<
I suppose it's reasonable to admit a tad bit of bias on nuclear topics........
(My son is Navy Nuclear - and I was one of many advocates for the UAE's peaceful program)
The overwhelming need to be the center of attention...
I wonder which caused more lasting damage in Japan, the two nukes dropped in WWII, or the tsunami and the following ongoing problems. I agree with you CG, the quest for new energy is going to cause us some major problems in the future.
There's a difference between advocate and expert........ I was an advocate.
That said - I do not believe the UAE's atomic capacities (almost entirely managed by western corporations) move the world closer to doomsday.
The energy consumption of major cities in Arabia is consistently off-the-charts (the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi, in particular).
The UAE suffers significant pollution problems, and wants to light their cities with something other than carbon fuels. The US has allied itself with the UAE, and endorsed their nuclear ambitions - at least in part - due to the fact that the UAE is an adversary of Iran. The US trade office has also noticed that Abu Dhabi's nuclear ambitions are very good for business in the USA. (Colorado's CH2MHill being a major beneficiary).
I disagree with moving the clock hands forward: this isn't nuclear conflict. That said, there is a world-wide technology race for clean energy, with many countries subscribing to the idea that nuclear energy IS clean energy (even Stewart Brand - one of America's original greenies thinks so).
bailey bud wrote: The US has allied itself with the UAE, and endorsed their nuclear ambitions - at least in part - due to the fact that the UAE is an adversary of Iran. <snip>
I disagree with moving the clock hands forward: this isn't nuclear conflict.
These two comments don't seem to jive. If the UAE is seen as a counter to Iran's ambitions, how is it not military in nature?
The New York Times had an article about how badly Japan handled this nuke disaster on so many levels, like sending refugees into a cloud of radiation. On the bright side, a eathquake disaster like this is very rare.
And you might argue that Fukushima has made the world safer, worldwide nuclear plants have increased safety measures and Europe has scrapped plans for new plants.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
CinnamonGirl wrote: Like I said... I don't care. This is all about you apparently.
Jeepers... did someone pee in yer cornflakes this morning? That was a funny video.
Just think of the benefits of solar fusion... We'd all have such nice glowing tans
People have been declaring new technology too dangerous for humans to control ever since the first caveman roasted a mammoth over a fire that he built and controlled.
Stupid people don't get to play with cosmic forces. It's beyind my grasp to create unlimited planet eating mass to energy conversion reactions in a mason jar sitting on the workbench in my garage.
It's my personal opinion that we're far more likely to get nailed by an asteroid or gamma ray burst long before we become advanced enough to blow up the entire planet in one gigantic "oops" moment.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
