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.
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...."
Not to sound like an ass or something but this seems like a really childish behaviour.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
Everyone opposed the Iraq war, even Britain. The only difference is a handful of chicken countries (Britain being the largest) cow-towed for financial or political reasons because the U.S. wields the biggest stick.
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.
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
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.
No, fusion is not clean if you look at a short timeline. I understand the irradiated components will become safe within 100 years, and can be recycled at that time.
So, if a reactor is active for 30 years, stored for 100, then recycled into a newer model I think we're doing pretty good.
There isn't much we do that has an effect on the local environment (inside the structure only!) for that short of a timeframe.
If you consider this prototype is 500MW and nuclear reactor prototypes are 500kw to 1MW -- with production being close to 1GW... I predict a fusion reactor with 1TW output levels within 50 years.
Rod Taylor
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)
and after all the blood we poored for them in WWII.
Yeah, after somebody else started shooting at you first... Unlike other countries, such as most of the commonwealth countries.
I mean sure, Nazi Germany probably would have one if the US hadn't gotten involved, but stop acting like the allies one JUST because of the US. The US sluffed off and stayed out of most of the war, and it's contributions were no where NEAR as overwhelming as you seem to be implying. The US didn't - and COULDN'T have - won WWII on their own.
And frankly, I think the French leaders show some backbone in telling the US "We don't agree, now go away" on ANY issue.
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"
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.
"If a country (and by this I refer to the elected government) sends troops to fight and possibly be killed then I say no, they did not oppose the war."
Nice rhetoric, now try to look at what the people in those countries thought. In the UK Blair went against the wishes of a vast tract of the British public, cabinet ministers resigned over it and it came close (unfortunately not close enough) to destroying his career. He basically acted like a dictator, overriding the wishes of the country. The same thing happened in Spain, where Aznar faced huge opposition from the public. The story is repeated in every country that "supported" the US: in Turkey the pulic opposition was near universal (98% opposition in one poll).
No, the spineless governments decided to play nice with the new global empire.
yes, because french restraunts in the US are not actually owned and run by french nor do they employ french..
So basically the US constitution applies equally to everybody. Inalienable rights, as long as your ancestors were not from France? At one point the US stood for freedom and equality. Quite a shame that it's degraded to this. A person from France can move to the US, attain citizenship, yet because of their name, accent, or history they will be boycotted? I have no problem with you or anyone shunning somebody based on their beliefs or actions. But if you shun someone based on their heredity, that makes you a bigot. Either treat people equally or move to another country where they don't have such a constitution.
Or are you so deluded as to believe that a person's cultural background always implies that they mimic the opinions of that culture's leaders?
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'
England, Canada, Australia all joined the war after Germany had attacked 2 countries. The US waited and waited and didn't join the war until they were eventually attacked. Why? Because the majority of the US public was opposed to the war.
In the case of Iraq, a slim majority of the American populace was in favour of the war. In many other countries, public opinion was almost unanimously against the war, and yet the US berates them for not supporting it.
-a
Your email address suggests you could have Indian origin. I'm from India, and even during the worst India-Pakistan tension I never saw the sort of crap in the Indian press about Pakistan that I continue to see in the US press (even "liberal" media like the New York Times) on a daily basis. At exactly the time when the US media was reporting on French exchange students being refused accommodation with American families, the Indian media was full of goodwill stories about a Pakistani girl who was undergoing a heart operation in India.
I lost all illusion of the US being a progressive country when I saw that anti-French onslaught. It's not just the Bushies, it's the entire media.
What the US is doing here is ridiculous. Oppose the French solution, fine, but do it for technical or financial reasons, not political ones. The US is the only country doing this, which is even worse.
If this is what the US is doing, it is no different than what the EU did when it choose the French site over the Spanish site. The EU chose the French site over Spain because Spain supported the Iraq war.
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.
Or perhaps you'll ignore it since it fits into your worldview.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
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.
More to the point, I can't agree with you that a public school can force a person to behave in a secular manner any more than I cann accept that a public school could force someone to behave in a religous manner. 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.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I don't consider 72% in favor of a "slim majority"...
Sure, maybe 72% were in favour of the war after the invasion had begun. That is because 10-20% of Americans appear to be mindless automatons who automatically support their president during wartime (a sensability that is much lauded by the American media).
In the weeks and months leading up to the war, public opinion fluctuated daily (also depending heavily on what question was asked). Go read some of the other surveys on the site you referred to, including this one, taken shortly before the war began, in which the exact words "slim majority" are used to describe support for an invasion without a new UN resolution.
-a
You also obviously never cracked a book or else you would know that the French helped Saddam build a plutonium-enriching facility, which Israel destroyed for fear Saddam would have nuclear weapons within the decade. We'll never know for sure how much we owe Israel for doing that. They got their hands dirty and took the criticism of the world for it, just like the U.S. had to do in Iraq.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.