Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1242 1243 [1244] 1245 1246 ... 1249

Author Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0  (Read 1297293 times)

Arx

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron within, iron without.
    • View Profile
    • Art!
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18645 on: January 28, 2017, 03:04:17 am »

Mainly I wished to make clear the absurdity of claiming something is safe because it's used all the time. I realise mercury is more dangerous than tritium; that's why it would be monumentally ignorant to actually believe what I said.

So, congratulations, yes, you identified the rhetorical technique I used in my argument. You didn't address the argument itself though - why does the use of tritium gas in signage make massive spills of tritium dissolved in water into the water table not a problem?
Logged

I am on Discord as Arx#2415.
Hail to the mind of man! / Fire in the sky
I've been waiting for you / On this day we die.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18646 on: January 28, 2017, 03:13:09 am »

Massive spillage into water:

Again, it is a gas. It will fizz out quite a bit. Further, the dimer will not be terribly reactive with the water itself, which is already fully hydrogenated. (Rather, oxidized hydrogen).  The big issue is with it catching fire, and becoming a dangerous form of heavy water. But, that is not what happens here.

Again, even when ingested, it will clear 50% in 2 weeks, be cleared 75% in a month, and more than 90% after 2 months. 

YOU however, missed the ACTUAL point I was making--  THE TUBES IN THE EXIT SIGNS LEAK. That means tritium illuminated exit signs will be leaking tritium gas, continually.  They are routinely used anyway, because the radiation type is literally blocked by tissue paper.

To be seriously harmed by the radiation of a tritium leak, (and, for your information, "major leak" is defined as subtle increases in background, not billowing clouds, when applied to reactors.) you would either have to take an extended soak in horribly effervescent water contaminated with it (It would glow if that were the case), or decide that drinking it was a good idea.

So no-- Original complaint as hyperbole stands. NOT EVEN THE SAME LEAGUE.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18647 on: January 28, 2017, 03:23:42 am »

Tritium doesn't fizz out in water, quite the opposite. As a hydrogen molecule, it can actually replace the normal H20 bond and form tritated water which persists.

While it does not last very long in the body, the major risk here is regarding water supplies. If the water has been continuously tritated, then the people drinking from that source will constantly get dosed. This buildup has all the dangers of radiation exposure.

That tritium does not penetrate much (though beta sources go further than tissue paper, you're thinking of alpha decay), this makes it even more dangerous when inside the body because 100% of the energy output will be absorbed by the body. This is why, even though gamma radiation is more powerful, it is actually safer to get an accumulated source of, because much of the output will pass through and out of you.

The presence of tritated water is far more of a risk than tritium gas, to the extent that most developed nations specifically regulate the level of tritated water which is permitted - and the US limit is an order of magnitude lower than the second runner up. Can't imagine why.

Many if not most people who are harmed in this way will also never know the source and so can't report it, from their perspective they've just gotten cancer and don't know why, or even attribute it to something else.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Arx

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron within, iron without.
    • View Profile
    • Art!
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18648 on: January 28, 2017, 03:28:43 am »

The article Reelya quoted has it being measured in drinking water. It's easy to decide drinking it is a good idea when it comes out of your tap. I'm not terribly interested in its behaviour as a gas, to be frank. I did slip - it's not dissolved in water, it's chemically bonded into it.

Convenient overview citing two million sources with no actual "you will go green and shrivel up" but general warnings, produced by NIRS: https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/factsheets/tritiumbasicinfo.pdf
Logged

I am on Discord as Arx#2415.
Hail to the mind of man! / Fire in the sky
I've been waiting for you / On this day we die.

Rockphed

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18649 on: January 28, 2017, 04:06:09 am »

The presence of tritated water is far more of a risk than tritium gas, to the extent that most developed nations specifically regulate the level of tritated water which is permitted - and the US limit is an order of magnitude lower than the second runner up. Can't imagine why.

Because the US, unlike Russia and Japan, actually tries to learn from nuclear mistakes (both its own and those of other nations).
Logged
Only vaguely. Made of the same substance and put to the same use, but a bit like comparing a castle and a doublewide trailer.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18650 on: January 28, 2017, 05:15:36 am »

Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Dogmatic extremism is problematic, yes, but...

Look at it this way. Would you rather have evolutionary anarchists, or revolutionary anarchists? (Assuming you're not one yourself.) One of them works within the system to alter it democratically. The other tears down the system from outside. If you disagree with anarchism, you want the anarchists inside and listened-to. Otherwise they'll just tear the state down themselves.
So the anarchists are going to tear down the state currently being upheld by the most advanced right-wing military in the world, followed by the most advanced right-wing police force in the world, followed by the most well-armed right-wing civilian populace in the world, before you factor in all the hick militias waiting for an excuse to besiege cities
Anarchists do not seem to me to be a very smart group, and you're liable to get the entire left of USA killed in a stupid revolution that lasts a few days and incurs more terror than the Spanish civil war

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You don't even have the luxury of geography, with anarchist support going to be limited to those sympathetic in fragile urban networks. What happens if Russian hackers or paramilitaries shut down the power grid? Revolution paralyzed, economic damage untold

As is the left is dependent upon the right for all of its physical security. Why would you turn the right into your military enemy instead of your colleagues? Thank God the Democrats don't cave in to LARPing, cos jesus christ there's not even any foreign nations that would be willing to support a revolution, even Russia is now aligned with Trump. That's assuming some sort of anarchist scare isn't used as an excuse to crack down on civil liberties. At best it's some sorta expansion in police search and arrest powers, at worst it's a full on Saudi Arabia style shut down where journalists are disappearing and no one knows if it's partisans, terrorists or state operatives doing it

Patience and diligence make more headway than violence when it comes to achieving one's agenda. The former is limited by your virtue and ability to persuade, the latter is limited by your logistical capabilities, which are severely lacking. By employing the latter, the former becomes impossible to pursue, meaning you'd walk your agenda into oblivion. Employ a little humility and tolerance, your great nation has thus far avoided civil war still, why end such a prosperous boast?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
This is pretty awesome, there's so much going on here

alternative facts like detroit ballot stuffing? also, the requiring voting id is not voting right removal, not until the law it's out. this'd be a good moment for promoting free easy to obtain federal ids, if that's the underlying problem. or is it something else?
Update, est. 800,000 illegal immigrants voted for Clinton
Quote
Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
19% of illegal immigrants voted for the guy who wanted to deport illegal immigrants? Ayy lmao, maybe USA is not so good as expected
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 05:32:30 am by Loud Whispers »
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18651 on: January 28, 2017, 05:38:51 am »

If you can only find Washington Times saying it, that's not a good sign. I've read stuff by people who used to work there. Makes the Daily Mail look good. Basically the Washington Times editors were getting monetary kickbacks from anti-Clinton groups in the 1990s to concoct any anti-Clinton story they could. They have the worst track record on Clinton-related stories that you could imagine, actually exposed by one of their own star writers, after he jumped ship. Daily Mail might be bad, but I don't think their editors are getting bribe money from pro-fascist billionaires to write the stories they write. Unlike Washington Times.

But if you start googling any of the details in the Washington Times article, you just get articles refuting the claims. e.g. take just the first detail:

Quote
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

If you google "Jesse Richman" you get a pile of stories where Jesse Richman says the Washington Times story is bullshit and is distorting what he said.

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/
Quote
In 2014, Richman’s world changed when he co-authored a paper on voter fraud that instantly caught fire. At first, he was energized by all the buzz and proud to get his work published. Now, he says, “there are days I wish I hadn’t.”

That’s because his paper, “Do Non-Citizens Vote in US Elections?” which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Electoral Studies has become a cornerstone of President Trump’s false claim that he would have “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” This week White House press secretary Sean Spicer once again dragged the study to the forefront, noting that a study of the 2008 election (which he wrongly attributed to Pew Research) showed 14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote.

That was Richman’s research, all right. The problem, says Richman, who identifies as a political moderate, is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of his report is totally off. “Trump and others have been misreading our research and exaggerating our results to make claims we don’t think our research supports,” Richman says. “I’m not sure why they continue to do it, but there’s not much I can do about that aside from set the record straight.”

And the whole theory is based on a voluntary opt-in internet survey done years ago. And it involved clicking a box as to whether you're a citizen, non-citizen, immigrant citizen. But on similar surveys, it's stated below that people click the wrong box about 20% of the time. Also, the sample size was small. So the whole data source is basically made of errors, and even the author admits it was a badly designed survey.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/27/methodological-challenges-affect-study-of-non-citizens-voting/?utm_term=.94ca1d88cacd

But even if it was right (which most experts dismissing this guys research as bullshit - even the author of the research agrees), 800000 is still less than Clinton's majority of the popular vote.

But Trump's clearly showing that he's mentally deranged at the moment with his fixation on being perceived to be a "winner" in every way possible. It would be amazingly ironic if his entire administration is basically derailed because he can't get over this "popular vote" business.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 06:15:11 am by Reelya »
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18652 on: January 28, 2017, 06:06:26 am »

If you can only find Washington Times saying it, that's not a good sign. I've read stuff by people who used to work there. Makes the Daily Mail look good.
Basically the Washington Times editors were getting monetary kickbacks from anti-Clinton groups in the 1990s to concoct any anti-Clinton story they could. They have the worst track record on Clinton-related stories that you could imagine, actually exposed by one of their own star writers, after he jumped ship.
Daily Mail might be bad, but I don't think their editors are getting bribe money from pro-fascist billionaires to write the stories they write. Unlike Washington Times.
I've seen no such evidence, though I am more than open to evidence of media scummery. In return I offer you this question, from where did you source these claims? I recall earlier there was with other forumites much hesitation to destroy such media outlets as Buzzfeed or CNN, it was curious that though we all agreed they were scummy liars, support and opposition was split upon political lines. Yet there would not be such a similar outcry if Breitbart for example went under. We know CNN sought the questions to ask Trump from the DNC, we know CNN and the DNC were shameless in leaking questions to Clinton? Besides the brazen collusion, there was also the subtle fact that the majority of journalists are liberals, which puts them in a tough shoe. Do they report objectively and fairly, or do they risk lending support to a man they are convinced will bring about destruction?
Quote
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?
Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself.
Pretty good read, which I'd recommend for everyone who supported either side, especially since the journalist brings up how the endless media coverage of Trump allowed him to run his campaign with minimal advertising costs whilst the obvious bias further drove trust in the media out of the gutter and into the sea. Interestingly he still concludes that media bias is ok, despite his affirmations that it was hurting his own cause? Unless, he believed he was helping by being biased
Quote
It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.
It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.
How is the other side supposed to respond when yours openly talks about how injustice is ok when we do it? Moreover, how will they plan to work in the future, with your side - or against it? This will determine whether the opposition is amenable to compromise or will fiercely gnaw like cornered rats

But if you start googling any of the details in the Washington Times article, you just get articles refuting the claims. e.g. take just the first detail:
Quote
Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.
If you google "Jesse Richman" you get a pile of stories where Jesse Richman says the Washington Times story is bullshit and is distorting what he said.
Do you have a source for that
"Googling" is insufficient, we will get different results despite searching for the same terms, apologies from Bongland and all ;D

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18653 on: January 28, 2017, 06:17:16 am »

I've seen no such evidence, though I am more than open to evidence of media scummery. In return I offer you this question, from where did you source these claims?

From the book Blinded By The Right, by David Brock, who was a star journalist for the 'Times back in the day. His autobiography is basically about how corrupt the whole underground right-wing media was (basically self-flaggellation too since he was one of them). I have a physical copy of this book someone gave me, it's not information from the internet.

Basically one of the main thing Brock talks about is Richard Mellon Scaife, the oil baron who was a far-right demagogue. That guy set up some right-wing foundations which funneled money into the fledgling conservative press, basically everyone was suckling on Big Brother's teat and the more outlandish the anti-Clinton stories you came up with, the bigger the money-tit they shoved in your mouth. This was from the mid-1980s to the 1990s.

Basically everyone was into it, because the money was coming in. The editors of all the conservative papers were getting kickbacks from these Foundations to write anti-Clinton stories because Scaife wanted to take down Clinton. Sure, eventually they did find real dirt, but they made up hundreds of insane bullshit stories first, because Mr Scaife's "Scaife Foundations" would pay big money if you promised you had a juicy anti-Clinton story to run.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 06:34:49 am by Reelya »
Logged

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18654 on: January 28, 2017, 06:17:40 am »

alternative facts like detroit ballot stuffing? also, the requiring voting id is not voting right removal, not until the law it's out. this'd be a good moment for promoting free easy to obtain federal ids, if that's the underlying problem. or is it something else?
Update, est. 800,000 illegal immigrants voted for Clinton
That's a conspiracy theory in the same lieu as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Atheist". Voter fraud is nigh non-existent in USA, despite many, many attempts by dishonest politicians of Bush administration to try and find one. Try again.
Logged
._.

Dozebôm Lolumzalěs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18655 on: January 28, 2017, 06:23:53 am »

LW: you've described why I am an evolutionary anarchist.

I never said that the revolution would succeed. I was just saying that it would HAPPEN. And I don't think anybody wants America to have another civil war, except the revolutionaries and the reactionaries. Certainly a moderate such as Ispil would rather have the anarchists engage in lively debate than a bloody civil war, no?
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18656 on: January 28, 2017, 06:27:07 am »

Anarchism got a bad name from window smashing and plundering scum that call themselves anarchists, but aren't.
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18657 on: January 28, 2017, 06:38:53 am »

I read a book that a friend had about 1890s anarchists in France, basically to denounce the anarchists, they found this one guy who wanted to shoot/bomb a politician or similar, and he'd gone to a public meeting of some anarchist group once. That was enough to say "lol anarchists want to kill everyone".

That's why you do need to keep crazies out. But also it's why you need to work incrementally. limited application of anarchist principles is actually an achievable thing, while "communist revolution" is more of an all-or-nothing type thing. Which one d'ya think has more chance of success in a wealthy nation?

e.g. you can make a collective/co-op etc and run it on anarchist principles. The fact that next door is a conventional company isn't a problem for anarchist theory, but it would be for communist theory. So the basic ideas of anarchism in terms of voluntary organizations with direct democracy mechanisms. Those can totally be tried in a piecemeal fashion. The fact is, anarchism is a bottom-up form of organization, so there's no specific top-down thing that needs to be implemented first, unlike making a communist state.

For example, laws don't necessarily need to be changed to render them void. They just need to be ignored. e.g. anti-sodomy laws still existed in parts of America until recently. But it was rare or non-existent to enforce them for many decades. Similarly, anarchists could advocate that laws are simply ignored (e.g partly by convincing police and government that some laws aren't worth upholding, such as marijuana possession), or promote ballot initiatives to enact reforms that increase civil liberties. Those things are much more easy to enact than creating communism.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 06:47:13 am by Reelya »
Logged

Dozebôm Lolumzalěs

  • Bay Watcher
  • what even is truth
    • View Profile
    • test
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18658 on: January 28, 2017, 07:03:20 am »

Yes, yes. I know. Revolution will not work. I am aware of this. That is why I am not a revolutionary.

But if you silence us... I can't guarantee that all anarchists will refrain from revolution.
Logged
Quote from: King James Programming
...Simplification leaves us with the black extra-cosmic gulfs it throws open before our frenzied eyes...
Quote from: Salvané Descocrates
The only difference between me and a fool is that I know that I know only that I think, therefore I am.
Sigtext!

TempAcc

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CASTE:SATAN]
    • View Profile
Re: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0
« Reply #18659 on: January 28, 2017, 07:17:04 am »

Hey guys is this the LCS roleplay thread?
Logged
On normal internet forums, threads devolve from content into trolling. On Bay12, it's the other way around.
There is no God but TempAcc, and He is His own Prophet.
Pages: 1 ... 1242 1243 [1244] 1245 1246 ... 1249