I can hardly believe this... (US environmental policy)
- Thread starter Ilosar
- Start date
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Saying ''FDR did it anyway'' is a gross simplification. He made tractations and arranged for anti-nazi and pro-war propaganda for years. Pearl Harbor was just a catalyst.
Anyway, it's funny how the US government is made so that individuals have as little power as possible, and yet people always whine that the leaders can't do whatever they want super-fast. No shit, sherlock, the system is designed that way from the ground up.
Anyway, it's funny how the US government is made so that individuals have as little power as possible, and yet people always whine that the leaders can't do whatever they want super-fast. No shit, sherlock, the system is designed that way from the ground up.
hey DB you ever thought about going in to politics ?
fedaykin said:
Wikipedia is not 'academic writing', and you see no major reason to doubt the accuracy of the article because you do not appear to have vetted any of the sources.
Your "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts" is sourced to an LA Times article about a company that lost the bid to build the holding facility. The only named sources in the article were the company newsletter and the sales and marketing director. They lost the bid. They plan to push ahead with their design in hopes that the government would change it's mind. No source bias there, eh?
I like Wikipedia as much as anyone else. It is convenient and gives a generally reliable overview of an issue. However, it allows for changes subjected to the scrutiny of people who may or may not have the expertise to verify it's accuracy. Like a bad undergrad research paper, it presents opinion as fact and mis-attributes sources, but gives the appearance of scholarly work based on it's format.
As with the 2/3 quote, my purpose is to question the validity of the statement. You presented the statement as fact, which is the form that Wikipedia presented to you. Unfortunately, you both got it wrong. It wasn't fact. It was opinion tagged to a citation to give it the appearance of legitimacy, but that collapsed on further scrutiny.
Again, I have no doubt that many Nevadans don't want a nuclear waste repository 'in their back yard'. They probably didn't want a bunch of atomic bomb tests conducted 'in their back yard'. I doubt anyone wants a landfill in their back yard, either. But we have to put the waste somewhere.
I don't want to turn this thread into yet another direction from it's original path, so I am going to stop commenting on the validity of Wikipedia as a sole-source.
-------------------------------------------------------
To the meat of the issue:
We can play the pro and con game for the next 200 pages, and I still believe we will be in the same place at that point. Without looking at the internet, I can give you a half dozen reasons off the top of my head as to why Yucca Mountain would be good for the country in general and the state of Nevada in specific. But again, no matter how compelling my argument, it is unlikely to change your opinion.
Here are some vettable facts that are pertinent to the debate:
-We have not been able to get a new commercial power plant approved, constructed, and generating power since Watts Bar got it's go-ahead in the 1970s.
-The 100+ civilian nuclear reactors in the United States produce approximately 70% of our carbon free energy.
-We have in excess of 60,000 tons of high level waste already in existence from our civilian and military nuclear program.
-That waste is distributed across the country, on sites adjacent to active fault lines, ground water, in predictable hurricane paths, in tornado country, sitting on the surface in large casks. Even if you take nuclear energy out of the equation right now, we still have that waste to contend with.
-We could significantly reduce the waste quantity as well as generating a considerable amount of power through waste reprocessing.
-US policy prevents us from reprocessing waste, and has prevented it for the last 40 years, because the byproducts of reprocessing could be used to create nuclear weapons.
So again, you have a president who says he wants more nuclear energy, but hasn't put reprocessing on the table, hasn't changed the regulatory process, and has put considerable effort into terminating the most heavily researched waste disposal option on the table.
----------------------------------------------------------
Here is my opinion:
Even if you are anti-nuclear, presumably you would want to minimize the risks of any potential nuclear contamination. Probability states that the broader the distribution, the more likely a risk event is to occur. We already have nuclear waste stored in areas with fairly high population densities, known perils, and great environmental exposures. Knowing that one can never eliminate risk, I would think it would be rational to go with the strategy that most limits the probability of occurrence and the severity of loss. Which points to consolidation in the case of nuclear waste. One place to store. One place to secure. One place to protect. One place to face exposure in the event of loss. However, that option is being removed from the table due to politics.
dunno. I was just curious. Because it seems you hold a grudge with many things around you (including your own country and it's politics). I mean I sure complain a lot as well. But if you think that really so MANY things are working incorrect and could be solved SO easily. Why not trying to fix it by your self ? Quite a lot of famous politicans started that way. I mean beeing disspleased with the current situation.
Crni Vuk said:
Only a fool trusts or believes in his government. I agree with Sir Winston Churchill. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill
I try to "fix it" by voting for someone I believe in or for the least of two evils. I also speak my mind in public forums and try to influence the decisions of my close friends and family. I also try to instill in my children a sense of pride and personal responsibilty. I pay my taxes, I served my country, and I obey the laws of the land to the best of my ability.
I've signed petitions, contributed to groups that support my point of view and try my best to stay politically informed and uptodate on current events. Being that involved puts me head and shoulders above 65% of my fellow americans more interested in WoW, dancing with the Stars, and American Idol.
Of course. Which is why I said "EVEN in academic writing".JohnnyEgo said:
The precise statement turned out to be invalid. The fact that a majority of Nevadans are against the project did not.JohnnyEgo said:
But does it have to be above a fault line when people know it's there? You can understand why some people, including engineers and policy-makers, don't want to take that risk, right? The USA is big, there have to be other suitable locations to consider.JohnnyEgo said:
I don't have much to comment on the rest of your post. You think it's due to a political conspiracy of the environmentalist left, whereas it's clear that the reason is most likely, and justifiably, safety concerns. And it's not like your country has lots of money to spend right now (though a few billion less to the banks and more to power plant construction would probably have been wise).
I wouldn't speculate over the question whether it's less or more safe to store waste in multiple locations, some of which may be unsafe, rather than in one location that appears to be potentially unsafe.
I'm pro-nuclear, but pro SAFE nuclear, and Yucca Mountain doesn't seem safe upon further scrutiny.
That was funny and 100% correct to boot.DammitBoy said:
Ilosar said:
As evidenced by the past two years, Obama has moved very fast with what he considered important. If the environment was on his radar, he'd have acted already.
I would have to agree that in it's current mutated unconstitutional state, you are correct about individuals having as little power as possible. It was not originally designed to be that way at all. We no longer have limited government as the founders clearly intended.
Your misunderstanding of that intent notwithstanding.