Comments by "" (@rstevewarmorycom) on "TED" channel.

  1. Hans Rosling isn't presenting an ideal. He is presenting the numbers. You know, numbers, those nasty things that are evidence? I support secular society as well, but you need to re-analyze in light of these numbers.
    22
  2. Edward Smith He's telling the truth. That's something you don't seem to like.
    12
  3. Edward Smith No, he is recounting the numbers the UN has gathered. Predictions from these are the best estimates we have of the future. I go by the research of Science, so I don't deny climate change. Why would you assume that? Your picture looks insane. Why would you wish to look insane?
    11
  4. Dying of your skin color is not as prevalent as it once was. When it did happen it was a slow process of many generations. Now we have sun screen, vitamin D, and folic acid supplements. There's no evidence for your racist nonsense. The mutational change in the MC1R gene takes 20,000 years. Stop being stupid.
    8
  5. +Edward Smith is a fucking delusional crank.
    7
  6. Edward Smith No, birth numbers already fell wildly in most third world countries, your beliefs about that are outdated. And it isn't related to religion. It looks like you didn't even watch the video or you would know this. He says what he does because the numbers tell us there is nothing we can do because of simple features of demographics, and that the world population will begin falling and stabilize in a constant gentle fall after the 10 billion mark. What did you want to do instead, kill a bunch of people, because that is the only actual available alternative? Or are you down on him because he doesn't want mass forced sterilizations? You can't GET that because NO one will GO for it! You are some kind of political or religious crank who can't handle the facts. Nobody is going to do what you want, so you'd better make the best of it.
    7
  7. Edward Smith ONLY by immigration. That's what your missing. Indigenous births are below replacement.
    7
  8. You're blabbering bullshit.
    6
  9. Mutations happen constantly and in each generation, 100-200 in each generation for humans. Some of those will be to the Melanin gene MC1R. All it takes is a few and their offspring dominate and survive better, and then in 20,000 years, or 4000 generations, skin color changes.
    6
  10. Some migrated more recently. The change takes 20,000 years. Before people could migrate very far this was far more clear. And not all equatorial people's have the same weather, some equatorial areas rain constantly and have cloud cover. As we said, the mutational change in the MC1R gene takes around 20,000 years. Albinism is a defect of the MC1R where NO melanin is produced, not the very dark p-melanin, nor the light eu-melanin.
    6
  11. No, eskimos can afford to be dark and protect their folate because they eat a diet from the sea, rich in vitamin D. Scandivanian farmers inland from the ocean cannot. They became light. Nina Jablonksi explains this in her research. This TED talk was too brief. Do a search for her other videos.
    6
  12. He's right, but he's wrong. They don't produce much waste, but every reactor ever made has bankrupted its owners and operators and put them into bankruptcy so they had to cleave off part of their corporation to let it die to get out from under the crushing debt. We have NO reason to believe the molten salt reactors will be different, this kind of tech has an abysmal record of bankrupting its owners and operators. Solar and wind are MUCH cheaper per Watt.
    5
  13. +John I don't believe her statistics, they have been demolished by actual crime statistics and surveys of older people and their lifetime memories. The number of women who are date-raped using drugs is tiny, the much more frequent situation is young women who want to belong but who have been given ambivalent support for their sexual desires, having a sexual experience that didn't match their fondest dreams and feeling "used" because they were programmed by the society to feel so, and then concluding that they were "assaulted", when they said nothing against the act at the time. Her stats are feminazi nonsense.
    5
  14. zolikoff That isn't true. Fuel is a prime source for dirty bombs. And it's just not that hard to handle. I've done it. I'm a physicist. A dirty bomb in downtown Paris can make an uninhabitable space a half mile or more in diameter.. And these are suicidal terrorists, they don't care if they die of rad poisoning. And you don't need to take over a plant. Think transport. Even if the death toll was small, the terror value is immense. And apart from danger from that, nuclear energy is now more costly to produce than any of the renewables. That's why the French people want to switch.
    5
  15. John Ayer Her theory is NOT inconsistent at all. Go ask a biologist. Whatever kind of bigot you are, I have no interest in your family.
    5
  16. Edward Smith Tired of your whining. Go away.
    5
  17. Edward Smith You're an idiot, and you're a crank. And now you're blocked!
    5
  18. And France is now trying to phase out nuclear, and is building solar and wind to do it. They know they are costly losers, even when there aren't accidents.
    4
  19. Okoye Ahmose It DOES happen today, it's ALWAYS happening, but 1) it happens and has always happened VERY VERY SLOWLY, taking tens of thousands of years, and 2) we didn't used to move around much, people who move around a lot over many generations defeat the local trend and average out any directions of change so that nothing happens, and 3) sunblock and folic acid and shelter and clothing change sun exposures. Also, the blue eye and blond hair genes originated by mutation around the Black Sea 25,000 years ago. They became advantageous BECAUSE of the lower sunlight at those latitudes, they enabled more vitamin D to be produced. The sun didn't "change" skin, the skin is always mutating in all directions, but this mutation became extremely advantageous for reproduction because it prevented Rickets, so people with it were more able to reproduce successfully than people with darker skin in higher latitudes, and slowly came to dominate the population.
    4
  20. Okoye Ahmose You're under the delusion that you understand the science, when you do NOT!!
    4
  21. No, they're backing wind and solar because they know the math on fossil it is getting expensive, and it is unsustainable, and they are looking for a future for their corporation. The big money isn't backing nuclear precisely because every reactor built so far has bankrupted its owners and operators till they had to cleave off part of their corporation to let die to get out from under that debt by bankruptcy. And no, you LIED about solar panels and the environment. I'm a physicist. Don't EVEN try to lie to physicists!!
    4
  22. John Ayer You're a racist idiot with NO understanding of Evolution by Natural Selection. EVERY biologist understands and supports Jablonski's analysis. I'm done with you. You're some kind of bigot, and you're now BLOCKED!!
    4
  23. MasterMazeProductions Agreed, but there is no royal road to all that knowledge. We have to teach children that stuff.
    4
  24. Somebody teach this fool how to pronounce the English word BombardEER!!
    4
  25. Runners have a shorter life expectancy, as do professional athletes. Below that, there is not a significant distinction between the longevity of the sedentary and that of the energetic, as long as they both remain active and involved at their own levels. Doctors had to give up telling people they'd live longer when it wasn't found to be true, so now they dodge the question by claiming it increases the "quality" of life, even though many regard exercise as a profound decrease in quality of life.
    4
  26. Xavanux Did you know solar put on ONLY our current US roof space could meet all our needs easily? Did you know that the limits of wind are easily 20 TIMES the worlds current usage? You need to do some research.
    3
  27. They should have gotten some floatation and some insulation for their suits. It can be improvised. Just buying wetsuits and trying to swim is absurd. If so many people don't like the situation in their home country, why don't they organize and fight? Do they imagine they are so privileged and valuable that they shouldn't have to take any responsibility for what happens in their own society? Refugee stories are moving, but these people strike me as cowards.
    3
  28. zolikoff The French have seen what happened elsewhere else too, and with the immigrant flux they know their reactors stand as their Achilles heel to any determined terrorist. They also know the benefits of renewables, they look at Germany and Denmark and are very jealous. The government brute forced its viability by paying the bill, and now they are looking at what else they COULD have spent all that money on.
    3
  29. Pre-Frontal Lobotomy for all screaming muslims.
    3
  30. John Ayer The process of natural selection that selects for a new skin shade takes thousands of generations. People used to segregate themselves, kill foreigners, and mistreat and label others of differing skin color. That is going away. You have a racist slant on Jablonski's work.
    3
  31. Edward Smith That's what the trend numbers would have us predict. Every society that has reduced its offspring to two has reduced it further as its economy and productivity improved.
    3
  32. David McFarland Nuclear is relatively safe, but when things go wrong you get stuff like a 20 mile exclusion zone around Fukushima where there are lots of nice houses and nobody dares live there, and are, in fact, now forbidden to try. Renewables NEVER have an "exclusion zone" and they are provably cheaper than nuclear per kW-hr. Solar is now down to 5.6 cents per kW-hr and Wind is less than 3.2 cents per kW-hr. The amortized historical bill for nuclear, all costs included, is still over 11 cents per kW-hr, and shows every sign of increasing, whereas renewable costs are still dropping.
    3
  33. Christopher Willis As a "future nuclear engineer" I think you have inevitable blinders on. I'm a physicist, when I got out of school the nuclear industry approached me about running one of their reactors. I declined. All my fellow physics graduates declined. We saw the writing on the wall even then, and that was the '80's. The IPCC is desperate to save the world. That's nice, but these guys are NOT engineers, they don't seem to realize that it would take 10 times the current cement production of the USA to build the 10,000 reactors they would like, and that we would never beat climate change that way, it would take too long. Reactors take too long to build and commission and the process cannot be short-cutted without dangers. And we don't have a tenth the educated talent to run them. It would take over a generation to produce that many nuclear competent scientists, and the high salaries of said experts will bankrupt the process of trying to produce cheap competitive power. Wind and solar are cheaper than any nuclear so far conceived, and are ready to be expanded on a war-time-like footing right now, and today! While nuclear is fascinating, I think you may be committing your career to a dead horse.
    3
  34. Logan Mainord Actually that's not true, you can put wind turbines almost anywhere and be useful. And solar needs less than the sum total of US roof area to generate more than our current usage. Unless you're going to farm your roof or rent it out, area shouldn't be a problem.
    3
  35. This is just a young woman's youth/health/fitness/generational bigotry. She underestimates the loss of expertise in meetings if older experts have to huff and puff to follow the youthful herd and can't contribute for lack of the breath to do so. Older humans don't stand or walk well, which is why humans sit down a lot, to listen to the elders who can't stand and walk well anymore. She won't know this, of course, till she's older and her joints go, so right now she remains willful and childish.
    3
  36. Using and MAKING are quite different.
    3
  37. JombieMann It doesn't much matter, that amount from solar and wind is all that we will have. The quickest cheapest way to add to it at that point is STILL solar and wind. So they had better get to agitating for it. You "not thinking" that solar and wind will ever make up a large proportion of generating capacity is just you "not thinking". The numbers work, I'm a physicist, I have napkined this problem many times. And no, it's NOT too expensive and unpredictable. It's CHEAPER than nuclear and anything else PER WATT, and that's what we need to measure. And solar and wind are distributed, the wind and sun don't fail everywhere at once, if the equipment failed it can be replaced in a day, and unlike nuclear we don't need whole backup plants for when they go down unexpectedly for weeks or months, which THEY DO!! Wind and solar are ALREADY making up 50% of the power in Germany. And they are continuing to build! You are being overly PESSIMISTIC, and for no good reason. You have some sort of layman's "impression" that solar and wind are "weak" or "unreliable", when NONE of the data shows that. Just because they don't involve centralized powerful machines throbbing and endangering their workers and all nearby, you assume that something that runs quietly could never do the job because, in effect: "It doesn't make enough noise", or some such bullshit. Typical science illiterate. Go buy a $100 panel that makes like 100 Watts. Put it on your roof or carport, or your RV. See how much you can run off it, then buy a few more, and a few more, and soon you have a roof full of them and they are making 3000 Watts for you, and you put a few batteries in your garage and that runs most of your stuff? Now, what were you saying? This sort of math sneaks up on you, but it is inexorable. You and 100 of your neighbors invest in a half MegaWatt wind turbine, just a small one. You can each get 5000 Watts when the wind blows. You hook that to your batteries in your garage with a $200 inverter. It meets all your needs and pays for itself in eight MONTHS!! Inexorable. It's hard to admit and realize that we have been cheated for power by big players for a hundred years, but that IS what happened. Nobody knew how to do it but them, so we assumed it was hard. It isn't. This always happens with new technology, those in the know rip everybody else off for a while, till the competition develops. Solar and wind IS the competition, and now they are eating the big players' lunch! And now with the new technology and education about electricity, we can do it ourselves and get rid of the big players. The NIMBYs and BANANAs (not in my back yard & build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) will simply find the power turned off till they comply with the rest of us. When they find they can't get it any other way they will freak out and beg to join up.
    2
  38. JombieMann We haven't made thorium work, who knows how long that might take. The expense of ALL nuclear in ALL forms has always amounted to huge figures by huge cost overruns. Renewables are ready TODAY, and cost less than ANY other option per Watt. Fossil only gets more and more expensive, while renewables continue to get cheaper and cheaper per time and per scale. PV is down to 5.6 cents/Watt delivered, and wind is lower than coal! These costs are PER WATT, so complaints of scale are incorrect. We do NOT need either monstrous plants to meet our needs, nor do we need something that will put us in debt to the banksters for decades to come. The "baseline" concern is a myth, every grid that renewables have been applied to have become MORE stable, NOT less. Do the same complete research as I have and you will conclude the same.
    2
  39. JombieMann Everything you just said is a distortion of the truth being promoted by fossil fuel interests. I'm a physicist and I have bothered to do the calculation. If we cover every roof in the US with photovoltaic panels, we can meet 90% of our current energy usage in homes and businesses. Manufacturing takes a bit more, but not that much. Wind turbines in the midwest now sell power at under 3.5 cents/kW-hr. That IS cheaper than power from coal. We could ALSO meet all our needs with only wind power, it is that abundant. Both of these pay for themselves in under a year and provide energy for 40 years. The very small amount of power we need at night can be more than adequately supplied by a rack of storage batteries in each garage, or stored on board your electric car batteries. Your notion of "hundreds of square miles" is totally erroneous. Nuclear would not work because we would need to build over 10,000 nuclear plants to meet our needs, and we don't even have enough cement for the concrete to do so. It would require 5-10 times our current production of cement. Energy companies now installing wind and solar have found that instead of making the grid less stable it makes it MORE stable, because there are no massive breakdowns in such highly distributed equipment. In other words, the so-called "base load problem" is a fossil fuel company myth. The costs of power from renewables FIGURES IN the costs of building, in fact that is MOST of the cost, since they consume no fuel at costs. There are solar farms now producing power at 5.6 cents/kW-hr, which is below that of methane-fired plants. Only laymen and amateurs at this make the mistake of thinking they need "great big plants" to supply our needs. The thorium reactor in the '50's was a money-pit and the govt ditched it as too expensive. NOBODY has ever made a nuclear plant that produced truly cheap power, the unforeseen cost overruns eat them alive, which is why none of the big money now is even thinking of nuclear, they are all buying solar and wind as fast as they can.
    2
  40. nulI No, you have wind, which is almost a perfect complement, since it blows more at night and lower sun conditions. Nuclear is relatively safe, that's not my objection. It's that it is always much more expensive per Watt generated, than are renewables, which are NOW cheaper and becoming ever yet cheaper by the year and the expansion of their production. Nuclear will not ever keep up with that. Never. All the studies on final costs of nuclear reactors to date show they were horribly expensive by the Watt, when all costs and downage were factored in. Solar and wind do not GO down spectacularly, a few panels might test bad and have to be replaced or their wiring fixed, one in a hundred turbines might need service, but none of these amount to a significant percentage of power production. They are predictable, and so need less backing up than major sized plants of any ilk.
    2
  41. JombieMann Degree in physics, working for the power industry for decades, you know, nothing special.
    2
  42. But solar and wind with storage is MUCH better than either.
    2
  43. normaali ihminen Analysis of total bird kills indicate that 95% of bird kills are due to WINDOWS!! So do you now want to eliminate WINDOWS?? AND the space required for solar is LESS than the total roof surface in the USA. Put some cover over parking lots and we don't even need THAT much. These are old, amateurish and totally disreputable objections.
    2
  44. zolikoff You're right, but the reactor isn't the problem, it's the fuel coming to and from it, and the reprocessing.
    2
  45. Selling a book are you? Hmmmmm.
    2
  46. It's a lot simpler than that. Male and female sperm are 50-50% in sperm total. Male sperm have longer heads than female sperm and can be separated and sorted.. In vitro fertilization with only one kind is easy. Then they are implanted through the fallopian tube. Anyway, there is no way except genetic to tell male zygotes from female zygotes, and that's expensive.
    2
  47. We don't NEED nuclear power. That's the one thing the nuke folks NEVER will tell you. Solar and Wind are CHEAPER RIGHT NOW, you would be wasting your money to buy nuclear plants, when you could build MORE solar, wind, and storage than we need for less money!!
    2
  48. About 20,000 years or 4000 generations.
    2
  49. One more big science buttfuck who ignores the fusion plant 93 milliion miles from here. Solar is boring to these clowns, it's already understood engineering.
    2
  50. Terence Francis To who, your momma?
    2