HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NutmegYankee » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Blacksburg, Virginia
Home country: USA
Current location: Oakdale, Connecticut
Member since: Sun Aug 5, 2007, 02:35 PM
Number of posts: 6,342

About Me

Nutmegger is a nickname for a resident of Connecticut. Been a member since 2002, changing username in 2007 with permission from a moderator. My old name was based on my old state.

Journal Archives

"I can't go around killing people willy nilly with a necklace."

True, but you could do so with just about any knife in your kitchen. No to mention axes and baseball bats. Hell, axes have a long history of use in warfare. They make good horror movie props too.

The rest of your post is somewhat over the top. Given that there are roughly the same amount of guns in the country as people, it's pretty clear that the VAST majority of guns will never be used to kill or harm a person. Given the very common use in marksmanship sporting and hunting, I would say that they have other uses than killing people. I agree that they generally are made to do one thing - They always launch projectiles at high velocity. The key to use is knowing where said high velocity projectile is aimed. There are plenty of legal activities that involve NOT aiming them at people.

If you are uneasy with hunting since guns are used to kill animals, I direct you to the irony of the modern mass production of food. For some reason it's perfectly OK for some people to accept that cows get a spike to the head (which doesn't always kill right away) or chickens get hung by their feet on a conveyor belt until a circular saw lops the head off, all because the meat comes in pretty little plastic packages in a grocery store. On the other hand, it's terrible to kill animals that were kept free range and have often grown in population to such large numbers that disease and starvation are risks (White Tailed Deer for instance). I'll add that venison is pretty damn tasty, especially the steaks from the back.

As for erections, this is rather puerile when it comes to a discussion. It's clear that nearly all men get erections from thoughts of or pictures of woman, unless they are gay in which case it's hot men. I know of none that get erections from a metal object. And clearly sex is out of the question here - the average human phallus is over one inch in diameter, while most gun barrels are less than half an inch in diameter. I think the chafing alone would kill any ecstasy moment. And then there are the millions of women that own guns. I could continue but I hope you have gotten the point...

Your post was a classic example of why the two sides of the gun discussion usually do not talk. If you toned it down a bit, a productive discussion could probably happen.

Obama Coming To Connecticut To Push For Higher Minumum Wage

President Barack Obama will travel to Connecticut on Wednesday as part of his campaign to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, a visit that comes after Gov. Dannel P. Malloy offered a heated defense of the proposal at a press conference Monday in Washington.

Obama will visit the Hartford area on March 5 to promote proposals to increase the minimum wage, according to a White House spokesman who said that further details would be made available in coming days.

Malloy urged the General Assembly to pass a bill this year that would raise the state's minimum hourly rate to $10.10, following the president's lead after Obama called on Congress in his State of the Union address to implement the policy nationwide. The governor has since become an outspoken advocate for raising the rate above $10 an hour.

The announcement of Obama's visit comes just days after Malloy and Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal clashed over the topic at a National Governors' Association press conference outside the White House. After Jindal criticized Obama's efforts to increase the federal minimum wage, Malloy jumped to the microphone and fired back, describing his fellow governor's criticism of the president as "the most insane statement I've heard."

Where's trash talking Bobby now?
(background) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/24/1280056/-Dan-Malloy-stands-up-to-Bobby-Jindal-s-guff


Name of a nuclear plant, is it not?

So... you like them nukes? Even took on the name of one, eh?

You're thinking of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Vermont is a state in northern New England. Nutmegger = nickname of a resident of Connecticut. My username means Connecticut Yankee. As in I'm a Connecticut Yankee. This state is a little south of Vermont.

Here ya go; Does the water used in nuclear plants steam cycles get irradiated? Why yes, it does!! This idea of yours that water can be purified of nuke contamination by distillation is not very smart. Otherwise nuke plants would just clean up their mess via distillation, and viola! They'd be a little safer. They are not.

Jesus H Christ, where to start with that pile... Distillation concentrates waste left behind when water has boiled off, leaving a heavy brine solution full of metals and other contaminants. For drinking systems, that is discharged back to sea. In a nuclear power plant, that would have to be handled as waste.

Now there are two types of reactors - BWR and PWR. BWR boils water into steam and uses that to drive turbines and then condenses it back to water and recycles it through the reactor. That water does get lightly radioactive due to contaminants from piping that have been bombarded with neutrons becoming radioactive and leaching into the water. (remember, it's very pure water, so metal wants to leach into it)

Now a PWR, which is far more common, keeps the primary coolant loop under very high pressure to raise the boiling point so that the water remains a liquid at temperatures well above 212℉. That water never gets boiled. However that water never touches the turbines as it goes into a shell and tube style heat exchanger and boils a secondary loop. So the turbines don't get contaminated.

The problem you have is you have mixed up your view on nuclear power with my simple discussion of water purification processes. You are exhibiting confirmation bias to simply reject any science that is contrary to the view you hold. That you incorrectly associated my user name with a nuke plant just demonstrates the epic level you had to go to in your mind to attempt to discredit my science discussion. It's the same approach a creationist takes when confronting a biologist.
Go to Page: 1