3 ms·

"Settled science" has become a curse word to me. "Science" used to be a method, now it's a belief system in the first world. It's disgusting.

merpnderp 9y ago
It used to be fun sport on Facebook to kid those who followed "I fucking love science" for not having the first clue about science. But as science became more and more a partisan word, it just became sad - the birth of a new religion who's adherents didn't even care to learn their new dogma.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
It's not even consistent. The people who are convinced that global warming is going to kill us all (because science) are generally the same people who go into hysterics over nuclear power and GMOs, despite the fact that the science tells us that both of those are quite safe.
- rmrfrmrf 9y ago
  "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Studies (often paid for by the companies trying to sell the technique) say that the core concepts and techniques are safe. The problem is that side-effects are left out of scope of the study. Hence, the environmental impacts of both are swept under the rug.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Yes, it does. Sorry. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source (including solar). We've got 60 years of real-world data on it.
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      Cool, care to share some citations on it?
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Discussion here, with plenty of links to sources: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
      - cameldrv 9y ago
        http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mortality-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-historical-and-projected-nuclear-power1.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mor... Headline is that nuclear power has saved about 1.8 million lives relative to probable alternatives, even ignoring the GHG effects.
        aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        I’m afraid I don’t see the word “solar” appear once in that document, which doesn’t do anything to confirm the argument above.
    - konschubert 9y ago
      Really? I guess if you factor in all the externalities of solar and none of those of nuclear you could probably make an argument they solar killed more kids than Tschernobyl, but that's of course dishonest. Or am I missing something?
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Really? Yes. Really. The U.S. nuclear power program has been running for over 60 years without a single fatality to a member of the general public. That is a better safety record than any other method of power generation. *Or am I missing something? You're missing the fact that judging a technology by Soviet-era implementations of it is ridiculous. Soviet airliners crashed a lot, too. That doesn't make airliners in general unsafe.

merpnderp 9y ago

It used to be fun sport on Facebook to kid those who followed "I fucking love science" for not having the first clue about science. But as science became more and more a partisan word, it just became sad - the birth of a new religion who's adherents didn't even care to learn their new dogma.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Turing_Machine 9y ago

It's not even consistent. The people who are convinced that global warming is going to kill us all (because science) are generally the same people who go into hysterics over nuclear power and GMOs, despite the fact that the science tells us that both of those are quite safe.

rmrfrmrf 9y ago
"Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Studies (often paid for by the companies trying to sell the technique) say that the core concepts and techniques are safe. The problem is that side-effects are left out of scope of the study. Hence, the environmental impacts of both are swept under the rug.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  "Science" doesn't say either of those things are safe. Yes, it does. Sorry. Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than any other energy source (including solar). We've got 60 years of real-world data on it.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    Cool, care to share some citations on it?
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Discussion here, with plenty of links to sources: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
    - cameldrv 9y ago
      http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mortality-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-historical-and-projected-nuclear-power1.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Prevented-mor... Headline is that nuclear power has saved about 1.8 million lives relative to probable alternatives, even ignoring the GHG effects.
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        I’m afraid I don’t see the word “solar” appear once in that document, which doesn’t do anything to confirm the argument above.
  - konschubert 9y ago
    Really? I guess if you factor in all the externalities of solar and none of those of nuclear you could probably make an argument they solar killed more kids than Tschernobyl, but that's of course dishonest. Or am I missing something?
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      Really? Yes. Really. The U.S. nuclear power program has been running for over 60 years without a single fatality to a member of the general public. That is a better safety record than any other method of power generation. *Or am I missing something? You're missing the fact that judging a technology by Soviet-era implementations of it is ridiculous. Soviet airliners crashed a lot, too. That doesn't make airliners in general unsafe.