[pbleighton]

"More people have died from non nuke power plants and the related activities than all NP in the world. Geez I know people who have died. There seems to be some fantasy world where non NP plants are safe?"

You might want to consider:
1. The number of nuclear power plants is only a tiny fraction of the total number of power plants in the world. Gross numbers in this context are meaningless.
2. The worst case for a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude worse than for a conventional plant.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

his actual words, from the speech you reference, ""They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews

Jimmy, I appreciate this quote as I had not read it. I did not quote from a speech but from a magazine interview I read in which he was asked if he denied the holocaust and his answer was: if it had occured - and that was the only actual quote from the man I had ever seen.

Obviously, anyone who flat out denies it occured has no business leading a country.

[mike777]

1) Ok gross numbers are meaningless?
2) Japan choose to take a reckless gamble with Pearl Harbor knowing they could not match the war machine industry of the USA. I don't why Iran or others might not be allowed to do the same against Europe or someone else?
3) Now we are in the business of telling countries who can or cannot lead them? Do elections not matter? Are people not allowed to get the type of government they deserve?

Just asking.

[luke warm]

Quote

1) Ok gross numbers are meaningless?

good point

Quote

2) Japan choose to take a reckless gamble with Pearl Harbor knowing they could not match the war machine industry of the USA. I don't why Iran or others might not be allowed to do the same against Europe or someone else?

stated that way, i guess you're right

Quote

3) Now we are in the business of telling countries who can or cannot lead them? Do elections not matter? Are people not allowed to get the type of government they deserve?

elections do matter, and we always get the gov't we deserve... you convinced me, isolationism is the way to go

[Winstonm]

Quote

3) Now we are in the business of telling countries who can or cannot lead them? Do elections not matter? Are people not allowed to get the type of government they deserve?

Saying someone should not lead a country is not the same thing as saying someone is leading a country; the first is opinion while the second may be the result of an election.

We have Bush - elected - need we say anything more about our opinions?

Quote

2) Japan choose to take a reckless gamble with Pearl Harbor knowing they could not match the war machine industry of the USA. I don't why Iran or others might not be allowed to do the same against Europe or someone else?

The obvious target for Iran would be Israel, simply because of distance if nothing else. The only nuclear threat to the U.S. from Iran would be a terror attack, as they do not have longrange delivery capabilities. So what is the threat from Iran to U.S. national security that so threatens our existence?

[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

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]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 13 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Jan 12 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

"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]

pbleighton, on Jan 13 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

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]

mike777, on Jan 16 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

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....s_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.