"A top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." "
WTF kinda statement is THAT ?
- Please stop making nuclear weapons.
- We are not making any.
Result : INCONCLUSIVE.
The whole point of the circle jerkoff is :
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM UNDER NPT TREATY, BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO, BECAUSE WE FEEL REALLY QUEER ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DOMINATE YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE OIL AND WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE MIGHTY AND YOU ARE SHIT.
That's all there is to it. I wish somebody could fucking honestly say it.
"A top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." "
WTF kinda statement is THAT ?
- Please stop making nuclear weapons.
- We are not making any.
Result : INCONCLUSIVE.
The whole point of the circle jerkoff is :
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM UNDER NPT TREATY, BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO, BECAUSE WE FEEL REALLY QUEER ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DOMINATE YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE OIL AND WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE MIGHTY AND YOU ARE SHIT.
That's all there is to it. I wish somebody could fucking honestly say it.
Nothing tin-foil about it. Whitey is afraid of the muslims having the bomb. Iran is a legit theocracy, Komeini runs the show. That scares the shit out of them.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
Nothing tin-foil about it. Whitey is afraid of the muslims having the bomb. Iran is a legit theocracy, Komeini runs the show. That scares the shit out of them.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
Nothing tin-foil about it. Whitey is afraid of the muslims having the bomb. Iran is a legit theocracy, Komeini runs the show. That scares the shit out of them.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
Then that's what should be dealt with by the international community (hint: that means more than just US and Israel). We shouldn't hear shit about them not being able to enrich. If they are in fact building a nuke then we deal with it, paranoia about it is only going to push them to build one.
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
They have a right to enrich uranium and pursue peaceful nuke power. If they break the terms of the NPT there is really nothing in the treaty to punish them, it would be up to the security council to decide how to proceed. If we go into Iran without world support, we will not do well. It will make Iraq look like a day at the beach in comparison. There is really no good choice in this situation, but for sure, full scale invasion is an awful idea. and it will prolly be the final nail in our proverbial coffin.
Nothing tin-foil about it. Whitey is afraid of the muslims having the bomb. Iran is a legit theocracy, Komeini runs the show. That scares the shit out of them.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
Otester just wants to call someone else the conspiratard for once. Little does he know there is no conspiracy or secret that the West and it's shoe-lickers wants everything Iran has, it's actually pretty fucking common place knowledge.
I do wonder who Russia would support in all this, what with the Reactor in Iran and all
sailirish7 wrote:
ShanusMaximus wrote:
sailirish7 wrote:
ShanusMaximus wrote:
^ How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
They have a right to enrich uranium and pursue peaceful nuke power. If they break the terms of the NPT there is really nothing in the treaty to punish them, it would be up to the security council to decide how to proceed. If we go into Iran without world support, we will not do well. It will make Iraq look like a day at the beach in comparison. There is really no good choice in this situation, but for sure, full scale invasion is an awful idea. and it will prolly be the final nail in our proverbial coffin.
The problem is, no one is respecting the NPT as much as Iran apparently isn't as well. Everyone is making embargos against Iran based on hearsay. They technically haven't broken the NPT yet, because nobody can really prove anything, yet the Axis of Assholes (US and Israel) keep on pushing for invasion. It seems to me the US and israel together are being the illegal aggressors, as always. The way the story is being spun, the world will pretty well have no choice but to support the invasion even if there is no proof or basis to anything. It's sort of bullshit.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them not to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
But they can't make weapons from thorium, shanus. It doesn't go bang like Uranium does. Replace uranium, and hundreds to thousands of jobs on the IACC are downsized or just plain disappear. I'm not saying it's good logic, it's just common capitalist logic, you can't make as much money from a safe nuclear fuel that's can't be weaponized. Stupid logic if you ask me.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...
What is scary is that I think we are living through a real life Boy Who Cried Wolf.........
A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.
The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...
17
| 123 views | www.haaretz.com
"A top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." "
WTF kinda statement is THAT ?
- Please stop making nuclear weapons.
- We are not making any.
Result : INCONCLUSIVE.
The whole point of the circle jerkoff is :
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM UNDER NPT TREATY, BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO, BECAUSE WE FEEL REALLY QUEER ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DOMINATE YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE OIL AND WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE MIGHTY AND YOU ARE SHIT.
That's all there is to it. I wish somebody could fucking honestly say it.
Just say it !
"A top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could "could not find a way forward" in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks "in a constructive spirit." "
WTF kinda statement is THAT ?
- Please stop making nuclear weapons.
- We are not making any.
Result : INCONCLUSIVE.
The whole point of the circle jerkoff is :
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM UNDER NPT TREATY, BUT WE DON'T WANT YOU TO, BECAUSE WE FEEL REALLY QUEER ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO DOMINATE YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE OIL AND WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ARE MIGHTY AND YOU ARE SHIT.
That's all there is to it. I wish somebody could fucking honestly say it.
Just say it !
Careful Lith, you're starting to sound tin-foilie
you're starting to sound tin-foilie
Youv'e been waiting a long time to post that haven't you?
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
you're starting to sound tin-foilie
Youv'e been waiting a long time to post that haven't you?
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
That is all well and good but...........
"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in a statement. "We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."
In November, an IAEA report - based on what it called "credible" information - indicated that Iran had built in 2000 a large explosives containment vessel at Parchin to conduct hydrodynamic experiments.
Hydrodynamic experiments, which involve high explosives in conjunction with nuclear material or nuclear material surrogates, were "strong indicators of possible weapon development", the report said.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
That is all well and good but...........
"It is disappointing that Iran did not accept our request to visit Parchin," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in a statement. "We engaged in a constructive spirit, but no agreement was reached."
In November, an IAEA report - based on what it called "credible" information - indicated that Iran had built in 2000 a large explosives containment vessel at Parchin to conduct hydrodynamic experiments.
Hydrodynamic experiments, which involve high explosives in conjunction with nuclear material or nuclear material surrogates, were "strong indicators of possible weapon development", the report said.
Then that's what should be dealt with by the international community (hint: that means more than just US and Israel). We shouldn't hear shit about them not being able to enrich. If they are in fact building a nuke then we deal with it, paranoia about it is only going to push them to build one.
How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace
How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
They have a right to enrich uranium and pursue peaceful nuke power. If they break the terms of the NPT there is really nothing in the treaty to punish them, it would be up to the security council to decide how to proceed. If we go into Iran without world support, we will not do well. It will make Iraq look like a day at the beach in comparison. There is really no good choice in this situation, but for sure, full scale invasion is an awful idea. and it will prolly be the final nail in our proverbial coffin.
That said, they have every right to enrich to their hearts content as long as they let in the inspectors and cooperate with the IAEA under the NPT obligations. I wish someone would say THAT part in public...
Otester just wants to call someone else the conspiratard for once. Little does he know there is no conspiracy or secret that the West and it's shoe-lickers wants everything Iran has, it's actually pretty fucking common place knowledge.
I do wonder who Russia would support in all this, what with the Reactor in Iran and all
How would the international community "deal with it" exactly? I do think that this idea is the best one I have heard yet.....
How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace
Escalating sanctions, no fly zones etc. (a lot of which is already being done) My point is they have some rights up to a certain point, and that we should also not be doing anything unilaterally.
Additionally, we have no evidence that they would *USE* a nuke offensively. We have been fucking up their neighborhood pretty regularly lately, and the war with Iraq in the 80's was no picnic for them either. I would be more shocked if they DIDN'T want a nuke.
So why should the international community do anything at all? We know sanctions and no fly zones don't work and I think both of those "punishments" don't do anything but inflame the situation. You say they have SOME rights up to a certain point. What are those rights and what is the certain point? Then if we reach that certain point........what happens? Is the Thorium solution not a viable one?
They have a right to enrich uranium and pursue peaceful nuke power. If they break the terms of the NPT there is really nothing in the treaty to punish them, it would be up to the security council to decide how to proceed. If we go into Iran without world support, we will not do well. It will make Iraq look like a day at the beach in comparison. There is really no good choice in this situation, but for sure, full scale invasion is an awful idea. and it will prolly be the final nail in our proverbial coffin.
The problem is, no one is respecting the NPT as much as Iran apparently isn't as well. Everyone is making embargos against Iran based on hearsay. They technically haven't broken the NPT yet, because nobody can really prove anything, yet the Axis of Assholes (US and Israel) keep on pushing for invasion. It seems to me the US and israel together are being the illegal aggressors, as always. The way the story is being spun, the world will pretty well have no choice but to support the invasion even if there is no proof or basis to anything. It's sort of bullshit.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them not to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
But they can't make weapons from thorium, shanus. It doesn't go bang like Uranium does. Replace uranium, and hundreds to thousands of jobs on the IACC are downsized or just plain disappear. I'm not saying it's good logic, it's just common capitalist logic, you can't make as much money from a safe nuclear fuel that's can't be weaponized. Stupid logic if you ask me.
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...
I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...
What is scary is that I think we are living through a real life Boy Who Cried Wolf.........
Aesop
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
A shepherd-boy, who watched a flock of sheep near a village, brought out the villagers three or four times by crying out, "Wolf! Wolf!" and when his neighbors came to help him, laughed at them for their pains.
The Wolf, however, did truly come at last. The Shepherd-boy, now really alarmed, shouted in an agony of terror: "Pray, do come and help me; the Wolf is killing the sheep"; but no one paid any heed to his cries, nor rendered any assistance. The Wolf, having no cause of fear, at his leisure lacerated or destroyed the whole flock.
There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.I agree on not doing an invasion for sure. I just don't get this little dance. They say they want it for peace.....but everybody knows that they aren't otherwise they wouldn't have kicked out the inspectors. Everybody knows that the U.N. is toothless, plus you are not going to get a consensus with Russia and China anyway. I do think that Celente's idea may be the best way to attack this situation. If they truly want it for peaceful reasons there is no reason for them to go with Thorium. In fact I don't see any reason why all the world shouldn't switch to Thorium.
Uranium, the fuel that runs the world’s nuclear reactors, is lethal even when it’s not packed in a bomb. It’s absurdly complicated to handle, its behavior is touchy and unpredictable, and its waste is fatal to humans for millions of years after we’ve wrung the small amount of energy from it that our technology allows.Yet when thorium was tested as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s, it was found to be both cleaner and safer than uranium. It can’t melt down or spontaneously explode when a “critical mass” of it is piled up; and it produces mainly alpha radiation, which is so weak that it can’t penetrate skin. Although thorium does produce a trace of radioactive waste that endures for billions of years, the amount is vastly smaller than uranium’s leavings.
I wish we would all use thorium too, there is less waste produced by the fuel cycle. My main beef with this is that it sounds just like the build up to the Iraq war, and I'm not having any of it this time. If they wanna invade Iran, let congress send their children to die...