Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Carter has died

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 879 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#791

Post by kbutler »

epistasis wrote: post #696
kbutler wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that this will convince anyone currently attempting to rewrite this out of history (or determined to believe those who rewrite history), but the media panic, reporting on the scientific discussion, was much broader than that. The scientific studies and opinions varied - it was not one-sided, but the "ice age" predictions were much more marketable, at least. 5 minutes of checking found three issues of Time, one fr…

It appears that you are the one attempting to rewrite, the claim is that both cooling and warming were reported on in mass media, not that just one was. One can't search for this stuff without coming across lots of both warming and cooling articles. And one finds tons of intentional deception pushing cooling articles. Here's a Reuters article calling out one bit of misinformation pushing cooling articles that were no…

> It appears that you are the one attempting to rewrite, the claim is that both cooling and warming were reported on in mass media,

I posted several headlines and links in mass & scientific media promoting the global cooling belief, which corresponds to my recollection of the dominant media.

I recognize my recollection may be flawed. If you have evidence to that effect, please post a similar collection from the time period promoting global warming belief to support your assertion.

My personal belief is that the media over-hypes scientific findings and under-reports uncertainties. We see this today in global warming coverage, as we saw it (or at least, as I recall it) in the 1970s global cooling coverage.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#792

Post by zizee »

worik wrote: post #463
zizee wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous. The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively shor…

> Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. That is a strange statement. There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know) We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years. Those are technical problems. The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption

Vitrification of the waste (mixing it into and storage deep underground provides a safe way to store waste for 1000s of years.

> There is no place in the world geologically stable for the required period (we have no way to know)

This can be said of anything, which is IMO a defeatist attitude. Nothing we do is guaranteed to not cause harm. Likewise, our inaction could also cause harm.

For the specific question of stable geology, past performance can help predict future performance. We can make educated guesses. If it has been stable for the last million years, it's a good be it will be stable for the next 10,000.

> We have no way to communicate with people about the dangers for over 100_000 years.

The need to communicate the dangers over vast timeframes presupposes that society has fallen into ruin, and our record keeping has been destroyed. I will argue that if that has happened, it means countless billions will have perished, and people+or lizardmen) living primitive lifestyles will have far bigger worries than and increased cancer risk.

> The political impetus is to get future generations to pay for our current consumption

We are paying for our current consumption of fossil fuels right now. How many deaths from climate change over the next 200 years are appropriate to ensure the safety of an unknown number of people thousands of years from now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#793

Post by zizee »

taurath wrote: post #408
zizee wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering. There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous. The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively shor…

Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.

It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term).

Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk.

The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power had have had continued investment into engineering improvements, the world would be in a much better place WRT climate change.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#794

Post by karmakurtisaani »

mhb wrote: post #789
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is written like a proper propaganda piece. Not like you'd expect anything else on this topic.

It's his blog and his opinion. His opinion is based on the references he cites. What else is expected?

Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence.

Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#795

Post by mhb »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #794
mhb wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's his blog and his opinion. His opinion is based on the references he cites. What else is expected?

Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence. Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/mid…

Citing the Times as some sort of impartial arbiter of what's going on in the Middle East is laughable.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#796

Post by karmakurtisaani »

mhb wrote: post #795
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence. Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/mid…

Citing the Times as some sort of impartial arbiter of what's going on in the Middle East is laughable.

So random blog posts are then?

Edit: anyway, I've seen this discussion a million times. Not interested in engaging further.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#797

Post by scaramanga »

metabagel wrote: post #200
tomohawk wrote: post #66

As president, Carter gave the green light for Doo-hwan Chun to use force against the pro-democracy protests in Gwangju, S Korea. Later, sent to N Korea by president Clinton, he massively exceeded his authority and made a sweetheart deal that guaranteed N Korea would eventually build nukes. President Clinton found out about the deal on CNN with everyone else and never used Carter again. He also sandbagged president Re…

None of that happened.

Yeah the gwangju massacre definitely happened, and he definitely authorized it because the troops who did it were under the command of John Adams Wickham.

The agreed framework would have prevented North Korean nukes, had the US actually honoured it. Instead bush tore it up when he came in to office, and then John Bolton fabricated the aluminium tubes hoax to justify it, which was later wheeled out to justify the Iraq war. Then they put north korea on the axis of evil so as to have a single non-muslim state there. All of that, but mostly the Iraq war is what led north korea to develop nukes.

And yeah, the deal was "no nukes (they shut down their nuclear reactor for 12 years unilaterally as a show of good faith) AND no long or medium range ballistic missiles in exchange for $1Bn and fuel oil for heating." Good luck getting that deal now :)

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#798

Post by siltcakes »

edanm wrote: post #758
siltcakes wrote: post #753

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not accurate to say that his views are not represented by mainstream Israeli citizens. Most Israelis think the attack on Gaza has either been justified or not gone far enough! Israeli leadership very much represents the views of the majority in Israel (and Zionists outside of Israel). https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/israeli-views-...

I was referring to his views on annexing Gaza, the West Bank or other views. You're asking a different question. In addition, that survey is from half a year ago. Surveys today show a majority of Israelis wanting a ceasefire-for-hostages deal.

I’ve not seen results that sound anything like that. Do you have a link to support your claim?

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#799

Post by tekknik »

wistlo wrote: post #231

"A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people,” Mr. Carter said. Reagan removed the panels in 1986." All you need to know about the respective legacies of Carter and Reagan.

Let’s not forget the $5 gallon gas in the 70’s, 22% mortgage rates and the reason (these) Reagan was elected to fix it.

Re: Jimmy Carter has died

#800

Post by bb88 »

zizee wrote: post #793
taurath wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radiation and long term consequences of radioactive contamination is very specifically terrifying to the general public because you can neither see nor feel it happening and the consequences may not happen until much later. Both of those effects create an outsized defensive response that is not irrational at all but just most people are unable to modulate their perceptions of the size of threats like that.

It's not irrational, but it's a similar concern to things like lead poisoning (similar because you cannot see it, and the effects are long term). Like with any risk, there should be appropriate and proportional risk mitigation strategies put in place. Current strategies are outsized compared to the risk. The anti-nuclear environmental movement will go down in history as one of the biggest own goals. If nuclear power…

What's super interesting along this line of thought are the events that happened in Flint, Michigan circa 2014 when the local government (who were unelected emergency managers) decided to switch the water source of Flint. This water reacted with the lead pipes causing lead levels to spike in the water supply.

It's not the outsized risk of lead levels people are necessarily worried about. It's the outsized risk of some health risk that gets covered up, lied about, or dismissed by those in charge. There appears to be a high correlation between nuclear accidents and government and political coverups.

Post reply on HN