ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

"Dresden Generating Station is the first privately financed nuclear power plant built in the United States. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Research. It works, bitches.

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Because fossil fuel generation has always been relatively cheap up till now...

This clinging to the whole 'nuclear bad' schtick with little evidence to back it up is just getting old. Anyone who knows anything about solar cell production knows that it not only has many harmful chemicals at the manufacturing end but the panels themselves are dangerous at their end of lifetime if not properly disposed of.

Can nuclear power be dangerous? Of course. Is it a viable alternative for base grid load if we want to eliminate fossil fuels? Currently, it's the only alternative. Renewables are no where close to ready to take over base load and fusion just hasn't happened yet. Pick your poison, but think quick...

http://www.renewableenergygeek.ca/solar-power/solar-panels-health-warning-hazzard/

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


I know what you're trying to say, but when your opening gambit is calling people nuclear industry shills, you sound like a lunatic. I mean, i think it's fair to say that only a lunatic would think there are not just one but multiple nuclear shills dedicated to promoting nuclear power on the sift.

Renewable so far isn't enough, and the cost of nuclear power mostly comes from handling the fuel and waste it seems. So with nuclear we have to spend a lot of money (and some fossil fuels) to handle the materials. On the other hand with fossil fuels, we spend less but hurt the environment more. But then we need to consider how long we can go on burying or sinking radioactive material and/or rendering huge areas of our limited planet uninhabitable, we need another solution which is almost certainly fusion.

Fusion is an engineering problem right now. Perhaps a technology/cost problem especially during a recession. Anyone with any money left to put into hopeful energy tech has it in the form of oil (because that's going nowhere and we damn well need it) and why would they promote that?

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Yes, because wind and solar are ever so profitable aren't they. If you had a solar farm in Fukushima's place producing the same amount of power you'd have heavy metals seeping into the water supply across half of Japan. That doesn't even mention the fact that half of Japan, would have been permanently covered by those solar panels just to match the output of the Fukushima plant.

How many deaths are attributable to Fukushima by the way? Zero.

If you want to talk about long term health effects, please don't forget to add up the damage from burning thousands of tonnes of coal and dumping the smoke straight out into the air 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I know which poison I'd pick every single time.

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!

damn... now you got me pumped for future nuclear energy.

This funny dancing bear is now the biggest topic in the German News. Far outranked boring topics like war in lybia, catastrophe in Japan or 180° degree turn and complete inconsistency of our chancellor...ette's government on the nuclear energy matter. Love it.

The newest reactors have a passive cooling system, so even a total power failure at the reactor (odd for a NUCLEAR REACTOR to be without power, eh?) won't stop the rods cooling. Fukushima's reactors are decades old, and a far cry from the best nuclear energy has to offer.

McBoinkens: think of hydrogen as having potential nuclear energy. In the same way that wood or paper has chemical energy, i.e.

C + O2 + activation threshold energy --> CO2 + additional energy given off

then, from a nuclear perspective,

H + H + activation threshold energy --> Helium + additional energy given off.

but in this case, the element hydrogen becomes helium not by changing or sharing electrons but by jamming two nuclei into one atom.

All elements have potential nuclear energy and if you pump energy in they get closer to iron on the periodic table. Higher-level elements give off additional energy when they undergo fission (e.g. uranium in power plants). Lower-level elements give off additional energy when they undergo fusion (e.g. hydrogen in a hydrogen bomb).

The only thing that you have to do is provide sufficient energy to overcome the threshold. That can be a very big amount, but if you harness it, you can use it to keep the process going in the same way that you can use a pile of wood to keep a campfire going because it generates its own heat. The sun essentially works like this.

So you are fine with Minority Report style's proactive crime prevention?

The point is that Iran is only exercising its legal right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. They were granted that right by abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The whole point of the treaty is to prevent development of nuclear weapons.

Also Iran signed an agreement with Turkey and Brazil, committing itself to sending out the nuclear fuel for enrichment, so that it can't develop weapons. That was what US was asking for, but the Obama administration promptly rejected that agreement.

I highly suggest watching this TYT clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2maR95neOJc

>> ^chilaxe:

"NYT ignores intelligence there is no evidence of Iran nuclear weapons program."
Regardless of whether we're pro or con etc, I'm trying to imagine how gullible someone would have to be to seriously suggest that Iran isn't going to develop nuclear weapons.

I do believe this is what they call an ass handing.

or was that just something that guy in the park made up..?>> ^Tymbrwulf:

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.
2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source
2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."
3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.
7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"
I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.
What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.

2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source

2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."

3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.

7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"

I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.

What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

Always interesting to see a good interview.

Incidentally, this is who rougy really is
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063463
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063531
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040292
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040293
http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs?loadcomm=1#comment-644095
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1#comment-971348
http://videosift.com/video/Powell-Eviscerates-McCains-Negative-Smear-Campaign?loadcomm=1#comment-549763
http://videosift.com/video/The-Chronicles-Of-The-Obamessiah-Volume-I-The-Adulteress?loadcomm=1#comment-531070
http://gwiz665.videosift.com/?loadcomm=1#comment-1041622
http://videosift.com/video/Does-the-world-need-nuclear-energy-TED-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-1017215
Really just check out http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=rougy&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

@dag there's a difference between censorship and personal attacks. Oh well, people can see what kind of a douche he is, so I guess that's a better way to silence him --- let the users ignore the dickhead.

For easy access, this is who rougy really is
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063463
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063531
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040292
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040293
http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs?loadcomm=1#comment-644095
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1#comment-971348
http://videosift.com/video/Powell-Eviscerates-McCains-Negative-Smear-Campaign?loadcomm=1#comment-549763
http://videosift.com/video/The-Chronicles-Of-The-Obamessiah-Volume-I-The-Adulteress?loadcomm=1#comment-531070
http://gwiz665.videosift.com/?loadcomm=1#comment-1041622
http://videosift.com/video/Does-the-world-need-nuclear-energy-TED-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-1017215
Or just check out http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=rougy&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search