Slashdot Mirror
Japan To Restart Nuclear Power Tomorrow After Energy Prices Soar
An anonymous reader writes: After the Fukushima meltdown, all of Japan's nuclear power plants were shut down, the last in late 2013. This week the government plans on starting up reactor No.1 at the Sendai nuclear power plant. Energy prices have risen 30% since 2011, and it is hoped that the plant will soon be producing a surplus of electricity. Not everyone is happy about the plant restarting. This weekend, about 2,000 protesters marched around the plant and voiced their opposition. "Past arguments that nuclear plants were safe and nuclear energy was cheap were all shown to be lies," said writer Satoshi Kamata, one of the demonstration organizers. "Kyushu Electric is not qualified to resume operations because it has not completed an anti-quake structure to oversee a possible accident as well as a venting facility."
Gozilla breathes a sigh or relief... Nuclear power, sweet, lifegiving nuclear power!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
From the article: "has built stronger, higher tsunami walls near the new plant" and "Regardless, the 31-year old reactor"
It's sad that 31 years old counts as 'new'.
Consider that if they had had some really new nuclear plants that Fukushima probably would have already been shut down.
I don't read AC A human right
Burn the protestors to generate electricity - at least let them do something useful!
It should've been obvious to everyone involved that shutting down all the nuclear reactors in Japan as a reaction to the Fukushima meltdown with absolutely no replacement strategy wasn't a sustainable option.
How come they're saying how much costs have risen since 2011, instead of since they shut the nukes down?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Almost all energy prices (crude oil, natural gas, coal) have fallen by half comparing to the mid-point of 2011 prices, except uranium. What energy prices are they talking about?
I guess they only wanted inflation directed the "right" players in the economy, ie people instead of businesses.
Energy prices are only up in Japan 30% over the past four years, what's the big deal?
Japan actually has a large, and largely untapped, capacity to use wind power. They also have quite a lot of hydroelectricity, which is useful for buffering against variations.
Wind power is actually cheaper than nuclear anyway now.
Nuclear power is probably not such a great idea for Japan, it's quite a small country, very highly populated, and on the ring of fire, and any accidents could have much worse effects than we saw with Fukushima. With Fukushima, it was fortuitous that it was on the East coast, and the prevailing winds blew the fallout out to sea where it was diluted it down. If the accident had been West of Tokyo it would have been incredibly, stupendously bad, and if they return to using nuclear power in a big way, that could actually happen.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"A long standing act of bravery and honor.
Oh, wait, were we supposed to pretend PM Abe is peaceful?
Yeah, sure.
The best use for the area is to cover the nuclear radioactive fields with wind and solar plants, and step away from the eternal conflict that nuclear fission represents.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's not as bad as windows 8 or vista but windows 7 is still better in ease of use. Windows 10 start; It at least kinda resembles a start menu even if it doesn't actually function as one.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
as Japanese have been researching and working on those.
They just can't get them to work.
It is quite hard to understand why they did not massively invest in renewable energy sources since Fukushima: wind and solar are obvious, but for islands in a earthquake zone, tidal and geothermal should be interesting to harvest.
I don't think saying "cut yourself off from all power, then" is a valid response to people who say "we should be producing other forms of power than nuclear"
Then what non-fossil, non-nuclear source of electric power would meet demand on a calm night? Or would calm nights require rolling blackouts?
If they shut down ALL of the coal fired plants. FACT!
Lets' see here...200 protesters in a country of almost 130 million.
There are no caps big enough to spell LOL the way it should be.
Uranium is more expensive than gasoline per gallon, but you get much more energy out of a gallon of uranium.
*scratches head*
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Japan To Restart Nuclear Power Tomorrow After Energy Prices Soar
So they are going to restart the nuclear plant tomorrow, but not until after energy prices soar (compared to what, today's end-of-trading-day spot prices?).
What if energy prices don't soar tomorrow?
-- /. might as well be owned by a corporate behemoth that doesn't care about its readers. *cue "oh wait" in 3...2...1...*
Yes, know what the title means in context. But if I can't send a *cough*subtle*cough* reminder to the editors to choose their headlines a bit more carefully, well, then
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
When I made my subtle friendly-jibe at the summary's title, I was pretending to mean "tomorrow" literally - as in "What if energy prices don't soar on August 11, 2015? Will they wait until August 12 or later, 2015 to restart the plant?" Of course not, that would be silly.
My whole statement was a rhetorical response to the /. editor's choice of headline and it had nothing to do with the Japanese energy market.
I'm sorry if I was too subtle.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why is rocket science to people? I'm not beating up on the Japanese here. The American people are pretty f'ing clueless on this score as well.
Cut supply... prices go up.
Increase demand... prices go up.
increase supply... prices go down.
cut demand... prices go down.
So what did we do with housing issue? We pumped money into the market... aka demand... without doing anything meaningful to increase supply... result... prices went up until we had that little market crash.
What are we doing with education? Pumping money into loans and subsidies without expanding the university system instead... result... prices go up. Shocker.
And medical care... how much energy has been put into expanding the number of hospitals? Increasing the number of doctors? Seeing that new pharmacy factories have been built to increase the drug supply? Nothing?
No... well just throw more money at it... which is just demand.
People understand that if the supply of oil goes up on the global market that prices come down. Everyone knows this... we see examples of supply and demand in our market all the time and people understand.
But when it comes to a few issues... energy is one of them... people's little brains turn off.
"oh lets turn off the nuclear reactors that are pumping out 4000 mega watts. We'll just make up the difference with wind"... You're going straight to coal.
The anti nuclear lobby needs to change from their PETA like radicalism and just advocate SAFE nuclear power and there is such a thing. Just do that. I'll join you. Everyone wants safe. Safe is great. But abolition of nuclear power? Just stop it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of nuclear reactor designs currently being researched. Most of these designs, with the exception of the BN-1200 reactor, are generally not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030-40 ... ... ...
there are only a dozen or so Generation III reactors in operation (2014)
they're coming, just not here yet
Have the protesters sign a petition and have themselves removed from the grid. They should be prohibited from buying Petrol powered generators because thousands of those would be too much air pollution. The lower demand would lower the price.
Problem solved.
Your point is a real eye-opener.
Well, maybe not for the Japs, but then again, they can't help it if they were born that way.
Cheers.
Oh, I fully understand that, thus the comment that it's sad that a 31 year old nuclear plant could be considered the 'new' one.
I'd be much happier if that number was around 5 instead.
I don't read AC A human right
Strat,
The problem you have here is that people at this point are STILL going on about Fukushima. But the disaster itself killed over a thousand. But nobody talks about them.
I don't read AC A human right
...and you can't look at something out of context.
Compared to any other energy source, nuclear power remains the cleanest and safest option currently available. Fusion power might change that, but everything else...
-Coal is hands-down the worst, and I hope no one is stupid enough to deny that;
-Oil is pretty bad, but less than a third of all petroleum goes to fuel; if you don't like it, quit using plastic, taking medicine and eating food grown with fertilizer;
-Natural gas is not good, even if it's cleaner and safer than coal or oil; the issue is that it is unnecessary, unless you plan on using solar or wind;
-Solar power is expensive, dirty and dangerous, mostly on the mining and manufacturing end, cannot possibly scale to meet demand in any reasonable time frame, and has such a low capacity factor that it has to either be load-followed with natural gas or use energy storage which completely negates the benefits;
-Wind is actually the best competitor, but like hydroelectric, it has a low capacity factor which requires load-following, but unlike hydroelectric, it cannot be stored and used on demand without the same kind of energy storage which makes solar so problematic, and like solar, it cannot possibly scale up to meet demand. In any case, is still dirtier and more dangerous than nuclear power.
We are at the exact moment when we should be massively expanding nuclear power, but instead we are letting neo-Luddite, faux-environmentalist scaremongers lead the discussion away from the best option available to us. I'm sure the gas, oil and coal companies appreciate it.
Another thing - CRT could be more efficient than many thought.
About 5 years ago I finally got rid of my 32" CRT TV and replaced it with a 42" LCD. Given the time mind you, it's a CCFL lit one, not LED.
However, both were energy star rated for their time. I no longer remember the exact figures, but I used a Kill-A-Watt energy meter on it.
To my surprise, the new TV used more power than the old. I no longer remember the exact measurements, but my first thought was 'well, it's bigger!', so I calculated it out by square inch of [i]visible[/i] screen, just to be meaner to the CRT. The LCD TV still used 30% more power per square inch than the CRT!
I don't read AC A human right
Says who? Coal is dead cheap, and is certainly not "soaring" in price.
That's exactly what I did. I said Peer reviewed studies show there is a diminishing Energetic Return on Energetic Investment in the Nuclear fuel cycle which is a limitation based on several design aspects. Below 200grams Uranium per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable because of the amount of energy you need to produce the fuel.
Support for my statement. You can read for yourself or beleive me.
Try reading i12-i16, four pages, and see how you go on the EROEI thread. You might actually find it interesting if you actually *are* interested in nuclear technology. I personally find it fascinating.
No need to make one. The study examines the energetic inputs and output and uncovers the diminishing energetic return of the nuclear industry. The P-A legislation enables the industry to exist as the government assumes the liability for accidents under the bill.
Paraphrase: The evidence from peer reviewed studies is that the Nuclear industry energetic contributions is greatly diminished by the energetic inputs it requires as it becomes less viable day by day due to increasing energetic inputs.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
We have many designs that can operate on spent fuel much less requiring highly refined uranium.
Again you're assuming 1960s designs. Its not valid.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The way government deals with the risk and liability of the Nuclear Industry is via the Price-Anderson act. It underwrites the Nuclear industry with $600 Billion of Taxpayer money and closer to a trillion if you factor the huge amount of land you are going to lose in the event of an actual accident.
Actuaries and Risk Assessors are professionals in the insurance industry and their assessment of the Nuclear Industry is that they won't insure it without the Price-Anderson Act. They're impartial to the way evidence is presented, just making an assessment of the risk based on the facts available. They're not 'against' Nuclear power, they're just paid to asses the risks, professionally.
Take away the Price-Anderson act and the Nuclear Industry ceases to exist because it can no longer be insured. This is a true measure of it's financial viabiliy.
Paraphrase: The P-A act remains a legal construct that is in place to support the existence of the nuclear industry. Consequently investors are only interested in investing in Nuclear power because the government guarantees the returns, not because the nuclear industry is capable of delivering them.
Hate to burst your bubble however the 2005 energy act prevents environmental groups from doing that. You can check the legislation yourself. Sec. 600 onward.
What it is spent on is laid out in the sections I refer you to.
We knew less in the old days, we avoid killing people to build something nowadays. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's a nuclear power plant, not a car park, you expect the process to be complex and the bill has specific clauses to deal with that too.
Paraphrase: Many of the complaints you've raised about regulation don't apply to the Nuclear industry because the law exempts them.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You are mis-quoting me. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste". So the most appropriate way to move the Nuclear Industry forward is to develop a geologically stable containment facility (I am reluctant to call plutonium 'waste') inside a mountain. That could also, potentially, house a reactor facility, and an infrastructure plan to move that 70,000 tons of plutonium to that facility would begin to look like sound nuclear policy.
As for safe, well its seismic stability is a good measure of that and I doubt the NYT is qualified to make that assessment.
First of all lets clear up the time frame here, plutonium is radioactive for 25000 years before it decays into it's daughter product, which will then be radioactive for ??000 years and iterate 20 odd times. That's why I refer to it as 'geological time frames.
Yucca mountain is not a appropriate because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.
Go look up the wiki on the act if you are not convinced and you'll see that Yucca was *put* in Nevada because their represenatives did not attend.
Act
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As to the act... its never been invoked. All its doing right now is keeping premiums down. Frankly, it was put in place from what I understand to keep activists from fucking over the industry through insurance.
Which is something you find in many situations. I said previously about executions, the anti execution lobby has interfered with the supply of lethal injection drug supplies as a means to stop executions prompting some states to threaten to go to firing squads, hangings, or electrocution should the supplies not be left alone.
The law hasn't been invoked. So I'm not seeing where you're getting so excited. All damage claims have been paid out of private insurance funds thus far.
If you truly care about government spending we can talk about what 70 percent of the US federal budget is spent on... it isn't nuclear power.
I rather suspect you'll lose interest in government spending quickly should I do that... which... frankly undermines the relevance of the citation. And really if we want to talk about subsidies... solar and wind can't survive without subsidies either. And they get far more than nuclear does. Want to cut off the solar subsidies? Mostly what nuclear is getting is protection from trolls. I think everything should have that protection. Trolls are annoying.
As to 2005.. so between 1972 or when ever hte last reactor was commissioned to 2005 you'd concede that such groups could and did interfere with that process? And I'll noted that we've just recently gotten our first new reactor commissioned just in the last couple years.
So... I wasn't wrong... it was just fixed. Whether the fix is complete is another matter. People have ways of getting around laws like that. We'll see.
Regardless, the DOE did confirm that the nuclear storage project was shut down for political reasons. Not for safety. Aka... activists.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We have many designs that can operate on spent fuel much less requiring highly refined uranium.
Again you're assuming 1960s designs. Its not valid.
Incorrect. SNUPPS is the basis for the design of the AP1000 reactor which is the only legally approved reactor design available for the U.S. and it has all of the same energetic input and problems mentioned in the study.
And irrelevant, even with the above it's the energetic input from mining, enrichment and decommisioning that make Nuclear power not viable.
If you can't point to any legally approved reactor design then you have nothing to support your argument here.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
A bill of law is invoked and functioning as law when it is passed into law. Ergo: It is invoked and I see nothing to support your point here.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm not misquoting you. I'm updating you. My citation was more recent. It was killed recently under the Obama administration for political reasons and not safety reasons.
My citation made that clear.
We're done. You're clearly an anti nuclear zealot and I frankly don't have the patience to go back and forth with you on this issue.
Think whatever you want. I am not a nuclear at any price person. That's just strawman bullshit. I am not however a blind anti nuclear activist. Sorry. I don't agree.
I'll advocate for reasonable applications of nuclear power. Until we get a better method of sinking/storing renewable power we'll need nuclear or we're going to keep burning coal, gas, and natural gas.
Choose.
Fossil fuels or Nuclear? Because until we have a way of storing the power... those are our options.
This will be my last post to you in this thread.
Good day, sir.
*tips hat*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Proposed Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) are designed with exactly the reduced containment that Chernobyl was built with. Proposed new generation 'once-through' reactor series like the AP-1000 are designed with significantly reduced containment. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
There are a number of functional issues with pebble beds, like the mechanism jammin, which is what happened to the German PBMR. Also getting hundreds of thousands of the fuel balls uniform and of course the issues at the end of their service life with air leaking into the reactor and causing graphite fires.
I compare proposed PBMR designs with RBMK at Chernobyl. You know, graphite covered fuel kernels, helium gas cooled, no containment building required, produce deadlier waste and have deadlier failure modes.
IFR is a much better concept than PBMR, pity W. ordered it's demolition. Fantastic concept and actually worked. I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will overcome neutron bombardment. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility with an attached waste facility in the belly of a massive granite mountain that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Most of the 100 odd reactors in the U.S are approaching old-age and have to be de-commissioned so it's a future, rather than obsolete, issue. If you want to build a modern Nuclear Industry it starts with the geology of the spent fuel containment facility. If you do it in granite then you could power the US for at least 5000 years. A properly functioning Nuclear Industry is important and the one we've got is a total mess heading for either complete failure or disaster.
This had no reason to be in a separate post. My other post to you addressed this issue. You're talking about old reactor designs.
An example of what I'd suggest for nuclear power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You keep assuming I want to build 3 mile island.
The only reactors *legally* approved for construction is the AP1000 with all of the issues in the study. TWR is an interesting concept, however it doesn't exist, compared to IFR which *did* exist, functioned as planned, did what it was supposed to do yet was still funded for *demolition* by W.Bush.
Your position is out of date. Obsolete.
Your position is SyFy. Have you investigated the difference between a breeder and a burner reactor? Your argument is for breeder reactor with the same decommssiioning issues as current generation reactors, that doesn't exist and has no legal approval to operate? I think you'll find IFR is a vastly superior reactor design, that actually works and has all the features, and more(like built in medical isotope extraction) than TWR. Far from obsolete, my position is plausible.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It is the current issue because it's the 1960s plant designs that are reaching the end of their service life now. Yankee Rowe, a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor, cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2 for example. You have to wait to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way yet that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone.
And as I mentioned SNUPPS is the basis for the design of the AP1000 reactor which is the only legally approved reactor design available for the U.S. And it has all of the same energetic input and problems mentioned in the study.
No, it is a function of it being an enormous mound of concrete containing radioactive isotopes. Decommissioning and demolishing a reactor takes about about the same amout of energy the reactor generated for a third of its service life. Check the study around i14-i16.
I posit that if we *have* to have nuclear power then the plants should be designed to much high standards with lifespans that are more in line with the geological time-frames of the elements they are tasked to contain. I am yet to see that happen, nor have I seen a reactor design that meets those criteria. Current reactor design is not good enough, they MUST be designed to overcome what we have learned about them in the first fifty years of operation, franky the current generation of nuclear power plants proposed do not even meet the minimum requirements, wrt decommissioning, so how is it possible to support commissioning new reactors if they are just as bad (indeed worse wrt containment - but you're not ready for that conversation) than the very 1960's design of currently commissioned reactors.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Maybe so. Wall Street doesn't like nuclear because its a risky investment, investors don't like that sort of risk, solar and wind are way ahead simply because the return on investment is much better than nuclear, i.e. Solar and wind satisfies the criteria that makes an investment "economically viable" nuclear power does not without substantial regulatory support.
It's obviously a medium-term solution that will fit into a broader energy plan for the US and other developed countries well into the future. I expect to see nuclear providing a boost to our base load power 10-20 years from now, dwindling off as reactors are taken off-line.
The choice now is whether any of the lessons from the past 50 years have been learned.
America has Terrawatts of wind energy. I'm sure if the U.S can put a man on the moon then she can make a few wind turbines work.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As I said, if you are pro-nuclear I will appear anti-nuclear. You have said little to indicate you even understand my position, let alone be in a position to judge me. I've ever been saying is that we really need to have a complete and pragmatic end to end look at the way the Nuclear Industry operates. It deserves our skepticism because we can't afford to be reckless with these systems as they age anymore, and why do it when America is luckier than most countries when it comes to wind, solar and geo-thermal power which doesn't have the baggage of nuclear, oil or coal? Serious investments into these have been taken up by nuclear oil, and coal so where is the return for the everyday person? Failing Nuclear power plants and expensive fuel. Money for the big end of town from the taxpayers pocket.
Where is the anti in that? Anyone who can read and add numbers can get the information by just reading the appropriate acts of law.
Well that's what you say and I haven't seen much evidence supporting the other things you say. I've supplied the information with sincerity and you have said yourself it is too much for you. Well welcome to the complexity that is the Nuclear Industry. Stop whining to me that it is too hard to read the facts presented and then try to claim that I am deceiving you.
Nothing in
I call that Responsible Nuclear Advocacy, since at least 2006 - you just get hounded by both sides, the debate has become so polarised people have forgotten how to carry on a meaningful discussion any more
is a lie. If you can't carry out a meaningful discussion based in fact, that's your problem and not mine.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Ok, I'll just accept that you have conceded these point as you have no other information to counter the facts placed before you, that Yucca mountain is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You can accept whatever you want. Stick a purple dildo up your ass with or without the lube. I really don't care.
What is obvious is that you're going to cite anything you can think of to argue against nuclear power in any capacity under any circomstances.
And that's fine. My issue with you is that you misrepresented yourself as open to nuclear power if safety concerns were met. However, you merely used such concerns as a pretext to disallow any use of nuclear power. What is clear is that you don't think nuclear power can be safe at all. Thus you saying you'd accept it if safety concerns were met is identical to saying you'd not accept it under any circomstances.
Tell me... where would you sequester nuclear waste if not Yucca Mountain?
Name a place we can put it. And you say you're okay with nuclear power? Okay... cite a reactor design you find acceptable.
All you do is gainsay everything which is easy to do. I can do that with ANY other energy source. I can sit here and talk about how wind or solar or anything else is shitty by citing problems with it. But unlike you "I actually have constructive solutions" for all these things. I'm fine with any energy source so long as it is done reasonably. And unlike your statements, that isn't merely a lying shithead pretext to disallow stuff I don't like.
So... I don't concede the fucking point.
I said, GOOD DAY, sir.
*slams door*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'd suggest the geology of the Rocky Mountains is closer to what is required, however I'm sure that there are other granite mountains that are suitable in the US in line with DOE's original 'defense in depth' parameters and what we have learned in the meantime about how granite captures radioisotopes and filters it from the water table.
As I said Yucca mountain is pumice, that's why it is inappropriate *geology* and hydrology.
I already did that, IFR.
Well I'm yet to see you even demonstrate a knowledge of the issues, like the water table of Yucca let alone the capacity to tackle more complex issues regarding reactor and infrastructure design that lead to solutions.
So, instead of considering the facts presented in a balanced way you've become emotional once confronted with whats required to *actually* gain an understanding. You don't have fact to support your argument and I have produced information to support mine, for you, about the issues.
It's ok, I know it is difficult and confronting to take it in but if you want to maintain an opinion that doesn't stand up to examination then that reveals that your opinion is based on social proof, not actual proof. I won't take your insults personally.
Not conceding the point just reveals that you probably haven't reach the mental maturity required to have this debate, let alone contribute to it so it is unlikely that your opinion will evolve much further until you do - I've seen it before.
Now that I have proven your beliefs to be false, perhaps it would be wise to keep your opinions to yourself until you have had time to evaluate the information presented lest people think that you are a nuclear fanboi.
I'll accept that *you're done*, you cannot defend your argument and that you aren't honest enough to concede the point.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.