a fool?
You cannot refute one point in my post, as we can see from thousands of your posts) but fixate in your response to my noting the
fact that the fraud making circular references is an idiot.
Am I hearing this from someone who thinks that a discussion of any energy risks involves shouting "Dick Cheney!" at every opportunity?
The fact is that
anyone who embraces this vast circle jerk of self referential anti-nuclear dogma
is an idiot. I note that the use of circular reasoning, which includes circumstances under which anti-nuclear fools reference each other
without any reproducible
scientific work whatsoever, is an example of poor thinking. The fact is that there is now one listed as a reference for any of this jerk off stuff about "the world is running out of uranium" except one
unqualified person. It is completely the same with
every anti-nuclear argument. They all consist entirely of self-referential urban mythology and anti-scientific nonsense.
Not so long ago, I posted references to scientific work on the extraction of uranium from seawater, listing a series of papers - there are 15 of them - in the scientific journal
Ind. Eng. Chem. Research, papers that involve the work of primary researchers on the subject. These papers offered comprehensive theory, analysis of experimental results, including field testing and reported on decades of work, analysis of the types of copolymer, pore dimensions, flow rates, pore volumes, performance in various types of sea currents, the theory of solutions, adsorption, and also included the experimental testing of various types of structures and devices to achieve uranium recovery from sea water.
For instance there was, for example, in these papers discussions like this:
Mooring Test Utilizing the Natural Sea Current and Wave Motions (Test V).
Table VI1 summarizes conditions of the sea during test V (refer to Figure 91, and the results are listed in Table VIII. During the test, the velocity of sea currents was 5.5-49.7 cm/s, and the height and the vertical velocity of waves were 0.3-1.2 m and 3.4- 27 cm/s, respectively. Surprisingly, the bed packed with 780 mL of the resin (run 2, packing fraction = 1) showed slightly higher uptake than the other one in which 520 mL of the resin was packed (run 1, packing fraction = 0.667). As shown in Figure 9, the adsorption units were inclined at ca. 30° to the horizon. Thus, the resin in run 1 might be localized in a certain side of the bed by gravity as well as by sea current, since the packing fraction is small.
(Here the paper referenced is Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993,32, 709-715 "Recovery of Uranium from Seawater. 14. System Arrangements for the Recovery of Uranium from Seawater by Spherical Amidoxime Chelating Resins Utilizing Natural Seawater Motions." Authors: Hiroaki Egawa,’ Nalan Kabay,t Taketomi Shuto, and Akinori Jyo of the Department of Applied Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto 860, Japan.)
Do you know what kind of response I got?
"It doesn't work!"
Do you know what the justification was offered to refute
decades of scientific work, including oodles of
experimental data?
"I said so!!!!!"
And why did the person in question "say so?" Because the person simply tries to refute
by no more than fiat any of the myriad positives about nuclear power because the person irrationally
hates nuclear power. Why does the person
irrationally hate the last best hope of the human race? Who the fuck cares? It does not matter that the main feature of these representations is to feature a complete inability to back up any of them, from the extreme ones (millions of deaths) to the trivial (some guy living in Chicago encountered a stray atom of tritium.) In other words, like much of the anti-nuclear argument, the "refutation" of the vast literature on the extraction of uranium from seawater consists wholly of
making stuff up..
Now, I ask, is it inappropriate to apply the word "idiotic" to such a response? I don't think so. Does noting that the person in question is a fool constitute an
ad hominem attack? Maybe so, but if so, it is still
appropriate. The difference, in fact, if one looks into it, between an ad hominem attack and demonstrating that a person is an idiot is as follows: In an ad hominem attack, a person states something like the following: "Dick Cheney supports nuclear power. Dick Cheney is a corrupt fascist dickhead. Therefore nuclear power is bad." It requires a modicum of subtlety and intellect to distinguish the difference in this argument: "Person A asserts that uranium cannot be recovered from seawater while offering no evidence for this claim other than his own authority. Proof is offered, citing experimental results by primary researchers, that uranium can be recovered at an economically viable price from seawater. Therefore Person A is being idiotic." In the first case, the status of the person is being cited to make a claim that has nothing to do with the premise, just has Hitler's love of his dog Blondi has nothing to do with whether dog ownership is criminal. In the second case, a fact about the person is being established by evocation of his actions.
Once again, I will need, apparently to reference some literature on logical fallacies, not that it ever does any good:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.htmlThe fact is that the anti-nuclear position has devolved into nothing more than a religion, with a few high priests and lots of credulous acolytes who repeat the insipid chants in a rote fashion like so many "Hail Marys." The evocation is merely a faith based negation. For some reason, following the success of creationism maybe in appealing to a subset of equally credulous thinkers, this religion feels a need to masquerade as
science and seeks the credibility of
science. It is no such thing as
science though. It is, like creationism, mere circle jerking.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(228 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
