Yet another religious cult raided

[Occhidiangela]

And speaking of my ass:

I believe you meant to say "speaking out of my ass." Lots of emotion, barely a fart of reason to be found in that post.

I'll say it politely: please go back to your amateur proctology practice. It is not my "enlightenment" that has changed, it is technology.

Hardly. Willful ignorance. Please note:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002

Nuclear power was a good choice in 1978, and it it a good choice in 2008. What is different is that now you admit it. What is also different is that processes and procedures, as usual in human enceavors, improve or adjust. The Navy had been running higher risk reactors than TMI for twenty years, and have since (design higher risk due to power density and geometry) and their safety record was ignored, head in sand, by the anti nuke ostriches. The Chernobyl reactor design was not the standard design of American commercial reactors, it too was a high risk design. The French have sustained their nuclear program in the interim, with the result that 70-80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. (Granted, they have an order of magnitude smaller demand, but choosing not to play Chicken Little has been for them beneficial in the long term. )

Welcome back to daylight. Or did you spend twenty years making money on coal stocks?

There is still work to be done, and R&D dollars spent on smarter and better handling of nuclear waste. The thorium reactor discussed in the other thread is hardly news, what is news is getting one operating as proof of concept. We did some undergrad level work on a Thorium level reactor, power in, Uranium usage, etc, back in 1978 in my Reactor Physics class.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002

I think the most revealing statement in that interview is (emphasis mine): ". . . I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues . . . on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."

Combined with the fact that the bulk of the population (94%, IIRC, according to a Physics Today survey sometime in the late '80s or early '90s) do not distinguish nuclear weapons from nuclear energy, the 'environmentalists' were able to use lies and the fear of the unknown to derail nuclear energy for over a generation. I, too, studied these issues in the '60s and '70s. To accept nuclear now, but not then, because it has become 'safer', is a self deluding excuse. What has changed is not so much the technology as the sources of information that the 'environmentalists' are willing to consider.

Disclaimer: for lack of a better word ('idiot' is vastly overburdened), I've used 'environmentalists' (please note the quotes) to indicate those who, with more passion than knowledge or even sense, defend or oppose issues on which they are unequipped to even hold a valid opinion. The unquoted environmentalist is a useful and necessary force to protect the world from the rapaciousness of corporations and the callus indifference of governments. But it is not of that minority that I speak.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

Flatulence will get you nowhere. . . except maybe get you a private elevator.

I believe you meant to say "speaking out of my ass." Lots of emotion, barely a fart of reason to be found in that post.

Let me show you something. . . * . . . (credit Kurt Vonnegut).

I will now appear to completely show what Pete is talking about...

...but only if the staff of Scientific American is considered to not have a scientific education. (I will accept the possibility.)

So here goes:

Look at this "fart of reason" from Scientific American:

Reactor designs are divided into generations. The earliest prototype reactors, built in the 1950s and early 1960s, were often one of a kind. Generation II reactors, in contrast, were commercial designs built in large numbers from the late 1960s to the early 1990s. Generation III reactors incorporate design improvements such as better fuel technology and passive safety, meaning that in the case of an accident the reactor shuts itself down without requiring the operators to intervene. The first generation III reactor was built in Japan in 1996. Generation IV reactors are new designs that are currently being researched, such as pebble-bed reactors and lead-cooled fast reactors [see "Next-Generation Nuclear Power," by James A. Lake, Ralph G. Bennett and John F. Kotek; Scientific American, January 2002]. In addition, generation III+ reactors are designs similar to generation III but with the advanced features further evolved. With the possible exception of high-temperature gas reactors (the pebble bed is one example), generation IV reactors are several decades away from being candidates for significant commercial deployment. To evaluate our scenario through to 2050, we envisaged the building of generation III+ light-water reactors.

Note the part that "not requiring operators to intervene" for generation III.

Note that the first generation III was built in 1996.

Note that I said that for me nuclear became safe "sometime in the 1990's".

QED #2.

Nuclear power was a good choice in 1978, and it it a good choice in 2008. What is different is that now you admit it. What is also different is that processes and procedures, as usual in human enceavors, improve or adjust.

No, I still maintain that in 1978 nuclear was not safe, and not even safe enough. It was not safe enough until the processes improved. Removal of the need for human intervention was my threshold. Maybe you have a different threshold. Maybe you trust human intervention, but sorry, I don't. Fine, call me "emotional", but I do notice that in the accidents that do happen "human factors" play a huge role.

Note also that since I am no nuclear physicist/engineer, I get my news about nuclear issues from Scientific American (and the occasional article elsewhere). So, it's not surprising that my opinion on nuclear issues is based on what SciAm presents. If they are presenting a biased viewpoint, they will get called on it; or maybe you can email them about their web material.

Maybe they described generation III technology before 1990, but until they said "the technology is here and works" I was opposed.

I am interested in Pete's view that there is evidently no difference between a generation II and a generation III.

-V

[Vandiablo]

We have two threads converging, I would just like to cross-post this from Quark:

Let's not forget many scientists involved during the TMI accident were arguing with each other over whether or not there could actually be an explosion, and how to respond in such a scenario - and the error of those who thought it was going to explode (and were willing to take a bad action because of this thought) was a simple arithmetic error.

I'm a proponent for nuclear power, but I'd argue the only thing we should consider "safe enough" for new power are those that are passively safe - in the event on an accident or problem the reaction naturally slows down rather than speeding up, without any intervention. As far as I'm seeing, there's not a single passively safe reactor in the US that's yet active.

[Occhidiangela]

Flatulence will get you nowhere. . . except maybe get you a private elevator.
Let me show you something. . . * . . . (credit Kurt Vonnegut).

I will now appear to completely show what Pete is talking about...

...but only if the staff of Scientific American is considered to not have a scientific education. (I will accept the possibility.)

So here goes:

Look at this "fart of reason" from Scientific American:
Note the part that "not requiring operators to intervene" for generation III.

Note that the first generation III was built in 1996.

Note that I said that for me nuclear became safe "sometime in the 1990's".

QED #2.
No, I still maintain that in 1978 nuclear was not safe,

To prove nothing but wifful ignorance by repitition does not change the ignorance, nor make it less willful. Your post hoc establishment of "no humans" criterion is irrelevant, and also flies in the face of how many years of American, French, and British safe use of nuclear energy for power plants?

You ought to know better. The "don't need a human" is hardly the sole, or even necessary, criterion for the safe harnessing of fission for useful ends.

Or maybe the entire nuclear energy industry, global, is wrong.

Please explain to me why the North Anna plant in Virginia didn't explode and destroy counties in it's radius, seeing as how it was built before 1996.

Rickover wept.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Note the part that "not requiring operators to intervene" for generation III.

Note that the first generation III was built in 1996.

Note that I said that for me nuclear became safe "sometime in the 1990's".

QED #2.
No, I still maintain that in 1978 nuclear was not safe, and not even safe enough. It was not safe enough until the processes improved. Removal of the need for human intervention was my threshold.

Then you are changing the game. Do you not fly because aircraft are piloted? Do you not ride busses, trains, etc. because there is a human at the controls? All these systems, and many others, have multiple failure modes, and in many cases it is precisely because there is a human in the loop that the effects of a failure are mitigated. The presence (or absence) of a human is but one of many design factors that has an impact on safety.

But it goes further than that. The failure mode does matter, but not necessarily as a safety issue. Something that fails by shutting itself down and something that fails by melting into a containment vessel can be equally safe. The repercussions may be different. In one case, it may just take a 'reboot' to get the system functioning, while in the other, you might have an expensive, useless, landmark. But, if in both cases no-one is endangered, then I claim the two are equally safe.

Finally, note that the article you do quote does not support your viewpoint (nor does it oppose it). It does not say that third generation reactors are safer, but only that they incorporate passive safety. It is your interpretation that this makes them safer.

Note also that since I am no nuclear physicist/engineer, I get my news about nuclear issues from Scientific American (and the occasional article elsewhere). So, it's not surprising that my opinion on nuclear issues is based on what SciAm presents. If they are presenting a biased viewpoint, they will get called on it; or maybe you can email them about their web material.

As you've shown, the information presented is filtered through your perception. The result of this process is the position you take. We all do that. It's easy enough, you simply equate 'human control' with 'unsafe' or 'automated' with 'safe' and you've made your argument. My rebuttal is that automated systems fail all the time, in ways that the designers didn't foresee, and they don't have the flexibility of a human to compensate. Given the same information you have, but filtering it through my perceptions, I arrive at a position diametrically opposed to yours.

I am interested in Pete's view that there is evidently no difference between a generation II and a generation III.

There are many differences -- the question is one of safety. I think, based on the arguments I've outlined, that it is not clear which is safer. But, based on the designs, the safety analysis, and the track record, I'd venture that either generation is safe enough. Of course, the whole partitioning into the four generations is a vast oversimplification. What the authors call second generation encompasses over two dozen different designs (depending on how significant a difference one is looking for). The inherent safety of these designs spans a large spectrum.

--Pete

[Vandiablo]

Thanks, Pete, for the time and thought you put into your reply.

Since you have never lead me astray so far, I will read and re-read your post several times in the next few days (I really need to get on my homework!). And happily for all those involved I will stop harping on the issue until I reconcile my high regard for your opinions with the fact some of them differ from mine.

Hope you and -M- are doing well.

I hope to see you all in a few days -- meaning I hope I will stop coming here instead of doing what I should be doing.

-V

[Jim]

Hi,

"Back to the topic, please." Yes this happens all to often. :(

Now for an Update: I tried to find a link to Associated Press for this story, where does AP hide their Stories ???

Texas officials say more than half of teen girls at polygamist sect have been pregnant .
04-28-2008 By MICHELLE ROBERTS | Associated Press Writer

31 of 53 teen girls at FLDS ranch are pregnant or had baby...Plus Video

SAN ANTONIO (Associated Press) -- More than half the teen girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday.

A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. Two of those are pregnant now, he said; it was unclear whether either of those two already have children.

"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said.

Dammit, this thread was fun to read until the last 15-20 posts or so. Decent debating overall, addressing of issues instead of the posters, etc. Now, a bunch of you need your hand slapped.

Can we get back to the original subject, or shall the hand-waving between "Eurotrash" vs "Redneck" concepts, which basically amounts to name-calling of stereotypes, keep going until I close the thread? Don't make me go all Rodney King on your butts. I don't expect everyone to get along with the vastly different world views that exist around here, but this is getting petty.

Back to the topic, please.

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

Hi,

"Back to the topic, please." Yes this happens all to often. :(

Now for an Update: I tried to find a link to Associated Press for this story, where does AP hide their Stories ???

So this tells us that of the 463 children taken away from their parents by Texas, 31 of them are considered by officials to have been abused, and 432 of them are considered when female, to be potentially abused in the future, or if male, brainwashed into being abusers in the future.

[Jim]

Hi,

In regards to the Children that are Not Underaged things seem to get complicated in this Case. I'm no expert in these matters so I can Not offer anything but an Opinion. I do believe that anyday we will learn the Boys in this case were also sexually abused, this is a perfect set-up for Pedophile's [An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.]

kandrathe said: "but it's outrageous to me that these families are all attacked and Texas is seeking to make all 416 children wards of the State."

This is goes beyond the Religion of Polygamy, it is a Cult which means Members are Mind Controled. in everything they do & think. For this reason ALL the Children NEED to be Protected till this is Sorted out, there is No way to Pick & Choose.

LAW: Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law.

FACT: Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

So this tells us that of the 463 children taken away from their parents by Texas, 31 of them are considered by officials to have been abused, and 432 of them are considered when female, to be potentially abused in the future, or if male, brainwashed into being abusers in the future.

Edit: Change I will believe...to...I do Believe

[eppie]

31 of them are considered by officials to have been abused

No this is not what it said. 31 of the 53 girls in the ages between 14 and 17 were or have been pregnant. All of them could have been abused just as the ones below the age of 14 and as Jim points out the boys as well. And we didn't even count the over 18's that were abused when they were younger (and still are)

Even if this sect had a 31 out of 463 abusal rate (~7%) it would be enough reason to remove all of the children. However far likely the abusal rates are much higher.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . the Children that are Not Underaged . . .

And there, in a nutshell, you've got the essence of thinking that is wrong about this whole affair.

IF THEY AREN'T UNDER-AGED, THEY AREN'T CHILDREN. DAMNIT!

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In regards to the Children that are Not Under aged things seem to get complicated in this Case. I'm no expert in these matters so I can Not offer anything but an Opinion. I will believe that any day we will learn the Boys in this case were also sexually abused, this is a perfect set-up for Pedophiles.

That may be, but then there needs to be evidence of a crime and suspects who are arrested. My opinion is that this is a splinter sect of the LDS that has existed in this form since the days of Brigham Young, and are as extreme in their rejection of the modern culture as are the Amish, Mennonites, and others.

This seems to be a case of mass presumed guilt, and a hunt for evidence post fact. There is supposed to be an inside informant here right? Wouldn't the State normally build the case first based upon the informants affidavit, sweep in to the compound and present a multi-count indictment against the guilty parties, arrest them, and then work with the women and children who would then require protection(and you might discover additional crimes at that point)? That would seem to be the normal progression if this were done in a normal respectful legal manner. The evidence here seems to be 31 (now I'm not sure about the 31 number) young girls between 14 and 17 who have been or are pregnant, and probably at least one case of physical abuse from the report of the girl who had broken ribs. This has justified Texas to seize all the children from this sect without filing any charges yet against any adult, although DNA testing to establish paternity will probably result in some facts regarding whose progeny belong to whom. There are also TWO sides to this story; Just found this article; FLDS attorney challenges Texas count of pregnant minors from polygamous sect.

In a related story, Colorado Springs woman investigated for false San Angelo FLDS abuse tip.

This is goes beyond the Religion of Polygamy, it is a Cult which means Members are Mind Controlled. in everything they do & think. For this reason ALL the Children NEED to be Protected till this is Sorted out, there is No way to Pick & Choose.

This is the Texas position on the matter as well, which is that it is an attack on the beliefs of the sect, and not a move to just protect children. It might also be that the smoke screen of protecting the children is being used to allow the majority to enforce its belief system upon this minority. As wacko as we may think their beliefs to be, I believe it to be wrong to deny them equal protection by attacking the sects religious beliefs by wielding child protection laws which by their nature are broad and meant to destroy abusive homes. What would be the repercussions of being straight up then, and coming out to say "We believe that FLDS beliefs are incompatible with a free state and for that reason we are disallowing this sect to continue."?

I was reflecting this week during my long commute times on the nature of our majority society where young girls are sexualized by the culture (tv, movies, magazines e.g Vanity Fair) as early as aged eleven, and teen pregnancy prevention is recommended as early as middle school (7th grade). We don't seem to care that fourteen year old girls and younger are getting pregnant at alarmingly high rates, as long as the girls are able to choose for themselves and copulate with other equally confused and sexualized young boys. The crime in our majority society is when an adult (usually over 21) copulates with what we determine to be still a child which is usually 17, but in some states is as old as 21. While unusual in that they are child celebrities I would point to the transitions of seemingly innocent Disney prodigies as more common examples of how sick our culture transitions young girls into young women. Is there anything to be proud of in our majority culture for how youth, male or female, are graduated into adulthood?

In this Texas case, young women are socialized by their religion to accept arranged marriage at fourteen and it is not considered unusual for a young women to be married off as soon as she is fertile and to produce offspring soon thereafter. I can only deduce then that what we in the common culture object to is not the fourteen year old pregnancy as we are wading in a culture of sexualized adolescents, it is that the young girl who we deem a child is given to an older man as his bound wife, which then becomes the lack of freedom that the young women and young men experience in the sect to choose their own mates. If it is the sects repression and lack of freedom we object to, then let's be honest about what this is all about, "liberation" to be like us.

LAW: Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law.

So, a clarifying point on this. When did this law go into effect? My understanding is that it was recently. Prior to that change in the law, the age was 14 with parental consent. So of the 31 young women who were pregnant, some may have been considered legal to marry by the State, even though no State sanctioned marriages occur in this sect at all. They don't apply for marriage licenses, even for their adults.

FACT: Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

No argument here. It is just the article uses what I would call a "lie by statistics" to make 31/53 seem bad because its almost half, while 31/426 seems not as bad. Is a three year old boy or girl at risk? How? Is a 13-18 year old boy at risk? How? The answer I've heard is that they are "brain washed" or "mind controlled" which begs the question on which "beliefs" are deemed acceptable, and which ones not and by whom? Is this something you want your government enforcing? Step back to the days of McCarthy. What if the State deemed communist thoughts bad, and removed all children from the evil influence of suspected Marxists?

[kandrathe]

No this is not what it said. 31 of the 53 girls in the ages between 14 and 17 were or have been pregnant. All of them could have been abused just as the ones below the age of 14 and as Jim points out the boys as well. And we didn't even count the over 18's that were abused when they were younger (and still are)

Even if this sect had a 31 out of 463 abusal rate (~7%) it would be enough reason to remove all of the children. However far likely the abusal rates are much higher.

And, I will refer back to my earlier questions about tolerance for sexual abuse in other communities.

"It is estimated that one in every four girls (~25%) and one in every seven boys(~17%) will be a victims of sexual abuse in Indian Country." IHS -- Child Abuse Project This does not count the VERY high incidence of child physical abuse, and domestic violence brought about by VERY high drug and alcohol abuse.

Should the government sweep into the reservations and round up all the children to be safely farmed out to "safe" homes? The answer is no. It is no because being a Native American does not mean you have a 25% chance of being a child abuser, just like being a member of FLDS does not automatically mean you are a child abuser either.

Evidence of abuse (physical or sexual) should be prosecuted, both on the reservation and at the FLDS ranch.

Edit: Another example for you, which hits close to home here in Minneapolis in that we are a refuge for a large number of Hmong; "She points out that in the United States, the average age for a Hmong cultural marriage is 15 to 16 years old. In Laos, Hmong women marry as young as 12 years old and as old as 18. Like herself, Mary said many of her friends were culturally married and pregnant as teenagers. In the Hmong cultural context, Mary had a traditional pregnancy; however, in an American context, she stands as one of the estimated 1 million U.S. teens who gets pregnant each year."AsianWeek.com -- Teen Pregnancy a Tradition

[Jim]

Hi,

How dare you yell at me, I'm Old enough to be your OLDER BROTHER by at least 1 year :P

IF THEY AREN'T UNDER-AGED, THEY AREN'T CHILDREN. DAMNIT!
--Pete

Sorry for any confusion...the Not Under-Aged I was referring to are the CHILDREN from Birth to 13 years of Age. Since 14 to 17 years of age seems to be the Taget age in this case.

FACT: Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

Jim Said:

In regards to the Children that are Not Underaged things seem to get complicated in this Case.

I'm no expert in these matters so I can Not offer anything but an Opinion. I do believe that anyday we will learn the Boys in this case were also sexually abused, this is a perfect set-up for Pedophile's [An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.]

[kandrathe]

Hi,

How dare you yell at me, I'm Old enough to be your OLDER BROTHER by at least 1 year :P
Sorry for any confusion...the Not Under-Aged I was referring to are the CHILDREN from Birth to 13 years of Age. Since 14 to 17 years of age seems to be the Taget age in this case.

FACT: Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

Just to clarify, from what I can tell from the FLDS lawyers counter claims, there are a number of young women who are claiming to be minors to be able to remain with their babies. There may be 40 or more "children" being held that are actually adults, that is, they are now over 18 years of age. So, it might be likely that the 14-17 age range is likely statistically the same male and female since it is for zero to thirteen. In that case, statistically speaking, it is likely that there are about 15-20 girls aged 14 to 17, and the other 10 to 15 are allowing themselves to counted as children for the ulterior motive of remaining with their babies. It was also noted that 20 of the girls aged 14-17 might have been counted by the state twice which makes the 31 of 53 a meaningless number as we don't know if the numerator or denominator or both are wrong and by how much. It might be 11/33 or just the one or few as the FLDS lawyer proposed. What is usually not stated in most news accounts is that of the 31 mothers cited, 26 claim to be over 18 but CPS does not believe them.

Everyone in Texas (Occhi excepted:)) seems to be very confused, and in general I see "truth" and "evidence" in short supply, while passioned testimony and opinion is in great supply.

[eppie]

Should the government sweep into the reservations and round up all the children to be safely farmed out to "safe" homes? The answer is no. It is no because being a Native American does not mean you have a 25% chance of being a child abuser, just like being a member of FLDS does not automatically mean you are a child abuser either.

As I stated before in this thread the problem here is that this cult forces these children to have sex at that age. It is a society based on huge inequality.
Teen pregnancy in general is a problem but it is not criminal normally like in this case it probably, right so, is.

We are also against societies where women are forced to wear Burqa's even though if some American woman wishes to wear such a thing she has the right to do so, that is her freedom and we will respect that. It is what is behind the things we see that was the reason to take these children away from their parents.

[Jim]

Hi,

Sorry kandrathe, I will Not debate you on this subject, YOU made your mind up in your original post #1. You say don't support the Practices and Doctrine of the FLDS and You do not Support the Law in this matter. Answer one Question for me.

How many Children Need to be Abused before You would take action??? ONE is enough for me and Please don't give me the "Innocent till Proven Guilty" premise...Children do NOT have the time for lengthy court trials to Protect them from Abusive Adults under the cloak of Polygamy.

Best Regards,
Jim

[--Pete]

Hi,

How many Children Need to be Abused before You would take action???

It is exactly this type of sentimental, illogical crap that allows the tyrants to win and our rights to be pissed away. Last night, I'm sure, at least one child was abused in New York City. In your stated opinion, that's sufficient justification for the NYPD to break down every door they want to, seize anything they want to, kidnap anyone they want to, and if nothing turns up, why then they were 'protecting a child' and that makes it all right.

You want me to stop yelling at you? Then quit making stupid statements. And quit wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
It is exactly this type of sentimental, illogical crap that allows the tyrants to win and our rights to be pissed away. Last night, I'm sure, at least one child was abused in New York City. In your stated opinion, that's sufficient justification for the NYPD to break down every door they want to, seize anything they want to, kidnap anyone they want to, and if nothing turns up, why then they were 'protecting a child' and that makes it all right.

You want me to stop yelling at you? Then quit making stupid statements. And quit wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights.

--Pete

Pete, you are just on purpose not understanding Jim for the sake of argument now. Abuse in a cult that happens according to the 'laws' of this cult is something completely different than an individual case of abuse in a city like NY. Jim pointed at this and he is right to say that by removing the children from this cult very very likely a lot of abuse has been prevented. In a case like this you don't want to start number juggling.
Breaking down every door in NY city will do more harm than it will do good. Because you are right in that sense that we have our civil rights so we don't do these kind of actions. The case we are discussing about now is completely different though.