Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

@all
whoops, did you read this ???

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

It does make sence. The reason why is because you can't expect a major company to change the corebusiness completely :) When tv came it was clearly the rival of the radio, same for companies producing combustion engine, don't expect them to make 100% electric cars and many more examples. Nowadays companies are experienced and know how to stop the competition if possible. Stopping or slowing down the competition is a very good business strategy specially if you don't want change.

And there are really a lot of examples of oil companies and car companies owning patents to stop the competition, or lawsuits against progress. This is how I searched, just take a look and see for yourself :) google patents oil companies

Yes, roads are free - to use. But they also come at a cost, payed for via taxes. Same goes for any service provided by the society. Everything has a cost, and you have to weigh the costs against the benefits. It goes for roads and power production as well as hospitals, education, fire and police departments etc.

Nothing's free, and you can't ask taxpayers or consumers to invest in anything out of pure ideology. Nobody would accept that in a democracy. Not when other sources can provide the same service (in this case electricity) at a much lower prize.
(edited)

When tv came it was radio companies that made it come. Made the investments and continued developement. The radio companies who didn't jump on board from the beginning are now long gone and belongs to notalgic history.

I really don't want to read into a loads of pages. Find something, and I'll take a look at it. Making a google-search doesnt proove anything. At all.

Example:
"Bush is behind 9/11"

el pupe thats not pointed at you, just in general.

Its quite naiv to think that patents can not be held back from companies who do have an interest to keep them secret.

The procedure to do so is even quite simple. My father is an inventor, he knows the patent laws, he told me how they do it. Its even done on a legitime legal basis, not ofc on a moral basis. Thats still 2 different sides nowadays.

Naiv to think that our world is not to some degree, in some areas strong and in other less so, influenced by lobby. At the end its all about control, there are allways people /companies or other organisations tryining to seize total control of something, cause it gives them power and profit because no one else can compete.


Just a smal example. Pharma industry is making patents on plants which were created by evolution, which belong to the whole world. So that they are the only one who can use it in future.

Monsato has a patent running on wheat which pullulates only once. So every farmer in the world at one point in future may be dependen on it. This is control.

Thats just 2 examples, there are plenty more out there.

Ther are many people who profit if np keep running and they do not consider the future or following generations. All the belive in is money.
(edited)

That's a completely different search ofcourse. Mine is as neutral as it can get.

Yes, roads are free.

since when??? Roads are built from the money collected from the taxes, there are even special taxes for roads - for example additional tax to petrol. Maybe that's only in Poland, though I doubt it.

But it's very unpolite to just make a google-search and then leave the research to me. Give me a concrete example from a reliable source, and I'll take a look at it. Otherwise I'll just assume you haven't got any.

Yes, roads are free. But they also come at a cost. Same goes for any service provided by the society. Everything has a cost, and you have to weigh the costs against the benefits.


Right!!!
Again I'll answer as the first time I did:
it is a political question, I think so, you maybe elseware.

there's NO one true and real answer we all must believe,
IT IS A CHOICE we must take!!!

@Gallifax:
Again the problem is still the same,
what do WE WANT?
Rules must serve people not the reverse, do we like those rules? No?
start thinking how to change them!

for example:Stop voting your country (untrue)conservative or (false)progressistic parties, for example!!! find different ideas in political question, do not believe that the difference we can chose from is between a regluated market and a "very" regulated market!!!

Don't pretend to not know what I mean. I've made the exact same point several times within the last couple of hours.

Sorry, I'm not really following the discussion too well, especially as I'm a bit drugged with anti-allergic medicine :D

Of course it's a political question. That's exactly why it's unrealistic. You'd never get a majority of any population to accept spending freely on something like energy production. Education, hospitals and all other sorts of core welfare services have a MUCH higher priority for the vast majority of people. I'm just beeing practical.

Fair enough. :)

Edit: I've clarified it to "Yes, roads are free - to use. But they also come at a cost, payed for via taxes."
(edited)

A bit lazy if you ask me (no insult). Making claims but don't really want to take the time to search for the truth. But I found 1 as an example, it's a summery of events including some lawsuites. How Big Oil Controlled the U.S. Photovoltaic Industry. And this is only an example of Photovoltaic Industry. There are many more industries imvolved. Just read :)
(edited)

You'd never get a majority of any population to accept spending freely on something like energy production.

never say nevere, and trust people!!!
:P

Seriosly.
the point is obviously how much...

how much do we pay now, how much more are we able to spend?
what are the benefits I gain changin the production in a "green" one?
how much do I value them?

I don't think the answer is so sure as you do...