U.S. Approves Loan Guarantees to Build Reactors – NYTimes.com.

Great idea. Lets hand out loans to companies that want to build nuclear power plants in the U.S. Since we know that nuclear power generation is completely unprofitable, the odds of us ever getting this money back is pretty slim.

Now I know that those of you on the left will argue about the dirtiness of nuclear power and the waste that is generated and the danger of accidents which can irradiate whole tracts of land. Those on the right will proclaim how nuclear energy does not pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases (curiously, they don’t believe in global warming, but they still insist on making this point); and how nifty it is.

But the fact is simple economics. There hasn’t been a nuclear reactor built in the US since 1970. This is because running a nuke plant isn’t profitable. The cost to build, maintain, and dispose of the waste generated outweighs the potential income over the 40-year life of the reactor.

Now, the Obama plan seems to be to make nuclear power profitable by subsidizing it with government money. This would be a good idea if it would generate jobs in the US. Unfortunately, since the US hasn’t built a nuclear reactor since 1970, nobody in America knows how to build one. So everything. . . EVERYTHING. . . will have to be outsourced to overseas firms. Sure, the guys who run the place after it is built will have jobs — but it wouldn’t matter if they were building a coal plant or a nuke plant, those folks would still have jobs.

So, overall, even apart from the environmental and health concerns over nuclear power, this is a really bad idea.

So, you may ask what my beef is with Atheists. Let me tell you. A while ago, I started really looking into Atheism, and I got into some discussions with Atheists and so forth. What I found was appalling.

Although all Atheists will claim that their belief in the non-existence of God is based on scientific fact, they cannot point to a single publication in a refereed scientific journal that has proven the non-existence of God.

Worse yet, they believe in other things (such as “the world will be without war once everyone is an Atheist”) that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF of, and yet they believe and defend these things with the rabid passion of the most devout follower of John Birch.

So, you may still ask, what is your problem with Atheists? Don’t Christians and Muslims and Jews believe in things that there is no scientific proof of?

Yes, but Atheists claim a superiority since their belief (oh, excuse me, absence of belief) is based in science and scientific principles. And yet, the things that they believe in most dearly are utterly without scientific backing or proof.

For example, I had one Atheist, who waxed on about how superior science is to primitive “belief”, tell me that he believed that without religion there would be no war. When I pressed him on what sort of scientific proof he had for this theory, he retorted “I believe this to the core of my being! I don’t have proof, but I KNOW that this is true.” He then went on to rant about how stupid and ignorant religious people are.

In other words, they believe in the absolute superiority of science — unless science fails to support their beliefs. This sort of hypocracy among those who claim to be supporters of science is what I dislike about Atheists.

Tony Writes:

Hi, Im 14 years old and Chemistry really is my favorite subject in school,
and out. I had a question about CO2. Is it possible to break the bonds that
hold the CO2 molecules together?
ex.passes through something and carbon is trapped and air passes on?
Thanks a lot

Yes, it is possible to break the bonds that link the carbons to the oxygens in CO2. However, doing so is not easy, and outside the laboratory there is only one practical way to do this. CO2 is very stable and non-reactive, which is why it survives so long in our atmosphere, and contributes to global warming.

Scientists are working on a method for transforming carbon dioxide (CO2) into fuel, using catalysts and sunlight. However, it could be decades before this can be done on a large scale So there still really is only one way to convert large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into oxygen (O2) – Photosynthesis.

Yep. What scientist have been able to do only with great difficulty – and usually with dangerous substances and expensive equipment – nature has been doing for a billion years with ease.

I know that “plant a tree” wasn’t the answer you were looking for, but photosynthesis is still the most efficient way to purify CO2, and it probably will remain so for another century or so.

An interesting new study shows that believing that you can get smarter may actually make you smarter.

An article in Psychology Matters, Believing you can get smarter makes you smarter, indicates that when people learn that intelligence is a changeable, rather than a fixed, trait, that they actually increase their ability to learn.

The authors note that the increase in the ability to learn is especially significant among certain minorities, such as blacks, who have been stereotyped as “low intelligence.” African American participants in the studies cited showed a greater increase in learning ability than their white counterparts.

This is important, because it is well known that African-American students score lower on tests than European Americans. The study shows that these lower scores may be directly related to “self-stereotyping” and, more importantly, this “self-stereotyping” effect can be counteracted through education about the malleable nature of intelligence itself.

Breaking News

Obesity on the rise among Telekinetics

A new, controvertial “low food” diet is sweeping the nation, with many medical experts hailing the new diet as the healthiest, most beneficial diet plan ever, and many others expressing doubt and criticism.

Doctor P. T. Snikta, author of the aptly named The Snikta Diet, is considered to be the leading authority on low food diets.

“I based my book on research that was conducted in the early 70′s and 80′s that showed that people who took less food in their diet lost more weight than those who ate more food.” Explains Dr. Snikta. “Study after study has confirmed these results, and these studies became the basis for my diet plan, which can be purchased at any book vendor for $24.95 (USD).”

The theory behind the “low food” diet appears to be sound. Medical professionals have known for well over a year that obesity is caused when ingested food is stored in the body as fat. Dr. Snikta contends that by reducing the amount of food, the body has less food to turn into fat. “Its simple physiology.” Remarks Dr. Snikta

However, critics contend that the “low food” diet can be dangerous, and that Dr. Snikta is an irresponsible ass. “Dr. Snikta is an irresponsible ass.” Claims Dr. Debra Pearsons. “People need food to live — Obviously, if people eat less food, they will live less. The old adage ‘Eat, drink, and be merry’ may be cliched, but there is an element of truth to it.”

Meanwhile, marketers and food manufacturers are jumping on the low food bandwagon with new “low food” products.

“Our Low Food Diet products have 50% less food than our regular products.” Says Michael Dryden, CEO of Snackity Snack, Inc. “Like the Low Food version of our popular Snackity Snack Food Sack (a popular snack food). The 16 oz package only contains 8 ozs of snack food.” Mr. Dryden claims “We can’t make them fast enough! Sure they cost a little more, but its what our consumers demand.”