| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This is hysterical. Florida and other red states forbid any teaching of black history and ban lots of books. What do we hear from the rabid righties? Crickets about suppression. But make it hard to tell lies about vaccines? They go batshit.
The court decision may be right, time will tell. But the hypocrisy is classic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Things you’ll never learn from knee jerks like Techno. It was the ACLU who challenged the law, and the California Medical Association that sponsored it. What the judge wrote, is that the law is too vague, and its working term “contemporary scientific consensus” “does not have an established technical meaning in the medical community.” I think he is right. Of course, I have supported the ACLU for many years—including against the free speech deniers in chief in Florida and Texas.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem with bad doctors who let their political views get in the way of patient care. As the legislation sponsor noted, “Nearly a third of the million-plus deaths from COVID were preventable”. But assigning the state to police quackery—like hydro—with such a vague standard isn’t tenable. The medical malpractice route seems like the appropriate path. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Houston ---Dirtiest city in America. Where is the nutty Texas thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will it stay open, or does Calif. lose 9% of its power in 2 years?
| Quote: | Regulators nix proposal on California’s last nuclear plant
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD January 25, 2023
LOS ANGELES (AP) — In pointed language, federal regulators rebuffed a request Tuesday from the operator of California’s last nuclear power plant that could have smoothed its pathway to securing a longer operating life for its twin reactors.
The decision marks the latest skirmish in a long-running fight over the operation and safety of the decades-old Diablo Canyon plant, which Gov. Gavin Newsom says should keep running beyond a scheduled 2025 closure to ward off possible blackouts as the state transitions to solar and other renewable sources.
In October, Pacific Gas & Electric asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to resume consideration of an application initially submitted in 2009 to extend the plant’s life, which later was withdrawn after PG&E in 2016 announced plans to shutter the reactors.
Under existing rules, the operating licenses for the sister reactors expire in 2024 and 2025, at which time they would be forced to close.
The turnaround came in September after the Democratic governor and the Legislature voided the 2016 agreement to close the plant and opened the way for PG&E to seek a longer operating run from federal regulators.
The NRC staff bluntly rejected the idea of going back in time to resume consideration of the previous license-extension plan, saying that “resuming this review would not be consistent with ... the Principles of Good Regulation,” referring to its guiding values, including independence and openness. |
See more at: https://apnews.com/article/politics-us-nuclear-regulatory-commission-gavin-newsom-los-angeles-california-514f21f2b0cd5889412a9a10bee422f0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear, nonplussed by being on the same side as the ACLU. the troll from the land of pig shit pivots to the question of Diablo Canyon. Awfulizing with little understanding ensues.
There are more complete accounts of what is entailed in temporarily extending or relicensing Diablo Canyon. There are really important questions of public safety and economics. You won't read any accounts of those posted by Techno.
I do believe a more accurate reading of this debate is what does PG and E have to do to get federal regulatory approval. This is a little more current article:
| Quote: | PG&E in October 2022 had asked the NRC to resume consideration of an application—first submitted in 2009—to keep Diablo Canyon in operation. The NRC on Jan. 24, though, said it would not resume consideration of the previous license-extension plan. NRC staff said “it would not be effective or efficient” to start the licensing review without updated information on the plant’s condition.
PG&E had withdrawn that 2009 application after the utility in 2016 said it planned to close the nuclear plant when its current licenses expire in 2025. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers in September of last year, though, canceled the utility’s 2016 deal to close the facility due to the state’s energy crisis that has resulted in rolling blackouts in some areas in the past few years.
The debate about the future of Diablo Canyon was the subject of a Point-Counterpoint in POWER’s August 2022 issue. Read the argument for keeping the nuclear plant open, and also check out the reasons some say the plant should be closed.
Newsom said the plant should continue to operate beyond the scheduled 2025 closure date to provide more time for the state to build additional, primarily renewable energy power generation facilities. That prompted PG&E to ask federal regulators to support keeping Diablo Canyon, which supplies about 9% of the state’s electricity, online.
|
You can follow this at:
https://www.powermag.com/nrc-rejects-request-to-keep-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-online/
That site includes a link to a discussion from both sides.
Who pays and who benefits? Perhaps an important question to ask about nuclear power--and Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Doctors threatened for COVID-19 views gear up for possible SCOTUS fight over California misinformation law
Story by Haley Chi-Sing • 1h ago
A team of California doctors say they would be willing to "take it all the way to the top" in their legal fight against Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom over a state COVID-19 misinformation law that would punish doctors who disseminate coronavirus information deemed out of line with the "scientific consensus."
The law, known as Assembly Bill 2098, would have taken effect Jan. 1, 2023 after being signed into law by the governor in September. However, the implementation of the law was temporarily halted after Aaron Kheriaty and four other doctors sued Newsom in November, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment rights violations.
"We explained in our declarations that we're still asked advice from patients frequently on COVID-related matters — masking, for example. Parents may ask me if that mask seems to be exacerbating their child's anxiety disorder," Kheriaty told Fox News Digital.
"This is a good idea to explain situations clinically in which we could potentially be impacted by this law. And in the order granting the preliminary injunction, the judge first said, ‘Yes, all five of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case.’"
A team of California doctors says they would be willing to "take it all the way to the top" in a legal battle against Gov. Gavin Newsom over a COVID-19 misinformation law that would punish doctors who disseminate coronavirus information not in line with the "scientific consensus."
A team of California doctors says they would be willing to "take it all the way to the top" in a legal battle against Gov. Gavin Newsom over a COVID-19 misinformation law that would punish doctors who disseminate coronavirus information not in line with the "scientific consensus."
Kheriaty and his team say the phrase "scientific consensus" is ambiguous, arguing that the vagueness of the phrase itself violates doctors' rights in the due process clause of the Constitution.
"It has a chilling effect on physicians. If physicians aren't sure whether what they're about to say violates the law, then they're just going to read from a script prepared by the California Department of Public Health," Kheriaty said.
District Judge William B. Shubb ultimately erred on the plaintiffs' side when granting their motion for a preliminary injunction in late January, writing "the provision is unconstitutionally vague."
"I think the governor was worried about this law when he signed it, and I think he was worried about the constitutionality of it," Kheriaty said.
Kheriaty also said the law and ambiguity of the phrase opens the door for additional cancellation of COVID-19 information by future medical boards, saying, "Even if the current medical board is not inclined to go after me for my opinions on COVID, using this law, a future medical board might."
Kheriaty indicated the team is hoping to avoid a full-fledged battle in court, asking the judge to instead grant summary judgment in their favor. However, the team of doctors is willing to head all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if litigation over the law goes that far.
"If the law would have stood and there were other areas of controversy within medicine where the state had particular interests that they wanted to advance, it would certainly set a strong precedent for the legislature to either amend that law, take out the word ‘COVID’ and change it to whatever any medical issue or to pass an additional law that applies to whatever," Kheriaty said.
Newsom's office has already indicated it will not appeal the injunction.
"Given the related appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit, both of which have an expedited briefing schedule and will be decided before this case, the state has determined it will not appeal this ruling at this time," said Brandon Richards, spokesperson for the governor.
California became one of the most strict states with respect to COVID-19 restrictions at the outset of the pandemic and beyond. The blue state was the first to enact a statewide stay-at-home order and just recently reversed a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for students. California is set to end its emergency declaration Feb. 28. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A bit of a tempest in a teapot don't you think?
I have to ask though, are you OK with doctors disseminating false information to patients and directing questionable treatments and actions relative to their care and health?
As an aside, I hope that you realize that not all doctors got straight A's in med school. Believe it or not, there are doctors that can be considered quacks, especially when pushing and prescribing patent medicines. History is full of such charlatans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2023 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There’s actually a web site that allows you to see if a physician is getting money from big pharma. Maybe there should be a code of ethics that applies to taking money from supplement corporations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you guys think it is a valid and useful law - good for you. It will only motivate more people to high tail it out of the Golden state. Of course, the courts get to do their thing to see if it is a go, but I speculate that it will be shot down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | If you guys think it is a valid and useful law - good for you. It will only motivate more people to high tail it out of the Golden state. Of course, the courts get to do their thing to see if it is a go, but I speculate that it will be shot down. |
GOOD! Its too crowded...Leave ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
