Is that COP OUT 20?

[bilby]

I don't have a problem with nuclear power per se. I share your concern about waste disposal. This is material that can be highly dangerous for hundreds of years, and in some cases much longer. Who knows what society and the environment will be like just 100 years in the future, let alone even further. I feel it's highly irresponsible to leave what could be an immense and highly dangerous problem for future generations to deal with when it's quite possible there may be no solution.

It is not an 'immense' problem; the world inventory of high level waste is about 1,000m³, and could easily fit in a single underground repository. There are plenty of places where it is naturally dangerous to dig; adding one more small location to the worldwide list of places you shouldn't dig into without protective gear is not an 'immense' problem. And of course that problem can be further dramatically reduced by reprocessing.

The reason nuclear waste is hazardous is that it gives off lots of energy. That makes it a resource, as well as a hazard; burying it to assuage the fears of the ignorant is silly on many levels - not least of which is that the ignorant refuse to be assuaged by ANYTHING. You can't argue with someone who has declared an activity to be a sin.

Nuclear 'waste' powered RTGs would be a smart, carbon neutral source of heating for remote and/or off-grid locations, particularly in high latitudes, where solar power is not viable.

Throwing stuff away because it frightens the ignorant is silly; Not throwing it away, and instead storing it long term in facilities designed only for temporary storage, because the ignorant are frightened that a proper storage might encourage the use of the technology is fucking insane.

No solution my arse. Here are a bunch of solutions:

Reprocess
Use in RTGs
Bury in abandoned deep mines
Dump in deep abyssal silt

That's four off the top of my head. Given that this is far from an exhaustive list, and given that four is greater than zero, can I take it that you won't be repeating the "No solution" canard again?

I didn't think so.

 

[arkirk]

Bilby: I noted you are writing from Australia. A SACRIFICE ZONE is an area that is no longer suited for living things for any of a number of reason...too radioactive, too toxic, too depleted of biotic potential. Last night I watched a documentary by a John Pilger who covered the racism involved in Australian mining...first displacing the Aboriginal people with false accusations of child molestation and stripping them of their culture, then, once the land is cleared, proceeding with strip mining for many things including Uranium. These first nation people have been treated just like our American first nation people. They have had their culture and way of life totally destroyed by lying officials to get to the natural resources on their land. FYI a strip mine such as Mt. Tom Price is a SACRIFICE ZONE. The total disruption of ecosystems in search of toxic energy materials is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND I REGARD IT AS GROSSLY IMMORAL. So do the Aborigines. I am not an aboriginal person but I do understand their position. So did John Pilger.
http://johnpilger.com/videos/utopia-trailer

 

[bilby]

Bilby: I noted you are writing from Australia. A SACRIFICE ZONE is an area that is no longer suited for living things for any of a number of reason...too radioactive, too toxic, too depleted of biotic potential. Last night I watched a documentary by a John Pilger who covered the racism involved in Australian mining...first displacing the Aboriginal people with false accusations of child molestation and stripping them of their culture, then, once the land is cleared, proceeding with strip mining for many things including Uranium. These first nation people have been treated just like our American first nation people. They have had their culture and way of life totally destroyed by lying officials to get to the natural resources on their land. FYI a strip mine such as Mt. Tom Price is a SACRIFICE ZONE. The total disruption of ecosystems in search of toxic energy materials is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND I REGARD IT AS GROSSLY IMMORAL. So do the Aborigines. I am not an aboriginal person but I do understand their position. So did John Pilger.

Yes, the treatment of Aborigines, particularly by some of the mining companies, is horrific, and needs to be addressed.

It has little to do with Uranium though; Mt Tom Price is an Iron Ore mine, and Iron and Coal are the main resources mined by strip mining in Australia. Uranium in Australia is not strip mined, nor has it ever been; the ore bodies are close enough to the surface for open cut mining at places such as Ranger, but they are not large enough to make strip mining viable.

The amount of mining required per unit energy produced is FAR lower in a uranium mine than in a coal mine, so if reduced land loss to mining is your thing, replacing coal power with nuclear would go a long way towards achieving your objective.

For someone who is obviously passionate and interested in this subject, you seem remarkably ill-informed. If strip mines are something you want to see fewer of (and I agree that would be a very good idea), then you should support the use of uranium rather than coal for power generation, as that would dramatically reduce the affected area - particularly in Australia.

As for areas unsuited to life due to radioactivity, large areas of Arnhem Land are naturally too radioactive to live in - a fact that the local Aborigines have known for tens of thousands of years, although they didn't know why people got sick and died, so they put it down to spirits. Such areas would make another good location for a waste store - if the stuff spills, it won't make the place any more uninhabitable than it is already. The vast majority of our planet is unfit for human life. Sizable areas are unsuitable for almost all life. Naturally.

Trying to use an unrelated disaster (Abuse of aboriginal land and human rights) to justify opposition to nuclear power would be intellectually dishonest if nuclear power was a neutral influence; but as moving from coal to nuclear would actually reduce the area affected by strip mining, and thereby reduce the stress on aboriginal rights, it is downright stupid to try to tie the two issues together in the way that you are.

 

[arkirk]

Bilby: I noted you are writing from Australia. A SACRIFICE ZONE is an area that is no longer suited for living things for any of a number of reason...too radioactive, too toxic, too depleted of biotic potential. Last night I watched a documentary by a John Pilger who covered the racism involved in Australian mining...first displacing the Aboriginal people with false accusations of child molestation and stripping them of their culture, then, once the land is cleared, proceeding with strip mining for many things including Uranium. These first nation people have been treated just like our American first nation people. They have had their culture and way of life totally destroyed by lying officials to get to the natural resources on their land. FYI a strip mine such as Mt. Tom Price is a SACRIFICE ZONE. The total disruption of ecosystems in search of toxic energy materials is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND I REGARD IT AS GROSSLY IMMORAL. So do the Aborigines. I am not an aboriginal person but I do understand their position. So did John Pilger.

Yes, the treatment of Aborigines, particularly by some of the mining companies, is horrific, and needs to be addressed.

It has little to do with Uranium though; Mt Tom Price is an Iron Ore mine, and Iron and Coal are the main resources mined by strip mining in Australia. Uranium in Australia is not strip mined, nor has it ever been; the ore bodies are close enough to the surface for open cut mining at places such as Ranger, but they are not large enough to make strip mining viable.

The amount of mining required per unit energy produced is FAR lower in a uranium mine than in a coal mine, so if reduced land loss to mining is your thing, replacing coal power with nuclear would go a long way towards achieving your objective.

For someone who is obviously passionate and interested in this subject, you seem remarkably ill-informed. If strip mines are something you want to see fewer of (and I agree that would be a very good idea), then you should support the use of uranium rather than coal for power generation, as that would dramatically reduce the affected area - particularly in Australia.

As for areas unsuited to life due to radioactivity, large areas of Arnhem Land are naturally too radioactive to live in - a fact that the local Aborigines have known for tens of thousands of years, although they didn't know why people got sick and died, so they put it down to spirits. Such areas would make another good location for a waste store - if the stuff spills, it won't make the place any more uninhabitable than it is already. The vast majority of our planet is unfit for human life. Sizable areas are unsuitable for almost all life. Naturally.

Trying to use an unrelated disaster (Abuse of aboriginal land and human rights) to justify opposition to nuclear power would be intellectually dishonest if nuclear power was a neutral influence; but as moving from coal to nuclear would actually reduce the area affected by strip mining, and thereby reduce the stress on aboriginal rights, it is downright stupid to try to tie the two issues together in the way that you are.

Tailing piles containing radionuclides are brought to the surface an placed in piles that are low level radiation pollutions. I am completely aware of the mine operations at Mt. Tom Price and know it is iron mining. Open pit mines are extreme environmental abuse. So is mountaintop removal. So is REMOVAL OF ABORIGINES. The Utopia video (trailer link in my last posting) points to a video that covered displacement of Aborigines for URANIUM MINING in more detail.

 

[bilby]

Yes, the treatment of Aborigines, particularly by some of the mining companies, is horrific, and needs to be addressed.

It has little to do with Uranium though; Mt Tom Price is an Iron Ore mine, and Iron and Coal are the main resources mined by strip mining in Australia. Uranium in Australia is not strip mined, nor has it ever been; the ore bodies are close enough to the surface for open cut mining at places such as Ranger, but they are not large enough to make strip mining viable.

The amount of mining required per unit energy produced is FAR lower in a uranium mine than in a coal mine, so if reduced land loss to mining is your thing, replacing coal power with nuclear would go a long way towards achieving your objective.

For someone who is obviously passionate and interested in this subject, you seem remarkably ill-informed. If strip mines are something you want to see fewer of (and I agree that would be a very good idea), then you should support the use of uranium rather than coal for power generation, as that would dramatically reduce the affected area - particularly in Australia.

As for areas unsuited to life due to radioactivity, large areas of Arnhem Land are naturally too radioactive to live in - a fact that the local Aborigines have known for tens of thousands of years, although they didn't know why people got sick and died, so they put it down to spirits. Such areas would make another good location for a waste store - if the stuff spills, it won't make the place any more uninhabitable than it is already. The vast majority of our planet is unfit for human life. Sizable areas are unsuitable for almost all life. Naturally.

Trying to use an unrelated disaster (Abuse of aboriginal land and human rights) to justify opposition to nuclear power would be intellectually dishonest if nuclear power was a neutral influence; but as moving from coal to nuclear would actually reduce the area affected by strip mining, and thereby reduce the stress on aboriginal rights, it is downright stupid to try to tie the two issues together in the way that you are.

Tailing piles containing radionuclides are brought to the surface an placed in piles that are low level radiation pollutions. I am completely aware of the mine operations at Mt. Tom Price and know it is iron mining. Open pit mines are extreme environmental abuse. So is mountaintop removal. So is REMOVAL OF ABORIGINES. The Utopia video (trailer link in my last posting) points to a video that covered displacement of Aborigines for URANIUM MINING in more detail.

Low level radiation is a natural feature of Arnhem Land (indeed, in some places the background radiation is quite a bit higher than would qualify as 'low level'). Mine tailings are hazardous (and radioactive) regardless of what is being mined - coal mining and burning produces more un-contained radioactive pollution per GJ of power generated than uranium mining does.

Displacement of aborigines by mining companies is wrong, and disgraceful. But the fact remains that if we switch from coal to uranium for our power, there will be FAR less mining in total; so the problem can only get smaller - even if we can't change the miner's deplorable practices.

Every one of the problems you are discussing in your last couple of posts are at least partially alleviated by a switch from coal to uranium. They are important issues, and need to be addressed - but their existence is an argument FOR nuclear power, not AGAINST.

Switching from coal to uranium means:

LESS land being mined;
LESS strip mining;
FEWER aborigines being displaced;
LESS un-contained radioactive material put into the environment
LESS mine waste of all kinds;
LESS land being rendered unfit for habitation;
FEWER deaths, injuries and illnesses across the entire generation process
LESS greenhouse gas emitted to the atmosphere

Sure, nuclear power doesn't drop these things to ZERO; but that's not possible by any means that is compatible with you or I continuing to have an Internet to debate this stuff on; or for that matter, with any technology above the 19th century level.

You can't have zero in any of these; but by going from coal to nuke, you can have a lot LESS - and that's a lot better than nothing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reprocess

The reprocessing process still leaves a great deal of toxic waste. No where near a solution.

Use in RTGs

This is a grand idea. Let's use plutonium 238 to make RTGs to get power to remote locations where those RTGs can be retrieved by terrorists to make dirty bombs. Not to mention that the plutonium itself is still dangerous many years after the RTG is spent. Another interesting solution.

Bury in abandoned deep mines

Those mines are still vulnerable to water infiltration and contamination spread.

Dump in deep abyssal silt

Even more water to spread contamination while placing it in a location so remote it could be nigh impossible to get to to fix the problem.

All of these "solutions" are still just pushing the problems down the road for others to either take care of or suffer from.

Again, it still comes down to leaving it for future generations to worry about.

 

[untermensche]

We really don't know what potential sources of energy might exist in the future.

The somewhat good news is that in not too long a period of time we will have to replace oil for many things.

We should be massively investing in development of alternative energy sources. Instead we conduct wars that create more problems than they solve.

And we rely on the pathetic "market" to try to develop something without government involvement.

 

[arkirk]

We really don't know what potential sources of energy might exist in the future.

The somewhat good news is that in not too long a period of time we will have to replace oil for many things.

We should be massively investing in development of alternative energy sources. Instead we conduct wars that create more problems than they solve.

And we rely on the pathetic "market" to try to develop something without government involvement.

I think a big part of our problem is not so much an energy problem as one of human beings suffering from energy consumption addiction and we refuse to admit it. Jerry Brown made an interesting remark when he presented his drought plan...a more "elegant" approach to the problem. When we discover that our water supply is going to be restricted, we need to exercise more care and more conservation of the water we do get. It is a matter of understanding just what the consequences are for wrongful use of water and also what constitutes wrongful use. The same principle needs to be applied to energy...not the fuel that produces it, but the way we employ and apply energy in our lives.

Alternative energy with zero emissions are truly not zero emissions. Energy is expended in producing these alternatives energies and many of them hava a lot of limitations. Being elegant is a matter of tailoring our usage to the energy we can produce without serious damages to our environment. It also is a matter of developing an environmental moral compass that serves us better than what we currently have...which for many people is no restraint whatever regardless of the damage. I recently heard a pronouncement from the head of the IMF, Christine Legarde that now it is up to China to make its economy more subject to market conditions. That places her, in my estimation, outside the pale and an anti environmental force in society. Market conditions have never been sufficiently sensitive to environmental conditions, so it they can and has derailed moat practical environmental approaches to survival of our species. That is why there is a COP20. As long as what we do is based on whether or not it fits a free market model, we will continue to get warmer and warmer and the poor will suffer more and more. So will our environment.

 

[untermensche]

One is either pro-life and wants to create renewable and sustainable societies or one is anti-life and is cheering as we drive off a cliff.

These are decisions WE have to make. We can't put them off any longer.

 

[maxparrish]

One is either pro-life and wants to create renewable and sustainable societies or one is anti-life and is cheering as we drive off a cliff.

These are decisions WE have to make. We can't put them off any longer.

Oh such blithering nonsense. One of the most pointless activities on earth are the endless "action" committees of dreamy political change hawkers, 95 percent of which is devoted to generating powerpoint mission statements, bar charts, boxes, arrows, typology matrix's, action plans, goals, decision trees, frameworks, awareness scales, blah..blah blah. The world's overpaid grand poo-bahs arrive with their ring bound presentations, bloviate to one another about the earth ending "crisis", gorge themselves at lavish dinners, and leave with their waistlines incrementally larger.

None of this produces wealth, its merely climate ritualists crowing and preening, each plotting their own agenda's to expand political power over their people and the fruits of their labor. There is no need or hope of any plant-saving agreement - its purpose is merely to have a summit to wallow in terror - the sort of thrill children get seeing ghouls on Halloween.

It will come to nothing - nothing more than platitudes about what a particular nation is willing to claim it will saspire to, as long as none of it is binding or too specific. Some foolish leader will promise to slash greenhouse gas emissions for his nation by x percent, and others will offer nothing more than to try harder. But none of it will be serious...not even on the level of Kyoto (a spectacular failure, by the way).

Forget about climate change - its not worth worrying about something that can't be changed. Time to move on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So who cares whether there are tens or whether there are hundreds of dead uranium miners; are their lives somehow more valuable than the lives of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of coal miners who would have had to die to make the same amount of electricity from coal?

This would seem to be the relevant comparison to be making. It's less important to determine the rate at which uranium miners die in relation to the general population as it would be to determine how many of them die in relation to coal miners, since one of the arguments is to stop using coal power and replace it with nuclear power. If ten uranium miners die every year from radiation poisoning but fifty coal miners die every year from black lung (I'm not sure if either of those are actual risks to the workers, I'm just using them as examples) then the deaths caused by uranium mining are a positive factor in moving more power generation to the nuclear industry.

You need to compare deaths per PWh, not total deaths.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) That's why rates should be used instead of overall deaths. If, on average, one person dies per mine per year then it doesn't matter if there's ten mines in one industry and five hundred in the other.

This assumes you get the same amount of energy per mine. Since this isn't the case it's a bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren: No matter where you put this waste it becomes a SACRIFICE ZONE.

Nothing is living in the salt of an old salt mine--what's being sacrificed?

As for the other two locations--a little bit of bacteria might die. That's it.

As for sky scrapers....just moving the people to and from the working/living spaces in the building uses excessive energy. Their immense costs in construction are almost entirely due to energy demands. Just delivering water pressure to upper level floors requires far more energy than ground floor. Construction and operating costs compound the higher the building gets and so do the liabilities. There is far less efficiency in sky scrapers. They are actually just pawns in the corporate struggles for economic and social domination.

It's basically trading construction costs for transportation costs.

There are standards for construction of these behemoths. As unsustainable energy becomes less and less available, the cost of their construction will eventually become first unreasonable as it is today) and later very unmanageable in the finance department. The truth is a lot of these buildings are having problems today. One of the things with the Trade Center (remember they lost three of these buildings there to "fire" the first three in history) was shrinking tenant population and income. This was going on when the "terrorists" struck and gave the building owners insurance relief.

They're losing tenants because the transportation costs are going down because more and more stuff is being sent electronically.

The high level nuclear waste is NOT GOING TO YUCCA MOUNTAIN...because it was not secure enough. You seem to have no real connection with the news on these matters. You seem to think that just because something came later, it is automatically okay. The denial of Yucca Mountain dump came later...where is your modern thinking now. If we had the answers you claim we have regarding some sort of rendering nuclear waste harmless, that would be the kind of news environmentalists would be happy to see, but it just isn't happening. What is happening is a couple of dying industries are mounting public relations campaigns full of lies to keep going a little longer. It is intellectually and socially corrupt on their part and I feel you know this too.

Where it goes is a matter of politics, not a matter of science.

As for how to render it harmless--the greens don't like big industry, period. It wouldn't matter if there was a perfectly safe way of handling it, they would still oppose it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What are the estimated number of deaths (or range of deaths) attributable to uranium mining for the nuclear power industry as per these studies? Could you summarize it for us?

Haven't found anywhere where it's been extrapolated to the entire industry. Uranium mining is a world-wide industry and cancers can come about years after the workers have left the mines. My point was simply that the nuclear industry is not nearly as safe as Bilby was trying to portray it.

Full cycle numbers:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Nuclear is less than half the deaths of the next closest power source and that only by omitting a disaster. (To be fair the comparison would have to also omit Chernobyl.) Without that it's a third of the deaths of the next closest option.

 

[barbos]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ii1eBZsxzTbuELqjQ5bc-y5V8vnBviC3hmKmcUnwcS4/edit

This was just one of many reports you get when you google post Chernobyl Russian life expectancy.

I am not a fun of nukes but this "study" is garbage. And garbage starts on the first page where mortality rate in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is shown. It's clear that that spike has noting to do with Chernobyl but has everything to do with Perestroyka.

We can't conclude it has nothing to do with Chernobyl--there simply isn't enough data to draw a negative. There certainly isn't enough data to draw a positive, though.

We can, spike is inconsistent with Chernobyl because it appears to be the same regardless of the region of former SU, when it's clear that effect should be bigger in Belarus and Ukraine, and author himself admits that there were no spikes in any other countries such as Poland which was clearly near that thing. Effect is uniform and confined to USSR only.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...fukushimas-appalling-death-toll/#.Vl4WrHarQgs

Note that that's an editorial with no sources cited.

Just some more information on Fukushima. The cancer effects of radiation is due to low level exposure. High level exposure gives you cell fatality. Lower level exposures give you mutations that live and sometimes are cancerous. It is a kind of roulette wheel effect...but there is a statistical connection between radiation exposure and cancer. The fact is that these effects on populations are very hard to trace on a case by case basis, but the numbers still point to the fact that radiation exposure results in an increase in cancer. How many cancers...where do you measure. This lack of individualized data on cancer protected the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry for years while we all knew that asbestos and cigarettes were bad for you and could kill you.

The standard calculation is 10,000 REMs absorbed equals one death. This is an extrapolation from the known risks of high level exposure and there is considerable thought that it is a considerable overstatement of the risk.

The nuclear apologists along with the coal people and other fossil energy people are hiding behind the complexity of the situation though the handwriting is clearly on the wall in a statistical sense. I think it is a jackass thing to do to shake one's finger at people in the know and rejecting statistics and demanding individual case by case positive answers that nobody has bothered to nail down yet.

So you want solar? With 11x the death rate of nuclear? Note that this number doesn't include the risks of whatever your storage system is--which is likely higher than the risks of the power generation itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't have a problem with nuclear power per se. I share your concern about waste disposal. This is material that can be highly dangerous for hundreds of years, and in some cases much longer. Who knows what society and the environment will be like just 100 years in the future, let alone even further. I feel it's highly irresponsible to leave what could be an immense and highly dangerous problem for future generations to deal with when it's quite possible there may be no solution.

Any of the disposal systems I named will not pose a problem for future civilizations. If society has collapsed to the point that they don't understand the risks of the areas with the radiation trefoils then the risk from the radiation doesn't matter anyway compared to the risks of that sort of life.

Such a society can't access the deep ocean areas anyway and almost certainly has no interest in the Atacama desert. The salt mine is more useful but it's still going to be awfully hard for them to access.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No solution my arse. Here are a bunch of solutions:

Reprocess
Use in RTGs
Bury in abandoned deep mines
Dump in deep abyssal silt

That's four off the top of my head. Given that this is far from an exhaustive list, and given that four is greater than zero, can I take it that you won't be repeating the "No solution" canard again?

I didn't think so.

You'll have to reprocess before you build those RTGs. You want to build them out of alpha and beta emitters only.

You also missed another useful product: Death rays. A big pile of cobalt-60 is quite lethal. This can be quite useful if you want to kill things without destroying them--how about shelf-stable meat? (Kill the bacteria in it.) We do it frequently with thin enough things with electron beams or x-rays but sterilizing thick things requires gamma and generating gamma rays takes a pretty big piece of gear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One is either pro-life and wants to create renewable and sustainable societies or one is anti-life and is cheering as we drive off a cliff.

These are decisions WE have to make. We can't put them off any longer.

Except you are after a short term fix that basically guarantees catastrophe in the end. No green solution is actually sustainable, you're simply pushing back the day of reckoning while ensuring there isn't the science that might find a true solution. The detailed reports from the greens always show things running down.

- - - Updated - - -

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ii1eBZsxzTbuELqjQ5bc-y5V8vnBviC3hmKmcUnwcS4/edit

This was just one of many reports you get when you google post Chernobyl Russian life expectancy.

I am not a fun of nukes but this "study" is garbage. And garbage starts on the first page where mortality rate in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is shown. It's clear that that spike has noting to do with Chernobyl but has everything to do with Perestroyka.

We can't conclude it has nothing to do with Chernobyl--there simply isn't enough data to draw a negative. There certainly isn't enough data to draw a positive, though.

We can, spike is inconsistent with Chernobyl because it appears to be the same regardless of the region of former SU, when it's clear that effect should be bigger in Belarus and Ukraine, and author himself admits that there were no spikes in any other countries such as Poland which was clearly near that thing. Effect is uniform and confined to USSR only.

To determine that would require comparing separate graphs, that report simply lumped them.

 

[arkirk]

No solution my arse. Here are a bunch of solutions:

Reprocess
Use in RTGs
Bury in abandoned deep mines
Dump in deep abyssal silt

That's four off the top of my head. Given that this is far from an exhaustive list, and given that four is greater than zero, can I take it that you won't be repeating the "No solution" canard again?

I didn't think so.

You'll have to reprocess before you build those RTGs. You want to build them out of alpha and beta emitters only.

You also missed another useful product: Death rays. A big pile of cobalt-60 is quite lethal. This can be quite useful if you want to kill things without destroying them--how about shelf-stable meat? (Kill the bacteria in it.) We do it frequently with thin enough things with electron beams or x-rays but sterilizing thick things requires gamma and generating gamma rays takes a pretty big piece of gear.

That sounds delicious! Irradiated meat...just what I dream of nights. Totally dead. What do you say about us limiting our carbon emissions and also limiting our radioactive pollution in this century? What do you think about the "terrorists" giving Hollande an excuse for eluding criticism? I think it is pretty sick.