Which experts do we trust

[Marvin the Martian]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

 

[IUINSB]

Hard to trust any corp/politician since Citizens United.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

what the sheep don't grasp, is that both are watching the Wall St Network.

 

[T.M.P.]

what the sheep don't grasp, is that both are watching the Wall St Network.

Are you saying that the power structure of a capitalistic society is based on money and those with more money have more power? What's next ? Are you going to discover that water is in fact wet?

What if we went to a barter system? Nope the guy with the most shit to trade is still the most powerful. Or better yet convince everyone in the world, that should be easy, that nothing has "value" and ownership is unlawful so they can't use and horde things to create power.

Free everything! Don't even have to work for it. Hell, yea! I will be taking what used to be your car, since it's now everyone's car, for a drive next week.

Idealism is one thing, but practicality and understanding the system we live in and the general nature of things is far more realistic.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

You should recognize this:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.​

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.​

​

Of course the important word is “unwarranted”. the government obviously needs goods and services and it stands to reason that businesses will make money from providing those goods and services. In the case of Pfizer, my link shows how many Pfizer big wigs came from government service. President Biden’s vaccine mandate gives an “unwarranted“ nod to Pfizer by failing to even mention natural immunity which is more than a suitable substitute for a vaccine.

In Ike’s day, the concern was the burgeoning defense industries. That was then, this is now. The financial/ influence complexes are more, bigger, and wealthier. The areas around Washington D.C. are among the wealthiest in the United States. Nothing is produced except more power, more influence and more government. I think we have a problem. The problem is legalized corruption. our public officials become uber wealthy through public office and connections. Does it cause harm? Yeah. McChrystal and McMaster were well connected wise guys who were at ground zero of the mess in Afghanistan. In retrospect, the mistakes there were because of “unwarranted” military/industrial influence.

Ike didn’t overlook and predicted the massive corruption in academic research. The corruption applies to other academic endeavors as well:

​

In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.​

​

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.​

​

When I read these words, I see many problems facing higher Ed, the least of which is not the suppression of skepticism and ideas.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

I'd just note that you made a subtle shift here in your language--from corporations (GE, Pfizer) in the first paragraph to scientists in your question in the third. That's a HUGE difference.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'd just note that you made a subtle shift here in your language--from corporations (GE, Pfizer) in the first paragraph to scientists in your question in the third. That's a HUGE difference.

Both are elites however, and that is the reference. We can trust GE and nuclear engineers and defense contractors but not Pfizer, scientists, and, government workers. Why, what makes one group trustworthy? Why should one trust GE to build a powerplant a mile away but not Pfizer to make a vaccine?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You should recognize this:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.​

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.​

​

Of course the important word is “unwarranted”. the government obviously needs goods and services and it stands to reason that businesses will make money from providing those goods and services. In the case of Pfizer, my link shows how many Pfizer big wigs came from government service. President Biden’s vaccine mandate gives an “unwarranted“ nod to Pfizer by failing to even mention natural immunity which is more than a suitable substitute for a vaccine.

In Ike’s day, the concern was the burgeoning defense industries. That was then, this is now. The financial/ influence complexes are more, bigger, and wealthier. The areas around Washington D.C. are among the wealthiest in the United States. Nothing is produced except more power, more influence and more government. I think we have a problem. The problem is legalized corruption. our public officials become uber wealthy through public office and connections. Does it cause harm? Yeah. McChrystal and McMaster were well connected wise guys who were at ground zero of the mess in Afghanistan. In retrospect, the mistakes there were because of “unwarranted” military/industrial influence.

Ike didn’t overlook and predicted the massive corruption in academic research. The corruption applies to other academic endeavors as well:

​

In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.​

​

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.​

​

When I read these words, I see many problems facing higher Ed, the least of which is not the suppression of skepticism and ideas.

None of that answers the question, why would you trust a nuclear powerplant built by GE and inspected by the nuclear regulatory agency located a mile from you but are afraid of Pfizer's ties to the government and FDA approval. What is in the water GE execs drink that makes them automatically trusty.

As to Ike, he does mention the military industrial complex in that speech but seldom to I hear Republicans demand defense cuts. In fact, that was the one area Trump adamantly wanted expanded. What is in the water defense contractors drink that make them more trustworthy than Pfizer?

At no point in Ike's life were there hundreds of university computers per blackboard. Blackboards outnumbered computers when I went to IU. Not only that, computers serve a huge purpose. I do not understand why we want faculty working on paper. Maybe I see how the Russians passed us in the space race.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Both are elites however, and that is the reference. We can trust GE and nuclear engineers and defense contractors but not Pfizer, scientists, and, government workers. Why, what makes one group trustworthy? Why should one trust GE to build a powerplant a mile away but not Pfizer to make a vaccine?

I "trust" corporations to react to incentives. I don't "trust" them otherwise. I've handled too many cases against big corporations, and I've seen inside what incentives do to people to make them act in ways you wouldn't think most people would.

So for GE and Pfizer and defense contractors, you trust them to not screw things up because to do so would cost their shareholders a lot of money and then some executive their job. But the more lobbying power corporations have, the more they get away with their bad actions, and the less they are disincentivized to cut corners to save money.

These are general thoughts. I have no idea which of these firms you list are more trustworthy than any other. But I will say that just because that corporation is engaged in some scientific operation does not mean that corporation is therefore likely to be more trustworthy than another.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I "trust" corporations to react to incentives. I don't "trust" them otherwise. I've handled too many cases against big corporations, and I've seen inside what incentives do to people to make them act in ways you wouldn't think most people would.

So for GE and Pfizer and defense contractors, you trust them to not screw things up because to do so would cost their shareholders a lot of money and then some executive their job. But the more lobbying power corporations have, the more they get away with their bad actions, and the less they are disincentivized to cut corners to save money.

These are general thoughts. I have no idea which of these firms you list are more trustworthy than any other. But I will say that just because that corporation is engaged in some scientific operation does not mean that corporation is therefore more likely to be trustworthy than another.

I know a lot of liberals that do not trust nuclear power. Fine, but why do they trust all the other government workers but not the nuclear regulatory agency.

Co comes from the other side, he wants nuclear power. Therefore he must have faith that either the corporate overlord or the bureaucracy will prevent disaster. He does not trust Pfizer it appears or government workers in general.

I am not sure why this disconnect on both sides. People who trust government oversight or generally trust corporations should like nuclear power and the FDA. People who do not trust corporations and do not trust government oversight should oppose nuclear power. If one cannot trust their hot dog to be safe how can they trust nukes.

So most are not dogmatic on this. Rather most apply a worldview of what they like and apply it to nukes (or hotdog safety). In nuclear power, the fear of experts or trust of experts does not match usual positions.

Long ago, high school and early college, I did not like nuclear power. But I have long flipped on the subject. But I find it like vaccinations, hard to get someone to accept it if they oppose it.

I trust our experts on AGW, designing a safe car, building bridges, determining safe levels in air and water. Why not nukes. Why do others, on both sides, flip positions on nuclear power.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I know a lot of liberals that do not trust nuclear power. Fine, but why do they trust all the other government workers but not the nuclear regulatory agency.

Co comes from the other side, he wants nuclear power. Therefore he must have faith that either the corporate overlord or the bureaucracy will prevent disaster. He does not trust Pfizer it appears or government workers in general.

I am not sure why this disconnect on both sides. People who trust government oversight or generally trust corporations should like nuclear power and the FDA. People who do not trust corporations and do not trust government oversight should oppose nuclear power. If one cannot trust their hot dog to be safe how can they trust nukes.

So most are not dogmatic on this. Rather most apply a worldview of what they like and apply it to nukes (or hotdog safety). In nuclear power, the fear of experts or trust of experts does not match usual positions.

Long ago, high school and early college, I did not like nuclear power. But I have long flipped on the subject. But I find it like vaccinations, hard to get someone to accept it if they oppose it.

I trust our experts on AGW, designing a safe car, building bridges, determining safe levels in air and water. Why not nukes. Why do others, on both sides, flip positions on nuclear power.

This is all just another way to come at the vaccine issue. Most of the people refusing this vaccine are not anti-vax. The majority of them have probably had several vaccines over the course of their lifetime. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, flu shot, etc. So what is it about this specific vaccine that is giving people pause?

I would submit that the messaging around COVID has been and is bullshit. And that is when people tend to not trust the "experts". The same people saying to go ahead and take the mRNA vaccine, which have been in development for years but never approved for humans, were the same people who shut down questions like, "Why have these never been approved before?" They also said don't mask...no wait...mask. 2 weeks to flatten the curve turned into a year and a half. Don't gather last summer was replaced by "unless you are mass protesting for political positions we agree with". This wasn't something that escaped a lab to hold up, it probably did and we were funding it in a way that tried to hide that fact.

What experts do we trust? The ones who don't keep switching up their expert opinion whenever it suits them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This is all just another way to come at the vaccine issue. Most of the people refusing this vaccine are not anti-vax. The majority of them have probably had several vaccines over the course of their lifetime. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, flu shot, etc. So what is it about this specific vaccine that is giving people pause?

I would submit that the messaging around COVID has been and is bullshit. And that is when people tend to not trust the "experts". The same people saying to go ahead and take the mRNA vaccine, which have been in development for years but never approved for humans, were the same people who shut down questions like, "Why have these never been approved before?" They also said don't mask...no wait...mask. 2 weeks to flatten the curve turned into a year and a half. Don't gather last summer was replaced by "unless you are mass protesting for political positions we agree with". This wasn't something that escaped a lab to hold up, it probably did and we were funding it in a way that tried to hide that fact.

What experts do we trust? The ones who don't keep switching up their expert opinion whenever it suits them.

Manufactured by profit first corporations with a history of fraud.

That said we now have hundreds of millions vaccinated around the world. The stats should be convincing for people to get vaccinated.

 

[Spartans9312]

This is all just another way to come at the vaccine issue. Most of the people refusing this vaccine are not anti-vax. The majority of them have probably had several vaccines over the course of their lifetime. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, flu shot, etc. So what is it about this specific vaccine that is giving people pause?

I would submit that the messaging around COVID has been and is bullshit. And that is when people tend to not trust the "experts". The same people saying to go ahead and take the mRNA vaccine, which have been in development for years but never approved for humans, were the same people who shut down questions like, "Why have these never been approved before?" They also said don't mask...no wait...mask. 2 weeks to flatten the curve turned into a year and a half. Don't gather last summer was replaced by "unless you are mass protesting for political positions we agree with". This wasn't something that escaped a lab to hold up, it probably did and we were funding it in a way that tried to hide that fact.

What experts do we trust? The ones who don't keep switching up their expert opinion whenever it suits them.

People just need the truth. "Experts" don't need to try to be "scary".
People need to discuss with their physician.
Not physicians who's experience are administrative in nature as opposed to clinical care of patients.

 

[IUCrazy2]

People just need the truth. "Experts" don't need to try to be "scary".
People need to discuss with their physician.
Not physicians who's experience are administrative in nature as opposed to clinical care of patients.

People need the truth and we need to accept the decisions they make based off of that truth.

Fauci should have been fired a long time ago. That is problem 1A. He has no credibility anymore. Marching him out every week to give contradictory statements is a massive disservice.

 

[IUCrazy2]

People need the truth and we need to accept the decisions they make based off of that truth.

Fauci should have been fired a long time ago. That is problem 1A. He has no credibility anymore. Marching him out every week to give contradictory statements is a massive disservice.

You know what else was botched, almost all the focus in the media is on the mRNA vaccines. There is a third one available and it has been treated like an outcast since Day 1. "It is not as effective." Was the initial messaging and that changed to, "a few people died so stop using it..." I guarantee that a few people died from Pfizer and Moderna as well but that has been buried and is verboten to talk about on social media. We had a more "old school" vaccine available and could have used that to convince people who were leery of the mRNA vaccine to take that. Instead we strangled it to death almost from jump. If I had a third option available that was not an mRNA vaccine, I would be screaming its awesomeness from the rooftops in areas where hesitancy to Pfixer and Moderna was highest. Instead we have radio silence on J and J, why is that? (Which is where CoH's money question from above may or may not come into play).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I know a lot of liberals that do not trust nuclear power. Fine, but why do they trust all the other government workers but not the nuclear regulatory agency.

Co comes from the other side, he wants nuclear power. Therefore he must have faith that either the corporate overlord or the bureaucracy will prevent disaster. He does not trust Pfizer it appears or government workers in general.

I am not sure why this disconnect on both sides. People who trust government oversight or generally trust corporations should like nuclear power and the FDA. People who do not trust corporations and do not trust government oversight should oppose nuclear power. If one cannot trust their hot dog to be safe how can they trust nukes.

So most are not dogmatic on this. Rather most apply a worldview of what they like and apply it to nukes (or hotdog safety). In nuclear power, the fear of experts or trust of experts does not match usual positions.

Long ago, high school and early college, I did not like nuclear power. But I have long flipped on the subject. But I find it like vaccinations, hard to get someone to accept it if they oppose it.

I trust our experts on AGW, designing a safe car, building bridges, determining safe levels in air and water. Why not nukes. Why do others, on both sides, flip positions on nuclear power.

Marv, you continually post such things as “Co thinks,” “Co says,” or “Co believes.” You almost always get the big chunks wrong. I have commented often about our system of legalized corruption, about systemic rent seekers, and about the market we have created for buying and selling influence. And I have said some of that is present in the government response to COVID. But that does not mean I don’t trust the vaccine. Describing my concern as “paranoia” or not “trusting“ the good things that government and business does is your spin. While I believe that rent seeking special economic and social interests are not to be always trusted, that isn’t the same thing as not trusting anything government does. I responded To your OP with Ike’s words. Instead of applying his broad strokes to today, you nitpick about computers and blackboards. Sigh.

The Answer to your last paragraph questions is all bound up with emotions. People have an emotional reaction to nukes because of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. That’s hard to overcome. Obama further emotionalized nukes with his Yucca Mountain decision and Biden emotionalized vaccine with his speech the other night as he gunned up anger at the unvaxxed. Trump emotionalized immigration and defense. Politicians do that because it works. Emotional appeals are fertile ground for the legalized corruption. The antidote for all of the emotion is good, forthright, and honest information from sources we should trust—the media and experts. Both have succumbed to the same biases and prejudices we all have.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is all just another way to come at the vaccine issue. Most of the people refusing this vaccine are not anti-vax. The majority of them have probably had several vaccines over the course of their lifetime. Polio, MMR, Tetanus, flu shot, etc. So what is it about this specific vaccine that is giving people pause?

I would submit that the messaging around COVID has been and is bullshit. And that is when people tend to not trust the "experts". The same people saying to go ahead and take the mRNA vaccine, which have been in development for years but never approved for humans, were the same people who shut down questions like, "Why have these never been approved before?" They also said don't mask...no wait...mask. 2 weeks to flatten the curve turned into a year and a half. Don't gather last summer was replaced by "unless you are mass protesting for political positions we agree with". This wasn't something that escaped a lab to hold up, it probably did and we were funding it in a way that tried to hide that fact.

What experts do we trust? The ones who don't keep switching up their expert opinion whenever it suits them.

See, scientists change their mind as facts become available. So yes, this means flip flopping but I would argue that is what all of us should do.

Early on, we had no good ideas about Sars-cov-2. So they tried extrapolating based on other viruses. It is how we go about everything. Take your car to a mechanic and describe a sound. They have an idea of what that means, then they look at that. It would be a poor mechanic that says "sounds like a bad plug, they all look good and test good but that was my first diagnosis so that is all I am going to fix".

So yes, early on people were told things like "wipe down your food" and not to mask. As data comes in, recommendations change. For some reason many of us do not like that. But they don't simultaneously discount the "hydroxy cures everything", "it will magically disappear in warm weather" crowd.

I am comforted by following the data. People should be rewarded for that. At the moment I cannot find evidence for dewormer. If a good study comes in and shows it works, great, everyone should jump on board.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

While I believe that rent seeking special economic and social interests are not to be always trusted, that isn’t the same thing as not trusting anything government does. I responded To your OP with Ike’s words.

I can only go by what you post, have you ever posted good things about the government bureaucracy?

So why are nuclear facilities immune to these financial pressures? I think people genuinely want to do good work and will monitor correctly. So there is a consistent thought. Maybe you think that too, but you never make those posts so I don't know.

 

[Harry Hondo]

President Biden’s vaccine mandate gives an “unwarranted“ nod to Pfizer by failing to even mention natural immunity which is more than a suitable substitute for a vaccine.

But doesn’t attaining natural immunity require you to get COVID-19 and then survive? And I certainly wouldn’t want to risk having long-hauler symptoms. Seems to me that vaccination is the safer way to go, especially for the vulnerable. Sorry, Biden is correct to push the vaccine over exposing yourself to the virus.

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

The best protection against COVID-19? Getting vaccinated, not waiting for illness to create natural immunity, says infectious disease expert Anna Durbin

hub.jhu.edu

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can only go by what you post, have you ever posted good things about the government bureaucracy?

So why are nuclear facilities immune to these financial pressures? I think people genuinely want to do good work and will monitor correctly. So there is a consistent thought. Maybe you think that too, but you never make those posts so I don't know.

Lmao. Posting good things about bureaucracy is like posting good things about a hurricane. I have posted about cutting read tape, that’s a good thing.

I don’t know how to respond to your second paragraph. So I’ll do it with a true story-which I have posted about before. The feds, through various grants, funds local government employment centers. One such center was run by a client. That is a good thing. The administrator held a monthly meeting with large employers to discuss ways to increase job opportunities. He used grant funds to supply coffee and bagels at the meetings. The feds audited the grant one year and one of the audit questions was who drank the coffee and who ate the bagels. It seems that the employers could drink and eat using grant funds, but not the administrator or any staff present. That is too much bureaucratic bullshit, especially when one considers the huge waste and duplication that goes on in government every day.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But doesn’t attaining natural immunity require you to get COVID-19 and then survive? And I certainly wouldn’t want to risk having long-hauler symptoms. Seems to me that vaccination is the safer way to go, especially for the vulnerable. Sorry, Biden is correct to push the vaccine over exposing yourself to the virus.

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

The best protection against COVID-19? Getting vaccinated, not waiting for illness to create natural immunity, says infectious disease expert Anna Durbin

hub.jhu.edu

“Survive” is a strange choice of words for something that kills a tiny percentage of those infected. That’s like saying that I survived my walk to old farts coffee because I wasn’t mugged, run over, or struck by lightening. You’ve been conditioned to be afraid, very afraid. Others are conditioned to be afraid of the jab. When talking about emotions, not much is logical.

Oh, I’m not talking about actively exposing yourself to the virus.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I know a lot of liberals that do not trust nuclear power. Fine, but why do they trust all the other government workers but not the nuclear regulatory agency.

Co comes from the other side, he wants nuclear power. Therefore he must have faith that either the corporate overlord or the bureaucracy will prevent disaster. He does not trust Pfizer it appears or government workers in general.

I am not sure why this disconnect on both sides. People who trust government oversight or generally trust corporations should like nuclear power and the FDA. People who do not trust corporations and do not trust government oversight should oppose nuclear power. If one cannot trust their hot dog to be safe how can they trust nukes.

So most are not dogmatic on this. Rather most apply a worldview of what they like and apply it to nukes (or hotdog safety). In nuclear power, the fear of experts or trust of experts does not match usual positions.

Long ago, high school and early college, I did not like nuclear power. But I have long flipped on the subject. But I find it like vaccinations, hard to get someone to accept it if they oppose it.

I trust our experts on AGW, designing a safe car, building bridges, determining safe levels in air and water. Why not nukes. Why do others, on both sides, flip positions on nuclear power.

I think this subject is more complicated, with many more factors at play, than just trusting experts on these subjects.

At a crude, 100,000-feet-level of analysis--on many of these topics you've listed, there are different experts with different, sometimes conflicting, opinions. So then the question becomes: which expert do I "trust" when I'm not an expert myself? And of course, posing the question that way, I think, shows that "trust" is the wrong thing we should be doing.

Also, for many of these topics you pose, they aren't straight-up science/objective questions. Many involve an interplay of economics (different policies to address the issue involve different trade offs) and which values to prioritize (which is the subject of politics, rightly understood).

Regarding nuclear power question specifically, I tend towards the opposite arc you have. I studied physics at IU (along with philosophy); I used to be a full on supporter of nuclear power. But then I saw Fukushima, and I watched the Chernobyl miniseries and those two things really impacted my thinking on the risk of nuclear power plants. Given that humans are fallible, even with all the safeguards we might think prevent such disasters, there is a non-negligible chance things go wrong. And the unique issue with nuclear power as opposed to others, is that if the screw up is bad enough, the consequences will last for tens-of-thousands of years. Given that we have finite land on this planet, I've started to think the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the risk of those awful events.

Notice, my thinking has nothing to do with and is not dependent upon scientific understanding of a reactor (although I have a decent understanding of that). It is based on costs and benefits, tradeoffs and probabilities, and in no small part, my own prioritization of values.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think this subject is more complicated, with many more factors at play, than just trusting experts on these subjects.

At a crude, 100,000-feet-level of analysis--on many of these topics you've listed, there are different experts with different, sometimes conflicting, opinions. So then the question becomes: which expert do I "trust" when I'm not an expert myself? And of course, posing the question that way, I think, shows that "trust" is the wrong thing we should be doing.

Also, for many of these topics you pose, they aren't straight-up science/objective questions. Many involve an interplay of economics (different policies to address the issue involve different trade offs) and which values to prioritize (which is the subject of politics, rightly understood).

Regarding nuclear power question specifically, I tend towards the opposite arc you have. I studied physics at IU (along with philosophy); I used to be a full on supporter of nuclear power. But then I saw Fukushima, and I watched the Chernobyl miniseries and those two things really impacted my thinking on the risk of nuclear power plants. Given that humans are fallible, even with all the safeguards we might think prevent such disasters, there is a non-negligible chance things go wrong. And the unique issue with nuclear power as opposed to others, is that if the screw up is bad enough, the consequences will last for tens-of-thousands of years. Given that we have finite land on this planet, I've started to think the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the risk of those awful events.

Notice, my thinking has nothing to do with and is not dependent upon scientific understanding of a reactor (although I have a decent understanding of that). It is based on costs and benefits, tradeoffs and probabilities, and in no small part, my own prioritization of values.

Given that government and many manufacturers have announced their intention to go carbon free within 20 years and use electricity for transportation, where do you think the electricity will come from? Regardless of the hazards, it seems to me we are leaving ourselves no choice except nuclear.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Lmao. Posting good things about bureaucracy is like posting good things about a hurricane. I have posted about cutting read tape, that’s a good thing.

I don’t know how to respond to your second paragraph. So I’ll do it with a true story-which I have posted about before. The feds, through various grants, funds local government employment centers. One such center was run by a client. That is a good thing. The administrator held a monthly meeting with large employers to discuss ways to increase job opportunities. He used grant funds to supply coffee and bagels at the meetings. The feds audited the grant one year and one of the audit questions was who drank the coffee and who ate the bagels. It seems that the employers could drink and eat using grant funds, but not the administrator or any staff present. That is too much bureaucratic bullshit, especially when one considers the huge waste and duplication that goes on in government every day.

Honoree Archive • Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals

A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working towards effective government for the American people.

servicetoamericamedals.org

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Given that government and many manufacturers have announced their intention to go carbon free within 20 years and use electricity for transportation, where do you think the electricity will come from? Regardless of the hazards, it seems to me we are leaving ourselves no choice except nuclear.

By the way, what is the fire danger out there? Two weeks from today we will be at a cabin in Lyons.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Given that government and many manufacturers have announced their intention to go carbon free within 20 years and use electricity for transportation, where do you think the electricity will come from? Regardless of the hazards, it seems to me we are leaving ourselves no choice except nuclear.

I don't know. Maybe we have to be less aggressive about going carbon free.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

By the way, what is the fire danger out there? Two weeks from today we will be at a cabin in Lyons.

Really mild fire season this year. Nothing going on around Lyons and Boulder County,
.
Air quality has been pretty bad though from California fires. Ruined a lot of views. Maybe that will clear up in a couple of weeks. Safe travels.

 

[hoot1]

If the answer to the question "Which experts do you trust ?" has anything to do with your political philosophy or politics in general then you may be putting your trust in all the wrong places.

In our daily lives we deal with physicians, lawyers, car salesmen, auto mechanics, real estate agents, accountants, government bureaucrats, and the list goes on. Everyone of these people consider themselves to be an expert in their field. The question about whether we trust them is ultimately our own, so in the final analysis we end up trusting our own judgement.

Getting back to trust and expertise, one of my closest business associates for many years was a Mensa member whose major in college was geology. He fell into the commercial real estate business completely by accident. According to him he had many failures in investing in commercial real estate and lost his inheritance.

Nevertheless, by the time I met him, he had built a team of investors and agents. In my opinion, his ultimate success was because people just naturally trusted him. Given this natural ability to attract people who trusted him, he built a firm of investors and expert advisors which ultimately had the reputation of a firm which could be trusted.

The lesson to my story, is that like a politician my friend had a natural ability to have people trust him, but his ultimate success was surrounding himself with bureaucrats who were experts.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

Look at Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, et al .

$Billions of fines for felony lying under oath, falsifying study data , and many other
crimes.

Does GE have a long, documented criminal history?

 

[DrHoops]

But doesn’t attaining natural immunity require you to get COVID-19 and then survive? And I certainly wouldn’t want to risk having long-hauler symptoms. Seems to me that vaccination is the safer way to go, especially for the vulnerable. Sorry, Biden is correct to push the vaccine over exposing yourself to the virus.

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

The best protection against COVID-19? Getting vaccinated, not waiting for illness to create natural immunity, says infectious disease expert Anna Durbin

hub.jhu.edu

Their feelings don't care about facts. I was at the pharmacy today and while I was waiting for my prescription I could hear the head pharmacist on the phone saying "I'm sorry, we don't fill prescriptions for that (listens to caller) Because it's not been proven to have any effect on COVID and it's not FDA approved for that purpose (long pause listening to lunatic)...Feel free to find another pharmacy."

The pharmacist who was helping me laughed and I asked him how often they get requests for all the garbage Trump and his minions have suggested; Iodine, hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and everything else? He said all day long...and that these people actually find doctors to write these scripts! That's the frightening part.

Sarah Cooper says it best:





Meanwhile, there is no one waiting to get the sure fire best way to survive COVID: The vaccine. These people can stroll in and be protected, but they'd rather find some shifty doc to prescribe something that doesn't work.

 

[Stuffshot]

People just need the truth. "Experts" don't need to try to be "scary".
People need to discuss with their physician.
Not physicians who's experience are administrative in nature as opposed to clinical care of patients.

Physicians/general practitioners like that are not experts on the covid vaccines either. Increasingly, they are part of a corporate hospital group, not independent.

Seeing a doctor like that for physicals and blood panels once or twice a year isn't enough basis to trust his/her opinion on Covid more than that of the government health authorities and industry experts who are actually working on Covid vaccine issues.

 

[Stuffshot]

Look at Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, et al .

$Billions of fines for felony lying under oath, falsifying study data , and many other
crimes.

Does GE have a long, documented criminal history?

Maybe. Depends what you mean.

SEC.gov | General Electric Agrees to Pay $200 Million Penalty for Disclosure Violations

www.sec.gov

GE Agrees to Pay $50 Million to Settle SEC's Charges; 2009-178; Aug. 4, 2009

Here's the Truth About the GE "Fraud" Scandal

Today, our Garret Baldwin’s going to tell you the truth about the supposed GE “fraud” scandal…

moneymorning.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Look at Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, et al .

$Billions of fines for felony lying under oath, falsifying study data , and many other
crimes.

Does GE have a long, documented criminal history?

GE Fined $1 Million, Faces Three-Year Pentagon Ban : Admits to Fraud on Missile Job

General Electric Co., the nation's fourth-largest defense contractor, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the government of $800,000 on a Minuteman missile contract and was fined the maximum of $1,040,000.

www.google.com

GE Settles False Claims Act Case for $6.6 Million

Last month, an Ohio-based defense contractor agreed to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit. General Electric Aviation Systems (GEAS) allegedly submitted or

bergermontague.com

Two found in seconds in searches for GE defense contractor fraud

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

GE Fined $1 Million, Faces Three-Year Pentagon Ban : Admits to Fraud on Missile Job

General Electric Co., the nation's fourth-largest defense contractor, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the government of $800,000 on a Minuteman missile contract and was fined the maximum of $1,040,000.

www.google.com

GE Settles False Claims Act Case for $6.6 Million

Last month, an Ohio-based defense contractor agreed to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit. General Electric Aviation Systems (GEAS) allegedly submitted or

bergermontague.com

Two found in seconds in searches for GE defense contractor fraud

Felony bribery, falsification of test results,
perjury, et.al. involving products for human consumption. Pfizer is the main culprit, but the others are no slouches at intentionally misleading consumers for profit.

No comparison with GE'S ROUTINE government dance with a corrupt system of procurement can be made.

One of the worst losses I have experienced is the loss of respect for those people I formerly considered somewhat intelligent.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

One of the worst losses I have experienced is the loss of respect for those people I formerly considered somewhat intelligent.

I sure hope they find a way to recover and move on.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Felony bribery, falsification of test results,
perjury, et.al. involving products for human consumption. Pfizer is the main culprit, but the others are no slouches at intentionally misleading consumers for profit.

No comparison with GE'S ROUTINE government dance with a corrupt system of procurement can be made.

One of the worst losses I have experienced is the loss of respect for those people I formerly considered somewhat intelligent.

What you are explaining is why we need government rules and regulations and not rely solely on an invisible hand. It is why we need limits on campaign contributions, but when I suggest this it is conservatives who tell me that I am wrong and corps have a right to try to buy government. So conservatives hate that corporations buy government AND hate trying to regulate that spending.

Anyone falsifying data, such as happened with Vioxx, should go to jail. So should people falsifying data on nuclear power safety. Again, GE:

General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas Agrees to Pay $2.7 Million for Alleged False Claims Related to Design of Advanced Nuclear Reactor

The Justice Department announced today that General Electric Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC (GE Hitachi) has agreed to pay $2.7 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it made false statements and claims to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory...

www.justice.gov

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

GE Fined $1 Million, Faces Three-Year Pentagon Ban : Admits to Fraud on Missile Job

General Electric Co., the nation's fourth-largest defense contractor, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the government of $800,000 on a Minuteman missile contract and was fined the maximum of $1,040,000.

www.google.com

GE Settles False Claims Act Case for $6.6 Million

Last month, an Ohio-based defense contractor agreed to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit. General Electric Aviation Systems (GEAS) allegedly submitted or

bergermontague.com

Two found in seconds in searches for GE defense contractor fraud

Rather weak deflection attempt.

GE doesn't have $Billions of government propaganda and coercion seeking to force citizens to submit to dangerous action.

The Masters count upon stupid and compliant people.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Rather weak deflection attempt.

GE doesn't have $Billions of government propaganda and coercion seeking to force citizens to submit to dangerous action.

The Masters count upon stupid and compliant people.

WeRE you not a Trump backer? Didn't he take credit for the vaccines?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

WeRE you not a Trump backer? Didn't he take credit for the vaccines?

Yeah but .....

 

[billyhillui]

Co thought I should put this in a thread. Using CO, he worries about monied influence by a corp like Pfizer, but wants nuclear power. GE is the major player in nuclear power and has a long, deep history of lobbying and campaign contributions. Why trust them and the nuclear regulatory agency but not Pfizer and FDA?

Some trust the defense contractors and generals, but think AGW scientists are just out for a buck.

What is it that makes the government or scientists we trust better than the ones we don't? This can go both ways, before COVID antivaxx was more liberal than conservative and liberals are more likely to distrust DoD than FDA.

which eva won tels mi two tack da dewormer & clorox like presdent trump. i luv mi som tRump about now!
when trump comin back? i take evera thin he tel mi two he my masta & buddy when we tak da mercury he tel us two?