gowlerk

That says absolutely nothing about where the spent fuel will be stored long term. And it introduces a host of transportation risks. I would assume that wherever this factory is would be stuck with the spent fuel. Just as existing plants are stuck with there. All sitting in pools of cooling water waiting for the day that society can no longer care for it.

Not until someone can get a handle on what to do with the waste. Seriously, in my mind that is the only deal killer. All the other problems can be solved. And actually this one can be as well. In theory, but not as long as no one will accept it being anywhere near their area.

But unlike losers like Reagan and Obama he has never been photographed wearing a tan suit.

Yes, most but not all of the on air people seem to be if not left very skeptical of right wing positions. You can often feel it in questions when they interview people from the right, as if they are holding their tongues. They make a serious and consistent effort to look at issues from many angles, not just two points of view. But there is a tendency in open minded people in general to be skeptical of extreme positions, and many of the current positions on the American right are getting more and more extreme. Climate change is a good example. It's very hard to keep a civil tongue at times when faced with someone who will deny basic facts. It is valid to argue that we should just keep on burning fuel and look at ways to cope with the fallout from it. That is one option and given the realities of economics and the huge supply of fossil fuels there is an argument to be made for that. But if your starting position is simply that all is well then you are simply being deliberately obtuse (assuming you are not simply a fool) and that makes for a very difficult interview.

You have not provided any link to anything published or said by NPR. The only use of the word "controversial" is in the jacket blurb you quoted. The only connection to NPR that you have demonstrated is that the author of the book is an ex CEO of NPR.

Insurance companies are dealing with the planning for the future right now. As good capitalists they are staying ahead of the curve. They are well above the phony "debate" over what is clearly coming down the pipe. They can not and will not bury their heads in the sand and pretend that all will be just fine like deniers do. If they did they would be fired and replaced because money talks and bullshit walks. http://www.brinknews.com/climate-change-has-claimed-its-biggest-corporate-victim-now-banks-are-on-alert/?utm_source=BRINK+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a451f598cc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_01_09_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c3639d7c98-a451f598cc-110426289

Outside of the USA there are many people who find this description to be a pretty good summary of American behavior in the world. Of course it is not America alone which behaves this way. But with great power comes great responsibility....

You would seem to be the only one who is confused. For the third time, I'll try to end your confusion. The book is not controversial. Next question please.

Screw it. I'm getting a good old fashion coal burning steam powered aerioplane.

I did. That's how I found out that what you posted is not even a review. It's the book jacket blurb from the publisher. So, to answer your question, for the second time, the book is not really controversial at all. That's just a word used to try to sell it.

Can you link to the story for more context? Edit to add, When I search for the headline I see it quoted word for word in many places. I assume it is called "controversial" because that is the term the publisher is using to help sell the book.

I don't see that interview listed on any of the big nation program lineups for today. Maybe on a local station though. Perhaps this interview from today is more to your liking. It's certainly timely. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/708127456/love-your-enemies-and-maaaybe-you-ll-get-them-to-agree-with-you

Daylight Savings Time is here.

Those are all anecdotal and indicate your personal biases. In my personal bias I see them as spending far too much time trying to "balance" by including points of view that I don't think very much of. We may or may not both have good reason for our feelings. But I will give you that it is an awkward combination centrist/leftish points of view.

So, now you are going to attack the best news source in the USA? I'm listening to All Things Considered on Minnesota Public Radio right now as I type.

And the best part is thinking about how people like Lamar Alexander would be ridiculing what is now his own position only one Congressional election cycle ago.

So, is that what this thread is? Two or three guys (always guys, no women would care) with some kind of decades long fascination with this event either yelling at each other or trying hard not to yell at each other? Fortunately I can choose to ignore posters. I can't made the thread go back to where it belongs, but I can hide most of the posts by blocking only a few people.

You almost had me. Until electric Beaver that is.

I'm looking for information on those Airbus adjustments. I can only find vague references to the fly by wire system needing to be "re-tuned". It is really hard to know just how much the basic flight characteristics of either one need to be compensated for by computers. It's clear that the re-engine of the Airbus product also affected it's flight, but not what aspects were affected.

For the last few days paid items have been showing up in my FB newsfeed from an organization called "Airline Ratings". Every one of them promotes a link to an article about how wonderful the Boeing certification process on the Max 8 was and how unfair any criticism of them or the FAA is. Now, where do you suppose the money for this is coming from? I wonder if they will be hiring Royreader next. https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-not-rush-737-max-design/?fbclid=IwAR0NTz58j5_hl-ooge0dbEKi_zQS1KIcMB9kPsVU1GMc9ycKS29Brv_eWvE

If that is the level of research you are basing your position on it is pointless for me to respond. You obviously have no interest in looking at this as anything more than a right versus left political level argument. Al Gore and AOC do not run the National Academy of Science. I prefer their depth of research and knowledge over the shallowness you are expressing. https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

No one can prove one way or the other if weather events are more intense than they otherwise would be. And no one here is claiming that it can be proven, even though you think you are making points by pointing out that fact. However, it can not be disputed that sea level is rising, average temperature is rising and glaciers are retreating. In other words all the indicators that we can rely on are showing a warming climate. Your anecdotes about polar bears are meaningless.

Sigh....out comes the bullshit again. The glaciers are melting, the sea is rising, the average air temp is rising, the average sea temp is rising. All facts, not predictions. The last time you spent any significant time on this here you were all about how plants were going to thrive in the modified atmosphere. This year your denial is of a somewhat different flavour. But nothing has really changed much. The National Acadeny of Science still says you are wrong. Because you are.

Alex Jones says 'form of psychosis' made him believe events like Sandy Hook massacre were staged Apparently he still does not understand the difference between assholeness and psychosis.

AND, fuel for it is dirt cheap right now!