Just curious though, Minque, what technology do you use to control to emissions? From everything I've read about Nuclear Power, it has unprotectable detramental effects. I'll try and remember some literature, though I doubt I'd be able to find a credible internet website, but a friend of mine has a vast library of literature about environmental and human rights offenses that have taken place in the last 50 years, and I've read quite a bit about Nuclear Energy from him, it definitely didn't sound safe.

Well I could go on for hours about that, but I´ll keep it short. As for water we use very thorough cleaning with ion-exchangers, different kinds of filters and chemical waste-treatment. We do not let out any water that contains a higher level of impurities that we are allowed. Then the water is kept inside the facility until we have treated it repeatedly.

As for air we do have cyclone-filters that are very efficient. Again we don´t let anything out that we are not allowed to.

Our authorities the SKI and the SSI, monitor us constantly, they have their revisions, inspections quite a few times per year and we are obliged to report any deviation we encounter.....yes of course that happens! but it´s really not much.

As I see it you get another view of it when you work on a plant and live with it every day.

Well renewable energy resource have their own problems. Hydroelectric in particular poses quite the conequences on the surrounding environment. Solar power and wind power well it just requires a ton of land set aside, and both require tracks of open land, which is not exactly easily found.

Seems to me that renewable powersources are still in their infancy, and as such do not seem as viable an option as nucleur power. I see nothing wrong with nucleur power whatsoever at the moment, but i feel it is inevitable that eventually there will be a form of power that is more efficient (no - not cold fusion or any of that stuff, just a streamlined efficient version of solarpower or whathaveyou)

I don't believe any power is 100% efficient, and thus its simply a question of adopting a 'more' efficient power source as we advance.

of course its not efficient.

photosynthesis as a natural process is only like 60% efficient. and solar power is a poor mimic of photosynthesis. The majority of energy is still lost as heat.

While the subject is on Nuclear energy I figured I'd bring up the subject of Iran, if no one objects.

My opinion is as follows:

Nuclear Energy, a great advancement in technology, should not be denied to any one nation based on irresolute fears. Iran, even if it managed to acquire weapons that harness Nuclear power, would be so frightened by the fact that the US and the EU are armed with thousands of these dangerous weapons themselves that is about as likely they'll use it as it is that I'll start having an intimate relation with my computer.

This isn’t very likely, to say the least.

I simply think that the way Western nations have placed a monopoly on a vital energy source is inequitable.

Having them have nuclear power for energy isn't the problem. The problem is can they be trusted not to make nuclear weapons? Iran has a leadership that denies that Israel as a state even exists. Its the EU and Israel that have much more to worry about in truth as Iran doesn't have missile capable of hitting the US. Though that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be drawn into a very difficult choice should they choose to use them.

The EU has offered to enrich power producing grade uranium for them so that they can have a nuclear power plant. However, this is clearly not what they want.

As someone who grew up during the final years of the cold war... I can tell you that the fear of a nuclear war is much less now then it was then, but I can see all the fears returning very quickly should some fanatic get his own little red button all to himself.

New Topic :

What do you guys think of Osama's new tape that was released? He threatens to attack, and offers a peace plan. And he uses the fact that most Americans don't agree with the war in Iraq. Unless I'm missing something, I'm still pretty sure that most Americans are all for blowing him up...

I think he's scared.

Most likely he is scared...

But, a scared man is the most dangerous man.

My thoughts exactly. If he is scared, he's more dangerous than ever. Think cornered animal. They fight like mad to escape, or at least to do as much damage as they can. That's what Osama could start doing if he feels time is running out for him

Ahh, but like the Daily Show says, new reports say most of America is against the war in Iraq, not killing Osama.

I personally think its great that the general public knows that they might get attacked and have been told about the recent threat, instead of not being told about definate plans and being treated to Bush's next vacation. I think that Bush will use this as a distraction to divert from the dead economy and daily corruption and forget that there are troops making sure terrorist opperations are close to impossible.

Non-related question, is it ok if we make a comment on the last topic?

This post has been edited by Red: Jan 24 2006, 02:39 AM

I think it's safe to say this won't be happening.

In the early 80s, Israel was convinced that Iraq tried to develop nuclear weapons at a facility in Osiraq. Supposedly, depending on differing estimates, they were still either 1-2 or 5-10 years away from a working prototype. The facility was declared as a nuclear power plant. It was about to go "hot", that is, was about to be activated.

From this website:

"At 15:55 on 07 June 1981, the first F-15 and F-16's roared off the runway from Etzion Air Force Base in the south. Israeli air force planes flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace After a tense but uneventful low-level navigation route, the fighters reached their target. They popped up at 17:35 and quickly identified the dome gleaming in the late afternoon sunlight. Iraqi defenses were caught by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins."

I guess it's safe to say that if they didn't want Iraq to have this kind of weapons capability, Iran is probably the last country they'd want to have it. They'll do what they think is necessary, with all means available to them. And as much as I might disagree with many policies of the Israeli government, it'd probably be for the best. With someone like Ahmadinejad at the helm, such weapons would definitely be in the wrong hands. I do think most of what he said lately was pure populism, but ... who knows.

Besides, I think nobody should have such weapons, but that's a different matter altogether.

About Osama Bin Laden, he's right, most Americans do not agree with the war on Iraq, and he probably knows most Americans hate him as well, but but of course he's also right, there's nothing America can do to prevent another terrorist attack. We have left ourselves less safe since 9/11 because Bush still doesn't seem to realize what the source of terrorism is, even with Bin laden basically telling him. Terrorism is not some widespread movement right now or anything like that, it simply occurs when a particular group loses their means to fight conventionally and has been angered enough they decide to fight back unconventionally, using terror against the general population as their weapon. The United States is constantly taking away people's rights to fight conventionally. This isn't bad if the country means to attack us, but if they don't mean any harm, then all you're doing is breeding more terrorists.

About Nuclear power, read anything by Helen Caldicott. She rights more about all the orrible effects nuclear testing has had on us and still has on us, but if I'm not mistaken theres quite a bit in their about all the problems with Nuclear Energy.

About Iran, I don't believe Israel exists as a state either, until they come up with a resolution that does not involve massive oppression against the Palestinians. I believe they deserve a state, but their option at this point is either to share the land and live in peace with Palestine or go on being hated by the entire Muslim world.

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Jan 24 2006, 04:31 PM

I'll take that as a yes to my prior question.

I think Bush is going overboard with Iran. He says the're a threat because they want to have nuculear (sp? I just woke up, its early, give me a break ) power power that could be used for wepons and refuse to stop. Well, I think that happened before didn't it? You know, when America was asked to stop testing, they refused. Also, when you have the biggest amount of wepons on earth and could likely destroy the entire world by yourself, are currently in a war and have been involved in numerous coups and assasination attempts, you aren't allowed to be "concerned" with a countries growing military. That is called world-wide military domination as is frowned upon greatly.

And on the note of terrorists, there is no word-wide terrorist organization and there will only be one they all decide to give up religion and attack the U.S. Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have no connection and only will if America keeps fighting this way.

I am heavily opposed to the Iran government, I just think their claim of Israel not being a state was not a good example as to why they are a bad government. Perhaps a better reason would be to look at the way their society treats their women, or to look at the way most of their government officials look at other religions. They have an intolerant state and an oppresive society. Nonetheless, the reason they're turning to trying to build up their weapons is because Bush has made countless threats against them. He's basically bombed the crap out of a country next to them, then openly claimed their next. That would make anyone jump into an arms race.

I agree with you that Iran wants nuclear weapons just for that reason. They surely look at North Korea as an example. There is a certain level of protection by having nuclear weapons in your arsenal. It is simply my fear that the government of Iran is exactly the type that might use them offensively. They don't care much for their own people so that whole deterrent of retaliation means little to them.

What happens if they do use them? Israel would almost certainly retaliate with its own nuclear attacks should they be the target. How does the US respond then? How does Europe? What if Europe ends up a target? How many outcries from people do we have to hear saying enough wasn't done to stop them from having nukes then?

I personally am glad that we are letting the EU be the primary negotiator with Iran. Perhaps when they finally get fed up with the run around they might actually back the US should intervention become necessary.

It's the US's mistake for threatening them so harshly. The stupid idiots in government don't even seem to have any idea how fragile peace is. And to the wqorst, most Americans have this stupid idea that the US can kick anyone's boat in this day and age with no retaliation.

You are right Doomed, that the general population of America has become, well, I don't want to use the word . .. but . . . ignorant. Even though the past generations were equally or even more ignorant than the current one, this day and age does not easily permit such ignorance. I suppose that the first step to resolving this nuclear issue in Iran, is to invade and replace the current government with a puppet one that bends to every whim and fancy of Israel.

What is it, though, seriously?

Such a small population of people in Israel, yet the country holds dominant influence on so many different aspects of the world. I for one don't trust a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran or Israel (or to go along the lines of Stargelman, anyone for that matter) but we don't seem to mind that a country such as Israel has a weapon that could unleash a devastating effect upon other nations, just to annex more land. I have nothing against people who practice Judaism, but for some reason I know someone is going to lable me as anti-semitic if I go public with my criticism of Israel. Why? I do not hold grudges against people of any Religion, Race, Ethinicity, or Skin color, but I do hold grudges against people of certain nationalities. Neela, Iran and North Korea are not the only ones who would go after nuclear weapons so they could feel a sense of protection.

I think Irans statement calling for the destruction of Israel is disturbing and obviously is not going to do much to gain the trust of the Americans, but even if no comments had been made about Israel, the United States would probably still place pressure on Iran, and allow Israel to carry out a strike on its nuclear facilities. Israel is a dangerous nation, that is why the United States bends to its will. A strike on Iran is illogical, Iran has a very large and powerful armed forces, that even though they may not compare to Americas, can do much in a war against Israel. I think that the pressure on Iran to halt its civillian nuclear energy research is very wrong.

This post has been edited by gamer10: Jan 27 2006, 12:36 AM

Uh.. let me inteject here.

Gamer, you do know that Israel's military is closely along the lines of our, and the UK's military in strength? And that because they HAVE to join the military at 18 (?.. Both men and women, but are numerous ways to get out of it.) There numbers are nothing to sneer at.

Personally, I don't like Iran to much. But I think Israel will be the first to launch some form of aggression.

I'll tel you though, we wont step in on Irans behalf though.

Of course I do, my parents tax dollars go towards their military, we give them their rifles for free.

Sure, but why maintain such a large armed forces (I never said they'd fall to Iran, to the contrary, they'll have America's and Europe's backing), what is the purpose of it?

Some might answer: they are threatened by the nations they border.

Wrong sir! Wrong!

They are thretened by others about as much as they threaten others, the large military is needed in order to send messages to other nations. Its a support of whatever blackmail that can be thrown around. Not that I'm solely targeting Israel, I find most nations to be corrupt in this manner, but for a population of 6 million an armed forces that large is rather peculiar.