Thorium - safe nuclear power

[Jasper]

Short, fascinating documentary at link:

http://www.motherboard.tv/2011/11/9/mot ... rium-dream

Alex Pasternack of Motherboard.tv produced a documentary with Hugo Perez about the thorium movement. He says:

The disaster at Fukushima drew attention once again to the perils of nuclear energy, and raised important questions about how its technology came to be. The Thorium Dream explores the passionate Internet-based movement in the United States behind an alternative nuclear fuel, thorium, and a supposedly safer, smaller reactor design that was born at the start of the atomic age and then forgotten. Its proponents say the technology could forever end our energy and resource problems, while solving the safety, proliferation and waste issues, and they're determined to bring it to the U.S. before other countries do -- or before other forces manage to keep the idea stuck in the bin of fringe curiosities.

[Hokahey]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

[Larry B.]

I saw the documentary and I've been reading about it... I can't find a flaw in it

However, if it can't be used in weapons, it's less likely that the US will change its nuclear energy grill to a thorium-based one. But that shouldn't be a problem, sooner or later the US will create a bomb with it.

[Jasper]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

[Bandit72]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

Why do you hold "scientists" with utmost respect? They're as bad as politicians with forever changing opinions.

[Jasper]

That comment speaks volumes. I'm not going to try to explain science or the scientific method to you.

[Bandit72]

OK Newton.

[sinep]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

Why do you hold "scientists" with utmost respect? They're as bad as politicians with forever changing opinions.

do you really think that?

[Bandit72]

So where did that flow chart go wrong re: "Global Warming"? For example.

[Jasper]

Based upon previous observations, I just don't think that trying to explain any of this would be worth the effort. If you want some books to read you can let us know.

[Bandit72]

Books, yes please. Although having read quite a bit (that's not to say what you would suggest I have read) I'm quite interested in personal views rather than regurgitated literature.

[Larry B.]

So where did that flow chart go wrong re: "Global Warming"? For example.

I think you're referring to politics or economic interests. They can fuck with science.

[Bandit72]

So where did that flow chart go wrong re: "Global Warming"? For example.

I think you're referring to politics or economic interests. They can fuck with science.

We have a winner!

[Jasper]

My personal views do not impact scientific method one iota, and like I said, I don't have the time and honestly, I don't have the interest. Here are a couple of books:

[Hokahey]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

That's just a really stupid comment on your part. I was simply making a statement about how modern documentaries, especially if they're even remotely politcal in nature, are always heavily slanted and never present both sides to the issue.

What that has to do with my affinity for a man that values freedom over an overbearing nanny/slave state is beyond me.

[Hype]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

That's just a really stupid comment on your part. I was simply making a statement about how modern documentaries, especially if they're even remotely politcal in nature, are always heavily slanted and never present both sides to the issue.

What that has to do with my affinity for a man that values freedom over an overbearing nanny/slave state is beyond me.

It worries me that you seem to think there are [always? often?] 'both sides' to an issue. This is the strategy used to wedge creationism into science classrooms by going around saying "teach the controversy", as if there's a controversy, when there clearly isn't one. But gullible people get taken in. Likewise, why would you think there are "sides" here?

Americans are weird... everything is polarized.

[Hokahey]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

That's just a really stupid comment on your part. I was simply making a statement about how modern documentaries, especially if they're even remotely politcal in nature, are always heavily slanted and never present both sides to the issue.

What that has to do with my affinity for a man that values freedom over an overbearing nanny/slave state is beyond me.

It worries me that you seem to think there are [always? often?] 'both sides' to an issue. This is the strategy used to wedge creationism into science classrooms by going around saying "teach the controversy", as if there's a controversy, when there clearly isn't one. But gullible people get taken in. Likewise, why would you think there are "sides" here?

Americans are weird... everything is polarized.

Not to every issue. I didn't say that.

[Hype]

On semi-related topic, I'm writing a bioethics paper about "questionable research", which has nothing to do with BS like creationism or anti-global-warming stuff, but more to do with whether certain kinds of research ought to be limited (thus contravening "academic freedom") in cases where culture influences the sorts of questions likely to be asked, or where the research could be used to reinforce pre-existing discrimination, hatred, violence, etc. The knockdown that caused me to change my mind, at least partially, about the 'objectivity' of the scientific method, is the case of genetic research into the "origins" of homosexuality.

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

I'm trying to fend off his argument by urging caution on the legislative side of limiting research, since the fact that there are competing values ('truth' and 'avoiding harm', roughly) doesn't mean that one rules the other out in every case... a nuanced view seems more reasonable.

[Larry B.]

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

Thank you

Very good read. I was a little surprised to the assumed percentage of gay people (2-5%); I always assumed it was more around 10-15%. As those scientists carrying out these studies can somehow influence it (directly or indirectly) with their position towards homosexuality, I am guessing they also take into account the number of gay persons that have a problem disclosing truthful information due to an inhospitable environment... ?

Once again, a good read.

[Hype]

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

Thank you

Very good read. I was a little surprised to the assumed percentage of gay people (2-5%); I always assumed it was more around 10-15%. As those scientists carrying out these studies can somehow influence it (directly or indirectly) with their position towards homosexuality, I am guessing they also take into account the number of gay persons that have a problem disclosing truthful information due to an inhospitable environment... ?

Once again, a good read.

I think the claim of 2-5% was for homosexual men.

I think the more startling thing for me was how strongly argued/persuasive the claim was that even if researchers claim (or believe themselves) not to be homophobic, or are themselves actually homosexual, they still can't approach genetic research on homosexuality in an 'objective' way, because all the questions are 'tainted' by the homophobic culture that we've had up to this point. So it's a two-pronged argument... our culture is homophobic so the questions/hypotheses can't be formed objectively in the first place, and other cultures are not merely homophobic but outright dangerous toward gays, and doing research here could cause more people to be killed or otherwise victimized (think: embryo selection, or selective abortion/infanticide based on a simple genetic test...).

I really still want to push on the 'value of truth' stuff, to say well, okay, so we don't do research on historically victimized minorities, generally, unless we can very carefully formulate the questions we want to investigate in ways that avoid cultural baggage. It's not just sexual orientation where this is a problem, it's also a problem for genetics of intelligence and intellectual disability, and for research into human sexual dimorphisms (E.g., "We hypothesize that menstruating women do worse on their exams..."... you can see why that's a badly formed hypothesis, even if it's true...)

[creep]

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

Thank you

by Udo Schüklenk

this guy has the coolest name ever

[Hype]

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

Thank you

by Udo Schüklenk

this guy has the coolest name ever

He's a very cool guy, very German... a utilitarian... but very smart and savvy. He was the chair of the Royal Society of Canada panel on End of Life care that was just completed. The government basically told them to fuck off.
Read about it here: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/874282/ ... ion-making
Read it here: http://www.rsc-src.ca/creports.php

[Larry B.]

Here's a very readable paper by my prof on the subject: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/files/orient.htm

Thank you

Very good read. I was a little surprised to the assumed percentage of gay people (2-5%); I always assumed it was more around 10-15%. As those scientists carrying out these studies can somehow influence it (directly or indirectly) with their position towards homosexuality, I am guessing they also take into account the number of gay persons that have a problem disclosing truthful information due to an inhospitable environment... ?

Once again, a good read.

I think the claim of 2-5% was for homosexual men.

I think the more startling thing for me was how strongly argued/persuasive the claim was that even if researchers claim (or believe themselves) not to be homophobic, or are themselves actually homosexual, they still can't approach genetic research on homosexuality in an 'objective' way, because all the questions are 'tainted' by the homophobic culture that we've had up to this point. So it's a two-pronged argument... our culture is homophobic so the questions/hypotheses can't be formed objectively in the first place, and other cultures are not merely homophobic but outright dangerous toward gays, and doing research here could cause more people to be killed or otherwise victimized (think: embryo selection, or selective abortion/infanticide based on a simple genetic test...).

I really still want to push on the 'value of truth' stuff, to say well, okay, so we don't do research on historically victimized minorities, generally, unless we can very carefully formulate the questions we want to investigate in ways that avoid cultural baggage. It's not just sexual orientation where this is a problem, it's also a problem for genetics of intelligence and intellectual disability, and for research into human sexual dimorphisms (E.g., "We hypothesize that menstruating women do worse on their exams..."... you can see why that's a badly formed hypothesis, even if it's true...)

And isn't it viable to somehow include such possible implications in the study? Or in a different study? I mean, an attempt to a prediction of what would happen.

However, if science (in general) would allow some sort of ethical responsibility to mess with its investigations, I would regard it as a mistake; after all, they would be following moral codes that don't really relate to science, since they might deviate its use (IF that use is 'the search for truth'). So, if a scientific truth is independent from the values mankind/societies might assign to it, then it shouldn't be up to science to stop pursuing new experiments just because there is a chance that the truth might be used for harmful purposes. Don't some people call black or brown people 'monkeys' and mention that they are less evolved than white people? To avoid that, should the study of evolution have stopped? Don't think so. If people are stupid assholes, it's not science's fault.

I believe that a "very careful formulation of the questions" is the way to go. People can be manipulated with language.

[Hype]

Those are some good thoughts, Larry. Helpful actually, since I'm working on the objections right now... I will just say that "if a scientific truth is independent from the values mankind/societies might assign to it"... is a problem, since it's already been pretty strongly argued that there is no such conception of 'truth' in at least some cases. It might be the case that there are some truths of science that are culture-independent or not value-laden... like maybe some physical principles or something... but we're dealing with high-level socio-biology here mostly... and with those, the experiments are hard to isolate from culture, since you're usually investigating behaviour that is value-laden within that culture... e.g., test performance/IQ, male/female distributions of certain kinds of intelligence, racial/ethnic distributions of intelligence, or whatever. These are all VERY problematic from the get-go.

[Jasper]

Sounds fascinating. But I think I'll read about it from various sources instead watching yet another documentary that presents a completely slanted viewpoint, assuming this is like every other modern "political" documentary.

This is the source where you'd hear about it from scientists. If that bothers you, then it will bother you. If you want to hear about it from Ron Paul, that's not going to happen here.

That's just a really stupid comment on your part. I was simply making a statement about how modern documentaries, especially if they're even remotely politcal in nature, are always heavily slanted and never present both sides to the issue.

What that has to do with my affinity for a man that values freedom over an overbearing nanny/slave state is beyond me.

Woah, hold on. I did not introduce the word "political." Did I say that the documentary was political in nature? Since you brought up politics, I have to ask myself if you are politically partisan. Am I not aware that you've more or less pledged your political fealty to Ron Paul, and to the greater idea of libertarianism? Let's be honest. So, since we're now being honest guys, it's fairly safe to assume that if the scientific ideas in this documentary were framed in a pro-libertarian manner, or endorsed by leading figures of said movement, you'd naturally be more receptive. You can't throw your hat in with a political ideology, then claim political neutrality.

So, since you've written the documentary off, sight unseen, as something most likely to be politically biased, yet you yourself profess political bias, where exactly have I crossed the line in reporting to you that it is a documentary from a scientific perspective, not a political perspective, with one relevant political perspective being that of libertarianism, the ideology of which you've repeatedly espoused? Further, if I am to reflect honestly upon incidents where libertarian dogma has clashed with scientific findings, how am I not to suspect that the issue here is not whether the science is politicized, but whether it might be counter to the specific politics of libertarianism?