Slashdot Mirror

And again, you're spewing lies that have been proven to be lies over and over again. Many studies have shown that there's very little to no election fraud that could be "fixed" by voter ID laws. There's real, actual election manipulation by people (Republicans) trying to prevent people from voting legally.

Rubbish. Election fraud is an ongoing problem.

A SAMPLING OF ELECTION FRAUD CASES FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY (pdf - open in new window)

Americans had Obamacare inflicted on them as due to election fraud resulting in the "election" of Senator Al Franken:

Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota

This fact is particularly explosive:

MVA found 941 ineligible felons who were allowed to vote in 2008 alone, exceeding the 312 vote margin separating DFL candidate Al Franken and GOP Sen. Norm Coleman after a grueling recount.

This is stunning. It was Franken’s razor-thin “victory” over incumbent Senator Norm Coleman that allowed the Democrats to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American people. If we assume that 80% of the 941 ineligible felons voted for Al Franken–a conservative assumption, as nearly all convicted felons are Democrats–then Franken’s victory is attributable to voter fraud. And the 941 ineligible votes are just a fraction of those that could have been identified if the Democratic Secretary of State had not stonewalled, refusing to turn over the full list of ineligible voters.

Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen

Someone ought to write a book. Oh, hey! Look at that! -- Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy

Amid Voter ID Battles, Here Are 7 Things the Government Requires IDs For

As federal courts wrestle with voter ID laws in several states just months before a national election, there is considerably less attention being brought to other constitutional rights that require ID.

Do you not care about citizens being able to exercise their rights other than voting?

Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.

Election fraud is a continuing problem across the US.

And you seem to have the issue of disenfranchisement backwards:

Victims of Voter Fraud: Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen

The Virginia scandal comes close on the heels of the voter fraud trials in upstate New York, where Democratic county elections officers and city councilmen from the town of Troy stand trial for absentee-ballot fraud. Four Democrats have already pleaded guilty in a case that highlights who the real victims of election fraud usually are: the poor, minorities, the sick, the old, and other vulnerable members of society.

Democratic Committeeman Anthony DeFiglio pleaded guilty to falsifying business records in the case, and he told investigators that "The people who are targeted [in voter fraud cases] live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions." Even more disturbing was his admission that "What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic."4

Another Troy Committeeman, Anthony Renna, admitted to forging absentee ballot applications and explained that handing in forged ballots and fake votes ensures that "ballots are voted correctly."

"I knew that the actual voters had not voted the ballots or signed the envelopes, but that did not concern me. I am not the ballot police," Renna told police. "I have been present when 'ballots were voted correctly' by party operatives."5 "Voted correctly" is fraud-speak for a forged application or ballot and it has nothing to do with the intentions of the lawful voter and everything to do with the interests of criminals who flagrantly violate election laws.

And who were the victims of this crime against the public? According to the Times Union, those disenfranchised Troy voters who had their ballots voted for them "correctly" included "public housing residents, college students, the semi-literate, a deaf man, the chronically ill and non-English speakers."6

Lest we think that this sort of thing only happens on the east coast, we should remember the illegal ballots cast by an estimated 5,000 non-citizens in Colorado's elections in 2010. Colorado's Secretary of State reported that a state study found nearly 12,000 people registered to vote in Colorado who were not citizens and were therefore not legally eligible to vote. Of those, the state believes that perhaps as many as 5,000 voted in the 2010 general election.7

People in the US have a constitutional right to travel, but you can't board an aircraft and even buses without an ID. You can't enter many government buildings without and ID. You can't open a bank account or cash a check of any real size without an ID. You may not be able to buy alcohol without an ID. What are the activists doing there? Nothing. Why do you think they only care about voting? Here's a hint:

Project Veritas, part two: Dem activists discuss best practices in committing voter fraud without getting caught
"Rigging Elections For 50 Years" - Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2

The US has had the twin ravages of Obamacare and Senator Al Franken inflicted upon it due to election fraud.

Rampant Voter Fraud A

Not a total load of bullshit. I never said they didn't contribute to Rs, but the CEO is democrat, the organization is generally "progressive" and they have liberal leanings.
The Koch brothers also donated heavily to democrats, yet they are firmly labeled here as conservatives.

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
http://usuncut.com/politics/de...
http://www.nationalcenter.org/...

discovered you're probably a credulous right-winger, or ...

or I'm actually reading his own quotes instead of relying on someone else to interpret them..

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7124.htm

"Quickly capping 363 oil well fires in a war zone is impossible. The fires would burn out of control until they put themselves out... The resulting soot might well stretch over all of South Asia... It could be carried around the world... [and] the consequences could be dire. Beneath such a pall sunlight would be dimmed, temperatures lowered and droughts more frequent. Spring and summer frosts may be expected... This endangerment of the food supplies... appears to be likely enough that it should affect the war plans..." - Sagan in op/ed he co-authored with Richard Turco, The Baltimore Sun, January 31, 1991, commenting during the Gulf War on the impact of oil well fires

A lot of rural regions in the U.S. are not only fairly sparsely populated but also aren't really that much better off economically than Cuba.

Please, name 3 regions in the US — rural or otherwise — where the average monthly income is $20. Heck, let's make it $200 — which is ten times, what Cubans earn — because they don't have to pay for that wonderful healthcare of theirs.

You said, there are "a lot" of such regions, so coming up with 3 should be no problem. Thank you.

Mitch McConnell cosponsored a resolution in 1997 demanding commitments from China. http://www.nationalcenter.org/... Now, when President Obama delivers the deal he asked for he backpedals. http://www.nytimes.com/politic... He was for commitments from China before he was against them for sure. Seems like he is a lot like Boehner who can't deliver on deals either.

As a head of a company with possibly millions of bosses, I would think that not insulting any of them would be impossible. If you read more about the NCPPR it would appear that this boss has a specific political agenda and the truth is what they say it is. For example, what Tim Cook actually said:

"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI. . . If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."

What they claim: "Mr. Cook made it very clear to me that if I, or any other investor, was more concerned with return on investment than reducing carbon dioxide emissions, my investment is no longer welcome at Apple," said Justin Danhof, Esq.

Notice that nowhere do they publish his actual comments but their slant on it. Also if you read further:

Danhof went on to ask if Cook was willing to amend Apple's corporate documents to indicate that the company would not pursue environmental initiatives that have some sort of reasonable return on investment - similar to the concession the National Center recently received from General Electric. This question was greeted by boos and hisses from the Al gore contingency in the room.

But Business Insider reports it differently: "The second, in which the representative asked Cook to commit on the spot to only making moves that were profitable for the company, drew the most intense comeback we've heard from the executive."

So according to a reporter, the NCPPR wanted Apple, right then and there, to commit to do things that only show profit.

Of course, they are not done but insinuate hidden moves by Apple:

"Rather than opting for transparency, Apple opposed the National Center's resolution," noted Danhof.

I'm not sure what the company the NCPPR is following but a simple google search came up with Apple's very public environmental reports.

However, those two years have brought on voter registration laws designed to disenfranchise, laws so blatantly racist that it's pants-on-heads insane that anybody let them get away with it.

Voter turnout in Texas nearly doubles under new ID law
Minority turnout increased dramatically after Georgia voter-ID law
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout

Voting fraud is an important question since so many elections are now decided by margins of victory less than the margin of fraud.

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud

Poor and minority votes seem especially vulnerable.

Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen
Officials Plead Guilty in New York Voter Fraud Case

Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud
New York Investigators Obtain Fraudulent Ballots 97 Percent of Time
The “snowbird vote” takes wing

It's worth noting that Asian americans have a higher life expectancy than residents of japan.

Japanese Americans have a higher economic status than the median American, and higher than the median citizen of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Since race is strongly correlated with life expectancy, the mere fact of a more diverse population brings US numbers down, even if we handle every racial group better.

When we control for socioeconomic status the race correlation of life expectancy either is drastically reduced or else disappears entirely. You are trying to paint an economic problem the U.S. has (extreme disparity of wealth and serious poverty) which we could attempt to rectify as an inevitable genetic thing that no one can do anything about.

Life expectancy is a poor measure to star with, since it's not closely tied to medical care in particular.

Since it contradicts the considered option of the world medical community you need to at least try to post a link to substantiate such a radical claim.

In fact since 3/4 of the potential years of life lost in the U.S. before the age of 65 are due to medical conditions your claim is nonsense. The link is very strong.*

Social factors are a major cause of premature deaths. Life expectancy at later ages may be more relevant, as medical conditions start taking over causes of death instead of accidents and violence.

The claim is false for those under 65, as well as for those over 65, which are acknowledging here.

The definition of live birth as actually calculated differs from country to country and this has a large impact on numbers. As a way of avoiding those differences in counting live births, I suggest perinatal mortality instead. And, go figure, the US is better than some of the countries that regular infant mortality would suggest would surpass it. The UK (25th) for instance goes from being 2 better than us to 1 worse on rates. It's funny, but the numbers on that wiki link do not correspond to sorty by any of the actual infant mortality numbers. I believe perinatal has it's own landmines, but the time frame immediately surrounding birth is more connected to medical system than from birth to 1.

We do better true, but we are still 24th on the list.

*There is a claim that has been bouncing in the right wing megaphone echo chamber for four years asserting that if you control of accidents and violence U.S. life expectancy jumps to number one. The claim is false and traces to a single miscaptioned table in a report by conservative think tank economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider. The table shows that the U.S. would lead in life expectancy if U.S. life expectancy tracked the life vs GDP trendline of the OECD. In fact it does not, it does far worse - which is exactly the problem that needs to be solved.

It's worth noting that Asian americans have a higher life expectancy than residents of japan. I can't find a breakdown for life expectancy by ethnicity for Japan. Since race is strongly correlated with life expectancy, the mere fact of a more diverse population brings US numbers down, even if we handle every racial group better. Life expectancy is a poor measure to star with, since it's not closely tied to medical care in particular. Social factors are a major cause of premature deaths. Life expectancy at later ages may be more relevant, as medical conditions start taking over causes of death instead of accidents and violence.

The definition of live birth as actually calculated differs from country to country and this has a large impact on numbers. As a way of avoiding those differences in counting live births, I suggest perinatal mortality instead. And, go figure, the US is better than some of the countries that regular infant mortality would suggest would surpass it. The UK (25th) for instance goes from being 2 better than us to 1 worse on rates. It's funny, but the numbers on that wiki link do not correspond to sorty by any of the actual infant mortality numbers. I believe perinatal has it's own landmines, but the time frame immediately surrounding birth is more connected to medical system than from birth to 1.

Ignoring the fact that you have absolutely no data to backup your assertion...

Yeah, not a single shred of data at all. You're joking, right?

Wonder no more.

Maybe you should read up on fast reactors - a fast reactor is not necessarily also a breeder; a light water reactor breeds plutonium whether you want it to or not.

Also, the plutonium IFRs make is _less_ useful for weapons:
"... plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium."

CAFE is the government mandating vechicle mileage and seems to have worked.

Well, I guess that would depend on how you define "worked." The net result of this legislation is that MANY more people die every year.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html

"...according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, [this] roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards."

OK, how's this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

They're saying that outcomes are recorded as fetal deaths in the U.S. which would be recorded as infant deaths in the U.S. Maybe.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

This isn't peer reviewed. In fact it's an advocacy organization.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

Their conclusion is, "The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."

That makes sense. Of course, preterm births are associated with poor access to health care. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449857/?report=abstract

It's possible that there is bias in reporting infant mortality in different countries. If I see a bunch of articles coming to that conclusion in reliable publications like AJPH, I'll believe it.

OK, how's this?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615029/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.pdf

And you do think that? Why? Do you have any specifics? Any evidence?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/05/let-greenpeace-live-up-to-standard-it.html

Bloody hell! You have done it again. This is yet another example of your constant use of misdirection. All along I have been complaining about Heartland's secret payments to scientists to spruik for the institute under the credentials of the scientists' own instutitions. Your response is not to deny that this happens, but the claim that Greenpeace does it too (which if true would not exonerate Heartland, but merely mean that we had two organisations to condem). Let's have a look at what you have said:

1. And that's different from Greenpeace surreptitiously paying people to say what they want...how?

When pressed on this claim, you then morphed it into:

2. What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.

So when pressed again to provide evidence of this accusation you completely ignore the topic of discussion and "prove" the inconsequential addition that you had inserted into your claim about whether Greenpeace accepts anonymous donations. Did you think that I would not notice that you had changed the topic? That I would forget that we had been talking about Greenpeace corrupting scientists like Heartland Institute did? The fact that I didn't believe your original allegation should not have been a source of surprise for you, considering that you yourself cannot back it up with any evidence!

It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:

I'm afraid that those links were not any verification of forgery, but complete guesswork. How is it evidence of fakery because one of the PDFs was generated in a different location than the others and by a different method? I would be more suspicious if they were all made by the same person in the same way. How is it evidence of fakery that every fact has been verified as true? How is it evidence that that the style is different? The document was probably only meant to be seen in the board meeting, and was not intended to be kept on record. The fact that it was a discussion document would also explain why it was "too short" or that there was no identifying information (not required if it was to be handed out in person).

Now I am not going to say that the document isn't a forgery. But it seems strange that you are so happy to accept the rather flimsy "evidence" to prove that it is, and yet completely dismiss the details that have been verified as true (even verified by some of the recipients of the secret payments). This is either wishful thinking on your part that Heartland have done no wrong, or it is an attempt at misdirection away from the revelations of the documents.

Considering how you have shown a pattern towards this kind of misdirection in your postings, I am fairly confident that it is the latter. This would make you either a "true believer" who has his eyes covered or a shill for the organisation.

And you do think that? Why? Do you have any specifics? Any evidence?

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/05/let-greenpeace-live-up-to-standard-it.html

"I just eye-balled Greenpeace's list, and they appear to list about 800 donors. It looks like about 100 (and 3 of the 14 big gifts) of those are anonymous. "

Really? One document of the bunch was supposedly forged. And who was it that made that claim?

It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

And note, this is by a *believer* in bad human global warming:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

"I should also probably note that I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland's position on global warming. I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it."

The problem here is that the documents that are legitimate aren't damning, and the one document that has even the slightest scent of malfeasance was *forged*. Imagine for a moment if with the release of the climategate emails, it was found that "hide the decline" was a forged entry!

The story here is that because bad human global warming believers aren't winning the argument, they're resorting to dirty tricks. Nothing undermines their position more than their need to forge caricatures of their opponents in order to make points.

Both large and small reactors have their uses, but AFAIK the small ones are likely to be less efficient and produce more waste* per kWh. I applaud the renaissance of 'modern' reactor construction to help wean us off the petro-teat, but am sorely disappointed that we're still burning less than 1% of the available energy in our current nuclear fuel and calling the other 99% 'waste'. Integral fast reactors should be a part of (if not the future of) the world's energy production.

*Not necessarily waste from the fuel itself, but more incidental waste like cladding storage containers, contaminated clothing, etc.

The safest and most effective way to deal with nuclear waste in storage pools is to not have huge quantities of it to begin with - burn it! if it's so hot that it has to be cooled, it's hot enough to use as fuel. IFRs and other 'burner' technologies can reduce the waste's quantity by a factor of 100 and storage requirements by thousands of years.

Sorry to ruin your day: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html
Of course, one could simply blame it on the USA's "embargo", as if we're the only source for these simple medications.

Yes, given that the reprocessing methods proposed do not ever have useful isotopes for weapons available:

But there is plutonium in IFRs, along with other fissionable isotopes. Seems to me that a proliferator could take some of that and make a bomb.

Some people do say that, but they're wrong, according to expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory. They looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium.

And why electricity instead of fossil fuels?

While I agree with your rant pitting electricity against fossil fuels, there are other compression ignition- and spark ignition- compatible fuels that are made from plant-based (hence renewable) resources.

I don't advocate using food crops for fuel, but cellulosic ethanol would be better than gasoline.

My hope is for nuclear energy based on integral fast breeder reactors. Clean, efficient, and the waste is 'hot' for a tiny fraction of our current wasteful once-through designs.

reprocessing produces enriched plutonium which had little or no use other than making nuclear bombs.

Make that: reprocessing at that time produced enriched plutonium which had little or no use in the reactor designs at that time other than making nuclear bombs.

Read up on IFR technology: reprocessing makes no bomb-useful fuel, and the leftovers are only dangerous for 100's of years vs 10's of thousands. Oh yeah, and it uses nearly all of the energy in the fuel.

Today's waste product is tomorrows fuel.

Amen to that. Gasoline was once considered a waste product, and I hope that today's once-through nuclear 'waste' will be tomorrow's IFR fuel.

IFR facilities would use electrorefining and pyroprocessing, not PUREX, so there's never any useful, accessible Plutonium created.

Please read this article, particularly the Reprocessing & Proliferation section. A quote from that article:

"The IFR's pyroprocessing and electrorefining method is not capable of making plutonium that is pure enough for weapons. If a proliferator were to start with IFR material, he or she would have to employ an extra chemical separation step. ... expert bomb designers at Livermore National Laboratory ... looked at the problem in detail, and concluded that plutonium-bearing material taken from anywhere in the IFR cycle was so ornery, because of inherent heat, radioactivity and spontaneous neutrons, that making a bomb with it without chemical separation of the plutonium would be essentially impossible - far, far harder than using today's reactor-grade plutonium."

We've had proof-of-concept plants that show breeders, particularly the IFR to be pretty efficient and safe. The last US attempt was canceled by Clinton and his cronies.

You may find this article to be informative.

Not necessarily a new design, but Integral Fast Reactors are the answer, IMHO.

Let's see...

Infant mortality rates. OK, first most of the world measures them in different ways. The US measures them more strictly. Oh, and I wonder why Cuba's abortion rates are so high? I'm sure that rampant abortion of non-viable infants has anything to do with it.

But if all it takes to be convincing is to claim that I am "backed up by reputable sources" and just label anyone who disagrees with me as noise, I guess that's easy enough.

But really, all you need is a taste test. Even poor people in the US have access to multimillion dollar equipment and highly trained doctors, expensive medications, etc... Do you really think a little shithole poor country like Cuba has better healthcare? Really? I'm sure Cuba does a good job with what they have, they just don't have, well, jack shit.

Please read this article about the so-called Plutonium problem. The proliferation risk is higher now with out inefficient once-thru designs that if we were to use all IFRs.

You can burn up the long-lived actinides resulting in waste that's 'hot' for 100's of years instead of 100's of thousands, not to mention reduce the volume of waste by a factor of almost 100. See this paper for some really good information.

"Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science â" and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial"

Arrogance, hubris, contempt. I am appalled at what passes for science these days (or maybe that should be 'science journalism')

I bet you heard the same reasoning used to defend this theory:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg

Al Gore isn't a scientist

Incorrect. Current reactor designs are more proliferation-prone than IFR's that employ electrorefining. See this article for more information.

Read this analysis' take on the proliferation problem - breeders provide a _lower_ proliferation risk than current designs.

We continue to build up proliferation-prone stockpiles of high-level waste while politician's heads are in the sand regarding modern, non-PUREX reprocessing. It's sad, really.

I have two reactors in my (extended) back yard, and they're building a third. More power to them (no pun intended). They're 20 miles upwind of me. I also have two more 50 miles southeast of me.

Note that the new reactor is an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, which:

... uses natural circulation with no recirculation pumps or their associated piping, thereby greatly increasing design integrity and reducing overall costs.

and

All of the safety systems operate without using pumps, thereby further increasing design safety reliability and reducing costs.

I wish it was going to be an IFR (breeder), but maybe I'll see them in my lifetime.

The solution: IFR's. There are enough fissionable materials already mined for 100 years of energy production, the waste from IFRs are only a concern for 500 years vs 10,000 for once-thru reactors (since it burns up the actinides), they can burn up weapons-grade plutonium, their waste is _less_ of a concern for plutonium proliferation, are passively stable, and their waste output is tiny in comparison to today's wasteful reactors.

See also this article.

Aside from the power (no pun intended) of the big oil/big coal lobby, I don't understand why any intelligent person who can weigh the risks of our current energy situation against the risks and benefits of these reactors wouldn't be gung-ho in favor of them.

That's right... ignore any viable argument against your world view an insatiable desire to be "good willed" and "right" at any cost... just accuse the person as having no basis for argument and they'll go away? Is that what liberalism teaches now a-days?

See here for a source cited argument against your stupidity.

It seems to me that you haven't read any papers on breeder technology. Waste from a breeder is not 'hot' for 10,000 years - the point of burning up the long half life actinides is to eliminate them from the waste stream, making what little waste there is very hot for a very short time. That's how radiation works - things are either very hot for a short time or moderately hot for a long time.

You realize that all of the nuclear waste in the US today is stored on-site in casks either _in the open_ or in a shallow pool of water?

I would suggest you read up on modern reactor technology (and existing, proven technology that Clinton canned like the IFR) before you rehash arguments based on information from the 1950's.

Fission doesn't have to be the wasteful, inefficient, and proliferation-prone mess that it is today. There are more efficient, less proliferation-prone ways to provide fission-based power than wasting 98%+ of the energy in the fuel rods and storing the 'waste' in the open.

Most estimates place the reserves of usable fuel for breeders at 600,000+ years at current consumption. That's not bad!

I agree that fusion may well be the best answer, but do we have the luxury of waiting for it to be ready for prime time? I think we should invest in breeder technology until we can get fusion up and running reliably.

Why not use safe, proven technology available TODAY to burn 99% of current fuel AND WASTE?

Your link doesn't say it was proven. Actually it says it was discontinued in 1994 before it was compleated.

Falcon

haha..no.
Panels are now where close enough to be really economical. In fact they require massive taxpayer subsidies to make them even remotly desirable.

We need industrial solar thermal, and these:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

Amen. That article was a reprint from Dec. 2005, IIRC.

Here a link to a QA session regarding AFR/IFR technology. It irks me to no end that ignorant, short-sighted politicians quashed this technology 15 YEARS AGO, and the greenies have taken that long to get over the "my god, it's nucular!" fearmongering and actually start to embrace it as an environmentally-safe alternative to our current mess.

First, they have to get sustainable fusion working, then they can installed the Super-X Divertor to bleed off neutrons to burn fission waste.

Why not use safe, proven technology available TODAY to burn 99% of current fuel AND WASTE?

I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious. Climate change is climate change, man-made or not. It will cause problems, and we do need to think ahead.

First of all, there is a lot of evidence that global warming might actually be a good thing. The longer summers will tend to create more areas that have longer growing seasons and are more favorable to growing crops. Global warming will also increase precipitation levels in most areas, leading to less drought overall throughout the world and also contributing to more food for the world. Warmer temperatures will lead to a reduced need for fuel used in heating and it will reduce deaths due to exposure and the stresses placed on people during cold weather.

Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming
Not the End of the World as We Know It
Questions and Answers on Global Warming

Secondly there are the costs and benefits associated with global warming. If you look at a detailed analysis of the sacrifices that would have to be made to carry out some of the recommendations of global warming alarmists, the economic impact is quite severe. Compare that to the economic benefits of a warmer climate and you can see that maybe we should be taking a less severe stance on global warming and instead of sacrificing everything maybe we should pick and choose our battles more carefully.

Economics of Global Warming

Lastly, although there is evidence that supports the theory that greenhouse gasses are part of the reason for global warming it is far from a foregone conclusion. There is also evidence that solar warming and several other factors might be primary causes. Without a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of global warming it is difficult to come up with methods of reducing the warming trend. We can call for severely impacting our economy and health by curtailing industry in the hopes that it will reduce global warming or we can make sensible cuts while we learn more about the situation.

Yeah, it's easy to keep that infant mortality rate low when the gov aborts children the test as sick before they're born.

http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

These not mainstream enough for you? 20/20 did a story for ya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-8TcpOz6A4

Here's fox, but we all know their biased
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6Ve9wA1cpc&feature=related

I'm so excited to turn out like this.

I'll see your link and raise you one. Big deal
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html
http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm

I've seen that 7/8 number in the past. I've also read that number is inflated due to unhealthy mexican mother running across the border trying to have anchor babies. Many aren't even born in hospitals. Dig up how many citizen born children per 1000 there are and then you'll have a number you can compare to.

Best in "Latin" America, I like how you have to qualify that statement, and go on and say that it's in many ways better than the US. I can say in many ways Nazi germany was better at population control than the rest of europe, that still doesn't make it better.

So you've convienced me, we can all expect to go to the lowest common denominator, and expect life to be like cuba.

This 10 MEGAWatt, virtually no maintenance 'nuclear battery' only needs refueling every 30 years. It's a 'fast' neutron reactor, so it's very efficient with its fuel. See this article on the non-plutonium-proliferating, efficient Integral Fast (Breeder) Reactor.

... to test a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor. No oxygen to support combustion of the liquid sodium, and high efficiency so that you don't have to refuel it as often.

I'd love for us to use these here on Earth, but there's still too much flat-out wrong information floating around for them to be accepted.

It is stupid to bury nuclear waste when it's STILL FUEL!!!

Process the existing waste and burn it as FUEL in Fast Neutron Reactors.

Scientific American has an excellent article about it that was published in 2005! Learn some HOT science!
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf

It would be a real WASTE to bury the existing perfectly good fuel in the ground where it could hurt future generations for up to ~100,000 years.

It makes more sense to BURN it as FUEL in Fast Neutron Reactors for energy production and in the process of fission reduce the life span of the danger from ~100,000 to ~300 to ~500 years.

Makes sense. Read the PDF. LEARN.

slightly off topic, but, can anyone tell me why we (ie the world in general) don't build breeder reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor? according to this guy, they are (1) just as safe as the pressurized-water reactors we use now, but (2) hardly produce any radioactive waste at all, so no disposal problems, and (3) thereby also leave nothing to promote proliferation of WMDs. seems to me this reactor design addresses most of the problems people have with fission for electricity.