All nuclear fuel is very poisonous as its a heavy metal and is a bio-accumulant. Add even small amounts of radioactivity to the mix and its not a pretty sight. This stuff is far far worse than lead as its more reactive and forms soluble compounds readily.
Not especially, actually. But, let us take this as a given. Legal limits on lead in the environment are 15 ppb. If our nuclear rocket with its 100 Kg of U235 smacks into an ocean and breaks into teeny-tiny pieces, then the contamination level will increase by ~0.0000000003 ppb.
If we assume it's spread over, say, 1000 square Km of real-estate, you'll see ~100 micrograms per square meter. Which can be lethal, if it's combined with something you metabolize, and you have the habit of sniffing the grass a lot.
All this ignoring that it's not all that hard to seal something like this up so no radioactivity escapes. Note that those nuclear powered satellites that crashed didn't manage to contaminate the planet, even though they were at least as radioactive as a brand-spanking new nuclear rocket would be.
The problem with nuclear rockets is not what happens if they work. But what happens when they go Challenger on you. The current failure rate for rockets is not so good that this can't be discounted credibly. Thats a lot of fallout.
Common misconception. But no.
There is very little radioactive material in your typical nuclear rocket. A hundred kilos or so, perhaps. And that's all long half-life stuff.
Since your average nuclear rocket wouldn't be reused in atmosphere (our atmosphere, at any rate), it won't have much in the way of fission products built up in the core. And the fission by-products are where you get most of your dangerous fallout from.
So, new reactor equals (comparatively) clean reactor. It's not as clean as driven snow, but it's not really any worse than background except right where it hits. And may not be bad there, depending on the design.
Solar sails are nothing but gossamer (light weight) sails. If it was that easy to get something like that to generate electricity with something as thin as standard garbage-bag plastic I'm sure we would have done it before. Solar panels are pretty much a similar process related to CPU/microchip fab == silicon chip == expensive and heavy.
Every time I read something like this ("but that's impossible!"), I think about 1900. Amazing the number of things that were "impossible" in 1900 that we do routinely now....
An embryo is not a complete human, remove it like the tumor and it will die, just like the tumor.
A newborn is not a complete human, drop it in the dumpster and it will die.
For that matter, a four year old is not a complete human. Drop him/her off in the swamp, and he/she will die.
Hell, most of you reading this are not complete humans, drop you off at the South Pole, and you will die.
Your point was? Face it, any definition of "complete human" you care to make is purely arbitrary, and therefore based on nothing but your own beliefs as to the nature of reality.
I am sure there are a non-trivial amount of people in the U.S willing to take arms to stop this nonsense.
Alas, no. The people who most hate the Bush Presidency are also the LEAST likely to own firearms.
Note that if the Left had as much respect for the Second Amendment as for the First, it's unlikely things would have gone as far as they have.
Note also that I don't believe that things have gone all that far. The hysteria from the Left sounds just as silly as the Hysteria from the Right to an outside observer.
I very strongly advocate more research and responsible policy, I am not convinced that a two year wait is healthy.
A typical EIS for a new power plant takes longer than 2 years. Why should Solar get a free pass? Especially given that having the EI template available will make if FAR easier to commplete the EIS.
Seems like a win-win to me - because the alternative is to require the same level of EIS that everyone else gets, which will add immensely to the cost and time of building the plants.
If the wolves have the right to carry weapons, how does that protect the sheep?
Keep in mind that from time out of mind, the phrase "I'm going to shoot the first man to cross this line" has produced the response (even among of armed men) of "you go first", "but no, my friend, YOU go first".
And if I'm not mistaken, weren't some of the Revolutionary War battleships privately owned?
If by "battleship" you mean "ship of the line [of battle]", then no. America didn't have any ships of the line until well after the war of 1812.
If, as is more likely, you meant "warship", then yes. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the warships on the American side in the Revolution were privately owned (hence, "privateer").
Note that while Letters of Marque and Reprisal (necessary to make you a "privateer" rather than a "pirate") were outlawed by the Treaty of Paris in the 19th Century, the USA has never signed, much less ratified said Treaty, and thus privately owned warships are not (quite) impossible in this day and age.
Note that since the USA doesn't issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal anymore, "not (quite) impossible" is effectively "impossible". Unless you can buy 60 Senators, and a few Admirals, and a President.
Handguns are a target of prohibition because they're easily concealed.
The modern gun control movement began in response to the assassination of JFK.
The gun-banners began by aiming at rifles (used against JFK), but realized quite quickly that hunters would object immensely to the banning of their hunting rifles.
So, they switched to targeting handguns. Theory was (at the time, no opinions about what the lads on the left think right now) that noone would object to banning of handguns, and that would pave the way to banning of rifles, then shotguns, then all guns.
Alas, they underestimated the degree to which Americans were attached to their Bill of Rights, and made relatively little progress in their goals over the subsequent 40-odd years.
it is weak on protecting privacy and it did not address control over our own bodies, like...and right to die stuff.
You probably meant "it's completely silent on the subject". Right to Die is an issue for the State (Amendment 10), since it's not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution.
Note, by the way, that the Constitution has never been interpreted to say that you have no right to die. Only that other people are not required to help you to do so. Or allowed, even.
It's pathetic that the species with the greatest intellect is the only one to insist on arming itself against itself.
Yah, it's a shame that we can't be more like all those other species, where the big and strong members get to push around or kill the smaller and weaker members.
Note that, sarcasm aside, being rather larger and stronger than average, I'm gnerally in favour of the notion that the big and strong get to push the small and weak around. But I can't imagine that my aunt, who is quite small (and a damn sight better with a rifle than I am), would go along with the idea.
It was the liberals that decided that your local government could take your property from you in order to give it to a private third party.
You are mischaracterizing Kelo. The Liberals said that the Constitution DID NOT PREVENT THIS. Rereading the Constitution, I can't find a place where it prevented this either. Whether the action brought before the Supremes is good or bad in itself is irrelevant to the question of whether the Supremes should approve/disapprove it. The ONLY relevant factor is whether it is forbidden/allowed by the US Constitution.
Notice that even in Heller, the dissenting Justices tried their best to find some Constitutional justification for their point of view. It took some real straining of reality, but they tried.
I'd also like to see mandatory training classes. We require training and licensing for driving a car, but we can't require people to get any amount of formal training before registering a riffle or pistol?
One: some of us don't have to "register a rifle or pistol". That only applies in a handful of places in the country.
Two: I approve of your idea, as long as it is coupled with a requirement that anyone speaking in public (to include TV, Radio, and the Internet) be licensed by the government after undergoing a course intended to teach rational thought and discourse, with license subject to immediate revocation in ANY case of irrational discourse on any media (to include, speaking in a public place - take care what you say to your friends in a restaurant if you hold such a license).
Oh, and we should also have a training course and license before being allowed to insist on our right to counsel if we are arrested - after all, there's no telling what harm could come from people freely exercising their rights without close governmental supervision.
You are missing something big. The Endangered Species Act. It is a violation of Federal Law to even TOUCH an Endangered Animal (with the usual exceptions for scientific research), much less to build something where it lives.
For a start.
I'd also like to point out that OTHER options, such as nuclear power plants, don't get convenient fill-in-the-blanks Environmental Impact Templates - everything but Solar has to do its EIS from scratch, rather than follow some pre-approved document.
While I agree with the ruling, I have to admit, that for the first time "the people" is no longer held to be every man, woman and child.
Scalia allows limits on felons and the mentally ill. He allows them around schools (I live next to a school, do I have less of a "right"?)
For the first time, "the people" (of the constitution) is being distinguished between a first-class citizen, and second-class citizens. Previously, only the ADA (disabled people) act created a 2nd class citizen. Now we have yet another. How long before we're back to white, male and 21?
It's not so clear as that. Note that this particular case was fairly narrow, as was the ruling. The fact that Scalia saw no problems with restricting firearms in some ways means little UNTIL someone in the affected group brings suit before the Supremes alleging ACTUAL HARM he/she has suffered as a result of the existing limitations.
Which is why the licensing of firearms issue was not addressed - Heller didn't allege a problem with licensing other than that he couldn't GET a license.
Sooner or later (probably sooner), this ruling will result in a great many other suits by both sides of the debate, trying to clarify the limits of this ruling.
Well, it's possible that one side of the debate won't bring many suits on the subject, if they believe that any suit will further erode their position. But it's as certain as sunrise that the NRA and related groups will bring suits to push this ruling to the point that most of the fuzziness is removed.
A good point. So, when the majority approve the extinction of the First Amendment, you'd have no problems, since the Constitution is only a series of ideas held by the people living now (oddly enough, more people approve of restrictions on the First Amendment than on the Second today)?
Alternatively, you believe that SOME of the Constitution is inviolable, and other parts (inconvenient to your beliefs) are changable on a whim. Which essentially means that YOU are the moral arbiter of the validity of the Constitution.
It is, of course, your privilege to hold such beliefs. It is, of course, mine, to believe that anyone with such beliefs is a lunatic.
In other words, if you don't like some part of the Constitution, AMEND IT! Don't just pretend that the parts you dislike aren't really there.
Unless you don't mind when *I* (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to treat some parts of the Constitution as not existing when applied to you....
you'll see that the justices agree - reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (like licensing) are ok, but outright bans are not.
Reread the decision. They DID say that reasonable restrictions are ok. But they didn't define reasonable, since they weren't asked to. The DID say that the question of licensing was beyond the scope of the decision, since Heller hadn't asked them to consider the legality of licensing (Heller actually asked, quite reasonably, to be allowed to get a handgun license, and carry his service weapon in his home).
There was one just last week (or two weeks ago now) that made national headlines. Two officers were at a residence about a snake in the back yard. The two cops had the bright idea of shooting the snake. The took a look around but didn't see anyone, so they popped a few rounds off at the snake.
One of those rounds killed a todler on the other side of a fence.
Your example has served to set the probability of such happening at about the same as being killed by a dinsaur killer asteroid. Do you have a few hundred thousand other examples, which will raise the probability to something approaching, say, the chance of being struck by lightning?
Note also that your example was committed by people nominally trained in the use of firearms, not the random idiots that you feared in your first post (the ones you wanted to keep guns out of the hands of). After all, we're not going to disarm the police, no matter what interpretation of the Second Amendment we might wish to use.
You're right. I was replying to someone's sob story which included the "brave homeowner" trying to get his gun from is briefcase while facing multiple armed robbers. My bad.
Even if the guy is robbing my house and threatens my family I'm less likely to get hurt if I just give him what he wants and then call the cops.
Proof? I've never seen any data to suggest this, so can you point me at the data that you have on the subject.
Admittedly, it's a commonly held belief among the anti-gun crowd. But then, they believe that robbers will begin shooting people preemptively if it is possible that someone might have a gun. Yet, in the States where concealed carry is legal, there is NO evidence that this has occurred. And in States like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont, which have pretty much always allowed people to be armed anytime they damn well please, there is no evidence that this has ever been so.
Two or more against one ( you did say "robbers" plural, right), and the good guy's gun was in a briefcase.
Idiot. Hint: a gun in a briefcase is about as useful as a gun in the stove for dealing with an opponent. If you don't carry your gun in hand or holster, don't waste your time pretending it's for self-defense.
Therefore the gun violence in DC is explained by the easy access to guns nearby.
So, Virginia and Maryland have lower levels of gun violence than nearby DC, but DC's gun violence is due to easy access to guns in Maryland and Virginia, eh?
So, why don't the criminals in Virginia and Maryland (who have even easier access to guns than the ones in DC - note that it is already a crime to purchase a firearm in any State but your State of residence) cause more crime in Virginia and Maryland?
It's difficult to get 2/3 of the people to agree to do anything when 1/2 of the people are of below average intelligence.
Your argument would make sense, but only if you're arguing that giving women the vote, or freeing the slaves, was approved by the stupider part of our nation. Which somewhat contradicts your original argument, which suggested that the Founding Fathers were the stupid ones, and the people who fixed their oversights were the smart ones.
Nonetheless, the bar to amending the Constitution has been met 27 times. It can and will be met again. If you don't like the Second Amendment, amend the Constitution. Or go find a country that does things in ways you think are better.
Slashdot Mirror
Not especially, actually. But, let us take this as a given. Legal limits on lead in the environment are 15 ppb. If our nuclear rocket with its 100 Kg of U235 smacks into an ocean and breaks into teeny-tiny pieces, then the contamination level will increase by ~0.0000000003 ppb.
If we assume it's spread over, say, 1000 square Km of real-estate, you'll see ~100 micrograms per square meter. Which can be lethal, if it's combined with something you metabolize, and you have the habit of sniffing the grass a lot.
All this ignoring that it's not all that hard to seal something like this up so no radioactivity escapes. Note that those nuclear powered satellites that crashed didn't manage to contaminate the planet, even though they were at least as radioactive as a brand-spanking new nuclear rocket would be.
Common misconception. But no.
There is very little radioactive material in your typical nuclear rocket. A hundred kilos or so, perhaps. And that's all long half-life stuff.
Since your average nuclear rocket wouldn't be reused in atmosphere (our atmosphere, at any rate), it won't have much in the way of fission products built up in the core. And the fission by-products are where you get most of your dangerous fallout from.
So, new reactor equals (comparatively) clean reactor. It's not as clean as driven snow, but it's not really any worse than background except right where it hits. And may not be bad there, depending on the design.
Every time I read something like this ("but that's impossible!"), I think about 1900. Amazing the number of things that were "impossible" in 1900 that we do routinely now....
A newborn is not a complete human, drop it in the dumpster and it will die.
For that matter, a four year old is not a complete human. Drop him/her off in the swamp, and he/she will die.
Hell, most of you reading this are not complete humans, drop you off at the South Pole, and you will die.
Your point was? Face it, any definition of "complete human" you care to make is purely arbitrary, and therefore based on nothing but your own beliefs as to the nature of reality.
Alas, no. The people who most hate the Bush Presidency are also the LEAST likely to own firearms.
Note that if the Left had as much respect for the Second Amendment as for the First, it's unlikely things would have gone as far as they have.
Note also that I don't believe that things have gone all that far. The hysteria from the Left sounds just as silly as the Hysteria from the Right to an outside observer.
A typical EIS for a new power plant takes longer than 2 years. Why should Solar get a free pass? Especially given that having the EI template available will make if FAR easier to commplete the EIS.
Seems like a win-win to me - because the alternative is to require the same level of EIS that everyone else gets, which will add immensely to the cost and time of building the plants.
Keep in mind that from time out of mind, the phrase "I'm going to shoot the first man to cross this line" has produced the response (even among of armed men) of "you go first", "but no, my friend, YOU go first".
If by "battleship" you mean "ship of the line [of battle]", then no. America didn't have any ships of the line until well after the war of 1812.
If, as is more likely, you meant "warship", then yes. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the warships on the American side in the Revolution were privately owned (hence, "privateer").
Note that while Letters of Marque and Reprisal (necessary to make you a "privateer" rather than a "pirate") were outlawed by the Treaty of Paris in the 19th Century, the USA has never signed, much less ratified said Treaty, and thus privately owned warships are not (quite) impossible in this day and age.
Note that since the USA doesn't issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal anymore, "not (quite) impossible" is effectively "impossible". Unless you can buy 60 Senators, and a few Admirals, and a President.
The modern gun control movement began in response to the assassination of JFK.
The gun-banners began by aiming at rifles (used against JFK), but realized quite quickly that hunters would object immensely to the banning of their hunting rifles.
So, they switched to targeting handguns. Theory was (at the time, no opinions about what the lads on the left think right now) that noone would object to banning of handguns, and that would pave the way to banning of rifles, then shotguns, then all guns.
Alas, they underestimated the degree to which Americans were attached to their Bill of Rights, and made relatively little progress in their goals over the subsequent 40-odd years.
You probably meant "it's completely silent on the subject". Right to Die is an issue for the State (Amendment 10), since it's not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution.
Note, by the way, that the Constitution has never been interpreted to say that you have no right to die. Only that other people are not required to help you to do so. Or allowed, even.
Yah, it's a shame that we can't be more like all those other species, where the big and strong members get to push around or kill the smaller and weaker members.
Note that, sarcasm aside, being rather larger and stronger than average, I'm gnerally in favour of the notion that the big and strong get to push the small and weak around. But I can't imagine that my aunt, who is quite small (and a damn sight better with a rifle than I am), would go along with the idea.
You are mischaracterizing Kelo. The Liberals said that the Constitution DID NOT PREVENT THIS. Rereading the Constitution, I can't find a place where it prevented this either. Whether the action brought before the Supremes is good or bad in itself is irrelevant to the question of whether the Supremes should approve/disapprove it. The ONLY relevant factor is whether it is forbidden/allowed by the US Constitution.
Notice that even in Heller, the dissenting Justices tried their best to find some Constitutional justification for their point of view. It took some real straining of reality, but they tried.
One: some of us don't have to "register a rifle or pistol". That only applies in a handful of places in the country.
Two: I approve of your idea, as long as it is coupled with a requirement that anyone speaking in public (to include TV, Radio, and the Internet) be licensed by the government after undergoing a course intended to teach rational thought and discourse, with license subject to immediate revocation in ANY case of irrational discourse on any media (to include, speaking in a public place - take care what you say to your friends in a restaurant if you hold such a license).
Oh, and we should also have a training course and license before being allowed to insist on our right to counsel if we are arrested - after all, there's no telling what harm could come from people freely exercising their rights without close governmental supervision.
You are missing something big. The Endangered Species Act. It is a violation of Federal Law to even TOUCH an Endangered Animal (with the usual exceptions for scientific research), much less to build something where it lives.
For a start.
I'd also like to point out that OTHER options, such as nuclear power plants, don't get convenient fill-in-the-blanks Environmental Impact Templates - everything but Solar has to do its EIS from scratch, rather than follow some pre-approved document.
Citation?
You're the first person I've ever heard express the opinion that deserts will go away if humans would just stop mucking with things....
It's not so clear as that. Note that this particular case was fairly narrow, as was the ruling. The fact that Scalia saw no problems with restricting firearms in some ways means little UNTIL someone in the affected group brings suit before the Supremes alleging ACTUAL HARM he/she has suffered as a result of the existing limitations.
Which is why the licensing of firearms issue was not addressed - Heller didn't allege a problem with licensing other than that he couldn't GET a license.
Sooner or later (probably sooner), this ruling will result in a great many other suits by both sides of the debate, trying to clarify the limits of this ruling.
Well, it's possible that one side of the debate won't bring many suits on the subject, if they believe that any suit will further erode their position. But it's as certain as sunrise that the NRA and related groups will bring suits to push this ruling to the point that most of the fuzziness is removed.
Aragorn was about 3000 years YOUNGER than Arwen. She was born early in the Third Age, he was born in the same year that Bilbo discovered the One Ring.
Alternatively, you believe that SOME of the Constitution is inviolable, and other parts (inconvenient to your beliefs) are changable on a whim. Which essentially means that YOU are the moral arbiter of the validity of the Constitution.
It is, of course, your privilege to hold such beliefs. It is, of course, mine, to believe that anyone with such beliefs is a lunatic.
In other words, if you don't like some part of the Constitution, AMEND IT! Don't just pretend that the parts you dislike aren't really there.
Unless you don't mind when *I* (or anyone else, for that matter) decide to treat some parts of the Constitution as not existing when applied to you....
Reread the decision. They DID say that reasonable restrictions are ok. But they didn't define reasonable, since they weren't asked to. The DID say that the question of licensing was beyond the scope of the decision, since Heller hadn't asked them to consider the legality of licensing (Heller actually asked, quite reasonably, to be allowed to get a handgun license, and carry his service weapon in his home).
Your example has served to set the probability of such happening at about the same as being killed by a dinsaur killer asteroid. Do you have a few hundred thousand other examples, which will raise the probability to something approaching, say, the chance of being struck by lightning?
Note also that your example was committed by people nominally trained in the use of firearms, not the random idiots that you feared in your first post (the ones you wanted to keep guns out of the hands of). After all, we're not going to disarm the police, no matter what interpretation of the Second Amendment we might wish to use.
You're right. I was replying to someone's sob story which included the "brave homeowner" trying to get his gun from is briefcase while facing multiple armed robbers. My bad.
Proof? I've never seen any data to suggest this, so can you point me at the data that you have on the subject.
Admittedly, it's a commonly held belief among the anti-gun crowd. But then, they believe that robbers will begin shooting people preemptively if it is possible that someone might have a gun. Yet, in the States where concealed carry is legal, there is NO evidence that this has occurred. And in States like Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont, which have pretty much always allowed people to be armed anytime they damn well please, there is no evidence that this has ever been so.
Two or more against one ( you did say "robbers" plural, right), and the good guy's gun was in a briefcase.
Idiot. Hint: a gun in a briefcase is about as useful as a gun in the stove for dealing with an opponent. If you don't carry your gun in hand or holster, don't waste your time pretending it's for self-defense.
So, Virginia and Maryland have lower levels of gun violence than nearby DC, but DC's gun violence is due to easy access to guns in Maryland and Virginia, eh?
So, why don't the criminals in Virginia and Maryland (who have even easier access to guns than the ones in DC - note that it is already a crime to purchase a firearm in any State but your State of residence) cause more crime in Virginia and Maryland?
Your argument would make sense, but only if you're arguing that giving women the vote, or freeing the slaves, was approved by the stupider part of our nation. Which somewhat contradicts your original argument, which suggested that the Founding Fathers were the stupid ones, and the people who fixed their oversights were the smart ones.
Nonetheless, the bar to amending the Constitution has been met 27 times. It can and will be met again. If you don't like the Second Amendment, amend the Constitution. Or go find a country that does things in ways you think are better.
Otherwise, get over it.