Giant International Fusion Reactor Draws Nearer 967
nnnneedles writes "BBC is reporting that scientists are deciding on where to build the world's first big fusion reactor. The international effort is described as the boldest nuclear initiative since the Manhattan Project, and holds promise for future unlimited, clean energy. The choice on where to build the reactor currently stands between Japan and France, but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq." There's also an AP story.
Argh, stupid Liberal government (Score:3, Interesting)
They talked about it in a recent Quirks and Quarks [radio.cbc.ca] episode (available in Ogg Vorbis!) Really sad.
Hot fusion is not "clean" nuclear power. (Score:5, Interesting)
The more conventional gamma rays, alpha radiation (helium nucleii), and beta rays (fast moving electrons) are dangerous enough but at least they aren't infectious: you can irradiate food with gamma rays and it doesn't turn radioactive. Neutrons get absorbed by nearby nuclei, which then themselves become unstable and radioactive. Ick.
That's not to say we shouldn't explore nuclear fusion as a power source -- just that it is not the perfectly clean energy source that it is often made out to be.
Re:Childish behavior (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait a minuite...
The Canadians and Russians and Chinese were on France's side of that conflict !!
So why are they not supporting France now ?
Could it be that they honestly believe that Japan is a better site because
a) the site would be 3 miles from the sea where deuterium is plentiful
b) Japan is a model nation that would benefit form this technology (Japan lacks natural energy resources)
Or could it be that they are under the thumb of the US, as they showed during the UN debates ?
You decide.
All your base belong to US (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that relevant? What are they going to do, recharge their battery powered Humvees?
Earthquakes (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, the EU favors France over Spain (Score:5, Interesting)
How it works? (Score:2, Interesting)
I understand the most of it: B-feild presses the Hydergen together, pressure mounts, then they fuse, releasing heat, right? Well, in and among those big, superconductive wires, how do you get the heat from the reactor out to a boiler? Or do they intend to line the thing with lots of little thermapiles, like an RTG or the like? It seems to me that it would be hard to get all that energy released into a useful form...
Easy way to resolve US vs France dispute (Score:4, Interesting)
The English will have no choice but to either fund the French effort or invade. As the rest of the EU would frown on invading, that just leaves making sure the French reactor worked perfectly.
In turn, with two fairly substantial doners then backing a French effort, other countries would see no point in funding another, so would join in.
Once America is the lone holdout, the US taxpayer must either pay 100% of the costs of a fusion reactor (which would cost congressmen a lot of votes) or the US Government would have to give in.
Y'see, the important thing in politics is not who is right, or even who is richest, but rather who is the better gambler.
Re:Hot fusion is not "clean" nuclear power. (Score:3, Interesting)
French and Nuclear Technology (Score:4, Interesting)
Could it possibly be because France tends to sell [bbc.co.uk] all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? [worldnetdaily.com] Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph [command-post.org] to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).
Re:good point...but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's it (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're sort of missing the point. The question is, why do some people find bad arguments so persuasive? And, there is plenty of existing literature on the subject, in linguistics, psychology, behavioral economics -- Daniel Kahneman one a Nobel prize last year for basically addressing that question.
Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... (Score:2, Interesting)
For the politicial assault in the teaser of the articte against France - here we go:
Great history at a glance in your posting fastidious edward! There is nothing more I could say a young German (but probably you should not miss the part of soviet russia in the fight).
There is also not much difference between 'Old Europe' and the US till the end 199x. And for am I was born in Eastern Germany behind the wall there were a lot of reason to thank the US for standing and thus save whole Europe (otherwise there had been no hold for the russion divisions at all).
But since the neoconservative Bush junta has taken over the power in the US all our picture of you has changed as dramatically as it could. Maybe we are driven apart before, but maybe all Europeans loved Clinton too much to see it. As where we stand now for me I can say: I see really two USA and they are as different as they could be. It's like you are a other land after the change from Clinton to Bush.
As where we now stand I would suggest you in the US to read 'After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order' by Emmanuel Todd - despite it will hurt you should get a lot of truth from it.
One of the main conclusions in this book is the change of the habbit of the US empire after the beginning of the 1990's from a good saving empire to a aggressive imperalistic empire.
Here are some main differences between the US and Old Europe as good as I get it together. Hopefully we do not see here a other clash of civilisation Huntington may have left in his book.
1)
We do not believe that your President has been legitimated in a fair democratic election at all.
(In no land in Europe this whould be able to happen - to have diffences in voting machines between 2-10% - and not count all votes via hand or arrange a new ellection.)
2)
Dead Penalty is not human and is showing a low state of civilisation.
3)
The agenda of Kyoto has to be ratified by the US as the biggest destroyer of our enviroment.
4)
The international curt in the Haag is the only authority for war crimes. Nobody here is seeing where you will have the right to think you would be out of this!
5)
You have no right to begin assault wars without legitimation of the UN security counsal - there will be no world order without the rule of law.
6)
There is also a big thinking of standing out of the law as empire. You have no right to deal like you do in Guantanamo! This is the tradition of Stalin and Hitler.
So we see a fall of democracity in the US swapped against nationalism.
Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... (Score:1, Interesting)
The key turning point of the second world war in Europe was the battle of Stalingrad, which Americans had nothing to do with. After that, the result was not in doubt. The Russians did not need US military help to beat Nazi Germany.
(I don't mean to suggest that the US military contribution didn't help Europe, on the contrary. Without US military involvement, the Russians would certainly have taken over the whole of Germany, maybe Italy, and possibly some other European countries.)
International? Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they build an international fusion reactor, there will be endless squabbling about every little detail.
The US should just build one for itself, and leave the others to their own ideas. Why should our scientists, resources, and military, and production benefit other countries? It's a bad deal for us because we never seem to charge for our services.
What's the point of being a sovereign nation these days...
Re:That's it (Score:4, Interesting)
At the age of 20, unable to handle such an emotionless and empty existence without any symbolic meaning or structure John Stuart Mill had a severe nervous breakdown. Fortunately before the depression and anxiety led to his much contemplated suicide, he happened upon the Romantic poets and their praise of life and its beauty. He credits them with having allowed him to face life and give it meaning. You will note that many religions have done the same thing for people.
People have had your wish in the past, and it has turned out to be false. Creativity, emotion and spirituality, though not rational, are important components of human existence. You may think you can live without them, but its been proven time and time again that the vast majority of people, even the most brilliant, simply cannot. You may not understand why, but your education has incorporated these things into your life and buttressed your existence.
Irrationality and chaos are fundamental aspects of life.
.
Re:Why is this About US Opposing French Site ? (Score:1, Interesting)
And the nice terrorists in Al Queida thanked them by targeting Turkish Muslim citizens. Of course, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queida or terrorism, right? So it must be a coincidence.
It seems to me that all this "opposition" to the Iraq war was less about pacifist principles than about protecting national economies and preferring that the US remain the principle target for Al Queida. Once President Bush showed that the US wasn't going to roll over and play dead after 9/11, Al Queida decided to turn their vitriolic anger toward the "US Allies", Turkey and SA, ironically, the 2 countries that turned away from the US over the Iraq war. Nice way to reward "good" behavior, huh.
Clearly, Sadaam killed more Muslims than the entire coalition armed forces in both Gulf wars combined, yet some Muslims are sad to see him go. That speaks volumes about the real motives of those people. I think the only solution is to "clean them out" of the middle east like a farmer clean out rats from his barn. And that, is what the war In Iraq is all about.
It's also curious that just days after Sadamm is captured (in a very publicly humiliating way), Libya decides they don't want to go nuclear any more. I bet Al Queida gets a cold shoulder from them also. There's a country that seems to be getting a clue!
Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the smell of krispy karma in the morning.
People can believe what they like but I don't want it forced on me.
Soooo... you believe that it's wrong to passively "force" religious beliefs on someone, but it's acceptable to agressively enforce secularism?
I hate to tell you "babe", but seeing a head scarf, cross, etc. doesn't force you to believe anything. If you're mind is so pathetically weak that you can be "forcibly" converted to a religion simply by viewing it's symbolic imagery, chances are pretty good that you're so fucked up right now by everday advertising that it's not really going to matter anyway.
There's a difference between not letting the school engage in or push any particular religious viewpoint on the class as a whole. It's a wholly different story when individual students decide that they wish to make their religious beliefs known or wish to engage in a religious activity at school. Barring disruptive behavior that interferes with other students, the school/government has no business telling individuals what they can and can't do regarding the subject.
There is no difference between a government that forces a religious belief on its people and one that forces it's people not to have a religion. I will actively fight any government official that would suggest EITHER or those paths was a good one.
The big problem is neutron flux (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if you look at the topics of a conference (11th International Conference on Fusion Reactor Materials) [kyoto-u.ac.jp] in Japan just a few weeks ago, that problem has not gone away yet.
Re:That's it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Check your facts.... (Score:1, Interesting)
30% for the war right now.
35% for the war, after more inspection, if possible with UN backed coalition.
25% against a war now or later.
The US president said: "65% for the war, we are going to war."
The French president said: "60% against the war now, let's project a July war after a last attempt at a peace process thru the UN."
Yep, France was actually FOR a move toward the war (but 6 months later), unlike Germany, Rusia, China, and many many more.
When the US insulted France (and Germany) for their more peaceful and waiting stance, I guess to push/bully them to change their position, they replied with a hardened position. This was the worst international relation coup since Japan's war declaration 12 hours too late IMHO.
I have no real opinion on Bush, but this was very badly handled. I believe that the war would have happened anyway with a (very limited) UN coalition in late summer or end of 2003 at the latest. But then, if the war would have lasted longer than it did and with chemical warfare from the Iraqis (like everyone predicted) the re-election campaign could have been a disaster for Bush. Last March was really the latest possible moment from a political standpoint.
Umm, why france? (Score:3, Interesting)
As an American, I'd rather see the reactor built in Japan. There's a laundry list of reasons (the French seem to handle internation opinion & criticism about as well as we do), but if it makes you Euro's feel warm, fuzzy, and supieror, then fine;
"I don't want them thar frechies building nuthin' cause they didn't support the war. Damn Frogs. God Bless America! Power of Pride! Never Forget!"
Have I reinforced the stereotypes enough? Or should I post a link to pictures of my pickup truck?
The U.S. could get the whole planet laid, and they'd still complain. If we supported the French Project we'd be unjustly shutting out Japan of an economic opportunity.
Re:Why do I bother...? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen that 1% stat before, and I don't believe it tells the whole story. The US has had a longtime policy of not selling any military equipment to Iraq; however this was a very tongue-in-cheek policy as often things like the aforementioned helicopters would be sold, sans guns, which were readily available from the Russians or whatever. So Iraq got things like helicopter gunships that did not technically have the guns - but with the gun mounts left intact - from the US, and this did not count as a military sale.
I'm sorry I don't have links with me right now so take this as you will. I readily admit that I can't prove it.
Re:Even Donald Rumsfeld..... (Score:1, Interesting)
Last I heard France was the European country with the largest Jewish population.
Moreover this "cultural initiative" (banning 'ostentive' religious signs from public schools) cannot be understood from the US. France doesn't follow the anglo-saxon model of integration where it is normal for immigrants to keep their customs. They expect immigrants to adopt local customs in order to from one unified society (vs. the ghettos (poor or rich) typically found in US and GB cities). This model is threatened by the integrist part of the muslim community.
As far as anti-semitism, most of it comes from the muslim community (plus the extreme right of course, they never stopped hating jews). You won't find much anti-semitism from other French, although you may see a good deal of anti-sionism. Anti-semitism and anti-sionism are not synonyms, despite what some elements of the jewish community would like everyone to believe.
Sec of State Powell was given assurances by French diplomats that UNRes1441 would have some teeth to it and that the French would allow the US to enforce it without much problem. Lies.
And the US embassador to the UN gave assurance that the US would never try to use UNRes1441 to justify a military intervention.
Lie ?
US...not the worst offender, by far (Score:2, Interesting)
Germany and France were the primary suppliers of Iraq's WMD program, not the United States.
The only country to have used helicopters to spray chemical weapons so far has been Iraq. The helicopters in question that Bell sold to Iraq were civilian model helicopters. While they could easily be outfitted with weapons, there were far more effective gunship platforms available (ie, Russian ones) for a cheaper price. And Iraq fitting them with chemical weapons was probably not an anticipated result.
People who get pissed over that might as well get pissed at Toyota for selling their trucks to the Taliban.
Compare that with German assistance in pointing out how a pesticide factory could be switched over to chemical weapons relatively easy.
Re:Why do I bother...? (Score:2, Interesting)
And the perfect answer is... (Score:3, Interesting)
That way everyone will have an interest in seeing Iraq rebuilt and made safe and Iraq will also be able to better repay its debts...As apparently its oil is not enough.....
Sure you mean those WDM the US found ? (Score:3, Interesting)
One can argue that the US did put Saddam Hussein in place anyway, so let us only see at the source of all our problem and who put dictator in place in the last 20 years in soith america, Africa and east. Frankly I do not think you wouldlike the blame game that much.The reason is simple the US as having more power militaristcaly simply had its hands in more dirty things. It is simply a Question of financial. I do not think the other country are more innocent and they would probably have done the same with the same money at disposition. Just do not start the blame game now because you aren't in position for that.
Re:Sure you mean those WDM the US found ? (Score:2, Interesting)