I won't vote for anyone who claims to be a scientist yet spouts off as much pseudoscience as Jill Stein. Spouting off science terms does not a scientist make. Physicians are not scientists, they are physicians. At
most, they have an undergraduate degree in a science field, and some don't have even that. Medical school teaches very very little science, it teaches
medicine. Hence why you get a "Doctor of Medicine" not a Ph.D at the end of medical school.
Anyone who doesn't trust vaccines after they've been used to successfully eradicate multiple illnesses over hundreds of years is, in my opinion, a quack.
Even if there are side effects,
even if they contain compounds otherwise claimed to be dangerous (both of these things are patently false), the benefit
far, far, far outweighs the risk. The
vast majority of adverse affects reported with vaccines are a) previously unknown allergies to a component or b) known allergies to a component that were not reported to the person administering vaccine.
Nuclear energy is not any more dangerous than driving a car is. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than driving a car. I don't see you pushing for cars to be replaced with a safer alternative. Solar and wind power are expensive, are limited in their spacial extent by the sun/wind patterns, and fail frequently when abnormal events occur. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, takes up a lot less space, provides a lot more energy, and overall is more reliable than either of the other two.
Just some stats on energy:
[URL='http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/' said:
this link[/URL]]
- It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana. Or:
- It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia. Or:
- We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles. Or:
- We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel.
Yeah, I'll take nuclear over solar and wind anyday. Also, think about this: "In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants." So is it really safer? We've produced more kWh of energy with nuclear than we have with solar in this country, yet more people have died installing solar power in the country. We've used nuclear for over 50 years, and there have been a grand total of
five direct deaths due to installation, repairs, or inspection of nuclear power plants, with an additional 3 deaths due to improper use of an experimental reactor.
Just some food for thought. If you're going to vote for someone because they're a scientist, please actually check if their "science" is actual science or pseudoscience. Thanks.[DOUBLEPOST=1470581301][/DOUBLEPOST]
NO. She is anti-GMO, Anti-Nuclear energy. She is a physician but not a scientist. Green party has no more difference than Dems or republicans in regards to science. She also has a problem with WIFI. WIFI?! And is now feeding Anti-Vax groups with people have "questions" about vaccines.
Much agree. GMOs are not harmful. People use GMO and "genetically modified" to fearmonger people into thinking they're by default bad, yet many medicines (insulin, monoclonal antibodies, immunosuppresants, etc.) are from genetically modified organisms, yet nobody questions those. If you went to someone with diabetes and told them "would you keep using insulin if you knew it was from a GMO" I can all but guarantee you they'll say yes because
there is no harm in them. It's like saying "hey let me put high octane gas in my car this time". No harm. But there may be a little bit of benefit.