I called you an idiot because you misquoted me, and you specifically brought up the one lame argument (nuclear is better than coal) I told you was a waste of time. Had nothing to do with your opinions.
Then you call me an Environmentalist (and by association, a lunatic), and then you complain about the ad hominem.
I did not say that energy companies know how to make cheap solar panels. I said that with a wider production, they would become cheaper - implying that economies of scale would kick in. Maybe not cheap enough to make them "economically viable", but certainly cheaper than they are today. People who invested in solar panels for their homes would be insulated from the current commodity-market wackiness that raised electricity-generating costs by a factor of 10 in California this year.
They're not going to come up with a leasing plan because people can go to independent companies and buy the panels for themselves and live "off the grid" if they want.
I'm sorry that your "risk assessment" tells you that nuclear power is "safe enough". To me, if there's any chance, no matter how small, that a disaster of Chernobyl-proportions COULD happen (even though a "modern" plant has a much smaller chance than a Chernobyl-style plant), that's too big of a chance. The consequences, not the risk, are the factor here.
And wrt Greenpeace and the NRC: when money comes into play, the conservatives, and even moderate liberals, and probably even extreme liberals, will all gladly sign their souls away to PG&E to maintain their way of life. When the price of electricity is at the point where our very economy is threatened (and it's almost at that point now), you can bet that the bottom line is, money talks. Greenpeace is not as well-armed as the National Guard, if it comes to that.
Coal vs. Nuclear: I really really really hate Nuclear. If it makes you happy, I really, really, really, really hate coal. Strip mining and acid rain suck.
And I didn't quote you because, frankly, this discussion is too deeply buried for anybody else to give a crap about now.
*After* the accident, I'll explain it to you how it happened. But I'll tell you, it would likely be caused by a lapse in maintenance, or an unforseen fault in the design. Hindsight's a bitch at 20/20.
erm - replace "nuclear engineers" with "nuclear technicians" - that's what I meant.
Is it not true that workers in the factories that produce and handle fuel, in some areas, wear lead-lined suits?
That's what I meant by "nuclear engineers" - obviously, I meant "technicians"
The article does talk about "low levels" - and what it should have stated (I guess it did, just not clearly enough) was "relatively low levels" - relative to a nuclear blast from an atom bomb.
Relative to living outside of a plant working inside a plant, very very high levels.
First, you used quotes on my phrase "extreme measures", but you misspelled "extream" twice. If you're going to use quotes, quote accurately. Don't try to make me look like a moron when it's YOU that can't spell.
Just because Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen doesn't mean that other plants, even the famed and VERY over budget Diablo Canyon plant in California, are 100% safe. I'm not saying Chernobyl is an example of how all nuclear power will be. I'm saying that it's a great example of a worst-case scenario. Such scenarios are likely going to be rare with "properly engineered" "modern design" reactor plants. But NOBODY can say that there is NO chance that this scenario could possibly happen again. It has nothing to do with the size of the chance. It's the size of the damage. Play with a rubber-band, you can snap your fingers pretty good. Play with a gun, and you could blow your brains out by accident. You're much more likely to snap your fingers with a rubber band, it doesn't have a safety. But even with a safety, locks, background checks, people still get their heads blown off by accident. Unfortunately, shooting a rubber band at a felon wont stop them, so guns ARE a necessary evil.
If we can gather electricity from sunshine, with a 0% chance that an accident will happen that will cause all of the decendents of the people unfortunate enough to have to leave near the plant to have damaged DNA, doesn't that make more sense than nuclear fission technology?
Why not?
Because solar COSTS more. Therefore, profit margins are narrower. It's not the preferred method of generation. It's not that it's not feasible. If we switched to a 100% solar generation technology TODAY - manufacture of solar panels would drop the cost down somewhat, down to a point where many more people would likely opt to put them on their own homes, instead of relying on central generation and distribution. That's obviously not a palatable strategy for the energy companies.
So we all basically decide that a certain amount of risk is "assessed" lower than the benefit of electricity being cheap. (and let's face it, versus solar, *reliable*). But the risk has been reduced to a number on a peice of paper, based on information from limited and/or flawed studies, which do not take into account ALL of the costs an accident could potentially raise (like the social and medical fallout from large groups of genetic mutations - for an unspecified number of future generations). In fact, there is no way to estimate that cost. So they guess.
You want your "risk assessment" based on that?
And the NRC, while it is a ferocious beast with long, sharp fangs, which has pretty much rendered nuclear energy not economically viable in the US, it all depends on the current political climate. As soon as that climate shifts to the right a tad, you'll see more conservative appointees, and regulations relaxing, and that ferocious beast rolls over on it's back to get it's tummy rubbed by PG&E. At that point it sure as hell DOES have a lot to do with a choice between a new Lexus versus Public Safety. There's nothing any whining environmentalist, or biting scientific study about the effects of low level radiation can do about that. It may not happen with this administration, but as soon as there is a REAL hiccup in petroleum supplies, you can bet your ass that the environment WILL change, and regulations WILL be relaxed, and people will be BEGGING for a nuclear plant to be built in their backyards, like, yesterday, fuck safety.
And finally, in my last paragraph, I TOLD you not to imply any comparison with coal-fired. I disfavor coal and nuclear equally. Neither are a good, viable, sustainable solution to our power problems. (Neither is conservation, unless that's linked with population control measures).
But you went ahead and said that I "should be more in favor of nuclear plants than coal plants".
If only the US would tax fuel at that rate, and use the funds to build roads, so we decrease the demand for roads, but increase the supply, causing traffic problems to go down, so lazy dishonest fat ugly stupid evil real estate developers can build more strip malls and tract housing. ..
anyone who has ever tried to drive down the Las Vegas strip in the past 5 years can tell you that that system could not be described as a "functional private system".
You can walk the length of the strip and back faster than you can drive a block.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the low-level waste coming from coal fired plants doesn't affect those downwind.
We finally know what the effects of short-term internal low level exposure can do.
What coal-fired plants cause is more of a long-term-internal-very-low-level of exposure. The amount that is released from coal-fired plants on a daily basis is probably not measurable. But a town existing downwind from one over a period of 20 years, how could it not be affected?
We're talking entire family lines affected for every future generation, by genetic mutations.
They're not talking about super-powers.
They're talking about, possibly higher risk of cancer, or being born without hands, or blind, or mental retardation, or haemophilia. For generation after generation, people will be born, live, and die, robbed of the possibility of having a normal life, being a huge burden on the social welfare system, and medical system. We don't have any freaking clue what this is going to cost humanity as a whole. What happens when two mutants breed?
People are being blinded by the carrot of "profitable power generation" and "cheap electricity" dangling in front of their faces. They don't see the quagmire they're being led into.
If done properly. . .
Nuclear power can be done safely, but you need to take extreme measures to ensure that incidents like chernobyl NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER happen. Of course, we're only human, and there's really no way to guarantee that. There are things like natural disasters, terrorism, and simple human error.
So if you enter into the "nuclear game", you must acknowledge at some point that there is a risk you are taking that a disaster can possibly occur. Accepting that it will not ever possible occur is a leap of misguided blind faith in "human ingenuity".
Once you accept that there is a risk, you now have to gauge how big of a risk, and when it comes down to it, it's a matter of money. How much money do you invest in engineering the plant - how many safety precautions do you take against earthquakes, or what have you. (remember the volcano that appeared suddenly out of nowhere in South America? one day, a flat field. 30 days later, a 1000-foot cinder cone). How many armed guards and how much security precautions against terrorism. And what does all of that cost? And how much can you sell the electricity for on the market? If you build a plant, you increase supply, lowering demand and the commodity's value. (which is why I don't believe that commodity economics ought to be applied to every little human need).
At some later point, mister power-company CEO has to decide whether it's a profitable venture, how much money must be spent beefing up the plant, and how much profit can be made selling the commodity.
So it's a balance: risk to the public that these accidents could occur, versus money in the CEO's golden-parachute fund. Hmmmmmm - which will it be?
Public safety?
New Lexus?
Hmmmmm? man, that's a tough choice.
This is why I am opposed to the use of nuclear power. The immediate effects of a disaster, and the unforseen future effects. These risks are not very patalable, no matter how much the engineers say it's safe. No matter what nifty new design they come up with. Virtually no risk, is still a risk. And this kind of risk is just plain unacceptable.
And before you go off telling me I'm a fan of coal-fired plants, I'm not. I don't think that we currently have a good answer for that one.
I'm not sure what the solution is to our growing power needs. Even Solar, Even Wind, have their drawbacks making them unpalatable. But ever more palatable than nuclear fission.
The danger you're talking about and the danger they're talking about are two different things.
You're talking about an external dose of radiation - energy. Most of which is stopped by your skin, or in the case of a nuclear engineer, most likely, their radiation suit.:)
In the case of these workers, they didn't have enough respirators and protective suits. Someone posted a link a few months ago of a site that was a tribute to these liquidators, a tragic story of human heroism. Men were sent into a highly radioactive part just to snap a photograph, and come back, and die from the high single dose.
But many others inhaled dust, got dust on their clothing, on their skin, dust got on their food, etc.
Smoke is in-effect, dust. Or soot, if you prefer. The Chernobyl disaster was a fire. A graphite fire. Lots of soot. Lots of radioactive dust. these elements, the nuclear fuel, decay byproducts, got converted into soot, or dust, inhaled, or otherwise ingested, and remained in the body. Some of that "radioactivity" will remain hot for thousands of years after the person dies and is buried in the ground. These particles lodge in tissues, and continue to emit radiation, to internal organs, unprotected by clothing, skin, filters, or lead underwear.
Most of this, as you say, results in cells causing cancer. But if any of it gets down into the gonads, affecting the gametes (the cells that produce sperm - see, I took High School Biology too!), then all the sperm that are produced after that point will contain mutations. Once the DNA is affected, all subsequent generations spawned off of that DNA is also affected.
One of the worst bits, and the thing responsible for bone cancer, is Strontium-90, which is chemically similar to Calcium. If it settles on grass, cows eat the grass, it binds into the milk chemically where Calcium would otherwise. Then the kids drink the milk, and here and there, in their bones, will be bonded Strontium-90 atoms where calcium would be otherwise. The adjacent bone matter will be radiated over a period of time, directly, by these Sr-90 atoms.
In order to remain profitable, Shell Oil must focus on the most popular, and money-generating platform: the Ford Focus. Granted, it's not the best car out there, but everyone has one.
I just can't afford, and cannot justify using Porsche hardware when Ford cars will do the trick!
I would guess that though the main supporting member is 10cm thick at the base, there would be a vast infrastructure surrounding the beanstalk, and attached to the beanstalk all the way up, allowing more than one elevator to climb it at the same time.
If Libya built a space elevator, nobody else would do a goddamn thing, because Libya would have a huge advantage.
But the US is going to build one first.
And nobody else is going to be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (except the aussies, who will probably just pass an ordinance forcing all women to wear turtlenecks so the americans don't look down their shirts.)
What's to stop porn sites from going into the system and rating all of their sites as kid-friendly. They're already committing gross acts of misrepresentation on other fronts, (search engines, etc.) why not this as well?
Really, the whole beaching thing, I think, is not a big deal. It happens, and a few dozen whales die from it each decade.
What we really need to worry about is the mass slaughter of whales that has been going on for the past 200 years. Let's put that a bit higher on our priority scale, shall we?
There does seem to be an element to this review - when he's talking about how science fiction is littered with stories about "science gone wrong" stuff like that.
About the earliest example of science fiction literature that I can think of is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. If you think of it, that story is THE basis for all science fiction.
In essence, science fiction is about humanity, and it's "progress" from the dark ages to some futuristic point, via technological innovation, and how that technological innovation impacts humanity, and humanity's way of thinking.
Obviously, Frankenstien talks about how this one doctor, way ahead of his time in the field of medicine, devising a method to bring people back to life, but he could not just leave it at that - because if he brought one person back to life, then things would be great and all, but he could not be a "creator" of life. So he built one out of spare parts. It was human pride that screwed Dr. Frankenstein up, because there were aspects to life that he didn't understand, the soul, etc. And as it turned out, the creature had the mind of a deranged madman, murderer, who didn't even know who or what he was, because he was made of parts of many different people. Now, I'm not saying that "it's all about mankind messing with things we do not understand - " it's more along the lines of the tradition of the great Greek tragedy, man falling before his pride.
Pretty much every AI story out there is basically a rip off of Frankenstein. Yes, including the Matrix.
Even when science fiction appears to be about some other topic, like alien invasions, etc. it's still about humanity's advancement. Now that our great thinkers have discovered other stars, and other planets, and have theorized what life on these other planets could be like - and thus, have created new life, have become the creators. And in most cases, this whole alien mythology stems from that concept.
Star Wars, of course, does not fall under the category of "Science Fiction" when you think about it. It's really not at all about "the impact of technological advancement on humanity". It's a new genre, well, not new, it's Flash Gordon warmed over. Fantasy in a Sci Fi setting.
My point is, after Frankenstein, it's pretty much all been done before.
I, for one, cannot wait, for the well-done movie version of "Ender's Game".
There was an article in Scientific American not too long ago that associates the start of the rise of human population with the development of fermented beverages.
fermented beverages gave humanity a safe supply of something to drink that didn't contain parasites, and vastly improved individuals chances of survival to successful reproduction.
Slashdot Mirror
I want aliens - not people in rubber suits.
Aliens, like the Guild members in Dune, the motion picture. Like the shadows and vorlons in B5. Like the thingie in Alien.
I'm just giddy that Neelix is finally GONE! Woo hoo!
I called you an idiot because you misquoted me, and you specifically brought up the one lame argument (nuclear is better than coal) I told you was a waste of time. Had nothing to do with your opinions.
Then you call me an Environmentalist (and by association, a lunatic), and then you complain about the ad hominem.
I did not say that energy companies know how to make cheap solar panels. I said that with a wider production, they would become cheaper - implying that economies of scale would kick in. Maybe not cheap enough to make them "economically viable", but certainly cheaper than they are today. People who invested in solar panels for their homes would be insulated from the current commodity-market wackiness that raised electricity-generating costs by a factor of 10 in California this year.
They're not going to come up with a leasing plan because people can go to independent companies and buy the panels for themselves and live "off the grid" if they want.
I'm sorry that your "risk assessment" tells you that nuclear power is "safe enough". To me, if there's any chance, no matter how small, that a disaster of Chernobyl-proportions COULD happen (even though a "modern" plant has a much smaller chance than a Chernobyl-style plant), that's too big of a chance. The consequences, not the risk, are the factor here.
And wrt Greenpeace and the NRC: when money comes into play, the conservatives, and even moderate liberals, and probably even extreme liberals, will all gladly sign their souls away to PG&E to maintain their way of life. When the price of electricity is at the point where our very economy is threatened (and it's almost at that point now), you can bet that the bottom line is, money talks. Greenpeace is not as well-armed as the National Guard, if it comes to that.
Coal vs. Nuclear: I really really really hate Nuclear. If it makes you happy, I really, really, really, really hate coal. Strip mining and acid rain suck.
And I didn't quote you because, frankly, this discussion is too deeply buried for anybody else to give a crap about now.
yeah.
And the Titanic was "unsinkable".
*After* the accident, I'll explain it to you how it happened. But I'll tell you, it would likely be caused by a lapse in maintenance, or an unforseen fault in the design. Hindsight's a bitch at 20/20.
erm - replace "nuclear engineers" with "nuclear technicians" - that's what I meant.
Is it not true that workers in the factories that produce and handle fuel, in some areas, wear lead-lined suits?
That's what I meant by "nuclear engineers" - obviously, I meant "technicians"
The article does talk about "low levels" - and what it should have stated (I guess it did, just not clearly enough) was "relatively low levels" - relative to a nuclear blast from an atom bomb.
Relative to living outside of a plant working inside a plant, very very high levels.
you idiot.
First, you used quotes on my phrase "extreme measures", but you misspelled "extream" twice. If you're going to use quotes, quote accurately. Don't try to make me look like a moron when it's YOU that can't spell.
Just because Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen doesn't mean that other plants, even the famed and VERY over budget Diablo Canyon plant in California, are 100% safe. I'm not saying Chernobyl is an example of how all nuclear power will be. I'm saying that it's a great example of a worst-case scenario. Such scenarios are likely going to be rare with "properly engineered" "modern design" reactor plants. But NOBODY can say that there is NO chance that this scenario could possibly happen again. It has nothing to do with the size of the chance. It's the size of the damage. Play with a rubber-band, you can snap your fingers pretty good. Play with a gun, and you could blow your brains out by accident. You're much more likely to snap your fingers with a rubber band, it doesn't have a safety. But even with a safety, locks, background checks, people still get their heads blown off by accident. Unfortunately, shooting a rubber band at a felon wont stop them, so guns ARE a necessary evil.
If we can gather electricity from sunshine, with a 0% chance that an accident will happen that will cause all of the decendents of the people unfortunate enough to have to leave near the plant to have damaged DNA, doesn't that make more sense than nuclear fission technology?
Why not?
Because solar COSTS more. Therefore, profit margins are narrower. It's not the preferred method of generation. It's not that it's not feasible. If we switched to a 100% solar generation technology TODAY - manufacture of solar panels would drop the cost down somewhat, down to a point where many more people would likely opt to put them on their own homes, instead of relying on central generation and distribution. That's obviously not a palatable strategy for the energy companies.
So we all basically decide that a certain amount of risk is "assessed" lower than the benefit of electricity being cheap. (and let's face it, versus solar, *reliable*). But the risk has been reduced to a number on a peice of paper, based on information from limited and/or flawed studies, which do not take into account ALL of the costs an accident could potentially raise (like the social and medical fallout from large groups of genetic mutations - for an unspecified number of future generations). In fact, there is no way to estimate that cost. So they guess.
You want your "risk assessment" based on that?
And the NRC, while it is a ferocious beast with long, sharp fangs, which has pretty much rendered nuclear energy not economically viable in the US, it all depends on the current political climate. As soon as that climate shifts to the right a tad, you'll see more conservative appointees, and regulations relaxing, and that ferocious beast rolls over on it's back to get it's tummy rubbed by PG&E. At that point it sure as hell DOES have a lot to do with a choice between a new Lexus versus Public Safety. There's nothing any whining environmentalist, or biting scientific study about the effects of low level radiation can do about that. It may not happen with this administration, but as soon as there is a REAL hiccup in petroleum supplies, you can bet your ass that the environment WILL change, and regulations WILL be relaxed, and people will be BEGGING for a nuclear plant to be built in their backyards, like, yesterday, fuck safety.
And finally, in my last paragraph, I TOLD you not to imply any comparison with coal-fired. I disfavor coal and nuclear equally. Neither are a good, viable, sustainable solution to our power problems. (Neither is conservation, unless that's linked with population control measures).
But you went ahead and said that I "should be more in favor of nuclear plants than coal plants".
you idiot.
If only the US would tax fuel at that rate, and use the funds to build roads, so we decrease the demand for roads, but increase the supply, causing traffic problems to go down, so lazy dishonest fat ugly stupid evil real estate developers can build more strip malls and tract housing. . .
There are certain areas in the US where $6 US is not an uncommon price for bottled beer. (Chicago, Orlando, New York City, San Francisco)
Of course, run out the the grocer across the street and pick up a case for $1.50/bottle.
anyone who has ever tried to drive down the Las Vegas strip in the past 5 years can tell you that that system could not be described as a "functional private system".
You can walk the length of the strip and back faster than you can drive a block.
USB CD-R burner most likely. . .
It's a news story, not a scientific paper.
I don't think that anyone is saying that the low-level waste coming from coal fired plants doesn't affect those downwind.
We finally know what the effects of short-term internal low level exposure can do.
What coal-fired plants cause is more of a long-term-internal-very-low-level of exposure. The amount that is released from coal-fired plants on a daily basis is probably not measurable. But a town existing downwind from one over a period of 20 years, how could it not be affected?
occasionally annoying meltdown?
We're talking entire family lines affected for every future generation, by genetic mutations.
They're not talking about super-powers.
They're talking about, possibly higher risk of cancer, or being born without hands, or blind, or mental retardation, or haemophilia. For generation after generation, people will be born, live, and die, robbed of the possibility of having a normal life, being a huge burden on the social welfare system, and medical system. We don't have any freaking clue what this is going to cost humanity as a whole. What happens when two mutants breed?
People are being blinded by the carrot of "profitable power generation" and "cheap electricity" dangling in front of their faces. They don't see the quagmire they're being led into.
Argument against:
If done properly. . .
Nuclear power can be done safely, but you need to take extreme measures to ensure that incidents like chernobyl NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER happen. Of course, we're only human, and there's really no way to guarantee that. There are things like natural disasters, terrorism, and simple human error.
So if you enter into the "nuclear game", you must acknowledge at some point that there is a risk you are taking that a disaster can possibly occur. Accepting that it will not ever possible occur is a leap of misguided blind faith in "human ingenuity".
Once you accept that there is a risk, you now have to gauge how big of a risk, and when it comes down to it, it's a matter of money. How much money do you invest in engineering the plant - how many safety precautions do you take against earthquakes, or what have you. (remember the volcano that appeared suddenly out of nowhere in South America? one day, a flat field. 30 days later, a 1000-foot cinder cone). How many armed guards and how much security precautions against terrorism. And what does all of that cost? And how much can you sell the electricity for on the market? If you build a plant, you increase supply, lowering demand and the commodity's value. (which is why I don't believe that commodity economics ought to be applied to every little human need).
At some later point, mister power-company CEO has to decide whether it's a profitable venture, how much money must be spent beefing up the plant, and how much profit can be made selling the commodity.
So it's a balance: risk to the public that these accidents could occur, versus money in the CEO's golden-parachute fund. Hmmmmmm - which will it be?
Public safety?
New Lexus?
Hmmmmm? man, that's a tough choice.
This is why I am opposed to the use of nuclear power. The immediate effects of a disaster, and the unforseen future effects. These risks are not very patalable, no matter how much the engineers say it's safe. No matter what nifty new design they come up with. Virtually no risk, is still a risk. And this kind of risk is just plain unacceptable.
And before you go off telling me I'm a fan of coal-fired plants, I'm not. I don't think that we currently have a good answer for that one.
I'm not sure what the solution is to our growing power needs. Even Solar, Even Wind, have their drawbacks making them unpalatable. But ever more palatable than nuclear fission.
Maybe the answer is; the Matrix.
Well, I took chemistry in High School ;)
The danger you're talking about and the danger they're talking about are two different things.
You're talking about an external dose of radiation - energy. Most of which is stopped by your skin, or in the case of a nuclear engineer, most likely, their radiation suit.:)
In the case of these workers, they didn't have enough respirators and protective suits. Someone posted a link a few months ago of a site that was a tribute to these liquidators, a tragic story of human heroism. Men were sent into a highly radioactive part just to snap a photograph, and come back, and die from the high single dose.
But many others inhaled dust, got dust on their clothing, on their skin, dust got on their food, etc.
Smoke is in-effect, dust. Or soot, if you prefer. The Chernobyl disaster was a fire. A graphite fire. Lots of soot. Lots of radioactive dust. these elements, the nuclear fuel, decay byproducts, got converted into soot, or dust, inhaled, or otherwise ingested, and remained in the body. Some of that "radioactivity" will remain hot for thousands of years after the person dies and is buried in the ground. These particles lodge in tissues, and continue to emit radiation, to internal organs, unprotected by clothing, skin, filters, or lead underwear.
Most of this, as you say, results in cells causing cancer. But if any of it gets down into the gonads, affecting the gametes (the cells that produce sperm - see, I took High School Biology too!), then all the sperm that are produced after that point will contain mutations. Once the DNA is affected, all subsequent generations spawned off of that DNA is also affected.
One of the worst bits, and the thing responsible for bone cancer, is Strontium-90, which is chemically similar to Calcium. If it settles on grass, cows eat the grass, it binds into the milk chemically where Calcium would otherwise. Then the kids drink the milk, and here and there, in their bones, will be bonded Strontium-90 atoms where calcium would be otherwise. The adjacent bone matter will be radiated over a period of time, directly, by these Sr-90 atoms.
okay, I admit, I was stretching a bit, but then, there WERE those rumors about Sun and Apple merging a while back. . . .
And then there were the rumors about Sony and Apple, and we all know about Sony's stance on running Linux on Playstation 2.
Then there were the rumors of Disney and Apple merging, and we all know Disney's stance about Linux running on Minnie.
They want to make sure that people will be able to chat in French, so that the French language isn't overwhelmed and subsumed by English.
In order to remain profitable, Shell Oil must focus on the most popular, and money-generating platform: the Ford Focus. Granted, it's not the best car out there, but everyone has one.
I just can't afford, and cannot justify using Porsche hardware when Ford cars will do the trick!
I would guess that though the main supporting member is 10cm thick at the base, there would be a vast infrastructure surrounding the beanstalk, and attached to the beanstalk all the way up, allowing more than one elevator to climb it at the same time.
Think bandwidth.
If Libya built a space elevator, nobody else would do a goddamn thing, because Libya would have a huge advantage.
But the US is going to build one first.
And nobody else is going to be able to do a goddamn thing about it. (except the aussies, who will probably just pass an ordinance forcing all women to wear turtlenecks so the americans don't look down their shirts.)
That rat-bastard Steve Jobs won't give the Linux/SPARC people the specs they need to write to the SPARC hardware! Just like he screwed Be with the G3!
What's to stop porn sites from going into the system and rating all of their sites as kid-friendly. They're already committing gross acts of misrepresentation on other fronts, (search engines, etc.) why not this as well?
Really, the whole beaching thing, I think, is not a big deal. It happens, and a few dozen whales die from it each decade.
What we really need to worry about is the mass slaughter of whales that has been going on for the past 200 years. Let's put that a bit higher on our priority scale, shall we?
There does seem to be an element to this review - when he's talking about how science fiction is littered with stories about "science gone wrong" stuff like that.
About the earliest example of science fiction literature that I can think of is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. If you think of it, that story is THE basis for all science fiction.
In essence, science fiction is about humanity, and it's "progress" from the dark ages to some futuristic point, via technological innovation, and how that technological innovation impacts humanity, and humanity's way of thinking.
Obviously, Frankenstien talks about how this one doctor, way ahead of his time in the field of medicine, devising a method to bring people back to life, but he could not just leave it at that - because if he brought one person back to life, then things would be great and all, but he could not be a "creator" of life. So he built one out of spare parts. It was human pride that screwed Dr. Frankenstein up, because there were aspects to life that he didn't understand, the soul, etc. And as it turned out, the creature had the mind of a deranged madman, murderer, who didn't even know who or what he was, because he was made of parts of many different people. Now, I'm not saying that "it's all about mankind messing with things we do not understand - " it's more along the lines of the tradition of the great Greek tragedy, man falling before his pride.
Pretty much every AI story out there is basically a rip off of Frankenstein. Yes, including the Matrix.
Even when science fiction appears to be about some other topic, like alien invasions, etc. it's still about humanity's advancement. Now that our great thinkers have discovered other stars, and other planets, and have theorized what life on these other planets could be like - and thus, have created new life, have become the creators. And in most cases, this whole alien mythology stems from that concept.
Star Wars, of course, does not fall under the category of "Science Fiction" when you think about it. It's really not at all about "the impact of technological advancement on humanity". It's a new genre, well, not new, it's Flash Gordon warmed over. Fantasy in a Sci Fi setting.
My point is, after Frankenstein, it's pretty much all been done before.
I, for one, cannot wait, for the well-done movie version of "Ender's Game".
There was an article in Scientific American not too long ago that associates the start of the rise of human population with the development of fermented beverages.
fermented beverages gave humanity a safe supply of something to drink that didn't contain parasites, and vastly improved individuals chances of survival to successful reproduction.
So it's not medical treatments. It's booze.