He couldn't predict that handing classified cables en mass over to a reporter might end badly? Well, as I said, perhaps Snowden has the benefit of age and experience. Or he could just be lucky. Either way, one of them leaked tens of thousands of classified documents without vetting them and the other hasn't.
As of today the disposal is funded by municipal (tax) money, so there is no incentive to innovate.
How so? Most municipalities catch all sorts of hell for raising taxes or garbage fees. My municipality just went single stream with robotic trucks to try and save some money. If they didn't have to pay the salaries, they'd still have guys walking around with little carts and brushes. I think you need to keep some incentives in place on the collection side.
The entire building would have been destroyed and the spent fuel poll would go up as well.
What makes you think that there would be a building or fire left to put out? And asteroid impact is as likely to bury or scatter the plant... I'd find it unlikely that containment could be breached but otherwise the plant left in place.
have you considered that you might want to repopulate that area again?
Not really, no. If everyone is dead then who cares if you have to wait 400 years to populate it again? If Chernobyl didn't kill anyone or displace them from home, it would have been much less of a tragedy. Fallout is a pain it the ass, but very manageable and nothing compared to the vaporization of a city.
Of course it's a big deal - isn't that kind of the point? They say he'll spend 8 years in there, and I think that sounds about right. 35 is too long, but that's just my opinion.
I read a proposal where all garbage collection would be financed by a levy on goods based upon their disposal cost. While there are some real challenges in properly estimating disposal costs, it would make for an interesting incentive to create goods that are easier to recycle, and which come with less packaging.
I can see how it would also reduce incentives to innovate on the disposal end, so that would have to be taken into account. Perhaps a 50-50 split on the disposal cost.
No, the State has admitted that his disclosures did not lead to any deaths
Not all harm involves death, and not all deaths are equal. That's why I mentioned perspective. You could take the humanist view, and while I respect that, I don't think that people will give up on tribalism anytime soon.
Manning left that job up to journalists.
But it didn't work out that way, did it? His solid intentions are why I have sympathy for him. But his actions did, in the end, result in the unfiltered release of all the documents.
Why is Snowden more qualified to determine what's right and wrong to publish than a group of experienced journalists?
First of all, he seems to be working with some of the same people as Manning. Second, his actions have not, to this date, resulted in the indiscriminate release of classified information.
But that's not how it works. If Manning revealed crimes, then he is to be afforded, by law, whistleblower protection.
You are exaggerating the risks from fallout. Chernobyl did no such thing, and the worst areas hit by radiation would be wiped out from the asteroid anyway.
While I'm glad that some of the information he revealed came to light, he was completely reckless in the way he went about it. He did, arguably and depending on your perspective, as much harm as the original "crimes" he revealed. You don't just share 10,000 secret documents without at least reading them first. Snowden, perhaps reflecting his age and experience, is doing exactly that. So while I feel strongly that any crimes revealed by Manning should be prosecuted, I also feel that he needs to go away for a while. He was young and foolish, but he should pay for his mistakes. Whether 35 years is too long? I think it sounds too long, but it's not life. Chances are he'll get out before he's 40.
Let me get this straight... an asteroid comes in and wipes out a city, killing at least thousands and perhaps millions depending on the city. You have a "Chernobyl" style fallout event that makes the now-uninhabited region uninhabitable and elevates cancer rates a bit. On the scale of horrors, I'd say the city getting wiped out is far, far scarier than the fallout. To me, the possibility of such an impact would drive me to build a defense system - not worry about second order effects, which are comparatively minor.
To borrow from the other commenter, I'd lose sleep over the asteroid impact, not that it might hit an area with a nuclear power plant.
Yes, that works out. I don't know what the other months of the year provide so I didn't want to multiply by 12. Is 25% renewable energy worth 6x the energy cost? I'm not German, but I be running my AC a lot less if it cost $1800/month to cool my home.
I didn't mean "natural" as in "natural law". I meant "natural" as in "without interference". I think otherwise we probably agree.
Yes, an oil rig costs more to maintain than a PV installation, but maintenance is still a significant, ongoing cost. And the semiconductor fabs that the solar cells are manufactured in probably are similar in capital cost and maintenance to oil rigs. Remember that the drilling and exploration rigs are the pricy ones, but they move from job to job. The permanent well is not anywhere near as complex or expensive.
Yes, some rare earths are used in wind and some are used in solar panels. I probably should have thrown indium in there. Either way, the mining of raw materials and manufacture of the panels themselves obviously have environmental consequences.
They weren't, as far as we know, acting with malice. I love how you armchair quarterback the plant design, but you have no strong words for the people who failed to protect actual human beings. It's a double-standard. The plant engineers haven't killed anyone - though even if a few die, they didn't allow people to live and work in the direct path of a tsunami.
You have me completely wrong. I see two fuckups: a) a nuke plant was left vulnerable and unprotected. b) 18,000 people were left vulnerable and unprotected.
Fuckup (a) left no one dead, but maybe a few injured. Sure, it's an ongoing problem and yes, life for the people affected sucks. But fuckup (b) was way, way, way, worse. As you said, nothing can bring those people back. They are never going home. Better to lose your home than to die. Fuckup (b) also meant hundreds of thousands of other structures were destroyed or damaged. Fuckup (b) displaced more people than fuckup (a).
And frankly, both fuckups were really the same fuckup. If engineers "knew" that the nuke plant was vulnerable, then naturally they "knew" what would happen to the rest of the coastline. They took no action on the plant - just like they took no action on the rest of the coastline. Fact is, it isn't an engineering problem at all - but one of economics. The nuke plant is not detached from the economic decisions that affected the rest of the coastline and ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of people.
It is not "increasingly" serious... this leak pales in comparison to the meltdown. It is ongoing, and it will be for 60 years. What, you think the rest of the tsunami damage magically cleaned itself up? The whole coast is scarred, not just this one oozing nuke plant.
Also, it's a slightly bizarre argument to say that because 18,000 other people died that somehow mitigates Fukushima.
It's not bizarre at all. It's not just the nuke plant that wasn't protected - it was the whole damn coast! If the engineers knew that the plant wasn't safe, then they "knew" that those people weren't safe. Screw the stupid plant - why weren't those people moved or protected? I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq or Africa - they weren't part of the same disaster. If you want to play the analogy game, then it's like worrying about some oil that spilled into the Persian Gulf during the Iraqi invasion. Sure, it's a problem, but focusing on that completely ignores the big picture.
Slashdot Mirror
I only lived there for a few years, but I noticed that some of the hot spots on the map in Manhattan were schools and hospitals.
He couldn't predict that handing classified cables en mass over to a reporter might end badly? Well, as I said, perhaps Snowden has the benefit of age and experience. Or he could just be lucky. Either way, one of them leaked tens of thousands of classified documents without vetting them and the other hasn't.
As of today the disposal is funded by municipal (tax) money, so there is no incentive to innovate.
How so? Most municipalities catch all sorts of hell for raising taxes or garbage fees. My municipality just went single stream with robotic trucks to try and save some money. If they didn't have to pay the salaries, they'd still have guys walking around with little carts and brushes. I think you need to keep some incentives in place on the collection side.
The entire building would have been destroyed and the spent fuel poll would go up as well.
What makes you think that there would be a building or fire left to put out? And asteroid impact is as likely to bury or scatter the plant... I'd find it unlikely that containment could be breached but otherwise the plant left in place.
have you considered that you might want to repopulate that area again?
Not really, no. If everyone is dead then who cares if you have to wait 400 years to populate it again? If Chernobyl didn't kill anyone or displace them from home, it would have been much less of a tragedy. Fallout is a pain it the ass, but very manageable and nothing compared to the vaporization of a city.
The problem is that gives an incentive for illegal dumping.
Of course it's a big deal - isn't that kind of the point? They say he'll spend 8 years in there, and I think that sounds about right. 35 is too long, but that's just my opinion.
Absurd, but really, really cool.
I read a proposal where all garbage collection would be financed by a levy on goods based upon their disposal cost. While there are some real challenges in properly estimating disposal costs, it would make for an interesting incentive to create goods that are easier to recycle, and which come with less packaging.
I can see how it would also reduce incentives to innovate on the disposal end, so that would have to be taken into account. Perhaps a 50-50 split on the disposal cost.
No, the State has admitted that his disclosures did not lead to any deaths
Not all harm involves death, and not all deaths are equal. That's why I mentioned perspective. You could take the humanist view, and while I respect that, I don't think that people will give up on tribalism anytime soon.
Manning left that job up to journalists.
But it didn't work out that way, did it? His solid intentions are why I have sympathy for him. But his actions did, in the end, result in the unfiltered release of all the documents.
Why is Snowden more qualified to determine what's right and wrong to publish than a group of experienced journalists?
First of all, he seems to be working with some of the same people as Manning. Second, his actions have not, to this date, resulted in the indiscriminate release of classified information.
But that's not how it works. If Manning revealed crimes, then he is to be afforded, by law, whistleblower protection.
What whistleblower law applies to Manning?
What in the world are you talking about?
You are exaggerating the risks from fallout. Chernobyl did no such thing, and the worst areas hit by radiation would be wiped out from the asteroid anyway.
While I'm glad that some of the information he revealed came to light, he was completely reckless in the way he went about it. He did, arguably and depending on your perspective, as much harm as the original "crimes" he revealed. You don't just share 10,000 secret documents without at least reading them first. Snowden, perhaps reflecting his age and experience, is doing exactly that. So while I feel strongly that any crimes revealed by Manning should be prosecuted, I also feel that he needs to go away for a while. He was young and foolish, but he should pay for his mistakes. Whether 35 years is too long? I think it sounds too long, but it's not life. Chances are he'll get out before he's 40.
Let me get this straight... an asteroid comes in and wipes out a city, killing at least thousands and perhaps millions depending on the city. You have a "Chernobyl" style fallout event that makes the now-uninhabited region uninhabitable and elevates cancer rates a bit. On the scale of horrors, I'd say the city getting wiped out is far, far scarier than the fallout. To me, the possibility of such an impact would drive me to build a defense system - not worry about second order effects, which are comparatively minor.
To borrow from the other commenter, I'd lose sleep over the asteroid impact, not that it might hit an area with a nuclear power plant.
Yes, I was misled by the Wikipedia article. My apologies.
Yes, that works out. I don't know what the other months of the year provide so I didn't want to multiply by 12. Is 25% renewable energy worth 6x the energy cost? I'm not German, but I be running my AC a lot less if it cost $1800/month to cool my home.
I didn't mean "natural" as in "natural law". I meant "natural" as in "without interference". I think otherwise we probably agree.
Yes, an oil rig costs more to maintain than a PV installation, but maintenance is still a significant, ongoing cost. And the semiconductor fabs that the solar cells are manufactured in probably are similar in capital cost and maintenance to oil rigs. Remember that the drilling and exploration rigs are the pricy ones, but they move from job to job. The permanent well is not anywhere near as complex or expensive.
Yes, some rare earths are used in wind and some are used in solar panels. I probably should have thrown indium in there. Either way, the mining of raw materials and manufacture of the panels themselves obviously have environmental consequences.
LOL, ever see the way old ladies rip apart the poor corn?
They weren't, as far as we know, acting with malice. I love how you armchair quarterback the plant design, but you have no strong words for the people who failed to protect actual human beings. It's a double-standard. The plant engineers haven't killed anyone - though even if a few die, they didn't allow people to live and work in the direct path of a tsunami.
You have me completely wrong. I see two fuckups:
a) a nuke plant was left vulnerable and unprotected.
b) 18,000 people were left vulnerable and unprotected.
Fuckup (a) left no one dead, but maybe a few injured. Sure, it's an ongoing problem and yes, life for the people affected sucks. But fuckup (b) was way, way, way, worse. As you said, nothing can bring those people back. They are never going home. Better to lose your home than to die. Fuckup (b) also meant hundreds of thousands of other structures were destroyed or damaged. Fuckup (b) displaced more people than fuckup (a).
And frankly, both fuckups were really the same fuckup. If engineers "knew" that the nuke plant was vulnerable, then naturally they "knew" what would happen to the rest of the coastline. They took no action on the plant - just like they took no action on the rest of the coastline. Fact is, it isn't an engineering problem at all - but one of economics. The nuke plant is not detached from the economic decisions that affected the rest of the coastline and ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of people.
Like Chernobyl? Chernobyl killed far fewer people than a city-killer asteroid.
It is not "increasingly" serious... this leak pales in comparison to the meltdown. It is ongoing, and it will be for 60 years. What, you think the rest of the tsunami damage magically cleaned itself up? The whole coast is scarred, not just this one oozing nuke plant.
I unintentionally conflated energy and electricity.
I grossly misread a (IMHO) misleading Wikipedia article. Someone with knowledge on the matter should probably clean it up.
Also, it's a slightly bizarre argument to say that because 18,000 other people died that somehow mitigates Fukushima.
It's not bizarre at all. It's not just the nuke plant that wasn't protected - it was the whole damn coast! If the engineers knew that the plant wasn't safe, then they "knew" that those people weren't safe. Screw the stupid plant - why weren't those people moved or protected? I'm not sure why you brought up Iraq or Africa - they weren't part of the same disaster. If you want to play the analogy game, then it's like worrying about some oil that spilled into the Persian Gulf during the Iraqi invasion. Sure, it's a problem, but focusing on that completely ignores the big picture.