Search results for query: *

In case you weren’t aware, even nuclear facilities have toilets to scrub; perhaps even by those who might be indifferent to their own long term survival. But, trust me when I say that those people are the last ones you want working with the stuff that gives off any significant dose.

Horseshit - few here express absolute certainty about anything, in my brief experience here. When it comes to commercial/industrial regulations, they are universally good for the majority of citizens. The extent of regulation is wildly askew in the case of nuclear power generation.

We don’t. What we do know is that the largest source of energy supplies consumed to date have enjoyed such relaxed regulations - virtually unregulated early on.

This has already been explained to you at some length. Your picture would be more accurate if you asked for the reactor building to be constructed out of straw. :rolleyes:

On some materials close to the fission process, sure.

No - same as any other major infrastructure.

25 more years for the critical components

The reason I chimed in on this thread is because I work at nuclear generating station. We’re currently refurbishing reactors that have been operating for almost fifty years and we’re not popping a hole in the roof to do so. Like all other modern technologies, nuclear power generation will get...

I thought it was: “decry the proliferation of second-rate doctorates,,,“ I don’t remember anyone mocking Melania about her educational accomplishments, or lack thereof. Most of the chatter about Melania was on the right commending her for her good looks.

Checks thread title. Jill Biden still not in The Race for 2024.

I explained to you why it is currently the cheapest option. Burning fossil fuels should arguably have vastly greater regulatory controls than nuclear currently does. The regulatory controls for nuclear power generation should and will be reduced in the future with better technology and...

These are considered cheaper and more efficient, only because up until recently we have avoided paying the actual costs of their use; whereas nuclear has largely always been saddled with the cost of controlling environmental releases.

“Thanks for playing”

I mean, it’s possible these claims are not meant to disparage or insult,,,

The objective is not to remove hundreds of millions of guns. It’s to get a better handle on what’s essentially domestic terrorism. Do you think that somehow controlling how the media behaves will be accomplished without legislation? That even with sufficiently strict controls, there wouldn’t...

Part of the goal for these cowards is they can turn the weapon on themselves at a moment’s notice. Crawling under a rolling Uhaul, not so much.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

I’m from the left and I don’t think that’s the answer. In fact, “answer” isn’t even the right framing here. Ya, and I guess media coverage of plane crashes caused 9/11. You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating...