of people? You do know that contraception isn't the same as shoving people into the gas chambers don't you? You aren't that nuts surely?

----------------

Server message: Your request to waive the 2,000 post limit rule has been temporarily granted.

?

---

Reality Internet Personality

It costs millions to make a rocket, it costs millions to fill that rocket with fuel. And you need to do that every 5 years. Perhaps requiring multiple rockets thanks to the amount of nuclear waste material. Its super expensive and a waste of material because each rocket you fire off never comes back.

Good point if your talking about how government does it, but private enterprise can do it much cheaper. Private enterprise is building rockets and sending them into space,right now,for a fraction of what the government spends to do the same thing. Get government out of the process and it will get done. Government has never done anything well.

---

Jack

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Guy made that comparison.

No he didn't.

All he stated is that, in his opinion, Soros and Planned Parenthood have 'dirty hands'.

You made the comparison.

From Guy's post:

First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

Seems you missed it when i first pointed it out.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

It seems he is. Guy is a master of non-sequitur comparisons.

I remember being shouted down a couple of years ago when i suggested that charities should provide free vasectomies to poor Africans alongside their aid packages of grain etc. Surely preventing excess people from being born is a better option than having them starve to death. But no, apparently that was infringing human rights, i'm a fascist, i want to kill all Africans, etc.

You can provide them with free vasectomies as long as you don't give them incentives to do it (such as paying them or forcing them to do it). If you do that it starts to look a bit like Eugenics.

Free condoms or other contraceptives or even basic sex education would be better as they can be reversed easily of the person decided to have a child. Condoms also help to stop the spread of diseases such as aids that have left so many children as orphans.

I wonder why you went for vasectomies rather than reversible options?

---

Reality Internet Personality

You can provide them with free vasectomies as long as you don't give them incentives to do it (such as paying them or forcing them to do it). If you do that it starts to look a bit like Eugenics.

It needs delicate handling i agree.

Free condoms or other contraceptives or even basic sex education would be better as they can be reversed easily of the person decided to have a child. Condoms also help to stop the spread of diseases such as aids that have left so many children as orphans.

True, but a vasectomy also stops children being left as orphans.

I wonder why you went for vasectomies rather than reversible options?

Condoms can run out.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

There's always a chance for disaster. Human life is at risk every time we launch a shuttle into space, but we accept those risks anyway. As always, we learn to clean up the mess, (hopefully) learn from our mistake and move forward.

If we shoot humans into space the worst that can happen is that all astronauts die, which is a tragedy. If we shoot rockets filled with nuclear waste into space the worst that can happen is that it rains radioactive material.

All the more reason to make sure accidents don't happen. I'm sure with enough practice and oversight, firing off a simple rocket shouldn't always result in exploding in the atmosphere.

I do not believe the cost would be that prohibitive, and surely the scale of economics would allow the cost to come down over time, and perhaps by driving the costs down for this project, it can drive the costs down for more manned shuttles as well.

It costs millions to make a rocket, it costs millions to fill that rocket with fuel. And you need to do that every 5 years. Perhaps requiring multiple rockets thanks to the amount of nuclear waste material. Its super expensive and a waste of material because each rocket you fire off never comes back.

It costs millions because they're engineering for re-use and human consumption (such as retro-rockets to slow down a craft to dock, for example). If the rockets are made for a one-way trip, a lot less engineering would be required, save for safety of explosion.

There's another reason that it may not be feasible to rocket nuclear waste into space. In the case of nuclear reactors from our subs that are scrapped, the reactors are encased in sealed containers and taken by barge up the Columbia to Hanford. these containers are huge and heavy (lead and concrete, I believe). It would take an extremely large rocket to get those into space. Do they need all of that to go into space? Maybe not, but for safe handling while moving to a rocket base? Probably.

---

Jack