Nuclear Power

[mike777]

Good point. No way Iran has any Phd guys who can build a long range missile based on 1950's technology.

 

Not sure but I think Toga can so why not attack Toga based on what they may or may not do.

 

Still waiting to see why we have gunships killing people in Somolia....Did congress declare war? Do we have gunships outside of Dublin?

[pbleighton]

"Not sure but I think Toga can so why not attack Toga based on what they may or may not do."

 

If Bush were President For Life, he'd probably get around to it.

 

"Still waiting to see why we have gunships killing people in Somolia....Did congress declare war? Do we have gunships outside of Dublin?"

 

When you hear, let me know. In the meantime, I'll make the meta-assumption that our imperialist reflexes still function :P

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Iran has a democratically elected president.

 

Iran has nuclear power.

 

Iran thinks that some other countries in the world are crazy.

 

Iran thinks that some other countries in the world are dangerous.

 

Iran "helps" certain foreign countries in certain ways.....

 

 

Replace Iran by the US and repeat as necessary.

[Winstonm]

Iran has a democratically elected president.

 

Iran has nuclear power.

 

Iran thinks that some other countries in the world are crazy.

 

Iran thinks that some other countries in the world are dangerous.

 

Iran "helps" certain foreign countries in certain ways.....

 

 

Replace Iran by the US and repeat as necessary.

Hasn't it been expressed somewhere before that: everything is relative?

 

I think you left some out:

Iran has a seriously dangerous president.

Iran went to war with Iraq

Iran has lots and lots of oil reserves - oops, scratch that one.

[Al_U_Card]

He has some "interesting" viewpoints about history and politics......sounds like W...

 

Who is to know what he thinks and says he is dangerous and what his intentions are?

 

Only W. No one else has a problem...and war with Iraq? Saddam attacked him...at the BEHEST of the US!!!

 

Iran is the least of the US and the regions problems.....

[jtfanclub]

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews ... "

Myth: a usual traditional story of ostenibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people to explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.

 

It was a poor choice of words, but what he meant was that the Holocaust had been built into legendary status in Jewis culture, and that it was used to justify their beliefs and practices as a result.

 

What I want to know is, why do we even need the Holocaust to justify Israel?

 

1. Great Britain held a territory in the Middle East.

2. Great Britain gave that territory to a religious minority in that area, in return for considerations.

3. Said territory has ruled the area since, in spite of the complaints of other religions.

4. Europe and America have come to defense of these countries at least once.

 

Who am I describing here? The Wahabbis of the Saud family? The Baathists of Syria and Iraq? The Hussein family in Jordan? Israel? How about we just hold Israel to the same standards as all of the other countries in the Middle East and then we don't need to even discuss the Holocaust, do we? I mean, at least Israel allows Israeli Arabs to vote and be full citizens.

 

Part of the problem is the idea that Israel needs the Holocaust to justify its existence. No new country can 'justify' its existence. Existence is justification of existence, just as life is justification of life.

[helene_t]

2.  The worst case for a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude worse than for a conventional plant.

Nah, Three Mile Island was the worst we've had so far. As for Chernobyl, Soviet experiences are irrelevant for Western decisions. Just a few weeks before Chernobyl there was a train accident east of Moscow killing some 500 people. Should we abandon trains because of that? No way.

 

NP is the safest and cleanest energy source available except for wind and solar. Coal should be abandoned immediately (civilzed coutries don't use it anymore). Whether NP is prefereable to natural gas depends how concerned one is about CO2, but in any case natural gas will be exhausted this century and I'm not sure that wind and solar will be able to provide sufficient energy before then.

 

Off-topic: Nice post, jtfanclub. I agree 100%.

[pbleighton]

"Nah, Three Mile Island was the worst we've had so far. "

 

So far.

 

Peter

[mike777]

If we are discussing worst case then blowing a LNG tanker could kill millions with the secondary explosions it could set off.

 

MY bet is coal has killed or caused more illness directly and indirectly than NPP ever will. Of course many many more good things came out of the use of coal than bad.

 

As for wind and solar how much pollution is caused by building that stuff or do they go up via majic :)

Some would consider those windmills and panels worse eyesores than belching coal stacks.

[Al_U_Card]

Actually, for instance, in the south of Spain the windpower generators have a sort of eerie beauty....Maybe as much energy as is needed to build any power generating edifice....the point is after completion, what is the net end result. Kind of like ethanol from corn....its carbon footprint is as much as gasoline....sounds like a typical US "good old boys network" subsidy boondoggle....

[pbleighton]

"Some would consider those windmills and panels worse eyesores than belching coal stacks."

 

Are you one of those unnamed "some"?

 

:)

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"If we are discussing worst case then blowing a LNG tanker could kill millions with the secondary explosions it could set off."

 

Oil tanker terrorism is comparable to nuclear terrorism?

 

Assuming you meant "blowing up" as opposed to "fellating" :)

 

ROFL

 

Peter

[mike777]

No not oil tanker....LNG tanker and yes it could kill more than a npp going up.

Belching coal stacks are pretty clean nowadays. :)

[Al_U_Card]

All things considered, I would still take the LNG tanker (not in that sense of the word, Peter...) for after the smoke cleared, we could rebuild right away. Any radioactive source would contaminate the area and leave it unusable for decades.

[jtfanclub]

No not oil tanker....LNG tanker and yes it could kill more than a npp going up.

Belching coal stacks are pretty clean nowadays. :)

This is about a tanker of ammonium nitrate going up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster. A liquid natural gas tanker going up is also going to set off any neighboring tankers, which could easily be worse than this.

 

Actually, the worst fuel-related disaster would be if the mines of West Virginia started burning hot enough, since they're all interconnected. There's really no way to put out an underground coal fire short of explosives, and the smoke would completely cover New York City. It's the mining, rather than the plants, which is where the danger is located for coal.

[mike777]

True but a lng explosion could easily result in contamination from secondary explosions/toxic materials in an urban area. Radiation is not the only way to make a large area unlivable. Again we are discussing worst cases here.

 

Heck a lng explosion is strong enough to knock out a NPP I think.

[Al_U_Card]

A potential LNG plant site is being contemplated in a fairly remote area of the province of Quebec. Lots of worries but not much in the way of collateral damage if something bad occurs. Any major hit anywhere near most refinery "parts of town" would tend to release megatons of energy.....just some megatons are more equal than others.... :)