Left-wing envirokooks better not oppose this

On Nov 18, 10:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:28:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
There were several accidents involving nuclear-equipped spacecraft
with what seem to have been, in retrospect, benign outcomes WRT
nuclear contamination. *These occurred before the Cassini and New
Horizons protests. The engineers were well aware of potential dangers
and designed accordingly, without input from the protesters.

I didn't say the engineers weren't aware of the potential dangers, nor
that they in any way had bad designs.

You suggested that good design was inspired by the protests. Clearly
it was not, the designs were already good at the time that the
protests took place.

I was only pointing out that
gadflies can actually provide some service in bringing these kinds of
things to the public eye, and helping ensure that an issue really is
properly reviewed.

It had already been properly reviewed since the technology for robust
RTGs had already been developed, had been utilized and even been
proven in real life accidents, BEFORE the protests.

If you read the safety report for a mission that uses
RTGs, it is clear that special effort is made to address any public
concerns.

The protesters aren't really concerned about nuclear contamination,
they have other agenda that are the real reason for their protests.

On Nov 18, 5:40*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:09:27 -0800 (PST), "$27 TRILLION to pay for

Kyoto" wrote:
Innumeracy is still the affliction of the mentally weak. *The
inability to appreciate the odds of an accident are so low they aren't
worth worrying about.

I agree that most people have no clue about actual risks.

But the risks with RTGs are real, and the odds of an accident very high.
Rocket launches fail all the time, with loss of the payload. That's a
very difficult environment to consider when maintaining containment of
dangerous materials is critical. A huge effort goes into designing RTGs
with that in mind.

Yes, because of the care that goes into the engineering, the actual odds
of a failed RTG launch causing human or environmental harm are low. But
that's because the high probability of an accident has been considered
in the design.

Which was already very good even in the 1960's, before most of the
protesters had any idea of what an RTG even was.

It is because the odds of actual harm are low that you don't find many
people opposing these launches.

Most people never even have any idea when a launch is about to take
place.

It isn't a standard position of
environmentalists to oppose them. And it's why the few who do oppose
this technology have not had any real success in limiting it.

The few who oppose this technology are also unhappy about other
technologies, generally.

On Nov 18, 8:56*pm, wrote:

The protesters aren't really concerned about nuclear contamination,
they have other agenda that are the real reason for their protests.

I do agree with this... in a way. The protesters _themselves_ may, for
the most part, be genuinely concerned about nuclear contamination, but
some of them, as well as some whose writings inspire such protests, do
indeed have another agenda.

American leadership, in technology, in industrial capability, and in
military might, is necessary for the continuance of world freedom, and
it has indeed been opposed by people who would have preferred the
Soviet Union as the model for the world for quite some time - and
despite its fall, this sort of thing has long continued.

John Savard

On Nov 19, 5:57*am, Quadibloc wrote:

American leadership, in technology, in industrial capability, and in
military might, is necessary for the continuance of world freedom, and
it has indeed been opposed by people who would have preferred the
Soviet Union as the model for the world for quite some time - and
despite its fall, this sort of thing has long continued.

Define "freedom".

The freedom to be poor, oppressed, hungry, sick and homeless?

And that's only Americans working long hours on minimum wage.

How long before shanty towns start springing up around the soup
kitchens?

Bah, humbug?

On Nov 19, 1:02*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:56:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
You suggested that good design was inspired by the protests.

That is not what I said, and it's not what I meant.

"They may even provide a service, by
providing some pressure that ensures these things really are designed
to
survive a launch failure."

How shall we interpret your comment?

On Nov 19, 3:14*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:57*am, Quadibloc wrote:



American leadership, in technology, in industrial capability, and in
military might, is necessary for the continuance of world freedom, and
it has indeed been opposed by people who would have preferred the
Soviet Union as the model for the world for quite some time - and
despite its fall, this sort of thing has long continued.

Define "freedom".

What Western Europe purportedly had after WW II ended.

The freedom to be poor, oppressed, hungry, sick and homeless?

Such as the way things were in Europe in WW II?

And that's only Americans working long hours on minimum wage.

And twelve million or more illegal aliens. How many illegals in
Denmark, again?

How long before shanty towns start springing up around the soup
kitchens?

Bah, humbug?

This article will be difficult for you to understand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

IOW, fewer people looking for work ---- "lower unemployment."

On Nov 19, 3:18*am, wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:02*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:56:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You suggested that good design was inspired by the protests.

That is not what I said, and it's not what I meant.

"They may even provide a service, by
providing some pressure that ensures these things really are designed
to
survive a launch failure."

How shall we interpret your comment?

His post shows that he was in substantive agreement with you - that
the protests were misguided, and NASA's design of RTGs for space was
adequate.

Simply because he dared to speculate in an aside that these
protestors, ill-founded though their actions may have been, might
still have at least provided the benefit of encouraging some small
additional measure of caution on NASA's part... does _not_ mean he is
supporting them, or trying to give to them the credit for NASA's
efforts. This kind of overly vehement and overly ideological reaction
only serves to make you look like an unreasonable person, excessively
driven by politics, and thus diminishing your credibility.

That is not the way to win the fight against those who want to tear
down America. Moderates like J.F.K. made Americans aware of how evil
Communism was; had it been left to Joe McCarthy and the John Birch
Society, far too many people would have mistakenly thought Communism
was just an imaginary bogeyman until it was too late.

John Savard

"Chris.B" wrote in news:c7fe2a50-b1a8-4a25-b1f5-
:

On Nov 19, 5:57*am, Quadibloc wrote:

American leadership, in technology, in industrial capability, and in
military might, is necessary for the continuance of world freedom, and
it has indeed been opposed by people who would have preferred the
Soviet Union as the model for the world for quite some time - and
despite its fall, this sort of thing has long continued.

Define "freedom".

The freedom to be poor, oppressed, hungry, sick and homeless?

And that's only Americans working long hours on minimum wage.

How long before shanty towns start springing up around the soup
kitchens?

Bah, humbug?


Tell us one empire that never fell, eventually.

On Nov 18, 6:09*pm, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
wrote:
On Nov 18, 10:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:28:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
There were several accidents involving nuclear-equipped spacecraft
with what seem to have been, in retrospect, benign outcomes WRT
nuclear contamination. *These occurred before the Cassini and New
Horizons protests. The engineers were well aware of potential dangers
and designed accordingly, without input from the protesters.

I didn't say the engineers weren't aware of the potential dangers, nor
that they in any way had bad designs. I was only pointing out that
gadflies can actually provide some service in bringing these kinds of
things to the public eye

Innumeracy is still the affliction of the mentally weak. *The
inability to appreciate the odds of an accident are so low they aren't
worth worrying about. *Nitwits insist we go through terahertz airport
scanners and get patted down, all on the off chance that 1 in 350
MILLION might die in a terrorist act. *If dying from any cause truly
worries anyone, then get the F--- out of your CARS because you have a
FAR higher chance of injury or death from that.

Responsible people,at least those with common sense,generally know
when the game is up after the wheels fall off a popular bandwagon but
as so often happens,there are always some who insist on dancing long
after the party is over,something like this -

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/468345a.html

These people are concerned about defending their ideology that humans
can control global temperatures rather than before 'climategate'
where they were simply promoting it and dismissing everyone else.The
reason this particular bandwagon emerged in the first place is mainly
due to the lack of astronomers,at least astronomers worthy of the
title insofar as humanity doesn't even have an accurate cause behind
the temperature fluctuations between January and July due to an
accurate assessment of the planetary dynamics behind this fluctuation
hence there is little point trying to force conclusions based on minor
temperature variations when the major fluctuations across latitudes
have still to be sorted out.

Too often readers get mangled by getting caught up in minutiae such as
this attempt to force global temperatures through the prism of a minor
atmospheric gas thereby losing the wider picture,the fact that climate
has alway altered the biology and even the geological history of the
planet as it is written down in rocks and fossil records and,in all
respects, that is the most disappointing feature is all the hyperfuss
over human influences on global temperature in that it would have
short-circuited all other sciences in the process.For instance,had
this carbon dioxide bandwagon kept rolling and they forced through the
belief that humans can control temperature then what next ?,if the
global temperature goes up,it would then be proposed that more needed
to be done and if the global temperature dropped it would have be
proposed that emission restrictions were working yet it would prohibit
the investigation of any natural causes that actually influence global
temperatures.

After 'climategate' it is easier now to see just how large a bullet
our race has dodged but the climate issue is only a small facet of a
much bigger problem which the scam exposed and that is why many
scientists are running scared,those scientists who live off modelling
agendas which were once restricted to those who make a terrific living
out of dumping toxic concepts into the astronomical arena and love
nothing better than making big sweeping generalizations without fear
of being challenged just got badly burned when they encounter actual
science of experience where things are up close and personal.It is not
climate that is the problem,it is the way science approaches natural
phenomena in trying to model its way to a conclusion and that is why
you will see many scientists now clamoring to dismiss the social
agenda based on carbon dioxide,not for reasons that it is bad science
but that it is bad for all scientists and the 'scientific method'
where the real scam is.

On Nov 20, 7:21*am, Rich wrote:

Tell us one empire that never fell, eventually.

All empires/systems become lazy, corrupt, unequal and wasteful of
resources. Because all of them have demanded a loyalty to something
which offers little or nothing back. The investment in work or service
should be reflected in the return on that investment. The firm
connection between work or service and creature comforts is often
broken or is never made. Where large numbers of the population are
denied comfort and self respect from within the system then the system
crumbles. You cannot build a long-lived empire on fear. Nor denial of
return on investment for services rendered to the empire. Nor on
obscene inequality. Nor on corruption. These always lead to an
"alternative" economy as the lower orders seek a route to greater
security and comfort levels denied to them within the system. They are
merely copying their master's own corruption. So (for example) they
deal in drugs instead of working for a minimum wage.

Obvious unfairness is the destroyer of loyalty to any system and its
rapid downfall. All empires (to date) have relied on inertia and fear
of unfair sanction to survive. The more active investors in the
system, all receiving sufficient interest, the greater the longevity
of the system. This holds true from a sprawling nation right down to
a small business. Respect breeds self respect which breeds willing
volunteers. Pressed men carry the burden of the entire system on
their shoulders without receiving adequate compensation for the load.
This is extremely counter-productive and typical of dictatorships and
communism. And poorly run businesses and nations.

Productivity within any system is directly related to self respect.
Self respect is built on trust and encouragement. Never on brain
washing, fear and and propaganda. Only corrupt empires will deal with
corrupt empires. This top heavy, mutual gain denies entire populations
the freedom to make their nation (business or empire) wealthy. An
empire is built on the broad foundation of the lower orders. If they
cannot take the load then the entire edifice will sink beneath the
waves.