Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    So, so much for capitalist nuclear industry being safe. Actually Japan has a history of coverups, eg Monju in Fukui prefecture in 1995 and Tokaimura in 1999.

    The Japanese, normally the most polite and uncomplaining people, are starting to panic, starting to not trust the government. People are going hungry and people inside the exclusion zone have been abandoned. Even hospitals cannot feed their patients. Doctors are living on a bowl of rice!

    The alert level in Japan is now 5 on a scale of 1-7.

    Even the US fleet has withdrawn it's battleships.

    So, will the global nuclear industry carry on or is it now threatened?

    Incredibly, Japan does not have an integrated grid. Electricity is run by 10 private regional companies. Western Japan has plenty of electricity, but it cannot be diverted to Eastern Japan because it is a different frequency!!

    So Eastern Japan is in turmoil, with power cuts.

    The capitalist system has proven itself a menace yet again.

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    So the fact that the major plant in question is over 40 years old, there have been exactly 0 reported injuries or deaths from the radiation and that Japan was hit with the fifth largest earthquake in more than a hundred years doesn't play a factor into this at right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #3
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Japanese people know all about earthquakes, they are used to them. So one this big only happens every 20 years? The plant is 40 years old! So every plant should expect the worst. If you cant do that, forget nuclear. There have been warnings, such as the damage to the TEPCO plant in the Chuetsu-oki earthquake in 2007.

    Nobody has died yet. Thousands died in the tsunami actually. Of course you cant avoid every one, and the thread is mainly about the nuclear disaster, but many of those died needlessly.

    Housing for instance is often substandard, and the criminal builders will make more money rebuilding.

    But how many could die in the future? We do not know.

    The Fukushima plant will never be reopened. The Japanese rely on nuclear energy, and a big chunk of it is down. It is a disaster.

    Nobody has died, but Americans are flying out.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    manc, I find your reasoning absurd.

    By the same standard we can deem the sun to be a complete failure because we know it will one day blow up.

    I do no see the connection between the failure of a nuke plant, and capitalism.
    Would the plant not have these problems if the country were communist or socialist?

    If you are some how arguing against nuclear power or electricity in general.. then you aren't anti-capitalist, you are anti-human progress.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    manc, I find your reasoning absurd.

    By the same standard we can deem the sun to be a complete failure because we know it will one day blow up.

    I do no see the connection between the failure of a nuke plant, and capitalism.
    Would the plant not have these problems if the country were communist or socialist?

    If you are some how arguing against nuclear power or electricity in general.. then you aren't anti-capitalist, you are anti-human progress.
    Well, I will be very brief just now as I have to dash, but a few weeks ago me and Squatch were debating whether capitalist nuclear power was safer than that in non-capitalist countries.

    Now I know Chernobyl was a lot worse than this is likely to be, then again it was a long time ago. Actually I hope I'm wrong and this turns out to be least worst case scenario.

    But it IS gonna make the world think twice about nuclear.

    Oh, personally and the view also of the Socialist Party I support- nuclear is bad, electricity is good, green electricity, made from the wind and the waves and safe stuff like that.

    The thread is also about capitalism handling a crisis, and the non integration of the private electricity system there. It's very poor for such a technically capable country.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    The thread is also about capitalism handling a crisis, and the non integration of the private electricity system there. It's very poor for such a technically capable country.
    So, capitalism is a menace because it would have been better for all the power to be one frequency?

    Is that inherent to capitalism, does the u.s. have different currents and is also unable to transfer power from one region to another?
    I think not. So this isn't a "fault" of capitalism.

    Also, it is unrealistic to judge capitalism on one aspect of the recovery. How are all the socialist countries contributing to the recovery? How many Medical ships did they dispatch? How much supplies? As I understand it according to you there simply is no TRUE socialist country. So it is doing infinitely worse at dealing with this problem. As it is expressly incapable of addressing the disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    But it IS gonna make the world think twice about nuclear.
    Foolishly too IMHO.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, capitalism is a menace because it would have been better for all the power to be one frequency?

    Is that inherent to capitalism, does the u.s. have different currents and is also unable to transfer power from one region to another?
    I think not. So this isn't a "fault" of capitalism.

    Also, it is unrealistic to judge capitalism on one aspect of the recovery. How are all the socialist countries contributing to the recovery? How many Medical ships did they dispatch? How much supplies? As I understand it according to you there simply is no TRUE socialist country. So it is doing infinitely worse at dealing with this problem. As it is expressly incapable of addressing the disaster.


    Foolishly too IMHO.
    What socialist countries? There are none.

    If you had a socialist country all the electricity would be supplied by one big company, and there is no way it would be a different frequency here and there.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    What socialist countries? There are none.

    If you had a socialist country all the electricity would be supplied by one big company, and there is no way it would be a different frequency here and there.
    Who would compete with the one big company? How would you know what prices to charge in which markets?


    And nuclear power is incredibly safe. How many people have died because of nuclear power?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    What socialist countries? There are none.
    Exactly, it has been a complete failure in addressing the issues confronted by man.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    If you had a socialist country all the electricity would be supplied by one big company, and there is no way it would be a different frequency here and there.
    Not necessarily. A socialist country could come up with reasons to have different frequencies as well. Even if they are ultimately fallacious reasoning, there is nothing inherent about socialism that protects it from making bad decisions.


    You seem to be projecting blame and praise upon systems regarding a decision that is not inherent to either one.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #10
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Who would compete with the one big company? How would you know what prices to charge in which markets?


    And nuclear power is incredibly safe. How many people have died because of nuclear power?
    Nobody would compete with it. Hence it would be a lot more efficient.

    And how many people have died from nuclear power? I dunno. Quite a few. The potential is always there for a hell of a disaster. It's also expensive and we still havent worked out what to do with the waste. Its a distraction form the more important task of working on clean green renewables like wind.

    ---------- Post added at 06:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Exactly, it has been a complete failure in addressing the issues confronted by man.
    If you wanna know why there has never been one read my FD on the USSR, then you will know.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Originally Posted by MANC
    If you had a socialist country all the electricity would be supplied by one big company, and there is no way it would be a different frequency here and there.
    Not necessarily. A socialist country could come up with reasons to have different frequencies as well. Even if they are ultimately fallacious reasoning, there is nothing inherent about socialism that protects it from making bad decisions.


    You seem to be projecting blame and praise upon systems regarding a decision that is not inherent to either one.
    If you had socialism you would have one electricity company. Ok, they could make some bad decisions, but why would they have half the country on a different kind of electricity to the other half?

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    If you wanna know why there has never been one read my FD on the USSR, then you will know.
    Why is irrelevant.. It didn't overcome whatever challenges it faced. Thus if failed. There may be wonderful reasons why it failed.. however, that does not change the fact that it has failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    If you had socialism you would have one electricity company. Ok, they could make some bad decisions, but why would they have half the country on a different kind of electricity to the other half?
    A hypothetical reason is irrelevant. If it is not an inherent condition of socialism, it can not be said with any confidence that socialism would have produced a better response. As I know that you hold there is no socialist state, they are specifically powerless to address the crisis.. which makes it the worst responder possible.

    Also considering how the crisis is going to be responded to by all gov in the world, it should be easy to see which one's are producing a more effective response. Certainly there are more 'socialist" countries out there, let compare how they stack up in relation to the more "capitalist' countries.

    Finally, if you really want a plausible reason why a single country owned company would make such a decision.. You need look no further then the fact that Gov is stupid. gov does stupid stuff, no matter what form of Gov it is. Hence why I am a limited Gov sort of fellow.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    Nobody would compete with it. Hence it would be a lot more efficient.
    False, lack of competition does not breed efficiency.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. #12
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why is irrelevant.. It didn't overcome whatever challenges it faced. Thus if failed. There may be wonderful reasons why it failed.. however, that does not change the fact that it has failed.
    It is completely relevant. Socialism was not possible in Russia at the time, under the circumstances ie being isolated in a backward country. It's not a case of 'failing'.

    But despite all that, people in these deformed workers states have still benefitted. They were much better off than before, even if it was only half-socialism. They benefitted from having a planned economy, and from the fact that the pretend socialists in charge had to go through the motions and give them education, housing, healthcare, jobs and so on.

    eg people mention the famine in China but its been calculated that despite that Chinese gained billions of years of extra life.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A hypothetical reason is irrelevant. If it is not an inherent condition of socialism, it can not be said with any confidence that socialism would have produced a better response. As I know that you hold there is no socialist state, they are specifically powerless to address the crisis.. which makes it the worst responder possible.

    Also considering how the crisis is going to be responded to by all gov in the world, it should be easy to see which one's are producing a more effective response. Certainly there are more 'socialist" countries out there, let compare how they stack up in relation to the more "capitalist' countries.

    Finally, if you really want a plausible reason why a single country owned company would make such a decision.. You need look no further then the fact that Gov is stupid. gov does stupid stuff, no matter what form of Gov it is. Hence why I am a limited Gov sort of fellow.
    I can safely say that the idea of putting half a country onto a different type of electricity would have zero chance of happening. It is a stupid idea that nobody in their right mind would deliberately plan. It only happened because capitalism is not planned.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False, lack of competition does not breed efficiency.
    Wrong. See my threads on the subject. What is Marxism or whatever, I have explained it a thousand times on here.

    For a very basic example, why is the private American healthcare 3 times the cost of the public British system, with 6 times the admin costs?

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    For a very basic example, why is the private American healthcare 3 times the cost of the public British system, with 6 times the admin costs?
    because it is not free to deny non-paying costumers service.
    and because the Gov red tape to get paid off of the Gov plans necessitate many extra workers doing nothing but pushing paper.


    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    I can safely say that the idea of putting half a country onto a different type of electricity would have zero chance of happening. It is a stupid idea that nobody in their right mind would deliberately plan. It only happened because capitalism is not planned.
    I'll let the absurdity of your statement stand as refutation. As I have already pointed out that all forms of gov do stupid stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    It is completely relevant. Socialism was not possible in Russia at the time, under the circumstances ie being isolated in a backward country. It's not a case of 'failing'.
    Did it or did it not fail to take root in that country at that time?

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    But despite all that, people in these deformed workers states have still benefitted. They were much better off than before, even if it was only half-socialism. They benefitted from having a planned economy, and from the fact that the pretend socialists in charge had to go through the motions and give them education, housing, healthcare, jobs and so on.
    So, you can conveniently count progress as credit towards socialism, but you will not count it's failings in that same country. Specifically the failure to be an actually realized form of Gov.
    Nice. I literally can not argue with that mind set.

    IMO it wasn't "half-socialist" it was full communist. Meaning the progress counts towards communism. If I'm not mistaken there are a few communist countries out there and as they actually exist they are the superior form of Gov. At least in relation to non existent forms of Gov go.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    eg people mention the famine in China but its been calculated that despite that Chinese gained billions of years of extra life.
    I would like to see the calculations that figures the death of millions is actually a good thing.
    Naw.. never-mind.. I'm not interested. It's ludicrous on it's face.

    On the above I will give you the last word as it is...
    /off topic end.


    Now, after all that is said.. none of that brings socialism into reality so as to be able to effect the situation in Japan. As long as socialism doesn't exist, counting it as a superior form of Gov is speculation at best. It's inability to become a reality IS a knock against it's viability as an ACTUAL form of gov.

    The speculation specifically presented in this thread is demonstrably fallacious
    as ,once again, nothing inherent to socialism protects it from the specific fault/mistake (if it truly is such) of variable power frequencies. Nor is that supposed fallacy inherent to capitalism. Thus the criticism and praise attributed in the OP is fallacious and unfounded.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Nobody would compete with it. Hence it would be a lot more efficient.
    Wait, lack of competition makes it more likely that market prices reach equilibrium? And you ignored my question about price mechanisms.

    And how many people have died from nuclear power? I dunno. Quite a few. The potential is always there for a hell of a disaster. It's also expensive and we still havent worked out what to do with the waste. Its a distraction form the more important task of working on clean green renewables like wind.
    We have worked out what to do with the waste. The waste is a lot cleaner than most other forms of currently-employed energy.

    The potential is there, but the risk is very, very small. You're exaggerating the risks to make people more scared of nuclear power than they would be if they knew the actual risks. Dishonesty is not an endearing trait.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  15. #15
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    because it is not free to deny non-paying costumers service.
    and because the Gov red tape to get paid off of the Gov plans necessitate many extra workers doing nothing but pushing paper.
    But they do deny non paying customers service. And if you think that government paperwork triples the cost, well, there may be a tiny bit of truth in that but you would have to support it. The admin costs do account for a bit of the extra cost, but most is nothing to do with the government, it is all the layers, insurance people, sales and whatnot. In Britain, we just get on with the actual healthcare. I dont have to fill out any forms to get my stuff each month, drugs that would cost more than my wages, treatment that is for an illness which is the third leading cause of preventable blindness in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    I'll let the absurdity of your statement stand as refutation. As I have already pointed out that all forms of gov do stupid stuff.
    Thank you

    And why would we want to have different electricity for half our country? Do you know that much of the nationalisation done in Britain was to get a modern, unified, integrated system? Japan has two system for purely historical reasons, because electricity is run by 10 separate companies. The point of socialism is to remove inefficiencies like that, to standardise stuff that needs standardising, as obviously electricity within one country is.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Originally Posted by MANC
    It is completely relevant. Socialism was not possible in Russia at the time, under the circumstances ie being isolated in a backward country. It's not a case of 'failing'.
    Did it or did it not fail to take root in that country at that time?
    The only way you are gonna understand this is to read my FD on the USSR. I spent many hours answering this there. It failed to achieve socialism because it was isolated in a backward country. It needed Germany and the German revolution was crushed by 30,000 troops from the Kaiser's army.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, you can conveniently count progress as credit towards socialism, but you will not count it's failings in that same country. Specifically the failure to be an actually realized form of Gov.
    Yes I can. There is nothing wrong with being objective. Stalinism was terrible, but there were many benefits that came with it. If it had been replaced by a workers democracy it would have been socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Nice. I literally can not argue with that mind set.

    What is so difficult about analysing something to see both good and bad aspects of it?

    You must do that all the time in day to day life.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    IMO it wasn't "half-socialist" it was full communist. Meaning the progress counts towards communism. If I'm not mistaken there are a few communist countries out there and as they actually exist they are the superior form of Gov. At least in relation to non existent forms of Gov go.
    This is completely wrong, read my FD if you want to understand it. I don't really like the phrase half communist. It had one of the two vital ingredients for socialism. It had a planned economy. But it did not have workers democracy. So it was half communist like a bag of flour is half a cake. It's not a transition. There was a political counter revolution from 1924 - 1938. A million people were killed. Read my FD.

    There are no communist countries, there never have been.

    What do you mean they are superior forms of government, I thought you were anti-communist? Why do you say that?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would like to see the calculations that figures the death of millions is actually a good thing.
    Naw.. never-mind.. I'm not interested. It's ludicrous on it's face.
    You need to keep serious or I will think I am wasting my time.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now, after all that is said.. none of that brings socialism into reality so as to be able to effect the situation in Japan. As long as socialism doesn't exist, counting it as a superior form of Gov is speculation at best. It's inability to become a reality IS a knock against it's viability as an ACTUAL form of gov.

    The speculation specifically presented in this thread is demonstrably fallacious
    as ,once again, nothing inherent to socialism protects it from the specific fault/mistake (if it truly is such) of variable power frequencies. Nor is that supposed fallacy inherent to capitalism. Thus the criticism and praise attributed in the OP is fallacious and unfounded.
    What is viable is nationalise the electricity. Stop building nuclear power stations. This is viable hand has been done many times. America more or less stopped building nuclear for a long time after Three Mile Island. Britain nationalised its electricity decades ago. Now they have privatised it and its pathetic. Every day some moron phones you up trying to get you to swap to a different provider of the exact same electricity!

    ---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Wait, lack of competition makes it more likely that market prices reach equilibrium? And you ignored my question about price mechanisms.
    I said it would be more efficient. I gave an example, our health service is 3 times cheaper than yours. How do we price it? It's just free. I get about £1000 worth of drugs every month. I dont even have to fill in a form. Actually I do pay a bit, about £10 a month.

    Of course if we nationalise all the big stuff we would have to work out prices for stuff that wasnt free. Its not hard, we managed it before and we didnt even have proper computers or the net. We nationalised the rail, we had to, the capitalists couldnt manage it any more. Same with air travel, steel, coal, oil, electricity, gas, healthcare, buses, trams, police, fire, ambulances, you name it.

    I would add stuff like the banks, pharma and supermarkets.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    We have worked out what to do with the waste. The waste is a lot cleaner than most other forms of currently-employed energy.

    False. Support.

    "Radioactive waste
    The UK now has enough radioactive waste to fill the Royal Albert Hall five times over. There’s still no safe way to deal with it. The government plans to bury it deep underground - out of sight, out of mind, for now at least. But no one can guarantee that this highly radioactive waste won't leak back into the environment, contaminating water supplies and the food chain.

    Allowing ten new reactors to be built would add threefold to the amount of highly radioactive waste we already have to deal with. This waste will remain dangerous for up to a million years: an outrageous legacy to leave for many generations to come."

    Greenpeace website

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post

    The potential is there, but the risk is very, very small. You're exaggerating the risks to make people more scared of nuclear power than they would be if they knew the actual risks. Dishonesty is not an endearing trait.

    I have not comparatively quantified anything. Dont accuse me of dishonesty when its not true. I have said there is a risk and people will be rightly worried about it, and the main point of the thread it whether this will affect the plans for more nuclear power or whether we will see more green suff.

    Greenpeace:

    "The clean up costs for the UK’s existing nuclear industry and its waste have alone been estimated at up to £100bn. That's £100bn of public money."

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by manc
    But they do deny non paying customers service
    false, if you go to the hospital they must treat you.
    The people who receive those "free" services, that cost is passed on to others that do.


    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    And if you think that government paperwork triples the cost, well, there may be a tiny bit of truth in that but you would have to support it. The admin costs do account for a bit of the extra cost, but most is nothing to do with the government, it is all the layers, insurance people, sales and whatnot.
    From what Dr.s have told me. (locally) If it were not for Gov insurance they could charge $25-30 for a visit. That would include a check up, and the drugs necessary. (in regards to your "family" Dr)

    Now you have a point about the insurances being part of the issue, indeed a $200 pare of scissors is due solely to insurance costs, and those
    costs are passed on. But that is easily fixed in other ways other than Gov interference. Also the Gov acts like an insurer by dictating what it will pay for certain servicing (which of course other ins providers follow). This is a sort of artificial price creation and has caused many dr's to simply stop offering that service (or the ones that are under payed for).

    I almost invested in a business that would file the Gov insurance forms for Dr's. As it is something like 80-90% of them are rejected by the Gov when they are first submitted, due to being "improperly" filled out. The time laps such practices caused was to have Dr's not receive money at all for services rendered, or when they do collect it is many months later. No one works for free, and that cost is passed on to people who do pay. Of course that is my personal experience so I don't expect you to take my word for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    In Britain, we just get on with the actual healthcare. I dont have to fill out any forms to get my stuff each month, drugs that would cost more than my wages, treatment that is for an illness which is the third leading cause of preventable blindness in America.
    In America Gov paying serves to increase the cost in the "free market". Without it a gov payer at all, services would be cheaper.
    With a little tort reform costs would go down even more.

    The first cure to our issues are not more gov but less.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    And why would we want to have different electricity for half our country? Do you know that much of the nationalisation done in Britain was to get a modern, unified, integrated system? Japan has two system for purely historical reasons, because electricity is run by 10 separate companies. The point of socialism is to remove inefficiencies like that, to standardise stuff that needs standardising, as obviously electricity within one country is.
    So what. Democratic capitalism is more than capable of producing the same system you are calling for. And socialism is just as capable at failing to produce the system you are calling for.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc
    It failed to achieve socialism ....
    EXACTLY MY POINT.
    It doesn't matter the "why" that is little more than an excuse for it's failure. When it overcomes those sorts of challenges.. get back with me.

    Again the bottom line is that it MUST ACTUALLY EXIST, in order to effect a situation. Socialism doesn't and so appealing to it is little more that wishful thinking. The same practice could be applied to any system.
    "if only the capitalists would have realized that a single frequency would produce an opportunity to sell more energy and to expand" after all that is the point right to make money? So they didn't even put "capitalist" practices in place.
    If people are able to fail to implement one system, then it is just as reasonable for it to be assumed they would fail to implement parts of another system as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    What is so difficult about analysing something to see both good and bad aspects of it?

    You must do that all the time in day to day life.
    In this case I'm interested in applied theory.
    I've pointed to it's evident failure to exist, and thus it's evident failure to address the problem at hand.

    We are much more capable of evaluating the positives of systems that actually exist, and are actually effecting the problem then to sit and
    speculate about pie in the sky ideals that can't even get out of the gate and bring itself into existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    What is so difficult about analysing something to see both good and bad aspects of it?

    You must do that all the time in day to day life.
    In regards to dealing with the crisis at hand, an existing gov is superior to a non-existing gov in it's ability to actually effect the situation.

    It is about actualization.

    For example, lets say you have the "perfect plan" to fix something, but you don't do it.
    And someone else as a "not so perfect plan" but implements it.

    In the end, it is the latter that preforms better in reality and is thus superior.


    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    You need to keep serious or I will think I am wasting my time.
    Look I do slip into un-seriousness comments.
    I know I'm being pretty hard on you, but I do respect your belief in your position. You have brought a vastly under represented POV to ODN, and I value that.

    That being said, I have watched you in many other thread debating for socialism.
    Just to keep on point in this thread, I'm not interested in the actual names of Gov that have existed. your standards are much higher then mine and more precise in labeling Gov. But I have seen you repeatedly explain how socialism has never existed in reality. That is my focus here in regards to your claims.

    My main focus in this thread is to point out a very simple fact.
    It is better to exist than to not exist.

    As socialism doesn't exist, nor has it managed to ever bring itself into existence it is thus inferior at addressing the worlds problems.

    Not "hypothetically inferior", but "practically inferior".

    Quote Originally Posted by MANC
    What is viable is nationalise the electricity. Stop building nuclear power stations. This is viable hand has been done many times. America more or less stopped building nuclear for a long time after Three Mile Island. Britain nationalised its electricity decades ago. Now they have privatised it and its pathetic. Every day some moron phones you up trying to get you to swap to a different provider of the exact same electricity!
    Stop building nuclear power stations is not viable to nations that want to progress and fight the fictions "global warming" monster.
    The electrical needs of every nation are going to continue to grow at an exponential rate. Wind and solar are simply not enough to be a viable solution.

    Now I say this as a person who is seeking to "get off the grid". I want to be solar/wind/water power based personally. And it can be done
    on a personal basis. The biggest problem is it is cost prohibitive. The tec is just not there yet. That is in direct contrast to the fact that countries need
    cheep power. The answer to that is going to be nuclear. IMO if japan suffers this great "tragedy" and comes away with little damage, it is a resounding victory for nuclear power.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #17
    LordOfLuck
    Guest

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Well to try and give an answer to the question posed at the start of the topic, will the global nuclear industry carry on or is it now threatened, I'd have to say it won't. Simply because too much money has been invested in it. No government, at least very few, are willing to pay the initial payment to acquire other kinds of energy, "wind, solar power, tides" until they have to. They have had the opportunity for a while now, but the conversion from one version to the other is always expensive at first, and would most likely cause the sitting government to loose their place to the opposition. And as most governments are more interested in keeping power than improving things, things probably won't change much. Until we run out of oil and have to implement green energy instead that is.

  18. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    false, if you go to the hospital they must treat you.
    The people who receive those "free" services, that cost is passed on to others that do.
    A report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies states: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [25] A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance.[26][27] Johns Hopkins University professor Vicente Navarro stated, more broadly, in 2003, "the problem does not end here, with the uninsured. An even larger problem is the underinsured" and "The most credible estimate of the number of people in the United States who have died because of lack of medical care was provided by a study carried out by Harvard Medical School Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 [1997]). They concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDS."[28]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In America Gov paying serves to increase the cost in the "free market". Without it a gov payer at all, services would be cheaper.
    With a little tort reform costs would go down even more.
    and ours is free and three times cheaper

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The first cure to our issues are not more gov but less.
    Look, you are just ignoring the facts, your system is mostly private and is 3 times the cost of ours which is mostly state.

    Yet you want less state involvement?

    It makes no sense. You have no way of proving there would be any reduction in cost. In a private hospital you are just a burden, a cost, wouldn't fancy going to one myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what. Democratic capitalism is more than capable of producing the same system you are calling for. And socialism is just as capable at failing to produce the system you are calling for.
    But Japan is not producing the same electricity on both sides of the island.

    It is uniform in Britain because we nationalised it in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    EXACTLY MY POINT.
    It doesn't matter the "why" that is little more than an excuse for it's failure. When it overcomes those sorts of challenges.. get back with me.

    Again the bottom line is that it MUST ACTUALLY EXIST, in order to effect a situation. Socialism doesn't and so appealing to it is little more that wishful thinking. The same practice could be applied to any system.
    "if only the capitalists would have realized that a single frequency would produce an opportunity to sell more energy and to expand" after all that is the point right to make money? So they didn't even put "capitalist" practices in place.
    If people are able to fail to implement one system, then it is just as reasonable for it to be assumed they would fail to implement parts of another system as well.
    Socialism did not fail in Russia because the Bolsheviks were incapable. The Bolsheviks did all they could. The main single reason was the crushing of the German revolution. The revolution happened in an unsuitable country precisely because capitalism was incapable of taking the country forward. If you dont understand this you should read my FD on the USSR where its explained properly.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    In this case I'm interested in applied theory.
    I've pointed to it's evident failure to exist, and thus it's evident failure to address the problem at hand.

    We are much more capable of evaluating the positives of systems that actually exist, and are actually effecting the problem then to sit and
    speculate about pie in the sky ideals that can't even get out of the gate and bring itself into existence.


    In regards to dealing with the crisis at hand, an existing gov is superior to a non-existing gov in it's ability to actually effect the situation.

    It is about actualization.

    For example, lets say you have the "perfect plan" to fix something, but you don't do it.
    And someone else as a "not so perfect plan" but implements it.

    In the end, it is the latter that preforms better in reality and is thus superior.
    Its an example of how things could be different. It's not as if there is no evidence. We have a unified electricity system in Britain because we nationalised it to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Look I do slip into un-seriousness comments.
    I know I'm being pretty hard on you, but I do respect your belief in your position. You have brought a vastly under represented POV to ODN, and I value that.
    cheers

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That being said, I have watched you in many other thread debating for socialism.
    Just to keep on point in this thread, I'm not interested in the actual names of Gov that have existed. your standards are much higher then mine and more precise in labeling Gov. But I have seen you repeatedly explain how socialism has never existed in reality. That is my focus here in regards to your claims.

    My main focus in this thread is to point out a very simple fact.
    It is better to exist than to not exist.

    As socialism doesn't exist, nor has it managed to ever bring itself into existence it is thus inferior at addressing the worlds problems.

    Not "hypothetically inferior", but "practically inferior".
    Well if we always settled for what we already had we would still be in the stone age.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Stop building nuclear power stations is not viable to nations that want to progress and fight the fictions "global warming" monster.
    The electrical needs of every nation are going to continue to grow at an exponential rate. Wind and solar are simply not enough to be a viable solution.

    Now I say this as a person who is seeking to "get off the grid". I want to be solar/wind/water power based personally. And it can be done
    on a personal basis. The biggest problem is it is cost prohibitive. The tec is just not there yet. That is in direct contrast to the fact that countries need
    cheep power. The answer to that is going to be nuclear. IMO if japan suffers this great "tragedy" and comes away with little damage, it is a resounding victory for nuclear power.
    I wanna concentrate on the nuclear issue myself.

    Fact is, its still not over.

    Oh, and geologists were warning of a big quake, but further south. However this one happening makes the one they were warning of MORE LIKELY:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/j...t-happened/4od

    excellent documentary

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    So, so much for capitalist nuclear industry being safe. Actually Japan has a history of coverups, eg Monju in Fukui prefecture in 1995 and Tokaimura in 1999.

    The Japanese, normally the most polite and uncomplaining people, are starting to panic, starting to not trust the government. People are going hungry and people inside the exclusion zone have been abandoned. Even hospitals cannot feed their patients. Doctors are living on a bowl of rice!

    The alert level in Japan is now 5 on a scale of 1-7.

    Even the US fleet has withdrawn it's battleships.

    So, will the global nuclear industry carry on or is it now threatened?

    Incredibly, Japan does not have an integrated grid. Electricity is run by 10 private regional companies. Western Japan has plenty of electricity, but it cannot be diverted to Eastern Japan because it is a different frequency!!

    So Eastern Japan is in turmoil, with power cuts.

    The capitalist system has proven itself a menace yet again.

    Discuss.
    I think the issue will be different for Japan than the global nuclear community. As time goes by and they have to abandon the area I am sure it will cause issues with the public about "Their personal horrors of nuclear devastation". I am more interested in how this will affect them morally not economically. I wonder if they will have a discussion about abandoning the use of nuclear power or severly limiting its use.

    Capitalist system a menace? What system was Chernobyl in? The economic system never caused the Tsunami or made the back up pumps malfunction at the plant.

  20. #20
    hmoon
    Guest

    Re: Japan - tsunami and nuclear disaster - future of nuclear

    The source of the nuclear disaster does not lie in the earthquakes or the tsunami. It was just a 'catalyst' I would say. The main problem
    was in fact the building of Nuclear power plants in Japan. It is so obvious that Japan is an earthquake prone island and that massive earthquakes come once in a while. The Japanese government made a critical error by introducing these nuclear power plants. I believe this was caused by greed. The amount of energy you can produce from a small amount of radioactive material is immense and probably the most cost efficient way for a country with no resources like Japan to have. As Manc also said, there has been a lot of cover ups, a lot of poor maintenance to these power plants and that lead up to 3 11. My hope is that Japan finds another alternative source to make electricity and take out nuclear power plants for good. We have to find a better, natural, eco-friendly way.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •