/sci/ - Science & Math

Ur a fag

UPDATE: We have a challenger!

Mad Scientist has accepted to go head to head in an agreed upon topic with anyone willing to hold their own in debate.

Right now we are seriously considering the topic of: "The private enterprising of space exploration (as opposed to organizations like NASA) is more beneficial to human progress." Mad Sci is AGAINST the proposal, believing that funding for NASA should continue.

Other possible topics:
- Overpopulation is an imminent threat to the survival of humanity
- Climate change is of an anthropogenic origin (result of humans)

Note: there are no plans to begin a debate relating to religion or God at the time being.

So, if you wish to participate in a debate, and have read the above rules, then below I encourage you to:
1. Make a tripcode (see the 4chan help page if you need to learn how)
2. Post what argument you wish to debate in. If it has already been mentioned, please consider your post a vote for the topic. If it has not been mentioned please clearly outline the argument and your position.

With any luck our first debate will begin starting on Monday or sooner.

Thank you
- Dr. Richard

>>3482654
I was the pres of my high school debate team. Formal debates are a horrible way to gain knowledge.

This is so gay

>- Try to keep posts between 300 and 1,500 words.

is that really necessary?

lol, I'd be terrified to debate mad scientist

I'll definitely keep my eye out though

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
The way I see it, /sci/ has become a cesspool of religion debates. This is a step in the right direction

It might give those fags that argue about everything here something constructive to do

I would debate the shit out of mad scientist about NASA, but I think I would fail

Honestly, 9/10 times it's simply much better and easier to respond to anyone trying to debate you with 'Ur a fgt'

Almost every argument/debate eventually just becomes ad-homimnem mud slinging after a while and it's better to just get a headstart and begin with name calling.

I accept your challeng

>>3482733

Usually true, although the people who encouraged this idea seem pretty excited about it. Im willing to see how it plays out, and why not... certainly couldnt hurt to try

>>3482740

...hello there Christopher, doing well I hope?

>>3482776
you're the right guy to ask oh wow

>>3482654
- There will be 2 rebuttals each

This kind of formal debate never works. it aids those skilled in debate and not those who necessarily hold the correct argument.

This forum is uniquely democratic in that any and every argument can and will be proposed. it's actually goes through a rather complex process of review.

Other debates:

• God (in it's many forms of discussion)
• Eugenics
• Socialism versus free market capitalism
• Science versus scientism
• Free will
• Cloning
• Abortion
• Suicide
• Homosexuality
• Race (and intelligence)
• Energy and environmentalism

just the main ones that pop up all the time on 4chan.

>>3482785

The great thing about a forum like this is that people will be able to dissect every argument as they see fit. So while I agree, under normal circumstances the winners of debates are usually those more skilled and less "right", your second point saying how democratic this board is makes this a great idea for stimulating conversation. No one is going to be declared a "Winner" by me or anyone else in any official capacity, but it will be open for interpretation by /sci/. Hope I answered you well.

>>3482678
it is terrible. with longer posts, It means it's easier for someone with the weaker argument to nitpick on minor details of his opponents argument instead of judging the whole thing

>>3482800
Awesome, thank you very much.

>>3482807

>implying /sci/ would let them get away with that

Remember that you guys are the judges of this.

And participants if you wish to be

>>3482809
There's no point scheduling it. people will discuss it when they feel like it. These issue will all come round again, you'll get your turn.

>>3482803

my point is that it's the nature of this website that makes it utterly useless to try to structure the discussion. Forget about trying to control it. Just ask a question and let it flow from there.

>>3482816
Exactly, they wouldn't allow it, so it's useless trying to structure the discussion

>>3482826
Well I figure I'll try it out, at least for those who suggested it and are interested. MS asked for it to be opened up to /sci/ before opening it up to the room.

>>3482843
Mad Scientist is a pretentious arrogant cunt. he doesn't get to decide the agenda for /sci/

Also, /sci/ won't discuss the majority of things on that list because for the most part /sci/ is in agreement. Take it elsewhere -to /b/ or somewhere less cohesive.

>>3482859
Hes probably the nicest guy on /sci/. Definitely has the best and most consistent threads, fuck you bro

>>3482859
>/sci/ is in agreement
It's not about I'M RIGHT, NO I'M RIGHT, it's about presenting both sides of the case. Sometimes there's insight to be gained from supporting the point you do not agree with.

>>3482859
>implying /sci/ has an agenda
>implying its worth rebelling against

fist up rebel... keep it up faggot

Ok, ill debate.

I'd like the topic "Climate change is of an anthropogenic origin (result of humans)"

I'll be taking the side of the proposal. I agree with it.

>>3482868
I wasn't describing him as a person, but simply my impression of him given the information displayed in this thread. Taking charge of discussion on an anonymous website when he is not the site owner of designated official moderator, and yelling come at me bro screams of faggotry

>>3482910
Global warming is a bunch of communist propaganda, you tripfag. By your trip, it sounds like you need to go back to the kitchen.

Check. And. Mate.

>>3482883
I never said it has an agenda. I siad this guy is trying to create one.

>>3482882
>Sometimes there's insight to be gained from supporting the point you do not agree with.

Not in public discussion. perhaps in your internal thoughts. Outwith that, you're just misleading people.

>>3482926
Not true. It is possible to follow an arguement to the end of its course in a public setting, á la Socrates, in order to explore whether or not it has merit.

If it doesn't, then you've convinced those around you that it is incorrect. If it does, then you ought not to be upset at having influenced them even if it is not congruent with the mindset that you adhered to going into the discussion.

>>3482926
Certainly in public discussion. Fuck, the more I hear philosophical and ethical arguments against abortion the more I start to rethink my position.

>>3482859
Mad Scientist is an awesome dude.

Also, another topic is tech singularity and AI, will it happen, what is needed for it to happen (something new or boltzman machines) and the fact that it might just be intelgent, but not self-aware.

"Overpopulation is an imminent threat to the survival of humanity"

I disagree with this, Ill debate whoever

>>3482935
yeah that's you listen to the other arguments. it's not someone taking up the other argument as if they agreed with it when they do not.

>>3482934

I should note that here I am assuming that it is a real discussion, and not one of sophistry wherein one is merely trying to out maneuver the opponent through trickery.

>>3482946
>implying

no. u.

>>3482934
Socrates only engaged in that kind of dialogue when he knew where it was going to end up.

>>3482958
indeed, he had confidence

>>3482961
Exactly. You can only take up a position you oppose when you know it has no merit

>>3482958
Even if that were true, and I would have to dig out my copy of the Dialogues to check, that doesn't affect my statement regarding the merit of public discussion.

If one ends up arguing for the non-held idea well, and discovers that it is in fact true, one has most likely grown more than if one simply repeated the arguments that one is accustomed to.
If one's proposal is found to be lacking, then something has been gained as well, and nothing lost.

It seems to me to be just as valuable. Additionally, it seems a nice little exercise in empathy with those with differing ideas.

>>3482910

>debating climate change on /sci/

You *do* know what kind of people you'll be debating, right?

>>3482976
Only if you are prideful and must always feel correct.

There is nothing wrong with discovering that you have been wrong, and growing from it.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

>>3482938
>>3482910
Awesome guys

if you want to post an email, that would be good
(just make one on gmail or something)

>>3482982
When I was in debate club in high school (don't laugh, we went toe-to-toe in state forums consistently against places like Andover and Phillips Exeter) I always represented the con. This sharpened my skills but also gave me a detached view of shit that I thought I believed in.

If a skilled non-troll on /sci/ were to honestly debate Mad Scientist, I think it would be a win-win for everybody.

Any way, everybody knows trolls cheat, so where's the benefit in that kind of matchup?

>>3483008
IInventeddyoverdx@gmail.com

>>3483022
I would argue that it is different in a competitive atmosphere, as it seems that this would lead people to insincerely support a topic in order to "win".

I agree that trolls cheat, but I think competitive debaters do too.

Both sides would benefit more if the atmosphere was non-judgmental, non-competitive, and both sides sought truth over victory.

>>3483037
Sorry, I forgot to say that I think that this would also lead to a minimization of the skewed viewpoints you experienced after arguing for the con.

>>3483022
well you should pick a topic then, this would be great

>>3482800
>>3482800

I'll debate eugenics with someone as an anti!

>>3483037
>both sides sought truth over victory.

I don't think this can be achieved. And formality in debates actually reinforces it then avoiding it.

I think it's also true for you as well, even though you like to think you value truth over victory.

>>3483056

Eugenics is entirely unworkable, unnecessary, and is largely an emotional reaction academics have when they deal with people who dislike academics.

>>3483056
If we stop people with hereditary disorders from reproducing, the future generation will be born without hereditary disorders.

As much as I like playing devil's advocate, it doesn't work that well. You can only present the best argument for something when you genuinely believe it is true. If you are just taking on that point of view to educate yourself and remain open minded then it is insufficient.

Socrates didn't play devil's advocate, he only invited others to put across their arguments.

>>3483063
I'm not sure why formality is a good thing, then.
I agree that it can probably never be achieved perfectly, but I also do not believe that it is dichotomous like that.

One can never truly throw off one's bias, but one can get close.

I admit that most of my discussions lead to reinforcement of previously-held beliefs, but I am proud to say that I regularly leave enlightened and with a more nuanced viewpoint.

It helps that I usually have discussions with people who have put a lot of time into refining their viewpoints based on research articles, not the self-affirming internet shit, and are at my place of learning to learn rather than to support their agenda.

>>3483067
>>3483056
>notsureifserious.jpg

but if you are, post an email

>>3483073

I concede to your point, and revise mine.

"Eugenics should not be used to improve the human race as a bell curve."

>>3483091

This was not in the original rules, Mr. Richard.

rukifellthcruez@gmail.com

>>3483098
You concede?! What? That point was entirely bullshit. If you stop people with hereditary disorders reproducing, those disorders will still persist

>>3483104

oh, would you look at the time. I'll be gone for roughly 6 hours.

brb!

I hold that fossil fuels will continue to be the fuel of choice for 100 years. And will argue my point against any contenders.

I will defend that thorium cannot replace fossil fuels in the near future.
I will defend that we will not run out of fosil fuels in the near future.
And I will proclaim that fossil fuels will be of paramount importance in combating both climate change and food shortages.

>>3483120

I doubt anyone will want to debate you because you are arguing with straw-men.

>>3483120
>>3483120
>fossil fuels will continue to be the fuel of choice
>we will not run out of fossil fuels in the near future

All well and good, but the oil debate even among peak Oil folks has never been about "running out", it is about scarcity and expense, and I think the "choice' matter is already stipulated.

Try again.

>>3483138
Why? These are valid reasons for me to believe fossil fuels are the best fuels. It doesnt mean other points cannot be argued in contention.

>>3483138

I do that all the time. You can't stop me.

>>3483160

>I will defend that thorium cannot replace fossil fuels in the near future.

I doubt many people believe that fossil fuels will be completely replaced by thorium alone.

>I will defend that we will not run out of fossil fuels in the near future.

This is both trivially true and irrelevant. The real issues are with the rising cost and negative impacts on health, environment, security etc.

>And I will proclaim that fossil fuels will be of paramount importance in combating both climate change and food shortages.

I don't think anyone disputes the importance of fossil fuels for agriculture. However, I would like to hear how fossil fuels are going to "fix" climate change...they are causing.

>>3483120

It probably will be, but a point for argument would be "Fossil fuels SHOULD continue to be the fuel of choice over other forms of energy including renewable forms"

Your argument is more of a factual claim... you see what I mean?

>>3483157
Replace out with low then. You are correct I worded poorly. But the central point remains the same, we will continue to have enough oil to meet energy requirement needs.

>>3483194
There are 4 places for co2. Atmosphere water ground and organisms. We are removing co2 from the ground and organisms, and depositing it in the atmosphere. Where it naturally moves into the water. Traditionally organisms remove co2 from the air and water, then deposit it in the ground. The co2 cycle if you will.

By manipulating this cycle we can speed up the removal from air/water and increase the amount stored in organisms/ground. We already do this in part by planting more trees, and turning old vwgetation into fertilizers, but current systems are to slow to offset our release. Newer technologies however allow us the take the co2 and produce oil, in numbers up to 1000 times more efficient per acreage. This does 2 things, 1 . Stops us from releasing additional co2 from the ground, and 2. Puts the infrastructure in place to remove more co2 than we release.

>>3483120

It probably will be, but a point for argument would be "Fossil fuels SHOULD continue to be the fuel of choice over other forms of energy including renewable forms"

Your argument is more of a factual claim... you see what I mean?

Please leave an email though

do NOT LET DR RICHARD TOUCH YOUR GENITALS

HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR

>Overpopulation is an imminent threat to the survival of humanity
That argument would educate a lot of uninformed people, but is hopelessly one-sided. We'll be in population decline in another 50 years.

>>3483231

>Newer technologies however allow us the take the co2 and produce oil, in numbers up to 1000 times more efficient per acreage

Do you have an example of this working somewhere?

>>3482993
It is possible to counter the backfire effect when you are aware of it. It requires a very deep devotion to accepting the truth, no matter what it is, and no matter how much it may upset you.

>>3483251
I;m working on it

>>3483234 should
I can dig it.

As for email pascaln5Z3VuZapw@gmail.com

I think

>>3483259

Anonymous saves the world again!

>>3483247
Sorry on phone, dont have good math handy. And google just lists biodiesel webaites which I assume you wouldnt accept. Maybe mad scientist is on. He has good algae co2 numbers. Then we will just need to find reliable tree numbers.

I like the idea and would love to follow. My observation is that debate is good and all but I rarely find debate very much useful. Usually, the two sides will take on extreme for and against and use their best evidences to counter one another, the issue is either black or white. Rarely, in practicality any thing is that clear cut, it's always some sort of a gray shade. For example: is overpopulation going to be the problem, I think it's yes and no. You can all find the arguments for it already. But I think the real issue here is the rate of population grownth, the problem of resources (land, food, water etc). Anyways, sudden loss of point or interests, sorry. You guys do anything, any debates between good tripcoders is good. But I'd love to have someway of keeping track of debate.


oh, on a complete different notes: Dr. Richard and other tripcoders, where do you guy hang out, how do you coordinate/communicate with eachothers. If you're afraid of trolls, I promise I won't be one, please email to me at not.nobita@gmail.com

>>3483311
>>3483309
We tend to find ourselves in
http://synchtu.be/DrRichard
but thats just we're we hang out, its hardly official

•Everything is OK vs Everything isn't OK

Very vague. You can use this in different fields (Politics, Economics, Science, everything).
I really love this "change/innovation" shit so debates like that I would certainly support.

>>3483311
>>3483309
We tend to find ourselves in
http://synchtu.be/DrRichard
but thats just where we hang out, its hardly official

>>3483116
>>3483116
>>3483067
>>3483056
>>3483091
>>3483098
>>3483104

I'm back.


>>3483110

Really? I thought we were referring to the debilitating genetic disorders like Down's syndrome.

it should be interesting to see Mad Scientist duke it out with some of you guys

...so we're just waiting for Mad Scientist now

I support this activity.

I just found this thread, and I need to clarify some things;

#1. I am not opposed to private spaceflight. I am strongly, enthusiastically supportive of it. I was asked if NASA should continue to receive funding and said yes. That was misinterpreted as opposition to private spaceflight when in fact I support both. NASA's rightful role is performing the hard science for which no business case can be made, and the missions that are beyond the present capabilities of private industry.

#2. DrRichard decided the debate agenda. He initially pit me against someone from the synchtube who, it turned out, didn't necessarily disagree re: the topic DrRichard had chosen (the value of oceanic exploration).

#3. I don't know why some here seem to think I'm great at arguing. No more or less than anyone else. I think I just create that impression because I'm difficult to anger.


I'd actually love to have any of these debates, but they needn't be adversarial. They can be discussions rather than battles, and I think both parties may arrive at a point of understanding that leaves them feeling like they have a stronger and more cohesive position than they did before, having stress-tested it against other ideas. :3

That said, here are some more ideas for discussions:

#1. Efficiency and cleanliness of electric vehicles versus gas and hydrogen
#2. Whether we should settle and industrialize the sea, from an economic and environmental standpoint
#3. Could a post-scarcity economy work?

I'm also anti-eugenics if it matters, for the obvious reason that genetic engineering offers the same benefits with greater precision and without the necessity of forced marriages and sterilizations.

Eugenics, the word, is associated with racism and other trash. In Europe there was and is some sort of Democratic eugenics, for example in Denmark the doctor tells the women (when the fetus is still young, too young to be human) that it will develop down's syndrome, the women then has the choice of aborting it's ass or leaving it be. Most abort it so the disease would get rooted out. This can work, a state forcing shit on other people would never ever work and is completely disgusting and against what most scientists stand for.

>>3482800
This has nothing to do with science, faggot.

How bout debating whether technology is a boon or bane to the progression of our species? Whether it's fundementaly improving our society our simply making it much more efficient at feeding our basic instinctual needs? Should the point of the internet be delivering porn to us at the speed of light or should it foster an evolution in our outlook on sex and help those who don't understand their libidinal slavery break free from it?

>>3485369

Ah, oh well. I'm used to pro-eugenicists being ignorant.

Here's one.

"Paedophilia as a condition would be easily cured if there wasn't so much irresponsible hatred directed towards it. Those who have it would be less afraid to subject themselves to medical scrutiny, and the decreased stigma-induced stress would make them more creative in regards to introspection. That same stigma turns the condition into an obsession which will, in time, make the condition even worse. "

Maybe you guys could do it on whether nuclear power is a better alternative than renewable energy.

>>3485725

We need both, though. Nuclear reactors don't grow on trees. Their expense is the elephant in the room I never see discussed. And the practical reality is that there's a lot of political opposition to building them. That may not be fair, but if we're talking about their utility in the real world and not an idealized fantasy world where everyone loves nuclear power, the NIMBY factor must be included.

For those places where it's politically feasible to build nuclear power plants, we should do so within our budget. For those places where it isn't, there now exist renewable energy sources that are nearly as good. (Heliostats, mountaintop windfarms in the jetstream, tidal turbines in the gulf stream, all of which offer uninterrupted baseload power).

We can't ignore the practical value of these simply because nuclear is cooler. It has drawbacks many seem loathe to think about. It's a necessary piece of the puzzle, but can't be used everywhere and cannot solve our energy problems by itself.

>>3485765
>Their expensive
Right.
>It has drawbacks
Right.
>but can't be used everywhere and cannot solve our energy problems by itself.
Why not? Like you said there is too much fear-mongering to allow for them to be used alone to power every major city, but it could be done.

Nuclear power could be used to power every major city in the United States within 20 years if the public was willing.

>>3485795

>Why not? Like you said there is too much fear-mongering to allow for them to be used alone to power every major city, but it could be done.

It can't be done, because there's too much fear mongering. You answered your own question. You don't see it as a real problem because it's immaterial, because there's no real technological barrier to it, but public opposition only seems immaterial until you try to bypass it.

>Nuclear power could be used to power every major city in the United States within 20 years if the public was willing.

Yes, but they're not. You work with the world you're born into, not the idealized world that we all wish we lived in.

>>3482654
One very important question.

Who is/are the judge(s)?

>>3485805
>You work with the world you're born into, not the idealized world that we all wish we lived in.
Get this fatalist shit out of here.

>>3485813

>Get this fatalist shit out of here.

I am in no way a fatalist. I think progress is absolutely possible. But none will be made if you don't have a realistic understanding of the obstacles we face.

It's the difference between crossing through a lion enclosure by pretending the lions don't exist, versus using tranquilizer darts.

>>3485805
Well it is regrettable that nuclear power is seen that way.
But I'll still keep pushing for nuclear power being our main source of energy in first world countries because I think that it is a more reliable source of energy than solar or wind.
Plus, I think it's way safer than coal or oil.

>>3485725
>>3485813
What?

>>3485765
>Nuclear reactors don't grow on trees.
Neither do photovoltaic, hydroelectric, wind or geothermal.
Nuclear yields more energy per investment than alternatives atm. Also current nuclear reactors were designed to make plutonium for bombs not energy there are much more efficient designs and alternative nuclear fuels that make it by far our best bet until we figure out fusion which is probably still a few decades a way at best.

>>3485819

>But I'll still keep pushing for nuclear power being our main source of energy in first world countries because I think that it is a more reliable source of energy than solar or wind.

If you don't know what a heliostat is I invite you to research them. They will change your whole view of renewable energy. They produce uninterrupted power, day and night, by the use of thousands of cheap mirrors which track the sun and focus light on a central boiler. The reason it works at night is because the outer boiler holds molten salt, not water. Molten salt is the most efficient 'heat battery' we know of, which is to say it retains thermal energy very well. It's heated to boiling during the day, and that heat lasts overnight, keeping the inner water boiler running and producing electricity right through to when the sun comes up.

>>3482938
Over population IS a threat (not so imminent however) to the survival of humanity.

That's why we should start looking for solutions to the space and resources distribution problem.

>>3485836
Got any tolerable citations for capital costs and production costs?

>>3485832

>>Neither do photovoltaic, hydroelectric, wind or geothermal.

Good thing I'm not promoting any of those. Heliostats aren't photovoltaic. They're solar thermal. They produce electricity the same way a coal power plant does, but using molten salt heated by focused sunlight to boil the water and drive the turbine. It's cheaper than photovoltaic, competitive with coal already and uses less land.

>>3485844
That is, cost per mW of the facility, and cost per mWh for maintenance?

>>3485844

>Got any tolerable citations for capital costs and production costs?

Ask Google. No, I don't mean Google it, I mean ask the Google company. They've invested in their own heliostat, the largest ever built.

http://mashable.com/2011/04/12/ivanpah-google-solar-energy/

The price they expect is realistic is around 6 cents per kwh, should be 5 and change by the end of the decade.

Can't find any price estimates for the plants themselves, just comparisons with photovoltaic power plants. On a utility scale, it would seem that heliostats are considerably cheaper, mainly because mirrors cost a tiny fraction of what solar panels do.

>>3485846
I knew you would pounce on that. I should have said "or any other alternative energy source" But I didn't because then someone would have said "lol wat about biofuels".

The point is nothing is free. Heliostats are amazing but they don't compare to nuclear energy. Nuclear is the most cost effective, practical and deployable alternative to fossil fuels.

>>3485836
Well that is an interesting idea. If it works in reality as well as it sounds here. However I, like you appear to as well, still don't think that this is the only solution.
In places that get a lot of sunlight this is great idea, but in the northern states and in northern Europe? (Sweden, Norway, Russia.)
What I like about nuclear power is that you can put a reactor practically anywhere.
It's power does not come from anything outside of our control like the weather or climate of the area.
Another thing I like about it is how much energy it produces. I want the first world to adopt an energy policy that is not only sustainable but also abundant. A post-scarce energy wise at least, society.

>>3485889

>The point is nothing is free. Heliostats are amazing but they don't compare to nuclear energy. Nuclear is the most cost effective, practical and deployable alternative to fossil fuels.

....In an idealized world where we can build them anywhere, and nobody opposes it. It may enrage you, but we don't live in that world. Best on paper does not translate to most practical in reality.

>>3485893

>What I like about nuclear power is that you can put a reactor practically anywhere.

Actually, this isn't true. Zoning for nuclear plants is extremely strict and they must be built next to very large bodies of water or places where artificial bodies of water can be constructed for cooling purposes.

>>3485907
>implying that all nuclear reactors are light water reactors.
Please don't do that.

>- Must use tripcodes to retain identity.

Fucking cancer. Reported.

>>3482654
>/Sci/ is great for talking and discussing topics

>>3485896
Have you ever heard of thorium? You could literally build a plant in every major city and town.

Yes the public opposition is a real barrier in fact I would say that its the most significant con for nuclear energy. I guess it comes down to what is easier to overcome, ideological barriers or technical barriers.

I'm not one for formal debates but I will gladly call people on the shit I disagree with in the following discussion.

>>3485912

>Please don't do that.

If you're hinting that Thorium reactors don't have those limitations, that's true, but we don't have any thorium reactors right now.

>>3485926

>Have you ever heard of thorium? You could literally build a plant in every major city and town.

Sure, but none of these exist yet. I am hugely pro-thorium but we can't pretend the problem is already solved because the technology exists. There are still huge hurdles involved in selling the public and congress on the idea, and getting them built. I love you guys but you sometimes pretend that deploying new technologies is the easy part.

>>3485969
I think most people in this thread are like myself and are pushing for the molten salt thorium reactor as the energy solution. I'll take a look at the Heliostats, but it already seems that they're more expensive per kwh than a LFTR, less reliable, and available in less places - aka those without good sunlight.

Still, that cost estimate is pleasing.

>>3485969

I promised myself I would stop saying "LFTR", so I'll just pretend the whole Oak Ridge experiments didn't happen. We have experimental ones in India which will pave the way for commercial use in the near future.

>Public opposition

Can be alleviated through a well funded education campaign. Compile all oft he public's greatest fears about nuclear power, and explain why they are obsolete, irrelevant, or exaggerated.

>>3485989

>I think most people in this thread are like myself and are pushing for the molten salt thorium reactor as the energy solution. I'll take a look at the Heliostats, but it already seems that they're more expensive per kwh than a LFTR, less reliable, and available in less places - aka those without good sunlight.

Do you have real world figures for the cost of LFTR energy? I thought none existed yet. If it's just cost projections, remember that power from light water uranium plants was supposed to be too cheap to meter.

>>3486007
>remember that power from light water uranium plants was supposed to be too cheap to meter.
From the non-experts. The experts at the time, the man who invented the light water reactor and held the patent on it, was pushing for thorium.

>>3486001

>We have experimental ones in India which will pave the way for commercial use in the near future.

Can I get some links on good, thorough information about it? I want to know how it's doing, how much the energy from it costs in practice, etc.

>>3486001

>Can be alleviated through a well funded education campaign. Compile all oft he public's greatest fears about nuclear power, and explain why they are obsolete, irrelevant, or exaggerated.

Has this worked for evolution?

>>3486016
> >Can be alleviated through a well funded education campaign. Compile all oft he public's greatest fears about nuclear power, and explain why they are obsolete, irrelevant, or exaggerated.
>Has this worked for evolution?
We don't have religion working against us. It's more plausible.

>>3486012

>From the non-experts. The experts at the time, the man who invented the light water reactor and held the patent on it, was pushing for thorium.

I'm pro-thorium. I hope that's clear. But I will not join the chorus of hallelujahs until I see one working and there are people paying for power from it at the rates you're promising.

>>3486026
All I'm asking is we take 1-2 bill from useless programs and divert to Thorium research. Example: Cash For Clunkers should have never happened. 2 billion right there. Any money we have going for fusion research should be diverted. Any money in wind power or photovoltaic should be diverted. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but it's the most promising tech /by far/ to solve our energy needs.

>>3486016

>>Has it worked for evolution?

As Scientist has stated, thorium isn't challenging an ideology shared by hundreds of millions of people. It does not go against the desires of the people.

In fact, thorium is providing what the public wants- energy independence (no blood for oil etc). if anything, thorium can take advantage of the thing that halted evolution. And that thing, is the tendency for people to think what they want to believe.

If you talk about thorium like a zealot, then of ocurse everyone will be skeptical. But what you're asking for, or rather, what you're saying is a pre-requisite for public support, is self defeating. you suggest that thorium requires a commercial reactor to be accepted. but a commercial reactor will not happen until its accepted. I don't think this is necessary. Present people will actions, and a simplified sequence of events, and they'll accept it as plausible osunding. Then, they'll have a hope.

>>3486039
>going for fusion research should be diverted.
Whoa slow down there. Thorium is great but Fusion is genuine future tech. When we figure out fusion that will be like enabling cheat codes as far as energy production goes.

>>3486039

>All I'm asking is we take 1-2 bill from useless programs and divert to Thorium research. Example: Cash For Clunkers should have never happened. 2 billion right there. Any money we have going for fusion research should be diverted. Any money in wind power or photovoltaic should be diverted. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but it's the most promising tech /by far/ to solve our energy needs.

You need a totalitarian form of government to accomplish this. It's easy to consider yourself the authoritative czar when it comes to what should and shouldn't be funded, but in a democratic system, everyone has a say, and a lot of what you consider useless is important to others.

>>3486080

That doesn't help us if organic fuel reserves run out before that happens. There's no reason to not research fusion after efficient fission has been utilized. Walk before you run.

>>3486080
As soon as we figure out if thorium works or not, I agree we ought to put money back into fusion. However, I think we need to focus on the problems in the proper sequence. Sometimes a short time horizon isn't a bad thing. But, it remains the fact that thorium molten salt is "close" to commercial, whereas fusion is still a long way off.

>>3486077

>As Scientist has stated, thorium isn't challenging an ideology shared by hundreds of millions of people. It does not go against the desires of the people.

It challenges irrational beliefs inspired by the Fukushima disaster. I think you underestimate the difficulty of reasoning with a fearful public.

>>3486039
>>3486080

You slow down there too.

Fusion should be put on the backburner until things are stabilized for a long time.

Sustained fusion just doesn't seem to work. Whether cold fusion can truly happen at all is still a question.

It shouldn't be pursued until we have resources to spare for it.

>>3485810
Anyone have an answer? Who is judging the debate?

>>3486083
Meh? In a policy debate, such as this one, it's traditional to assume that we're debating over what policies would be best to implement. I'm not suggesting a usurpation. I'm arguing that this is the best course of action, and hopefully through debate and free speech, the idea will spread to others, and it will change how they vote.

>>3486083

Then how did those programs come to be funded in the first place? I don't think many people in the public sector would have liked to have their tax dollars directed towards a technology that they believe is unlikely to bear fruit.

it's more likely that a small group of people makes those decisions. And that group can be targeted for presentation.

>>3486091
Better than attempting to reason with a religious public. Look. This isn't "My Way Or The Highway". Pursue your awesome solar too. I'm not suggesting we stop that. I'm suggesting that we try to educate the public on what is arguably the best energy source we have.

>>3486094

This is exactly what I was talking about. Everyone has an opinion as to what should be funded and what shouldn't. Everyone seems to think they should be able to dictate what receives money, what technologies are realistic and which aren't.

Imagine if your body worked like that. Each organ receiving blood at different times, subject to changing opinions on which is most important.

We're not going to pull funding from everything else because one person thinks their favorite technology is the most important thing in the world. We live in a world with more than one person in it. They are valid, their views must be taken into account, and as a result we've wound up funding everything that looks promising and which we can find funding for.

Learn to share. There's money for more than one kind of research, and none of us has the authority to singlehandedly dictate which technologies are pursued or how they are prioritized.

>>3486091

Abusing people's fears was easy enough. Just show them something dramatic.

The same effect could probably be used in a different way. Present people with dramatic, read DRAMATIC, evidence for a claim. That's so many people bleieve in Global Warming.

>>3486131
>There's money for more than one kind of research,
Except there isn't. Know how much funding is going towards molten salt thorium in the US? About 0. In the world? Excepting China, close to 0.

>and none of us has the authority to singlehandedly dictate which technologies are pursued or how they are prioritized.
Correct that no one has the authority. We live in a constitutional democratic republic. The basic idea is that by coming together to debate the issues, like we are now, we'll be able to ascertain the best course of action.

>>3486135

>The same effect could probably be used in a different way. Present people with dramatic, read DRAMATIC, evidence for a claim. That's so many people bleieve in Global Warming.

I accept AGW and am not swayed by those kinds of theatrics. I accept it because of the good standing of the theory within climate science and because so far the only scientists who have come out against it have had close ties with the oil industry.

Good example; That recent study purporting to "blow holes in climate alarmism" was in fact written by a creationist for the Heartland Institute, a Libertarian thinktank, and most of his career to this point has been funded by Exxon Mobil:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in
-global-warming-alarmism/

I have seen many similar claims that climate scientists are corrupt in this manner but I have seen none of them corroborated with evidence. It's as if we're supposed to share their cynicism and just assume it's the same on both sides when it doesn't actually seem to be.

It's also the case that most of the people complaining that the issue has been politicized are deniers, who are themselves responsible for politicizing it. It's good science that conservatives found objectionable because it happens to benefit many liberal pet causes. The Koch Brothers and other wealthy conservatives are the ones responsible for politicizing the issue; their motive being to create enough confusion around the science that no legislative action can take place that would require them to reign in industrial pollution.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/03/koch-brothers-funding-climate-change-denial-machine/

>>3486209

You're an educated person though. Of course you accept global warming on its academic merit. Do you think everyone else does? I don't think the Fukushima incident embittered you towards nuclear power, because you have facts, or at least the midnset conducive to finding facts.

Just last night I was talking to a guy who honestly believed that astronomers were "making shit up to justify their jobs". I think you overestimate the intellectual standards of the average person.

>>3486237

>Just last night I was talking to a guy who honestly believed that astronomers were "making shit up to justify their jobs". I think you overestimate the intellectual standards of the average person.

Ah, I misunderstood. I think I get you now. You're saying that whether the public supports something or not is based more on how it's marketed to them and how it emotionally impacts them than its factual merit. I agree, I said the same thing earlier.

And I do think the public can be sold on Thorium. But I am a pessimist about the timeframe. I think they will need to see it working in other countries while their own power costs rise until envy and frugality overcomes their emotional reservations. That may take two or three decades.

>>3486253

Well yes, given the present course of action. If no one, no special interest group, nor radical politician, nor entrepreneur comes up with a clever, manipulative political campaign, then that course may be the one the world takes.The question is no longer about how people interpret information, nor the technical aspects of the reactor, but whether its possible to abuse people's emotion to sell them on it within the decade. I believe it can be. Just throw some short, easy to remember statistics. Explain how coal ash is a bigger radiation hazard than mined uranium. That doesn't even require much of an explanation.

"Radioactive metals are all around us in small amounts. Coal ash has it concentrated in one spot, because the metals don't burn. It's easy to breath in."

>>3486338

>Explain how coal ash is a bigger radiation hazard than mined uranium. That doesn't even require much of an explanation.

Read this, it's enlightening.

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

>>3486362

I said mined uranium, not nuclear waste.

>>3486392

I don't think anyone's really concerned about the radioactivity of mined uranium. They're concerned about safely storing the waste.

>Using several research studies as evidence, the story does make a convincing case that, as it says, “the fly ash emitted by a power plant . . . carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.”

That statement is still a heavy one. Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

sorry, I was busy trolling people on chat roulette

chaptcha related- photonic curedit

>>3486560

>That statement is still a heavy one.

Keep reading. He goes on to explain why it's dishonest and doesn't ultimately mean what the SciAm article claimed.

>>3486574

What does that imply? The statement is clarified to "if you stand on a pile of fly ash, you'll get more radiation than from well shielded radioactive waste." I'm suggesting the presentation of shocking but easy-to-explain facts to help sway people form the pre-conceived notions they have. but I'm not sure what you're implying by stating that article.It will possibly make them feel like "Shit, we actually have no idea what's going on here. Let's take a bit of a look here". Then you expose them to information just like the last. Simple, yet effective.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to imply by posting that. perhaps that it's possible to go overboard, or that the message will be skewed?

>>3486602

Just that the statement "Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste", which is the form that sound bite usually takes, neglects to mention that they're comparing unshielded ash with shielded waste.

>>3486621

I don't want to have to guess what you're trying to imply by saying this. I never made these statements nor cited that article, but you're presenting it to me and then refuting it as if it was something that I brought up. I think I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but for the sake of clarity, please state it, ans well as how its related to this discussion.

>>3486653
>>3486151

Dicks and Scientist, please leave an email (just make one if you want) with which we can contact you concerning the debate. It will likely take place next week.

>>3486671

rukifellthcruez@gmail.com

>>3486671

patentfund@gmail.com

>I don't want to have to guess what you're trying to imply by saying this. I never made these statements nor cited that article, but you're presenting it to me and then refuting it as if it was something that I brought up. I think I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but for the sake of clarity, please state it, ans well as how its related to this discussion.

It's the only statement worth refuting because "mined uranium is less radioactive than coal ash" is irrelevant. The concern was never about the mined uranium, but the waste. And so is saying "Shielded radioactive waste is less radioactive than fly ash". Obviously, it's shielded. Coal ash, when properly landfilled, is effectively shielded. That was the fair comparison to make.

lols?
Have my spam email.
sdagrqewfrgwwfw@gmail.com

>>3486713

The aim wasn't to downplay radioactive waste. The aim was to downplay radioactivity. The fact that fly ash is a mild radiation hazard is something that many people don't know. Whenever there's "this or that" nuclear incident, liek a steam explosion or something like that, everyone becomes deathly afraid of the radiation exposure, hence the purchase of gieger meters en masse during the Japanese earthquakes.

If people are made to realize that radiation is all around them, they'll be less afraid of it and more willing to listen to reason. It's also important to realize that this fact alone isn't a show-stopper, it's more of an attention grabber. That article I linked to on natural nuclear reactors.... now THAT'S a show stopper.

>>3486755

Oh, fair enough. The question in my mind is how we're expected to switch over to thorium after having invested so much in light water uranium reactors. The design is fundamentally different, they can't be converted, are we to throw all of that away? That'll be a hard sell, if we really need all new reactors.

>>3486811

Well, a lot of the LWR we have are nearing the end of their commissioned life anyway, or so I've heard. Regardless, those things were built to supply a nuclear arsenal, not provide energy. I'm not suggesting we should decommission LWR before its economically appropriate for that particular plant. But in the case of building new plants, yes. The LWR should be regarded as a second RBMK. The design is simply not appropriate for the places we'd like to be headed. All the investment towards LWR passed the Cold War was a tremendous waste of time, effort and money, and someone is going to, or at least deserves to, have hell to pay for it when word gets around.

As you can probably tell by my writing, I'm feeling very sleepy. I must sleep now. I know it's frustrating for someone to present a point and not let you refute it, so I'll just take it in good faith that you had a reasonable and intriguing response for me. see you next week. or email me, whichever works.

>>3486881

Besides, Fukushima was a LWR, and it was downed by weather phenomena. Thorium or not, the LWR has some inherent safety problems that the public, and hopefully the academic community, will never be comfortable with.

>>3486889

It's still going to be a massive expense to tear them down, and that needs to be included in the cost estimate for switching to Thorium.

>>3486905

As opposed to just leaving them there? Those LWR's would've needed decommissioning regardless of whether or not thorium is involved, so the cost is a given. I hope you aren't suggesting that we keep those LWR for a few more decades. Cutting corners to save money is what killed Fukushima. What kind of safety measure can be flooded? The fact that it could even happen in theory should never have been acceptable, especially in a coastal area prone to earthquakes!

The government has spent more, on less worthy, with less public opposition regarding finances.