I enjoy the other two movies. There I fucking said it.
It fact they were pretty fucking good when I figured them out, I'm going to watch them again. Like most of the people here whinging about we're fools today, they make it lame, because the second two matrix movies require someone to *think* instead of having the answer painted in ten metre high letters so they can have their 'ohhhhh' moment, when it dawns on them. Of course if you try to explain it, it makes it lame and them lame and you lame. Case in point Neon Genesis Evangelon, fucking awesome, unless you need it explained to you.
That's why people who say the second two movies suck are actually saying 'I have no attention span and I'm too lazy to figure out the second two movies' a consequence of their inanity and downright mental laziness. Now they have the idea in their head that it sucks, they prejudice the films for people who might enjoy them. Complain complain complain about star wars and star trek until they fucking take it off the air and then there is nothing. Fringe is a great example of how lame people didn't get it. Enders Game - didn't let you down if you enjoyed the book. Fuck them for spoiling my fun.
The producers took a risk to make something that *SCI FI* fans could enjoy and would challenge them and their reward was idiocracy through lamity so no more risky movies. Now movies are made to appeal to the mass moron and instead of making everyone a little bit smarter, it makes the smart people a little more jaded.
It is because of whining morons that we don't have risky movies approved by boring accountants. If you don't like movies like the second two matrix movies and movies like that because you can't pay attention for that long, I suggest the following:
Don't watch the movie and continue with your inane mundane existence stuffing fast food in you mouth
Shut the fuck up and let the people who enjoy watching and making these movies do their thing
This is not about you VanessaE however, it's been a long time and you reminded me it needed to be said when it was the topic. Simple to remember - STFU if you don't like the movie.
Thank you. April Fools Day would be much more enjoyable without the blowhards wining about how they don't find it amusing. We don't care about what you find, or don't find funny. Please go to your room for the rest of the day so the rest of us can enjoy it in peace.
I dunno, the reactions and expressions of discomfiture are pretty amusing.
I'm not trying for an emotional reaction here, but your insistence that they're equally bad seems based in emotion.
I don't have time at the moment to answer everything you posted here, maybe in a couple of days. My insistence on this is based on the behaviour of radionuclides in the environment. They are toxic and emit different types of radiation at various energetic levels. At high energetic levels various radionuclide types cause various types of cancers to Humans and other organisms, like plutonium-239 which is fatal at 1-10 micrograms, it's oxide an inhalant and its chloride easily dissolved into the water table. An iron analogue to the metabolism so its readily absorbed by blood and bone and causes lung cancer and leukaemia. Other types only affect childhood development and there are many different type of radionuclides, sr-90, et.al. At lower energetic levels, say Tritium they are responsible for only doing damage to the DNA in the reproductive system increasing the likely hood of birth defects, transgenic disease. Exposing children reduces brain weight to the adult. it goes on and on.
So when you add to all that that the radio isotope is toxic *and* radio active in geological timeframes is very slow and permanent when released into the environment because it is practically impossible to remove or detect in everyday life. That the more that is released is an accumulation of cancer doses and transgenic disease which is persistent h*20 where h is the half life and 20 is the amount of daughter products and the molecule can circulate in the environment to repeat the cycle.
It just makes me think we've been a little too hasty and arrogant in the handling and use of these materials. It's complex, it can kill us for generation and people don't want to deal with that complexity to build an understanding of just how slowly lethal this stuff is. Let alone the rest of the complexity of this industry.
That's a small part of why I think it is as bad, probably worse than coal. As bad as, I completely agree, coal is.
People, i.e. Joe Public, don't understand what a massive gift technology is to either enslave or free them. In the cyber era technical folk will be both revered and feared because people don't invest in the critical thinking skills required to be responsible netizens, frankly browse here at -1 and see how many pointless annoying trolls there are. Perhaps people should have to be qualified and prove they are responsible enough to use the net.
The Information Technology arms race should have always been a stalemate, however I think the spooks will inadvertanly bump things into the blackhats favor. Why, because it is already clear to see that the spooks have a disdain for the people who, indirectly, pay our salaries. Worse Snowden showed them that people here can cause damage to them.
Ethics, of course, very narrowly rest with the whitehats, who constantly try to educate users, who don't give a shit, why and how they should protect themselves. Of couse couple that with net users ridiculous apathy and it makes it easier for the lawmakers to pass laws to the detriment of those very same users. Maybe the blackhats and spooks are right to treat them like morons and fodder whose only use is as fall guy and launch point onto a harder target.
Right now users are complaining that crypotolocker encrypted their files, so encryption must be bad because they lost all their baby photos - yet they won't back anything up. Tomorrow they will be complaining how thier retirement fund was emptied and their house was sold from underneath them and that if 'only someone had told them' while they try to shift the blame for their moronic behavior elsewhere. I do feel up bad about it but I find it difficult to feel sympathy anymore for people who can't take responsibility for their own *lack* of action.
I'm sorry about being so cynical but I, like many slashdotters, was here before the web when you could talk to lots of really smart people. Now it seems like the morons have taken over and the collective IQ of the net takes a hit every time. As a former whitehat, setting up security for banks you have heard of, I hate to say it but I think the spooks have tipped the balance in favor of the blackhats and it is now a matter of how badly and how much Joe Public looses.
In the coming years really bad fraud will happen to people, which is when they will realize how truely Pwned they have always been.
In reality you wouldn't hear the thing 300 feet over your head.
And certainly not if it fell out of the sky and onto your head or your kids head grandmother, dog or anything else for that matter. It's hard to imagine them never failing.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of these things buzzing around where the birds are supposed to be either. Just how much of nature are we prepared to fuck up.
I think they're as bad as each other for different reasons.
So you're actually suggesting that the two nuclear accidents that involve the release of radioactivity outside of containment
I think that remains to be seen, however you only see 2 accidents and I see about 2000 accidents, the nuclear industry is littered with them. The difference is the coal industries PR machine is 'we don't give a fuck you'll buy it anyway" and the Nuclear Industries PR machine is "this is so complex you won't understand why it's bad" relying on the complexity and amount of time that it takes for accidents to unfold.
It is moronic trying to portray one as better than the other and your play for an emotional reaction doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest
Are you serious?
Dead fucking serious. Don't try to corner me as a supporter of coal either, it's a shit industry and both of them have a serious environmental impact.
Having been though an ore processing plan (iron not uranium) I don't think the ball mills and other machines in the plant really care where the electricity comes from.
Sure, we can use geothermal to make steel for wind plants and crush ore for nuclear so I see the question there is about which give a better return for your investment in the technology.
Bzzzzz.....
Wrong answer.
It is not and Studies by NASA and the UN both support a large increase in nuclear power to reduce pollution in general as well as carbon emissions as does one of the founders of Greenpeace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Most radio isotopes from power production are extremely toxic, so your response doesn't really make sense in that regard - it is clear to see that it is a major threat to the environment, just not well understood how...
Of course Greenpeace says he is a paid toady of the nuclear industry.... Vilification of those that disagree with you is the first rule of propaganda.
Sure, that's why the IAEA has publishing interdiction orders over the WHO in all matters nuclear.
Besides I'm not certain what NASA/UN studies you refer to? I do know that some rely on a document sponsored by the nuclear industry player Vattenfal, as does the IPCC, which gives them an overly optimistic picture of what is achievable with Nuclear.
Can you send me a link of what your referring to, mine is in the last two IPCC reports if you want to check.
And speaking of vilification, that is what happened to the peer reviewed science regarding the energetic return of the nuclear industry. From actual nuclear industry scientists, you'll understand the Nuclear Industry from an "energetic return" perspective on investment in the nuclear industry. I hope you find it interesting.
As of the biological harm, there is no question, it is a toxic threat to the environment via radiological and transgenic disease. I don't know if that is GP's objections but they are pretty good reasons to think radio isotopes are a threat to the environment and ultimately, humanity.
Nuclear power but government owned and controlled and publicly audited, definitely not in the hands of deregulate everything now, profits this quarter only and golden parachutes for the top executives for inevitable failures their psychopathic attitudes create.
Absolutely. The actually implementation of a serious nuclear driven state would exclude corporations from being involved as the industry created would span generations. Unfortunatley I think it will take something pretty bad to get us out of this 'next quarter' short term mentality before we can really develop any vision for the future that is truly sustainable - no matter what technology we use.
The correct answer - no matter who is in charge - is first and foremost proper, safety conscious engineering, and then followed up with a culture of accountability and transparency *to everyone*. That means that there aren't reports that are "secret" because of some security theater. Everybody sees it, everybody knows what's going on.
Add to that that a nuclear plant should probably have a fixed lifespan. After 50 years, they shut it down, dismantle it, and haul it all away.
It's too easy for an aging infrustructure to be neglected and shortcuts to be taken. It would be better to create a new one than to let an
aging one hobble along until something breaks.
If they actually built it *underground* many of these issues would go away, but it would be better if the reactor was engineered to last for 500 or 1000 years.
Breaking it up and hauling it away safely is approximately one third of the energetic output of the reactor over its lifetime. You have to wait for some time before the reactor is cool enough to disassemble anyway, so why not just design the reactor to be disposed of, in place?
The answer of course is money. It is not impossible to design a reactor that way. In fact Westinghouse, GE and so on have already responded to NRC proposals for a design that does just that with 30 odd safety improvements over current standardized designs.
They're just too expensive to implement compared to current Nuclear Reactors designs like AP1000 that doesn't incorporate those design features.
Sure, just as soon as the federal government pays them back for the fees it charged while promising to take care of the waste...
Do you mean in terms of nuclear waste or some other toxic externality? Would you please clarify what you mean here?
Oh, and enjoy how things end up priced as we force this standard on other companies... Many of the pollutants that other companies are releasing don't break down, period.
We should be handling them as well. It's the by-product of our era's technology so it is our responsibility to handle it. It doesn't matter if the next generations are super-human or cave men, it's still the responsibility of human's of this era to deal with its mess.
10M years is a bit long as well -
Not for pu-239, about 50 times more time is right. Remember it is still highly toxic even when you exclude its radioactive emmissions and that's what it will take to do that.
allow reprocessing and such, and you can get rid of 90% of the 'waste' by reusing it, and of the 10% remaining, you only need to keep it 'safe' for about 1-10k years, not the over 100k.
C'mon Firethorn, didn't we find common ground on this years ago? You already know that to do this with burners you would already need to have the spent fuel containment, fuel management and reactor units already set up with the reactor disposal in place to even come close to achieving it. Anything those reactors produced will be hot and as toxic to life as anything can be. No structure will last 10k years and siting them in a porus mountain is the same amount of effort to do it in a mountain which actually would last.
If we focused on preparing the infrastructure and technology to burn up the radioisotopes we would have about 30 years work and another 50-70 years research into materials technology to make it worthwhile wrt the energy yeild and burn-up rate of the reactor units. And also for humanity to mature enough to operate them, which reactor accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl show, we aren't.
It's not impossible, but it does start with a granite mountain site that uses the DOE's original science based defense in depth strategies large enough to house the facilities and the railway (or other) infrastructure to move it from around the country. That is the only rational way to deal with radio isotopes that are radioactive for geological timeframes, treat it geologically, dispose of the reactors in place and avoid the energetic costs of decommissioning while it cools in the belly of a mountain.
Even getting started would mean getting pro- and anti- nuclear folk to agree that a geological spent fuel containment facility where you would site the facilities, is the starting point. Which is the truely fucked-up irony of this fully polarized debate.
Greenpeace constantly works against the building of nuclear power plants
When one of the founders of Greenpeace spoke out about the advantages of nuclear power not creating CO2, they removed him from the organization
That is because Nuclear power is as much of a threat to the environment as coal is. Has it occured to you that GP is fighting a battle on two fronts?
So bottom line except for the occurrence of the quake itself, everything leading to or involved in the accident was human failure or miss judgement or taking no action.
Which is exactly what the official report concluded, it was a man made disaster.
Actually they do, but then an anti-nuke troll like yourself would never admit to that would you.
Name one with a link so I can read it. Name *one*.
I especially like the anti-nuke types who say that mining is mining and therefore a uranium mine kills just as many people as a coal mine, completely ignoring
I like the way you completely ignore the point of how much carbon based energy is required to extract uranium and how you try to change the subject to coal mine deaths.
Way to cherry pick the most energy inefficient and obsolete uranium separation process.
It's not *my* choice to operate it, so when more efficient technology is operating at the commercially required volumes to supply existing plants feel free to point them out.
It's ludicrous for the Nuclear Industry to call itself carbon neutral when tens of thousands of tons of ore has to be crushed and refined with carbon based energy sources. The enrichment of the fuel at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant uses two brown coal power plants to run it. Then there is the massive cabon sink from the concrete to build the thing in the first place.
Even after that you have the CFC114 from the enrichment process which the EPA reports as the single largest contributor of greenhouse gasses. In all they are bogus claims suggesting the Nuclear industry is "carbon-free" because clearly it is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Oblig: https://xkcd.com/566/
I enjoy the other two movies. There I fucking said it.
It fact they were pretty fucking good when I figured them out, I'm going to watch them again. Like most of the people here whinging about we're fools today, they make it lame, because the second two matrix movies require someone to *think* instead of having the answer painted in ten metre high letters so they can have their 'ohhhhh' moment, when it dawns on them. Of course if you try to explain it, it makes it lame and them lame and you lame. Case in point Neon Genesis Evangelon, fucking awesome, unless you need it explained to you.
That's why people who say the second two movies suck are actually saying 'I have no attention span and I'm too lazy to figure out the second two movies' a consequence of their inanity and downright mental laziness. Now they have the idea in their head that it sucks, they prejudice the films for people who might enjoy them. Complain complain complain about star wars and star trek until they fucking take it off the air and then there is nothing. Fringe is a great example of how lame people didn't get it. Enders Game - didn't let you down if you enjoyed the book. Fuck them for spoiling my fun.
The producers took a risk to make something that *SCI FI* fans could enjoy and would challenge them and their reward was idiocracy through lamity so no more risky movies. Now movies are made to appeal to the mass moron and instead of making everyone a little bit smarter, it makes the smart people a little more jaded.
It is because of whining morons that we don't have risky movies approved by boring accountants. If you don't like movies like the second two matrix movies and movies like that because you can't pay attention for that long, I suggest the following:
This is not about you VanessaE however, it's been a long time and you reminded me it needed to be said when it was the topic. Simple to remember - STFU if you don't like the movie.
Thank you. April Fools Day would be much more enjoyable without the blowhards wining about how they don't find it amusing. We don't care about what you find, or don't find funny. Please go to your room for the rest of the day so the rest of us can enjoy it in peace.
I dunno, the reactions and expressions of discomfiture are pretty amusing.
Sorry, my monitor is clean and my chair doesn't squeak. Did he get the wrong IP?
It was 127.0.,0.1
arrgh - sorry about the block of text - v.tired.
please refer to this comment. Yes I'd rather it isn't coal too.
I'm not trying for an emotional reaction here, but your insistence that they're equally bad seems based in emotion.
I don't have time at the moment to answer everything you posted here, maybe in a couple of days. My insistence on this is based on the behaviour of radionuclides in the environment. They are toxic and emit different types of radiation at various energetic levels. At high energetic levels various radionuclide types cause various types of cancers to Humans and other organisms, like plutonium-239 which is fatal at 1-10 micrograms, it's oxide an inhalant and its chloride easily dissolved into the water table. An iron analogue to the metabolism so its readily absorbed by blood and bone and causes lung cancer and leukaemia. Other types only affect childhood development and there are many different type of radionuclides, sr-90, et.al. At lower energetic levels, say Tritium they are responsible for only doing damage to the DNA in the reproductive system increasing the likely hood of birth defects, transgenic disease. Exposing children reduces brain weight to the adult. it goes on and on.
So when you add to all that that the radio isotope is toxic *and* radio active in geological timeframes is very slow and permanent when released into the environment because it is practically impossible to remove or detect in everyday life. That the more that is released is an accumulation of cancer doses and transgenic disease which is persistent h*20 where h is the half life and 20 is the amount of daughter products and the molecule can circulate in the environment to repeat the cycle.
It just makes me think we've been a little too hasty and arrogant in the handling and use of these materials. It's complex, it can kill us for generation and people don't want to deal with that complexity to build an understanding of just how slowly lethal this stuff is. Let alone the rest of the complexity of this industry.
That's a small part of why I think it is as bad, probably worse than coal. As bad as, I completely agree, coal is.
People, i.e. Joe Public, don't understand what a massive gift technology is to either enslave or free them. In the cyber era technical folk will be both revered and feared because people don't invest in the critical thinking skills required to be responsible netizens, frankly browse here at -1 and see how many pointless annoying trolls there are. Perhaps people should have to be qualified and prove they are responsible enough to use the net.
The Information Technology arms race should have always been a stalemate, however I think the spooks will inadvertanly bump things into the blackhats favor. Why, because it is already clear to see that the spooks have a disdain for the people who, indirectly, pay our salaries. Worse Snowden showed them that people here can cause damage to them.
Ethics, of course, very narrowly rest with the whitehats, who constantly try to educate users, who don't give a shit, why and how they should protect themselves. Of couse couple that with net users ridiculous apathy and it makes it easier for the lawmakers to pass laws to the detriment of those very same users. Maybe the blackhats and spooks are right to treat them like morons and fodder whose only use is as fall guy and launch point onto a harder target.
Right now users are complaining that crypotolocker encrypted their files, so encryption must be bad because they lost all their baby photos - yet they won't back anything up. Tomorrow they will be complaining how thier retirement fund was emptied and their house was sold from underneath them and that if 'only someone had told them' while they try to shift the blame for their moronic behavior elsewhere. I do feel up bad about it but I find it difficult to feel sympathy anymore for people who can't take responsibility for their own *lack* of action.
I'm sorry about being so cynical but I, like many slashdotters, was here before the web when you could talk to lots of really smart people. Now it seems like the morons have taken over and the collective IQ of the net takes a hit every time. As a former whitehat, setting up security for banks you have heard of, I hate to say it but I think the spooks have tipped the balance in favor of the blackhats and it is now a matter of how badly and how much Joe Public looses.
In the coming years really bad fraud will happen to people, which is when they will realize how truely Pwned they have always been.
In reality you wouldn't hear the thing 300 feet over your head.
And certainly not if it fell out of the sky and onto your head or your kids head grandmother, dog or anything else for that matter. It's hard to imagine them never failing.
I'm not sure if I like the idea of these things buzzing around where the birds are supposed to be either. Just how much of nature are we prepared to fuck up.
So you're actually suggesting that the two nuclear accidents that involve the release of radioactivity outside of containment
I think that remains to be seen, however you only see 2 accidents and I see about 2000 accidents, the nuclear industry is littered with them. The difference is the coal industries PR machine is 'we don't give a fuck you'll buy it anyway" and the Nuclear Industries PR machine is "this is so complex you won't understand why it's bad" relying on the complexity and amount of time that it takes for accidents to unfold.
It is moronic trying to portray one as better than the other and your play for an emotional reaction doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest
Are you serious?
Dead fucking serious. Don't try to corner me as a supporter of coal either, it's a shit industry and both of them have a serious environmental impact.
So, if Green Peace is...
I don't know, why don't you ask them.
Having been though an ore processing plan (iron not uranium) I don't think the ball mills and other machines in the plant really care where the electricity comes from.
Sure, we can use geothermal to make steel for wind plants and crush ore for nuclear so I see the question there is about which give a better return for your investment in the technology.
Bzzzzz..... Wrong answer. It is not and Studies by NASA and the UN both support a large increase in nuclear power to reduce pollution in general as well as carbon emissions as does one of the founders of Greenpeace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Most radio isotopes from power production are extremely toxic, so your response doesn't really make sense in that regard - it is clear to see that it is a major threat to the environment, just not well understood how...
Of course Greenpeace says he is a paid toady of the nuclear industry.... Vilification of those that disagree with you is the first rule of propaganda.
Sure, that's why the IAEA has publishing interdiction orders over the WHO in all matters nuclear.
Besides I'm not certain what NASA/UN studies you refer to? I do know that some rely on a document sponsored by the nuclear industry player Vattenfal, as does the IPCC, which gives them an overly optimistic picture of what is achievable with Nuclear.
Can you send me a link of what your referring to, mine is in the last two IPCC reports if you want to check.
And speaking of vilification, that is what happened to the peer reviewed science regarding the energetic return of the nuclear industry. From actual nuclear industry scientists, you'll understand the Nuclear Industry from an "energetic return" perspective on investment in the nuclear industry. I hope you find it interesting.
As of the biological harm, there is no question, it is a toxic threat to the environment via radiological and transgenic disease. I don't know if that is GP's objections but they are pretty good reasons to think radio isotopes are a threat to the environment and ultimately, humanity.
Nuclear power but government owned and controlled and publicly audited, definitely not in the hands of deregulate everything now, profits this quarter only and golden parachutes for the top executives for inevitable failures their psychopathic attitudes create.
Absolutely. The actually implementation of a serious nuclear driven state would exclude corporations from being involved as the industry created would span generations. Unfortunatley I think it will take something pretty bad to get us out of this 'next quarter' short term mentality before we can really develop any vision for the future that is truly sustainable - no matter what technology we use.
The correct answer - no matter who is in charge - is first and foremost proper, safety conscious engineering, and then followed up with a culture of accountability and transparency *to everyone*. That means that there aren't reports that are "secret" because of some security theater. Everybody sees it, everybody knows what's going on.
Add to that that a nuclear plant should probably have a fixed lifespan. After 50 years, they shut it down, dismantle it, and haul it all away.
It's too easy for an aging infrustructure to be neglected and shortcuts to be taken. It would be better to create a new one than to let an
aging one hobble along until something breaks.
If they actually built it *underground* many of these issues would go away, but it would be better if the reactor was engineered to last for 500 or 1000 years.
Breaking it up and hauling it away safely is approximately one third of the energetic output of the reactor over its lifetime. You have to wait for some time before the reactor is cool enough to disassemble anyway, so why not just design the reactor to be disposed of, in place?
The answer of course is money. It is not impossible to design a reactor that way. In fact Westinghouse, GE and so on have already responded to NRC proposals for a design that does just that with 30 odd safety improvements over current standardized designs.
They're just too expensive to implement compared to current Nuclear Reactors designs like AP1000 that doesn't incorporate those design features.
Sure, just as soon as the federal government pays them back for the fees it charged while promising to take care of the waste...
Do you mean in terms of nuclear waste or some other toxic externality? Would you please clarify what you mean here?
Oh, and enjoy how things end up priced as we force this standard on other companies... Many of the pollutants that other companies are releasing don't break down, period.
We should be handling them as well. It's the by-product of our era's technology so it is our responsibility to handle it. It doesn't matter if the next generations are super-human or cave men, it's still the responsibility of human's of this era to deal with its mess.
10M years is a bit long as well -
Not for pu-239, about 50 times more time is right. Remember it is still highly toxic even when you exclude its radioactive emmissions and that's what it will take to do that.
allow reprocessing and such, and you can get rid of 90% of the 'waste' by reusing it, and of the 10% remaining, you only need to keep it 'safe' for about 1-10k years, not the over 100k.
C'mon Firethorn, didn't we find common ground on this years ago? You already know that to do this with burners you would already need to have the spent fuel containment, fuel management and reactor units already set up with the reactor disposal in place to even come close to achieving it. Anything those reactors produced will be hot and as toxic to life as anything can be. No structure will last 10k years and siting them in a porus mountain is the same amount of effort to do it in a mountain which actually would last.
If we focused on preparing the infrastructure and technology to burn up the radioisotopes we would have about 30 years work and another 50-70 years research into materials technology to make it worthwhile wrt the energy yeild and burn-up rate of the reactor units. And also for humanity to mature enough to operate them, which reactor accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl show, we aren't.
It's not impossible, but it does start with a granite mountain site that uses the DOE's original science based defense in depth strategies large enough to house the facilities and the railway (or other) infrastructure to move it from around the country. That is the only rational way to deal with radio isotopes that are radioactive for geological timeframes, treat it geologically, dispose of the reactors in place and avoid the energetic costs of decommissioning while it cools in the belly of a mountain.
Even getting started would mean getting pro- and anti- nuclear folk to agree that a geological spent fuel containment facility where you would site the facilities, is the starting point. Which is the truely fucked-up irony of this fully polarized debate.
Ok, so maybe it is impossible.
Nuclear has the safest byproducts. because you will never come in contact with them.
I'd like to see you explain that to Iraq war veteran and the children of Iraq exposed to depleted Uranium munitions. Very nasty stuff indeed.
Greenpeace constantly works against the building of nuclear power plants When one of the founders of Greenpeace spoke out about the advantages of nuclear power not creating CO2, they removed him from the organization
That is because Nuclear power is as much of a threat to the environment as coal is. Has it occured to you that GP is fighting a battle on two fronts?
So bottom line except for the occurrence of the quake itself, everything leading to or involved in the accident was human failure or miss judgement or taking no action.
Which is exactly what the official report concluded, it was a man made disaster.
Actually they do, but then an anti-nuke troll like yourself would never admit to that would you.
Name one with a link so I can read it. Name *one*.
I especially like the anti-nuke types who say that mining is mining and therefore a uranium mine kills just as many people as a coal mine, completely ignoring
I like the way you completely ignore the point of how much carbon based energy is required to extract uranium and how you try to change the subject to coal mine deaths.
the inconvenient fact that
blah blah babble babble blah blah
Way to cherry pick the most energy inefficient and obsolete uranium separation process.
It's not *my* choice to operate it, so when more efficient technology is operating at the commercially required volumes to supply existing plants feel free to point them out.
'mkay!
so now they'll mange, crangle and finagle every angle, they'll try, cry and lie, play, replay every day until they get their way.
I wish they would just fuck off and accept that, just for once, that capital didn't get it fucking way like it does every single other time.
It's ludicrous for the Nuclear Industry to call itself carbon neutral when tens of thousands of tons of ore has to be crushed and refined with carbon based energy sources. The enrichment of the fuel at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant uses two brown coal power plants to run it. Then there is the massive cabon sink from the concrete to build the thing in the first place.
Even after that you have the CFC114 from the enrichment process which the EPA reports as the single largest contributor of greenhouse gasses. In all they are bogus claims suggesting the Nuclear industry is "carbon-free" because clearly it is not.
Think hard about what you're actually saying.
owww, my head hurts when I think of what I'm saying.
Thank you for this.
I really appreciate that you say so.