Topicless thread

[IanDanKilmaster]

Someone who hasn't heard of dubstep=

I'm not speaking of it as a big fan, btw.  I just find it odd as popular a genre as it's becoming that someone in the 18-34 age range who is actively using the internet hasn't at least heard it mentioned in passing by now.  That being said, you've probably heard some dubstep by now and wasn't even aware of it.  It's starting to become very popular for movie trailers and commercials now, or at least when I'm watching TV it does.  Skrillex is probably the most mainstream musician in the genre.  To describe the genre itself is kind of difficult, but it's pretty much electronica/house/techno but with a very distinctive twitch and edge to it - when you hear it, you know it.  Dubstep has also produced a very strong backlash effect as well, with people commonly making parody or anti-dubstep videos where they either show a TV show character having some sort of negative reaction to having heard dubstep, or they simply make some sort of horrible, annoying noises and title it "Dubstep".  That's pretty much the sum of knowledge I have of it, anyway.

I think when Smokey was still around he brought up how an unwarranted a reputation nuclear power has.  While it's true that tampering with something so basic to the makeup of our world has the potential to be very hazardous, we've learned a lot from past experiences when it comes to dealing with the beast.  Incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have contributed very much to our understanding of safety when dealing with containment and control of such powerful forces.  The truth of the matter is, well-built and maintained fission reactors are far more efficient and cleaner than any other "non-green" source of power we have.

[Nichi]

@Dan: I've heard Dubstep mentioned before on other sites, but I have no idea what it is beyond that

Also, on nuclear energy, I think most people think of Chernobyl when they hear someone mention it, which is why they shy away from it

[IanDanKilmaster]

Posted an example of Dubstep in the random clip thread... you're welcome.

[Chocofreak13]

@dubstep: don't like it. >>;
@nuclear power: don't like that either. >>;

so i'm wondering where the hell my toolbox went. i had it yesterday, and i was sure i brought it home. ><;;

[Bella]

I think when Smokey was still around he brought up how an unwarranted a reputation nuclear power has.  While it's true that tampering with something so basic to the makeup of our world has the potential to be very hazardous, we've learned a lot from past experiences when it comes to dealing with the beast.  Incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have contributed very much to our understanding of safety when dealing with containment and control of such powerful forces.  The truth of the matter is, well-built and maintained fission reactors are far more efficient and cleaner than any other "non-green" source of power we have.

Exactly. I find it upsetting that people condemn nuclear power just because there's been one full meltdown and a couple other near- or partial-meltdowns in the 60-some years that nuclear power has existed, while completely ignoring the human and environmental toll that coal, oil and natural gas have taken. While there are safer and cleaner forms of energy, those have yet to be deployed on a large scale; nuclear is the cleanest and safest way human society has until we can perfect solar, wind, tidal-power and other forms of green energy.

[IanDanKilmaster]

Chock it up to fear from lack of understanding.  It's simply a part of the human condition.

EDIT:  Speaking of a "lack of understanding", apparently my understanding of Dubstep was even less complete than I thought it was.  The wikipedia entry that Bella linked obviously has a much better explanation than I gave earlier, if you feel like reading it.  To explain one of my own flub-ups though, Skrillex (and a few other more recent entries in the genre) isn't really considered "true" dubstep.  He's part of a more aggressive sub-genre that's become popular stateside.  Apparently, it's best to avoid mentioning Skrillex when speaking to a "true" dubstep fan as you'll likely be beaten by a track rail until you understand that your taste in music is plebeian and philistine.  I speak not as someone with personal experience on this issue, but as someone who has just read 20 comments composed entirely of condescension and wrath.

[Chocofreak13]

i'm not denying that coal wreaks havoc. however, i would never call nuclear power "green", unless you're talking about the colour ir glows (though that can also be red, purple, and various other colours depending on the isotope). do you know what they do with spent fuel rods? they BURY them. there's a way to recycle spent fuel, but those countries using nuclear power choose not to because of cost. they'd rather stick it in the ground than be truly 'green', largely due to cost. while nuclear might seem like a 'green' solution in the short term, the long-lasting effects that fallout and spent fuel have on the environment don't make it worth it to me. all it takes is one accident on each continent to make the planet uninhabitable. we've got 2/7 so far.
as evidenced by the various accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernoybl, Fukushima, and various other locations (such as Idaho Falls, Idaho, Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia, and the Browns Ferry Reactors at Athens, Alabama), it's obvious that the human element combined with the volatile elements already present on site pose a massive danger. until we can fully automate all plants and guarantee fallout shielding in the event of meltdown, i'd be more comfortable with other means of energy.

also, there are cleaner ways to burn coal than what we have now. though i'm not much of a fan of coal either, since without automation we put the miners at risk of major health problems and cave-ins. :\

[Nichi]

I know almost nothing about nuclear energy, so I'll just stay out of this conversation...

*stands off to the side once more*

[Chocofreak13]

being informed is important. maybe reading the debate will teach you about it! ^^

[IanDanKilmaster]

I don't think anyone here is trying to make the argument that nuclear power is "green", in fact I was deliberately comparing it to other "non-green" forms of energy.  I suppose better wording would have been "polluting" forms of energy or what have you, but I tried to be as clear as possible that I wasn't comparing nuclear to say solar, wind, hydroelectric, or geothermic energy.

I will concede, however, that the current methods of radioactive waste disposal are far from perfect, but more care with it is taken than compared to coal or fossil fuels, which are often leaked directly into the environment and pose more threat to those working with it than nuclear power.   As it stands, nuclear power poses a far less immediate risk than the other fuel-based alternatives.  Alternatives that we know poison our world and we know we've hit the wall when it comes to producing less wasteful methods of using them.

[NejinOniwa]

Nuclear power is a good choice, imo. Why? Because it is Powerful as Fuck. And humans fear such power, respect it - and treat it accordingly. We know it's bad when a nuclear plant melts down or has a major accident, because we know how bad things can get from it - and we also make sure to try and prevent them, as badly as we can.


The fallout from coal burning and other high-CO2 exhaustive forms of energy are ignored, however, because they aren't obviously dangerous enough. Just in that looming, background sense that we never really can put our finger on - and thus we don't care, and don't try to prevent it because "nothing happens anyway".

Oh, humans. You so silly. It so bad. :/

[IanDanKilmaster]

The fallout from coal burning and other high-CO2 exhaustive forms of energy are ignored, however, because they aren't obviously dangerous enough. Just in that looming, background sense that we never really can put our finger on - and thus we don't care, and don't try to prevent it because "nothing happens anyway".

Oh, humans. You so silly. It so bad. :/

Exactly, and it's that blasé attitude about coal that gets us in trouble.  There's also the fact that even if we treated coal with the same respect as nuclear power, it wouldn't be nearly as effective a power source as a fission reactor.

[Chocofreak13]

like i said, coal sucks as well. as far as i'm concerned, all the energy going into building new reactors could be better spent working towards perfecting cleaner forms of energy so we wouldn't need nuclear anymore.

as far as i see it, it's like gas warfare in wars: we know how to do it, and we know it's there, but we know not to use it, because while it hurts our enemies, it hurts us too.

[stewartsage]

Actually chemical warfare post WWI (i.e. WWII, Korea, and the Cold War) was restricted basically only the fear of "them" retaliating against "us" if "we" use chemical or biological munitions since no one began large scale reduction of their stockpiles until Chemical Weapons Convention in the late 1980s despite the Geneva Protocol in 1925 banning the use of chemical agents.  Worked real well in WWII.  Of course, Russia still has more then 52% of its declared arsenal active (including some of the most terrifying agents ever created) and they have a history of not being terribly afraid to use them/give them away/lose them.  So while the US has destroyed 90% of it's arsenal by incineration or neutralizatio that means the only retaliation under proportional response is now a nuclear one.  Yay!

Not to forget in WWII the Allies were fully ready to retaliate against German or Japanese gas usage (Australia's massive importation of chemical agents, the sinking of the John Harvey), while the Japanese went hog wild with nausea and blister agents against the Chinese armies, prisoners of war, and civilians.  Oh yeah, the Iran-Iraq War resulted in over a hundred thousand deaths from chemical weapons.  So, yeah, chemical weapons are one of humanity's favorite weapons of mass destruction to use when the other side can't strike back.

[Bella]

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said by Nejin or Dan, they sum up my feelings on nuclear power, spent fuel rod disposal and comparisons with other forms of non-green energy quite perfectly.

And Stew makes a good point. People seem to forget just how often chemical weapons have been used in the past, and how devastating they are. I wonder if it's because they lack the "shock and awe" factor of nuclear weapons, and if fewer people know the effects of chemical weapons than nuclear ones.