Paypal Strikes Again, This is an Opportunity for BTC to Prove its Value

[error]

It's quite likely that many or most of the people actually protesting have no idea why they're there, what the solutions are or even what the problems are. It's quite a fertile field for finding people receptive to the message of liberty. I have absolutely no illusions about the organizers of these protests; they know exactly what they are doing, are quite hostile to liberty, and intend these protests as a springboard to go further down the socialist path.

[Indemnified]

It's quite likely that many or most of the people actually protesting have no idea why they're there, what the solutions are or even what the problems are. It's quite a fertile field for finding people receptive to the message of liberty. I have absolutely no illusions about the organizers of these protests; they know exactly what they are doing, are quite hostile to liberty, and intend these protests as a springboard to go further down the socialist path.

I am of the opinion that an end to fiat currencies and a widespread adaptation of bitcoin as the medium of exchange would preclude a trip down the socialist path.

[lettucebee]

I must say some of the things said on this thread are the most ridiculous I've ever heard.

You're going to have to be more specific.  Regardless, you must not spend much time on the Internet.

Well, we hear evoorhees defending paypal as just a successful company trying to scrape together a little more profit in the competitive capitalist jungle.  And then Tiago saying that coal plants put out more radiation than nuclear plants.

Paypal is an arm of the surveillance state, which I presume is just fine with evoorhees.  It's honest profit, after all.  They are a ridiculously tedious, unfair, user-hostile company that slaps their own customers around.  I've personally been trying to change the email associated with an account of mine, which they've blocked, and I get no response from their systems, which appear to be designed to prevent customers from resolving issues.  They deserve to disappear into the dustbin of history, which I hope bitcoin will do.

Second, to tiago's statement, Wow.  Do you really think after Chernobyl and Fukushima ANY other source could have spewed more radiation into the environment?  This sounds so ridiculous I literally laughed when I read it.  But I looked into it.  Turns out Oak Ridge Lab says that coal plants put out more radiation when one compares a coal plant to a nuke plant that is operating normally.

("As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.")

But it is absolutely not true when you consider a nuke plant that has burned through its containment, burned a hole into the ground, mixed with ground water, and spewed tons of pure reaction metals into the ocean.  Unbelievable.

[MoonShadow]

But it is absolutely not true when you consider a nuke plant that has burned through its containment, burned a hole into the ground, mixed with ground water, and spewed tons of pure reaction metals into the ocean.  Unbelievable.

Well, he never claimed to compare a coal plant running normally to that of a nuke plant in catastrophic breakdown of containment.  It's rational enough to assume that he was comparing the average coal plant running normally to an average nuke plant running normally, and it's true.  I've worked at both types of power plants in my career, and even without knowing that a coal plant releases more radioactive material into the environment in a year than a nuke plant (which I did know, as it's pretty common knowledge in the industry) I wouldn't want to live near a coal plant.  Nothing grows within a quarter mile of the stack of Beckjord Powerhouse in SE Ohio, as it is the oldest running coal plant in America.  And even if I lived in sight of a nuke plant, these days one can get a rapid warning alert for an android phone that would inform you immediately if the nuke plant were to ever enter into forced shutdown, etc.

That said, if you take all of the radioactive material released by coal plants the world over, it's somewhat worse than a Chernobyl each year, it's just not so concentrated.  People died from both the Chernobyl event and the Fukushima event due to the concentrations of lethal exposure.  There were other effects from Chernobyl that could be debated, but the rates of cancer and birth defects were much lower than expected.  You likely get more dosage from the concrete blocks of buildings that you work in and from medical screening than you would have simply because you lived 10 or 20 miles from either of these events.  And no matter how the media presents it, Chernobyl was still a much worse environmental catastrophe than Fukushima.

[defxor]

Do you really think after Chernobyl and Fukushima ANY other source could have spewed more radiation into the environment?

Yes, it's absolutely correct. You also need to separate different types of radiation and the half life. Radioactive particles released from coal plants are alpha emitters with long half lives. While Chernobyl was an excellent example of how you can purposely cause a non-civilian type of plant to melt down and create a radioactive cloud (graphite moderator burning) Fukushima is a completely different matter and didn't release anywhere near the same amount of particles.

(None of the above is what anyone "thinks" btw. The physics is simple)

Irrational fear of radioactivity is bad for you.

People died from both the Chernobyl event and the Fukushima event due to the concentrations of lethal exposure

Just to be clear, there are no deaths from radioactive exposure with regards to the Fukushima event.

[ctoon6]

just to clear up any confusion with nuclear, it simply is not the solution.

the number 1 problem is what do you do with the waste.

other than that i think nuclear is perfect safe, just not the waste, and because of that, i would never advise anyone to use it. of course if you have a cost effective solution please state it.

and my on topic response

i think this is really great. the current banking system does not work well. it has little to do with corruption, it simply is very difficult for consumers to use, 3 days+ for bank wires? thats just silly when you can have bitcoins securely transferred in 60 minutes.

[MoonShadow]

Just to be clear, there are no deaths from radioactive exposure with regards to the Fukushima event.

I thought that there was one case of an overexposed plant employee who died after trying to help put out the coolant pool fire.  I might be wrong, or he simply died of something other than radiation exposure.

[MoonShadow]

just to clear up any confusion with nuclear, it simply is not the solution.

the number 1 problem is what do you do with the waste.

other than that i think nuclear is perfect safe, just not the waste, and because of that, i would never advise anyone to use it. of course if you have a cost effective solution please state it.

Actually there is.  Search Wikipedia for the terms "thorium fuel cycle" and "energy amp".  You will learn much.  When you finish, consider the question, "In light of what is known and how Europe handles fission waste products, why does the US wish to establish the long term repository in Nevada?"

[defxor]

the number 1 problem is what do you do with the waste.

What we call "waste" from the reactors we mostly use is in reality 95% fuel. A modern reactor would continue to burn it until all is spent, and what would be left could easily be stored onsite (a few tonnes over the life time of the reactor) and would only be radioactive for hundreds of years instead of thousands.

I thought that there was one case of an overexposed plant employee who died after trying to help put out the coolant pool fire.  I might be wrong, or he simply died of something other than radiation exposure.

The latter, I'm quite positive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies

[MoonShadow]

The latter, I'm quite positive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/07/fukushima-power-plant-worker-dies

Not that I consider the Guardian a trustworthy source, but in the absence of counter-evidence, I shall consider myself duely corrected.

[DeathAndTaxes]

But it is absolutely not true when you consider a nuke plant that has burned through its containment, burned a hole into the ground, mixed with ground water, and spewed tons of pure reaction metals into the ocean.  Unbelievable.

Math isn't your strong suit?

Given:
x = radiation of coal plants collectively annually
y = radiation of  nuclear plants collectively annually
z = average radiation of nuclear disaster
n = number of years between major nuclear disasters (~26 years)

If x*n > y*n + z

then yes coal plants do collectively release more radiation than nuclear plants.  IIRC it isn't that coal plants release a little more radiation than a nuclear plant but instead release MANY MULTIPLES more radiation.  Those multiples of higher radiation over the course of decades at least has the potential to be more than "Z"

[lettucebee]

But it is absolutely not true when you consider a nuke plant that has burned through its containment, burned a hole into the ground, mixed with ground water, and spewed tons of pure reaction metals into the ocean.  Unbelievable.

Math isn't your strong suit?

You are indeed obnoxious.

Anyway,
Chernobyl caused a million deaths so far and Fukushima is an unprecedented failure of a nuclear reactor times 3.  It will eventually kill many more people and it is far from over.  At one point shortly after the explosions residents of Seattle were breathing air with ten hot particles per cubic meter.  A hot particle is absorbed by the body which mistakes it for a nourishing mineral (hot particles don't occur naturally much at all so our bodies have no defense against them). The hot particle bombards surrounding tissue with products of radioactive decay and almost certainly will cause a cancer.

To get hot particles out of the body one has to become savvy in how to detox.  Regular heavy sweating is a great thing to do.  Also, zeolite and bentonite clay attract charged particles in the gut and out they go.

[MoonShadow]

But it is absolutely not true when you consider a nuke plant that has burned through its containment, burned a hole into the ground, mixed with ground water, and spewed tons of pure reaction metals into the ocean.  Unbelievable.

Math isn't your strong suit?

You are indeed obnoxious.

Anyway,
Chernobyl caused a million deaths so far and Fukushima is an unprecedented failure of a nuclear reactor times 3.  It will eventually kill many more people and it is far from over.

Sorry, but that's simply not true.  Those numbers are based upon the assumption that anyone who dies from any form of cancer who lived within 100 or so miles downwind of the plant during the disaster, and likewise anyone who died from any other complication even loosely associated with radiation poisoning, died because of exposure to the radioactive material released.  It's intelectually dishonest to assume that all such deaths were related, the cancer rates were slightly elevated in the monitored population.  It probably is the root cause of thousands of deaths, but even so most of those people didn't lose very much off the average lifespan taken on aggregate.  It was still a horrible disaster made worse by politics and poor engineering and technical response training, but the actual reduction of lifespan was far less than feared.

  At one point shortly after the explosions residents of Seattle were breathing air with ten hot particles per cubic meter.

It's probably that high right now.  Asbestos is far more dangerous for human life at that concentration than airborne iodine (which is what is the real threat) of the same concentration.  The solar wind produces more radioactive oxygen than that.

  A hot particle is absorbed by the body which mistakes it for a nourishing mineral (hot particles don't occur naturally much at all so our bodies have no defense against them). The hot particle bombards surrounding tissue with products of radioactive decay and almost certainly will cause a cancer. 

You're speaking of iodine.  We do have a simple defense such relatively low concentrations.  Iodine pills.  If the body doesn't need iodine, it won't try to assimulate more from food or any other source, and it will be ejected via urine.  The risks of radioactive iodine is the length of time in close proximity to tissue.  Moving iodine doesn't damage nearby tissues fast enough to trigger cancer.

To get hot particles out of the body one has to become savvy in how to detox.  Regular heavy sweating is a great thing to do.  Also, zeolite and bentonite clay attract charged particles in the gut and out they go.

And seaweed tofu.  It was a regular breakfast ration for the Japanese doctors and nurses in the humanitarian effort following the bombing of Japan.  Knowing nothing about radiation poisoning at the time, logic would have suggested that their rate of cancers would be significantly elevated in the following years, but it was not.

[MoonShadow]

This is a perfect example of the level of sense these people have..

"Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Anyone with any rational sense would have to ask, "how could that be?" for those bombs were intended to be released into the immediate environment completely while not all, not even a lot, of the core of Chernobyl escaped into the air via the graphite fire.  Almost none would have even then if they hadn't used graphite as their moderator.  One of the reactors at Chernobyl was still producing power 10 years later, which also means that there were plant workers still at the site. 

[ineededausername]

Ugh... I feel the need to remind people that radiation is not additive; that is, concentrated radiation is lethal, and if all the background radiation were added together it would be enough to kill millions of people.  That doesn't mean background radiation is bad.
Why don't you stop eating bananas!?

[ctoon6]

Ugh... I feel the need to remind people that radiation is not additive; that is, concentrated radiation is lethal, and if all the background radiation were added together it would be enough to kill millions of people.  That doesn't mean background radiation is bad.
Why don't you stop eating bananas!?

yep yep, and one of the most expensive ways to make things not radioactive is to mix a ton of inert material into the radioactive material in such a way that it will be difficult to get back out.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Code:

[quote author=lettucebee link=topic=46790.msg562596#msg562596 date=1318037144]

Anyway, 
[url=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html]Chernobyl caused a million deaths[/url] so far and Fukushima is an unprecedented failure of a nuclear reactor times 3.  It will eventually kill many more people and it is far from over.  At one point shortly after the explosions residents of Seattle were breathing air with ten hot particles per cubic meter.  A hot particle is absorbed by the body which mistakes it for a nourishing mineral (hot particles don't occur naturally much at all so our bodies have no defense against them). The hot particle bombards surrounding tissue with products of radioactive decay and almost certainly will cause a cancer.

To get hot particles out of the body one has to become savvy in how to detox.  Regular heavy sweating is a great thing to do.  Also, zeolite and bentonite clay attract charged particles in the gut and out they go.
[/quote]

Holy shit I have never seen such a highly concentrated amount of junk science.

Chernobyl didn't kill 1 million people, junk science aside.  The WHO (yeah what does the world health organization know about health) puts total fatalities at 30,000 to 60,000.


"The hot particle bombards surrounding tissue with products of radioactive decay and almost certainly will cause a cancer."
Nope.  You have "hot particles" (nonsense word which I think you mean radiation material) in your body right now.  Billions of them.  So by your definition every single human that has ever lived and ever will live has and will die of cancer. 

Still EVEN IF Chernobyl killed 1 million people, coal kills many magnitudes more than that.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

[code]
Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

When the US stopped building nuclear power plants we started ..... building coal plants.  Millions of people killed over junk science fears about nuclear energy.

BTW the largest energy disaster in the history of mankind.... not Chernobyl, not Fukashima, not 3 mile island.  It was a hydro electric plant in China called Banquiao.  Estimated 171,000 casualties (3x Chernobyl).

I am not saying we should ban hydro but all forms of energy production have danger.  More people die from solar (yup people falling off roofs) than nuclear energy.  However one solar installer faling off the roof doesn't make a news story.  OF course to produce the power from a single nuclear power plant requires tens of millions of solar plant installs and the combined deaths of all those installations do add up.[/code]