Fukushima Reactor #2 pressure vessel breached, rising to "unimaginable" levels of radiation.

[NNadir]

8. How interesting. I didn't know anyone was counting. But, well, everybody wins, well,

Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2017, 10:48 PM - Edit history (3)

...except for the 8,000 people who will die tomorrow from air pollution and the day after that, and the day after that, days 1308 of the big bad "bojo," day 1309 of the bojo.

The remark that caused the genius who runs the place to offer the big, bad, terrifying "bojo," was this one:

How about you ASK the families of the 3.3 million
...people who died last year from air pollution.

Let me guess why you don't raise this point. Um...um...um...let me guess. Oh yeah, I know, because you don't give a fuck about the 33 million people who died in the last decade from burning gas, coal, oil and biomass, and would rather burn more gas, oil and coal to express your dire hope that someone, anyone will die from radiation at Fukushima so as to justify your bizarre obsession.

Did anyone die from radiation at Fukuishima, anything like the 37 dead yesterday from the oil train crash? The 167 who died at the Piper Alpha explosion? Anything like the 200,000+ who died from the great Banqioa renewable energy dam collapse?

The great climate scientist Jim Hansen has published in the primary scientific literature a paper with something called scientific references, data that shows that nuclear energy 1.8 million lives. (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895) Hansen shows that were it not for fear and ignorance, nuclear energy might save 10 million lives more, with just a minor tech.

It follows that anti-nukes are not merely enemies of the people, they are murderers, pure and simple, murderers whose weapons are fear and ignorance.

Have a nice of evening.

It was a perfect ending, facing the awful terrifying "bojo" for, um, telling the truth, although the 3.3 million figure has been updated in the scientific literature to, um, 7 million per year, after the Gates Foundation funded the comprehensive study published in Lancet in 2012 on the effect of various risks on human mortality. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

It turns out that the previous WHO estimate for air pollution deaths was off by a factor of 2; the figure was much higher.

Note "nuclear power" accidents doesn't even appear in the paper, although according to Kos and Kossacks, nuclear power, and not air pollution and climate change, is the most dangerous thing, um, ever.

What a bunch of idiots!

So it's not like I'm ever going to apologize for that remark.

You know, I have very, very, very, very little respect for Kos as a person, and he's made it clear he no respect for me. This said, I agree with his statement that our goal should be to elect more and better Democrats, but we obviously disagree completely on what a "better" Democrat might be.

I clearly don't regard Kos as a "better Democrat."

I prefer Democrats who respect climate scientists like Jim Hansen, um, because he's an um, highly cited and highly respected scientist, and that even if every democrat cannot be a scientist, they at least hold in respect the views of those who are scientists.

The assholes at Kos spent a lot of computer electrons telling everyone they had all this respect for Jim Hansen until he said something they didn't want to hear. It didn't matter whether what Hansen said was true, only that it was not what they wanted to hear, not what they, and the world needed to hear. Neither Kos, nor little Timmy Lange have ever evinced even the remotest evidence of ever having any kind of scientific training at all or any competence to evaluate scientific work. They don't cite the primary scientific literature, they cite Guardian articles, and, um, each other.

How this kind of reaction to Hansen's honest and irrefutable scientific views differs from say, the reaction of certain Republicans to Hansen's oft stated views that climate change is, um, real and human driven - which it clearly is - is difficult to discern, at least for me, if not the people running around asserting that thousands of people are about to cram into the containment building at Fukushima #2 to be irradiated. In this respect their decision to reject a well stated and highly read scientific work is no different from say, James Inhofe, when he does the same damned thing, since there is no evidence that he has any less scientific training than they do.

I will not live much longer, in some ways a relief, but however many days I have left, I assure you you can add to the 1307 you, but not I, counted.

When I die, I have to face what I have done, and nothing makes me more proud than some of the efforts I made to fight ignorance on our side, because to me, ignorance on our side is worse than ignorance on their side, because our honor is something we can control and if we choose to do nothing, we are not deserving of respect. I know I changed my views on nuclear energy, and I worked very hard to be justified in doing that.

Kos and little Timmy Lange can go fuck themselves. They may be serving some purpose in the Democratic party, but their views on energy are not serving humanity, and it is ultimately, humanity that counts, not the number of votes in Ohio.

The reason I'm a Democrat is not to repeat mindless cant about so called "renewable energy," like a chanting Priest. The reason I'm a Democrat is because it is my hope that Democratic liberalism is better for humanity, but it is not because everything said by everyone who is a Democrat is right, or true, or need be identical to what every other Democrat says.

Have a nice day, give my regards to those folks who didn't get "bojo'd" because they never bothered to think for themselves.