by your own words, there's no safe way to get rid of nuclear waste besides storing it and hoping things will work out.

I think you're purposely misconstruing the meaning of safe. I think deep isolation is a proven method of safely storing radioactive material until it decays.

You are claiming it's unsafe, or "kicking the can down the road", but haven't explained your reasoning. Perhaps if you had any examples of how deep isolation has failed, or ways you think it will fail, it may strengthen your argument

Also, nuclear plants would take as long to build as other, safer methods.

Again, you are claiming things are safer, but haven't explained how? All forms of energy production have their positive and negative attributes, however safety isn't really a problem usually attributed to nuclear energy.

Time is generally an actual criticism of nuclear power, but a lot of length of time isn't really inherent in the actual construction of the power plant, which can be completed in as little as 3-5 years. It's usually the same problem as your first claim, the governments inability to deal with NIMBY campaigns and private interest.

it's kicking the can down the road.

Why? And what would be the alternative?

Even if we don't start relying on more nuclear power, nuclear waste is still going to be produced. Even if it's just maintaining the nuclear power we have right now, or just dealing with an aging nuclear arms cache.

I don't see how kicking it down the road is really a problem in this scenario, as that's pretty much all you can do with nuclear waste, wait until it's not dangerous.

Improving the power grid would increase the available supply without causing problems.

That's kinda a general statement..... Part of improving the power grid could be interpreted as including more nuclear power.

The imperative in this scenario isn't just making sure we're not "causing problems", it's moving towards a power source that minimizes our dependence on fossil fuels.

It's "kicking the can down the road" vs ecological collapse.

We know what to do with it, the same thing countries like France do, deep isolation.

The problem with America, is the same problem we have for any federal level infrastructure. The states have too much control and are prone to NIMBY campaigns.

I don't know how effective a shortened pump-action shotgun would be. The spread on those has to be pretty bad, and the pump action makes it to where you have to break aim between shots.

I don't know if that's the reason, but I'd rather have my old Remington 1100, or even an over under.

Man, the drone war is really making me glad my old man used to be obsessed with skeet and clay pigeon shooting. I don't hunt, so I always assumed it would always be a useless life skill.

It's clear that we have a very different definition for what the word evidence means.

My friend, I am not trying to be argumentative. I am simply trying to improve your ability to logically frame an argument.

If I wrote a scientific paper and claimed one piece of evidence was enough to prove my theory I would be laughed out of academia.

Have a good day.

You as well.

Again, you're conflating two different things here. Evidence and hearsay are simply not the same thing.

I'm not conflating the two, I'm saying hearsay is a type of evidence, it's just not a very good one. You can use hearsay to support your overall claim, but that can't be the only peice of evidence you use. It's not transferrable unless attached to a greater body of evidence.

There is a big logical difference between something that's a verifiable a fact and and assertion.

Yes, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not proof that something happened. They are a claim that something happened.

There is no evidence anecdotal or otherwise to support the assertion.

We've just made the whole circle again. I think you may be accidentally conflating the meaning of evidence with the meaning of proof. Perhaps English is your second language?

"Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true."

Furthermore, legally speaking, both anecdotal evidence and hearsay have zero value if you really want to go down that route.

That is what I have been saying the entire time.

Yes, it is trickling down... But not as much as it should

It may be trickling down, but only to the ever shrinking middle class. Normal working people used to have pensions, then 401ks popularized a nation wide obsession with gambling for retirement.

Employer matched retirement benefits are getting rarer by the day and it's understandable why so many people don't care about the stock market doing well. Why would anyone care if the market is making a killing if they have no access to it?

Anecdotal evidence means that something factually happened, but we don't know whether it's statistically significant or not.

I don't believe that's what anecdotal evidence means. Anecdotal evidence is generally understood to be information based on personal observations.

Hearsay is reporting what other people attest to have observed. Logically and legally they are weighted the same. There is no logical difference between trusting what someone says, and believing what someone says someone said.

I think we are having a misunderstanding of what evidence means. Evidence isn't something that supports reality, it support your argument or theory. There may be anecdotal evidence that a million people are in encampments, but that just means someone reported it. It's not good evidence, and can be dismissed as easily as someone reporting the opposite. However, it is technically defined as evidence.

anecdotal evidence itself is not actual evidence.

I would say that's a semantic dispute.

Like if you saw a documented car crash and from that started extrapolating that car crashes are very common,

The incorrect application of logic in this scenario is still making a claim drawn on too little evidence, not an inherent problem with the evidence.

These are claims as opposed to evidence though, and these claims must be weighed against actual evidence and contrasting claims.

Yes the 1 million thing is a claim, which is "supported" by anecdotal evidence. Which as you say needs to be weighted against negating evidence, and can be dismissed by contrasting anecdotal evidence.

Again, not trying to attack your overall argument, just pointing out a problem within the framework of your negation. Mostly because you seem like a person who might care about that.

Technically anecdotal evidence is evidence, but it must be weighed as such, and is not conclusive unless supported with verifiable data. But, that's kinda besides the point.

I was merely pointing out an issue with your methodology, not the overall argument.

I met a dude in a bar who says he has a PhD in neuroscience and 2 published papers it would not think twice about calling him a scientist

I would be more interested in how they managed to get through their PhD without having anything published but their thesis. Most PhD recipients are having to be published 3 times during their PhD alone.

Her first publication appears to be from graduate school.

I mean it's mostly a semantic dispute, there is no real standardization for the title scientist.

How's the health care in prison?

Again..... How many people have gone to prison from this information? Because lack of prenatal care or access to reproductive care is responsible for over 1k deaths a year in the US alone.

As is your suggestion that the possibility of prosecution is "slim". We have highly motivated people seriously promoting pregnancy registries. They believe such registries are necessary to prevent murder.

And we have even more people determined to protect abortion rights, and many states have constitutional protections for this exact reason. The vast majority of Americans have ample protections for their abortion rights, and telling them they shouldn't trust their physicians is doing nothing but endangering their own health.

You're hand waving away even the possibility of civil or criminal penalties for seeking healthcare

No, I'm just not trying to instil distrust in medicine. If you live in a state where this is a potential issue, then yes, do what you need to do to be safe. But, if you are like the vast majority of Americans whom this is not an issue, than all you are doing by instilling distrust is needlessly endangering peoples health.

I'm the one who sounds privileged?

Yes. One of the major hurdles for prenatal and pediatric care among minority communities is a general distrust in medical systems. This stems from systemic racial inequalities that a lot of people within the medical system are attempting to actively change. You characterizing this care as legally dangerous to all women does nothing but jeopardize the most at risk communities. Most of whom already have adequate protections for abortion care.

You are giving medical advice, and you have no idea what your talking about.

The whole conspiracy theory started with a claim of millions of Uyghurs being supposedly imprisoned story is based on two highly dubious “studies.”. However, this claim is completely absurd when you stop and think about it even for a minute. That figure 1 million is repeated again and again. Let's just look at how much space would you actually need to intern one million people.

Based on the article you linked from quartz, I think you may be misconstruing the claim of 1 million people in detention. The article seems to suggest that the potential million people have been through the process of work or education camps, not that there are a million people actively held in detention at the same time.

Science and technology remains even today, unfairly, a domain of men, even though without women we would not even have Bluetooth or WiFi..

Oh for sure, I didn't mean to imply that there's not massive amounts of inequities in stem. I just don't know if she is the best example considering her lack of experience in the field.

It is unsafe to suggest that they can. Safety isn't on the menu here. You can only get it with a referendum. Or a guillotine.

You are misconstruing health and legal safety. There is already an alarming lack of women's reproductive care, and America already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any wealthy nation.

Your suggestion that you should fear talking about a provider out of concern for the slim possibility that you will be prosecuted for having an abortion is outright dangerous.

How many people have been jailed so far for this information? Now weigh that against the amount of just black women who die every year for lack of prenatal care. What you are spreading is not only dangerous, but reeks of privilege.

I don't really know if I would consider Mayim Bialik a "scientist". She has a degree in neuroscience, but I don't think just finishing a stem degree makes you a scientist for the rest of your life.

I have a medical degree, but I doubt any of my colleagues (outside of medical research) would be comfortable with utilizing the title.

Someone who hasn't ever actually worked in their field of study, and only has two published papers.....which to be honest, I didn't even know was possible to complete a Phd while only having a single publication as a post graduate. The publishing requirements for graduate schools have become kinda insane, but your only major publication being your thesis is also kinda absurd. It wouldn't surprise me if she received some special treatment due to her celeb status.

Also, someone with a research based degree who also is antivax is concerning. Not to mention the whole selfhelp podcast and the rabid Zionism.....

In some anti-abortion states, the information in question can potentially be used as evidence in a murder trial for having sought an abortion.

Yes, I understand that. I practice pediatric medicine in the most conservative state in the nation.

Doctors don't need that information.

Again, this is circumstantial. Menstruation cycles are still very important to certain types of medical care. It is unsafe to suggest that no doctor can be trusted with this type of information.

Most of the reasons why physicians ask these questions is purely out of concern for your health and for liability purposes. Certain medications can be dangerous to prescribe to a person who is unknowingly pregnant.

Insurance companies surely don't need that information.

I wasn't validating the insurance companies reasoning, just informing why physicians and other medical providers may ask these questions.

That entirely depends on where you are going, what insurance networks they deal with, and what the appointment was scheduled for.

Going in for a sinus infection, yeah that's probably not going to be necessary. Going in for a women's wellness check up? They are probably going to have to input something depending on the forms the institution uses for electronic medical records.

Certain insurances will utilize specific metrics to determine reimbursement. If you don't document certain information they may use it as an excuse not to reimburse the provider.