A Recent Thread Not Removed or Deleted Is Not Appearing In the Science Forum Titles.

[NNadir]

It refers to an article in a scientific journal.

The post is this one: Nature Energy: An Estimate of the Death Toll Associated with a US Nuclear Power Phase Out.

Oddly it seemed to have received one of 7 recs after disappearing. (I can access it through "My Posts." )

???

[highplainsdem]

1. Yes, it is. I can see that title between the threads on water bears and the South Korean fusion reactor.

[NNadir]

3. That's even stranger. I just went to the Science forum, and I can't see it, nor could I see it on my cell phone.

I'll log out and see if I can see it then.

[NNadir]

4. I think I know what's going on here and it does represent, I think, a software bug.

I logged out and could see the post listed in the science forum titles.

The post seems to have had only one response, and it is from a person who I've happily put on my ignore list for years because I don't suffer vapid boring uneducated fools well. The jerk seems to have recommended the post as well as a demonstration of what it regards as "wit."

Perhaps a bug in the software prevents me from seeing the title of a post in which the only respondent is on my ignore list.

It's a minor point I guess.

[TexasTowelie]

2. I also see your post from Tuesday. nt

[NNadir]

6. Thanks. See Post #4.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. It's on your end. Appears for me

Nature Energy: An Estimate of the Death Toll Associated with a US Nuclear Power Phase Out. 1 NNadirTuesday Tuesday 7 330

7 recommendations, 330 views, posted on Tuesday
1 reply, posted on Tuesday

[NNadir]

8. See Post #4 in this thread.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Unlikely to be a "software bug". Log back in.

You may have sorted the posts in the forum with one of the column headings. Logging out would undo the sort. I don't know if logging back in would retain your sort. I don't think it would. I think you get the default sort again, which is what I had in the Science forum.

[NNadir]

10. It is. I did and the title disappeared again. It's linked to the ignored correspondent.

[Donkees]

11. Might "death toll'' be in your trash by keyword list? That would make your post invisible to you

[usonian]

12. I see it just fine.

I was thinking block list, as I myself trash a small dictionary worth of keywords AND (this is important, as I found out the hard way)

trashing a word will trash a word that contains it, hence the article.

Trashing mate or clear (unlikely) will trash the article.

Worst case is that there is a bug wherein blocking a respondent inadvertently blocks the OP. It's science. Experiment!

And BTW, if whoever wrote the paper wants visibility, post it to arxiv. I couldn't find it there, nor any (redacted) clandestine sources.

As another thread or two pointed out: when all reliable content is paywalled, only conspiracy theories, AI-generated filler and SEO will be available across the digital (and money) divide.

You probably over-quoted ( I did that and got a nastygram) but the admins would let you know, rather than play invisibility games.

Good luck.

[NNadir]

13. Nature Journals, I don't think, worry about wide "visibility."

There is a movement among major journals to provide some open access, but they make their money by not doing so for everything.

arxiv from what I see of it seems to be a wide ASAP site for work in progress, unreviewed. There is some interesting stuff there, but I try not to take it seriously if involved in something important, unless I know of the authorship.

As for the disappearing title:

I suspect it's about the blocked respondent, coupled with a bug. It's not a big deal actually. I'm acutely aware of the basic ideas underlying the topic and certainly don't need access to it, and if I wish to do so, I can through "My Posts."

The worst part was logging out to check out the problem and being forced to recognize the respondent in question displaying, as always, the inability to have a coherent thought. I think it knows how to work the smiley buttons, and not much else. It's always the same with that loon.

As for the excerpts, I didn't even excerpt the best part of the paper, because the entire post was thrown together quickly when I was running out of time and had other things to do connected with my real life. However a Nature journal pointing out that antinukism kills people seemed worth noting, even if sloppily. The full paper indicates a putative US nuclear phase out as causing 5000 + deaths/year from air pollution. Each year that the US were to operate without nuclear energy is said to be expected to result in 80,000 to 170,000 deaths in the century from CO₂ related effects, climate change. In other words, ten years without nuclear would lead to 800,000 to 1,700,000 deaths over the course of the century.

My time on the planet is nearly over, but I want to go out trying, within my limited ability, to get this truth as much exposure as possible.

[usonian]

14. I'm planning to reinvent the internet at age 75.

Why not? I made plans for over 10 years. That's fine because my ideas are always ahead of the times (idiot bosses failed to grasp that).

My qualm with nuclear power is the fact that it's operated by the likes of PG&E. They can't send electricity through a wire without burning the countryside.

Got a better answer? Technology deserves a lot better than the grifters and sociopaths managing it, and so do we.

[NNadir]

15. The PSGE generated fires were caused by rigging California with a vast number of wires to connect so called...

..."renewable energy." The wind turbines in California are strewn over more than 1500 square miles of destroyed former wilderness, much of it in remote areas.

This requires a vast, destructive, and apparently dangerous network of transmission lines, the necessity of which is exacerbated by solar facilities, which are also dependent on mass, land, and transmission dependent wiring.

This is a function of the fact that so called "renewable energy" is unreliable, needs to be backed up by fossil fuel plants - to which wires must also be extended - a rather toxic and economically absurd redundancy that is seldom discussed in the dishonest marketing driving climate change, the fossil fuel/"renewable energy" nexus that has metastasized all over the planet, literally choking it.

To return to wind, according to the California Energy Commission's last available data, from 2022, the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors produced, on a 12 acre footprint more energy (17,627 GWh) than all the wind turbines in that State, (13,938 GWh).

California Energy Commission 2022 Total System Electric Generation

If the people of California want to identify a cause of transmission line fires, I would suggest they ask the resident antinukes to look in the mirror.

The people of California could reduce the risk of transmission line fires by dismantling all of its wind turbines, restoring the wilderness trashed by them, and building another equivalent of Diablo Canyon. It takes just one trunk line to connect Diablo Canyon to the grid.

[usonian]

16. I'll disagree to the extent that a lot of lines are/were lifelines.

Just 100 year old insulators that crapped out, or lines with trees impinging. Much of CA is really rural and hasn’t seen line improvement or augmentation (IMO) in ages. PG&E has been found criminally negligent, and on that basis, I would argue that they have no business running nuclear plants, let alone a lemonade stand.

There are a lot of simple things to do. Just as solar farms are out in the desert, one might site nuclear plants more than 10 feet from a major earthquake fault, and find a way to finance them that doesn’t encourage nickel and dime-ing safety.

I don’t have the numbers. Just throwing out some factoids.

Even if your arguments are completely accepted, people in the industry and government will find a way to f it up.

Technology is as good or bad as the people running it. The little fudge factor left out of calculations.

[NNadir]

17. How many people have been killed by radiation releases resulting from earhquakes?

The data exists of course. Lots of coal and gas has been burned to power computers to whine endlessly about it, the big boogeyman at Fukushima.

I have the numbers. I can produce them at will whenever I'm at my home computer, with reference to the primary scientific literature.

Numbers don't lie. People lie to themselves and to each other, but numbers don't. I would submit that the failure to face the numbers is the real reason that so much of the planet is in flames.

We could, of course ban electricity as "too dangerous." The solar industry is not sustainable because since ancient times it's been known that the sun goes down every day. Of course sun worship is about as old.

Reliability has an economic, thermodyamic, and thus environmental cost. The reason that major fires are breaking out all over the world, California being just one instance, is not that engineers are incompetent in the minds of people who know little about engineering but deign to sit in judgement of its practitioners.

My son is already a highly trained engineer and as his father he has worked to make me aware of the challenges. All engineering is an exercise in combinatorial optimization, irrespective of catcalls from the peanut galleries. Energy cannot be, by its very nature risk free. It can only be risk minimized. That's what engineers do, including those at PSGE, some of whom are surely excellent honorable people I am sure, who work extremely hard under difficult conditions to keep the lights on.

I refer to Theodore Roosevelt's famous lecture at the Sorbonne: "It's not the critic who counts..."

If we demonize the nuclear industry and praise in reactionary rhetoric the ancient mystical nonsense of thinking the sun God will save our asses, our legacy will be what we are already seeing, a planet in flames.

The solar industry is not sustainable. It depends on access to fossil fuels, and they, not nuclear are responsible for the disaster of climate change.

History will not forgive us nor should it.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. When I checked my "hide threads" option after a long time, I noticed there were a few - and they were mine

So I must have done that by accident.

[NNadir]

19. That was it!!! Thanks. I have never knowingly hid a thread, and so I was unaware of the option.

[Rhiannon12866]

20. LOL! Apparently it isn't hard to do accidentally since when I checked I had 3 or 4 hidden, all of them my own!

[NNadir]

21. I have a lot of trouble when i post using a cell phone.

One problem is autocorrect; another is hitting the wrong "key" as I have fat fingers.

I really should not post with cell phones, but I'm doing so now.

If this happens again I'll know what to do.