Believe it or not, I was there a few days after this happened. Pretty freaky stuff. The part of the story that they don't mention in this segment is that the outdated, poorly maintained Iraqi tanks where from the 1970's and half the size of the ultra-modern American tanks (using Depleted Uranium rounds). Not to mention that the Iraqi troops where already "shell shocked", half starved, highly demotivated (probably not even in the tanks), and for the most part, just waiting to surrender. I'm sure that American tank crews were "shocked" to find them and did perform well, it's just it was in no way an even match.

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.

Nuclear (breeder) power plants and electric transportation is the most sensible solution. People whine about Uranium also being fossil, but there's enough to fuel many times our current consumption for thousands of years, that's not even including thorium.

Nuclear waste is an issue easily dealt with. Breeder plants need a lot less uranium and produce a lot less waste, they can even 'burn' up most of the waste produced until now. Sure there will always be some waste, but it pales in comparison to the fly ash ponds produced by coal burning, which are also slightly radioactive but not secured.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use solar and wind but it will take much too long, use up a lot of resources, and cost a bunch (especially reconfiguring the power grid and making energy storage solutions). Nuclear baseload with solar/wind dealing with peak power.

>> ^Trancecoach:

if it's reported widely abroad, where are the links?
someone needs to tell mr. chomsky, we can access foreign news online.

Apparently, the military was dumping depleted uranium on the civilians over there.
Stay classy, America.


I think he knows about the internet. The point is it wasn't on any major news networks or newspapers...which is should be, it's a very important story. He's commenting on how telling it is that it wasn't reported, the managers of the country and the media know how to handle things like this.

It is also further proof that the crazed antiwar anti-American left wing media doesn't exist...because wouldn't they have jumped all over this to make the war and america looked bad?

Solar cells have reached 40% effectiveness, which is far more than any conventional energy source. The tech has come leaps and bounds from what you refer to. Nuclear isn't the answer either as peak uranium is about as close away as peak oil. The fact is, free photos rain down with a total solar energy hitting Earth at around 10^17 Watts, and that is just on the earths surface. Tapping into just a portion of that is worth it. Extra planetary collectors would fetch nearly double of their earth bound brethren. Solar makes to much since to ignore. In other videos, he talks about the cost, and it was about as costly as a second of equivalently maintained asphalt, and that doesn't even factor in the energy they provide as an offset.

The ball has to start rolling. As others pointed out, replacing all sidewalks with something like this would be a great start. Smart sidewalks have whole other neat set of applications! Hey Mr. Smart phone, why don't you sync up with the side walk and point me in the direction of that bar I am going to...I shall follow the sidewalk arrows until I arrive!

If you are talking about technological costs, the always goes down fast with time. Problem is there are about 20 different sets of competing technologies that are still viaing for dominance. We are only about 10 years away from paper printing, high yield cells. With a modular system like the one proposed, outdated units could be phased out for newer ones very easily. In the end, it takes a doer to get this done, it is easy to be a naysayer and poke holes in the boat. I mean, the internet, surely that would never work. Hurdles can usually be overcome, doing nothing can't be.

if it's reported widely abroad, where are the links?

someone needs to tell mr. chomsky, we can access foreign news online.


Apparently, the military was dumping depleted uranium on the civilians over there.

Stay classy, America.

Everybody has their ups and downs. What does David think we're missing out on? Fox News is the primary focus, and anger, usually directed at Murdoch. Fox News and by extension, Murdoch's, blatant propaganda, throwing out a one party line and the outright lying allowed to be aired across the airwaves is ludicrous. He is committing a grievous wound to our country's psyche and even sometimes internationally. The people he associates himself with is also another head turner.

Anyway, to the real point. The pay scheme may work, for awhile. As long as I've been using the Internet capitalism (out of all the places in the world) truly thrives here. They can ask for money or demand it. The very next day there will be three or more new sites up that not only offer what they had for free (even if illegal), but they will have their own content. It's happened already with: games, music, movies, news, video, social sites, pictures, etc...

The pay scheme will never work unless the provider finds the groove that customers are willing to pay for (like Netflix, or iTunes, etc..) and the other problem -- DEMAND. Murdoch didn't come up with anything revolutionary or new; it's like Microsoft and their new "Bing" search engine (Google) that is integrated into a full OS/Browser experience(!11!!) and Iran's new robot that can handle uranium and stuff (Asimo)...

Whether the paper medium dies is entirely up to them. Innovate or die.
edit-done, I guess...

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

Voting laws and regulations regarding environmental security does not mean you want "Big Government". Enforcing these laws and regulations does not mean you want "Big Government". You have laws against murder, and cops to enforce them, and that doesn't make the government especially big.
Also, you can be pro-business, yet be adamant that corporations take responsibility for their externalities (it's common sense, unless you think it's OK for, say, a nuke plant to dump their used uranium in a river).

"Big Government" refers mainly to higher taxation and social redistribution, but it has become some sort of shallow talking point to describe anything that's not libertarian laissez-faire. It's like the government shouldn't do anything, and when it does (like when those roads and airports can't magically build themselves), it should be for free.

It's not Big or Small Government that caused this, it's incompetence, blindness, and good old-fashioned (Lobbies-induced) political corruption.

Thorium reactors, designed about the same time as uranium ones, produce very little waste and are far more energy efficient and safe. The US has a huge stockpile of thorium, enough to last for a very long time. They were shelved as a concept because they don't produce weapons grade byproducts...

http://videosift.com/video/Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactor-Google-Tech-Talk-Remix

This is why there is no energy independence. Good ideas are buried for one reason or another and ignored. The only thing to give up here is the ability to nuke the planet a few thousands more times, the science is done and they are relatively cheap and quick to build...

The same for dozens of other good ideas that are buried. They don't fit with corporate or government plans and are forgotten. I daresay there wouldn't be a politician who'd even heard of a thorium reactor for example.

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

Again, you just ignored the facts that I presented to you.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.
The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!
Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

>> ^rougy:

Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?


No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.

The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!

Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

Okay @bcglorf, by the numbers:

"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.

The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."

(source)

"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."

(source)

This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

1. One point that was vastly un underlined, was that if this is a debate about how to combat global warming without reducing our electricity consumption, how long it would take for the coal-replacing energy source to go live is vitally important. If we indeed would have to wait close to 20 years for the nuclear plants to be built, that's too long. At the very least, we need both to be built immediately, and when the nukes go live, then we can decide if we still want the other.

2. A point that amazingly wasn't mentioned at all by the anti- side is the environmental damage caused by irresponsible uranium mining.

3. The most irresponsible point was when the pro- guy compared one person's lifetime nuclear emissions to a 1GW plant's daily carbon emissions. The three problems:

* a person's power consumption is not equal to a 1GW power plant's output
* a human lifetime is not one day
* the environmental damage of captured nuclear waste by mass is not the environmental damage of released CO2 by mass

So comparing a Coke can to a railway train is meaningless.