If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Great news, everybody. Pat Boone has solved our energy problems by inventing controlled fusion   (wnd.com) divider line 173
    More: Hero, Pat Boone, Daniel Boone, hydrogen bombs, Soviet government, Ethel Rosenberg, End of World War II in Europe  
•       •       •

5174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 3:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 03:03:04 PM
A WND article that makes scientific sense, without 14 billion links to join Sheriff Joe's anti-Obama "posse" in the text? Is this secretly a clever Onion spoof?
 
2012-04-21 03:44:14 PM
PFFT! Japan's been working on it since the early '90s!

images.wikia.com
 
2012-04-21 03:58:35 PM
"Hey everybody, I found this great new method of propulsion for interstellar space travel! It's called warp drive!"
 
2012-04-21 03:58:38 PM
Subby, it gets better than that. This is only Part 1.
 
2012-04-21 03:58:57 PM
Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?
 
2012-04-21 03:59:08 PM
What?

Government funding for fusion research?

What is he a socialist?
 
2012-04-21 04:01:52 PM
fta I started by admitting I'm not a scientist. But I'm a concerned citizen; I'm curious and creative; I was born with a high IQ and active intelligence; and I made it my business to seek logical answers to the looming world energy crisis.

Fine, Pat, whatever. But only an amateur paleontologist can provide the answers we need.
 
2012-04-21 04:03:55 PM

Captain Steroid: PFFT! Japan's been working on it since the early '90s!

[images.wikia.com image 550x334]


Came to do this. Leaving oddly impressed.
 
2012-04-21 04:04:22 PM
I started by admitting I'm not a scientist.

it's the first step to recovery
 
2012-04-21 04:06:45 PM
Solar power is too unpredictable to use? Damn, I guess Obama does make things uncertain!

Also, I find it hilarious that he says that the government shouldn't fund research into solar power and then goes on to extol the virtual of nuclear energy. I guess he thinks private industry funded the Manhattan Project.
 
2012-04-21 04:08:02 PM
Does he publish this article every year? Is he trying for a Nobel prize or something?
 
2012-04-21 04:13:09 PM
Can we call it "con-fusion" for short or would that be too confusing?

/Got nothing.
 
2012-04-21 04:13:36 PM

jebusfreak: A WND article that makes scientific sense, without 14 billion links to join Sheriff Joe's anti-Obama "posse" in the text? Is this secretly a clever Onion spoof?


I don't even want to think of Sheriff Joe having any connections with fusion on any level.
 
2012-04-21 04:13:56 PM
Wrong as always, Pat. We need Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. It's better than fusion and actually works right now.
 
2012-04-21 04:14:41 PM

Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?


Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have. Radiation derangement is based on myths spread by the fossil fuel industry in their continued war on science.

More people are killed EVERY DAY along the fossil fuel supply chain than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.
 
2012-04-21 04:15:50 PM
Solar power isn't unpredictable.

We're less than 10 years away from domestic solar panels converting enough energy for domestic use, even on rainy, cloudy days in northern Europe. Batteries are equally on track to easy cover overnight.

We will be solar across the Western world by 2030, on a domestic level.
 
2012-04-21 04:16:37 PM
"Alarmingly Predictably, America is becoming woefully behind the curve."

FTFY Mr. Boone.
 
2012-04-21 04:18:16 PM

udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.


Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.
 
2012-04-21 04:23:58 PM
Bungles:
We will be solar across the Western world by 2030, on a domestic level.

I like your optimism, but you forget that this is Murka, where science is for queers. Maybe if we changed the name from "solar panels" to "McDonald's presents Jesus squares."
 
2012-04-21 04:24:21 PM

Captain Steroid: PFFT! Japan's been working on it since the early '90s!

[images.wikia.com image 550x334]


Great, now I feel ashamed for understanding the reference. Thanks, jerk.
 
2012-04-21 04:24:55 PM
I work in nuclear power so I'm getting a headdesk out of this while home sick from an outage I've now been stuck at over sixty days.

Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.


Do you know how I know you don't know what you're talking about? YOU USED FUKUSHIMA AND CHERNOBYL IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

Also, we somehow recovered from several hundred nuclear non-errors, namely bomb tests and TWO bomb drops on huge cities. Your point?

/putting an early gen BWR and a RBMK1000 in the same sentence? For real?
 
2012-04-21 04:26:36 PM
Fusion?

Let me pull out the Tribal Tech discs and put them in the CD player.
 
2012-04-21 04:27:09 PM

udhq: Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have. Radiation derangement is based on myths spread by the fossil fuel industry in their continued war on science.

More people are killed EVERY DAY along the fossil fuel supply chain than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.


Until it blows. Then, well, it's a whole different story.

Meanwhile, Chernobyl may become safely reinhabitable in a few hundred... or thousand... years. Japan's new tourist attraction, Fukushima, may be shut down in a half-century or so, and may become habitable in a few hundred years.

See, the scary part isn't when nuclear power goes well - it's damned safe when it goes well. But, when it goes badly, it goes very badly, and you have to use geological timeframes to measure the length of time it'll take to recover. Combine that with the fact that we don't really have a solid track record when it comes to responding to nuclear "accidents," and it's hard to trust nuclear power as we have currently implemented it.

There are even safer ways to provide nuclear power, but until we move to those methods, we're stuck dealing with facilities built in the 1970s that are accidents waiting to happen.
 
2012-04-21 04:29:11 PM

udhq: Garble: Is is one of the new, super awesome forms of nuclear power that create no waist, are toats safe, and would solve all energy problems forever if the big mean government would just abolish the EPA, provide even more free insurance to the plants, and tell homeowners that don't want giant glowing bombs in their backyard to suck it?

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power generation we have. Radiation derangement is based on myths spread by the fossil fuel industry in their continued war on science.

More people are killed EVERY DAY along the fossil fuel supply chain than have EVER been killed by nuclear power.

You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.


As long as there is no melt down or radiation leak. And that has never happened has it?
 
2012-04-21 04:31:51 PM

Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.


Chernobyl had no containment unit, and Fukushima was built on a fault line with pre-climate change estimates of climate events. Both were fundamental failures of planning, not of technology.

The stakes aren't even as dire as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have you believe. They initially pedaled the idea that the Ukrainian exclusion zone would be an irradiated wasteland for 10,000 years. Less than 40 years later, it's teeming with perfectly healthy wildlife and open for tourism.

In America, we are exposed to more radiation as result of the isotopes released by burning coal than from our nuclear industry.
 
2012-04-21 04:32:23 PM
God gave us fusion to prove we are not evolved from monkeys!
 
2012-04-21 04:32:47 PM

HMS_Blinkin: "Hey everybody, I found this great new method of propulsion for interstellar space travel! It's called warp drive!"


"Hey everybody, I found this great new method to deal with global hunger, they're called food replicators."
 
2012-04-21 04:34:09 PM

Chagrin: udhq: You will be exposed to more radiation over the course of a 4 hour flight than you would be spending a lifetime living next door to a modern nuclear facility.

Unless that plant is Fukushima or Chernobyl.

The stakes in failure for a nuclear plant are extremely high. We have no technology to recover from a nuclear error.


That is true. Meltdowns are, as a singular event, much more immediately damaging to humans than any event along the fossil-fuel process...but both of those were extraordinary events. Fukushima was an aging reactor, as I recall (I could be wrong) but in any case was situated on the farking Ring of Fire. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was run by idiots (Communist idiots) who, at the time of meltdown, were testing the failsafes by disabling ALL THE OTHER FAILSAFES. Both of which can be controlled for to an incredibly safe level.

/also if we're trading incidents, Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon. Bad shiat and human error are not limited to nuclear power, my friend
 
2012-04-21 04:34:23 PM
115 square miles of solar cells
/also fusion would be cool
 
2012-04-21 04:35:22 PM

thoughtpol: 115 square miles of solar cells
/also fusion would be cool


damn it all. that's missing a, "is not prohibitive; China's surface area is over 3.7 million square miles.
 
2012-04-21 04:35:24 PM

FormlessOne: Until it blows. Then, well, it's a whole different story.


Nuclear plants can not explode. Coal and gas explodes. Nuclear plants can NOT explode and saying they can makes you look like a farking idiot who doesn't understand how reactors work. Now, if you said that nuclear plants employ explosive gasses for POWER GENERATION, like any other power station that has a turbine, I'd say yes. If you said nuclear plants can suffer STEAM EXCURSIONS like any other steam generation station, I'd say yes.

Meanwhile, Chernobyl may become safely reinhabitable in a few hundred... or thousand... years. Japan's new tourist attraction, Fukushima, may be shut down in a half-century or so, and may become habitable in a few hundred years.

Meanwhile, Chernobyl/Pripyat is opening for tourism and is already considered a wildlife refuge. And yes I want to visit.
You are aware there are places that NATURALLY have nearly as much background radiation as Fukushima does right now, right, and the residents actually have LESS cancer (but still within statistical deviation)?


See, the scary part isn't when nuclear power goes well - it's damned safe when it goes well. But, when it goes badly, it goes very badly, and you have to use geological timeframes to measure the length of time it'll take to recover. Combine that with the fact that we don't really have a solid track record when it comes to responding to nuclear "accidents," and it's hard to trust nuclear power as we have currently implemented it.

Yes, just like the gas plant that exploded a year before it was operational and flattened itself to the deck, killing multiple people (in the US). Like the coal mine that was outside regulation and killed everyone in it (in the US). Like the multiple oil platforms that have gone up like fireworks and killed everyone and done unknown damage to the ocean. Like Bhopal chemical plant in India with nearly 10K dead so far and thousands more permanently injured.
I can keep going.

There are even safer ways to provide nuclear power, but until we move to those methods, we're stuck dealing with facilities built in the 1970s that are accidents waiting to happen.

They approved the Westinghouse AP1000 this January, Vogtle has their site licenses and they are building. Do try to keep up.

/fusion does not exist except in the farking sun
//and the Z Machine for a split second I guess
///and bombs
 
2012-04-21 04:36:41 PM
I started by admitting I'm not a scientist. But I'm a concerned citizen; I'm curious and creative; I was born with a high IQ and active intelligence

If you have to state that you are intelligent isn't that a sign that you can't prove it?
 
2012-04-21 04:40:15 PM

udhq: The stakes aren't even as dire as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have you believe. They initially pedaled the idea that the Ukrainian exclusion zone would be an irradiated wasteland for 10,000 years. Less than 40 years later, it's teeming with perfectly healthy wildlife and open for tourism.


That's a bit disingenuous, on both cases. It is indeed teeming with wildlife - however, it's teeming with perfectly healthy mutated wildlife, both plant and animal. It's become such a fascination that scientists make (very, very short) trips there to observe the mutations. The exclusion zone is open for limited tourism, to allow people to see the exclusion zone. Here's an excerpt from the Telegraph article describing Ukraine exclusion zone tourism:

Visitors have to sign a waiver, exempting the tour operator from all responsibility in the event that they later suffer radiation-related health problems.

Driven round at breakneck speed, and told not to touch any of the irradiated vegetation or metal structures, "tourists" are invited to briefly inspect the stricken number four reactor from a short distance as the geiger counter guides carry clicks ever higher.

"Let's leave now, it is very dangerous to be here," Vita Polyakova, a tour guide, told a group including The Sunday Telegraph last week. "There are huge holes in the sarcophagus covering the reactor," she added, in a tone that suggested she was not joking.


Using those as examples, without providing the qualifications that describe the reality of the situation, is disingenuous.

It's not "safe." It won't be "safe" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Those examples are like claiming boiling water is perfectly safe, without saying "as long as you don't dip your junk in it for more than a second or so."
 
2012-04-21 04:40:42 PM
Say... Why didn't you publish the article in like some scientific journals or some news magazines with prints instead.
 
2012-04-21 04:41:37 PM
So has anyone come along and fixed the fact that solar panels are poisonous once they degrade and batteries are poisonous from the point they're made to the point they're disposed of? And the fact that batteries are mixed toxic waste and hard to recycle? And the fact that the mines used for batteries are incredibly dangerous and often in, oh, Africa where there's no regulations?

Keep feeling good. But always be aware you are searching for the least of the evils.

spongeboob: As long as there is no melt down or radiation leak. And that has never happened has it?


Well considering TMI2 resulted in no measurable release to the public as concluded by multiple tests.. and considering that the multiple downwind issues from Chernobyl could also be caused by, say, rogue chemistry, like heavy metals and graphite ash and smoke coming down in the rain (known carcinogens)... I say our scorecard is better than fossil plants or chemical plants in the "cause health issues" matter.

thoughtpol: 115 square miles of solar cells
/also fusion would be cool


You can put several reactors on less than a square mile and it creates power rain or shine. Hell you can put several of ANY steam driven plant on less than a square mile.

/you want proof our American plants can weather untold shiat? Look at Waterford 3
//it took a direct strike during Katrina, ran a whole month only on diesel generators, and came out of it fine
 
2012-04-21 04:41:46 PM
It's almost like the there should be some kind of department that focuses on channelling money, talent and policies of energy to make this a reality.
 
2012-04-21 04:41:56 PM
spongeboob:As long as there is no melt down or radiation leak. And that has never happened has it?

FormlessOne:Until it blows. Then, well, it's a whole different story.

There are risks with every kind of electricity. Coal has rendered some parts of China virtually uninhabitable and has poisoned our waterways with mercury. Rare-earth mining for the metals needed in solar panels has contaminated water tables for millions of people.

Why the disproportional panic over the risks of nuclear power? Because the coal industry has been extremely effective in spreading completely irrelevant concepts like half-life.
 
2012-04-21 04:43:33 PM

Masso: Say... Why didn't you publish the article in like some scientific journals or some news magazines with prints instead.


To only be mocked by the liebral media and global warming apparatchiks? Thank you but no. Someday, you'll all be looking to WND for your energy needs as well as seduction secrets that liberals don't want you to know about.
 
2012-04-21 04:44:06 PM
fc02.deviantart.net

Time for this again I suppose

/You know what I love guys? People talking about the industry I work in professionally when they know nothing about it. I love that.
//know what I also love? Cold medicine. Trippin balls over here
 
2012-04-21 04:45:38 PM
"Solution to finite fossil fuels"? If we don't do slant drilling under every elementary school in the US, how will Joseph Farah keep his mustache black?

www.wnd.comwww.wnd.comwww.wnd.comwww.wnd.comwww.wnd.com
 
2012-04-21 04:45:55 PM

udhq: There are risks with every kind of electricity. Coal has rendered some parts of China virtually uninhabitable and has poisoned our waterways with mercury. Rare-earth mining for the metals needed in solar panels has contaminated water tables for millions of people.

Why the disproportional panic over the risks of nuclear power? Because the coal industry has been extremely effective in spreading completely irrelevant concepts like half-life.


Lord god, THIS THIS THIS AND THIS.

Nevermind that the coal industry is radioactive itself.

/they're being threatened with regulation on that last I heard
//the area around a coal plant is more radioactive than around a nuke plant
 
2012-04-21 04:48:29 PM

thoughtpol: 115 square miles of solar cells
/also fusion would be cool


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

Freeman Dyson has some pretty interesting theories, when he's not busy being misinformed about climate science.
 
2012-04-21 04:51:50 PM
I started by admitting I'm not a scientist. But I'm a concerned citizen; I'm curious and creative; I was born with a high IQ and active intelligence; and I made it my business to seek logical answers to the looming world energy crisis....

... and thats where I stopped reading. The right wing and evangelical christian community has far too many "I don't know what I'm talking about but I have really strong convictions about it so I must be right" morons in it.
 
2012-04-21 04:55:41 PM

FormlessOne: It's not "safe." It won't be "safe" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Those examples are like claiming boiling water is perfectly safe, without saying "as long as you don't dip your junk in it for more than a second or so."


Thanks to coal, it may be millions of years before it's safe to eat fish out of a lake?

Sure, the nuclear apocalypse could happen, as could the solar apocalypse when the solar collecting satellites are re-purposed as a space-borne death ray. The coal apocalypse has already happened, and we may never completely recover. Driven through Tennessee lately? Mountaintop removal coal mining has much of it looking like Afghanistan.
 
2012-04-21 05:06:30 PM

Karac: Solar power is too unpredictable to use? Damn, I guess Obama does make things uncertain!

Also, I find it hilarious that he says that the government shouldn't fund research into solar power and then goes on to extol the virtual of nuclear energy. I guess he thinks private industry funded the Manhattan Project.



Seriously. I could provide for all of my own energy needs - including charging an electric vehicle - and have excess generation capacity to spare from just the surface area on my roof. And I live in a small house. Sure you can't power the cities like that, but just by taking all of the single family homes in America off the grid - and their vehicles - it would solve a massive portion of our energy needs.

Yet there are so many - particularly religious folks who lean right - who are quick to dismiss solar for no rational reason. The biggest technical problem with solar is storage for the overnight hours, and even then a closet full of batteries - or a shed in the yard - could do the trick. Some folks have even made it work with relatively inexpensive lead-acid batteries (you just need a few more of them) and there are also other ways to store the power such as storing it in the form of hydrogen in tanks which you then pull back out and run through a fuel cell.

Why do so many supposedly patriotic Americans hate independence and freedom?
 
2012-04-21 05:06:50 PM
Today is my first official day of refusing to knowingly click on WND articles. Pat Boone and controlled fusion should not exist in the same sentence.
 
2012-04-21 05:08:03 PM
there's a gold mine in the sky.
 
2012-04-21 05:08:31 PM
FTFA: The State Grid of China has now calculated that less than 1 percent of China's electric power could be obtained from solar. Get it? China looks at all this realistically ... and so far, we don't.

And China STILL subsidizes solar and wind more than America does...funny that.

I was under the assumption we already government-fund fusion research, it's just not going anywhere because to make a controllable and useful reaction we have to find some way of "cheating" physics. Perhaps I was mistaken?


Hey Ringshadow, if you're not too busy being high as balls I got a big dumb layman question from a big dumb layman, what's the deal with Fukushima? I hear these things about the reactor running too hot because the water levels are too low and fission chain-reactions run like a fully-loaded freight train (i.e. slooooooow rate of acceleration/deceleration) but the thing I don't get is why the water levels are an issue. The water's going down, you can't pump more in with, like, a farking firehose if that's all you got? The (perhaps wildly inaccurate) descriptions I hear imply the steam is venting out just fine.
 
2012-04-21 05:09:19 PM
udhq: Why the disproportional panic over the risks of nuclear power? Because the coal industry has been extremely effective in spreading completely irrelevant concepts like half-life.

There's no way to approach the scene of a nuclear disaster in a timely manner in the event of a catastrophe. Yes cleanup will be costly with each technology, but at least it is immediately possible to survey the damage; contain the disaster; and begin cleanup.

For example, Fukushima is still not a stable situation because even simple questions like "how much water is in the reactor containment structures" can't be answered. The power company has only been able to access the containment in one of the three reactors that were online at the time of the disaster, finding that it's estimates were way off (30m of water versus the discovered 2m). The only way to know how to respond is with information; nuclear disasters don't lend themselves to that.

Even simple things, like surveying reactor building number 4 that contains many times amount of radioactive materials from Chernobyl 100' in the air and exposed to the elements (though currently water covered) is not possible due to on site radiation.

Nuclear disasters require a lot of not-yet-invented technology and engineering to correct. Continuing with Fukushima as an example, there is currently no current technology that can withstand the radiation levels inside the containment for moderate-term surveying or cleanup. Even the cameras get destroyed with 4 hours of exposure to the containment environment. Once the visual problem is solved then special equipment and procedures need to be designed to move tons upon tons of debris remotely and underwater needs to be invented. Three Mile Island at least had the luxury of having everything in the containment vessel; it's not known (but IMO unlikely) thats the case at Fukushima.

Finally, although the other technology also has the potential to cause long-term problems, nuclear catastrophes require decades if not centuries of problem solving, engineering, and support resources to resolve. Chernobyl, for example, needs a new concerete sarcophagus; it will continue to need a new every so often for probably centuries. Fukushima is even worse because burying it is not an option because of it being on a beach, essentially. If it can't all be safely dismantled, then a long term containment solution would be costly to implement and maintain.

In the end, nuclear on the surface isn't bad. When something goes wrong, (1) you can't readily survey what's going on; (2) the technology to respond hasn't been invented; and (3) it will require a lot of resources for decades if not centuries to correct. Non-nuclear power sources don't have these challenges to such an extreme extent.
 
2012-04-21 05:09:58 PM

mongbiohazard: Karac: Solar power is too unpredictable to use? Damn, I guess Obama does make things uncertain!

Also, I find it hilarious that he says that the government shouldn't fund research into solar power and then goes on to extol the virtual of nuclear energy. I guess he thinks private industry funded the Manhattan Project.


Seriously. I could provide for all of my own energy needs - including charging an electric vehicle - and have excess generation capacity to spare from just the surface area on my roof. And I live in a small house. Sure you can't power the cities like that, but just by taking all of the single family homes in America off the grid - and their vehicles - it would solve a massive portion of our energy needs.

Yet there are so many - particularly religious folks who lean right - who are quick to dismiss solar for no rational reason. The biggest technical problem with solar is storage for the overnight hours, and even then a closet full of batteries - or a shed in the yard - could do the trick. Some folks have even made it work with relatively inexpensive lead-acid batteries (you just need a few more of them) and there are also other ways to store the power such as storing it in the form of hydrogen in tanks which you then pull back out and run through a fuel cell.

Why do so many supposedly patriotic Americans hate independence and freedom?


Solar cells are poisonous and batteries are mixed toxic waste.

If you had massive amounts of people start doing what you suggested, people would start landfilling the above unless you had one hell of a system in place to take them off people's hands before they did so. And there's still no real way of recycling either efficiently. And some assholes would still landfill them, turning landfills into superfunds.

It's a good idea. But how do you deal with the waste?

/batteries CAN be recycled
//but its expensive, dangerous, and difficult
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report