I suppose you know something Ken Starr doesn't. Clinton ran the cleanest whitehouses in the past 30 years. I give the Republicans some credit for making sure of it.
Yes, the GO does know what false flags mean, and a false flag attack isn't useful unless there's a compelling reason to give that particular false flag the benefit of the doubt.
Who are you guys who automatically think this is about money? If you got something to say in the USA, you have a right to say it on your radio show, but that doesn't mean the government is going to produce and broadcast your show for you.
Err, you do realize you can shut down a reactor without replacing it with another, don't you? If the nuclear industry were responsible enough to shut down old nukes, which it clearly ain't, the price of power would go up and people would start clamoring for new ones. This business of trying to force people to accept new plants by holding decaying dangerous old plants to their heads is disingenuous, insulting, and it's getting old. That scam won't work.
It's not like people aren't trying to get rid of nuclear weapons, too, and it isn't necessarily true that more and more countries will have them, it's entirely possible to reduce the number of countries that have them.
You mean that no-one wants to deal with the fairly significant contribution that nukes make to bottom lines. Blaming the inability to build new plants for the continued use of old plants is asinine and backwards. Obviously if Fukushima had not been extended, prospects for new plants wouldn't be as bad as they are now. Less obviously, opponents of nuclear power understand that no matter what is said before hand, power companies will try to run a plant into the ground while skimping on safety since upfront costs are huge and in the later years is where all the profit comes from.
You don't need a conspiracy for this kind of secrecy, you just need corporations that want to make money, lax regulators, and the general tendency for folks to want to just get by and hope nothing bad happens on their watch. This is a serious problem in the nuclear industry, and it boggles the mind that proponents don't feel troubled by it, especially considering the success of that other hyper safety conscious industry, the airlines, at being open and aggressive about dealing with safety issues.
That's good, but does the chart address this? If a typical town near the reactor is getting only a few extra micro sieverts per day, does that mean for people just walking around, or for people ingesting the food grown in the area, of which there is quite a bit. What's the dosage for guy working the fields covered in dirt all day?
So according to that chart there are sites that are 10 times the level known to cause cancer quite a distance from Fukushima, they give a low dose for an average town (whatever that means, what's it like in the worst affected towns?) , they leave out the retreat of the US Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan in the face of month-per-day doses, by that chart this would come to about 300 micro sieverts per day, a cancerous rate.
And you think this kind of obfuscation should calm people down. Until nuclear proponents start taking this seriously and stop with their "Nothing to see here, folks, don't worry your pretty little head" attitude, they are going to keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Even if the chart were clear, it doesn't even address all the health issues. How much does measuring sieverts tell you about the risks of ingesting or inhaling fission products?
And it doesn't even begin to address the issues of poor planning, mismanagement, cost cutting and secretiveness of the nuclear industry and the governments that are supposed to regulate them.
We have nukes pointed at Moscow because they have nukes pointed at New York. If you can figure out a good way to stand down from this situation, I'm sure both sides would love to hear it.
I believe that both sides have "de-targeted" their missiles, but that both sides have the means to retarget them within seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
What did he think about the Iraq war and Colin Powell's speech at the UN?
This is true of 100% of people. Always listen to criticism and doubt of any advice.
I suppose you know something Ken Starr doesn't. Clinton ran the cleanest whitehouses in the past 30 years. I give the Republicans some credit for making sure of it.
I never got it either, can you explain it to me too?
They found his grave along side one of his kids.
Mod parent up
David Brin, Crystal Spheres
Yes, the GO does know what false flags mean, and a false flag attack isn't useful unless there's a compelling reason to give that particular false flag the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree. Unlike chess, go is one of two games that teach some important and practical lessons, the other being poker.
Who are you guys who automatically think this is about money? If you got something to say in the USA, you have a right to say it on your radio show, but that doesn't mean the government is going to produce and broadcast your show for you.
Err, you do realize you can shut down a reactor without replacing it with another, don't you? If the nuclear industry were responsible enough to shut down old nukes, which it clearly ain't, the price of power would go up and people would start clamoring for new ones. This business of trying to force people to accept new plants by holding decaying dangerous old plants to their heads is disingenuous, insulting, and it's getting old. That scam won't work.
It's not like people aren't trying to get rid of nuclear weapons, too, and it isn't necessarily true that more and more countries will have them, it's entirely possible to reduce the number of countries that have them.
That's so much horse shit. Old plants are running because they are profitable. Demand for power is so high, building new plants won't change that.
You mean that no-one wants to deal with the fairly significant contribution that nukes make to bottom lines. Blaming the inability to build new plants for the continued use of old plants is asinine and backwards. Obviously if Fukushima had not been extended, prospects for new plants wouldn't be as bad as they are now. Less obviously, opponents of nuclear power understand that no matter what is said before hand, power companies will try to run a plant into the ground while skimping on safety since upfront costs are huge and in the later years is where all the profit comes from.
Autism is the "sickle cell anemia" of one of the next stages of evolution.
At least one of the top star craft players dates one of the members of Girl's Generation.
100 mSv / year is known to be cancerous, it doesn't therefore follow that exposure to the same or higher rate for less time is not cancerous.
You don't need a conspiracy for this kind of secrecy, you just need corporations that want to make money, lax regulators, and the general tendency for folks to want to just get by and hope nothing bad happens on their watch. This is a serious problem in the nuclear industry, and it boggles the mind that proponents don't feel troubled by it, especially considering the success of that other hyper safety conscious industry, the airlines, at being open and aggressive about dealing with safety issues.
That's good, but does the chart address this? If a typical town near the reactor is getting only a few extra micro sieverts per day, does that mean for people just walking around, or for people ingesting the food grown in the area, of which there is quite a bit. What's the dosage for guy working the fields covered in dirt all day?
So according to that chart there are sites that are 10 times the level known to cause cancer quite a distance from Fukushima, they give a low dose for an average town (whatever that means, what's it like in the worst affected towns?) , they leave out the retreat of the US Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan in the face of month-per-day doses, by that chart this would come to about 300 micro sieverts per day, a cancerous rate.
And you think this kind of obfuscation should calm people down. Until nuclear proponents start taking this seriously and stop with their "Nothing to see here, folks, don't worry your pretty little head" attitude, they are going to keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Even if the chart were clear, it doesn't even address all the health issues. How much does measuring sieverts tell you about the risks of ingesting or inhaling fission products?
And it doesn't even begin to address the issues of poor planning, mismanagement, cost cutting and secretiveness of the nuclear industry and the governments that are supposed to regulate them.
You are demonstrating the original point that Americans don't even know what socialism means.
The greens are owned by the Republicans.
We have nukes pointed at Moscow because they have nukes pointed at New York. If you can figure out a good way to stand down from this situation, I'm sure both sides would love to hear it.
I believe that both sides have "de-targeted" their missiles, but that both sides have the means to retarget them within seconds.
I hear this a lot. Are there any NP problems that are usually hard to solve?
Reed, you must know nothing at all about art if you think a novel is not a good way to critique novels.