One other bit from the recent Rasmussen results caught my eye:
More than twice as many likely McCain voters (73%) like his idea of building more nuclear plants versus 35% of potential Obama voters. Similarly, 72% of men favor building more plants as opposed to only 40% of women. More women (43%) are against the idea.
Discuss.
(Preemptive note I wish I didn't feel was necessary: troglodyte misogynists who leave troglodytic misogynist comments will be not-very-gently warned once and subsequently banned from the site.)
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?
Comments
View as Flat
dwalters Posted 9:34 am
14 Aug 2008
Having said, that, I'm part of that 70+% male majority that supports nuclear energy. Of course more and more people are switching over to pro-nuclear positions all the time, even in my state of California.
David
Permalink
Penfold007 Posted 9:53 am
14 Aug 2008
(Actually, white men have been shown to find all manner of things less risky then women and minorities. It's called the "white male effect" in sociology, and it is well established though the reasons for it aren't completely understood: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=995634 ...)
Permalink
ipsofacto Posted 12:45 pm
14 Aug 2008
Now the fact that this is not true is immaterial. The fact that it's true for men IN POWER is what matters. Please note that waste removal is done by men of low status in municipalities or by women, in the home with the most grotesque waste products -- diapers. The men who removed trash in the 60's in the south were so mistreated in their jobs that one of them was literally munched and killed in his trash truck before a strike shut down the trash collection services.
Men like nuclear power because they have the psychological gift of compartmentalization. "Other" people take care of the waste disposal, therefore waste is not a real, pressing problem.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 12:55 pm
14 Aug 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:30 pm
14 Aug 2008
Ovaries.
They don't want kids with nine ears.
I understand.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:01 pm
14 Aug 2008
Nuclear contamination increases genetic disease at a frightening rate, according to Helen Caldicott.
Testosterone tends to make men cheap (in dangerous jobs like those dealing with nuclear contamination) labor and voluntary cannon fodder, estrogen tends to make women take over more and more of the percentage of those attending colleges? Is that a sexist guess? Not sure.
But I guess the only way to settle it would be to ask women who oppose nuclear power. Since most women who used to comment here don't visit very often (due to troglodytic misogynist comments consistently overlooked?), that will probably not happen here. Which is VERY unfortunate.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:47 pm
14 Aug 2008
"Preemptive note I wish I didn't feel was necessary: troglodyte misogynists who leave troglodytic misogynist comments will be not-very-gently warned once and subsequently banned from the site."
And what of misogynists who are not troglodytes? Will they be warned as well.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:51 pm
14 Aug 2008
Try living ANYWHERE in the Middle East if you want to see a patriarchal society. The US is roughly equivalent to Germany in this area - a bastion of feminism if there ever was one.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 3:02 pm
14 Aug 2008
.... receive the same treatment?
Probably not - all too true.
Actually, as is evident from these comments already, it's not so much women who leave man-hating comments but what seem to be men who loathe their own gender.
That's silly, of course. As is abundantly clear by now, to the extent you empower them women are every bit as aggressive, greedy, and destructive as men.
Even feminists no longer bother trying to claim that if women ruled the world we'd have a peaceful, happy, holistic world.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:12 pm
14 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:40 pm
14 Aug 2008
They aren't up to speed as to what new nuclear would really cost. If they knew they wouldn't be willing to waste their tax dollars.
Goodness knows private money isn't going to build any more nuclear. Just as uber-right T. Boone.
That portion between 66.67% and 72%?
They work for the nuclear corporations.
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 4:05 pm
14 Aug 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:28 pm
14 Aug 2008
The general college student population is shifting towards more women and less men, I have heard that cited in the media. And found out anecdotally that some courses have a ratio of one man to 10 or 12 women.
Do men resent the discipline of higher education more than women? Maybe women don't feel the need to defend their ego to quite the extent that men do. When they are corrected by the authority figure, maybe they are more likely to note the event and move on?
The male ego is our weakest aspect, that has been my observation.
Men have a snap reaction to fight any perceived blow to their ego. I see young men skipping higher education out of simple pride, they hate being corrected.
Of course these are over simplistic generalizations. But do they point out a direction in which to find some explanation?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:21 pm
14 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 9:25 pm
14 Aug 2008
Roughly two thirds of all women are poorly informed.
They aren't up to speed as to what new nuclear would really cost. If they knew they wouldn't be willing to waste their tax dollars.
Goodness knows private money isn't going to build any more wind turbines. Just as uber-left Diane Feinstein doesn't put her personal money into them.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 10:52 pm
14 Aug 2008
Just wondering.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 11:00 pm
14 Aug 2008
Interesting observation.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:57 pm
14 Aug 2008
Just wondering.
Well, it's not "stereotypical male behavior", it's stereotypical power behavior.
My point was the same as Lord Acton's - "power corrupts". I would only qualify that by adding, temporal power within the context of big wealth and big structures.
So my answer is, while those who are naturally aggressive and destructive (of either gender) are likely to seek power if they have any aptitude, the real evil is the power itself, which is prone to corrupt even those who did start out in good faith.
(Your Gandhi was a rare exception.)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:19 am
15 Aug 2008
I noticed you didn't repeat "it" though.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:24 am
15 Aug 2008
Industry estimates (that's nuclear industry estimates, the people that build the stuff) state that new nuclear electricity would cost more that $0.14 per kWh.
Compare that to combined-cycle gas at approximately $0.10 per kWh.
And compare that to large wind farm at approximately $0.07 cents per kWh.
Would an informed person, of either gender, choose to pay twice as much for their electricity if given a choice?
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:18 am
15 Aug 2008
Also, the Navy, while admitting women into the nuclear power program (first starting in 1979 or thereabouts), still does not allow women to serve on submarines, which means that the place where a huge number of men gain nuclear operations experience is closed to women.
The 5% Project
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:38 am
15 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:05 am
15 Aug 2008
The whole sexual difference theme is pretty touchy. But even bad threads yield enlightenment.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
paz Posted 12:02 pm
17 Aug 2008
My position on nuclear power mirrors my position on GMOs -- they're potentially dangerous, let's just not screw around with it. Maybe women are more cautious about proliferation of technology with potentially disastrous consequences.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:58 pm
17 Aug 2008
That is, it doesn't require oil and the technology to do it is here right now.
I like nuclear, I also like Wind and Solar.
My point on the other post is, it is foolish to make sweeping statements about gender and this is usually done by those with another agenda on the table.
I despise feminists and I despise Misogynists. They are ideologues in one version or another. I have worked for some great women and I have worked for some terrible women. I have met some really bright women and I've met women who are morons. The whole "Mars and Venus" act has worn thin.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:02 am
18 Aug 2008
My position on nuclear power mirrors my position on GMOs -- they're potentially dangerous, let's just not screw around with it.
Teller-approved nuclear energy has already replaced 100 billion barrels of oil because engineers didn't screw around with it. "Let's not screw around with it" is an attempt at deceitful framing.
Nuclear power reactors of the types that are proposed to be built have proliferated to about 34 countries and the worst a government dependent can say about their dangers is that they are potential, while wind, solar, and wave energy are "promising".
That seems unintentionally fair! With wind energy, etc., the danger is not potential, but the denial of billions of dollars per week to the oil and gas interests is; with nuclear energy, it's the other way around.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:05 am
18 Aug 2008
The Green movement has always been reflexively against nuclear power for several reasons:
a. Greens tend to be pacifist, Nuclear power is associated psychologically and often in fact with nuclear weapons.
b. Greens are understandably concerned about accidents and the half life of radiation - that is, the potential for permanently debilitating damage to certain geographic areas.
c. Greens are really seeking societal change that goes beyond the ecology. Most Greens object fundamentally to modernization - although this wing has weakened much over time.
Oil and gas interests are not threatened by other forms of energy. Not in real terms. Fossil fuels are so efficient, that they will continue to find a market until they are essentially exhausted. Expect to see the oil and gas companies slowly transform themselves into energy companies. Remember, they want to continue to make money too.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:23 am
18 Aug 2008
Without Googling or otherwise doing any research, what ten-or-fewer words would best convey your present knowledge of the Alberta tar patch?
Similarly, what ten-or-fewer words sum up, for you right this moment, the McArthur River mine?
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:00 am
18 Aug 2008
Alberta Tar Patch - Can I use a little more than ten words? Significant potential convertable oil resources there the exploitation of which is somewhat controversial.
Why do you ask?
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:10 am
18 Aug 2008
The new colony will need to build a huge superconducting power grid to create a planetary magnetic field to keep the solar wind from blowing the new atmosphere off into space.
Plenty of work for them! Maybe they will leave us alone for a few centuries.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:54 am
18 Aug 2008
Alberta Tar Patch - Can I use a little more than ten words? Significant potential convertable oil resources there the exploitation of which is somewhat controversial.
Your second answer is pretty good. The only exception I would take is that the oil resources there are a million barrels per day, or if I recall more precisely 1.1 MB/d, beyond being merely potential.
At 1.575 thermal MWh per barrel of oil, the tar patch is giving a little over 70,000 thermal MW. Net of natural gas imports, at least 50,000 MW.
Why do you ask?
Because the McArthur River mine is also in northern Canada, and its uranium output last year amounted to 135,000 thermal MW. Net of the fossil fuels used to mine the stuff, that's 135,000 MW.
You haven't heard of it because, although it yields far more energy than the tar patch, and is the world's largest uranium mine, few people work there and it has essentially no environmental impact. That is why its product sells for 2 percent as much as oil does.
To the Canadian government, every dollar the McArthur River mine gets means a loss of tens of dollars in fossil fuel tax and royalty income.
Unless the uranium is exported, of course. But in that case, if the publically funded were ever minded to cooperate internationally, they might seek to hobble uranium mining in countries that export it as part of a backstop effort. Their main thrust would be in the importing countries, where they would very aggressively regulate the nuclear power industries so as to limit the rate at which governments' losses of fossil fuel income, due to those industries, would increase.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink