addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Sunday Morning Discussion Breakfast

  • Aug 3, 2014 · 10:30 AM
  • This location is shown only to members

A laid back meet-up designed to provide a less formal atmosphere and an opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics. Enjoy a casual communal breakfast with your fellow free thinkers!

This is a recurring meeting that takes place the first Sunday of each month. The location alternates between Marie Callender's in Orange, and Katella Deli in Los Alamitos.

Restaurants are often finicky about seating people when not everyone has arrived. So please update your RSVP if you're unable to make it.

Join or login to comment.

  • Jared P.

    I am interested in the reactions of others (who have seen it) to the documentary "Pandora's Promise" promoting the use of nuclear energy in the USA.
    When I first saw it, I thought it persuasive, but looked for a critique of the movie soon after. I felt the critique created a lot of doubt about the credibility of the documentary's message. I watched it again and found "Pandora's Promise" to be chalk full of logical fallacies.

    July 29, 2014

    • Liz B.

      here it is: "Even taking the maximum predicted death toll from Chernobyl, we would need a Chernobyl-sized accident every three weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as coal and oil already is." http://skeptoid.com/e...­

      1 · July 30, 2014

    • Jared P.

      Brian Dunning has some interesting articles. In this case I don't see much mention, if any, of off-gassing, leaks, regulatory conflicts of interest, disclosure deficiencies or waste management problems. He mentions newer reactor models and types without mention of the cost problems associated with them or the decommissioning of previous generation reactors.

      August 8, 2014

  • Tara

    It was very nice meeting everyone! This was my first time at this meeting and I enjoyed myself. Even though I don't normally eat eggs or cheese, I tried to treat myself but I won't be doing that again. :P I hope to see everyone again soon, if you'll have me. :)

    August 3, 2014

    • Jared P.

      I, for one, look forward to a taste of the terabyte of information you and we will be sharing.

      August 3, 2014

    • Delayn

      Thank you, Tara, we enjoyed meeting you.

      August 4, 2014

  • Dave R.

    I'm heading back home from a road trip. I'm very likely going to be late. Please get started without me.

    August 3, 2014

    • Dave R.

      I've called Katella Deli and let them know we're coming and that I'll likely be late. Just ask for the Meetup group.

      August 3, 2014

    • Dave R.

      I'm not going to make it. Sorry. It's taking a lot longer than expected to return.

      August 3, 2014

  • Jared P.

    Ernst: "We depend on a lot of power and without it a lot more people would die than die from power generation."
    If that is the case, please provide the statistics or a link demonstrating that such is the case.
    Don't get me wrong, I agree that refrigeration is important for much of our diet and air conditioning for those of infirm age or health in the hottest places and times and heat in the colder. Those priorities can be satisfied with a significant reduction in energy use by cutting energy for lower priority uses.

    July 30, 2014

    • ERNST G.

      As energy costs triple with mandated Co2 reductions, as they have in Germany, the cost of everything will go up. Everything we use, housing, transportation, food, etc. Life becomes ever more difficult, particularly for poor people already living at the edge of survival. While a rich country like the U.S. can survive standard of living reductions, for many poor countries it will mean starvation for many more of their people. http://dailycaller.co...­

      1 · July 31, 2014

    • Jared P.

      Life is always difficult for those in poverty. It's not particularly difficult for many of us attending skeptics meetings. I don't see any statistics supporting the increased number of deaths or increased costs for survival for a given increase in energy costs (in your post or the link). There are too many people on this planet to accept the status quo of: have even more babies you (they) and we cannot support. Reduce the population and we'll reduce energy demand.

      July 31, 2014

  • Jared P.

    http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/nuclear-power-in-france-setting.pdf
    The above link has many references, but I have not checked them out. Nevertheless, I find the article very persuasive against the notion that France's nuclear power program is the environmental and financial success advocates of nuclear power would have us believe. What does appear to be France's nuclear financial success is its export of technology to countries that probably ought not have it.

    July 30, 2014

  • Jared P.

    To ignore old nuclear technology in assessing its risks and benefits would be employing a fallacy since old technology is still in use and its use is being recommissioned without correcting some significant safety violations or implementing important upgrades. I do agree that new technologies in nuclear reactors should also be considered but not without first addressing the problems of reactors in use today. If new technologies can be demonstrated to be safe and economical, other issues would still need attention. Independent, third party, unrestricted testing must be permitted and their results disclosed to the public. That is not the case today. Though I agree that on the surface nuclear appears safer than fossil fuels and hydro, there is evidence of significant health problems of residents near nuclear facilities that begins to subside after the closing of those nuclear plants.

    July 30, 2014

    • Wayne Gray (and J.

      Jared,
      Are you opposed to France's nuclear power program? At least some aspects of it have the appearance of a success story.

      July 30, 2014

    • Jared P.

      I agree, but that doesn't mean we should accept that appearance "hook, line and sinker." We should look at it with the eyes of a skeptic and research what credentialed critics are saying about France's nuclear power program. I have not done so yet, but I intend to.

      July 30, 2014

  • Jared P.

    ...Continued
    Existing reactors often use U-238 and U-235. That mixture is enriched to increase the percentage of 235 to 238. As the fuel (U-235) is used U238 produces Plutonium which “burns” as fuel with U-235. Not all is used, so the waste still has some U-235 and Plutonium remaining.
    The “salt” for thorium reactors is anything but innocuous. The liquid or molten salt itself is quite the cocktail, but I don’t recommend serving it at your next party.
    Thorium reactors’ fuel U-233 produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years) and actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

    July 30, 2014

    • Jared P.

      For previous Thorium reactors and one midpoint of a four-year test thorium reactor:
      http://singularityhub...­
      In general, Thorium reactors are thought to be unfeasible. If that leaves us with old technology, what place is there in this argument for the new?
      It’s a red herring!

      July 30, 2014

  • Jared P.

    Letting the market find its own balance is notoriously unreliable because those with vested interest in exploiting the market are very good at hiding indirect costs (and some direct costs through government subsidies paid by taxpayers) and passing them on to consumers, local residents and the environment. Those who would profit from nuclear power would continue the subterfuge without regard to the vitiation of surrounding communities and the environment.
    We have seen this time and again with oil spills and fracking as well as coal, and, of course, it occurs in other industries. Hidden costs have been passed on by hydro and wind energies also.
    It would be foolish for us to believe that the nuclear industry would not hide what they think they can and should from the public about hidden costs to the environment and our health.
    It’s a misconception that thorium reactors would not use uranium as their fuel source. Thorium is converted to uranium through irradiation. Th-232 => U-233.

    July 30, 2014

  • Wayne Gray (and J.

    Hi guys!

    Will any of you help me with my thinking? I was just wrote this...

    My take is that Jesus was less than perfect. Here's one of those ways...In spite of His supposed omniscience, He taught nothing of germ theory, thus leaving man to struggle with misinformation, superstition, and needless suffering for nearly two millennia after His teachings. So, on the subject of "Compassion", what grade will you give Him on His report card?

    Jesus apparently (like His Father) missed the opportunity to condemn slavery. So, on the subject of "Holy Teaching", what grade will you give Him on His report card?

    Let's consider that God reportedly has always been omniscient. Therefore, He ABSOLUTELY knew that original sin was GOING to happen. He supposedly designed EVERY ingredient which CAUSED it to happen. Then He was somehow surprised that it DID happen??? Then He REPENTED that He had made man??? Then the big dilemma of how to solve it???

    July 21, 2014

    • ERNST G.

      Wayne, these are fictional characters and therefore suffer all the improprieties and contradictions and immoralities of their inventors.

      July 27, 2014

    • Jared P.

      Jesus, as the story goes, came as a spiritual leader to show us the way back to god and as the son of god to atone for our sins through his sacrifice if we accept his teachings. What Jesus did not come here as or to do is teach us as a historian, scientist, doctor, ecologist, economist, etc. of history, science, medicine, ecology, economics, etc. Perhaps not even as a sociologist to teach of the social changes required to make the world a better place. His message, though to all who would hear, was to each of us as an individual. I personally think that would be a valid answer. Nevertheless, it does not answer why the god that sent him is so incredibly capricious. Neither does it help us understand the more seemingly sinister teachings of Jesus.

      July 27, 2014

12 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy