With most of society captured by the outright lies, obfuscation and fear propaganda, how can critical thinkers turn this around. Seems to be well over half the population are entirely anchored to their vaccines are the only way out position and any other measure (eat well , supplement, exercise etc) is gleefully waved away with no attempt to engage in debate, every position against the narrative is being shouted down, shadow banned, censored etc and the golden ticket holders are now happy to do the government’s bidding to shame healthy people into taking a therapeutic being marketed as a vaccine. And not a very good therapeutic judging from adverse outcome data and Israel into their third of many more shots. It is a mass psychosis now
Just FYI: Nuclear power is the safest energy technology humanity has ever devised by a wide margin. This is one of those areas where people's perception of risk is wildly disproportionate to the actual risk. Commercial nuclear power plant accidents have killed something like 50 people over the course of the entire history of commercial nuclear power.
Also, commercial nuclear power plants present less of a nuclear weapons proliferation risk than most people seem to assume. Commercial nuclear power plants are a much more time-consuming and expensive, and much less efficient means of breeding weapons grade fissile material than a simple atomic pile like the ones assembled for the Manhattan Project. This is one of the reasons why almost every nation that has both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants developed their nuclear weapons first.
This be the case, but given the disasters of two-generation-old technologies, it will take time for a full understanding of the technology to filter through society. And this is a real problem understanding technology: it's not just the invention itself that matters for broad purposes. The education and gaining of trust matter. Even worse---many people know that a lot of "education" has become a game of hierarchical proxy trust, and therefore don't trust much of anything they cannot understand themselves. And who is to say that's not perfectly reasonable at this moment of critical trust failures? In fact, I'd say it's perfectly rational. That is to say that we likely will not see small, safe nuclear fission reactors until we solve the issues that have led us to this societal illness and the earthquake that resolves that friction.
This is why I like to constantly point back to my definition of technology. It's simply correct. And when I realized that it was correct, a lot of observations fell into place together in one model that made much better sense.
All of these things are also alike, in the sense that no amount of precautionary testing can turn a fundamentally bad idea, into a safe and useful technology. Once we accept and normalize the idea of thousands of drones flying everywhere, it's a very short step to equip all those drones with killer weapons. And, the nuclear power plants still generate massive quantities of nuclear waste, even if well contained (for a few decades.)
Nuclear power plants don't actually create much nuclear waste because they don't need much fuel to generate huge quantities of energy. This is fundamentally because they convert matter directly to energy, and we know from E = MC^2 that one kilogram of matter is the equivalent of ~25 billion kWh of energy.
To give you an idea of how little nuclear waste nuclear power plants generate, here's an image of a facility that stores all of the nuclear waste generated by the Connecticut Yankee 600 mWe power plant over a 28 year period as seen from an altitude of ~30,000 feet: https://imgur.com/3skGPKw (it's right in the middle of the image, I promise).
Here's what the facility looks like as seen from much closer range: https://imgur.com/XIuSf37 That facility is roughly the size of two tennis courts. That's it. And notice all of the greenery around it. There's no radiation to speak of irradiating everything around it because 1. there isn't really all that much radioactive material in those casks, and 2. the radiation coming off the spent fuel is almost entirely blocked by the walls of the cask it's contained in.
For some more perspective on this, consider that the US uses around 4 trillion kWh of electrical energy per year. If 100% of it were generated in 33% thermally efficient nuclear power plants capable of fissioning 5% of their fuel mass before the fuel is spent, the US would produce a volume of nuclear waste each year that would cover an area equal to an Olympic sized swimming pool to a depth of around 70 cm (~27.5 inches), of which the first 7 mm (~.27 inches or a volume of ~9 cubic meters) would consist of high level waste, the stuff people have been taught to be terrified of. Having to store 9 cubic meters of stuff per year, even high level radioactive waste, is not an especially difficult challenge from an engineering and public health.
Nuclear waste may be a problem, but it's a trivially small problem, both in its own right and in comparison to the waste streams generated by other energy technologies (including wind and solar).
The drones will most likely be used for mass surveillance of the population. Of course it will be for your safety to only identify criminals. And perhaps later also to guide you to not enter specific zones that could be harmful for you.
They can be used for anything their operators are willing to use them for. In one case, they have already been used for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen by the U.S. Federal Government. Jerry's concern is not entirely unwarranted. Or rather, we should be following the precautionary principle with it---on multiple levels.
Precautionary Principle has no bearing on American regulation of food and chemicals there is an assumption of safety and harm must be shown. This is how gmo foods were added as GRAS by using Monsanto believes with nutrient measures and ignoring novel proteins. To further distort the issue of safety the testing is not done to identify potential harm. UC Davis had a Scorecard database that verified that and they pulled it offline in late 2020. Here's the verification saved at Internet Archive.
It seems every crisis presents an opportunity that is also a moral hazard for those who are tasked with providing a solution. The more severe and global the crisis, the greater the moral hazard. A global codification of mandatory transparency around such things might make it a bit harder for the Kunganleta and their swarm of flying monkeys to evade the Precautionary Principle. But without the disinfecting power of sunlight, they cannot be held accountable for their crimes.
With most of society captured by the outright lies, obfuscation and fear propaganda, how can critical thinkers turn this around. Seems to be well over half the population are entirely anchored to their vaccines are the only way out position and any other measure (eat well , supplement, exercise etc) is gleefully waved away with no attempt to engage in debate, every position against the narrative is being shouted down, shadow banned, censored etc and the golden ticket holders are now happy to do the government’s bidding to shame healthy people into taking a therapeutic being marketed as a vaccine. And not a very good therapeutic judging from adverse outcome data and Israel into their third of many more shots. It is a mass psychosis now
Just FYI: Nuclear power is the safest energy technology humanity has ever devised by a wide margin. This is one of those areas where people's perception of risk is wildly disproportionate to the actual risk. Commercial nuclear power plant accidents have killed something like 50 people over the course of the entire history of commercial nuclear power.
Also, commercial nuclear power plants present less of a nuclear weapons proliferation risk than most people seem to assume. Commercial nuclear power plants are a much more time-consuming and expensive, and much less efficient means of breeding weapons grade fissile material than a simple atomic pile like the ones assembled for the Manhattan Project. This is one of the reasons why almost every nation that has both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants developed their nuclear weapons first.
This be the case, but given the disasters of two-generation-old technologies, it will take time for a full understanding of the technology to filter through society. And this is a real problem understanding technology: it's not just the invention itself that matters for broad purposes. The education and gaining of trust matter. Even worse---many people know that a lot of "education" has become a game of hierarchical proxy trust, and therefore don't trust much of anything they cannot understand themselves. And who is to say that's not perfectly reasonable at this moment of critical trust failures? In fact, I'd say it's perfectly rational. That is to say that we likely will not see small, safe nuclear fission reactors until we solve the issues that have led us to this societal illness and the earthquake that resolves that friction.
This is why I like to constantly point back to my definition of technology. It's simply correct. And when I realized that it was correct, a lot of observations fell into place together in one model that made much better sense.
Cheers.
All of these things are also alike, in the sense that no amount of precautionary testing can turn a fundamentally bad idea, into a safe and useful technology. Once we accept and normalize the idea of thousands of drones flying everywhere, it's a very short step to equip all those drones with killer weapons. And, the nuclear power plants still generate massive quantities of nuclear waste, even if well contained (for a few decades.)
Nuclear power plants don't actually create much nuclear waste because they don't need much fuel to generate huge quantities of energy. This is fundamentally because they convert matter directly to energy, and we know from E = MC^2 that one kilogram of matter is the equivalent of ~25 billion kWh of energy.
To give you an idea of how little nuclear waste nuclear power plants generate, here's an image of a facility that stores all of the nuclear waste generated by the Connecticut Yankee 600 mWe power plant over a 28 year period as seen from an altitude of ~30,000 feet: https://imgur.com/3skGPKw (it's right in the middle of the image, I promise).
Here's what the facility looks like as seen from much closer range: https://imgur.com/XIuSf37 That facility is roughly the size of two tennis courts. That's it. And notice all of the greenery around it. There's no radiation to speak of irradiating everything around it because 1. there isn't really all that much radioactive material in those casks, and 2. the radiation coming off the spent fuel is almost entirely blocked by the walls of the cask it's contained in.
For some more perspective on this, consider that the US uses around 4 trillion kWh of electrical energy per year. If 100% of it were generated in 33% thermally efficient nuclear power plants capable of fissioning 5% of their fuel mass before the fuel is spent, the US would produce a volume of nuclear waste each year that would cover an area equal to an Olympic sized swimming pool to a depth of around 70 cm (~27.5 inches), of which the first 7 mm (~.27 inches or a volume of ~9 cubic meters) would consist of high level waste, the stuff people have been taught to be terrified of. Having to store 9 cubic meters of stuff per year, even high level radioactive waste, is not an especially difficult challenge from an engineering and public health.
Nuclear waste may be a problem, but it's a trivially small problem, both in its own right and in comparison to the waste streams generated by other energy technologies (including wind and solar).
The drones will most likely be used for mass surveillance of the population. Of course it will be for your safety to only identify criminals. And perhaps later also to guide you to not enter specific zones that could be harmful for you.
They can be used for anything their operators are willing to use them for. In one case, they have already been used for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen by the U.S. Federal Government. Jerry's concern is not entirely unwarranted. Or rather, we should be following the precautionary principle with it---on multiple levels.
Precautionary Principle has no bearing on American regulation of food and chemicals there is an assumption of safety and harm must be shown. This is how gmo foods were added as GRAS by using Monsanto believes with nutrient measures and ignoring novel proteins. To further distort the issue of safety the testing is not done to identify potential harm. UC Davis had a Scorecard database that verified that and they pulled it offline in late 2020. Here's the verification saved at Internet Archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170819155507/http://scorecard.goodguide.com/chemical-profiles/chems-profile-descriptions.tcl#basic_testing
http://web.archive.org/web/20101122021318/www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161130.htm
“All governments lie”
Journalist I.F. Stone
Covid treatments exist. Spread the word!
https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
Has this study been addressed?:
https://www.cochrane.org/CD013587/INFECTN_chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-useful-treating-people-covid-19-or-preventing-infection-people-who
Something to show my "health care professional" at our next meeting. Thanks.
Thanks for the chuckle!
It seems every crisis presents an opportunity that is also a moral hazard for those who are tasked with providing a solution. The more severe and global the crisis, the greater the moral hazard. A global codification of mandatory transparency around such things might make it a bit harder for the Kunganleta and their swarm of flying monkeys to evade the Precautionary Principle. But without the disinfecting power of sunlight, they cannot be held accountable for their crimes.
Test