Slashdot Mirror

Boeing is heavily subsidized and helped via political power by US government, it's not standing firmly on the ground with both feet

You're right, they aren't standing on the ground at all. $2.6 billion from NASA for research that the WTO is complaining about, and Boeing is flying high with in order backlog of $329 billion. Seems like chump change compared to the 20 billion in below-market-interest loans you EU folks gave to Airbus ;)

Jibes aside, are you really going to go with a "but the government helps them!" argument against a US company when comparing our industry to China's? I'm trying to come up with an analogy that would be hypocritical enough but just can't do it.

So uh, why did it take so long to plan an attack if they had a lead for more than 2 years?

1. Physically find the courier mentioned in the interrogation. (3-6 months).
2. Put a tail on the courier and figure out where he goes. (1-6 months)
3. Use information from the tail to come up with a hypothetical location for OBL. (2 days)
4. Stake out hypothetical location and confirm. If false, go back to step 2. (1-2 months).
5. Obtain details about construction and layout of compound. (1day-2months, depending on methods used)
6. Obtain data about security protocols used in the compound (number of guards, when they change shifts, etc.) (1 month)
7. Construct an exact replica of the compound. (6-12 months)
8. Develop strategies for storming the compound. (1 week)
9. Test said strategies using the replica created in step 7. (repeat steps 8 and 9 if necessary.) (1 week)
10. Wait for perfect conditions to conduct raid. (New moon, good weather, etc.) (1-2 months)

The military leaves nothing to chance, and that kind of preparation takes time. Even then, things go wrong.

Between this news and Today's other Novell+MS news I'm starting to believe that Attachmate's purchase of Novell might not be all that awful.

Of course it's early yet.

Interestingly enough, it was possible the opposite behaviour that game him away:

Osama bin Laden's decade on the run after 9/11 may have come to its end in part because his large hideout reportedly lacked a phone and Internet connection.

He was the one who said that bin Laden should be killed, not taken into custody. As Truman said, "The buck stops here." He made the call.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE74107920110502?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Members of an elite Navy Seals team dropped by helicopter to the compound were under orders to kill not capture bin Laden, who had eluded U.S. forces for 13 years, a senior U.S. security official told Reuters.

"This was a kill operation," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Fine, here's a source. And another. And another. And another.

The BIG picture is reflected in the over one billion (that's with a "B") dollars paid out worldwide by the Catholic Church to victims in settlements, the Christian Brothers order filing for bankruptcy, the Father Geoghan follies in Boston, the endless list of perps in country after country...without the FBI raising a peep because of fear of bad publicity.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/uk-church-brothers-sexabuse-idUKTRE73S10I20110429

Obama: "We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law."
The impropriety of Obama's public pre-trial declaration of Manning's guilt ("He broke the law") is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?

Or this, an equally disturbing (though probably less obviously so because this concerns "foreigners":

When I saw that, I was going to ask how the NYT could possibly know that the people whose lives the U.S. just ended were "militants," but then I read further in the article and it said this: "A government official in North Waziristan told Pakistani reporters that five children and four women were among the 23 who were killed." So at least 9 of the 23 people we killed -- at least -- were presumably not "militants" at all, but rather innocent civilians (contrast how the NYT characterizes Libya’s attacks in its headlines: "Qaddafi Troops Fire Cluster Bombs Into Civilian Areas").

Or, about a guy who hit a bicyclist in NYC causing "spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula, according to court documents. Over the past six weeks he has suffered “disabling” spinal headaches and faces multiple surgeries for a herniated disc and plastic surgery to fix the scars he suffered in the accident."

This kind of egregious hit-and-run is, obviously, a very serious crime. Milo is incredulous at the suggestion from Erzinger’s attorneys “that Erzinger might have unknowingly suffered from sleep apnea”, and wants Erzinger to be charged with a felony. Justice must be served: the case “has always been about responsibility, not money”, he wrote to DA Mark Hurlbert.
Yet Hurlbert, looking at Erzinger’s wealth, decided that the case really was about the money after all:

“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”
Hurlbert said Erzinger is willing to take responsibility and pay restitution.
“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession, and that entered into it,” Hurlbert said. “When you’re talking about restitution, you don’t want to take away his ability to pay.”

In other words, Erzinger has bought his way out of a felony charge, over the strenuous objections of his victim; it’s very unlikely that online petitions will do any good at this point. Just another thing to add to the list of things that money can buy, I suppose. [The story continues here]

Or this about regulators who refused to regulate banks because fining them would hurt them financially. Or this about a state AG being bought by the mortgage lenders he's supposedly investigating/prosecuting. Or

Obama: "We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law."
The impropriety of Obama's public pre-trial declaration of Manning's guilt ("He broke the law") is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt?

Or this, an equally disturbing (though probably less obviously so because this concerns "foreigners":

When I saw that, I was going to ask how the NYT could possibly know that the people whose lives the U.S. just ended were "militants," but then I read further in the article and it said this: "A government official in North Waziristan told Pakistani reporters that five children and four women were among the 23 who were killed." So at least 9 of the 23 people we killed -- at least -- were presumably not "militants" at all, but rather innocent civilians (contrast how the NYT characterizes Libya’s attacks in its headlines: "Qaddafi Troops Fire Cluster Bombs Into Civilian Areas").

Or, about a guy who hit a bicyclist in NYC causing "spinal cord injuries, bleeding from his brain and damage to his knee and scapula, according to court documents. Over the past six weeks he has suffered “disabling” spinal headaches and faces multiple surgeries for a herniated disc and plastic surgery to fix the scars he suffered in the accident."

This kind of egregious hit-and-run is, obviously, a very serious crime. Milo is incredulous at the suggestion from Erzinger’s attorneys “that Erzinger might have unknowingly suffered from sleep apnea”, and wants Erzinger to be charged with a felony. Justice must be served: the case “has always been about responsibility, not money”, he wrote to DA Mark Hurlbert.
Yet Hurlbert, looking at Erzinger’s wealth, decided that the case really was about the money after all:

“The money has never been a priority for them. It is for us,” Hurlbert said. “Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it.”
Hurlbert said Erzinger is willing to take responsibility and pay restitution.
“Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession, and that entered into it,” Hurlbert said. “When you’re talking about restitution, you don’t want to take away his ability to pay.”

In other words, Erzinger has bought his way out of a felony charge, over the strenuous objections of his victim; it’s very unlikely that online petitions will do any good at this point. Just another thing to add to the list of things that money can buy, I suppose. [The story continues here]

Or this about regulators who refused to regulate banks because fining them would hurt them financially. Or this about a state AG being bought by the mortgage lenders he's supposedly investigating/prosecuting. Or

$130 million dollars for 8 projects - this is truly a drop in the bucket (if it is even that much). Consider the fact that the government essentially insures nuclear plants against disasters Price Andersen act. With a disaster (3 in the past 30 years) bound to happen again in this country, and given a possible cost of a nuclear disaster in the trillion dollar range if it occurs close to a major city, $130 million dollars is peanuts. Consider the direct tax subsidies for oil exploration and extraction - in the billions of dollars per year (oil subsidies). The sad fact is that the only reason that this kind of funding is news is that our energy policy is so incredibly beholden to entrenched interests that it is a miracle that there is any funding for alternative energy sources.

> Thank you for having the vision, the money, and the balls to do these great things. ... Geeks everywhere.

I thought Musk ended up getting in fights and/or lawsuits with many of the geeks he's worked with. (Eberhard of Tesla; Thiel and
Levchin of Paypal)
http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2009/06/22/tesla-founders-feud-a-cautionary-tale/

And didn't he recently announce he was broke?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/30/teslas-elon-musk-says-hes-broke/

Hope he doesn't fly the geeks to Mars and then charge them extra to bring them back.

This all as seat-of-the-pants because all effort up front is focused on preventing this type of accident, and less on being ready to deal with its aftermath.

But your comment is apt. There are clear lapses in oversight and on the part of the operator. The Japanese opted to not require so-called "hardened vents", which are required for this type of reactor in the US to prevent exactly the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Basically venting hydrogen-rich gas building up in an overheating reactor presents a huge risk of explosion. This was well understood after three mile island, and the US required a hardened vent that can contain such an ignition and prevent an outright explosion. Also it mitigates against vent damage from other factors such as an earthquake. But the Japanese left this to the operators discretion. (An operator with a history of not even following actual enforced regulations.)

What happened at Fukushima is that without sufficient power to maintain cooling due to the generator destruction, the overheating cores started producing hydrogen gas. At some point the only option is to vent this. This is by design and, in fact, is one of the safety features of this type of reactor. But the vent has to work safely. Once the venting was begun, all bets were off. With the soft (sheet-metal and probably earthquake and tsunami-damaged) vents at Fukushima, an explosion was almost inevitable. This is clearly borne out at the site. They had to vent each reactor in turn, and each one exploded in turn.

It is also quite possible that the operators did not have good command of the situation as it was occurring. The US also requires more extensive internal instrumentation that is necessary for good decisions in this situation.

For the Deepwater horizon we all knew that what really went wrong is the incompetent concrete pour and the failing blowout preventer. But it seems the central problems in the case of Fukushima are being lost in the din.

I also agree that the mop-up could be being done better, but honestly the Japanese have other things going on as a result of the tens of thousands of dead from the tsunami. If the leaks at Fukushima are a bit worse than they could have been, it won't be that big a deal by comparison. But I think TEPCO has clearly shown they are not a capable operator and should be dismantled. And more realistic regulatory action is essential going forward.

Desperate?

Am I the only one that caught the fact that Apple is just had YET ANOTHER record quarter?

The fact that Android—which is available on more networks and being built in more price ranges by more manufacturers—is outpacing iOS isn't some kind of surprise. You don't need to own a majority of the market to do well. They were doing well before the iPhone came out without owning a majority of any market they were in.

Are they playing rough, yes. Desperate? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/nokia-apple-idUSLDE73K12P20110421

No, not really. The "real" reason Apple is suing is because they are HISTORICALLY litigious. There's no sales conspiracy needed. It's not some final desperate act. It's standard operating procedure for Apple and has been for years.

Vera Svechina, a self-described filmmaker and former stripper, walked undetected into Google's main offices on March 14 and spent several minutes there, Mountain View police spokeswoman Liz Wylie said.

"An administrative staff member returned to her desk and found a book in Russian as well as a letter addressed to the two founders," Wylie told Reuters, referring to Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page.

Yet Apple blows them out of the water on a revenue basis.

Uh no. Perhaps you need to go back to elementary school math. Apple blows them out of the water with *profits*. Revenue is something entirely different. They beat Apple on product shipped and revenue. Apple beats them on profits.

When you don't understand basic principles like the difference between "revenue" and "profit" it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
 

And when you can't read, yet insist on jumping on every thread, you make a total ass out of your self.

From the first link: (its in bold here, because even though you have a newbie slashdot number your eyes must be old and weak):

Quote Appleinsider from Reuters:

Apple crossed another major milestone in its second quarter of fiscal 2011, surpassing Nokia for the first time ever to become the world's largest phone vendor in terms of revenue.

The significant achievement was noted on Thursday by research firm Strategy Analytics. According to Reuters, Apple's iPhone revenue of $11.9 billion surpassed Nokia, which saw its revenue shrink to $9.4 billion.

"With strong volumes and high wholesale prices, the PC vendor has successfully captured revenue leadership of the total handset market in less than four years," analyst Alex Spektor said.

And this isn't the first time its been reported.

It said REVENUE. Not Profits.

Learn to read, Ok? If you won't learn to read, try NOT starting every post you make with an insult.

There is no other country in the planet, INCLUDING the countries which actually ARE the producers of sugar, having problems with sugar.

Its an american problem. And this much stampede is done about it, and someone finally comes up saying some BASE element that is fundamental to life, is toxic ...

You sir, are woefully misinformed.

LK

This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting. If the UN had released a report claiming 50 million global warming refugees by 2010, there would be dozens of news articles on it. The supposed incriminating evidence is a Google Cache page with this map that doesn't itself say anything about refugees, but does highlight areas most susceptible to sea level rise. The "50 million climate refugees by 2010" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn, NOT the United Nations.

The problem with this prediction being made by any scientist is that keeping track of how many refugees there are is difficult (current estimate by the UN is 1 million a year, a figure that the Red Cross lends support to with the statement that environmental disasters are displacing more people than war now) and the causes are debatable. The epic flooding in Pakistan created 10 million refugees, Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees, and desertification in Africa is displacing millions. Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening.

Then there are the refugees that no one realizes. In the small coastal town where I live in North Carolina, houses have been falling into the swamp one by one for decades, but the residents blame it on people building their homes in flood zones, not realizing that sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast. People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia.

You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia. It took the author of this untruth less than an hour to post their nonsense and the deniers flooded the Internet with it quickly. It took me two hours to research and write this response, because I wanted to know what I was talking about, and I will only reach a very small audience in comparison. This is why I despair when considering how science could possibly stand a chance against the overwhelming confidence ignorance brings the unscientific masses.

Google's _profit_ in 2010 was over $8 billion. The Warner Music Group was sold for $2.6 billion in 2004. EMI is currently up for sale and is also valued at about $3 billion. (Apparently WMG hasn't gone up in value much since 2004, what a shocker.) So in theory, assuming WMG could be convinced to sell, Google could pick them both up with just the profits from a single year. Buying the entire industry would probably take up a couple years worth of profits, but Google wouldn't actually want to buy all of them anyways due to anti-trust issues.

and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit.

Bullshit. Google came forward and said that they made a mistake, that is what started the whole thing. Germany then tried to demand the data, which would have been illegal for them to obtain. Google is the one who came forward saying "oops, looks like we collected this data, we would like to destroy it as it was not meant to be collected" the German government wouldn't let them destroy the data, it was too valuable to them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/22/urnidgns002570f3005978d80025774a00595fb-idUS226627768520100622

Google flat out indicated "oops, we didn't mean to collect payload data, it was a misconfiguration" and destroyed it upon the request of at least Ireland.

First of all, those 18% of taxes are coming from different places. Check this graph from Reuters. Over the past few decades, we've been taking in much less tax revenues from business taxes (corporate, excise) and taking in much more from payroll taxes (social security, Medicare). That goes along with the fact that we cut business taxes and raised payroll taxes during the 80's. So if the Laffer curve exists, it apparently doesn't apply to half the taxes that we collect.

Second, we can talk about wealth disparity. The income tax is a tax that primarily affects high incomes, while low incomes can often deduct out of income tax completely while still paying FICA taxes. You would imagine that during a period like the 00's in which the gains in GDP were mainly being absorbed by high income earners that you would then see a rapid expansion in income tax revenues, but as the chart above showe, income taxes went up during the dot-com boom but barely returned to a historical average near the peak of the next boom. That would indicate that we're going to need another overinflated bubble to get income tax receipts back to the historical average after yet another recent drop.

There's also the fallacy that more tax cuts will continue to drive GDP and employment, while the current trend is that liquidity amongst corporations is substantial enough to create more investment but that hiring is being held back by a lack of demand. While tax cuts may be a driver of employment, it's unlikely as big of a driver as demand, which has sharply dropped as the costs of consumer goods and services has risen. If the deficit is a concern, then income tax increases would likely have a lesser impact on the economy than in cutting services that contribute to the working and middle classes that drive demand.

If by 100s of millions, you mean 23 thousand millions, ok. Here's one estimate saying 23 billion dollars just in compensation TEPCO owes to local communities, and that's just the first year.

Tepco may face $23.6 billion compensation costs: JP Morgan

1. how fukushima is no big deal, its media hype and confusion
2. how fukushima was easily avoidable, so therefore, its ok
3. how events like this are really rare. so its ok
3. how nuclear is really really safe, and science illiterates are hysterical

this is what is known as "denial" folks. they are now talking about the disaster in chernobyl terms:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/japan-nuclear-radiation-idUSTKE00635920110412

fukushima is the beginning of the end of nuclear power. this is a death knell. if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything. now let's hear some more denial from the "experts" who don't understand risk analysis

The Kyodo reported on Tuesday that the high levels of radiation that have been released by the Fukushima Daiichi plant meant it could raise the severity level from 5 to the highest 7, the same as the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

Japan had previously assessed the accident at reactors operated by TEPCO at level 5, the same level as the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979.

Kyodo said the government's Nuclear Safety Commission had estimated that at one stage the amount of radioactive material released from the reactors in northern Japan had reached 10,000 terabequerels per hour of radioactive iodine 131 for several hours, which would classify the incident as a major accident according to the INES scale.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-japan-idUSTRE72A0SS20110412

The 800lb gorilla of spending in the room is entitlements: social security, medicare and medicaid. If these programs aren't fixed and soon it will be too late.

Entitlements aren't the problem in 2011. Social Security is even in /surplus/ which means it's taking in more money from its dedicated taxes than it's paying out.

Entitlements -- specifically Medicare -- /will/ be the problem in a decade or two. If you make assumptions about this (costs keep going up by 10% forever, nobody ever votes to cut spending) sooner or later we go bankrupt. I suspect that some of those assumptions are stupid, sort of like assuming that my toddler will eventually starve us out of our house by projecting his appetite increase two decades forward and assuming that we will never, ever put him on a diet.

The thing most people fail to understand is there's nothing Congress can do about Medicare in 2011 that can't be undone in 2012/18/20. Similarly, if Medicare eats the budget in 2020, then the politicians of that time will have to deal with it. In fact, this is exactly what Spain just like had to do. Ultimately when things really get dire is when politicians are willing to make unpopular decisions.

But in reality (meaning, the next ten years) we could get our budget back in balance just by getting out of the huge recession we're in, letting the Bush tax cuts expire as planned, and not passing any more 'doc fix' bills. In fact, the CBO says that if we did all of these things (basically, Congress just stops doing anything) we'd be fine for decades.

Will we do those things? Of course not. Doc fixes are popular --- but we could still pay for them with cuts to defense and higher taxes. And taxes must never go up. In fact the demagogues who are 'panicking' about entitlements (including Paul Ryan) are simultaneously asking for /more/ tax cuts aimed at the rich. That pretty much tells you how serious they are about the deficit.

All of this 'kill entitlements' nonsense is a distraction for the ignorant, designed cover up the fact that we could easily balance the budget again with a few tweaks --- but one of those tweaks is to let taxes go back to their 1990s levels. And certain politicians have signed pledges saying that they will not allow this to happen.

The boat has returned to Tokyo port and very low level radioactivity was detected. It should be note that there may not be any correlation between the radiation on the boat and the damaged nuclear reactor.

There have been a bunch of interesting paleontological discoveries by Chinese scientists in the past few years. These were reported in western media. Generally it's not surprising if they end up attracting good people from elsewhere and if there weren't scientists from other countries getting involved then you would begin to be concerned. International collaboration is a crucial element of scientific credibility. China probably (rightly) wants that more than it wants credit for any particular dinosaurs. From a long term economic point of view this should probably be more important in China's attempt to overtake the USA economically. There is no way that research like this is going to be properly funded by private companies but you need it to get the really bright fundamental science people to come and visit and that, long term, is what drives real invention, not just thousands of patents on minor variations of the same idea.

On the other hand, we've had about 63 deaths occurring directly from nuclear incidents since nuclear power started. Now, while others have obviously had larger cancer risks and such resulting in death, but it is nearly impossible to be 100% certain about how many of those have occurred.

As you obviously know from the caveats you include after this statistic, the deaths from Chernobyl are in the thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, which you discount because 'it's impossible to be 100% certain'. So why do you repeat this misleading figure of 63? Like the climate change debate, debate on nuclear power has been poisoned by both sides attempting to distort the statistics. You're not going to persuade anyone by producing obviously cooked statistics or attacking straw men - no one is suggesting going all coal power instead, apart from you.

Nuclear (fission) is not the safest type of power we have at the moment, for that, you'd have to look at solar or wind, fusion or perhaps hydro (though globally there have been some accidents with that). Those alternatives have not been fully explored yet, and perhaps we should spend more money on exploring other options than building new nuclear plants? Thermal solar for example could provide good baseline power on a large enough scale, with zero risk of pollution or serious accidents.

Nuclear power does provide good baseline power, it doesn't cause huge numbers of deaths, in spite of several serious accidents, but it is very expensive and it does cause some deaths and the potential for catastrophic accidents. Fukushima still has the potential for serious pollution of the surrounding land, and we should not downplay the situation there. Here is a good summary of the situation from a guy who handled recovery at TMI:

http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

Given the lax regulatory environment in some countries which have a lot of nuclear plants (the US, China and former USSR), ageing nuclear power plants are at serious risk of problems and many have had their lifetimes extended past their intended operating lifespan (as Fukushima did). There are plants in the US for example which have had warnings of serious failures in safety for decades, and *nothing* has been done about it. Here is one example:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-entergy-indianpoint-idUKTRE72R60W20110328

This is a serious concern, which could perhaps be alleviated by building more modern plants, but there are other concerns with nuclear power which I believe should be addressed first. For a start, the astronomical costs of decommissioning, fuel storage, and accident clean-up (which are currently borne by governments, not the nuclear industry), mean that fission is not really economically viable IMHO. That doesn't mean it warrants scare-mongering about fallout or banning all nuclear plants when we don't have alternatives, but we should be frank and open about the dangers and costs involved rather than trying to sweep them under the carpet. Opponents of nuclear power are not always irrational fear-mongers.

If we have no alternatives right now, we might need to keep these old fission plants running, but we should be clear about the dangers, and urgently exploring alternative sources of power (fusion, hydro etc), not trying to cheerlead for a nuclear industry which does not have our best interests at heart, has a focus on profit above safety, and depends on government largesse to deal with its problems of waste storage and decommissioning. There will be serious economic consequences from Fukushima for hundreds of years for Japan and further earthquakes there make it questionable whether you can safely site nuclear plants in the country.

Decommissioning costs for Sizewell A for example (2 reactors, which shut down normally), are so far £1.2 billion, and are ongoing, while build cost

On the other hand, we've had about 63 deaths occurring directly from nuclear incidents since nuclear power started. Now, while others have obviously had larger cancer risks and such resulting in death, but it is nearly impossible to be 100% certain about how many of those have occurred.

As you obviously know from the caveats you include after this statistic, the deaths from Chernobyl are in the thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, which you discount because 'it's impossible to be 100% certain'. So why do you repeat this misleading figure of 63? Like the climate change debate, debate on nuclear power has been poisoned by both sides attempting to distort the statistics. You're not going to persuade anyone by producing obviously cooked statistics or attacking straw men - no one is suggesting going all coal power instead, apart from you.

Nuclear power does provide good baseline power, it doesn't cause huge numbers of deaths, in spite of several serious accidents, but it is very expensive and it does cause some deaths and the potential for catastrophic accidents. Fukushima still has the potential for serious pollution of the surrounding land, and we should not downplay the situation there. Here is a good summary of the situation from a guy who handled recovery at TMI:

http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

Given the lax regulatory environment in some countries which have a lot of nuclear plants (the US, China and former USSR), ageing nuclear power plants are at serious risk of problems and many have had their lifetimes extended past their intended operating lifespan (as Fukushima did). There are plants in the US for example which have had warnings of serious failures in safety for decades, and *nothing* has been done about it. Here is one example:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-entergy-indianpoint-idUKTRE72R60W20110328

This is a serious concern, which could perhaps be alleviated by building more modern plants, but there are other concerns with nuclear power which I believe should be addressed first. For a start, the astronomical costs of decommissioning, fuel storage, and accident clean-up (which are currently borne by governments, not the nuclear industry), mean that fission is not really economically viable IMHO. That doesn't mean it warrants scare-mongering about fallout or banning all nuclear plants when we don't have alternatives, but we should be frank and open about the dangers and costs involved rather than trying to sweep them under the carpet. Opponents of nuclear power are not always irrational fear-mongers.

If we have no alternatives right now, we might need to keep these old fission plants running, but we should be clear about the dangers, and urgently exploring alternative sources of power (fusion, hydro etc), not trying to cheerlead for a nuclear industry which does not have our best interests at heart, has a focus on profit above safety, and depends on government largesse to deal with its problems of waste storage and decommissioning. There will be serious economic consequences from Fukushima for hundreds of years for Japan and further earthquakes there make it questionable whether you can safely site nuclear plants in the country.

Decommissioning costs for Sizewell A for example (2 reactors, which shut down normally), are so far £1.2 billion, and are ongoing, while build cost was £65 million and decommissioning was first estimated at £500m but has since ballooned in cost. It recently narrowly avoided meltdown in the spent fuel ponds due to an unobserved leak, which thankfully was found in time by chance (a contractor doing his laundry). That would have been very expensive to clean up and could have created something similar to Fukushima (on a smaller scale). Sellafield (another plant in the UK) has estimated cleanup costs of £31.5 billion. Those

He has been involved with philanthropy in the U.S. Pacific Northwest for 20 years, largely through his Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, handing out more than $1 billion in grants and funding for local projects.[1]

Last year he pledged his remaining wealth (USD13.5B) to charity.

Allen has been a philanthropist since Gates was at the height of his douchebaggery. You ... you're just an ass.

Let me put this very simply. Fuck your philanthropy. These sociopaths get rich by screwing over everyone they can, putting thousands out of work, destroying other companies, making other people poor, not paying taxes that could be used for social services, and then use foundations and charities in their later years to hide their wealth which they realize that no human being could spend himself anyway. Saying "I'm sorry here's a nickel" after leaving a swath of death and destruction is not commendable.

He has been involved with philanthropy in the U.S. Pacific Northwest for 20 years, largely through his Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, handing out more than $1 billion in grants and funding for local projects.[1]

Last year he pledged his remaining wealth (USD13.5B) to charity.

Allen has been a philanthropist since Gates was at the height of his douchebaggery. You ... you're just an ass.

Worse Than Chernobyl: When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater

by Tom Burnett

Fukushima is going to dwarf Chenobyl.The Japanese government has had a level 7 nuclear disaster going for almost a week but won’t admit it.

The disaster is occurring the opposite way than Chernobyl, which exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown and we will probably get some of it.

If reactor 3 is in meltdown, the concrete under the containment looks like lava. But Fukushima is not far off the water table. When that molten mass of self-sustaining nuclear material gets to the water table it won’t simply cool down. It will explode – not a nuclear explosion, but probably enough to involve the rest of the reactors and fuel rods at the facility.

Pouring concrete on a critical reactor makes no sense – it will simply explode and release more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse. Chernobyl was different – a critical reactor exploded and stopped the reaction. At Fukushima, the reactor cores are still melting down. The ONLY way to stop that is to detonate a ~10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores. That’s probably a bad solution.

A nuclear meltdown is a self-sustaining reaction. Nothing can stop it except stopping the reaction. And that would require a nuclear weapon. In fact, it would require one in each containment vessel to merely stop what is going on now. But it will be messy.

Fukushima was waiting to happen because of the placement of the emergency generators. If they had not all failed at once by being inundated by a tsunami, Fukushima would not have happened as it did – although it WOULD still have been a nuclear disaster.Every containment in the world is built to withstand a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake; the Japanese chose to ignore the fact thata similar earthquake had hit that same general area in 1896.

Anyway, here is the information that the US doesn’t seem to want released. And here is a chart that might help with perspective.

Making matters worse is the MOX in reactor 3. MOX is the street name for ‘mixed oxide fuel‘ which uses ~9% plutonium along with a uranium compound to fuel reactors. This is why it can be used.

The problem is that you don’t want to play with this stuff. A nuclear reactor means bring fissile material to a point at which it is hot enough to boil water (in a light-water reactor) and not enough to melt and go supercritical (China syndrome or aChernobyl incident). You simply cannot let it get away from you because if it does, you can’t stop it.

The Japanese are still talking about days or weeks to clean this up. That’s not true. They cannot clean it up. And no one will live in that area again for dozens or maybe hundreds of years.

© 2011 Hawaii News Daily

Dr. Tom Burnett is a frequent contributor to the Hawaii News Daily.

How much did it sell for?

$13000, according to Reuters.

ZERO observable health effects

Which is why two workers get beta burns and daily radiation 30km away from the plant tops annual natural limit. Refer to this easy to understand chart explaining the effects of exposure to anything above the usual limits:

ZERO observable health effects

Which is why two workers get beta burns and daily radiation 30km away from the plant tops annual natural limit. Refer to this easy to understand chart explaining the effects of exposure to anything above the usual limits:

The head of the Japanese power company at the center of one of the world's worst nuclear disasters has all but vanished from the public eye.

And many Japanese, on a knife edge waiting to see if the nuclear power plant and radiation leaks can be brought under control, are beginning to ask where he is and questioning how much he is in control of the crisis.

Masataka Shimizu, chief executive of Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), has not made a public appearance in a week.

And he has yet to visit the crippled nuclear power plant north of Tokyo that was badly damaged in the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck on March 11, and where 300 workers are desperately trying to find ways to cool down the reactors.

At his last news conference, a week ago, the 66-year-old apologized for the situation. Since then, he has all but vanished from public view, issuing one statement on Saturday expressing regret for "causing such trouble."

Shimizu is a consummate company man, joining the company where his father worked, at the age of 23. Japanese media have quoted him as saying he wanted to work at a company "which serves public interests."

At the country's biggest power supplier, he made a name for himself as a cost-cutter in the procurement side of the business, becoming company president in June 2008.

Japanese company chiefs may not be as closely associated with the successes of their companies as they are in the West, but they are to any failures.

They are expected to take responsibility for shortcomings, scandals or disasters that happen on their watch, apologizing profusely and often resigning.

Indeed, a former president and chairman of the company both stepped down in 2002 after it was disclosed the company had deliberately falsified data and safety reports.

TEPCO's numerous brushes with scandal, including what the company acknowledged was "nonconformance" in repairs to a nuclear power plant following an earthquake in 2007, has made the press and the public suspicious of company statements during the current catastrophe.

The 2007 quake showed that another nuclear plant's infrastructure was insufficient to withstand quakes and, as Shimizu said last September, "left us with a mountain of challenges."

"We devoted our efforts to overcoming the crisis and creating a tougher business foundation by taking measures so that our nuclear power plants can withstand disasters," he said.

Whenever Shimizu does decide to reappear, he is likely to find he will need more convincing words.

(Additional reporting by Yuka Obayahi and Taiga Uranaka; Editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

Where is Japan's nuclear power CEO? [March 20]

Au contrair, mon ami.

A interesting RFI for Pre-Packaged Commercial Meals mentioned the New Madrid Fault System
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=eaea338540a0aea155a48a650a077352&tab=core&_cview=0 (Jan 20, 2011)
"...FEMA request for Information is to identify sources of supply for meals in support of disaster relief efforts based on a catastrophic disaster event within the New Madrid Fault System for a survivor population of 7M...."
36 months of remaining shelf life upon delivery.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/20/us-earthquake-study-idUSTRE4AJ9EV20081120 from 2008
would cause "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States."
New Madrid Seismic Zone Catastrophic Earthquake Response Planning Project (Statistics for Eight-State Region on page 28)
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/14810/Volume%20II_Part%201.pdf

I don't mean to piss on your parade but Jordan already replaced it's government as a result of these protests:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/09/us-jordan-government-idUSTRE7185AG20110209

The PA has accepted previously cancelled elections now need take place and dissolved it's government:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0214/Palestinian-PM-announces-full-cabinet-overhaul

Syria has also seen protests, this Wikipedia link suggestst he largest since the 80s, but I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

But you can certainly take Jordan and Palestine off your list- the only reason you didn't hear about them is because the leadership conceded the protesters demands before it got out of hand which is in stark contrast to say Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and so forth where there was/is prolonged stand off.

For what it's worth I'm not convinced it's simply price of food and living standards either, whilst that's obviously a factor I think there's more to it. Take Iran for example, it is actually the poor there that support Ahmadinejad and keep him in power, whilst it is the educated class that do not live in poverty that have been long protesting against his rule. I think people have to be ready for revolution and democracy, and I think part of that is education too. It's quite possible the internet is at least a partial factor in that.

...They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his....

Overthrow? Everyone is in agreement, including him, that he holds "no position from which to step down" and that "The Libyan system is a system of the people and no one can go against the authority of the people...The people are free to chose the authority they see fit". They are stepping in to enforce Libyan law as spoken by Gaddafi.

If in your impossible and rather ridiculous example the UK military started bombing cities one by one, I don't see any problem with UN going in to prevent slaughter. Why do you think that situation is any different?!

They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his.

I highly doubt Libyan constitution condones a genocidal maniac mass murdering Libyan people. Nobody's constitution is being applied here, at least I didn't here one being referred to during the security council proceedings.

There are days when I hate being a westerner.

This wasn't even unilateral action by the west. The Arab league has already supported a no fly zone and even two of its members will participate in implementing it. Couple of countries attacking Iraq by making up evidence is a shameful act. International community intervening in Libya to prevent mass murder is legitimate and proud act. Should be pretty easy to tell the two apart.

By 'everything short of an invasion' we are unquestionably violating Libya's sovereignty. However, there's a pretty big 'we' who are doing this: The League Of Arab States is requesting this, and Arab states are saying they'll *help* enforce a no-fly zone -- not just allow overflights or refueling.

I think unilateral activity -- Iraq invading Kuwait -- or nearly unilateral activity -- the USA, along with a bunch of allies who seemed to be having their arms twisted, invading Iraq -- is not civilized behavior. But at some point, a state's violence against others and against its own citizens becomes unacceptable to observers.

This is war, as you say, and I'm not at all sure it's going to end well. Things like rights and ethics shouldn't be a majority-rule issue, so just because practically everyone from his own citizens, to his neighbors, to countries who have historically had a lot of conflict with him are all saying he has to go isn't in itself a sufficient reason for the UN to pretty much say we're committing ourselves to overthrowing him. But at the same time, you don't just stand around and watch a father beat his children to death, even if he holds that position of power.

I don't like interfering with other countries: I think it's a bad idea and leads to all sorts of unanticipated problems. But I think there are times when *not* interfering is worse. Whether this is one of those times -- and whether it'll actually do any good -- is a much harder question for me.

(...)Unless you consider turning away from nuclear energy as a panicky reaction(...)

(reposting because I'm an idiot and wasn't logged-in)
Funny you should say that, because the first thing I thought when I read that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel suddenly decided to shutdown 7 power plants http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-germany-nuclear-merkel-idUSTRE72D51520110315 after the incidents in Japan was "wtf!?".

I could only come up with 3 scenarios:
1) she did know that the power plants had urgent issues, but delayed any action until now
2) she didn't know of any urgent issues, and just found out
3) she knows that there are no issues, but the Green's votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party are just too appetizing.

This is "going apeshit" by any fair and reasonable measure, and this reaction seems to be is both unwarranted and unhelpful to Japan and any country where nuclear power is the sustainable solution.
Also, the general behaviour of the media hasn't been something to call home about, sensationalistic, biased, and altogether agenda-driven (which seems to be a common-place nowadays.)
---- Gravity sucks

(...)Unless you consider turning away from nuclear energy as a panicky reaction(...)

Funny you should say that, because the first thing I thought when I read that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel suddenly decided shutdown 7 power plants http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-germany-nuclear-merkel-idUSTRE72D51520110315 after the incidents in Japan was "wtf!?".

I could only come up with 3 scenarios:
1) she did know that the power plants had urgent issues, but delayed any action until now
2) she didn't know of any urgent issues, and just found out
3) she knows that there are no issues, but the Green's votes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party are just too appetizing.

This is "going apeshit" by any fair and reasonable measure, and this reaction seems to be is both unwarranted and unhelpful to Japan and any country where nuclear power is the sustainable solution.
Also, the general behaviour of the media hasn't been something to call home about, sensationalistic, biased, and altogether agenda-driven (which seems to be a common-place nowadays.)

Are you referring to this? As to why the bill that passed wasn't tougher than it was, recall that the Dems did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate at the time (and now they don't even control the House). Republicans overwhelmingly oppose any meaningful reform of Wall Street.

You can't blame them for trying. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-apple-doj-idUSTRE71H4DU20110218
Lets see if users can still use Netflix and Kindle on the iDevices after June.

If this was about MS, all here would be screaming OMG DRM!! MUST UNLEASH AND MOD UP LONG TIRADES AGAINST MS!!!! like it happened in those Vista DRM non-stories.

But now since it's Apple, it's all roses and honey.

YOU must be new here if you havent' seen modded up long justifications everytime Apple acts out of greed.

As it ain't pure water, you end up with slightly more radioactive matter with a half-life which is more like minutes than seconds, so less desirable, somewhat radioactive gas results, which is harmless well before it travels that 30km.

Tokyo is hundreds of km away and is up 23 times. Not a dangerous amount, but I doubt the wind can travel 240 km in seconds or minutes. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tokyo-radiation-levels-23-times-normal-officials-2011-03-15-04540

Secondly, there appears to be a breach in containment at reactor 2, although the radiation release could also be due to a fire, now out, at reactor 4's spent fuel pool (remember, reactor 4 was completely shut down before the quake). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12745186

400 milli-sieverts/hr measured briefly (reportedly, though trust is an issue) at the plant is a lot: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-radiation-factbox-idUSTRE72E14R20110315

Airline crew flying the New York-Tokyo polar route are exposed to 9 mSv a year.

Seems like you fall in the overly-confident underly-prudent category.

The best headline I've ever seen has to be "Tired Gay succumbs to Dix in 200 meters"

Live updates including the status of the Daichi 1 reactor: http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2

and you don't expect the lawyers to start asking for personal data because of trolling. (I'm going to shoot that president, and the vice-president of the United States with my ak47.)

The idea that a single off-the-cuff comment is hardly going to lead to all sorts of trouble coming down on you is an interesting view to take, however ITYF it's not shared by the majority of those in positions of authority.

You still here? If you questioned the leadership as much as you question me, would any of us be in the situation we find ourselves?
Photo and data manipulation by experts is far more subtler than my blatant attempts. I showed you this photo rather than this one.
Why is it that day after day, hour by hour, the American people were shown this yet not much of the Pentagram other than this, even though many video tapes were seized. What are people hiding?
People are more interested in two train wrecks like Charlie and LiLo and yet, two other train wrecks like this and this here have greater impact on American policy.
Politicians elected to office by 51% of the vote consider it a mandate, so what does this article say about the pissed off American voter? Politicians in office for more than two terms do not care about their constituents, this is my opinion. Two states and possibly three have decided to go back on their contract agreements. Considering how the American people were left with a bag of worms when Wall Street and the banksters tanked the economy and the politicians used taxpayer money to bail them out so the Wallstreeters and banksters could continue with their obscene bonuses, is it possible that the repercussions in Bell, California could escalate across the country all the way to Washington DC, I wonder?
When the Europeans arrived in North, Central and South America, they first de-stabilized the indigenous people and then decimated them. Just ask any Native American Indian what they think of US government agreements. Now, the American people are being de-stabilized, what next?
It's really been fun debating this with you, but I must move on. So long and thanks for all the fish.