Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (156970)	9/13/2011 6:51:47 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 206085

<uneducated public and phobic fear against anything involving "radiation"> I agree, completely. But how much money has been spent, by industry and government, over the last 40 years, in an unsuccessful effort to educate? Is there any evidence the public wants to be educated? Or is even open to a discussion? "Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche I'd like decisions to be made on the basis of numbers, reproducible results, and rational cost-benefit analysis. I'm a student of history, I've been reading for 50 years, and I've never read of any government (or any set of voters, or any group of people larger than 10) who ever made decisions that way. I'd like to see the U.S. subsidize any and all technologies which have the potential to supply domestic LT energy. (R&D and start-up seed money only, with a strict time limit on how long subsidies last). We should be completely agnostic about technology: fund and encourage solar, wind, fission, fusion, deepwater and arctic drilling, and anything else even remotely plausible. If even one of them becomes a winner, it makes 10 dead-ends worthwhile. But what I want, or what you want, makes no difference in what's going to happen.

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (156970)	9/13/2011 10:05:28 PM
From: whitepine	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

CC, Public opposition to nukes arises from two facts that you may have over-looked: 1. operator errors might be like car accidents, or they might be catastrophic, both for the number of lives lost, but also for property damage that would not be covered by normal insurance. It is possible to have a dead zone of thousands of square miles. 2. Take the bloke who just turned out the lights in SCal. Little guy, pulled the wrong plug, was texting some babe......whatever. Point is, one guy did a hell of a lot of damage. Now, put the same simple error in a nuke plant. Most folks know you aren't going to do a quick fix, or rewind the cord without LASTING and permanent side effects. Our society requires advanced division of labor for productivity. Two implications: a. the little guy in the maintenance dept can screw up and cost many thousands of others extreme pain, inconvenience, and possibly, death. We all know this and we don't, for good reason, trust the system. Refinery fires or explosions are bad enough....nuke accidents like Japan are mega-fold the problems, pain, and damage. b. the folks who monitor safety and say "all is well," ARE NOT the folks who are likely to suffer from their lies or errors of judgment. Same for the corporate leaders. For better or worse, like the Exxon Valdez, or the last Gulf pollution accident, the folks who suffer the effects of mal-administration, ARE NOT the folks who make the decisions. Like the shrink who turns a [reformed :) ] psycho-killer loose back into the public ---- The shrink is unlikely to suffer from the consequences of HIS bad judgment. No, it will be the public. Do you trust the shrinks and the nuke bureaucrats? Me? No way. We all know you care for your life and property with a hell of a lot more conscientiousness than we would for the guy on the other side of town. Ya know that's true for investment counselors, just as it was true for Goldman and and the bad paper they sold to clients. Finally.....under worse case outcomes, for the average bloke, when the stink hits the fan, what recourse do they personally have? ....We all know................'bout none.

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (156970)	9/13/2011 10:40:49 PM
From: microhoogle!	Respond to of 206085

It is primal fear. A person bitten by shark would get more coverage and generate more fear than a person dying in car crash. In case of nuclear accident, the worst case sweeps, pervades and persists for some time in the fertile human minds (phew we dodged a bullet, else entire state would have been glassed over and the new generation would be born with 3 boobies and 4 titties) - hence the sell off. Since that irrationality lingers longer, the decision to move away from nuclear power starts taking hold. Personally, I have been a proponent of nuke energy till recently. Now I am somewhat ambivalent.