Hello, a discussion about memes and their influence on bunk.

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Hello all,
Just wanted to make a thread to introduce myself. My names Rich and I am a skeptic. Besides researching already debunked or current theories, I have never tried to debunk anything other than trying to convince my hippie friends the science behind things. I figured I would try my first discussion here but not directly try and debunk something but point out how sometimes people try and create conspiracies using the wrong things as examples. I got into reading about bunk and conspiracies lately mostly due to friends on social media bombarding me with memes. Don't get me wrong I love a good meme, if it makes sense. I don't like memes that use imagery and words designed to elicit fear and/or anger as the first emotion. I say if someones intention is to get people mad or scared, at least have your facts right or use examples that make sense.

I couldn't for the life of me find a copy of the meme I will discuss, I will try and give the gist of it best I can. If anyone has the meme please post it. The meme talks about how there is a U.S. government (left wing?) conspiracy to suppress green or renewable energy and to prove this point they site Iceland as an example because Iceland produces 100% of its electricity with renewable energy. I don't know if the PTB are conspiring to hold anything back or not, I have not researched it all that much. My gripe is that Iceland's energy model is based on hydro and geothermal power, about 75% and 25% (depending on source) respectively. Geothermal also heats a large portion (87%) of homes and business. Right off the bat I say to myself the U.S. probably could produce that much hydro power but would we want to? I say no since that would require building more dams. Currently the U.S. produces about 66.8% of the renewable power through hydro and renewable only accounts for about 13% of energy in the U.S.

Just to put things into perspective, Iceland only has a population of about 325,000 and its hydro and geothermal plants produce a max of 1,155mw and 200mw respectively. The U.S. Produces more megawatts of renewable energy than Iceland by a long shot, just not 100% of its total output. Also a large portion of the power produce is used for aluminum mining and that process is not very green. For the simple reason that the amount of energy being produced is so small compared to the U.S. I believe using Iceland as an example for the conspiracy is a faulty one.

I hope this subject is not off topic at all. I invite anyone to give their thoughts, not only on what you think of this particular meme but if there are memes you have seen that you think are giving bunk or are misleading. Or just the overall influence memes are having in getting people to believe in bunk. I will also invite anyone's thoughts on if you think or don't think it is a conspiracy that renewable energy is being held back.

I hope the days of 100% green and renewable energy for the world are close.

http://www.icetradedirectory.com/english/industry_sectors_in_iceland/energy_in_iceland/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Nice analysis!
I think the word 'meme' has a specific definition as you are using it here. Does it just mean a picture with text that is easily shared?
Another word could be agitprop (literally, agitation propaganda). A point given in easily digested form, completely lacking in any real-world complexity.
I think even the science-based memes can suffer from over-simplification or possible misrepresentation. When they serve to get you interested enough to investigate further, that's fine, but they often just get mentally filed away as 'stuff that's true that I now know' which is where the harm builds up as people rabidly defend what they now know because they digested words on a picture.
Some information is simple and easily communicated this way, but for 'issues', it's just a tool to polarise people to a view.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I understand the US has just about maxed out it's available hydro energy. While hydro is good for emissions, I feel and so do others that it has a severe environmental impact. Whole ecosystems are destroyed, the flow of rivers and the sediments they carry are altered. One of the big problems along the Gulf coast is the lack of renewing sediments from the Mississippi river.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
A picture with text over it is what I mean by meme. That people tend not to do any research or fact check and just believe things as true because it suits their world view is what gets me. I don't mind memes designed to educate or polarize as long as it uses facts or at least makes practical sense.

“One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear on the grapevine, just because it suits their worldview—not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases… but people prefer reassurance to research.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
TBH a thread to just debunk those might be good. I got one from a friend the other night that listed companies 'owned' by Monsanto---everyone from Betty Crocker to both Coke and Pepsi. It was maybe a list of companies that use GM crops. Snopes is good for the obvious, but we could do the deeper part, ie "Do those companies use GM products or what GM products do they use.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Hydroelectricity can indeed cause a lot of environmental harm, especially where 'mega-dam' projects are concerned. Still, it seems to me a far better option than nuclear. The prevalence of nuclear power in the world today is a ticking time-bomb, if you'll forgive the phrase. It's that one technology on the planet that we know for a fact has the potential to more or less kill it, and yet we use it in startling abundance. I'm interested to see more earnest explorations of tidal generators, as that has the potential to be a really useful, really 'minimum potential harm' project... certainly risking bludgeoning some fish to death, but not a whole lot else. Not a universal technology of course, so not one to solve the energy problem outright, but still something governments could get a titch more enthusiastic about. Geothermal is a cool technology, but the states, as I understand it, would have a hard time of it in most areas, as from what I've heard they'd have to work exceptionally harder and dig quite a bit deeper to make it viable.

I hope the days of 100% green and renewable energy for the world are close.
With a serious change in ethos among world leaders and the ultra-rich toward legitimate altruism and a willingness of the population to abandon the 'growth or death' doctrine and start slowing everything down, 100% green and renewable energy for the world wouldn't be an insurmountable problem in this day and age. To say we lack the technology is a half-truth. We lack the technology to do it while keeping the world running in the way that it currently runs, which means what we're really lacking is the will to change. Alas, it doesn't seem like the will to change is in the cards. The carrot dangling at the end of the stick, that super-advanced global techno-democracy where everyone's a high-powered entrepreneur turning their savvy business sense toward the stars, is just too appetizing a future to the 'powers that be' for them to stop chasing it. Thing is, there's no one holding the stick. Not the invisible hand of the market, not Baphomet or Satan, Jesus or the risen Ayn Rand. If there is an 'Illuminati' or anything like them, they're just chasing the same carrot as the rest. The thing is strapped to their heads, and they're marching us out blindly into a very hostile desert. It doesn't seem as though we'll have any chance of getting off this ride we're tied too until it drops in exhaustion with its own blind efforts, or finally gets that carrot. I've got a fair idea of what will come first, but I could be wrong.

tumblr_lhz5xxYkPr1qbg2kao1_500.jpg
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
My Phd revolved around offshore windfarms. Many people think they are relatively benign to the environment but the reality is different. They have the potential to shift sediment and erosion, as well as affect currents in the right formation. Even small changes in the flora and fauna can affect migration and spawning patterns. At the end of the day all energy sources, even green energies, come at an environmental cost and we just have to weigh up which is the worse. Iceland is a poor model to use given that it has a population around 300,000 and it is easy to locate its centres near the sources.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Just to put things into perspective, Iceland only has a population of about 325,000 and its hydro and geothermal plants produce a max of 1,155mw and 200mw respectively. The U.S. Produces more megawatts of renewable energy than Iceland by a long shot, just not 100% of its total output. Also a large portion of the power produce is used for aluminum mining and that process is not very green. For the simple reason that the amount of energy being produced is so small compared to the U.S. I believe using Iceland as an example for the conspiracy is a faulty one.
My father told me that when he visited Iceland during WWII, they were already using geoethermal steam heating, and growing tomatoes in greenhouses during the winter. So, they have a long experience with that. It makes sense if you have it available nearby where it is needed, or can locate a plant close to the source of electricity production. The big problem using them as an analogy as has been pointed out is their small population, small size and large water/geothermal resource. They also had little alternative since they don't have oil/gas resources AFAIK.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
At the end of the day all energy sources, even green energies, come at an environmental cost and we just have to weigh up which is the worse.
in your opinion, is nuclear a better option than wind, from an environmental perspective?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I am really against coal. It just seems to have too many problems, however there is a lot of it. I would like us to leave it be, until we need it as a chemical feed stock.

Natural gas is going to help reduce the US's dependence on coal.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
While there is risk of meltdown, the long term damage is basically localized to the area the plant was in. The risk of global catastrophe is pretty small if not zero. Coal and all fossil-fuel plants effect the planet as a whole.

I hope I get to see fusion power achieved in my life time.
 

Jimbo

New Member
Memes are incredibly important parts of this debate. We should always think in terms of memes and sound bites. I mean consider the influence memes (and naming... and framing...) like these have had on the debate...

Death Panels
Warmists
Global Heating
Death Tax
Austerians

Some have more legs than others but I'm promoting memes like...
Bunkers
Global Heating Deniers

Time will tell which memes catch on. They can belittle the opposition, and put them on the defensive, setting the frame, in one or two short words. Concoct memes! (Of course longer memes are possible, and really the idea is the germ of the meme, but shorter memes are far more viral).
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I think I like the anti-dhmo approach. Make people fear normal everyday substances otherwise considered benign by explaining them in a very scientific way.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
I couldn't for the life of me find a copy of the meme I will discuss, I will try and give the gist of it best I can. If anyone has the meme please post it. The meme talks about how there is a U.S. government (left wing?) conspiracy to suppress green or renewable energy and to prove this point they site Iceland as an example because Iceland produces 100% of its electricity with renewable energy.
Found this one...

solar-power-germany-nuclear-plant-left-wing-conspiracy-meme.jpg

But this is not a powerplant in Germany or Iceland, this is "PS10" in Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_plant
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I've seen the Germany meme, didn't know it showed the wrong plant. I guess as long as the facts are right the picture being wrong is not a huge deal. Wiki has their solar output in 2012 at 32.3gw. I'd like to see the development of low voltage solar powered LED lighting for homes.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
I've seen the Germany meme, didn't know it showed the wrong plant. I guess as long as the facts are right the picture being wrong is not a huge deal.
I think the claims of these meme is factual wrong germany has only one thermal solar powerplant in Julich and this is a smal one for research. I think they confused the pholtaic plates produced in germany, or something else. In Germany the biggest parts in renewable energy are driven by wind and water

maybe this meme helped you to find your meme. You know now, that you have to search for "demonized left wing conspiracy" ;)
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I think there could be a better way of trying to engage people in this debate or get them involved in bringing about the change to solar other than claiming its a conspiracy.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I believe that my research on that showed that that figure was for about 2 hrs during one DAY. Power plants need to produce power 24/7.
 

lotek

Active Member
grieves, what is your opinion of new technology or near application technologies in nuclear and their safety vs environmental footprint? If you are not familiar with the several options i can be more specific.

I firmly believe nuclear to be a large part of the answer, but not how we do it now, and after a revolution of research funding and work for 10-20 years with projects after 5 or something.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
The picture is wrong. The fact Germany produced that much solar power is not.
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/solar-power-record-in-germany-22-68-gw-infographic/

The conspiracy is debatable.

Thanks for the link! Yep! I now remeber. This was a smal footnote in the german news...

But things are a little bit more complicate in Germany, take a look at the comments under your article. Germany has a real crazy Energy-Politics and people are a little bit angy about the Powers that be...

First you must know, that german Heavy Industry and 4 Powerplant-Monoplists have a great influence to politics (to every Party, even the greens). So it´s really a kind of open conspiracy. And their influence resulted in a strong regulated and confusing money-flow-System that keeps them on their level...

To reach that remarkable record, since decades ago, installing photovoltaic systems on a roof or on a free area was massive financial promoted by the gouvernment. If a smal house prodeces more power than it needes for itself, the overgenerated power was spent into the powernetwork to a fixed price higher then the normal Price. So everyone who want´s to build a house put a photovoltaic plate on his roof and earned money double. Installing was promoted and the power it genereates makes also money...

But the great fault of the System is:

These fincancial promotion are payed by all other customers - and only by them. Heavy-Industry is excepted and is paying normal prices. All other folks have to pay a "Ecolig Tax" and a "EEG-Umlage" (not translateable for me). to every single Kw//h. The Price for 1 KW/h rised about 10-25% this year due to this. So that´s the reason peoples starting to get a little bit angry about solar power and alternative Energies... We like them, but we doen´t want to hear them growing too much. That should be the reason why this remarkable record was just a smal footnote in the german news.

The rich people building houses get a nice Additional income, the great majourity who lives in a City in rented flats have to pay for it. The 4 electrical power Monopols own the network the power is transported and they roules their prices so that they didn´t lost money, even if they sold less power. The high-Industries threatens to move out of germany if their power gets to expensive for them. So all has to be payed by the people who can´t threatens anyone.

This is the crazy part of the german Energy-Politics. The more "cheap Energy" from alternative sources generated, the more the price will rise for any costumer. Unfortunatily the Germans haven´t a protest-culture anymore and doesn´t go demonstrating on streets or strike just because of growing prices. They pay them and are pissed about it...

...Except somebody want´s to intrduct a speed-Limit on the Autobahn. Well, that happens some day ago and the media was bashing this social-democratic politican as he had denied the Holy Grail. That´s what the german soul really hurts :-D

I believe that my research on that showed that that figure was for about 2 hrs during one DAY. Power plants need to produce power 24/7.
We try to get a so-called "Energy-Mix". Solar Power, Wind, Water-Energy, Bio-Gas and other alternative Energies combined , that most of them can stand in if one part get lost. Should all fail, gas-fired powerplants should stay as backup.

The Mayor Key should be to "save" the power from good-times with a lot of wind and sun and to realease them if needed. These Charging-Technologies are in research, Hoping for good results. The easiest way is to use overpower to pump water into a congestion pool and releasing the up-Pumped water through Turbines, if Power is needed. But this is a very inevectiive practice and would mean great interventions into landmarks.

The Power-Network connects whole central-Europe since years. Before the ligths go out due to a dark and windless day in Germany, we´ll get some cheap nuclear power from France or Rumania (Our 4 Monopolist in Germany will all do having payments for do so) This is a really sad thing, that Germans have automacally pay higher prices then needed. And there where some days we had delivered power outside to other countries to a negative Price. German Energy-Politic is progressive, but it based on a really silly and complicated regulation, That´s this undoubtable crazy part of German Electrical-Power-Politcs.

Back to topic to the Threadstarter

Maybe Soulfly could make a simular report how Iceland had reached this wonderfull rate of 100% reusaable Energy. After this, I really need to think about some wondenfull wonders. Before I get crazy :)

...want to hear some good News after crying :D
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It takes a mix, in Texas you can choose your 'supplier' and I choose a company that does wind and a little hydro, but everyone is tied into the grid, so your power comes from a multitude of sources.

What is odd is that Texas is not tied to the larger US grid (I think there may be one line in far west Texas). That was done during WWII to protect the refineries and chemical plants of the coast. It seems that we are better tied into the Mexican grid. Several years ago, we had a late cold snap, and several power plants were out for maintenance. We were having blackouts and brown outs, until they managed to get permission to tap the Mexican grid for extra power.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is a wonderfully green and useful idea with access to deep ocean water its own requirement - and limitation.

It is quite applicable to any volcanic islands which peek out of the deep ocean. It works by the difference in temperature between the deep ocean and the atmospheric temperature above it.

The reason I live in Tenerife is that a scheme for self-watering greenhouses was cooked up by a company called Lightworks with help from ITER, the windmills of which I can see before me right now. It was managed by my wife, and I just came along in the baggage, forced to drink beer in the shade. (Ah, shame...) :)

Screen Shot 2013-05-17 at 09.52.06.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

The scheme failed for "other reasons". There were too many of them in British business, and the legal profession seems idle, naive to sophisticated fraud.

The people in power on this island (Tenerife) are dumber than a bag of hammers. It should be the solar capitol of the world, but instead they import Venezuelan oil and dream of their next 4 x 4, and make life difficult for anyone wishing to effect change.

Brown paper envelopes rule on both islands, I guess.

Screen Shot 2013-05-17 at 10.02.51.png
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Very interesting that is how you came to be in Tenerife. At my previous location, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, during the 70's they had a deep water facility that I believe was strictly aquaculture. It closed soon after I moved there, however. Wanting to learn more, I ran across the fact that a proposal had been made in 1992 to build a large OTEC facility at Butler Bay, which was only about 1/4 mile from where I lived for 12 years( I moved in 1992)! The property in question might have been a good opportunity for me since such a facility would be exactly within my expertise. Power production and use is my training, and agriculture and the sea is my love. I also know every inch of both the land and sea in that area.

I'd be willing to bet that the project on St. Croix failed to materialize for exactly the same reasons you mention above. The logistical obstacles were great there, as well. At this time, the property is for sale, as it has been forever. There are plenty of other sites nearby.

otec.jpg
 

Grieves

Senior Member
grieves, what is your opinion of new technology or near application technologies in nuclear and their safety vs environmental footprint? If you are not familiar with the several options i can be more specific.

I firmly believe nuclear to be a large part of the answer, but not how we do it now, and after a revolution of research funding and work for 10-20 years with projects after 5 or something.
My primary concern with nuclear power is what we do with it when accidents happen. Accidents are bound to happen after all with any industry, no matter how safe, or how advanced the technology. Unless we can devise a real way to properly manage the aftermath of major accidental nuclear catastrophes, the whole program seems terribly short-sighted to me. Currently there clearly isn't one, and there's no sign of any great advances forthcoming. As mentioned, we already struggle with how to manage coal and crude in a way that's environmentally safe, and the waste-products/pollutants these processes produce are far more manageable than the radioactive byproducts of keeping a nuclear reactor running smoothly. These materials can be more than just deadly in the short-term, and have the potential to poison land with near permanence from the human perspective. When major accidents do happen, the results can be staggering. To try and put it into perspective, here's a map of the planet, with an attempted to-scale chart of the land mass currently off-limits in the Chernobyl area.


quar..jpg
Though the total area affected by radiation was quite massive in the direct aftermath of the event, these are the areas that remain unlivable to this day. Doesn't seem like a whole lot, just a few red dots in a big old world, right? Here are the current active plants worldwide, most of which are considerably larger than Chernobyl.
nukes.jpg
So again I ask, say some unimaginably ugly global crisis rolled around; asteroid strike, Yosemite blowing with a vengeance, wide-scale nuclear war, none of which are remotely likely to occur but all of which are entirely possible to the point that at least two of them could be considered inevitable... and it happened before we figure out how to properly manage these reactors when they do fail? Say properly managing these reactors becomes entirely impossible within the context of the crisis? Even barring some dramatic global crisis, accidents are going to keep happening, especially in Japan. Many of Japan's reactors are on the coast. Just how much radioactive material can the ocean dilute? I think our days of imagining it as a limitless abyss are over.

If you have examples of safer nuclear options, I wouldn't mind looking at them at all.
 

Mattnik

Moderator
My primary concern with nuclear power is what we do with it when accidents happen. Accidents are bound to happen after all with any industry, no matter how safe, or how advanced the technology. Unless we can devise a real way to properly manage the aftermath of major accidental nuclear catastrophes, the whole program seems terribly short-sighted to me. Currently there clearly isn't one, and there's no sign of any great advances forthcoming. As mentioned, we already struggle with how to manage coal and crude in a way that's environmentally safe, and the waste-products/pollutants these processes produce are far more manageable than the radioactive byproducts of keeping a nuclear reactor running smoothly. These materials can be more than just deadly in the short-term, and have the potential to poison land with near permanence from the human perspective. When major accidents do happen, the results can be staggering. To try and put it into perspective, here's a map of the planet, with an attempted to-scale chart of the land mass currently off-limits in the Chernobyl area.


View attachment 2848
Though the total area affected by radiation was quite massive in the direct aftermath of the event, these are the areas that remain unlivable to this day. Doesn't seem like a whole lot, just a few red dots in a big old world, right? Here are the current active plants worldwide, most of which are considerably larger than Chernobyl.
View attachment 2849
So again I ask, say some unimaginably ugly global crisis rolled around; asteroid strike, Yosemite blowing with a vengeance, wide-scale nuclear war, none of which are remotely likely to occur but all of which are entirely possible to the point that at least two of them could be considered inevitable... and it happened before we figure out how to properly manage these reactors when they do fail? Say properly managing these reactors becomes entirely impossible within the context of the crisis? Even barring some dramatic global crisis, accidents are going to keep happening, especially in Japan. Many of Japan's reactors are on the coast. Just how much radioactive material can the ocean dilute? I think our days of imagining it as a limitless abyss are over.
It's a tricky subject, this. On the one side I'm fully for 100% green energy but I can't see anything matching the rising energy demands.

This paper caught my attention a few months back. Obviously, the vast majority of reactors are coastal so it examines the effect of projected sea-level rises.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-2h_85gQ4aDWnZUUWZLN1VtVkU/edit?usp=sharing

This is Turkey Point, Florida.

TPGM.jpg

Turkey Point, with sea level rise of 0.4 and 0.5 m

TP1.jpg

Turkey Point with sea level rise of 0.9 m

TP2.jpg
Turkey Point with sea level rise of 2.5 m

TP3.jpg

Now, as the paper points out, with a sea level rise of 2.5 m we're going to have a lot of very serious problems anyway but this is something that plant operators / government are going to have to deal with.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
So again I ask, say some unimaginably ugly global crisis rolled around; asteroid strike, Yosemite blowing with a vengeance, wide-scale nuclear war, none of which are remotely likely to occur but all of which are entirely possible to the point that at least two of them could be considered inevitable... and it happened before we figure out how to properly manage these reactors when they do fail? Say properly managing these reactors becomes entirely impossible within the context of the crisis? Even barring some dramatic global crisis, accidents are going to keep happening, especially in Japan. Many of Japan's reactors are on the coast. Just how much radioactive material can the ocean dilute? I think our days of imagining it as a limitless abyss are over.
Localized natural disasters pose a very real threat to nuclear power plants, Fukushima demonstrated that. If there was a global disaster going to cause a significant percentage of nuclear power plants around the world to meltdown (worst case) then to me it kind of seems like just adding a pebble to a mountain. If this hypothetical disaster is so powerful to cause all that damage to nuclear power plants what did it do to the rest of the world? I could think of a bunch of other things to worry about. Like is the sun going to come back after an asteroid impact or super volcano. Nuclear war? I could be wrong but your saying nuclear war will cause nuclear power plants to fail and that I should worry about the plants and not the war?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm saying if there were some global catastrophe, managing nuclear power plants could become the last thing on anyone's mind, and could prove entirely impossible. If that was the case, we'd have many, many reactors degenerating into meltdown states on all sides. Large portions of the planet, if not it's entirety, could become entirely unlivable for hundreds of years. If a Nuclear War were to occur, and the fallout was massive, the presence of all these reactors gradually melting down would only cement the permanence of that fallout, and could well result in an Earth entirely unsupportive of human life in the long term. Truman himself spoke of this possibility. These are the unlikely worst-case scenarios, the bleakest of the bleak, but possible. As you said, localized natural disasters pose a very real threat as it is. These alone could pose major problems for the environment, and thus our capacity to survive comfortably within it.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I'm saying if there were some global catastrophe, managing nuclear power plants could become the last thing on anyone's mind, and could prove entirely impossible. If that was the case, we'd have many, many reactors degenerating into meltdown states on all sides. Large portions of the planet, if not it's entirety, could become entirely unlivable for hundreds of years. If a Nuclear War were to occur, and the fallout was massive, the presence of all these reactors gradually melting down would only cement the permanence of that fallout, and could well result in an Earth entirely unsupportive of human life in the long term. Truman himself spoke of this possibility. These are the unlikely worst-case scenarios, the bleakest of the bleak, but possible. As you said, localized natural disasters pose a very real threat as it is. These alone could pose major problems for the environment, and thus our capacity to survive comfortably within it.
Risk of melt down vs known continued harm on a global scale being done by the burning of fossil fuels. One thing for sure is, we should not put all our eggs in one basket. A mix of all types of energy is going to be key. If there was a sun blocking global disaster, solar (possibly wind) power would be affected and possibly useless. I still think that if things were so bad that no one cared about nuclear power plants, there would be something far worse to worry about.

I think your research and reasoning might serve you better if you don't try and scare yourself so much.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm not scared of nuclear power plants. I'm scared of house-centipedes. Creepy fuckers.
housecentipede.jpg
I'm concerned about nuclear power because it poses a legitimate long-term threat to the continued existence of the human race, of which I am rather fond, even given its foibles.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Possible risk of something really bad happening all at once vs something really bad certain to happen over a long period of time.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Have you been noticing those house-centipedes more often lately? If so it might be a conspiracy.
 

Related Articles

Top