I enjoyed the beginning but the narrative became overwhelmingly annoying after 30 minutes.
Pretending to know the mind and motivations of cats, wolves and bears, and telling a story made from cobbled and obviously contrived footage, it's not exactly a scientific documentary.
Skipping to the credits to find out which McGann was doing the narration (Paul), I came upon this quote: "nature can triumph even when man has done his best to destroy it." WTF? Nuclear power is A) natural, B) not designed to destroy anything, and C) very far indeed from man's best attempt to destroy nature, which I would say is probably golf.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 19:47, Reply)
Pretending to know the mind and motivations of cats, wolves and bears, and telling a story made from cobbled and obviously contrived footage, it's not exactly a scientific documentary.
Skipping to the credits to find out which McGann was doing the narration (Paul), I came upon this quote: "nature can triumph even when man has done his best to destroy it." WTF? Nuclear power is A) natural, B) not designed to destroy anything, and C) very far indeed from man's best attempt to destroy nature, which I would say is probably golf.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 19:47, Reply)
nuclear decay might be natural, nuclear power a little less so
"son, I like to go the wild, untouched places on earth, see herds of ibex grazing next to pristine fission reactors. you feel like you're in the garden of eden"
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 21:13, Reply)
"son, I like to go the wild, untouched places on earth, see herds of ibex grazing next to pristine fission reactors. you feel like you're in the garden of eden"
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 21:13, Reply)
We owe our lives to a giant nuclear fusion reactor in the sky. Nuclear fission is also a naturally occuring process:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Perhaps the common ancestor of the ibex grazed in Gabon.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 23:44, Reply)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Perhaps the common ancestor of the ibex grazed in Gabon.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 23:44, Reply)
well yes, that's fascinating and revelatory, but claiming nuclear power like the chernobyl station is natural, as you did, is stretching the definition of the word "natural"
generally, if something requires you to build a giant power plant, cooling towers, mine and enrich uranium, then initiate a controlled thermal fission reaction to drive a turbine, we'd tend to define that as a man-made or artificial rather than a natural process or something you're likely to stumble across in nature. I mean, I don't want to belabour what I thought was an uncontroversial correction, but if everything is natural according to the brb definition (ipads? just atoms, mate. Totally natural), it's somewhat pointless to use it as a defence of nuclear power as you have
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 0:26, Reply)
generally, if something requires you to build a giant power plant, cooling towers, mine and enrich uranium, then initiate a controlled thermal fission reaction to drive a turbine, we'd tend to define that as a man-made or artificial rather than a natural process or something you're likely to stumble across in nature. I mean, I don't want to belabour what I thought was an uncontroversial correction, but if everything is natural according to the brb definition (ipads? just atoms, mate. Totally natural), it's somewhat pointless to use it as a defence of nuclear power as you have
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 0:26, Reply)
well no - if something exists in the universe then it is natural
or are you arguing that the universe is unnatural?
anything else would be supernatural - and that is just silly.
like, do you imagine human beings as somehow existing and operating outside of nature?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 1:32, Reply)
or are you arguing that the universe is unnatural?
anything else would be supernatural - and that is just silly.
like, do you imagine human beings as somehow existing and operating outside of nature?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 1:32, Reply)
playing with semantics i know but i really don't get it
what underlying concept is being hinted at? sub or super both are outside the realm of human experience?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:13, Reply)
what underlying concept is being hinted at? sub or super both are outside the realm of human experience?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:13, Reply)
repeating, myself, if your definition of the term "natural" is "everything", which isn't a widely held one in this context or any other, than it's fatuous to use it as a defence of nuclear power like the Chernobyl plant
And by fatuous I'm using the dictionary definition of "silly and pointless", but feel free to substitute in your own definition as you have want to do.
"Nothing wrong with nuclear power plants"
"Why not?"
"Well, they're made of stuff that's found in the universe. Same as ox tongues and supernovas and ak47s and anthrax bacillus. all natural. Need I say more?"
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:35, Reply)
And by fatuous I'm using the dictionary definition of "silly and pointless", but feel free to substitute in your own definition as you have want to do.
"Nothing wrong with nuclear power plants"
"Why not?"
"Well, they're made of stuff that's found in the universe. Same as ox tongues and supernovas and ak47s and anthrax bacillus. all natural. Need I say more?"
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:35, Reply)
well, I was hoping to draw brb out to double down again rather than concede to an obvious but minor error
because we all know the sky falls on your head when you admit to saying something wrong or stupid
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:54, Reply)
because we all know the sky falls on your head when you admit to saying something wrong or stupid
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 3:54, Reply)
Artifus is exactly correct.
Things are either natural and in existence (or potential existence), or they're supernatural and they're not.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:45, Reply)
Things are either natural and in existence (or potential existence), or they're supernatural and they're not.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:45, Reply)
the opposite of natural is artificial, not supernatural
happily, language is democratic: it's not that you're wrong per se, just that very, very few people will agree with you.
perhaps there's a facebook group you can join :)
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:10, Reply)
is it like
bending the runners in a three-drawer filing cabinet, so that the drawer doesn't stop when it's pulled out? or filling the stationery tray with thumb tacks?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:34, Reply)
bending the runners in a three-drawer filing cabinet, so that the drawer doesn't stop when it's pulled out? or filling the stationery tray with thumb tacks?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 20:34, Reply)
oh wait,
add lead weights to the drawer-fronts and super-glue the stationery tray first?
( , Sun 21 Feb 2021, 4:10, Reply)
add lead weights to the drawer-fronts and super-glue the stationery tray first?
( , Sun 21 Feb 2021, 4:10, Reply)
'the opposite of natural is artificial, not supernatural'
Nice, we're nearly in agreement. We're close, I promise.
Artificiality is an illogical conceptual throwback to a time when it was common to think of mankind as special and separate from nature (because God made everything for us, and nature must be tamed). But man is not special, separate, artificial, contrived, or fake. We exist entirely within nature. We are as natural as the other tool using animals, and the stuff we make is as natural as the stuff they make.
Why should a birds nest, termite colony, or beaver dam be considered natural, but something built by a human is artificial? What exactly is the distinction being made?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 21:37, Reply)
Nice, we're nearly in agreement. We're close, I promise.
Artificiality is an illogical conceptual throwback to a time when it was common to think of mankind as special and separate from nature (because God made everything for us, and nature must be tamed). But man is not special, separate, artificial, contrived, or fake. We exist entirely within nature. We are as natural as the other tool using animals, and the stuff we make is as natural as the stuff they make.
Why should a birds nest, termite colony, or beaver dam be considered natural, but something built by a human is artificial? What exactly is the distinction being made?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 21:37, Reply)
"If something requires you blah blah blah"...
No ifs, no nands, what you said about fission reactors and ibex has been shown to be bollocks.
You can get increasingly specific if you like, but that will only make you slightly less wrong, it won't make me less right.
Fission is natural, it's happening all the time. Exploiting it is no less natural than exploiting any other resource or process.
Ask yourself this, is tool use demonstrated by animals natural or not? Assuming you agree it's natural, what is it in your mind that makes human tool use unnatural?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:47, Reply)
No ifs, no nands, what you said about fission reactors and ibex has been shown to be bollocks.
You can get increasingly specific if you like, but that will only make you slightly less wrong, it won't make me less right.
Fission is natural, it's happening all the time. Exploiting it is no less natural than exploiting any other resource or process.
Ask yourself this, is tool use demonstrated by animals natural or not? Assuming you agree it's natural, what is it in your mind that makes human tool use unnatural?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:47, Reply)
*looks sheepishly at shoes whilst kicking up dust and whistling wistfully*
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 22:20, Reply)
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 22:20, Reply)
I agree with the anthromorphism and golf comment.
Nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude more dangerous than native materials.
Doesn't mention the numerous animals that starved.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 22:27, Reply)
Nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude more dangerous than native materials.
Doesn't mention the numerous animals that starved.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 22:27, Reply)
It said that the rodent population dropped, in fairness.
What's a native material? Are radioactive elements foreign materials?
Fear of radioactive materials is orders of magnitude more harmful to your health than the radioactive materials themselves.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 23:49, Reply)
What's a native material? Are radioactive elements foreign materials?
Fear of radioactive materials is orders of magnitude more harmful to your health than the radioactive materials themselves.
( , Fri 19 Feb 2021, 23:49, Reply)
I meant the fuel is vastly more concentrated than occurs in nature.
Some are synthetic, like the various isotopes of plutonium.
When the people were bussed out of the area, I doubt they took pets, most of which would starve.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:05, Reply)
Some are synthetic, like the various isotopes of plutonium.
When the people were bussed out of the area, I doubt they took pets, most of which would starve.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:05, Reply)
>more concentrated than occurs in nature.
where on earth is it occurring then, and how?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:10, Reply)
where on earth is it occurring then, and how?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:10, Reply)
You are using an excessively strict interpretation of natural.
Far more than would be usually expected in such a milieu as this.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:16, Reply)
Far more than would be usually expected in such a milieu as this.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:16, Reply)
less science more fiction - got it
might start my own religion soon
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:18, Reply)
might start my own religion soon
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 2:18, Reply)
your personal definition of words outside accepted norms ≠ science
The oxford definition gives the condition in the definition: "not made or caused by humans". this is the one that is widely accepted. if you were to ask ordinary people whether a nuclear power plant, a tree, uranium ore dug up, or processed uranium, were natural, they'd say, no, yes, yes, no, because unlike you and brb, they have a good grasp on what the term means. however, if brb wants to hold on to this all-encompassing personal definition of natural, then why use it defend nuclear power plants?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 4:07, Reply)
The oxford definition gives the condition in the definition: "not made or caused by humans". this is the one that is widely accepted. if you were to ask ordinary people whether a nuclear power plant, a tree, uranium ore dug up, or processed uranium, were natural, they'd say, no, yes, yes, no, because unlike you and brb, they have a good grasp on what the term means. however, if brb wants to hold on to this all-encompassing personal definition of natural, then why use it defend nuclear power plants?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 4:07, Reply)
'vastly more concentrated than occurs in nature'
I bet you there's at least one star out there with even more refined isotopes in its core than we've ever produced.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:53, Reply)
I bet you there's at least one star out there with even more refined isotopes in its core than we've ever produced.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:53, Reply)
Now you’re just being silly
Did Alexander Litvinenko die of polonium poisoning or the fear of it? Did all those people who went into the Chernobyl reactor room have their bodies break down out of fright?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 9:21, Reply)
Did Alexander Litvinenko die of polonium poisoning or the fear of it? Did all those people who went into the Chernobyl reactor room have their bodies break down out of fright?
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 9:21, Reply)
My point is that stress over radioactivity causes more harm to the human population that the radioactive materials themselves
not that an individual exposed to lethal radiation won't die.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:41, Reply)
not that an individual exposed to lethal radiation won't die.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 14:41, Reply)
Holy shit yes.
It's one of the cleanest and least harmful methods we have, and our best hope at surviving the next couple of centuries.
It is green energy because it emits zero carbon, just steam. The waste products make more fuel, the associated waste (such as used PPE, metals, glass, water, concrete, etc) and what's left over from the depleted fuel can and should be stored in such a way as to produce useful energy too (the stuff is literally hot, so chuck it down a sufficiently engineered hole and stick a geothermal power plant on top), or make a fucking huge RTG to power your Van Neumann probe or whatever).
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 19:01, Reply)
It's one of the cleanest and least harmful methods we have, and our best hope at surviving the next couple of centuries.
It is green energy because it emits zero carbon, just steam. The waste products make more fuel, the associated waste (such as used PPE, metals, glass, water, concrete, etc) and what's left over from the depleted fuel can and should be stored in such a way as to produce useful energy too (the stuff is literally hot, so chuck it down a sufficiently engineered hole and stick a geothermal power plant on top), or make a fucking huge RTG to power your Van Neumann probe or whatever).
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 19:01, Reply)
Isn't a natural gas deposit the result of natural refinery, from a certain point of view?
Fossil fuel deposits would certainly go extinct if all life on Earth went extinct first. It would take a while, but we wouldn't care.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 22:40, Reply)
Fossil fuel deposits would certainly go extinct if all life on Earth went extinct first. It would take a while, but we wouldn't care.
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 22:40, Reply)
That point of view changes as you need it too.
It's nearly off the page so I'm damned if I'll let you have the last word.
*raspberries*
( , Sun 21 Feb 2021, 1:48, Reply)
It's nearly off the page so I'm damned if I'll let you have the last word.
*raspberries*
( , Sun 21 Feb 2021, 1:48, Reply)
Ooook. Never thought you had recognised his intellect as superior to yours
Well done, you're coming along nicely with your therapy
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 23:16, Reply)
Well done, you're coming along nicely with your therapy
( , Sat 20 Feb 2021, 23:16, Reply)