Nuclear Power Exaggerated

I might agree if the numbers were stronger, only 4 out of 100 pot users use cocaine.  I see your point, but i think many more people are just going to turn to mixing weed and alcohol than turning to something stronger.  Or at least at UCSC (SO MUCH POT) thats been my experience.  people just use it too unwind after a long day, and if they want to party they smoke and drink.  Never have any of the pot users i know contemplated using cocaine because they use pot.

But yeah i see your point.

Crack?  pfft.
I knew plenty of guys in High School who were into heroine, speed, and who knows what else.  And they all started with Weed.  Coincidence?  Perhaps. 

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

Weed is not a gateway drug. It is probation that is the gateway drug. As soon as you're on probation and can't smoke weed you are forced to try other means. Thus if weed was legal and everyone got to choose which drug was the best and safest people would stick with weed because everything else sucks.

Quote

Crack?  pfft.
I knew plenty of guys in High School who were into heroine, speed, and who knows what else.  And they all started with Weed.  Coincidence?  Perhaps.

According to statistics, yes.

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better?  What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs.  I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.

Quote

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better?  What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs.  I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.

When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?

That people are depressed from all the bullshit being fed day in and day out along with the poisons in the food/water and stresses of every day life and desperately need to relax. Weed provides that relaxation and helps brings you back down to flat ol' reality.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 03:52:10 PM

Quote

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better?  What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs.  I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.

When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?

You like really ignored my post.  Ill try to be more clear.  I have been to parties sober, and had a great time.  I have been to parties drunk, and had a great time.  Its a different experiences to be drunk with all your friends, it makes certain activities more fun.  You are making it sound like people who drink at parties do so because otherwise they will have no fun.  Its black and white, either you have fun, or you do not, but its a scale.

If i get really drunk and do a bunch of crazy things with my friends, its a different expierience than nights where i do not get drunk.  Its an activity in itself, drinking as a group.  Its not just to make other things better. 

If you dislike drinking that's fine, but it does not make me boring or unable to enjoy a party without alcohol, it just means you dislike it for whatever reason.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 03:52:10 PM

Quote

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better?  What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs.  I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.

When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?

That you like to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality so you can enjoy a party?

That people are depressed from all the bullshit being fed day in and day out along with the poisons in the food/water and stresses of every day life and desperately need to relax. Weed provides that relaxation and helps brings you back down to flat ol' reality.

So you use weed to run away from your problems instead of solving them?
Cause the food/water issue can be solved by either
1. Getting drinking water from a well and organic food.
2. Petitioning your local town to get less chemical water.
3. Get elected in public office and change it yourself.

The bullshit being fed day in and day out... well, that depends on what you consider bullshit and why you're letting it be fed to you.  Remember, you can't be fed if you don't open your mouth.

Quote from: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 03:52:10 PM

Quote

But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks.  Or you're boring.  Or, more likely, both.

I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better?  What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs.  I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.

When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?

You like really ignored my post.  Ill try to be more clear.  I have been to parties sober, and had a great time.  I have been to parties drunk, and had a great time.  Its a different experiences to be drunk with all your friends, it makes certain activities more fun.  You are making it sound like people who drink at parties do so because otherwise they will have no fun.  Its black and white, either you have fun, or you do not, but its a scale.

If i get really drunk and do a bunch of crazy things with my friends, its a different expierience than nights where i do not get drunk.  Its an activity in itself, drinking as a group.  Its not just to make other things better. 

If you dislike drinking that's fine, but it does not make me boring or unable to enjoy a party without alcohol, it just means you dislike it for whatever reason.

Yes I did.  I ignored it because you didn't understand my meaning.  All the stuff you just said?  Irrelevant to what my point is.  It doesn't apply to you because you just said you can have fun at a party without being drunk or stoned.  There are people who can't. 

Look it boils down to this:
If I throw a party without alcohol or weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it will suck.
If I throw a party with alcohol and weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it should suck.  Anyone who says it doesn't suck is having their brains scrambled so much that they can't see how badly it sucks and instead think it's great. 
This is a chemical change of perspective.  This is why I dislike drugs and alcohol.  This is also my argument.
Anyone who does week or alcohol to get a different experience but would have fun without it is not relevant to my point.

Yes I did.  I ignored it because you didn't understand my meaning.  All the stuff you just said?  Irrelevant to what my point is.  It doesn't apply to you because you just said you can have fun at a party without being drunk or stoned.  There are people who can't. 

Look it boils down to this:
If I throw a party without alcohol or weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it will suck.
If I throw a party with alcohol and weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it should suck.  Anyone who says it doesn't suck is having their brains scrambled so much that they can't see how badly it sucks and instead think it's great. 
This is a chemical change of perspective.  This is why I dislike drugs and alcohol.  This is also my argument.
Anyone who does week or alcohol to get a different experience but would have fun without it is not relevant to my point.

Okay, I understand now.

less chemical water.

lol

'Nuclear Fallacy'
By Morton Halperin

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Fallacy-Dispelling-Myth-Strategy/dp/0887301142

"Halperin argues that most of the history of nuclear confrontations since the 1940s has become myth: nuclear threats were "never" decisive in these crises; but the mythology has imprisoned American strategy, and created a dangerous reliance on nuclear threats."

It is easy to maintain credibility in a lie when the details necessary for confirmation of its veracity are classified "for reasons of national security."

If Nuclear Weapons are fictional, why is Iran and North Korea trying so hard to get them?  And North Korea in fact having done some kind of test to that effect.

Quote from: 17 November on April 15, 2012, 01:24:00 PM

'Nuclear Fallacy'
By Morton Halperin

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Fallacy-Dispelling-Myth-Strategy/dp/0887301142

"Halperin argues that most of the history of nuclear confrontations since the 1940s has become myth: nuclear threats were "never" decisive in these crises; but the mythology has imprisoned American strategy, and created a dangerous reliance on nuclear threats."

It is easy to maintain credibility in a lie when the details necessary for confirmation of its veracity are classified "for reasons of national security."

If Nuclear Weapons are fictional, why is Iran and North Korea trying so hard to get them?  And North Korea in fact having done some kind of test to that effect.

This is a bad way to look at the situation and may even be evidence for a "nuclear weapons do not exist" argument. What nation wouldn't want a bomb capable of leveling entire cities? (other than a neutral nation I suppose) They are essentially trying to obtain weapons that may not exist. It is well known that they are having a lot of trouble creating them. These facts may lead one to the conclusion that they quite simply cannot be made. Do you think either Kim Jong would have accepted that conclusion from a physicist?

Building a nuclear weapon is fairly straightforward in it's design. You say it is impossible but that would mean nuclear theory is wrong but then explain Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a big deal out of a fantasy and have fake radiation testing and such for a nuclear reactor that doesn't do anything except lie about nuclear theory. Also, why the heck is France building so many nuclear reactors and supp;y 50% of their total electricity when nuclear reactors don't work. I mean they have very similar principles to nuclear bombs

Building a nuclear weapon is fairly straightforward in it's design. You say it is impossible but that would mean nuclear theory is wrong but then explain Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a big deal out of a fantasy and have fake radiation testing and such for a nuclear reactor that doesn't do anything except lie about nuclear theory. Also, why the heck is France building so many nuclear reactors and supp;y 50% of their total electricity when nuclear reactors don't work. I mean they have very similar principles to nuclear bombs

All you have done is point out that you understand neither the nuclear bomb nor nuclear power.

Do explain

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Also, in terms of nuclear theory, the principles are the same. They both involve nuclear fission which is predicated of the atomic model being correct. Please point out what in my remarks is confusing to you and I will explain.

Do explain

My stove can heat water to its boiling point. Can I destroy entire cities with my stove?

Uh how does that apply at all. Where did I reference stoves? Are you referring to nuclear energy? And if so then it is you who misunderstands. Fission is common between both weapons and power sources (nuclear). The only difference is the power generators have control rods to prevent a massive chain reaction that would occur in the bomb. They both are bombarded to create a chain reaction. There is a big difference between a stove and a nuclear power plant just fyi.

Uh how does that apply at all. Where did I reference stoves? Are you referring to nuclear energy? And if so then it is you who misunderstands. Fission is common between both weapons and power sources (nuclear). The only difference is the power generators have control rods to prevent a massive chain reaction that would occur in the bomb. They both are bombarded to create a chain reaction. There is a big difference between a stove and a nuclear power plant just fyi.

Are you claiming there is no difference between having enough energy to boil water and having enough energy to destroy an entire city?

No not at all sorry I must not have explained myself well. I'm saying the fundamental principles of how nuclear bombs and nuclear reactor function is basically the same in that it relies on nuclear fission. A reactor could theoretically produce much more energy near a low yield bomb if all control rods were removed and there was  more fissile material but that has only happened at Chernobyl to my knowledge and that was more controlled. All I'm saying is that nuclear power plants work obviously otherwise France would have to have hidden power plants for 75% of its power and because they rely on the same principle atomic theory must be correct and nuclear weapons as well because they are fundamentally the same in design just one has a much smaller magnitude. While this is more a reason to believe the atomic model, I feel that due to the similarities and out ability to build power plants, I see no reason that we wouldn't build the bomb if it relies on the same tech of power plants that we currently use and has the potential to deter and maintain US hegemony.

You explained yourself just fine, Locke. 

Irushwithscvs likes to pretend that he doesn't understand something so you'll waste your time explaining it.  He thinks it's funny, I guess. 

Anyway, it's usually best to just ignore him.

No not at all sorry I must not have explained myself well. I'm saying the fundamental principles of how nuclear bombs and nuclear reactor function is basically the same in that it relies on nuclear fission. A reactor could theoretically produce much more energy near a low yield bomb if all control rods were removed and there was  more fissile material but that has only happened at Chernobyl to my knowledge and that was more controlled. All I'm saying is that nuclear power plants work obviously otherwise France would have to have hidden power plants for 75% of its power and because they rely on the same principle atomic theory must be correct and nuclear weapons as well because they are fundamentally the same in design just one has a much smaller magnitude. While this is more a reason to believe the atomic model, I feel that due to the similarities and out ability to build power plants, I see no reason that we wouldn't build the bomb if it relies on the same tech of power plants that we currently use and has the potential to deter and maintain US hegemony.

Well, if you don't agree that if you can boil water then you can blow up cities, why then are you using nuclear power plants as an explanation for why nuclear bombs exist?

Also, ignore Cat Earth Theory. He believes that the Earth is "cat shaped" and rambles on about other posters due to a lack of self-confidence.

If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.

Normal maximun stove wattage : 3000 W
Nuclear plant: about 2000 MW
"Little boy" 's energy: 5.439×10^13 J  (joules)

Let´s make some calculations:

W (Power) = Work (Joules)/Time(seconds)

That means that we can calculate how much it will take to a power source to reach the energy of Little Boy

Time = Work / Power

Now here comes maths:

Time = 5.439×10^13 J / 3000 W for the stove.

Goggle calculator tells me that's about 574.517303 years at maximun power.

Let´s try with the nuclear plant:

Time = 5.439×10^13 J/ 2000 MW ; which is about *drumroll* 7.55416667 hours

And thats a Controlled nuclear reaction. As you can see, There is difference between a stove and a nuclear reaction

If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.

I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?

Quote from: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 03:34:38 AM

If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.

I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?

The sun can boil water. Would you suggest that the sun isn't powerful enough to destroy the world should it explode?

Or how about a camp fire?
Camp fires can boil water. They can also burn down cities.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 03:34:38 AM

If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.

I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?

Great analogy.  A nuclear power plant can boil water, and it can also meltdown and kill or sicken many people.  Can your stove do that?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 06:18:32 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 03:34:38 AM

If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.

I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?

Great analogy.  A nuclear power plant can boil water, and it can also meltdown and kill or sicken many people.  Can your stove do that?

If I turn it to max it can melt a great deal of things, your point?

Yes, you have a great and powerful stove.  We bow to you in hopes that you will not use if for evil. Remember, with great power, there is great responsibility.

Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.