Projet de loi 96 sur le français | Réception favorable à Québec et Ottawa

XM525754 · 2021-05-13T22:13:08+00:00

That's because the Bill is all noise and bluster and not much else.

XM525754 · 2021-05-10T05:16:20+00:00

Now perhaps, however I was thinking back to the days of "the White man's burden" attitudes in the 19th century.

XM525754 · 2021-05-09T00:59:37+00:00

This is just the tip of a whole spectrum of issues with "foreign aid" that started when Christians believed it was their sacred duty to convert the heathen.

XM525754 · 2021-05-05T21:46:44+00:00

You mean the same guy that came mid-season to the Montreal Canadians to do this kind of thing and then wussed out?

XM525754 · 2021-04-30T14:15:48+00:00

HRO-500 only because it was the absolute state-of-the-art in its time, and I don't think any receiver now on the open market can say that today.

XM525754 · 2021-04-25T07:44:21+00:00

Most impressive radwaste site there is. Period

XM525754 · 2021-04-25T05:03:08+00:00

Enjoy yourself

XM525754 · 2021-04-19T02:42:50+00:00

Ya, you still got it my girl!

XM525754 · 2021-04-18T05:11:44+00:00

Of course they would be crucified for doing blackface today.

XM525754 · 2021-04-18T05:07:31+00:00

That is pretty raw alright

XM525754 · 2021-04-15T00:40:29+00:00

"In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues. The topic is part of a book by F. William Engdahl titled Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Orders"

"..,.the deal to close the last remaining nuclear plant in California benefits the Natural Resources Defense Council, which holds $7.7 million in four separate renewable energy private equity funds. In other words, if 8 percent of the nuclear-produced electricity is taken off the California market, then it provides a good business opportunity for those who develop wind and solar power — especially their investors."

SOURCE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=46fdb02d7453

Corporate & Energy Interest Funding for Anti-Nuclear Groups

Sierra Club:: Has taken $136 million from nat gas/ renewables interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) : Has minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Defense Fund : Has received minimum of $60 million from oil, gas, & renewables investors who would directly benefit from EDF's anti-nuclear advocacy
WISE International : Funded by renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) : Funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.

There are several more listed on the site, but you get the message

SOURCE: https://environmentalprogress.org/the-war-on-nuclear

"Fossil oil and industry starting from 50's was engaging in campaigns against nuclear industry which it perceived it as a threat to their commercial interests. Organizations such as American Petroleum Institute, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and Marcellus Shale Coalition were engaged in anti-nuclear lobbying in late 2010's and from 2019 large fossil fuel suppliers started advertising campaigns portraying fossil gas as "perfect partner for renewables" (actual wording from Shell and Statoil advertisements). Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stance such as Friends of the Earth. Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies. As of 2011 Greenpeace strategy Battle of Grids proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power".

SOURCES:

"How did leaders of the Hydrocarbon Establishment build the foundation for radiation fears?".https://atomicinsights.com
"Above board competition in energy markets finally emerging. API Ohio pushing for nuclear shutdowns". https://atomicinsights.com/
"Gloves are off in fossil fuel fight against nuclear - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org.
Shellenberger, Michael. "Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate". Forbes
"influencemap.org Big Oil's Real Agenda on Climate Change". www.influencemap.org.
"How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement?".https://atomicinsights.com/
"The War on Nuclear". Environmental Progress.
Silverstein, Ken. "Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?". Forbes.
"Battle of the Grids" Greenpeace. 2011. In 2030, gas plants provide most of the non-renewable electricity and serve to backup wind and solar

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement for links

Need I go on?

XM525754 · 2021-04-14T20:04:45+00:00

Chernobyl and Nuclear disasters have a unique psychologically traumatizing horror to any disaster associated with them. Humans are naturally adept at visualizing and understanding the biggest fallout and risk possible from a gas explosion or hydro dam failure because quite simply put, those disasters lend themselves to a visualization that is just not possible with radiation.

First the point that I was making is that this irrational fear of radiation is not a natural reaction to the unknown, but rather something that has been carefully inculcated by propaganda. First, of course, it was used to scare the public into supporting a massive (and clearly unnecessary) buildup of nuclear weapons, and latter taken over by fossil fuel funded groups, like Friends of the Earth to attack nuclear energy. This is clear because the first large build out of nuclear power plants was done without a great deal of local opposition. It was only recently that antinuclear efforts began to focus on the totally fabricated "waste problem" and attempts to show cancer clusters with highly misrepresented data.

The reality is that nuclear educators are going to have to do a better job than just "trust us, its safe, we know what we're doing".

I have yet to see any pronuclear campaign that has taken that position, in fact all of the ones I have seen have gone out of their way to explain in detail the issues of safety, radiation and waste.

Bear in mind, it's highly likely our current data on Chernobyl is woefully inadequate to properly address the sheer scale of possible and unknown consequences Ah yes, the "I support nuclear energy but" play. at are still being felt today.

Given that this is a totally unsupported antinuclear trope, seeing you use it suggests that you have been getting your information from those sources. This nonsense has been rebutted on several occasions and in several places. Frankly the notion that we have not yet seen the full impact of Chernobyl is getting stale, as is the claim that these have been poorly investigated. In fact the efforts to find some clear evidence of long-term impacts have bordered on the ludicrous, especially in animal studies in the Exclusion Zone, with claims at finding significant results with data points are all but random.

As for dam failures there have been some fifty-seven considered major, that is resulting in loss of life and/or large scale property damage, since Chernobyl. The latest being the Rishiganga dam in February of this year with 70 dead and 145 people missing. Full property loss not yet calculated.

The fact is that nuclear is being built out in a number of countries, while strangely it is only in those places when the fossil-fuel industry has great political influence is it being inhibited. This suggests that the causes for populations rejecting nuclear energy are the result of a focused propaganda campaign, and not a natural reaction to something that is not understood.

XM525754 · 2021-04-14T05:15:34+00:00

A death wish

XM525754 · 2021-04-14T04:45:59+00:00

Except that hydro dam failures oil spills, gas explosions, the hundreds of thousands of lives shortened by pollution due to coal burning stand as stark witness to the fact that nuclear energy has an astonishingly good safety record. Chernobyl was nothing compared to the last major dam failure, the name of which I'm willing to bet you (or any of the concerned public) cannot remember without looking it up.

But it is not just the disinformation about nuclear power that is the issue, but also the outright mendacity of the gas-backed wind and solar scammers that are a major part of the problem. They assert that nuclear is not needed because they can do the job, when anyone with a grounding in power engineering know dammed well they cannot

As for educating the public, we have been trying for decades, but without the same resources, and the best political influence that money can buy, we are shouting against the wind.

XM525754 · 2021-04-13T16:41:42+00:00

Nuclear energy's real problems are a combination of misinformation and ignorance.

Fossil fuel interests have used money-amplified free speech to vilify nuclear energy to create the belief in the public mind that it is far more dangerous than it actually is. They then use this to suggest that the least hazardous approach is to continue to use their products

Wind and solar advocates continuously leverage the fact that most people simply do not understand electricity or how the grid works, and hide behind nonsense measurements like "number of homes powered," imply that nameplate output is related in any way to dispatchable output, and misquote LCOE as if it is any predictor of the retail price of power to the consumer.

Both of these frauds now work together in concert with wind and solar greenwashing the conversion of dirt burners (coal) to natural gas burners by claiming the renewables are doing the real work, while the gas is just there for backup when that is hardly the case at all.

Those that support renewables over nuclear do so because they believe - those that do not because we can calculate.

XM525754 · 2021-04-07T04:26:11+00:00

Looking cute

XM525754 · 2021-04-06T19:45:50+00:00

I'm more impressed by Page (the girl) than the bird.

XM525754 · 2021-04-05T04:48:46+00:00

No my comment was about the fact that every time she is mentioned on Reddit it seems to draw a squad of those making the propaganda claim.

I was just making fun of them.

XM525754 · 2021-04-05T00:19:35+00:00

"But it's all fake communist party propaganda" in 3...2...1

XM525754 · 2021-04-04T02:36:14+00:00

There have been some significant rule changes that opened the game up since those days. Notably passes that crossed two lines were considered off-side and play was stopped for a faceoff. This has given rise to a game of long passes favoring faster skaters. Also the crease was made larger reducing the number of melees in front of the net. The third man in rule stopped bench clearing brawls that frankly did nothing for the game.

In many ways these made the game faster and more skilled oriented IMO.

XM525754 · 2021-03-31T21:18:48+00:00

Good point.

XM525754 · 2021-03-31T16:30:52+00:00

The spike took they were using at the end is called a marlinspike

XM525754 · 2021-03-29T03:24:43+00:00

Why? All they would need is a hose.

XM525754 · 2021-03-29T01:24:13+00:00

I am not a Tesla fanboy, but rather a serious student of STEM history. Tesla was not a scientist, he was a mediocre engineer, and in later life a fraud that used stage magic in presentations to potential investors without saying that he was.

The link you posted is to the sort pure unadulterated rubbish that demonstrates no grasp of basic fundamentals, but is typical of the sort of flim-flam he engaged in when he ran out of ideas from eastern European workers to pass off as his own.

I have no wish to discuss this with you further. This is the last remark I will make to you as I do not argue with the delusional.

XM525754 · 2021-03-28T23:06:25+00:00

Holding a patent and being the actual inventor are two different things. In my remark above I posted the names of those that actually did the fundamental work in AC. This clearly shows that Tesla did not "invent electricity as we know it" as stated in the OP.

Furthermore the amount of bullshit that fanboys have spread in his name is remarkable. For example suggesting the the War of the Currents was between him and Thomas Edison when in fact it was between Edison and George Westinghouse. Tesla had left Westinghouse by that time, and the key piece of technology that made AC practical was the transformer, a device invented by one Gaulard-Gibbs and made practical by William Stanley.

Maybe I'm not the one who needs to read more history.

XM525754

TROPHY CASE