Slashdot Mirror
Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer
nnnneedles writes "BBC is reporting that scientists are deciding on where to build the world's first big fusion reactor. The international effort is described as the boldest nuclear initiative since the Manhattan Project, and holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy. The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France, but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq." There's also an AP story.
is eating at French restaurants in DC these days.
Time to move on.
Last time I checked, Canada, Russia and China preferred the Japanese site. And I seem to recall they all opposed the Iraq War.
The site selection has nothing to do with anyone's position on Iraq or else France would have the support of the other countries as well. As it stands, they only have the support of the EU for typical reasons.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
"So now we know where to build it, and who will help in doing it. But how do we make the darn thing WORK?"
Fabulous concept, but we've been 20+ years from having fusion power for about 50 years now... Of course, "we can do it in 20 years" is bureaucrat speak for "we don't have a clue, but why don't you give us some money anyway...."
Never underestimate the power of politically motivated stubborness.
/sig
Wouldn't fusion have to have been made practical for terrestrial power generation before anything like this should be started on? Or did I miss a memo?
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
Algeria certainly knows about peace loving France. As do many other African nations that France tried to destroy to maintain their franco-phone "empire".
Not to sound like an ass or something but this seems like a really childish behaviour.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
We wouldn't want them to surrender it two two drunk germans on a weekend bender, after all.
Not to mention the French sensibly rejected calling it the "Freedom Reactor".
What, with their obvious tectonic stability, vast distance from any faults and subduction zones, and lack of volcanic activity, they are the perfect choice for building a big, expensive, multinational fusion reactor.
Personally, my preferred choice would be Canada, somewhere on the Canadian Shield.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Assuming this works, yeah, let's build it on an island chain!!! A nice spot isolated from the rest of the world, where it would take a massive effort to get the power to other useful places, like oh, say, continental Europe...
I do so hate political BS like this. Hey, Japan has contributed quite a lot of tech to the world since WWII, and use a lot of energy, and perhaps deserve something like this. But really, let's not ignore the realities of power distribution in selecing a site for such a huge project.
Oh, wait, our cowboy-in-chief doesn't understand the realities of power distribution, or any of that other nasty scienceish-stuff. What could I have had in mind, posing such a silly thought?
Oops, gotta go, time for my 6:00 cloned liver transplant in Vanuatu, soon the wealthiest nation on Earth for not letting fictional morality dictate reality...
What the article doesn't mention is that the reactor requires large amount of energy to operate. Yes, it could produce approximately 500 megawatts but it would also need about 50 megawatts for starting up and other operations - the amount of a small fission reactor.
If it succeeds it will be the largest achievement in science and engineering ever (perhaps) but it won't be easy or cheap..
In my opinion, France would be in ideal location and the stability of the area is good also (both geologically and politically).
They should build it in the northeast US, like in "Infinite Jest." Then, if/when the entire region becomes uninhabitable, we can force the Canadians to accept the "gift" of our land, and they, in turn, can "cave" to separatist Quebecois demands and give them that region.
Cheap reliable energy forever and ever, and everybody wins, except the would-be French. =)
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
well, France is not peace loving, it has weapons exports far above its weight, but it dislikes this to be in the open.
There is a huge difference between "peace loving" and "cowardly." "Peace loving" would be a moral stand and it is darn hard to claim a moral stand when you are selling someone war materials forbidden under UN treaties. The opposed the war to hide their own guilt, not out of some moral stand.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
which uses enormous power hungry electromagnets to compress hydrogen to the point at which it fuses. Unfortunately, this means that even if it is actually capable of producing more power than it consumes (like they claim on the web site) it will be monumentally inefficient compared to more modern fusion reactor designs, like the zMachine
It's not because they are peace-loving (France doesn't exactly qualify, historically), and it doesn't even have much to do with them not supporting the war in Iraq, though that made a good litmus test.
Basically, the current US administration wants to hurt, as badly as is conveniently possible, and as often as is conveniently possible, any county that does not cooperate fully with the whims of the US government. Regardless of the convictions and ideals of the populace or the government.
So, since France's people overwhelmingly did not want to be a party to the war in Iraq, and because France's government actually listened to its people, instead of listening primarily to the US and only secondarily to its people, it is clear that France is not sufficiently in thrall to the US, and therefor must be punished.
Iraq was just a test. France failed.
Or passed, depending on your viewpoint.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Just like the United States.
Our crappy Liberal party decided that we didn't deserve the fusion reactor and dropped Canada out of the race. It's too bad because we were thought to have a pretty good site lined up.
:(
They talked about it in a recent Quirks and Quarks episode (available in Ogg Vorbis!) Really sad.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
Ive seen this one... Japan gets it. They gain ulimited energy, use it to fuel their great cities, only to have their robotic servants rise up and enslave them, all the while unleashing a great evil upon the world, that only a perky, well-drawn, female scientist and a guy with pointy hair can stop... meanwhile the villain is secretly planning to use the mega energy device as a weapon to destroy the world... Then Godzilla comes from the Island of Monsters and smushes everything... and we turn them away thanks to the loveable japanese children who sing to Gamera and those two twins that dance for Mothra... and umm... um... and just when Ultron's energy is about to give up, Skippy says, "Ultron I believe in you!" Then half the characters die in a horrible holocaust, while one or two tokens who might've drawn close together to each other in the conflict end up going away to pursue profitable careers in archeaology...
http://www.beanleafpress.com
holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy
the same promise that politicians will stop lying, no more taxes, bosses wont be incompetent jerks, women will make sense and life will stop hurting?
god i love the holidays.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
"holy shit run away we're all going to die in a blazing inferno of our own incomptence"
If it's in France, then France and southern England will be depopulated; and it leaves portions of Germany and Spain unhabitable aswell. Where's the problem there?
I worked at the General Atomic D3D facility in San Diego, the 1980s. The biggest limitation on the rate at which they could explore the experimental parameter space was the number of neutrons that the machine would create. The ultimate end of all modern tokamaks is to be turned into low-level radioactive waste when the machine itself becomes activated by the free neutrons liberated by the fusion process.
The more conventional gamma rays, alpha radiation (helium nucleii), and beta rays (fast moving electrons) are dangerous enough but at least they aren't infectious: you can irradiate food with gamma rays and it doesn't turn radioactive. Neutrons get absorbed by nearby nuclei, which then themselves become unstable and radioactive. Ick.
That's not to say we shouldn't explore nuclear fusion as a power source -- just that it is not the perfectly clean energy source that it is often made out to be.
You can't have a civil discussion with an atheist. Atheists like to think of themselves as rational, but if you observe their behavior you'll find they are anything but. They are full of anger and bitterness, and react with frightful outrage whenever they encounter someone with different views from their own. Even people who think that atheism is a reasonable philosophy must admit that most atheists did not arrive at their point of view through anything resembling a rational process. Rather, they are poorly socialized individuals who are lashing out angrily at anything which they perceive to be valued by "mainstream" society. You really shouldn't take it personally. It is the result of an angry and profoundly unhappy psychological condition on their part, not due to you or your Christian beliefs.
yes. except the US is not as two faced about it.
Oh come ON. Grow the fuck up already. This reactor and the science behind it are a different thing separate from any political differences.
Can someone explain on how does thermodynamics
explain the energy gain in a fusion reaction?
The same law that is always quoted in
cold fusion or other renewable energy discussions.
Both Japan and France have a ton of cities... shouldn't the reactor be in some really remote location, like either a desert, or up in Alaska? The world's biggest fusion reactor has the potential to cause the world's biggest reactor disaster... so it should probably be far away from everything. Of course, let's not all forget that it will still only be a fraction of the size of THE SUN, which is already a working fusion reactor, spewing a virtually infinite amount of energy at us all the time. We should just make giant solar cells everywhere, and be done with it.
stuff |
Who in the US administration actually stated that the US opposed a French site because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? What does this have to do with Iraq!? Wouldn't France be the obvious choice? The French have the most experience, e.g. keeping a whole country full of fission reactors humming along.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I'm waiting for his the microwave power beaming from outerspace.
Waaaah! Scotty thats that, that *melts*
Looks like they were in favor of the war in Iraq.
Besides they already received sufficent radiation during WWII. It's fair to share among all countries.
Why is that relevant? What are they going to do, recharge their battery powered Humvees?
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
I thought fusion was always ten years away, not five years away.
The original submission was just trolling for reaction.
Sure they are. When was the last time you heard public praise from any modern politican regarding Ronald Reagan aiding Saddam back in the 80's? Where is the recognition that America knew that Saddam gassed the Kurds but the government decided to ignore that little fact?
I had thought that the international community was hesitant to build ITER in Japan because of earthquakes. But, I found this article that seems to say that earquakes will not be a problem for this cite, for anyone who is interested.
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
Wait a minute, what the hell am I saying???
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Fuck America.
Fuck Bush.
Oh hell, fuck everyone.
They said _ALMOST_ limitless.
Get it right next time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, but no-one ever suggested building the tokamak in Northern Ireland.
James F.
How do you reach that conclusion exactly? Other than not supporting a war without a second resolution I haven't noticed the French supporting much terrorism. You never hear people in Camp X-Ray breaking down and saying "okay, I give in. M. Chirac made me do it."
France does have a large muslim population due to its old (fairly disastrous) colonial association with Algeria but, as many people have pointed out, muslim != terrorist. I'm sure France is making every effort to root out any terrorists that may be hiding there.
There is far more evidence for active terrorist cells in Frankfurt, Hamburg and Birmingham than France. That doesn't make Germany an untrustworthy country, either.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Can you back up the accusation that France harbors support for terrorism?
Also, can you consider that there is no "need" to adapt fusion power to weapons, it is called the H-bomb and I'm pretty sure France already has them.
excuse me but why is this modded +5 informative? The Z-machine is no more modern than 10 years more modern than the tokamak and it sure as hell isn't efficient (in terms of fusion production) by any means. It's barely producing a million neutrons in its implosions; billions of times less than the energy input into the implosion.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
No western country that I know of (except possibly a few conflicted South American states) supports terrorism in any form. If you really mean harbors support for terrorism, I'd say the US probably harbors more terrorists (knowingly or not) than a good deal of other nations combined.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
The Americans are against building a huge, experimental nuclear fusion reactor in France because they don't like the French? I'd demand it be built smack dab in the middle of Paris. What could possibly go wrong?
I want the fire back.
i disagree. selling weapons in the 80s (the US) and being 2 faced is less 2 faced than selling weapons in the 90s (France) and being 2 faced. plus all the dodgy African governments France likes to support weapon wise in the 90s (and it is emerging in the 2000s) where as the US, despite hypocriticism, stopped this business in the 80s on the whole.
The US is no angel and commited many humanitarian crimes, but France is also no angel either and gave up direct support later.
Little wonder there's no talk of having the site in the U.S. -- if the international community were to look at the current condition here for nuclear reactor safety and security, and the stance on public disclosure in this regard -- heck, the U.S. shouldn't even be part of the proceedings. Especially after the French Fry ban in the Rayburn Building Cafeteria.
Why not New Zealand?
They are far away from everything. An accident there wouldn't kill too many people (relatively).
Oh, you seriously believe the French government sponsors terrorists, or would ever let terrorists access to highly sensible technological facilities? Can I see sources, facts, proofs?
American media has once again played on words. Terrorism is relative; Americans call them terrorists when they are against them and "freedom fighters" when they are on theirs.
And I would like much better this reactor being in France than being in a country which is actually the puppet of the nation most likely to use it for war (ya, that's YOU if you can't read between the lines). We have seen that treaties didn't mean much for the US, so I would let such a toy at baby Bush's grasp.
I'd argue that reason the US doesn't want the test reactor in France is because of:
1. Physical control of the test reactor.
2. Impact on local economy of all the international funds used in construction.
I suspect that #2 comes into play more than #1 - Japan is a valued political and economic partner that's currently still in the middle of a really bad economic slump. We'd rather reward them with the mega-bucks that will get pumped into the economy as a result of the construction and staffing of the reactor, rather than giving these lush proceeds to the French.
Its exactly this provincial thinking that exacerbates, and perpetuates, the incorrect assumption that the usa rules the world. Lets face it, OUTSIDE of america, very few care about america. Let those that want to manage/run this effort not be burdened by the american dogma thats stagnated that country.
This is not a 'claim'; several Tokamaks have acheived 'break-even' on energy-in vs. enevergy-extracted, notably the SPHERE project from Rutherford Appleton Laboratories, IIRC.
James F.
We can use this boondoggle to power our 100%-effective peace shield (or should I say freedom shield).
So, in reference to the article, Japan should get it? Japan has committed attrocities as well (WWII ring a bell?)
You turn some matter into energy. How do you think fission reactors work?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Somthing I've always wondered is, how does this work?
I understand the most of it: B-feild presses the Hydergen together, pressure mounts, then they fuse, releasing heat, right? Well, in and among those big, superconductive wires, how do you get the heat from the reactor out to a boiler? Or do they intend to line the thing with lots of little thermapiles, like an RTG or the like? It seems to me that it would be hard to get all that energy released into a useful form...
are you 12?
Little wonder there's no talk of having the site in the U.S. -- if the international community were to look at the current condition here for nuclear reactor safety and security, and the stance on public disclosure in this regard -- heck, the U.S. shouldn't even be part of the proceedings. (Unless of course Halliburton's doing the infrastructure buildout).
"Hi, we're the guys who orchestrated the French Fry Ban in the Rayburn Office Building Cafeteria, we know exactly how to run everything, who is and is not in the Axis of Evil, and you can't play Nuclear Reactor with us."
he U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
So instead, they thought they'd like to build it in the country that bombed Pearl Harbor?
Cause if they build it in the us, all the property value of the containing state will be zip. Duh? Why else chose japan?
The most viable known methods of generating and sustaining fusion both use and generate radioactive material.
The best fuel for igniting fusion is a tritium/deuterium mix because it fuses at a lower temperature. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen with 2 additional neutrons. It is "bred" from lithium, but it's still a very radioactive substance. Technically speaking, fusion reactions do use radioactive material as fuel. DD reactions are possible, but they require higher temperatures and are less likely to be viable.
Secondly, the DT reaction emits neutrons. It's a simple matter of math - you have a deuterium and tritium nucleus which collide and produce helium. There's a neutron left over, with high amount energy and no electric charge. It will "ping" right out of the magnetically confined plasma. Most such neutrons will be absorbed by the lithium shielding (creating more tritium) but some will fuse with other parts of the reactor, creating, you guessed it, radioactive waste.
Commercially viable fusion reactors, if they ever exist, will almost certainly produce radioactive byproducts. It will be a great improvement on fission power, as there will be less waste in total with a shorter half-life, but radioactive waste is radioactive waste. Like fission waste, fusion waste will be expensive to deal with and be around for many generations.
For more info, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry.
Terrorism is NOT relative. Terrorism involves targeting non-combatives outside of a war effort. There is nothing relative about it. It is murder in the name of politics.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
For all those that are undoubtely going to post something about how America and President Bush in particular are evil for doing something like this here's a little factoid:
/ eu rope/27BRIE5.html?ex=1072069200&en=bf36a06d6e81a8a b&ei=5070
Europe did it first to Spain for it's SUPPORT of the Iraq war. If you don't believe me here's a link (NYT -registration required etc..):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/27/international
Not that's I'd expect Slashdot (or the BBC) to get the whole story. As much as I like Slashdot this place is definitely ultra liberal and has an agenda to go with that... so always helps to verify anything you hear on this first before you believe it. (As everyone should on ALL media sources before they go spouting it as fact)
What an accomplishment it will be to construct the world's largest non-functional power plant!
even if it is actually capable of producing more power than it consumes (like they claim on the web site) it will be monumentally inefficient compared to more modern fusion reactor designs
Do you know what efficient means?
Key difference between France and Japan, then, if you force us to explain it to you... The Japanese government that was responsible for those war atrocities was removed, by force, and replaced with a much much better government many years ago. Unless you're advocating doing the same to France, I must point out that the same French governance system is in place as was in place in the 80's and the 90's....so your objection really fails to pass muster.
can you say more about this? Your link is broken. I've never heard of the sphere project, the only tokamak I've ever heard of breaking even was the JET at ~13MW.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
No, that's true. Underneath, however, the US is highly hypocritical. However, as you say, they have only one face. This is why most of its people don't have any idea about where their country have supported tyrants and terrorists, such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, SaudiArabia, Chile, etc. They don't have two faces, only one, and it can't speak except when saying "freedom, freedom, freedom", while underneath that mask, they are regime changing (Saddam was supported by the CIA, and Chile had their elected leader overthrown and replaced with a dictator), meddling around (as in when they supported Osama), and being generally hypocrites (as when they sold weapons to Iran while threatening everyone else who dared do the same). Freedom lovers, my ass. Oh, and by the way, this will get modded down as flamebait by everyone who doesn't want to realize the truth. Mod it offtopic, if anything, and avoid making yourself look like a brainwashed fool.
I believe the original poster is referring to economic, not thermodynamic efficiency. Pulse power reactors (like Z) are expected to be much cheaper to operate (per watt output) than machines like ITER.
The English will have no choice but to either fund the French effort or invade. As the rest of the EU would frown on invading, that just leaves making sure the French reactor worked perfectly.
In turn, with two fairly substantial doners then backing a French effort, other countries would see no point in funding another, so would join in.
Once America is the lone holdout, the US taxpayer must either pay 100% of the costs of a fusion reactor (which would cost congressmen a lot of votes) or the US Government would have to give in.
Y'see, the important thing in politics is not who is right, or even who is richest, but rather who is the better gambler.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When a known terrorist can openly fly into a country with no challenge at arrival, when funds, accounts, and property that belong to know terrorist groups are protected, when transactions that are illegal in other countries can be pursued openly, and when you sell countries materials forbidden by international treaty, I call that openly supporting terrorism.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Seriously, everything the French manage falls on it f'n face. Let the Japanese house it. That thing will do 150% of projected output. I think it has something to do with doing Tai-Chi before work every day.
We'll basically be like the Tlulaxu and Ixians, but without all the shape-shifting. All I need is money to buy the island and a tech base. Who's with me? I'll set us up a paypal account.
Good luck; the eco-nuts have a done a very good job scaring the public away from nuke-u-lar-anything. Perception == Reality.
I feel so much safer choking on coal, gas, and oil.
--
Power to the Peaceful
This thing is going to be sucking vast amounts of money for the forseeable future.
Remember they can do fusion, that isn't the problem. The problem is that they currently have no way to get more energy out of the fusion reactors than they have to put in to run the process.
5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 40 years more research? I'm betting somewhere between 20 and 40 years. In which case, who cares where it is located.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
the hell, is this not being built on U.S. Soil? This is such a clear example of the U.S. reliquishing scientific leadership in the world community.
Fusion is the one technology among a handful of others that will fundametally change the face of the world in the next 20-30 years and the U.S., the last "Superpower", is going to let that technology be developed on foreign soil.
As described by the article "The boldest intiative since the Manhattan project". Indeed, and equally as important. To think that the current administration can't see the value in this persut is disturbing.
It's a sad day for science in the U.S.
My question would be, if it's supposed to be a worldwide project, how do they plan on pushing the power out from the West to the Eastern continents? I mean, really wouldn't it make more sense to build two reactors, one for Europe and nearby islands, and one for N+S America?
Budget wise, I'd imagine running a "safe" conduit between continents would present a rather significant cost just the same as building two reactors would?
Ummm...solar cells are something like 11% efficient at best.
That, and such large percentage of the sun's energy that reaches Earth to begin with is then wasted by filtering it through the atmosphere. Wouldn't it just be easier to build a Dyson's Sphere and be done with it?
Oh right - then all the plants would die because there's no sunlight. Like they would because there's no habitable groundspace if we cover the Earth with enough solar panels to get the kind of energy we would from one fusion reactor.
I say "boo" on you, Mr. C. Montgomery Burns. And that goes double for your sun-blocking plans!
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
How about MacDonald Rumsfeld... I'll be he can't resist those French Fries!
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
... is access to ITER while conducting experiments on neutron capture to produce fissionables, including weapons grade. France is likely to scream bloody murder sooner or later when the US does this (because they can; because they want to world to see them supporting non-weapons based nuclear work; because they want to be seen standing up to the World Bully; because it could encroach on their own high neutron producing commercial reactor business; etc.). While the people of Japan are equally as likely to find displeasure in what amounts to nuclear weapons research being conducted on their soil, the Japanese government and social structure will keep the noise level much lower than would occur in France. The US could get booted from France (it happened to NATO), but not from Japan.
d f). If the US were interested in energy production, rather than neutron production, they could have pursued thorium based fission reactors (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDe tail/assetid/25710/page/2). They're not as clean as fusion, but cleaner than heavy uranium and plutonium reactors. They're not externally neutron efficient, because they use their neutrons "breeding" thorium 232 into uranium 233, the actual fuel for the reaction. Thorium reactors can be built as neutron sources, but that's hanging a bag on the design; the more efficient designs don't need or incorporate that because they use the neutrons themselves.
Although fusion is relatively "clean", ITER is still a neutron heavy design (http://wsx.lanl.gov/Publications/neut-activate.p
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
There are quite a few of comments here about the thing going boom and spilling radioactive waste Chernobyl style. Is there anyone out there who can clarify what the safety issues with ITER are? What kind of radioactive materials are generated, if any? I know the fusion process generates lots of radiation (neutrons if I recall), but how much of that translates into radiative/activated materials that are long-lived and a danger to public safety?
Long live Schrodinger's cat...
So you were talking about the US.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Doesn't sound all that crappy to me. There are many (less glamorous) ways of generating energy which are less like burning money than fusion is.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I am so sick of the how the stories that get posted on Slashdot always have some wording to get this site going on a political bent. This story could have stimulated some interesting technical discussion - but because it had a tag line that mentioned the French / American thing, it will degrade into yet another Slashdot American / European / Asian / etc. bashing....
Please PLEASE keep it about "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that Matters"
I welcome our new Giant International Fusion Reactor overlord!
SCO (noun.)- A Slimy Corporate Ogre. Often seeks free money.
The article asserts that the US is opposing the France option because of the Iraq war.
Just because some reporter makes this claim doesn't make it true. What is the source of this? There is nothing in the article to back it up. Maybe the claim comes from a source that is simply guessing as to the US's motives. Maybe the source is trying to divert attention from legitimate objections by claiming this is all politically motivated. We don't know.
Take this article with a grain of salt.
Why, the US isn't even considered for the reactor site?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
No, I was talking about France. But if you had any question, let me repeat for the liberals that can only see it one way: I was talking about France.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
What the hell does Iraq have to do with it? France have every right to hold their own opinions, does America think that just because they caught Saddam they now have the moral superiority of everyone? The site should be chosen on scientific suitability and somewhere where it wont be at risk of sabotage or control by any one government, it shouldnt be chosen based on the political views of some government in a totally unrealated matter. Its just childish like the Galileo demands.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Our freedom neutrons have been liberating the nucleus for over 50 years.
energy politics drive 90% of foreign policy, they have for the last 50 years and if anyone doesn't see that they are blind.
The US' position is that they do not want possibly the worlds most advanced energy production device to be in the hands of someone(France) who does not share their worldview. Say what you will but France has always done what is good for France(as it should be..) but in the process has forgotten past alliances and basically sold out the spirit of agreements for their letter.
They've had plenty of back-dealings with blacklisted states(Libya, Iran, Iraq) and have a stated goal of using the EU as a tool for the further glory of France and the 'containment' of the US(seems kinda uppity for people who'd be speaking German were it not for the allied powers in WWII).
It's ironic actually how Germany is using France as a mouthpiece for some rather unsavory positions in the EU and France is more than happy to be the loudspeaker, thinking it is weilding power while being played like a trumpet. The saddest part is that the EU is suffering because of the grandstanding of these two.. google for the details about the recent failure of the EU constitution as an object lesson.
In terms of banking, you may as well say the same about the Swiss. Plenty of other countries (including Britain) go very close to the line, if not beyond it, in terms of their arms sales: besides, treaties are just political: there are plenty of countries that probably shouldn't be sold arms which are the subject of no treaty. Unless you have several recent examples of known terrorists flying into France without arrest I'd suggest that France just strikes a different balance between security and privacy. While that balance may be open to debate I wouldn't call it support for terrorism per se.
Anyway, what about the US' support for terrorist and revolutionary groups the length and breadth of South America through the '80s? Sure, that may not have been terrorism against the good ol' US boys, but it was still support for terrorism.
IIRC France is much more tectonically stable than Japan. In Japan you have the eartquake/tidal wave of the week club. While fusion power is safer (As far as we know, having never built a self-sustaining reactor) it'd be a bummer for an earthquake to destroy your multi-billion dollar reactor...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Basically fusion is not that hard. The problem in a fusion reactor is that the plasma cools off very quickly (seconds). If we let:
EO = energy outflow (cooling of plasma)
EF = energy produced by fusion reaction
EI = energy input (external heating)
then the following equations can be set up:
1) EO 0, the above equations 1 & 2 are hard to maintain. Why? Because hot plasma is cooled down by the reactor walls (+ other kinds of cooling).
Simply put, EO (cooling) is an area dependent function.
EF (energy from fusion) is a volume dependent function.
Thus, if you just build a large enough reactor, you can increase the EF/EO rating as much as you wish. However, a larger reactor costs more.
If we build a big reactor (r=20m) it would produce net energy output. It would NOT be commersially usable.
The ITER or Not-ITER discussion is about whether a large expensive test reactor would be worth its investment, or if the money rather should be used for base reasearch and computer simualtions.
There are two fundamentally different fusion reactors, the "tokamak", and the "stellarator" (IIRC). You want a magnetic field inside the reactor that keeps the plasma away from the walls. In the conseptually easier tokamak, that magnetic field is caused by letting a large (Mega Amp) current flow through the plasma. This current is produced in the plasma using the same concept as a AC voltage-transformer (the plasma is considered one of the spools). However, this means that the current in the "other" spool needs to increase linearly in order to maintain constant plasma current. In reality, this limits the time the reactor can operate to a few seconds (then you lose the plasma and need to restart).
A stellarator uses a very complex set of spools around the reactor to create constant magnetic field inside the reactor. "Very complex" means "not yet practically solved". Actually, its primarily a computational task.
Ok, I read both referenced articles...and even looked around for some others. Frankly the AP article and the others that I found were frankly just light on details of the delay and hyping up the Japan site.
While the BBC article was detailed on what they think is really going on (admittedly, it's probably what's going on, but I put that disclaimer in there just in case) with the delay.
And you know what? I think I have a little more faith in the BBC article than I do in the AP article...it's almost a certainty that it's a political issue and not just a 'which site is better' issue.
Grei
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq
Could it possibly be because France tends to sell all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).
1) EO < EF + EI
2) EO < EF
1) means that we have a net energy output (assuming 100% efficiency)
2) means that we have a "lit", self sustataining reactor
> but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
So, 'opposing the war in Iraq' is good for US? I thought that building reactors should be considered _bad_ for country (remember Chernobyl reactor catastrophe?).
More than half of world's countries were against Iraq war. Now let's try to punish them! Does G.B. has no brains or something? Apparently world will become somewhat tired of USA's behaviour and strike back.
-- grmbl woz heer
The AP story doesn't prominently mention the us objection to France because of their object to the war in Iraq. Conversly, the BBC story makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of what the "us objections" actually are. I have not been able to find any credible mention of who and what the actual objections are. Is this just a quote from someone with an axe to grind?
The technical aspects of this are much more interesting than the political ones.
Technology will always devolve to the least common denominator. Polictics will always devolve to the marginalized just bitching.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
Who pays for pr0n?
Everyone on Counterstrike is using a bot or a hack. There is no place for you.
Darn, I was convinced until you switched from arguments to insults..
I'm ospposed to a French site not because they opposed the Iraq war, but beause my relatives (the French) are assholes.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I find that very interesting...
Can you be more specific? Which known terrorist are you talking about? Which known terrorist groups? What kind of transactions? What masterials that are banned by international treaty are you talking about?
You can't throw out those kind of accusations without being soecific....
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
> apparantly
Yeah, right.
-- grmbl woz heer
Hate to break it to you spanky, but the USA did exactly the same thing. By your logic, the US supports terrorism.
A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
Yes, the "fusion power will be workable in N years" mantra that's been heard from many sources for the past 40 years is frustrating, and considering that here it is 2003 and we still havent even reached ignition in any laboratory reactor is dissapointing to say the least. However, it is important to note that during this time fusion research hase come a VERY long way. I don't see how this progress can continue forever with no results.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Its an american audience, NORTHERN ireland doesnt exist. Only Ireland or Six counties, or North Ireland.
Then again they still think London is a COUNTRY.
You see calling someone liberal as insulting? I tend to agree, but I guess it depends on your point of view.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
EU bureaucrats removed the proposed Spanish ITER site from the running because Spain supported the war in Irak.
Now, I'm not saying that the war in Irak was a good (or bad) idea.
But when the EU allowed politics rather than science to influence the content of its ITER proposal, this gave the Bush administration an excuse to do the same thing. Plus, due to the influence of these politics, the EU bureaucrats may have cut Europe's bid at the knees anyway by choosing the less optimal site.
And if politics is to enter into this thing, it's not surprising that Japan is favored, since they were fairly neutral in the Irak matter. But make no mistake: it was the ministry of EU that brought this upon themselves and upon Europe in general.
(Note: this is not a criticism of France as it is! The bureaucrats of the EU are totally separate from the people of France and their government.)
oh--so in 40 years all they've learned is how to make cheezy powerpoint graphics?
of course the US doesnt want it in France, and of course it is because of the war. There's no surprise there. Canada is actually one of the front running countries for the location of the reactor but the Canadian government has decided it can't afford the necessary level of funding.
Dubya is so narrow minded that he can't separate any country from the topic of it's involvement with the unjust war.
But regardless, if a project could benefit the US, then the US will demand that they get it on their soil. ALL US trade policy, ALL US government action is based purely on screwing the world no matter how blatant and no matter how many treaties it breaks.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Jesus Christ. They're not going to start hammering people over this now, surely? They do realise that they acted illegally, and France was actually right to oppose the invasion?
Hope they build the reactor next to the next WTC building and it blows sky high.
And that is what the BBC article says.
But Reuters and other sources write:
So, as usual, some journalists are wrong. How do we choose which to believe?
Maybe someone has a Canadian source? (their favors are not mentioned in these reports)
wow what a clever observation. not.
Then in ten years when the next-in-line of the Bush dynasty takes power, France (rogue nation that it is) is "discovered" to be using the reactor in an ongoing WOMD program that threatens the Safety and Liberty of the American People(tm).
In the ensuing chaos, the US "liberates" Canada in a move of characteristic logic.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/2 6/1656221&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=134
science classes only. No Law School, literature class will focus on scientific texts and technical writing, and history will be the history of science
:-)
Good luck, but I'm afraid your Island will be terribly boring. No litterature? No music either I guess?
But maybe you will enjoy the company of some Talibans looking for a new place...
Besides, "no history" sounds frightening. Of course, it seems we do NOT learn from history, after all, but we definitely shouldn't abandon any hope. Some day maybe we WILL learn from history.
That will be awesome dude. No lawyers == no laws. Of course, since everyone is a scientist, everyone will agree on everything. Count me in!
But basically, the UK has approved the building of three offshore wind farms that will each provide the same power as a nuclear reactor (Sizewell B was the one named in terms of power output).
Wind's as unlimited a resource as deuterium, right? And a hell of a sight easier to draw power from.
Now, normally I'm all for fusion plants and cool high-tech stuff, but this just seems like another international money-sink. The fact the US is objecting to it being in France rather than Japan suggests A: petty, childish vendettas over the fact that France *dared* to defy the US over Iraq, and must now pay the price, or B: massive pork-barrel funding for American interests in the Japanese fusion industry, or C: both.
I don't even *like* the French, but really, fuck Bush. The sooner the world is rid of him and all his energy industry cronies fucking everybody else over for a dollar, the better. This is a man who is one step away from literally standing on a ledge pissing over people and telling them it's raining... and they're believing him! What's next? "That's not a human turd you just watched me shit out onto a plate, it's prime Texan beef! Now eat it up, yum! 'Cause if you don't, you're supporting TERRORISTS!" Christ...
You must think in Russian.
...and two month vacations are ass raping your productivity while the United States productivity soars!
You can't have your cake and eat it too. France has slid into irrelevance and Gremany is close behind.
You can't give away the candy store and make a profit.
You are getting further and further into our rear view mirrors!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
So it is official now. The current administration is run by eight year olds...
Can I say Google? This stuff has all been in news, even generic news like Yahoo. Known terrorists? How about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, for example? France likes to pretend that they are not even terrorist groups, but groups "devoted to peace." Transactions would be payment for weapons and transferal of funds to buy them. Banned materials would be things like tritium and others that only have a real use in building nuclear weapons.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
According to the linked BBC article, everyone except the EU is backing Japan.
On the other hand, Reuters says that China and Russia are backing France.
Anybody know which is accurate?
Twenties Retirement
the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
U.S.A. - The most powerful country in the world.
That's exaclty the kind of BS you'd be able to avoid. Think of how much more would get accomplished without having to deal with all that.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
For God sake - I hope the Fusion reactor will not come to Europe at all for security reasons!
For the politicial assault in the teaser of the article against France - here we go:
There is not much difference between 'Old Europe' and the US till the end 199x. And for am I was born in Eastern Germany behind the wall there were a lot of reason to thank the US for standing and thus save whole Europe (otherwise there had been no hold for the russian divisions at all).
But since the neoconservative Bush junta has taken over the power in the US all our picture of you has changed as dramatically as it could. Maybe we are driven apart before, but maybe all Europeans loved Clinton too much to see it. As where we stand now for me I can say: I see really two USA and they are as different as they could be. It's like you are a other land after the change from Clinton to Bush.
As where we now stand I would suggest you in the US to read 'After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order' by Emmanuel Todd - despite it will hurt you should get a lot of truth from it.
One of the main conclusions in this book is the change of the habbit of the US empire after the beginning of the 1990's from a good saving empire to a aggressive imperalistic empire.
Here are some main differences between the US and Old Europe as good as I get it together. Hopefully we do not see here a other clash of civilisation Huntington may have left in his book.
1)
We do not believe that your President has been legitimated in a fair democratic election at all.
(In no land in Europe this whould be able to happen - to have diffences in voting machines between 2-10% - and not count all votes via hand or arrange a new ellection.)
2)
Dead Penalty is not human and is showing a low state of civilisation.
3)
The agenda of Kyoto has to be ratified by the US as the biggest destroyer of our enviroment.
4)
The international curt in the Haag is the only authority for war crimes. Nobody here is seeing where you will have the right to think you would be out of this!
5)
You have no right to begin assault wars without legitimation of the UN security counsal - there will be no world order without the rule of law.
6)
There is also a big thinking of standing out of the law as empire. You have no right to deal like you do in Guantanamo! This is the tradition of Stalin and Hitler.
So we see a fall of democracity in the US swapped against nationalism.
It's a pitty that the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
IMHO, the location that gives better chances for the project to acheive its goal should be selected.
Politics should not get into the way of science...
Of course they opposed the war in Iraq. It's rather difficult to surrender when your on the attacking force.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Ambitious international projects like this (space station, anyone?) are almost always political hot potatoes, run ridiculously overbudget, and never achieve what they're originally meant to, ie orbitting giant space outpost of useful science, or a gateway to common supersonic air travel.
See also: The Concorde.
The only thing worse than one nation's beauracrats running huge projects that are mainly of engineering and technical expertise, is many nations' beauracrats doing it.
-
I would also add that France and Japan are both allies of the US. Given recent events, which is a "better" ally?
Does no one else remember Pearl Harbor? Or is it just short attention spans? Yeah, that was a long time ago, but I don't recally France ever actually attacking the US at all.
Frankly, I think this whole thing is stupid. What bad would come of a French fusion reactor? It's not like they're going to steal it and use it to power Iraq or something.
Just tell Bush that if the reactor explodes, this way it would kill French people instead of Japanese... maybe that would change his mind.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
I don't consider 72% in favor of a "slim majority"...
Sorry, that was meant to be this URL. The sphere project was a project to, well, change the shape of a Tokamak's torus so that the eccentricity approached 1 (i.e., a sphere).
James F.
here it is 2003 and we still havent even reached ignition Sorry but ignition has been reached ad fusion sustained for minutes.
i've discussed this idea with a lot of my friends, and many people think the same.
:]
i know this post will most likely never be read, but i thought i'd just share my support for the concept.
it will happen, and it will lead to a new level of human society.
see you there
There plenty of policits to go around. The European Union wants the site to be in France (I wonder why?).
Meanwhile, "Canada, China, Russia, South Korea, the United States and Tokyo itself are reported to be favouring Japan".
It seems like its the EU against the world on this one.
You're right, history would probably have to be studied. Maybe we do this by not just studying a long string of events, but put them in a context: "The technicological advancements that came out of World War I included...", "Today we will study atomic weaponry and its effects on the world..." and so on?
The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France, but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
Here is how I read this: France wants to be superpower itself, but Japan will play by the rules of US. So, if Japan gets the project US contractors can make more money, hence US opposes France. I don't think there are bitter feelings and/or US is trying to get back at France, they just want to make money, or rather they want the people who pay them and their campaigns to make money.
ato
When it comes to prestigous projects, somehow it is always France that gets the deal within the EU. This is so irritating and inacceptible.
Just because the french are the best lobbyists and diplomats and most ruthlessly serve solely their own interests, while demanding from others to serve the public interest, they get their way all the time.
I really hope this deal goes to Japan (ps. I'm dutch).
Excuse me but what statistics have you read? The war was probably about a 50/50 split in the US. Where did this slim minority BS come from?
Ok, so where are your stats.
Yes the many other Islamic countries were against the war. Islam has taken over 100 countries in the world now. If they feel threatened by anyone dealing with another Islamic country, then that's life.
There are a few interesting things I'd like to point out here. First, your use of 'taken over' in reference to Islam. How many countries has Christianity 'taken over'? Why do you think the country has been captured by a religion? And which hundred countries do you suppose this has happened to? I bet you can't name a dozen.
As far as France, Russia and Germany, yes they also didn't want the war. They were supplying Saddam and were owed billions. They still are. People forget that France was making the planes that Iraq used to gas its own people. That is why there was so much pressure against it. Those countries stood to lose money they were owed if the US invaded. You people are so easily swayed by propaganda instead of looking at facts that you really piss me off.
Ah, yes. It pisses me off too, which is why I'm replying to your bad information.
France, Russia, China, the USA, and Germany have all provided military equipment to Iraq. The USA has additionally outfitted Iran and several neighbours. The Russians, Germans, and French are owed money largely for infrastructure, electrical generators, sanitation equipment, and the like. But get this straight - no one is innocent in this, and the USA is certainly, far and away, the worst offender.
The helicopters - not planes - that Saddam used to gas the Kurds were from Bell Helicopter Textron and Hughes, which are both US companies. Any planes Saddam had have been grounded (and indeed, literally buried) since the No-Fly Zone was established after Gulf War 1.
So go check out that link and educate yourself, before the next time you go spouting off about things you know nothing about.
Fuck France
Oh, you don't want to get into that. France has much more effective curses to hurl back at you.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Why doesn't the US just build one for itself?
If they build an international fusion reactor, there will be endless squabbling about every little detail.
The US should just build one for itself, and leave the others to their own ideas. Why should our scientists, resources, and military, and production benefit other countries? It's a bad deal for us because we never seem to charge for our services.
What's the point of being a sovereign nation these days...
You need to learn some history little boy.
The US rebuilt Germany and Japan in order to keep unskilled labour (ex-soldiers, sailors etc) employed, and to keep US companies from folding once the manufacturing requirement of the war disappeared.
The Marshall Plan was not a monetary gift to the recipients, it was a series of government backed loans to be used only in payment for the services of US based concerns.
Try reading a history book with more text than pictures for a change and come back when you're not so pathetically ignorant that your merest inconsequential comment is an insult to the intelligence of everyone else participating in the discussion.
Sorry but ignition has been reached ad fusion sustained for minutes.
I don't think so. If you clicked on the link you would see that ignition in this context refers to the point at which the energy derived from the fusion reactions is enough to maintain the necessary plasma temperature to continue the reaction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but current reactors haven't even reached a breakeven. The energy output from the fusion reactions is less than the energy needed to heat the plasma.
Though the longer we stay over there, and the billions and billions spent on rebuilding a nation that was never a threat to us in the first place will make those numbers go down.
I wonder what you smoked today. Must be pretty cool stuff.
Steam is not contaminaton.
The "Steam" you see coming out of the top of a nuklear power plant's cooling tower is only a few degrees warmer that the air around it, and a lot more moist. That "Steam" is a man-made CLOUD. Not a cloud full of acid rain either. Its some of the cleanest air and water you can find in the US.
The cloud probobly reflects more heat energy than it gives to the environment. Since nuke plants cant dump heat into water (like coal plants can) by law, the heat would go into the sky. But not much, just enought to take steam and make it water again so that the process can re-boil the water.
Any plant that burns something releases more heat per KWH than a nuke plant of similar size. No contest.
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Is that cold fusion voodoo patented, yet?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I thought about doing that. How many more classes, in your situation, are needed to get the minor or second major? I've taken a few other geo classes myself. The only thing holding me back is that I can graduate next semester if I just stick with my original plan,
Well, I'm on the 5 year plan (with about 2.5 years left) myself, and I am changing schools next fall. (to the University of Oregon)... I think for the minor it's 25-30 credits, about 15-20 upper division. I have the lower division stuff done (Geology 201, 202, 203).
and I'm getting married in October so don't want to be studying during the honeymoon. Decisions, decisions.
Congratulations. I got married last August, it's great!
You and I are almost in the exact same boat here.
Oh, one other question: my major is CS; do there seem to be lots of spots for CS guys in the geology world? I'd imagine there's plenty of simulation/modelling/imaging work to do, but I don't know for sure. What're your thoughts?
My major is also CS... with the recent story about there being 250,000 less jobs in programming/software engineering over the next 12 years, the double-major is looking more attractive.
My CS teachers at the CC where I started said to take Geology as a major and minor in CS... but I always wanted to major in CS since high school. There is also an accelerated MSCS degree at the UofO.
I really want to do something where I can be lazy, like be a unix sysadmin somewhere... but there is something attractive about manipulating GIS data, doing simulations of various things geological, and things like that. The UofO apparently has some research that involves CS majors working with Geology majors.
According to the Geology profs, geologists with CS background are highly desirable.
[Side note to the moderator(s) who moderated the parent post ontopic... almost all posts 4 levels deep reflect the natural flow of conversation, and are, as such, ON TOPIC. Concentrating your mod points on top-level offtopic posts would be more efficient and less of an assault on intellectual discussion.]
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq."
WTF... Are they entirely brain dead? What the fuck does this have to do with the war? Please tell me this isn't true.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The Z-machine is no more modern than 10 years more modern than the tokamak and it sure as hell isn't efficient (in terms of fusion production) by any means
... )
IMHO, it is not the machines' efficiencies which should be compared
at this stage, but the (projected) upward-scaling of the technologies.
Indeed, the Z-machine is currently not very efficient, but
the indirect-drive ICF approach is, AFAIK, quite promising.
(Of course, my biased opinion, as one considering a PHD in plasma,
is that the world should try both in parallel and see what works
Working for necessity's mother.
No more deaths of the same soul.
...politics gets in the way of science and the common good of the planet.
Humanity can be so very, very stupid.
Sorry but you must be on a different planet with more advanced fusion technology than ours. Ignition has NEVER been achieved, certainly not for minutes. The definition of ignition is a plasma undergoing fusion at a rate sufficient that the alpha particles alone are enough to heat and continually sustain the reaction. You are confusing this with the sate of breakeven, where more energy is given out by the fusion reaction than is put in, and even then stable modes are only sustained for a few seconds at most.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
So the issue isn't who builds one first but by confusing the situation so no one builds one. When a country's foreign policy is based on supporting oil states, the last thing that can happen is some f*cking low-cost energy source tilting the balance of power.
France is thus NOT a good choice as it is part of Europe, has a stable political system and is very well suited to develope big projects.
Given Bush already has a two white elephants with Afganistan and Iraq - BTW: both which will be multi-year f*ckups which have NOT yet caught the instigator of 9/11. Bush and his poodle Blair are not going to allow the frogs the chance to divert the agenda away from oil.
Now exactly where did I leave those WMD ?
"No, I was talking about France. But if you had any question, let me repeat for the liberals that can only see it one way: I was talking about France."
Look at your own country for christ sake...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Wasnt this supposed to have a good chance of creating an unstable black hole and causing the end of our known universe?
Are we still worried about that or have we moved on yet? I forget.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Well we dropped out of the chance to have it (our Liberal Party - uh, translation for Yanks, that's more or less 'centrist' in Canada - decided that).
However I might point out that we opposed the War in Iraq as well. So it would likely be blocked, the same as France, if that is indeed what is happening.
(We sent troops and ships to Afghanistan which are still there but I bet that doesn't count.)
Besides, you set up a fusion reactor in Canada, you know what'll happen? C'mon, you must have heard about.. you know, how we are up here. Think an international consortium is going to let us peacenik dope-smoking legally-married-lesbians who-are-also-legally-topless run that thing?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
How all the people I've ever come across that think the French people aren't on the level have never been to France. I mean, it's one thing to say "Well, All the French people I've met have been arrogant pricks, but I've never been to France," but quite another to generalize a country based on the actions of a: it's leaders or b: the damn few transplants you've seen in your hometown/area. I apologize to all the armchair bigots for going to France a few years ago, but When I asked for directions to, say La Defense (pardon the spelling if it's wrong) or the Champs-Elysees, or the palace of Versailles, (heck, even the nearest place to eat) I was given them, and given them very cordially and they even asked for my map and traced out the route. Shame I can't get the same service here in America. I live in Florida and there are a lot of New Yorkers in my area. All the ones I've come across have been arrogant pricks, but last time I visited NYC, even the Brooklynites were happy to tell me which lines went back to my hotel (Manhattan) and even recommended ones for cleanliness/safety/speed. I recommend actually visiting before making your umbrella statements about a given society.
Now watch this drive.
It really bothers me that people wrap themselves in a flag and refer to Kyoto and how CO2 is destroying the environment when they know DICK ALL about it and have not even done the most basic research.
If you read chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) The Scientific Basis you will find that water vapour is typically ignored in most models. Yet it is ove 100 times more significant than CO2 is.
I quote: These aspects have been explored only to a limited extent in climate models. No studies deal with true intensity of rainfall... ...Accordingly, it is important that much more attention should be devoted to precipitation rates and frequency, and the physical processes which govern these quantities.
In fact a change of about 1% (or less) in average water vapour on the planet will have more impact on global warming than all the CO2 put together. Meanwhile we have massive irrigation projects and aquifer mining projects going on all over the planet - and these UNDOUBTABLY have had a significant impact on increasing atmospheric H2O.
One of the arguments against H2O's impact is the idea that H2O is short lived in the atmosphere. That may well be the case but at the same time the introduction of additional H2O is very constant.
So this is like saying my humidifier won't work because its effect is short lived. That may be true but I can refill it often and personal experiance tells me it actually does work.
We have similar bad science going on in the nuclear industry. ITER is decades away. In the mean time mankind is going to have to re-vitalize Nuclear Energy. So we hear disinformation all over the place about how fusion will be so safe and fission is dirty.
Fusion is a neutron source and it is these neutrons we are looking for to burn Uranium and Plutonium. Clearly the ITER core will be irradiated and clearly it will create high level wastes. But the most important fact is that we cannot count on it being available any time soon.
We will need a new energy source about as fast as we can bloody well build it and that is even if we fast track it. North American Gas prices are at a high and Oil is also high; meanwhile it was only a few short months ago the USA petroleum stocks were reported at a 27 year low.
The BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows North American gas production peaked in 2001 and that the North Sea feilds peaked in 1999. In fact it shows Saudi Arabian output is down since 2001 as well - but this might not be supply side. Long before new power plants are built there will likely be very serious blackouts and industrial shutdowns. The North AMerican Nitrogen fertilizer industry is the first of many examples to follow.
So lets start doing some real research and start checking facts instead of parotting the disinformation and bad science that is constantly spewed around in the media.
I only have one problem with building this reactor in France.
It has got to be the 1st or 2nd most militarily defeated territory
in modern Europe. Probably the 4th or 5th in the world.
Japan is an island nation, and in contemporary terms at least,
much more faithful to the treaties it pledges itself to uphold.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
e is using some facts that is not fair! /. mods at the next party meeting!
Bush Lies!
Anything else is reactionary counter-revolutionary propaganda!
I'm telling on the
I am reading an interesting book by Jeremy Rifkin: "The Hydrogen Economy". In it, Mr. Rifkin posits that the current political and economic regime was shaped into the rigid hierarchal structure that it has become because of the complex and expensive needs of oil production. A hydrogen economy, on the other hand, could be non-hierarchical, non-rigid and relatively inexpensive. When we hit peak oil (more than half the estimated existing oil in the world is used up) in roughly 10 years, and prices become exorbitant, hydrogen will become feasible.
It seems to me that when the economy of energy production shifts to individual or community production, the incredibly powerful and wealthy people of the current oiligarchy will have no futher justification for thier incredible power and wealth.
And they know it.
What to do (after all, no one has ever deliberately stepped away from, or allowed to slip away, this kind of power and wealth - in the history of the world) ? Start an endless war (on terrrorism) perhaps? Forment terrorism, and allow some to come to fruition on your own soil? Destroy the rights and ignore the will of the people? A little (never ending) temporary martial law?
All fixed.
The unsavory stuff mentioned above can only take place if the fundamental units of political and economic power (you and I) allow it to.
This is not a partisan diatribe. Our two party system is currently being used as a wedge to divide the American people. To keep us fighting one another and running in circles. To that end it is working very well.
Lastly, although this is certainly a global issue, it is America that is being employed as a piss-mean junkyard dog that has been allowed to slip its leash and terrorize the neigborhood, and it is Americans that will foot the bill.
Don't go along with it.
despite the myth that these projects seem to continuate, fussion can be accomplished easy with a very simple installation.
this guy, for example made 4 'fusors' that created plasma, and even achieved proton counts at levels indicative of fusion (the link has some pretty pictures of his fusion experiments)
What projects such as this one are really trying to demonstrate is not how to create fusion for a long time, but how to have fusion in a way that produces more energy that it takes to make it, which has eluded scientists so far.
This is pathetic, still opposing naything related to France? The gov. looks like a spoiled kid. But Japan would be good considering their needs related to energy.
It is not an interesting target for a terrorist (unless he works for an oil company).
By your logic, the trade center in New York wouldn't have been an interesting site for a terrorist either. A large international project, with high visibility, with billions of dollars sunk into it by a group of largely non-Islamic nations, is going to be a target. Attacking it hurts the economies of the infidels and gets a lot of highlight reels in al-Jazeera for the poor oppressed terrorists.
I vividly recall a physics professor of mine, about 25 years ago, who worked on fusion, saying: "It will be almost impossible. The neutron flux for efficient, continous power generation is so intense that no known materials could sustain the exposure". He talked about materials getting brittle- the materials in closest contact with the fusion core would fail (in weeks, months) and there was no cost effective way to deal with that for long term, stable, low-cost power generation.
Well, if you look at the topics of a conference (11th International Conference on Fusion Reactor Materials) in Japan just a few weeks ago, that problem has not gone away yet.
The thing I'm wondering is...will this end up being only for the rich countries?
...about how well the European social democracies are working with their cradle to grave social welfare state. That is one big reason they are starting in with the demonizing of France. Pretty soon they will find reasons to be demonizing Denmark, Netherlands, et al.
I have already seen propaganda posing as news that denigrates the Canadian universal healthcare system.
The rich investors that control the US media and govt want to keep their billionaires for themselves. It is really the same pattern repeating ltself from decades ago when they demonized and terrorized countries that attempted socialism.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
You think the US was any different? We just had legitimacy with the 'Oil for Food' "humanitarian" effort, which involved a whole lot more than just oil for food . . . not excluding weapons through third parties.
Do you have anything positive to say to support your point that the Reactor should be in France or that the U.S. should go out of its way to help France ??
Or do you think that slinging crap at unrelated entities constitutes a logical argument?
I thought Helium-3/Deuterium was the optimal fusion fuel. See following web page:
0 06 30.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0
But i am probably a bit eurocentric.r s-hybrides.html).
I think the french spot is good because it is in europe with some quite strong economies that has been affected as badly by the US recession.
It is also quite close(4:00 hours by tgv ) to the high energy physics research center of CERN(http://www.cern.ch) and the nano tech in Grenoble(the reactor group http://isnwww.in2p3.fr/reacteurs-hybrides/reacteu
On this thread not one poster has said why the U.S. should go out of its way to help france. Reading the related material shows theres a heck of alot of reasons to select japan for the site.
Larger industrial economy.
Superior manufacturing base.
Excellent scientific establishment
Proven track record on construction of Tokomaks.
On the other hand theres alot of people that seem to think the U.S. should bend over backward to make nice to the french. I am sorry but looking over the history between the countries any debt ever owed to france by the U.S. to france have been paid back with interest, If the french want transatlantic detente restored they should damn well make the effort to see it happens.
Because they are uninformed, uneducated, or simply prefer the wrong path due to overriding prejudices and fears.
Since stupidity makes you more susceptible to all of the above, and Conservatives benefit from a stupid populace, the best thing for Conservatives to do is gut the educational system.
-- thinkyhead software and media
George Bush is a Christian, so he cannot possibly harbor ill feelings towards people or take this kind of position. Through his Christian practice George Bush and others of his caliber are becoming enlightened beings, one with the spirit of Jesus the Anointed One. Have we not already seen the result of this miraculous religious phenomenon? Does not the world seem more beautiful this holiday season? I for one feel like singing Hallelujah!
Why put endless money into the holy grail of energy? We have solar, wind and earth energy right at our feet. Ready to be used at a fraction of the money it costs of getting nuclear power.
The only reason nuclear power is even remotley usable is that half the cost is put onto future generations such as waste storage and the huge loans that built the plants.
And can somebody please shut that fuckfuckingmotherfucking Bush idiot up before he starts WW3 in the name of god or something as stupid? Before the iraq war he had the whole damn world behind him and in some miracular way he has succeded in making the terrorists look pretty nice in comparison. The Bush administration is the biggest fucking threat to mankind since Hitler.
HTTP/1.1 400
no that's just as dumb
"Giant International Fusion Reactor"? So it generates power from the energy produced by forcing nations together? Maybe it's a good thing they can't agree then. Nations in an excitied state should produce more energy when fused together, right?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
-- Will program for bandwidth
Wrong, the US doesn't think they should be able to refresh themselves at the same fountain they cursed. They don't want to get on board. Fine. But that has consequences one of which is a reduced access to US TAXPAYER money. It's not a fucking right, it is in fact a magnanimous act of generosity.
This bizarre behavior, as if foreigne goverments were somehow entilted to US handouts, is beyond belief?
You want to know why we in the US don't give a shit about the rest of the world? Assholes like you are living in it. Our gifts, and compasion are totally taken for granted, and all we ever hear is that sounds of you bitches bitching. And don't even get me started on 9/11. We in America all knew it was just talk. The last thing you forigne fucks would ever do is put out for anyone else, least of all the US.
In short, fuck you very much. Now go die.
Really? Care to provide any evidence for that? Searching on Google, I found no articles among the top 20 that suggested any linkage between the decision for Spain to drop out and Spain's support of the Iraq war. Several of them said things like:
In fact, even if Spain's position on Iraq played a role, European diplomats would be less likely to do something as foolish as publicly stating it as a reason.
If you don't like the injection of politics into matters of science, I'm sure you'll rebuke the EU for what they did to Spain.
Here, I'll state it: any nation that determines the location of an unrelated scientific research facility based on whether a war they started was supported by other nations is behaving in a childish manner. Furthermore, if the diplomats and research establishment of that nation publicly give lack of support for the war as the reason for their decision on the location of the research facility, those diplomats are incompetent.
I don't see exactly how the EU could have done what the US did, given that the EU has not started any wars recently, but if they have and if they make such a foolish decision, then, yes, I fully condemn their actions.
Determine the worst that could happen if things go wrong, and put it in the country that could best handle that sort of disaster, either through quick and effective containment or simple isolation in the boonies- whichever will keep the people safest until it can be fully contained.
Forcing someone *not* to wear a cross is identical to forcing someone *to* wear a cross. Its religious oppression either way you look at it.
Very well said. I've always felt that way, but that's a nice, simple, defensable way to say it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The UK, dammit WE supplied weapons to Iraq too you know!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The U.S. has a wonderfully disfunctional constitution which states in one of its amendments that everyone has the right of free speech...
Now, the U.S. wants to take revenge on France because France happens to have a different opinion, and voiced it? Something just doesn't add up here.
Let's see... One country helped the US win its independence from Britain. The other attacked us in the most dastardly fashion at Pearl Harbor. Which one should we support?
Would one of the people on this thread who opposed the war come out and say that "If we had not invaded iraq would be better off ten years from now with saddam still in charge and the sanctions in place"? If you can make that assertion with a straight face i will stop bathing, start listening to phish and be high 24/7 like the rest of the pansies who don't understand politics or international relations.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
The French have a reputation of being as petty, pissy and obnoixious as the U.S. That's probably part of the source of the animosity between the two cultures. We're too much alike and won't admit it.
As an American, I'd rather see the reactor built in Japan. There's a laundry list of reasons (the French seem to handle internation opinion & criticism about as well as we do), but if it makes you Euro's feel warm, fuzzy, and supieror, then fine;
"I don't want them thar frechies building nuthin' cause they didn't support the war. Damn Frogs. God Bless America! Power of Pride! Never Forget!"
Have I reinforced the stereotypes enough? Or should I post a link to pictures of my pickup truck?
The U.S. could get the whole planet laid, and they'd still complain. If we supported the French Project we'd be unjustly shutting out Japan of an economic opportunity.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France [,,,]
They should build it in Greenland, Iceland, or Siberia. Then they could achieve cold fusion.
B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer"
I, for one, welcome our new master, the Giant International Fusion Reactor.
I think they should call it the AXIS OF FREEDOM FRIES
I notice you don't answer my last point: whatever inaction France may be taking at the moment, which may be construed as passive support for terrorism, it's far better than the active support for terrorism and civil war that the USA provided to "enemies of democracy" the length and breadth of South America during the 1970s-80s. Kissinger has a team of lawyers he has to consult whenever he goes abroad these days, just to make sure he won't be arrested for war crimes.
Small hydro, wind and solar energy can supply all of our energy needs if implemented correctly!
Are you talking about the country that warned the CIA that Ben Laden was preparing attack against the land (warnings that weren't considered seriously) ?
Are you talking about the country that got many terror attacks from Muslim groups in the 80's and 90's ?
Or are you talking about the country that provided WMD to Iraq ?
So are you talking about France or the US ? And if you are talking about France, where are your proofs ? Sorry if it comes as a shock but Fox and Rush Limbaugh aren't credible sources.
... In the beautiful south of France or in the Japanese countryside 200km from anywhere?
The sum total of US military sales to Iraq over the last 30 years was $150,000. That's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. China, Russia, France, and South Africa far surpassed the US in military sales to Iraq.
Germany and France were the primary suppliers of Iraq's WMD program, not the United States.
The only country to have used helicopters to spray chemical weapons so far has been Iraq. The helicopters in question that Bell sold to Iraq were civilian model helicopters. While they could easily be outfitted with weapons, there were far more effective gunship platforms available (ie, Russian ones) for a cheaper price. And Iraq fitting them with chemical weapons was probably not an anticipated result.
People who get pissed over that might as well get pissed at Toyota for selling their trucks to the Taliban.
Compare that with German assistance in pointing out how a pesticide factory could be switched over to chemical weapons relatively easy.
...show backbone when we say, "Uh.. Ok, but then don't come back with your hand out later." Which is of course what they've done.
Let's not forget our good friends the French who, AGAINST WORLD OPINION decided to do a bit of above ground nuclear testing off of New Zealand back in '95-'96. They essentially told everyone else to fuck off and mind their own business when they did what they pleased. In the process, they ended up spewing even more radioactive waste across the planet. Yes, what peace lovers the French are, yes?
Thanks to that thoughtless move, Pakistan and India thought the time was ripe, after all, if one of the primary signatories of the test ban treaty can break it, why shouldn't they?
So let's cut the hypocrisy here. It wasn't even that France decided that THEY didn't want to go to Iraq. That would have been acceptable to the U.S. No, they went one step further, going around the world and trying and convince OTHER nations to bury the U.S. in the U.N. as well. All for their oil contracts in Iraq. That's not simplistic neutrality - that's fucking HOSTILITY!
France pissed the U.S. off - perfectly within their rights - but they shouldn't reasonably expect everything to be business as usual afterwards.
And as to minimizing our contributions in WWII, I have to just say, Fuck You. There are members on my Dad's side I never got to meet because of that war. You might be confusing WWI with WWII - which is understandable - both wars were created first in Europe and our contributions were not as great in WWI (not to minimize our role there either).
As with Bosnia, the U.S. was there to clean up the mess in Europe's own backyard.
Go ahead, mod me down for being an American about this, but I think many forget the price of blood and sacrifice and put it all down to numbers.
At least I'm not being an Anonymous pussy in my reply. My karma and your self respect is at your mercy...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
On one hand the US is trying to punish a country for not falling in line with their war
It goes beyond "not falling in line." The French government actually worked to undermine US efforts, by trying to rally world governments against them. Fortunately for the Iraqi people, they failed.
which most of the world viewed as unnecessary and was highly against (including the population of the country in question).
If the "country in question" is Iraq, you are grossly short-sighted.
... build the fusion reactor in Iraq.
That way everyone will have an interest in seeing Iraq rebuilt and made safe and Iraq will also be able to better repay its debts...As apparently its oil is not enough.....
It's nice to see that the decision is being made on a solely technical basis, lord knows we wouldn't want this to turn into a political shitfight.
yea...I would oppose building it in france....hell...when was the last time anyone used a french car or electronic device?
besides, borrowing from The Simpsons, Robin Williams, and Jay Leno, if terrorists attacked, they'd surrender even before we can say "sh*t"
and the ol' saying, payback is a b*tch
have you seen the webpage? TERRIBLE!
...
one could think that building a majot new technology
could be reflected by a a more *cool* web design
anyway judging from their website the thing is
never going to work.
good luck anyway...
Ok Several times in the article it was said the us opposed France on political grounds but nowhere did it site a US (or any other source) to back that as the reason the US is picking Japan. If you are going to say the US is opposing this because of Iraq back it up
"Germany and France were the primary suppliers of Iraq's WMD program, not the United States." Yeah , Right.
One can argue that the US did put Saddam Hussein in place anyway, so let us only see at the source of all our problem and who put dictator in place in the last 20 years in soith america, Africa and east. Frankly I do not think you wouldlike the blame game that much.The reason is simple the US as having more power militaristcaly simply had its hands in more dirty things. It is simply a Question of financial. I do not think the other country are more innocent and they would probably have done the same with the same money at disposition. Just do not start the blame game now because you aren't in position for that.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Casualties in World War II
/Wounded
France - ? / 201,568 / 400,000
Germany 20,000,000 /3,250,0004 /7,250,000
U.S.S.R. - ?/6,115,0004 /14,012,000
United Kingdom 5,896,000 /357,1164 /369,267
United States 16,112,566 /291,557 /670,846
Country Men in war Battle/ deaths
So the French army fighted only a few months (mainly Spring 1940) but had 2/3 of the whole casualties of the US for the whole war (Pacific included).
The myth of French blind surrendering was a legend born from at end of the disaster, when fron lines collapsed, Germans were everywhere and everything was lost, and from the following pro-Germans government of Petain, who said that the causes of the disaster were lazyness and a lack of will.
The causes of the defeat (the worst in our history) are more in the way the Germans organized their army than everything else.
quoted from christophe (slashdot UID 36267) Christophe http://www.courtois.cc/
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm French, and I'm married to an American citizen (kids on the way.. twins!). We live in France, purely because at the moment, we have a much better financial situation either, than we would over there in the US, but we may move across the atlantic. I have found the US to be very welcoming (once you're past the people at customs!), and my wife has no problem whatsoever here for being an American. (besides getting whistled at, and talked to, by guys!)
... I call it defending your interests, fair enough.
I am not a fanatic of Chirac, neither is my wife a fanatic of George W. Our respective parents are a bit more, since they had a longer period of time to build their beliefs.
However, we are saddened to see the mounting misunderstanding between the two countries that we like.
I would dare to summarize the differences as:
1) France
- Scared of religious influence. We experienced hundreds of years of total Catholic domination of the country, which was so uncontested that it blocked any scientific or societal progress. You would never see a government leader in church, on TV !
- Scared of change. French are notorious for it, and it's a stereotype that's actually true! We are a country with an overwhelmingly uniform population, and anything new (Muslim religion becoming prominent, for example) is Bad.
- Trying to maintain a world position by using the European union to lessen US influence. (call it defending our interests).
2) US
- Religious influence and lobbying of sorts (religious, business, etc.) is business as usual. Actually, a government leader wins brownie points by appearing religious. It's even on your money notes.
- Used to a very widely different population ('melting pot'), due to your country history.
- Trying to maintain world dominance by isolating and lessening the influence of other world powers, in general by identifying or inventing an enemy such as russia, terrorism, france,
In the past, such cultural differences have been worked around, but it seems that lately, respective leaders are using them to stigmatize each other as political enemies, and this is really counter-productive for both countries. The US is the biggest investor in France, and (I think, from memory) the other way around.
There is a long history of helping each other. Whatever people say of US motives, that intervention was critical in WWII. I don't care that the USA wouldn't have won the war alone, I care that history would have been different without the US, most probably. France financed and greatly helped the US independence, also due to their own motives (lessening the power of the British seeming like a good one), but what country ever sends their soldier for the goodness of their heart, when they have to answer to their own opinion?
I hope both countries move on. I'm confident that things will improve after both administrations (Chirac and W.) have been replaced.
ask greenpeace about french terrorism (clue: rainbow warrior)
Ignoring the pro's whats the con's
:)
Japan: Hell of an expensive plane ticket to see it.
France: All the good acrynonyms will be backwards
I'm an American and I think France is the perfect place for a large nuclear reactor... just in case it blows up...
The Russians did in fact fight the Japanese. The battle-hardened Red Army launched an attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria in early August 1945 and went through them like a hot knife. A month later they took and occupied the Sakhalin Islands which were, like Okinawa, Japanese national territory. It was a major reason for the Japanese surrender in September.
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq.
Oh, please. Blocking an unrelated project because someone doesn't want to play your silly games with you? That's so childish.
Please elect a grown-up this year.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and their acquaintenaces had formulated a plan to strike hard against Iraq, but never got to carry it out as Clinton got elected. It represented the work of a lot of important people, but it got shelved, which deflated a lot of rather large egos. Once Bush Jr. got back in power, they waited for just the right moment (after 9/11) to put it back into motion.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
I still say that ignition has been reached and sustained for several minutes. Of course you're producing (gamma radiation+neutrons)-> heat and heat is termodinamically not very efficient to be converted in electricity.
So, what has not yet been reached is the energetic breakeven point inclusive of all the energy losses.
Hamas has 3 branchs: military, religious and social. The social branch is almost providing all the social services in Gaza - they run schools, hospital, heathcare, assistance, administrative organization, etc... In an area, where the employment is dramatic (they would be delighted to have the same economic situation as in the Great Depression), this is a matter of life and death.
So what is your choice? Letting 10,000 people die, rather than possibly helping a dozen of terrorists? Whoever didn't press hard enough for peace in the region is responsible for this situation. Of course, some divide-and-conquer strategy, like destroying PLO power, by destroying its administration, sure made Hamas strive in West Bank.
This stuff has all been in news, even generic news like Yahoo. Known terrorists? How about Hamas and the Islamic Jihad
If it is so easy and well know, go ahead and find some URL about support from Islamic Jihad, from credible source.
Ensure that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, by more inspections.
What would one more resolution exactly do? Oh, wait. What about France's declaration that they would veto any and all resolutions that authorized war?
Lie. France never said that. France said it would veto any and all resolutions that automatically authorized war. And for a good reason, because US has been lying through their teeth all the time along, to a level never seen before, except maybe in USSR, and France didn't trust US not to go to war, even if Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Guess who was right.
Actually, there are doing close to nothing. For example, there have been numerous firebombing of synagogues in Paris. Instead of being smart and investigating these for possible terrorist connections, the French authorities have declared the cause as "youthful thugs" and basically ignored them.
Terrorists don't firebomb synagoges. They use real explosives. They want deaths, and they want to be in the front news for a week (now Bin Laden is a happy man). France has arrested a number of terrorists, and guess why, none has ever firebombed a synagoge. That would be darn stupid of them, because then they would risk to be arrested by the police, and unfortunatly, most of them have more murderous plans.
It's going to turn around and bite them in the ass in the not too distant future when the huge Muslim population in and around Paris, fueled by poverty and its large unemployment rate, turns against them
Unlike US, France has a more developed welfare system.
Guess what happened the last time a large population of the poor went on a rampage in Paris? It wasn't called the "Terror" for fun.
Have fun, when the US Blacks will decide they are fed up with being excluded from the party, and decide for a bigger event than the Los Angeles riots.
I foresee another ISS (International Space Station) style boondoggle. How about instead setting up some prizes? Eg, a billion USD to the first group that creates a working fusion plant that is viable (say they run it for a month or so and it generates more power than it sucks up), half a billion USD to second place, etc.
I mean, besides that whole concept of "liberty" and stuff... oh, and they:
*aided us with ships and arms in our most important time in removing King George from the colonies
*provided money for the expansion of our navy to defend our trade to the Barbary Coast
*became our number one trade partner when no king's nation was buying American goods
*admired and respected us that they acted in same manner to start a revolution for their people
*loved us so much that they gave us the Statue of Liberty, and we loved them so much all of our fashions and opinions came from France
*is our oldest national friend, and the first place that really recognized our sovereignity
opened our cultural gates to Europe when we needed help
*has been our staunch ally on the security council, believed with us that the spread of communism in Vietnam was so important that they got involved first, almost religiously backed our initiatives until we freaked out and launched a war unprovoked
*generally put up with our crap, and we them, for generations, out of FRIENDSHIP
*And most importantly, they would LISTEN TO US AND WE THEM WHEN WE DISAGREED
Besides that, what has France ever done for us. And by saying "done for us" I mean the LAST TWENTY MINUTES. After all, America is not good on remembering the truth about France and America, who were, at one time, the only two democracies backed into a corner in the world, struggling for the freedoms of their citizens.
NEVER FORGET THAT.
Take that you anti-France bastards. We're old friends, it is about time you honored the contract, and listened to your friends, you petulant children.
By the way, we had larger influences in Iraq than you think. Read a little.
you're an idiot.
Nuclear energy is not safeable to handle by human beings at all! This is cause we make always errors and especially scientists can not really modelling the reality. There is always an unclear area scientiest are unable to handle in the current models and therefor denied in the usual models and theories. Thus we saw Tschernobyl here in Europe or other incidents all over. I should have happen not in 60000000 years statistically following the scientific models. Don't tell me there were some small errors by human beings - engineers always tell us when something fails! This are errors of the system not included in your models - with other words they are systematically faults of our thinking about nature. A more second thing is our absolutaly neither means in dealing with nuclear incidents all over the world. Do you have any means to clean a civilised area contamined with isotops for the nex 30000 years? Do you have any imaging about what cost this will be for the humans and what a whast of human work of centuries?
I would argue that isn't b/c France opposed the war w/Iraq, but b/c the French openly supply middle eastern countries with nuclear knowhow/supplies/etc.
I would also agree that they shouldn't get the new reactor. First, b/c they run on something like 80% nuclear power already (hence have enough), and b/c of the aforementioned ties to possible threats to both US and international countries posed by nuclear arms so close to fundamentalist whackjobs.
-bZj
.sig
After watching fusion research go for 30 years without ever getting one inch closer to being a viable source of energy, I can't believe they're going to take this waste of money to the international level to waste another 30 years. We ALREADY have a fusion reactor 93 million miles up with a 4 billion+ year fuel supply, that already puts out more energy than the whole solar system can receive or use.
Funny... "U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq"
I am American and I oppose the war in Iraq, also everyone I talk to is opposed too. But then again I am in Southern California and we are a little different then those backwater hicks that elected our president. I no noone who voted for Bush.
"apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq." We stand of the verge of a human milestone. Fusion power for all, cheap, clean and long lasting. We just need some more technology to get there. But the US arguing about where the reactor is going to go, and their argument that France didn't support their last 'crusade' is not helping anyone. The argument for reactor placement should depend on resources, knowledge, safety and economic viability, and not on who is 'chummy' with who. Should the reactor project turn out to be unworkable, which I don't think it will be, I wouldn't be suprised if the US pointed their finger at another country with a high pitched squeal of "They started it!!" It's the type of childish attitude we've come to expect from them.
I couldn't think of a sig.
if one of the primary signatories of the test ban treaty can break it, why shouldn't they?
Minor correction: France did not break the treaty. The tests were done before the limit set by the treaty.
And it was easy for the US to critize France, since they were done with their tests previously and had enough data to move to simulations on supercomputers. Sure, they would have preferred if France did not get enough data to maintain their nuclear weapons. Go check the number of nuclear detonations performed by various countries.
As much as I like Slashdot this place is definitely ultra liberal and has an agenda to go with that...
Is this the same Slashdot that modded you up +4 Insightful?
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
In this case, some clueless old wrestler told France how they should vote in the UN, or else. France replied with their usual hand gestures to such a threat, and proceeded to take it personally. All this silly freedom fries bullshit is to satisfy the ego of a washed up old man, who had an enormous chip on his shoulder after Saddam didn't do what he was told and scuttled Rumsfeld's career the first time around. If it wasn't for September 11 he would have gone long ago, and if it was someone without a personal grudge against Saddam we would probably have been looking for Bin Laden for the last few years.
This is yet another example of the triumph of advertising agencies over science, you know the sort - Nuclear power is clean and green enough to brush your teeth with it - Duck and Cover!
After several billion (insert currency of choice) have been spent, some nut will finally get a Farnsworth fusor running with a fuel feed.
.... has absolutely nothing to do with the stated US reasoning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Canada, Russia and China may be in favour of Japan for myriads of other reasons.
That does not make the US stated reasoning any less childish.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When is the US expelling France from NATO?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... to dictate who should be depossed or who should be governing in any given country?
Apart from "the brutest and mightiest country in world" I find no other justification.
France has been an ally of the US, including the first Gulf War, but international opposition , including US NAFTA partners, Canada an Mexico, was widespread given the flimsy excuse used for the war (the WMDs fiasco).
The US goverment has managed to convince the US populace that this was in reality about the US removing a dictator out of the goodness of their allAmerican hearts, and when that began to go all nasty, it became all of the sudden part of the hazzy, unwinnable, "war on terror".
How some people still see France so negatively when your closest economic allies (China, Mexico, Canada) are telling you you are full of shit is beyond me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... politics do not matter, ever.
Back to my Ultima 2 game.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And what about Canada? Japan? China?
...
And even "smaller" countries like Mexico (9th economy in the world btw)?
Stop looking for excuses, there is a worldwide consensus tha the war was unnecessary, stop nitpicking.
Practically every country but the US and the UK were against the war, and just before the conflict only in the US the population was in favour of it. After the conflict only US and UK can come forward with pools showing any kind of popular approval
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... and today';s Japan are not the same country by any stretch of the imagination. History changes nations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Lack of research in one area does not mean widespread research in anothere is invalid.
C02 must be contained, but certainly excessive H2O emissions should be studied, specially in view that the hydrogen fuell cells are being hailed by many as the environment saviors.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is historic perspective!
You should now work out how the Aztec Empire benefitted or otherwise the US (500+ years ago) or perhaps pass judgement in the Roman Empire or pharaonic Egypt in the building of the glorious US of A.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That is what.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... that tribalism is well and alive in the US of A.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I say put it there not for any France sucks reasons but because invariably (is that right) the Japs make things work faster and better.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
You missed my point. The article does not cite any particular administration official as being the source, nor does it state what the particular objection is. "citing its opposition to the Iraq invasion" is particularly vague, and does not help me understand the why of the matter. It seems to me that the bbc article is simple using a hot topic to garner interest in an otherwise uninteresting, uninformative article.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/12/19/wtc.pla n/
Doesn't the reactor have to be replaced every 20 years or so because the bombardment degrades the protective casing? So, it's not a one-time radioactive cost, but could happen several times during the life of a power plant.
I'm just trying to get a handle on how much fuel waste a fission reactor produces, compared to how much reactor waste a fusion reactor produces. I have no idea, really.
OMG... What a fscking trollfest. C'mon guys - the article's about fusion. Fusion. The future. Not the fscking past. Not about France, Iraq or whatever. What about some basic decency? Ahh, and staying on topic??? Calm down, everbody!
This comment does not exist.
Where does it stop? It it really necessary for EVERY country in the world to continue to 'test' these things?
Give me a break. We all know they work - big whoop. Delivery and control systems are the real issues. Building a bigger bomb only means a deeper crater at this point.
The next time France wants to test their bomb, why not do it someplace in France? The U.S. certainly did a great deal of testing on it's own shores.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Is no one going to talk about that or are we just going to be whining about the french all day?
> it is called the H-bomb and I'm pretty sure France already has them.
They sure do, because unlike the brits and the germans, they never believed the US would come to their defense in case of trouble with the ruskies.
They remembered how slowly and reluctantly the US got out of its isolationism before getting into WW2.
If any country treated a given color or race the way that certain Middle Eastern Countries (and their cultures) treat Women, not allowed to drive, nor travel without permission of their owner, sorry I mean brother / father / husband, they would be shunned internationally.
How about being stoned to death for the SUGGESTION of having had sex before marriage.
No education beyond 14 years of age for girls ?
Their husbands carry their id papers ?
You don't have to go back many years to when nobody would buy products from South Africa. Why is apartheid based on sex easier to accept than apartheid based on color ?
To many, the veil is a symbol of oppression far more than a symbol of religion.
One way to prevent women being forced to wear a veil is to ban it.
Perfect? Hardly.
Progress ? Only if people start to question.
By the way, the last time that a group of women protested their treatment in this middle eastern country, they were all rounded up and jailed.
When I see a woman covered from head to toe, even looking out through gause, to prevent anyone from seeing her eyes, I often wonder who's religious freedom is it? Her's or her Husband's / Father's / Brother's ?
If it's her's, let her wear what ever she pleases. If it's not, protect her from someone else's beliefs.
If you can figure out how to cope with both situations, in a culture where women cannot even complain, as they are not permitted to go out unacompanied ? I suggest you join the UN. Become president. Solve the rest of the world's problems, and drop me line when you're done so we can have a beer.
Blue Skies,
Dave
That way, we can feed Godzilla!
I have to correct myself, I found that we were referring to two different meanings of "Ignition", your being the correct one.
Ignition has not been reached tough it is not a prerequisite for useful power production (ITER will hopefully reach the breakeven point even if not reaching ignition).
I hope you're not the same AC I answered few minutes ago... eventullay you're discovering the difference between winners and loosers (you).
Yes, you're right.
You can't have a civil discussion with an christian. christians like to think of themselves as rational, but if you observe their behavior you'll find they are anything but. They are full of anger and bitterness, and react with frightful outrage whenever they encounter someone with different views from their own. Even people who think that atheism is a reasonable philosophy must admit that most christians did not arrive at their point of view through anything resembling a rational process. Rather, they are poorly socialized individuals who are lashing out angrily at anything which they perceive to be valued by "mainstream" society. You really shouldn't take it personally. It is the result of an angry and profoundly unhappy psychological condition on their part, not due to you or your Aithiest beliefs
It's really appaling that a US diplomat (or a diplomat from any other country) could "[cite French] opposition to the Iraq invasion". Yes, we all know about corruption and bias, but I though at least we were thinking this is nothing to be proud about. Nowdays, apparently, you don't even need an appearance of honest and objective decision...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.