Well I cited a stanford paper. You can also go look what they the research groups monitoring the situation say.

Same with mine. Just it was uncomfortable to ask certain genuine questions I didn't know the answer to, lest I be treated like I have a tinfoil hat. Nuclear was one of my least favorite subjects, so there were other more pressing questions to focus on for the exam.

I’m all for nuclear power, but this sounds like absolute nonsense.

Its the case a nuclear material was dunped into the pacific, and you can measure that and right after there was a lot of fear mongering about it.

However the emperical evidence does not seem to show that it is as bad as one might think. From "the environmental impact of the fukushima nuclear power plant disaster" paper: despite the significant increase in ceasium isotope levels in the water, their risk is below thode generally considered harmfull to Marine animals and human consumers.

The same goes for the japanese population, there has not been found an increase in the cancer rate after the incident. (At least last i checked) Thise who died mostly died from being moved and not from the actual incident.

There is probably plenty of more details but i would have to provide real data and lecture notes. But what I can say is that all my nuclear physics professors where huge proponents for nuclear power and talked a lot about it in both the nuclear physics courses l took.

Sounds like BS. How can we not measure any adverse results. The popular understanding is that immense amount of radioactive waste was dumped directly into the Pacific. Is that not the case?

This is very informative. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

Nuclear power is currently the second safest energy scource based on death per joule. Caol kills about 15 times as many people every years as nuclear has done ever. Which thus leaves a pretty big margin to what we deem acceptable.

Nuclear disasters are pretty rare. There is chernobyl which was many mismanagement but besides that what happened was a explosion of the 300+ degrees hot steam. In never nuclear plant designs the water is emptied out if power is cut and thus such a thing could not happen.

Then we have fukushima. Besides it maybe not being to smart building a nuclear powerplant in the most active earthquake zone might not be to smart. Currently total death from radiation is 0 and no increase in cancer has been measured.

The leak of radioactive waste has also been deemed harmless. Probably mainly because water is pretty good at absorbing radiation, so it doesnt matter much to the fish.

I do apologize if that came off as condescending, my intent was far from it.

It should be pointed out that the writer here isn't interested in the question of whether there exists a moral imperative to this or that, or whether or not actual power exists to effect moral change. He's interested in the impact and burden of believing such things.

For example, a Christian may feel a moral burden to save their neighbor from certain metaphysical dangers and experience the same anxieties from responsibility as the brother who feels able to rescue his sibling from alcohol abuse.

Its a common mistake from phils and psychs to confuse "emotions" with "morals" specially if they didnt read Foucault. In a nutshell...read the seven deadly sins and the seven virtues of christanity, u will see that they try to trach people that the morals of a society have the same value/ bias inside of the individual, that they can be find quasi inside of you, in your soul. But they are constructed and produced to keep you in line, to discpline and "normalize" urself in the relationship to others and the reflect often enough the opposite of what u think, believe and desire. Thats exactly the reason why they are the way the are, because indivual desire conflicts often enough with the relationships/normatives in a society. For example why the word "good" means equally something moral and something emotionally "good"? Because they "should" be the same...but are they always...?

Buddha Shakyamuni was one of his main inspiration.

I'm also a sorta physicist (if you consider a physics masters student a physicist.) That could be due to difficulty in isolating variables. But assuming it's true, would it continue to be safe if we assumed occasional nuclear disasters every few years if we scaled up during an era of more frequent natural disasters?

Making something simple

Can be difficult or effortless

E = mc^2 a simple equation - but understanding is difficult especially creating the degree of understanding required to use it to its limits to more greatly understand the universe.

As it took great effort on Einstein's part to condense proofs and experiments to the formation of the equation - it will take similar effort to understand it from its simplicity to gain the understanding necessary to interact with it in a meaningful way.

Often I see a cycle in text communication where making communication simple leads to misunderstanding - requiring more complex explanation than would have been put forth without simplification at the onset.

This isn't always the case.

Communication takes effort - manipulation of speech personally seems disingenuine - not saying what you really think etc.

I've got more but I'm asleep.

Too complex for lazy westerners. Buddhists do it better: there is no self, the world is an illusion, existential suffering is waste of time. The end

1. A theist's position is reasonable because of the faith of the people who believe in it as witnesses themselves of God being real. However, it is said also in the bible: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." If you really havent found a person of indisputably good moral character and understanding, the reasons God is real and Jesus is God are the following: For God: If you do not doubt the scriptures, which is the main argument against God's existance (to doubt them, for any reason) It is evident that God is real. You may call this argument a historic argument. For Jesus: The moral character argumebt applies to him, of which those who knew him knew he was without flaw.// If you do not believe him, you may believe his miracles// This is said by Jesus, (I placed it in bars /). The miracles of his disciples shortly after his death and resurrection also are proof. Historic argument again.
2. I dont know.
3. I dont know.

I myself am not ready to say I am of undisputably good moral character, so ask someone else.

Small but as a collective, a dilemma we all are facing, can turn the tide the right choices to push through moral impotence

Something like… people want to be happy, but cannot be happy if always wanting?

It is indeed a skill issue but skilled communicators should be able to lower the skill bar for others. That is my opinion at least.

You are highlighting the freedom aspects of a quality system and everything you say is correct. But you will also know that it all still needs to exist within a rigid system. The system is routinely updated based on feedback and the expertise of employees. On a daily basis it's still a framework with strict rules and procedures. The culture must exist inside that framework with the power and authority to make improvements.

Toyota is a good example. They pioneered a lot of quality principles. Yes, a worker can shut down production - if shutting down is part of the process. Not if they suddenly feel like it. Can the employee ask for the process to change because they have a better practice? Of course. The system restricts the individual in certain tasks, so they have time and power to do other things. Besides, all Toyota production is done by robots. Why? To avoid variation and increase performance. In other words, humans are slow and erratic. Automation is now replacing many retail jobs for the same reason.

This may seem gloomy and tedious, but it's the main way companies stay competitive. I also believe philosophy should spend more time on these principles. They are the only solution to urgent problems in larger society.

[deleted]

There are less condescending ways to speak to people. I'm getting an MSc in physics. My PI is a computational nuclear physicist. He collaborates with Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And no one I've asked has addressed these points whenever I ask them beyond "lesser of two evils." Which if it is, then I'm willing to accept it. But things are still designed by fallible humans. Nuclear mistakes can't happen anywhere close to as frequently as oil spills do. And cleanup can't be as shoddy as what we see from oil companies (spreading chemical coagulant to sink massive blankets of oil onto the ocean floor, for instance.) And no one seems to have projections.

Also, if you're under the impression that this whole capitalism thing is good for public safety, boy do I have some pipelines, plumbing systems, pollution standards, global policies, safe contamination levels, and Healthcare systems for you, friend.

Eh

Seems like a skill issue

I mean

How hard is it to communicate? Semantics barrier? More like effort barrier.

I don’t see it as an endless cycle of suffering but one of endless life and suffering.

Small difference but the joy is in the life

Ego gang ngl tbh