I completely agree, but if you look what I wrote you see that you are making a straw man argument.Selene wrote:That some stories can be and are faked is no surprise, but like with the Dino 'Hoax' that doesn't mean the absolutism of getting to everything is -therefore- fake(d) is not a step a critical thinker imho would make.
Your position "nuclear energy is real" is just as absolutist and not a skeptical position. Because your evidence is not conclusive.
You keep forgetting that the burden of proof lies in the one that makes the claim, regardless if the claim is "it is all faked" or "it is all real". My position is: maybe nuclear energy does exist and maybe not, I will look at the evidence. So let's start by taking a look at yours:
Are you implying that makes it impossible to be a hoax? How many people work in the AIDS "field"? or the vaccine "field"?Selene wrote:Nuclear weapons (top secret, no checks by the general audience possible, motive for staging vs real weapons) are completely different from nuclear energy. Thousands of people work in that field, many reactors in operation worldwide
What's your evidence that power is produced there? There are other hypotheses, like the dumpload theory, that they use excess electricity produced elsewhere. The people operating it don't even have to know that. Check it out, here is just one of their arguments: *There appear to be no parts of the world exclusively supplied by nuclear power: the EIA state no such place exists.Selene wrote:and the million dollar question is; if nuclear reactors were definitely a hoax, then what is that amazing energy source that brings humanity aaaallll those megawatts in energy??? That would be an earth shaking discovery, as coal or geothermal would struggle to produce all that energy in such a small area...
Selene wrote:I've visited Chernobyl by the way. A really interesting yet relatively uncommon tourist destination. You get an eerie feeling when walking around in Pripyat and have a view on the reactor. The guide showed us with a geiger counter that the grass and plants gave off much more radiation than the concrete we were allowed to walk on. So seeing it with my own eyes, something which is impossible with nuclear bombs, the media hoaxes or NASA Disney stories.
So your eerie feeling and the numbers you watched on somebodies Geiger counter are your evidence? There are other explanations for your observations. And even if there was radioactivity all over the place, this doesn't prove that nuclear energy is real.
Selene wrote:Radioactive minerals and isotopes are also the basis for a lot of technology. They are definitely real. So from there to energy is a logical step.
No it is not a logical step. You would have to assume some kind of chain reaction.
Selene wrote:For weaponry the motive "why make it if you can fake it" makes much more sense....
The ultimate motive for nuclear weapons is to scare the population imho. Nuclear power could have the same motive. Do you think the 500.000 people living in Antwerp, our 2nd biggest city worry about nuclear bombs? Or about the nuclear reactor 16 km from the center of the city, that was possibly sabotaged by terrorists?
So you are willing to admit that some nuclear incidents may be hoaxed? Let's start from there. The nuclear incidents that I talk about lead to the closure of a reactor for some period of time. For example: because of the alleged terrorist sabotage, Doel 4 had to be closed for 4 months. If the reactor is producing as much electricity as they claim, they have to produce 1000 MW of electricity to replace it. Likely from an old inefficient plant on fossil fuel. If it was efficient it would already have been producing. Is it reasonable to believe they would use this in a hoax? That would make this the most expensive hoax ever! Other hoaxes are often cheap and even generate money.Selene wrote:
Why do I hope it's real? Because it's a very efficient energy source and because I trust my own crtitical eyes. That some stories can be and are faked is no surprise, but like with the Dino 'Hoax' that doesn't mean the absolutism of getting to everything is -therefore- fake(d) is not a step a critical thinker imho would make.
So here is my logic
A ) A nuclear reactor is shut down because of a hoax
B ) This nuclear reactor reactor produces lots of cheap electricity
C ) The cost of shutting down a nuclear reactor with the assumed production extremely outweighs the benefits
D ) Hoaxes are never that expensive
The conclusion from A, B and C opposes D. So at least one of the premises must be wrong.
Maybe B is wrong and there are at least some nuclear reactors that are fake.