Discussions

The economic sanctions are largely milquetoast in light of the fact that Russia’s main export is oil and gas sales – it is the third-largest producer in the world.  The US buys 500k barrels from them per day, and Europe gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia (50% for Germany).  You’ll note that no one is proposing stopping this, particularly Germany, which relies on that gas due to them shutting down their nuclear reactors.  Even if they did, it would simply result in the west purchasing more of these resources from the Saudis.  In such a case, China would most likely pick up the slack for Russian demand since their leadership has tacitly supported this invasion (China is Russia’s largest trading partner already).  China, Russia, and their allies also have their own alternative to SWIFT in place, lessening the consequences of booting them from that.  I wouldn’t expect any of this stuff to get Russia to back off.  In fact, it may provoke them further.  Rats mostly leave you alone until you corner them, and then, look out.  And these rats are heavily armed.   Finally, as a general note, take all corporate media coverage of this conflict with a grain of salt.  We don’t really know what’s going on there, and there is a lot of propaganda, as well as a natural instinct to root for the underdog, coloring the coverage.  The term “fog of war” exists for a reason.  I think we in the west have become complacent that other countries will “fall” as easily as Iraq or Afghanistan (not that those had good endings for us, either), which may be leading to 99% of the DC establishment openly advocating for provoking Russia further.  This is becoming suicidal.  

Nuclear power is far less dangerous than any other method of generation. A good metric for the danger of an energy source is deaths per terawatt hour. Here are the stats, according to Our World in Data: Coal:30; Oil: 18.4; Wind: 0.035; Hydro: 0.024; Nuclear: 0.01-0.074. Nuclear doesn’t seem dangerous at all. In fact, by many estimates, rooftop solar panels kill significantly more people per TWh (terawatt-hour) than nuclear, because roof installations are so perilous. Approximately the same number of people die in mining and drilling operations EVERY YEAR than have EVER died from nuclear power, with 80% of all nuclear power deaths resulting from one incident – Chernobyl. The waste issue is also overblown.  Reactors don’t just spit out waste willy-nilly, ala those barrels of glowing ooze on The Simpsons (which were mostly produced in weapons construction or science experiments, not in commercial power generation).  They produce spent fuel rods, which are removed from the reactor and stored in heavy duty concrete barrels.  All the spent fuel rods ever created in the US would barely fill one football field.  We also have the technology to reuse these rods rather than store them, since they retain something like 90% of their energy even when “spent”.  Other countries, like France, already do this.  We don’t, because of misguided politics.  We are not going to get out of this mess via renewable sources.  All the rivers have already been damned.  Solar and wind are not reliable sources of baseline “always on” power that everyone depends on.   Opposing nuclear means either resorting to more fossil fuels (hence the rapid growth of gas turbines as nuclear plants are shuttered), or some fantasy low-energy future that will never happen, particularly with the high volume of people migrating from low-use third-world cultures to high-use western cultures.  

Thanks Cia.  I would add to this that the vaccines themselves are not without risk, and can cause things like myocarditis, encephalitis, and death.  Without going too far down the rabbit hole, over 4800 deaths have been reported to the VAERS system, along with far, far more non-deadly side effects.  VAERS is notorious for only capturing a very small percentage of these effects.  Of course correlation != causation, which is basically the excuse they’re running with to explain these numbers.  I’m sure they’re all just a coincidence.   https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html Per that link, the CDC is admittedly monitoring increased VAERS reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults after the MRNA vaccines, for example, so obviously they take VAERS reports seriously even while talking out of both sides of their mouth.     Not even Pfizer (which is profit-motivated) is claiming Covid is a significant risk to children, they’re using the excuse that it helps stop transmission: Although data shows that severe #COVID19 is rare in children, widespread vaccination is a critical tool to help stop transmission. That’s why I’m excited we have begun dosing participants aged 5 to 11 in a global Phase 2/3 study of the Pfizer-BioNTech #COVID19 vaccine. — Albert Bourla (@AlbertBourla) June 8, 2021 The CDC reports a grand total of 309 deaths in the 1-17 age group since this pandemic began: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm The risk to healthy young children for Covid is infinitesimal, why purposely gamble with the side effects of the vaccine? The purpose of a vaccine is not only to be effective, but also safe.  Everyone should weigh the pros and cons of getting one.  If you’re in a high risk group, absolutely, go for it.  The risks of Covid outweigh the risk of the vaccine.  If you’re not in a high risk group, particularly young people, the risk of the vaccine is far higher than the disease itself.   It just amazes me that people are told to consult with their doctors before taking fish oil supplements or starting an exercise program, but these vaccines, which are not FDA approved, are given out for free at baseball games.   Disclaimer: I got the J&J shot myself back in April.  No problems.  Highly recommend that one if you’re in the market.  


Load more...
Adapting BOBs for family use
9
11
Favorite Prepper YouTube channels?
10
15

The economic sanctions are largely milquetoast in light of the fact that Russia’s main export is oil and gas sales – it is the third-largest producer in the world.  The US buys 500k barrels from them per day, and Europe gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia (50% for Germany).  You’ll note that no one is proposing stopping this, particularly Germany, which relies on that gas due to them shutting down their nuclear reactors.  Even if they did, it would simply result in the west purchasing more of these resources from the Saudis.  In such a case, China would most likely pick up the slack for Russian demand since their leadership has tacitly supported this invasion (China is Russia’s largest trading partner already).  China, Russia, and their allies also have their own alternative to SWIFT in place, lessening the consequences of booting them from that.  I wouldn’t expect any of this stuff to get Russia to back off.  In fact, it may provoke them further.  Rats mostly leave you alone until you corner them, and then, look out.  And these rats are heavily armed.   Finally, as a general note, take all corporate media coverage of this conflict with a grain of salt.  We don’t really know what’s going on there, and there is a lot of propaganda, as well as a natural instinct to root for the underdog, coloring the coverage.  The term “fog of war” exists for a reason.  I think we in the west have become complacent that other countries will “fall” as easily as Iraq or Afghanistan (not that those had good endings for us, either), which may be leading to 99% of the DC establishment openly advocating for provoking Russia further.  This is becoming suicidal.  

Nuclear power is far less dangerous than any other method of generation. A good metric for the danger of an energy source is deaths per terawatt hour. Here are the stats, according to Our World in Data: Coal:30; Oil: 18.4; Wind: 0.035; Hydro: 0.024; Nuclear: 0.01-0.074. Nuclear doesn’t seem dangerous at all. In fact, by many estimates, rooftop solar panels kill significantly more people per TWh (terawatt-hour) than nuclear, because roof installations are so perilous. Approximately the same number of people die in mining and drilling operations EVERY YEAR than have EVER died from nuclear power, with 80% of all nuclear power deaths resulting from one incident – Chernobyl. The waste issue is also overblown.  Reactors don’t just spit out waste willy-nilly, ala those barrels of glowing ooze on The Simpsons (which were mostly produced in weapons construction or science experiments, not in commercial power generation).  They produce spent fuel rods, which are removed from the reactor and stored in heavy duty concrete barrels.  All the spent fuel rods ever created in the US would barely fill one football field.  We also have the technology to reuse these rods rather than store them, since they retain something like 90% of their energy even when “spent”.  Other countries, like France, already do this.  We don’t, because of misguided politics.  We are not going to get out of this mess via renewable sources.  All the rivers have already been damned.  Solar and wind are not reliable sources of baseline “always on” power that everyone depends on.   Opposing nuclear means either resorting to more fossil fuels (hence the rapid growth of gas turbines as nuclear plants are shuttered), or some fantasy low-energy future that will never happen, particularly with the high volume of people migrating from low-use third-world cultures to high-use western cultures.  

Thanks Cia.  I would add to this that the vaccines themselves are not without risk, and can cause things like myocarditis, encephalitis, and death.  Without going too far down the rabbit hole, over 4800 deaths have been reported to the VAERS system, along with far, far more non-deadly side effects.  VAERS is notorious for only capturing a very small percentage of these effects.  Of course correlation != causation, which is basically the excuse they’re running with to explain these numbers.  I’m sure they’re all just a coincidence.   https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html Per that link, the CDC is admittedly monitoring increased VAERS reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents and young adults after the MRNA vaccines, for example, so obviously they take VAERS reports seriously even while talking out of both sides of their mouth.     Not even Pfizer (which is profit-motivated) is claiming Covid is a significant risk to children, they’re using the excuse that it helps stop transmission: Although data shows that severe #COVID19 is rare in children, widespread vaccination is a critical tool to help stop transmission. That’s why I’m excited we have begun dosing participants aged 5 to 11 in a global Phase 2/3 study of the Pfizer-BioNTech #COVID19 vaccine. — Albert Bourla (@AlbertBourla) June 8, 2021 The CDC reports a grand total of 309 deaths in the 1-17 age group since this pandemic began: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm The risk to healthy young children for Covid is infinitesimal, why purposely gamble with the side effects of the vaccine? The purpose of a vaccine is not only to be effective, but also safe.  Everyone should weigh the pros and cons of getting one.  If you’re in a high risk group, absolutely, go for it.  The risks of Covid outweigh the risk of the vaccine.  If you’re not in a high risk group, particularly young people, the risk of the vaccine is far higher than the disease itself.   It just amazes me that people are told to consult with their doctors before taking fish oil supplements or starting an exercise program, but these vaccines, which are not FDA approved, are given out for free at baseball games.   Disclaimer: I got the J&J shot myself back in April.  No problems.  Highly recommend that one if you’re in the market.  


Load more...