Inflation Reduction Act

User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Dieter » Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:57 pm

vnatale wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 3:10 pm
Mountaineer wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:00 pm


Interesting list and looks reasonably the same now but I'd put the car salespeople above the politicians. Interesting how 10 years ago more than half of people thought politicians were not to be trusted. And yet, we still vote the slease bags into office. Shame on us! Or as Soros might say "you get what you pay for". ;)
Nany times that I have read that is not our OWN politicans that we distrust. It is ALL those other ones who do not represent us that we do not trust. All of ours bring us so much to us so that we want them to keep bringing those things to us.

Just about every politician wins based upon what they are going to give you. Hardly ever win by telling us what they are going to take away from us (which would then lead to lower taxes). You agree the greater share of the populace wants things given to them with someone else paying for those things?
I distrust the other sides politicians more than my sides is probably more accurate (although being independent, I don't technically have a side :) )

Or, I trust the other sides politicians to do more things that I don't like
User avatar
MarketIfTouched
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 4:46 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by MarketIfTouched » Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:59 pm

President Biden said today that there was 'Zero Inflation' in July.

Wow that Inflation Reduction Act sure worked fast. :)
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by joypog » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:45 pm

Time to coronate king Manchin!
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Dieter » Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:48 pm

MarketIfTouched wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:59 pm
President Biden said today that there was 'Zero Inflation' in July.

Wow that Inflation Reduction Act sure worked fast. :)
https://slate.com/business/2022/08/bide ... onomy.html
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:33 am

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Biden said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.


COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.


COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.


ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Biden.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Kbg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:30 am

Green vs. Fossil Fuels Subsidies in the US (you can get a lot of other numbers looking around though...but none suggest the ratio is much different)

20B vs 60B

I'm completely for no subsidies for both. An actual conservative complains about both. A lib complains about the second a RINO complains about the first.

Reality...politicians of both parties hooking up their sponsors via the US taxpayer.
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Dieter » Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:52 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:30 am
Green vs. Fossil Fuels Subsidies in the US (you can get a lot of other numbers looking around though...but none suggest the ratio is much different)

20B vs 60B

I'm completely for no subsidies for both. An actual conservative complains about both. A lib complains about the second a RINO complains about the first.

Reality...politicians of both parties hooking up their sponsors via the US taxpayer.
Good points.

Although can also make the argument to not subsidize a well established industry while subsidizing emerging technologies with potential long term potential

And the argument for energy independence to subsidize both during a transition period

Would be great to subsidize Green to the same extent as fossil fuels :)

[Edit: for the record, with that whole Russia "thing", I think we should be all in on figuring out how to replace energy supplies that the west used to get from them (and food), so, increased supply of fossil / green energy as well as efficiency improvements. While working longer term to reduce pollution / carbon emissions. ]
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by joypog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 am

Did Biden change the definition? I'm pretty sure Republicans were using the same metrics when Trump was in office. For all the grief Trump got, I don't think unemployment numbers were a major Dem talking point between 2016-20 (aside from trying to claim that the low unemployment numbers were due to the foundation that Obama laid in the GFC).

And frankly, I find it silly that a conservative would consider someone who quit looking for work as truly "unemployed". That sounds like a pansy liberal talking point.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Kbg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:50 am

Dieter wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:52 am
Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:30 am
Green vs. Fossil Fuels Subsidies in the US (you can get a lot of other numbers looking around though...but none suggest the ratio is much different)

20B vs 60B

I'm completely for no subsidies for both. An actual conservative complains about both. A lib complains about the second a RINO complains about the first.

Reality...politicians of both parties hooking up their sponsors via the US taxpayer.
Good points.

Although can also make the argument to not subsidize a well established industry while subsidizing emerging technologies with potential long term potential

And the argument for energy independence to subsidize both during a transition period

Would be great to subsidize Green to the same extent as fossil fuels :)

[Edit: for the record, with that whole Russia "thing", I think we should be all in on figuring out how to replace energy supplies that the west used to get from them (and food), so, increased supply of fossil / green energy as well as efficiency improvements. While working longer term to reduce pollution / carbon emissions. ]
I think green is going to win over time because it is going to win economically and I think we are living in the transition right now. It's too bad energy is so politicized (but there's huge $$$ at stake so not surprising) because we really do need good, thoughtful policy and action to optimize the transition. A poster child for this is the grid and building out electrical transmission infrastructure with a good backup energy supply approach. If you are a green tree hugger, you need to understand some new electrical power lines are going to kill some forest...you don't get green energy without the second. You also need to get used to increased mining for the required battery metals. But then I find environmentalists to be like Libertarians, principled, but politically stupid as to reality.

I'm sure I'm way too stupid and uniformed (cuz i am) but to me it seems like get on a path to renewables and supplement with backup nuclear power and call it a day.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Xan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:50 am
I'm sure I'm way too stupid and uniformed (cuz i am) but to me it seems like get on a path to renewables and supplement with backup nuclear power and call it a day.
If you're going to have the nuclear power, why bother with the renewables?
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Kbg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:33 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:18 pm
Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:50 am
I'm sure I'm way too stupid and uniformed (cuz i am) but to me it seems like get on a path to renewables and supplement with backup nuclear power and call it a day.
If you're going to have the nuclear power, why bother with the renewables?
IDK...is there any cost comparison data to say which is cheaper? I do think a cost that should be added to both is disposal/storage (batteries and solar panels wear out and nuclear waste builds up). I'm not opposed to nuclear obviously, but nuclear waste disposal and storage is a definite downside to the technology.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Kbg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:46 pm

See my reply. Looks like we hit submit at the same time.

I'm actually energy agnostic. I like cheap. I like non-polluting to the max possible (balanced with cheap). I'm not a climate scientist but I live now where I grew up and I think there's something to this global warming stuff. I've got an agricultural well that is likely drying up and the replacement cost is not going to be pleasant.

When I was a kid we wondered whether or not there would be snow for Halloween trick or treating and if it would be warm enough to have the traditional water fight on the last day of elementary school in the small town I lived in. Skiing was pretty much a given from November to April.

Now, it's more like is there going to be snow for Christmas and are we going to have a decent ski season at all?
Last edited by Kbg on Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Kbg » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:34 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:01 pm
That is no longer true. Also Gen IV plants are extremely safe.
I think the plants, when run properly, have always been safe.

The byproduct however is dangerous. That's not even debatable. IIRC I think I read once that on the waste side the technology is such that you get a lot of waste that is low grade or a little waste that is incredibly toxic. Anyone know much about this aspect of nuclear power?
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Xan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:40 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:34 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:01 pm
That is no longer true. Also Gen IV plants are extremely safe.
I think the plants, when run properly, have always been safe.

The byproduct however is dangerous. That's not even debatable. IIRC I think I read once that on the waste side the technology is such that you get a lot of waste that is low grade or a little waste that is incredibly toxic. Anyone know much about this aspect of nuclear power?
I believe you want the very toxic waste, because the reason it's so toxic is it's becoming untoxic quickly.
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Dieter » Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:55 pm

For Nuclear, I though also issues with uranium?

Got so used to getting supplies from deactivate weapons, that many mines went off line?

And, there is still that threat of worst case scenarios that dings against Nuclear

I assume around now (and this winter!) many in Germany wished they'd kept some around
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by joypog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:26 pm

Haven’t studied nuclear but I know h they keep trying to dump the waste product in my state? If it’s so safe, they should keep the waste where it was used.

Aside from that I’m pretty open to nuclear. I never groked the lefts absolute hatred of the method.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
whatchamacallit
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by whatchamacallit » Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:02 pm

This isn't really political but I believe a part of this act.

It looks like there will good incentive for all the big stock buyback companies to become dividend stocks.

1% tax on all stock buybacks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/ ... yback-tax/
User avatar
joypog
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:42 pm

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by joypog » Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:20 pm

Yeah I'll be curious what the unintended consequences of that move will be.

Ultimately I suspect it will net minimal taxes while discouraging stock buybacks...which may or may not be a bad thing.

My main beef with that article is that it rolls out the old trope of cutting spending to get the budget in line. Unfortunately that approach is bout as utopian as the UBI. We've flip-flopped administrations and congresses for the past half century and the budget only goes up while taxes slide down.
1/n weirdo. US-TSM, US-SCV, Intl-SCV, LTT, STT, GLD (+ a little in MF)
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:59 am

joypog wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:26 pm
Haven’t studied nuclear but I know h they keep trying to dump the waste product in my state? If it’s so safe, they should keep the waste where it was used.

Aside from that I’m pretty open to nuclear. I never groked the lefts absolute hatred of the method.
I took a post graduate level nuclear engineering class in college several decades ago. We studied all reactor designs as I recall, from those used in submarines to those developed for the electrical power industry. By and large, reactors are generally safe; but as someone said upstream, anything designed and made by man is subject to failure - bridges still collapse, airplanes crash, toilets leak, etc. Nuclear waste is hazardous and long lasting (overall it is probably no more hazardous than many other chemicals and biological products, it's just that the word nuclear has an emotional scare factor associated with it - like the word cyanide has). Because nuclear waste is so long lasting, it is important to place it in geological sites that are not prone to earthquakes and are as best science can tell stable for a very long time; you don't want to put it is just anyone's back yard.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by vnatale » Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:10 am

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:33 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:50 am
I'm sure I'm way too stupid and uniformed (cuz i am) but to me it seems like get on a path to renewables and supplement with backup nuclear power and call it a day.


If you're going to have the nuclear power, why bother with the renewables?


IDK...is there any cost comparison data to say which is cheaper? I do think a cost that should be added to both is disposal/storage (batteries and solar panels wear out and nuclear waste builds up). I'm not opposed to nuclear obviously, but nuclear waste disposal and storage is a definite downside to the technology.


From my understanding solar panels do not wear out. Their output degrades 0.5% per year so that at the end of 20 years they are still outputting at least 90% of what they were on day one. After thirty years it'd still be over 85%.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by vnatale » Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:14 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:33 am

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 5.6%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Biden said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.


COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work.
Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.


COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.


ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Biden.


The stop looking for a job thing is quite old. Way back in the 70s when I was taking an economics course at the University of Massachusetts whose economics department was known for having a Marxist bent to it .... our instructor was pointing out that the unemployment rate was being undercounted because it did not include those who had stopped looking for work. At some times during the 70s it was complete opposite to the way it is now. Now there are 1.7 jobs for every person. Then it felt like there was one job for every ten people. Therefore, it was far more likely that people would stop looking for a job due to the frustration of there being few jobs to be had.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by vnatale » Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:39 am

Desert wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:18 pm

Xan wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Kbg wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:50 am
I'm sure I'm way too stupid and uniformed (cuz i am) but to me it seems like get on a path to renewables and supplement with backup nuclear power and call it a day.


If you're going to have the nuclear power, why bother with the renewables?


Yeah, that's a good question. I'm late to this discussion, so this might be repetitive, but I view nuclear as a sort of "necessary evil." Nuke plants generate waste that is tough to manage. And there will be nuke plant accidents in the future, despite the advances in technology. All human engineered systems will have some failure rate, though hopefully very small. So the combination of nuke waste and accident risk makes wind and solar attractive. But wind and solar don't meet real-time demand without either another complimentary constant source (nuke) or massive storage (not currently practical).

Given that situation, the combination looks like the optimum path to me. As technology evolves, maybe that will change. If we had a huge breakthrough in storage, we might be able to eliminate nuke power. I think that's extremely unlikely though; storage is hard.


We have been powering our submarines with nuclear for how many decades? The Russians may have had one accident with one of their submarines but we never have?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by vnatale » Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:41 am

joypog wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:26 pm

Haven’t studied nuclear but I know h they keep trying to dump the waste product in my state? If it’s so safe, they should keep the waste where it was used.

Aside from that I’m pretty open to nuclear. I never groked the lefts absolute hatred of the method.


Way back in the 70s every homeowners policy excluded coverage in the event of a nuclear accident. That also led one to believe that they were not so safe back then. Anyone read their homeowners policy recently to see if this clause / exclusion is still included?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by vnatale » Fri Aug 12, 2022 10:50 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:59 am

joypog wrote:
Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:26 pm

Haven’t studied nuclear but I know h they keep trying to dump the waste product in my state? If it’s so safe, they should keep the waste where it was used.

Aside from that I’m pretty open to nuclear. I never groked the lefts absolute hatred of the method.


I took a post graduate level nuclear engineering class in college several decades ago. We studied all reactor designs as I recall, from those used in submarines to those developed for the electrical power industry. By and large, reactors are generally safe; but as someone said upstream, anything designed and made by man is subject to failure - bridges still collapse, airplanes crash, toilets leak, etc. Nuclear waste is hazardous and long lasting (overall it is probably no more hazardous than many other chemicals and biological products, it's just that the word nuclear has an emotional scare factor associated with it - like the word cyanide has). Because nuclear waste is so long lasting, it is important to place it in geological sites that are not prone to earthquakes and are as best science can tell stable for a very long time; you don't want to put it is just anyone's back yard.


How about the nuclear plant literally in your back yard. Would you / anyone here want that?

I've periodically stated here that in the 70s a planned nuclear plant was going to be built in my neighborhood, about 1/2 mile above my house where I now live.

The circled area below as about where it would have been located:

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (41.43 KiB) Viewed 2230 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Inflation Reduction Act

Post by Mountaineer » Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:00 pm

Vinny, to address your question: personally I am not concerned about a nuclear power plant near my home. The closest one to me is under 20 miles, others a little further. You probably receive more routine radiation from being outside a lot, or flying in an airplane than you would from a nuclear plant nearby. Also, you probably have much higher risk of death by vehicle than death by a nuclear plant meltdown or explosion. That would be a good issue for you to study and come to your own conclusion.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Post Reply