Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.greenstudentu.com/encycloped ... gy/nuclear

They could have said fusion powers the sun, but no, it is "used in hydrogen bombs".

KitemanSA wrote:http://www.greenstudentu.com/encycloped ... gy/nuclear

They could have said fusion powers the sun, but no, it is "used in hydrogen bombs".

A lot of people suffer from biases they are not even aware they have. Journalists don't even realize that they are biased in many cases.


This reminds me about the old joke about a politician who was approached by a voter and asked what was his position on Alcohol prohibition.

The politician said that "If you are talking about that Devil's brew which destroys homes and brings a man to rack and ruin, then I'm Against it! But if you are talking about that sweet elixir that relaxes a man in the evening and chases away the chill of winter, then I am For it! "

Even though nuclear power is safer than burning electricity for fossil fuels, it is still a hazard to our health and the environment.

I doubt the anti-nuclear crowd would even blink at that statement, reading what he meant instead of what he wrote. But to me it makes the whole article a little suspect.

I'm burning electricity just reading the article

I'm burning electricity just reading the article

Yes, but how much fossil fuels are you getting from it?

If hydrocarbons are burned for electricity, shouldn't it be referred to as hydroelectric?

Aero wrote:

I'm burning electricity just reading the article

Yes, but how much fossil fuels are you getting from it?

Well, the case IS a Smilodon. I suppose if the electricity burned the case to a char, an argument could be made that it is a sort of fossil.