Too late. Banks are already closing the accounts of WikiLeaks and Californian porn businesses.
Once this is accepted it's your turn to either 'behave' or to be excluded from society.
As I already wrote, for every accusation you can throw at Russia, you can throw one at the USA.
Fascist rebels? Who supported the fascist neo-nazi's shooting protesters in order to force a violent revolutionary coup against a democratically chosen government in Ukrain?
Who created a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and is still supporting terrorists in Syria?
And now with the satellite states gone, what is NATO doing?
Right, advancing to Russia's borders. So who were right after all with wanting a buffer?
Your non-reasoning is highly hypocrite...
When these 'crappy' reactors were introduced the gospel wasn't that they were 'crappy', the gospel was that they were the best of the best, the safest of the safest, and that no harm would come over us.
Well, that turned out differently, and now you come with the same story again:
"This new design is the safest of the safest and nothing can happen."
Yeah, right...
Nuclear industry had their chance and they blew it, and let the population pay for it.
Are TEPCO or General Electric or whoever built that crappy reactor on a major fault line going to reimburse the Japanese people those more than 200 billion dollars?
No way.
Nuclear? Just don't do it.
They don't do that? There is no such thing as a safe threshold. We already have to live with an increased background radiation level thanks to those idiots testing these nuclear weapons in the 40's and after, then Chernobyl added some, and here you come saying "that doesn't have a significant effect".
Any increase in background radiation leads to increased cancer rates.
And 'meltdowns being a very rare thing' isn't good enough. The fact that we have had two meltdowns already means that it does happen, contrary to what all those probabilistic risk analyses for the reactor designs have said and have tried to prevent.
In other words: safety isn't sufficiently guaranteed so we should simply terminate the use of nuclear energy.
Chernobyl went quite wrong, Fukushima went even wronger, and we know that even worse nuclear disasters can, and therefore will, occur.
Don't be an idiot using the fact that it hasn't happened yet as proof that it won't ever happen, only to find himself in a world-wide disaster 10 or mabye 50 years from now.
Let's be prudent and say no thanks to nuclear. Sorry, but it's too dangerous.
And any rise in background radiation will 'affect' more lives, killing and maiming people and making them ill.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the empirical proof that all safety analyses and regulations are worthless, hence there is no guaranteed safe nuclear energy, hence we should just choose something else to supply our energy as it's simply too dangerous.
I'm not wanting to wait for the inevitable, so let's just stop it here.
I agree, it's better to have a nuclear reactor, or wait... a whole set of nuclear reactors, explode in a hydrogen explosion, turning the whole earth into a pure waste by covering it with radioactive cesium for hundreds of thousands of years. Yeah, no, not really.
Calm down now boys. Already for a long time now Russia hasn't pursued this communist world evangelism from the past, so what exactly is your problem with Russia? There isn't any. For every undemocratic action you can accuse Russia of, you can find one that you can accuse the USA of.
As if with the planning of nuclear reactors there are no provisions foreseen in the event of temporary reactor stops in case of problems?
It's a total non-argument that you are posting here.
Take the Sahara desert, add the contaminated now useless soils of Chernobyl and Fukushima district and then say again we haven't enough area.
Heck, in Europe the roofs on residential homes already have enough area to supply the whole domestic electricity consumption of all households with solar energy.
That would defeat the stated advantage that the battery will deliver power for over 5000 years without the need of replacement.
What's the difference in that respect between replacing the battery itself or the whole device built around the battery?
I really really really doubt that number very much.
Go ask the Japanese how much nuclear is costing them. Right now.
Add to the 200 (and growing) billion dollars to clean up Fukushima the lost income from tourism, lost land due to contamination, containment, hidden costs of polluted ocean, health care expenses, lost quality of life of all the children getting radiation disease right now and/or being mutilated from birth due to radiation effects etc. etc. etc. and I doubt you get any cheaper than 10 x solar.
...as in Fukushima which is contaminating the whole Pacific Ocean.
I don't care if a nuclear reactor is able to handle base loads for 40 years on a row.
If it is also able to totally destroy human life with its fall-out from a severe accident, then I simply don't want them.
Panasonic makes great solar panels and converters and maybe there batteries are better than those of the South-Koreans. Why not use those capabilities?
If you want less people to die during construction, maybe you should put some emphasis on the development (and enforcement) of standards for safe production and installation. There is a lot of room to wiggle. It should never be an argument pro nuclear, where there are already many standards, and still those things go terribly wrong.
No it's not. With large scale wind and solar implementation you can affect a certain number of lives, true.
But with one accident with a nuclear reactor you can destroy a multitude of that number of lives.
Try that with a solar or wind 'accident'.
Yeah, hazardous processes are run everywhere. But nuclear energy is so terribly hazardous that one accident can affect life all over the world.
I don't like to experiment with that risk, and therefore I am against the use of nuclear energy. Especially on a large scale and in great numbers.
The only solution to 'fake news' is your own investigation and subsequent judgement.
No institute can do that for you.
This so called 'group of volunteers' probably is another fake grass root Soros funded clique aiming at credibility but soon to transform into a pro-main stream media fake news, and anti-alternative real news, propaganda organization.
Sorry buddy, you will have to do it yourself, and all the brain dead people that are looking to be able to just consume their daily 'real news' will get corporate government approved really fake non-news.
Well, if they pretend to 'do the good work', then why are they putting up schools where there already are schools, with which they then compete?
Let them put up schools where there aren't any yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Too late. Banks are already closing the accounts of WikiLeaks and Californian porn businesses.
Once this is accepted it's your turn to either 'behave' or to be excluded from society.
As I already wrote, for every accusation you can throw at Russia, you can throw one at the USA. ...
Fascist rebels? Who supported the fascist neo-nazi's shooting protesters in order to force a violent revolutionary coup against a democratically chosen government in Ukrain?
Who created a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and is still supporting terrorists in Syria?
And now with the satellite states gone, what is NATO doing?
Right, advancing to Russia's borders. So who were right after all with wanting a buffer? Your non-reasoning is highly hypocrite
When these 'crappy' reactors were introduced the gospel wasn't that they were 'crappy', the gospel was that they were the best of the best, the safest of the safest, and that no harm would come over us.
Well, that turned out differently, and now you come with the same story again:
"This new design is the safest of the safest and nothing can happen."
Yeah, right...
Nuclear industry had their chance and they blew it, and let the population pay for it.
Are TEPCO or General Electric or whoever built that crappy reactor on a major fault line going to reimburse the Japanese people those more than 200 billion dollars?
No way.
Nuclear? Just don't do it.
They don't do that? There is no such thing as a safe threshold. We already have to live with an increased background radiation level thanks to those idiots testing these nuclear weapons in the 40's and after, then Chernobyl added some, and here you come saying "that doesn't have a significant effect".
Any increase in background radiation leads to increased cancer rates.
And 'meltdowns being a very rare thing' isn't good enough. The fact that we have had two meltdowns already means that it does happen, contrary to what all those probabilistic risk analyses for the reactor designs have said and have tried to prevent.
In other words: safety isn't sufficiently guaranteed so we should simply terminate the use of nuclear energy.
Chernobyl went quite wrong, Fukushima went even wronger, and we know that even worse nuclear disasters can, and therefore will, occur.
Don't be an idiot using the fact that it hasn't happened yet as proof that it won't ever happen, only to find himself in a world-wide disaster 10 or mabye 50 years from now.
Let's be prudent and say no thanks to nuclear. Sorry, but it's too dangerous.
And any rise in background radiation will 'affect' more lives, killing and maiming people and making them ill.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the empirical proof that all safety analyses and regulations are worthless, hence there is no guaranteed safe nuclear energy, hence we should just choose something else to supply our energy as it's simply too dangerous.
I'm not wanting to wait for the inevitable, so let's just stop it here.
I agree, it's better to have a nuclear reactor, or wait... a whole set of nuclear reactors, explode in a hydrogen explosion, turning the whole earth into a pure waste by covering it with radioactive cesium for hundreds of thousands of years. Yeah, no, not really.
And then there's also wind energy...
Calm down now boys. Already for a long time now Russia hasn't pursued this communist world evangelism from the past, so what exactly is your problem with Russia? There isn't any. For every undemocratic action you can accuse Russia of, you can find one that you can accuse the USA of.
Is this the new Godwin? To come up everytime where it's not appropriate with this boring Trump-thing?
Then I'm against it.
Contaminating the whole Pacific Ocean? ....
Were you absent the day they taught physics in physics class?
Meh... have a look at this, or is this not the Pacific?
http://blog.safecast.org/2014/...
As if with the planning of nuclear reactors there are no provisions foreseen in the event of temporary reactor stops in case of problems?
It's a total non-argument that you are posting here.
Take the Sahara desert, add the contaminated now useless soils of Chernobyl and Fukushima district and then say again we haven't enough area.
Heck, in Europe the roofs on residential homes already have enough area to supply the whole domestic electricity consumption of all households with solar energy.
That would defeat the stated advantage that the battery will deliver power for over 5000 years without the need of replacement.
What's the difference in that respect between replacing the battery itself or the whole device built around the battery?
I really really really doubt that number very much.
Go ask the Japanese how much nuclear is costing them. Right now.
Add to the 200 (and growing) billion dollars to clean up Fukushima the lost income from tourism, lost land due to contamination, containment, hidden costs of polluted ocean, health care expenses, lost quality of life of all the children getting radiation disease right now and/or being mutilated from birth due to radiation effects etc. etc. etc. and I doubt you get any cheaper than 10 x solar.
...as in Fukushima which is contaminating the whole Pacific Ocean.
I don't care if a nuclear reactor is able to handle base loads for 40 years on a row.
If it is also able to totally destroy human life with its fall-out from a severe accident, then I simply don't want them.
I doubt the materials of the whole device equipped with the battery would last that long.
Panasonic makes great solar panels and converters and maybe there batteries are better than those of the South-Koreans. Why not use those capabilities?
If you want less people to die during construction, maybe you should put some emphasis on the development (and enforcement) of standards for safe production and installation. There is a lot of room to wiggle. It should never be an argument pro nuclear, where there are already many standards, and still those things go terribly wrong.
No it's not. With large scale wind and solar implementation you can affect a certain number of lives, true.
But with one accident with a nuclear reactor you can destroy a multitude of that number of lives.
Try that with a solar or wind 'accident'.
Yeah, hazardous processes are run everywhere. But nuclear energy is so terribly hazardous that one accident can affect life all over the world.
I don't like to experiment with that risk, and therefore I am against the use of nuclear energy. Especially on a large scale and in great numbers.
If the friends of the owners decide about (non) enforcement of the regulations?
Ok, I hope you don't protest when in the mean time I get free energy from the sun?
The only solution to 'fake news' is your own investigation and subsequent judgement.
No institute can do that for you.
This so called 'group of volunteers' probably is another fake grass root Soros funded clique aiming at credibility but soon to transform into a pro-main stream media fake news, and anti-alternative real news, propaganda organization.
Sorry buddy, you will have to do it yourself, and all the brain dead people that are looking to be able to just consume their daily 'real news' will get corporate government approved really fake non-news.
Well, if they pretend to 'do the good work', then why are they putting up schools where there already are schools, with which they then compete?
Let them put up schools where there aren't any yet.