Why Are Trump Supporters Anti-Science.

Highlight said:
You don't know what you're talking about. One of the things I was trained in in the military was Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) control. Radiation tends to make the things around them radioactive. When I was in the military I heard a story about a bit of a nuclear accident they had in the reaction chamber of one of our subs. To get rid of the radiation, they had to go into the reaction chamber and take a surface grinder to all the surfaces. Also, radiation can seep into ground water or anything else.
Click to expand...

Then your instructors were idiots or you're a liar. The only way something can become radioactive that isn't already is to let it be exposed to a neutron flux. That's it. Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation won't make an object radioactive that isn't, only neutrons.

I don't know who told you that story either, but it's complete bullshit. I went through the US Navy nuclear power program (class 8003 NEC 3384). That would never have been allowed to be done and there's no reason to do it.

So, you don't know shit about things radioactive.

Here's a sidebar: Long lived radioactive isotopes are either alpha or beta emitters. They are only a danger if you breathe or eat them. Clothing stops both and even your skin is protection against alpha (a ionized helium atom). Gamma is whole body, but with long-lived radio isotopes it generally is less of a problem than a sunny day.
Highlight said:
As for solar panels, they aren't that expensive. And it can take anywhere from 1 to 4 years for them to produce the power that it took to create them to begin with. That is everything from mining the materials they are made of to the finished product. And as of right now, their useful life expectancy is 30 to 40 years. (The technology is improving all the time) At 30 years, that means that you would be getting 26 years of absolutely free energy. FREE! No cost. No pollution. No plowing off the tops of mountains to get at coal seems. No long term radiation from nuclear power plants, etc.
Click to expand...
Nothing you said in that drivel makes a nickel's worth of difference. If the panels were FREE solar would still be too expensive. We don't need coal. Nuclear and natural gas work fine and minimize pollution.

That sunlight is "free" makes no difference either. The question is: Where does the power come from when the sun isn't shining? You didn't answer that, and that is the crux of the problem.
 
Highlight said:
Don't forget. CO2 isn't even the biggest problem. Methane is. It is around 100 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And the warmer things get, the more of it that will be released. By the way, have you ever seen that show by Bill Nye called, "Global Meltdown?"
Click to expand...
Methane is more powerful as a greenhouse gas, but has a shorter half life in the atmosphere. It is a contributor, though.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Ah! The trivial objections fallacy coupled to argumentum ad absurdum. "It wasn't peer reviewed!" I don't give a shit whether it was or not. Facts don't change one iota because of peer review or lack thereof.


So? That's nothing. CO2 represents .04% of the atmosphere. If it rose from .038% that's still nothing.

It is significant. Contrails raise global temperatures somewhere between .1 and .5 degrees and regional temperatures where they exist in mass as much as 3 degrees. That is significant.
Click to expand...
You’re a Trumptard. Of course, you prefer petroleum backed “sources” over real science. Anti-vaxxers love their pseudoscience, too.

LOL The significance of 400+ ppm is lost on you. What a fucking surprise.

Where did you pull that contrail info from? Your ass again?
 
domer76 said:
You’re a Trumptard. Of course, you prefer petroleum backed “sources” over real science. Anti-vaxxers love their pseudoscience, too.

LOL The significance of 400+ ppm is lost on you. What a fucking surprise.

Where did you pull that contrail info from? Your ass again?
Click to expand...
I want what works and will produce results at a reasonable or low price. Solar and wind will not do that.

On the other hand, all you have for rebuttal are insults, ad hominem, and bullshit. Not a single bit of actual factual evidence.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I want what works and will produce results at a reasonable or low price. Solar and wind will not do that.

On the other hand, all you have for rebuttal are insults, ad hominem, and bullshit. Not a single bit of actual factual evidence.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you post the tobacco industry’s old “research” on how their products are not harmful? You just did the same using petroleum sources.
 
domer76 said:
Why don’t you post the tobacco industry’s old “research” on how their products are not harmful? You just did the same using petroleum sources.
Click to expand...
Red herring on your part using kettle logic. All I implied was that some pollution is acceptable particularly when it substantially reduces it over current pollution levels.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Red herring on your part using kettle logic. All I implied was that some pollution is acceptable particularly when it substantially reduces it over current pollution levels.
Click to expand...
Potato head always runs off topic when he gets his ass handed to him. Nothing new to see here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top