I will be paying for Three Mile Island for the next 240,000 years.

I'll help for as long as I can. ;)

---

Jack

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.

You'd say the same about Space Shuttles and rockets. And how often has it gone wrong in the past few decades? It just takes one weak bolt or one electric spark to cause the thing to explode, and there are quite a few bolts and electric parts on a rocket that size.

Sure does. No argument that it isn't dangerous.

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.

Right, because those unmanned space probes are cheap. And getting them into space is also peanuts.

Goes back to: because the government and very few private companies are doing it. There's no economy of scale.

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.

You'd say the same about Space Shuttles and rockets. And how often has it gone wrong in the past few decades? It just takes one weak bolt or one electric spark to cause the thing to explode, and there are quite a few bolts and electric parts on a rocket that size.

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.

Right, because those unmanned space probes are cheap. And getting them into space is also peanuts.

Or screw it and come up with another solution!

For now the solution is wrap it up, store it and let the future figure it out. The future is a great place to send our problems as we don't have to pay for it. Ukraine will be paying for Chernobyl and I will be paying for Three Mile Island for the next 240,000 years.

---

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.

Guess you didn't read his 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.

He literally compared it to the holocaust. He said it was even worse than the holocaust. Unless you are arguing that the holocaust is now a neutral unit of measurement. We go from handful, to dozen to truckloads to a holocaust. Makes sense, doesn't actually mean anything, doesn't imply anything, doesn't try to establish a link between something you think is bad to one of the worst crimes in human history.

EDIT: Oops, now I missed the post where you said you missed his post. In that case, forget what I said.

"Where's the condom's? Who cares!"

*twitches*

---

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

Quoted from an article in todays local newspaper.

The report also found that rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like India, Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.

I've lived an hours drive from the Oregon Coast all of my life. As a small boy we went camping at the same spot (Waxmyrtle CG) on a coastal estuary (Siltcoos River). The campground is only a couple of feet above the high tide water line. The campground is at the head of the estuary and tidewater is ~2 miles up stream from there where it is stopped by a dam.

We've been camping in the same spot now, since the late 40's, and still do at least twice each year. I can say that the sea level at that spot has not changed any perceptible amount during all that time.

Water pouring in to the seas from Antarctica and Greenland are raising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal but not in the Pacific along the Oregon Coast?

How is that possible?

---

Jack

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.

I'm sure the engineers tasked with the problem will be able to find an appropriate solution that exceeds the safety standards and the cost factor will take care of itself eventually. Or screw it and come up with another solution! I don't care ;) Personally, I'm holding out for Mr. Fusion. :-D

What is the need of people to label, and put people down, instead of arguing the facts/opinion?

It is a Machiavellian way of discrediting truth that hinders an agenda.

---

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

...
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

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.

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.

---

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.