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)
68. 100% WRONG!! AGAIN!!
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 06:09 PM
Dec 2013

kristopher states
Your admission that the dual use nature of the technology makes it a proliferation risk is crystal clear.

100% WRONG AGAIN

I DO NOT ADMIT the dual nature. That's just your CARELESS INCOMPLETE reading.

Although the IFR presents VERY SIGNIFICANT intrinsic barriers to proliferation; I am merely pointing out that there is no need to test those barriers.

We could just not allow the technology into the hands of proliferant nations.

Let me give an analogy.

I claim that commercial airliners are EXTREMELY safe. There's less than a 1 in a MILLION chance of being injured on a flight.

However, for those of you who don't want to deal with even the 1;MILLION chance; you can always stay home and not fly at all.

Kristopher self-servingly reads that as an ADMISSION that air travel is dangerous because I'm telling people not to fly.

NOT AT ALL

Air travel is EXTREMELY SAFE; but for those than can't handle very small fractions, their mathematical acumen stops after the second place after the decimal point; then one can make the probability a hard ZERO by not flying at all.

Because kristopher LACKS the training in the sciences; he can NOT APPRECIATE that the IFR offers an INSURMOUNTABLE obstacle to the proliferant weapons designer.

Kristopher doesn't even understand something as basic as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; and he "thinks" that he knows how to best spend our limited dollars.

The scientists disagree with kristopher; including climate researcher Hansen and the others who stated that renewables WON'T SCALE and they recommend nuclear power

Kristopher is being dismissive when he says it's only "a few nuclear zealots"; when it is really the entire scientific community.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.

Science has spoken.

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 #68