Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
34. NOT AT ALL
Tue Dec 3, 2013, 12:32 AM
Dec 2013

kristopher,

NOT at ALL - we are left with the conclusions of someone who MISUNDERSTANDS the conclusions of MIT and NNSA.

Evidently, you still don't understand that NNSA itself does NOT have scientists; but is the administrative agency that oversees the scientists at the NNSA defense national labs; which are Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia. Any SCIENTIFIC conclusions of NNSA can be traced to one of the above labs.

We know what the Lab that did the study on the IFR; which was Lawrence Livermore; has to say.

So why is there a question?

There's a question due to the MISUNDERSTANDING and LACK of KNOWLEDGE in the field by someone WITHOUT any technical training or credentials for same.

It's as if we had someone who did NOT go to medical school, and does NOT have the degree "M.D." for "Medical Doctor" after his / her name. This same non-doctor isn't even schooled in University level biology or pre-medical studies. In fact, this person didn't even take science in high school.

Yet - this UN-DEGREED, MEDICALLY-ILLITERATE person has read a highly technical paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, and has NOT understood it; due the the fact that he / she is totally OBLIVIOUS to the medical principles, and probably also the medical vocabulary. In short; this person doesn't have even the most basic prerequisites required for understanding the medical paper.

However, this person can't admit to being medically inept; and takes his / her EXTREMELY LIMITED knowledge and MISINTERPRETS the medical paper. I mean how can someone without medical school training understand highly technical medical papers?

Then he / she proceeds to ARGUE the matter with a Professor of Medicine from the Mayo Clinic who is one of the world-acknowledged experts in the field.

It would be like someone that can't even understand something as simple as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is taught in high school physics class; attempting to understand post-graduate nuclear physics. If you can't understand the simple stuff; how can one understand the more complex.

It really is sad to see someone vainly attempting to excel beyond their mental limits.

How sad; how pitiful. Pride goeth before a fall is the maxim.

The issue is settle among all those with the intellect to understand the issue.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Yes, the EIA publish data on expected energy future use AND all sources of energy. happyslug Nov 2013 #1
That tells you nothing of the sort kristopher Nov 2013 #2
Lack of understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... PamW Nov 2013 #11
Nope kristopher Nov 2013 #13
100% WRONG AGAIN as always!! PamW Nov 2013 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author kristopher Nov 2013 #22
It was EXACTLY the level of journalistic quality that I would have expected from "The Nation". caraher Nov 2013 #3
I don't have a favorite political publication PamW Nov 2013 #7
Well, I think we all get that The Nation is not a technical journal caraher Nov 2013 #17
It's STILL an ERROR PamW Nov 2013 #18
Kerry didn't lie, in fact he was validated by MIT a decade later bananas Nov 2013 #4
More typical anti-nuke "logic" PamW Nov 2013 #8
There are four primary problem area with nuclear technology (not counting social and systems issues) kristopher Nov 2013 #9
We can address those... PamW Nov 2013 #20
"The MIT study chooses "once through" over closed due to cost." - Nope. kristopher Nov 2013 #21
100% WRONG!! PamW Dec 2013 #25
You're morphing your previous failure into yet another failed argument kristopher Dec 2013 #27
100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #29
MIT study on Proliferation Resistant Fast Reactor PamW Dec 2013 #30
I'm sure NNSA and MIT didn't have that data. kristopher Dec 2013 #31
I'm SURE NNSA and MIT had that data PamW Dec 2013 #32
The conclusions of both MIT and NNSA refute your claims. kristopher Dec 2013 #33
NOT AT ALL PamW Dec 2013 #34
You've been completely and absolutely refuted kristopher Dec 2013 #35
Non-scientist kristopher is 100% WRONG AGAIN PamW Dec 2013 #36
A "Proliferation Resistant" Reactor is like a "Water Resistant" Watch bananas Dec 2013 #39
OH REALLY????? PamW Dec 2013 #40
PamW wrote: "Iran is seeking NOT a plutonium bomb, but a uranium bomb." bananas Nov 2013 #5
Do you doubt it? PamW Nov 2013 #10
What about the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)? kristopher Nov 2013 #14
You are arguing with the SCIENTISTS!!! PamW Nov 2013 #16
No, I'm quoting the scientists kristopher Nov 2013 #19
WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #23
No, it isn't wrong. kristopher Dec 2013 #24
100% WRONG as ALWAYS!! PamW Dec 2013 #28
DOE: "Virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes...can be used to make a nuclear weapon." bananas Nov 2013 #6
Actualy; the above is NOT true. PamW Nov 2013 #12
No, PamW; Richard Garwin, John Holdren, and President Obama all know you're wrong. bananas Dec 2013 #37
Its a fools errand madokie Dec 2013 #38
BALONEY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #41
No, Pamw, you're wrong again. bananas Dec 2013 #42
Sorry... once again, you've cited something that you simply don't understand. FBaggins Dec 2013 #43
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!! PamW Dec 2013 #44
Sorry... once again, you've corrected someone when it's you that's wrong kristopher Dec 2013 #46
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #48
I can read and Selden's language is unambiguous kristopher Dec 2013 #49
WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #50
Ah... but not if you read without understanding. FBaggins Dec 2013 #56
CORRECT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #62
bananas and kristopher certainly win on source credibility here caraher Dec 2013 #51
NOPE!! They do NOT!! PamW Dec 2013 #52
Well, it seems you are a liar, traitor or a fool - your choice caraher Dec 2013 #53
NOPE!!! PamW Dec 2013 #55
Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #54
EXCELLENT!!! PamW Dec 2013 #58
"If you have any type of plutonium in sufficient quantities you can make a bomb." Selden 2009 kristopher Dec 2013 #59
An we've both explained to you what that means. FBaggins Dec 2013 #60
A clear example of how he was being SLOPPY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #61
More citations on the point of plutonium for weapons kristopher Dec 2013 #63
Non-scientist kristopher MISSES the implicit assumption PamW Dec 2013 #64
"what comes out of an Integral Fast Reactor" kristopher Dec 2013 #65
Yes - I know Harold... PamW Dec 2013 #66
And that brings us full circle kristopher Dec 2013 #67
100% WRONG!! AGAIN!! PamW Dec 2013 #68
Oh look - George Stanford says it TWICE in that interview! bananas Dec 2013 #69
bananas LITANY of ERRORS!! PamW Dec 2013 #70
Evidently bananas does NOT understand... PamW Dec 2013 #71
What's happened to HONESTY!!! PamW Dec 2013 #45
Yes, what happened to honesty? kristopher Dec 2013 #47
Pam - don't worry about him FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #57
The movie was such a blatant farce, I dont know who would waste the energy attacking or defending it NoOneMan Dec 2013 #26
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»ERRORS in rebuttal to &qu...»Reply #34