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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sherman Chen who wrote (6711)	12/26/1997 8:54:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Sherman, oops a daisy! Yes, I was thinking of fission. At least the nuclear power people never make silly mistakes, silly mistake, silly mistakes..... I realize fusion is experimental, but should be a doddle once they figure out how to time the quantum quark positioning so that the particles simply collapse into each other without having to bang them together really hard in a hot plasma. Stanley Pons and his mate did it with con-fusion. Caxton, thanks for the explanation. I have nothing against nuclear power overall. I was quoting the 1:10 000 chances of a problem from 20 years ago or maybe more. I'm impressed that there is decommissioning money aleady stashed. I knew recent reactors include fail safe designs so you don't get runaway criticality. I wasn't meaning the aim in blowing up the station would be to kill people, but to stop it producing electricity, which is an important objective in wars. The radiation hazard would be in the category of collateral damage. The best way to make them secure is to make political systems secure. Maurice