Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer

Posted by michael on from the down-to-the-wire dept.

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.

48 of 967 comments (clear)

  1. Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    is eating at French restaurants in DC these days.

    Time to move on.

    1. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      /. users can't
    4. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by rsidd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're almost certainly American. (You could be a particularly obnoxious Brit, I guess.)

      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.

    5. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Basically they are saying our schools are secular and so all religious identity is banned. I really don't have a problem with that. People can believe what they like but I don't want it forced on me
      You've fallen into the same trap that the Fantatical Minority (or Religious Right as they choose to call themselves) has. Seeing a symbol (or person, or activity) that you disapprove of isn't having it "forced on you". A Christian wearing a cross, or a Muslum wearing a veil, neither of these are people trying to force their religion on you, they're simply practicing it. You can consider it obnoxious, or irritating, or whatever, but it doesn't infringe on your rights. Exactly the same way that when one of the Fanatical Minority sees a gay couple walking hand in hand it offends them, but it doesn't infringe on their rights.

      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
    6. Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love the smell of krispy karma in the morning.

      People can believe what they like but I don't want it forced on me.

      Soooo... you believe that it's wrong to passively "force" religious beliefs on someone, but it's acceptable to agressively enforce secularism?

      I hate to tell you "babe", but seeing a head scarf, cross, etc. doesn't force you to believe anything. If you're mind is so pathetically weak that you can be "forcibly" converted to a religion simply by viewing it's symbolic imagery, chances are pretty good that you're so fucked up right now by everday advertising that it's not really going to matter anyway.

      There's a difference between not letting the school engage in or push any particular religious viewpoint on the class as a whole. It's a wholly different story when individual students decide that they wish to make their religious beliefs known or wish to engage in a religious activity at school. Barring disruptive behavior that interferes with other students, the school/government has no business telling individuals what they can and can't do regarding the subject.

      There is no difference between a government that forces a religious belief on its people and one that forces it's people not to have a religion. I will actively fight any government official that would suggest EITHER or those paths was a good one.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  2. Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by tealover · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by Ataraxy+Oyez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by c_oflynn · · Score: 5, Informative
      Umm... perhaps time to RTFA?

      It SPECIFICALLY says this (after saying that Canada et al. support the Japan site):

      The US, in particular, has raised objections to the French option, citing its opposition to the Iraq invasion.
    3. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    4. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by tealover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You are so wrong. Unfortunately I already posted or I would mod you Overrated. That's simply not true. Do you remember Desert Storm in 1991? You're probably too young. The last time we even came close to "supporting" Saddam was while Iran and Iraq were at war. Mostly, it consisted of blaming Iran for prolonging the war when the Stark was attacked by Iraq. France, on the other hand, supplied weapons to Iraq. Iran had suffered a coup at the hands of Islamic theocrats, seizing innocent U.S. citizens and holding them hostage. They ignored all diplomatic attempts. What would you do?

      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.
  3. waiting for Godot... by endoboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...."

    1. Re:waiting for Godot... by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Building a stable, sustained, controllable fusion reaction is relatively easy. That isn't, and never has been, the problem. You contain the plasma in a magnetic field that has a single half-twist in it.

      That was solved by the Russians many decades ago. The only problems they had before then were the appearance of regions of instabilities - the plasma would pinch itself off at certain points. Switching from a ring to a torus solved this problem.

      Ok, so why don't we have fusion reactors? Because to build them powerful enough to generate more energy than they consume has been cost-prohibitive.

      All anyone really -needed- to do was build a reactor similar to the UK's JET reactor, but a few thousand times larger, and with magnetic fields many orders of magnitude stronger.

      You also want to start it from very cold. The idea here is to pack as many protons into the reactor as you can. The colder they are, the more you can pack in.

      Once you ignite your super-cold plasma, the nuclei are already much closer together, and can't move apart (density too high, plus magnetic field containing the plasma). Your ideal starting material would be a Bose-Einstein Condensate. You cannot get a better density than that, using just conventional means.

      This is why you'd need the stupendous magnetic fields. What I'm suggesting is not fusion of a low-density gas, but fusion of a pseudo-liquid or pseudo-solid. To retain that kind of density, when the material is undergoing fusion, would require fields vastly greater than those currently used in fusion research.

      The longest-lasting fusion reaction so far demonstrated is that of the hydrogen bomb. The reason it works better than the research reactors is that the designers wanted to maximise the energies, not keep them within a level that can be controlled on some PhD grant.

      The idea of my little idea above is to go the same direction. Forget the design parameters, get the energies to where we know sustained fusion will take place, and then figure out how to keep the thing from splitting the planet in half.

      With this kind of physics, this is the only way you can work. Single-team budgets will never yield enough cash to do what you want, so instead of "making do" with what you have, go for something that'll work well and make it irresistable for investors.

      What I am picturing eventually happening is someone building a reactor comparable in height to the proposed "Freedom Tower" (French Tower? :) - about 1700 feet - and then about 1700 feet in radius.

      Why so big? Well, the actual core - where the reaction would take place - would be very small. It doesn't need to be any larger than current systems. However, you have four other important components to consider.

      First, the electromagnets. We want something that'll contain a fusion reaction in what would be hydrogen metal, if there were any electrons present. Even without fusion, the pressures involved are going to be substantial. The idea of the supercooling is to keep the pressures within reasonable limits, prior to fusion taking place.

      But once fusion starts - at that density, you'd be looking at the kind of energy released in a few dozen hydrogen bombs, and you're trying to keep it compressed to something the size of a small two-storey house. Besides cost and effort, the other reason research reactors use gas is to keep the speed of the reaction slow. We're talking about throwing that out the window, and letting the reaction run as hot as we can possibly contain.

      The way you'd work it is, once the reaction is started, expand the bubble the reaction is in, rapidly. The reaction is then uniform, but is slowed down by the expansion. Hopefully, by enough that you can keep the thing from either exploding or shutting down.

      The second problem is getting "spent" fuel out. The larger a nucleus becomes, the l

      --
      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)
    2. Re:waiting for Godot... by Mister+Attack · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting thoughts you have there...

      Building a stable, sustained, controllable fusion reaction is relatively easy. That isn't, and never has been, the problem. You contain the plasma in a magnetic field that has a single half-twist in it.

      Building a stable, sustained, controllable fusion reaction is _incredibly_ difficult. Yes, plasma can be contained by a toroidal magnetic field, FSVO "contained." A nice, cold plasma, at a few tens of thousands of degrees? No problem. At higher temperatures, though, collisions knock lots and lots of ions and electrons off-axis and into the walls of the reactor. This is a major mode of energy loss in magnetic confinement fusion experiments. As you mentioned, instabilities are also a tremendous problem, and that problem has not been solved.

      Once you ignite your super-cold plasma, the nuclei are already much closer together, and can't move apart (density too high, plus magnetic field containing the plasma). Your ideal starting material would be a Bose-Einstein Condensate. You cannot get a better density than that, using just conventional means.

      This is why you'd need the stupendous magnetic fields. What I'm suggesting is not fusion of a low-density gas, but fusion of a pseudo-liquid or pseudo-solid. To retain that kind of density, when the material is undergoing fusion, would require fields vastly greater than those currently used in fusion research.

      As far as Bose-Einstein Condensates go, BEC's occur at temperatures in the nanokelvin range -- that's a full, what, 12 or 13 orders of magnitude too low in thermal energy to overcome the Coulomb potential keeping the nuclei apart. BEC's are notoriously tricky to create; you need to go through several cooling stages involving precisely tuned ultrastable lasers, and at the end of all that work, you get a ball of maybe a few billion atoms. It is simply not feasible to produce BEC's at any larger scale, nor to keep them condensed at fusion temperatures.

      And as stupendous magnetic fields go, well, the best anyone can do right now is a sustained field of about 25 Tesla. I don't know offhand what fields they use in Tokamak experiments, but I'm betting it's no more than 10 Tesla, nor less than 1. Either way, there is no way we know of to make steady-state magnetic fields "many orders of magnitude stronger."

      It's late now, and I'm getting tired, but suffice it to say that there's a lot more to be done than just making everything bigger. The energy scales are enormous, nobody really knows how to keep a plasma hot and contained, and it's going to take a lot more R&D before we can get usable energy out of fusion.

  4. Childish behavior by nempo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.


    Not to sound like an ass or something but this seems like a really childish behaviour.
    --
    --- No, english is not my mother tongue.
    1. Re:Childish behavior by gsdali · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget that France suffered several islamic terrorist attacks before 11/9/01 including a horrific attack on the Paris metro.

  5. Japan is the obvious choice! by Kymermosst · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Japan is the obvious choice! by mumblestheclown · · Score: 4, Funny

      don't forget godzilla attacks.

    2. Re:Japan is the obvious choice! by WTFmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
      Interesting point. Although intraplate quakes are much more powerful (and much rarer) than your typical subduction quakes. They tend to originate much deeper and pack a tremendous amount of power. Look at the Lisbon quake that basically caused the collapse of the Portugese Empire. So Montana might not be as tectonically safe as some would think.

      Sorry, I took a Natural Disasters class last semester and it was awesome. You can get back to your topic now.

  6. This is relying on the obsolete Tokamak design... by ikewillis · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Don't be stupid by FredFnord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. I've seen this movie... by happy_place · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  9. Hot fusion is not "clean" nuclear power. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Hot fusion is not "clean" nuclear power. by rtaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  10. Ah, Politics by ThisIsFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Assuming it works... by rhakka · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might have a point, if this reactor were intended to SUPPLY energy for a large area.

    It's not. This is apparently an experimental reactor. We haven't made this work yet; this reactor is being built so we CAN make it work through experimentation. After that, I would imagine all the countries will simply build their own reactors to supply their countries (and neighbors who wish to purchase energy and/or share in the construction costs) with energy.

    What did you think, we'd build one reactor and supply the whole world with energy? Please. At the very least each country will want their own simply so their energy source simple to guarantee the existance of their own energy in case of war or natural disaster.

    If this technology WORKED, you think the US in particular wouldn't drop $10bil on it in a heartbeat to build it ourselves? It doesn't work yet, and that's why we all want to build this experimental reactor.

  12. All your base belong to US by photonic · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article:
    The Japanese site of Rokkasho-mura has the advantages of proximity to a port, a ground of solid bedrock and a nearby US military base.

    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]
  13. Re:Childish behavior? by adrianbaugh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Childish behavior? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  15. Re:This is relying on the obsolete Tokamak design. by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!"
  16. Indeed, the EU favors France over Spain by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.
    The Spanish opposition disagrees-- they say that the EU selected the French site because of politics. The NY Times mentions here that the Spanish political losers think Spain's support of the war in Iraq killed the chances of the reactor being built there.
    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  17. Not quite by mongbot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not quite by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 4, Informative
      "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."
      You're technically correct, but misleading. 50 years after being shut down, ITER will be less radioactive than a coal power plant, due to the thorium in coal. The volume of the waste is also comparatively tiny, it's basically just the reactor itself rather than all the fuel that's ever passed through the reactor.
      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
  18. Europe did it first... by mlg9000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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:

    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/ eu rope/27BRIE5.html?ex=1072069200&en=bf36a06d6e81a8a b&ei=5070

    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)

  19. That's it by WTFmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm sick of this. I'm buying an island and starting my own government. The educational system will consist of science classes only. No Law School, literature class will focus on scientific texts and technical writing, and history will be the history of science. They will not avoid politics entirely (to do that would be foolish) but they will analyzed in scientific ways and conclusions drawn about what would be best in a theoretical framework. The industries will be well beyond state-of-the-art and we'll release projects to the global community if we determine that humanity is ready for them. We keep the cool toys until then.

    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.

    1. Re:That's it by utahjazz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sick of this. I'm buying an island and starting my own government.

      Ok, so is your island for or against the war in Iraq?

  20. Thank You Slashstupid.... by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  21. How do they know? by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  22. whyh are the two storys so different? by defwu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'
  23. Re:good point...but by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!"
  24. Why do I bother...? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I really don't know why.

    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.
  25. Re:France by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 4, Informative

    I urge slashdotters to read some european history

    If it doesn't involve nonsense like orcs, mithril armor and little twerps playing 'witch' games, then no Slashdotter will read it.

    I suggest Keegan's "The First World War" to dispell any Merikin foolishness about how cowardly the French are in wars. The US showed up in the Great War well after the shit went down. Also, according to cca 1941 GOP policy, WWII was "Roosevelt's War." Godless unpatriotic queers!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  26. Socialism by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Funny
    Socialism is for insects. And morons.

    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.
  27. Re:Check your facts.... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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

    --
    /. users can't
  28. The big problem is neutron flux by baz00f · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  29. Yeh, what have the French ever done for us! by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.