Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Trolls Attack "Stupid Rat" Mother

This exchange really happened at Ecowatch.    The sociopathy of some of these trolls is amazing.

Note that after a few repeated attacks on the mother, then the trolls assemble into a pro-nuke "circle kumbaya" of backslapping, making fraternity boys look sophisticated.    Then at the end, a troll calls "BS" on the mother, while making his assertion that 500 years is a short time.

These "people" really do live among us.


Concerned citizen, mother and stupid rat here...atoms4peace, mm and, what you're saying is the greatest technological disaster in human history, multiple meltdowns that we don't have the technology to contain, that's so radioactive that robots can't even go near it, that no amount of money or political will can fix, that is going to bleed radiotoxins into the sea and atmosphere for decades if not centuries...radiotoxins that cause heart attacks, cancers, genetic anomalies, deformities, hair loss, kills nerve cells and small blood vessels, causes seizures, reduces blood counts, causes lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid cancer and infertility, nausea, bloody vomiting and stool is nothing to worry about? Please send me some of whatever industrial strength, military grade shit you are smoking, because I need it. I really do. I think and I know I'm just a stupid rat, that it is a parent's responsibility to leave a better, cleaner world for their children and thanks to people like you we are failing miserably. So from all of us stupid rats who are concerned about the environment and who don't want to suffer everything I previously mentioned, would you kindly STFU and go get another Phd or something. Fiddle much while Rome burns?

  • Cassandra,
    I'm raising children in Japan. I think you should reveal your sources about all these effects from Fukushima you claim. Perhaps we can see whether you are relying on good or bad evidence.

    Fukushima radiation didn't have any significant negative health effects, the irrational fear that you exacerbate on the other hand has significant measurable negative health effects....

    Instead of smoking something as you suggest, try rationality and skepticism.
    Examine the BS you have been fed.
    Try and learn by listening to real scientists and real peer reviewed studies.
    Stop reading the hysterical tabloids.
    Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power.
    Nuclear power can play a major role in cleaning up our planet from the damages of fossil fuels.
    Nuclear power can help supply the massive amounts of power soon to be demanded by the majority of people on the planet who are lifting themselves out of poverty.
    I know your comment was meant more as a sarcastic attack instead of being truly heartfelt but I really do wish you would follow my advice about rationality and learning.

    Irrational is making more radioactive waste that will have to be safely stored for centuries for 40 or 50 years of electricity. It's irrational and selfish and irresponsible. Anyway, I read. That's what I do. I got a 35 on the reading part of the ACT. Yes, the experts said I was a genius, but I really don't believe what experts say anymore. And truly, from the bottom of my heart, I don't want to watch the earth suffocate from radiotoxic poisoning or nuclear war . I will never support anything nuclear, ever...and I wish, that instead of making more of a mess, that my mutated offspring will have to tend, you would use your fancy learning and scepticism to clean up your damn dirty mess.

    Why is it irrational to generate clean electricity and then store the waste?
    If long lived waste is a concern it is possible to design nuclear reactors that produce waste that needs storing for 500 years. For example a 1 Gigawatt molten salt thorium reactor produces a basketball sized lump of waste per year. The total volume needed to be stored maxes out at 500 basketballs of volume. After which the oldest basketball can be removed each time a new one is added.
    This seems like a very rational way to produce power.

    500 years. Just 500 years! Do you hear yourself ? Please stop making it til you figure that shit out. That's all I'm saying. If you can't fix it, quit breaking it. We can't vacuum up what's left Fukushima. Can we? And yet they license everything. It's madness, obviously beyond your conception. Money has made many a man blindly irrational. Just look around you. One corporation thousands of miles away might have just irreparably damaged the Pacific. Source of food for billions. You don't see anything upsetting about that?

    "Please stop making it til you figure that shit out. That's all I'm saying."
    The problem is with the implications of what you are saying. That waste profile is microscopic compared to the long lived wastes or exclusion areas created by the other major energy sources we have available. If it is a huge improvement over what we have, why is that not good enough to justify a move in that direction? At what point is a solution good enough to qualify as figured out. Are you holding out for perfection? What would be the rationale for remaining with worse technologies while waiting indefinitely for a perfect zero-waste technology to be developed?
    So far as I'm concerned, that is good enough to count as figured out. The 500 year sequester is probably overkill, would only apply to a portion of that basketball sized hunk of fission products, and would only be necessary if we wanted to recover the usable stable elements at the end of that period. If we don't care about those, it would not be difficult to vitrify and find places to bury them where, barring a deep impact asteroid strike, they would definitely remain buried until long after they were cold. This is assuming we want to get rid of them in the first place. We have found some radioactive isotopes to be quite useful, and we may figure out ways to use more.

            • Have you ever seen Kirk Sorensen (LFTR proponent and Chief Technologist for Flibe Energy) do his Google Tech Talk on "Is Nuclear Waste Really Waste?" It's really worth 40 minutes some time:
              Then there's British environmentalist George Monbiot's essay, "A Waste of Waste":

              I do think we are going to need fast reactors for breeding and waste burning. I'm not so sure metal sodium cooling is the best approach. I wonder if Monbiot has heard of the various molten salt fast reactors since he wrote that.
              In other news, it looks like Chris Busby is at it again, grabbing another news cycle with another of his "studies". Cue the hysteria.

              Sigh. It's a known predatory journal. Not that most journalists will bother to check.

              Those are great videos.
              Kirk Sorensen is a good reminder that nuclear power is still young and like the beginning of air travel we will continue to improve our designs to be more efficient and even safer.

              Excellent videos!

          • Yes..500 years. We have buildings older than that. And we also have the option of geological internment where the waste is placed kilometres deep in boreholes in geologically stable bedrock. 500 years is a very short time to sequester something with this technology.
            The rest of your comment is simply not true.
            Factually not true.
            The oceans have not been affected in any way by Fukushima.
            Read what actual scientists say.

            The increased radiation is an extra 1/10,000th added to the natural background radiation. The oceans contains billions of tonnes of naturally occurring isotopes and life is doing just fine with it.
            Your irrational fears are stopping us from replacing fossil fuels which are actually proven to be killing the oceans.
            I also am calling BS on your claim that you no longer believe in experts.
            You are writing your comment on a computer designed by experts and are posting it on the internet which was invented by experts and I will bet you have very high confidence that your post will show up here in the correct comment forum.
            There are probably countless other areas where you trust experts.
            Your car, airplanes, drinking water, buildings, bridges, etc etc...
            A more accurate statement would be that you reject experts when scientific facts conflict with your beliefs.

            Then is case someone thinks I just typed this up myself, it is commemorated at Ecowatch and and in this screen cap.



  1. Look the same trolls are on this thread.


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments