RE: Conspiracy Theories
There is an interesting discussion on Reddit @ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/qryoy/ted_talk_on_thorium_yo... concerning Thorium and it's drawbacks. Here is a post I found very informative and relative.
[–]star_quarterback 44 points 44 minutes ago
Reddit (And Kirk) would have you believe there is a US wide conspiracy keeping nuclear tech down. I've personally spoken with people high in regulatory positions
, and unfortunately the problem is a lot less glamorous than usually made out.
Even plain vanilla technology which has been around for 60 years (aka most existing boiling water/pressurized water plants) is tremendously expensive to implement. The high upfront capitol requirement to build a new plant - several billion dollars - along with uncertain NRC licensing practices makes nuke an extremely risky endeavor. This is for tech that has been around for 60 years. The problem is compounded even further when you introduce newer technology which has yet to be proven. With the natural gas boom the united states has seen over the last 10 years (fracking) growing by the day, there is even less reason to adopt high-cost, high-risk investments such as nuke.
tl;dr the problem with nuclear adoption in the USA is not a technological hurdle or a conspiracy. Combined with high upfront capitol, uncertain licensing practices, and the low cost of natural gas, it is merely a boring game of economics.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is why I will never work in the nuclear industry. IAMA Molten salt researcher at university.
- Hm...a sane, practical and mature discussion in regards to nuclear power. I fracking love Reddit.
In our "fractional reserve
In our "fractional reserve banking" economy, loaned money is created out of thin air. It's not borrowing resources that can be returned. It's the organizing of society in ways that use up nonrenewable resources as fast as possible, so that a few can get rich, based on false promises of future prosperity for everybody. This pyramid scheme will collapse due to hitting planetary limits, but the damage has been done: resources used up, planet polluted, climate destabilized, human population overgrown and dying off.
Yes - it's economics.
Yes - the main problem for nuclear is economics. Coal is cheaper; about 1.9 cents per kwh. The present fleet of nuclear power plants produces electricity at about 2.0 cents per kwh. Gas and wind produce electricity at about 5 cents per kwh.
Coal, gas, and wind don't have anywhere near the regulation hurdles that nuclear does. Nuclear has a high upfront cost.
So do we just say that we should never build another nuclear plant; that we will just keep building coal and gas plants?
Did people forget about global warming? Both coal and gas produce CO2 as their effluent, and the increasing CO2 is causing climate change. I thought the idea was to get off of the CO2 producing fuels; and that includes gas because it also produces CO2.
Of the above mentioned methods, only wind and nuclear are low CO2 footprint energy generation methods. However, the National Academy of Sciences in their most recent report on energy production tells us that without electric storage technologies that we don't have; the grid can only tolerate about 20% capacity in wind and other "non-dispatchable" renewables. So if we "max out" on wind / renewables at 20%; and hydro power is about 10%; what do we do about replacing the 70% of the grid that is CO2 producing?
We need a "dispatchable" ( one that isn't reliant on the whims of Nature; it has a throttle ) energy source to provide the 70% energy capacity that is now produced by CO2 producing coal and gas that we have to get away from.
Nuclear is the only energy source that has the needed properties; it's low CO2, it's abundant, and it's dispatchable. All other sources have one or more deficiencies that excludes them. So even though nuclear has high up-front costs, that just may be the price to maintain our lifestyles and save the planet.
We need growth to keep the
We need growth to keep the financial system going. Even with government scaling back interest rates to zero, they can't scale them back enough. Also, with interest rates scaled back as far as they are, it messes up incentives for new investment, and it makes it impossible for pension plans to make good on their promises.
With our whole growth-based system, we need more and more energy to keep our system expanding. If it stops expanding, it collapses. There is no steady state economy!!! Adding a bit of so-called "renewable" energy doesn't keep the system going well enough to make a difference.
Many well-meaning individuals think that we can nicely move to a lower-energy future, but if that happens, the whole financial system collapses, and with it, our ability to extract oil and natural gas and coal and uranium. We don't get the downslope of a Hubbert Curve; we get a collapse. We end up with nuclear reactors full of hot rods that we cannot keep cool. We end up with farms that cannot get fuel for their tractors, and that cannot obtain the hybrid seed that they are accustomed to using. If crops do get grown, there is not a way to get them to markets. Getting parts to repair essential equipment, like water and sewer systems, and electrical transmission lines, will become a problem very quickly.
In such a situation, I expect many governments will be overthrown, or will disappear. Theoretically, local areas could each move to their own independent monetary system, without a provision for long-term debt. But I think that would probably mean a huge reduction in trade, and the need to make nearly all goods with local materials (including recycled materials). With such a system, we couldn't support the world's current large population. It would be almost impossible to maintain the electrical systems that we have today for very long. We would have a major mess--not a transition to someone's nice idea of a sustainable future, full of people driving Priuses while we continue to live in today's homes, and telecommute to our jobs.
The current system is
The current system is designed to extract resources as quickly as possible until it collapses. It's the way it's designed and there is no alternative in the current system.
More fully, I view our current civilization as cancerous. We are devouring the planet and destroying its ability to support other species in the process. This outcome was involuntary, but still, if any act can be called a secular evil it's this one. As a result, I think that stopping human growth dead in its tracks would be a very good thing for the planet. We won't do that voluntarily, but the current convergence of global crises in energy, ecology and economics probably marks the involuntary beginning of the process.
I think the charging of interest, hand-in-glove with with our embrace and defense of power hierarchies, has enabled the consolidation of wealth to the point where people can now talk about "The 1%" and mean it. The current global economic arrangement works mainly to the benefit of the power elite. Any belief to the contrary is willing cooperation with one's own enslavement.
As far as I can tell, the current outcome (the unfolding semi-slomo planetary calamity) has been pretty much inevitable since we invented agriculture and money. As a species we have done some things that looked like good ideas at the time, but turn out with 20-20 hindsight to have been diabolical mistakes.
It looks to me as though the course of events is pretty much unstoppable at this point. A collapse of this cycle of civilization (with all that entails) is pretty much guaranteed - possibly over the next 50 years, almost certainly over the next 100. There is nothing that can be done at this point to prevent it, due to a combination of entrenched self-interests, semi-conscious self-delusion and both psychological and biophysical inertia.
We may rebuild a more sustainable, equitable arrangement with the planet after the current one has collapsed - or we may not.
Thank you for this thought
Thank you for this thought provoking response, anon. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Low CO2 is a cop-out when it
Low CO2 is a cop-out when it spews long-life radioisotopes and we have only one small planet forever and ever.
C02 Emissions not reduced in
C02 Emissions not reduced in Nuclear Power States - Research Paper
http://www.isotopics.nl/wp-content/uploads/Isotopics-Note-2011-062.pdf
FRAUD!!!
Check the archives of this forum.
That paper is a FRAUD that was DEBUNKED here.
The nations that use nuclear power are also the ones that use a lot of power in general including fossil fuels.
Correlation is NOT causation.
If you knew that; you wouldn't have posted a link to the fraud paper.
Get a clue!!!
Dear Anonymous - The
Dear Anonymous -
The Isotopics authors did not claim causation, they claimed correlation.
In stark contrast to your entrenched position, they closely analyze all data sources and search for information and connections. The paper is a presentation of extensive research comparing C02 emissions by country, and they found distinct patterns that nuclear power producing countries clearly produce more C02, not that nuclear power plants produce more C02 than other energy sources.
Thanks for reminding me about that thread from a few months back, I took a quick re-read and was reminded of the rude, and arrogant comments that the majority of posters spewed, including a particularly condescending and completely off-topic lesson by a CSUS student.
Not that anyone listened to what co-author Joost Woittiez patiently and repeatedly attempted to explain and what would have been apparent to anyone with a minimal critical reading skills who took the time to actually read the paper (Anonymous - we're not threatening your hallowed scientific turf, mercifully critical reading skill does not require advanced scientific training, so perhaps we've all got a shot at understanding this one).
In any case, the conclusion of the paper was that the data demonstrated that despite claims to the contrary, nuclear states had higher C02 emissions. Some (some civil and others not so) posters posited this was because nuclear states were industrial states, and this is clearly a correlation. The unexpectedly higher C02 emissions in nuclear states could also be attributed to the fact that increased nuclear energy production necessarily facilitates increased industrial production of all sorts, which is tied to increased C02 production that more than offsets the low C02 emissions from the nuclear facilities.
The paper is not a fraud, it's an objective and systematic analysis of C02 emission data correlated to nuclear energy production. You obviously never actually read it, otherwise you would not have embarrassed yourself by throwing one of the paper's own claims back at them as evidence of fraud. Sloppy, sloppy.
Bad conclusion
I have doubts that you read the paper. The authors start out saying that nuclear power is cited as a way to reduce CO2 emissions, and they are setting out to disprove that.
The fact of the matter is that nuclear power **is** a low CO2 emission source of energy. In fact, nuclear power is the largest source of low CO2 emission energy.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/NuclearPower.pdf
Currently nuclear power is by far the largest source of low carbon electricity in the United States.
The authors of the article are clearly attempting to disprove that by establishing a correlation that is not causal in nature. The authors of the article are clearly out to prove something that isn't true. How can you defend that type of bias as a scholarly work?
So what!
In any case, the conclusion of the paper was that the data demonstrated that despite claims to the contrary, nuclear states had higher C02 emissions.
So what!!! We need a poorly written fraudent paper to tell us that?
Your bias is showing when you state that the higher CO2 emissions of the nuclear states was "unexpected". The nuclear states are the more highly industrialized states, and those states use more fossil fuels in addition to nuclear power. That is hardly unexpected.
The nuclear fuel cycle is remarkably low carbon. Reactors do not emit CO2. The only part of the nuclear fuel cycle that must emit CO2 is the mining operation due to the use of trucks and mechanized mining equipment. In that regard, nuclear is like any other fossil fuel that must be mined. However, pound for pound nuclear fuel has a Million times more energy than a chemical fuel. That's because the nuclear force is a Million times stronger than the Coulomb force. So, on a per unit energy basis; the CO2 emissions from nuclear are One-Million-th that of chemical based fuels like coal.
Your ill-considered, and unsupported claim that nuclear energy production necessitates increased industrial facilities of all sorts is just plain naieve. There's ZERO reason that the facilities that support the nuclear fuel cycle, which are low CO2 emission themselves, must increase the demand for other high CO2 emission industrial facilities. That is just a plain biased anti-nuke fabrication.
As a former professor, I've written many scientific papers, and I've reviewed many papers for many journals; so I know good scientific papers when I see thatm; and the paper in question is NOT one of them. It is a fraudulent anti-nuke "hit piece" meant to solicit a conclusion where none can legitimately be drawn.
Don't you DARE have the audacity and gall to tell me what I have / have not read!!
Dear Anonymous Professor: Of
Dear Anonymous Professor:
Of course I have a bias - I think that nuclear energy is an immoral industrial activity because of the absolutely unwarranted health and economic risks to the public posed by radiation exposure due to accidents and because of the irresponsibility inherent in the unresolved spent fuel storage conundrum.
Of course you have a bias, as evidenced by your passionate defense of nuclear energy production.
So what? Every conscious individual has a bias, which should not preclude them from exploring and discussing relevant and critical issues. I would hope that the perspectives differing people bring to discussions provide depth to the conversation. I find preaching to the choir is rather boring, and pointless.
As to my naivete in stating the higher C02 emissions from nuclear states was unexpected, actually I was referencing the paper, which was responding to an oft-repeated claim by the nuclear industry that increased nuclear production would decrease overall C02 emissions (and thus help rescue us from global warming). The final sentence in your paragraph doesn't add anything to the discussion since the paper's authors also addressed that.
The paper presents a graph with discussion that shows that nuclear reactors produce less C02 than fossil fueled plants, even lower C02 than solar, and are only surpassed in low C02 emissions by hydroelectric and wind power (if I remember correctly, no time to re-read the paper at this moment).
My claim is not ill-considered, and again, the claim is actually to be credited to the paper's authors. It makes perfect sense that ANY energy production (nuclear included) will power industrial expansion, much of which will produce its own C02 emissions.
I did DARE to assume that you had not read the paper, because since you have suggested much data that was already included in the paper, I assumed that you were not merely parroting the authors whose work you clearly do not admire. Trust me, there's not nearly enough drama involved to include any measurable level of audacity nor gall, just seemed like the obvious conclusion.
'Night.
Unwarranted assumption and bad logic
No, it doesn't make sense that "any" energy production must result in industrial expansion. What if we just replaced our coal and gas burning power plants, the ones that emit the most CO2, with nuclear plants? For every gigawatt of nuclear power that comes online, we shut down a gigawatt of CO2 emitting fossil plants like coal and gas. The total amount of available electrical generating capacity stays constant. Therefore, there is no excess capacity to support any industrial expansion. However, we will be swapping low CO2 nuclear power plants for the high CO2 coal and gas plants.
I bet you also didn't know that coal plants put out 100X the radioactivity as do nuclear power plants. Scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory published this study almost 2 decades ago:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
BIAS, BIAS, and more BIAS
You don't weasel out of your biased statements just by claiming you were referencing the paper. It should be obvious to almost anyone that the more industrial nations emit more CO2 due to their use of fossil fuels. Such nations are also those use nuclear power. You need to be intelligent enough to filter the author's comments before you repeat them.
Your bias is based on ignorance; witness your reference to the "unresolved fuel storage conundrum". Actually, the USA is the only nuclear power nation that has a spent fuel problem, becauses the USA outlawed the long known solution to the problem which is reprocessing and recycling.
First, 96% of the spent fuel is Uranium-238 that is no more radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground. If it were separated from the fission products and actinides; it could just be put back where we got it. That takes care of 96% of the nuclear waste "problem".
The long-lived actinides which have been the major problem are all useful as reactor fuel. Those radioisotopes should be recycled back to the reactors to be burned as fuel and produce short-lived fission products. Gone would be the 24,000 year half-life of Plutonium-239 from the waste stream. We would only have to contend with short-lived fission products.
Educate yourself by reading the following interview with nuclear physicist and at the time Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory, Dr. Charles Till:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you repeat the process.
A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.
This is what other nations like France do with their spent fuel, and they don't have the long term problem we do. The only reason we have the problem is that the ignorant anti-nukes got Congress to outlaw recycling because they don't want a solution. They want the problem to continue.
Dear Anonymous Professor: As
Dear Anonymous Professor:
As I am unaccustomed to such uncivil discussions of your tenor, I took a break to spend time among the courteous and thoughtful for the past week. However, I did want to respond to your most recent post.
Contrary to your assertion, apparently the US is not the only nuclear power with a spent fuel problem. Per IAEA's "Global Overview on Spent Fuel Storage:
"Assuming that current plans are maintained, one can observe the following regional trends
(Fig. 1):
- West Europe will have slight decreasing quantities of spent fuel to be stored, due to
reprocessing of spent fuel,
- East Europe will double the amount of spent fuel to be stored in the coming ten years,
- America will store all discharged fuel, thus the amount of spent fuel is constantly
increasing,
- Asia & Africa like East Europe, will double the amount of spent fuel to be stored in the
coming ten years. "
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IAEA_SpentFuelStatus_20...
Additionally, a few weeks back my husband and I were guests at a RAND Corp. lecture by Dr. Tom LaTourrette’s (Ph.D. Geology), summarizing RAND Corp.'s vision for America's nuclear energy future, with a focus on managing spent nuclear fuel. The link below accesses the recorded audio podcast:
http://www.rand.org/multimedia/audio/2012/03/08/nuclear-energy-after-fuk...
As I'm sure you're aware, RAND Corp. is the US preeminent think-tank, informing military, energy and societal policy at the highest levels. Following his introductory remarks, self-professed pro-nuke Dr. LaTourrette moved into the body of his presentation, spent fuel pools. He stated that spent fuel will be poisonous for tens of thousands of years, that humans must have no contact with it for that time period, that it should be buried deep underground where we "don't have to worry about it." He said that there is currently no plan to accomplish this, that no one on Earth currently has a plan to store this spent fuel and that all waste in the world is currently still in temporary storage.
Dr. LaTourrette said we are running out of space. He said that the SFPs are safe ways to store the spent fuel and have become de facto long term storage. He said that 3/4 of US spent fuel is stored in pools.
I was encouraged when Dr. LaTourrette mentioned the ethical implications of creating spent fuel that needed long term storage. He said there was public concern regarding the morality of leaving our toxic waste for tens of thousands of years of future generations to manage. He then said that since the prior generation had already started down this path, it was a basically done deal (i.e., he abdicated responsibility for that decision, although he advocates continuing with the practice).
Dr. LaTourrette then said that it was time to address the spent fuel pool storage since FDNPP demonstrated the safety risks of massive releases by the SFPs (incidentally, his suggested plan is to create long-term above-ground storage areas - where NPPs can ship their spent fuel in dry casks, until an underground repository is identified and developed.
So, apparently RAND Corp. also disagrees with your position that the US is the only nuclear power with a spent fuel storage problem.
Responding to your next comment, I agree that the U238 should go back to "where we got it," but how exactly do you propose to accomplish that, now that it's been extracted and concentrated?
You suggest that reprocessing the Pu239 is the solution of choice. Apparently, burning reprocessed fuel produces more Pu239, so there really is no reduction in Pu. Looks like the reprocessing has been a filthy and economically-unsound failure as well:
"A French government study found that the choice to use MOX fuel has cost ratepayers $800 million more per year. The breeder reactor - on which the French nuclear hopes were based - was an expensive gamble. The Superphoenix breeder averaged a 7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation. France has a government- imposed dependence on electrical heating to justify its reliance on nuclear generated electricity. Instead, nuclear cannot meet this demand and France has to purchase coal-fired electricity from Germany in the winter time."
Bringing our conversation back full-circle, this paragraph from the same source caught my attention in particular, "La Hague," (French reprocessing facility - as you highly recommend), "routinely releases radioactive gases including concentrations of krypton-85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than in nature. Aerial discharges of carbon-14, considered to be one of the most damaging radioactive isotopes to human health, have also been detected in the La Hague area along with..." (wait for it......) "carbon-dioxide, (a leading cause of climate change), in its radioactive form."
The referenced BeyondNuclear fact sheet is worth a read since it's quite full of similarly useful factoids about the French nuclear power program that you propose as our model. Check it out:
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/France_Pamphlet_Summer201...
MM
ERROR!!! ERROR!! ERROR!!!
Where did you get the idea that burning Pu-239 has to create more Pu-239?? Probably some anti-nuke website. It MAY be used to produce more; but it doesn't have to. Pu-239 is fissile, and hence is a replacement or substitute for Uranium-235. It is reactor fuel. You get more Pu-239 by exposing Uranium-238 to neutrons that transmute it to Pu-239. But you don't have to do that. However, even if you do; you will create LESS new Pu-239 from U-238 than you burn in recycled Pu-239. So contrary to your ill-informed contention above; the recycling yield LESS Pu-239 not more.
Carbon-14 one of the "most damaging"?????
Carbon-14 is created NATURALLY, and most of the Carbon-14 that is in the environment is NOT due to releases from nuclear facilities; it is due to good old Mother Nature.
Instead of getting your "education" from some anti-nuclear web site; why not read what legitimate scientists say. I would recommend the book, "The Instant Physicist" by Professor Richard Muller of of the UC-Berkeley Physics Department:
http://www.amazon.com/Instant-Physicist-Illustrated-Guide/dp/0393078264/...
Read the "Look Inside" section. The Government REQUIRES that alcohol for human consumption have a radioactivity above a threshold value. They are looking for the Carbon-14 activity, because that assures the alcohol was created by fermenting recently grown plant material.
Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
we see that the amount of radiation exposure due to nuclear energy ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in table ) is <0.03% of your total exposure. That means that Mother Nature is responsible for 3000 times the radiation exposure that you get from nuclear power.
The idiots at the website you reference about the Krypton releases from the French La Hague facility didn't tell you that Krypton is inert. That means it doesn't engage in chemical reactions, so it can't be uptaken by the body. If you breathe some in, you will just breathe it out. In order for a radionuclide to do real damage, it has to stay in the body.
The fear-mongers that run that anti-nuclear website didn't tell you that bit of science fact because they want to scare you, and hope that you parrot their fear-mongering on some other website, which you have dutifully complied.
Dear Anonymous Professor: My
Dear Anonymous Professor:
My mistake. I should have linked to the source-linked version of Beyond Nuclear's data sheet on the French nuclear program. Here it is:
http://beyondnuclear.squarespace.com/storage/France_Fact_Sheet_09.pdf
This is the same fact sheet, but contains over 54 source links for their cited data. All the answers/responses to your questions/accusations are provided therein.
Seems like the one who is dutifully and defensively towing the party line here is you. Most of the other people on this site are actively searching for information and digging for accurate data to objectively quantify the effects that our world's nuclear path has produced.
MM
I'm not toeing any line.
First, the word you want is not "towing" the line - that's what deckhands do.
The word it to "toe" the line. It originated in the military; where you line up with your toes just touching the line so you get a neat, straight line.
Why do the self-righteous anti-nukes always assume that one is parroting some "party line". They do this with ZERO evidence. I guess it's what they do because they can't think for themselves.
I answer to NOBODY!!! I don't have to please some political master; I think for myself.
I'm guided purely by my knowledge of science.
I'm answerable only to myself.
You say: "In order for a
You say:
"In order for a radionuclide to do real damage,
it has to stay in the body."
Finally, you are agreeing that inhaling or ingesting the
toxic effluent from the nuclear industry
can do 'real damage'.
Depends on dose
Like all things; it depends on the dose.
Is ingesting an entire bottle of aspirin at one time dangerous?
Is ingesting 2 tablets from a bottle of aspirin dangerous?
If you could be a little clearer and better defined in thinking and questioning,
then I can give you a more definitive answer.
See, this is where you lose
See, this is where you lose me as I read your debate with the other person. You resort to insults and name calling. Some "professor".
The truth hurt?
The names are reserved for anti-nuclear shills that are telling LIES!!!
Someone seeking information and truth is not subjected to my opprobrium.
No - only those that are LYING and knowingly spreading untrue propaganda are subjected to my contempt.
anti-nuclear shills
Quite often you use the rhetoric "anti-nuclear shills". Most people who are under 80 years old have no idea of what you are referring to, especially in California, since this phrase went away with "disco" and a host of other ideas from 1970, so here's a link to help educate the uninitiated:
http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/CALIF.HTM
And for anybody wondering how and why Rancho Seco was shut down:
http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/RSECOT.HTM
Ah, Rancho Seco. Fond
Ah, Rancho Seco. Fond memories of whiling away my pre-teen and teen years picnicking on the sun-drenched sand banks and swimming with friends in their cooling ponds/public recreational area. Church outings. School field trips. Good times.
MM (severe pituitary disorder, missing kidney, 4 known women of same age/exposure with brain infarcts; mother and 7 of her similarly-aged and similarly exposed friends all diagnosed with pre-menopausal breast cancer - 3 are now deceased). yes, yes I know, correlation is not causation.
Self-example
Thank You for demonstrating the brainless idiocy of the anti-nukes.
The link chronicles the fight against Diablo Canyon. However, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has been reliably and safely providing about 25% of the electric power for the PG&E service area for the past two decades.
This proves that the anti-nukes protests were ill-founded.
The anti-nukes were WRONG!
So would someone in Japan
So would someone in Japan protesting about Fukushima NPP when it was built
have been wrong?
Not necessarily
If they were protesting the design defects of not having the fuel tanks for the backup generators buried, as is done in the USA; NO.
If they were protesting the fact that TEPCO didn't have compatible generators ready to fly in to the stricken plant, as is required in the USA; NO.
If they were protesting the fact that TEPCO practices were not up to global standards, as the Japanese regulators now admit; NO.
If they were protesting just because it is nuclear, like the idiot anti-nukes in the USA do; YES.
I like
I like the thoughts here.
I don't know what to say, except that I wish I could stop the nuclear products. Bombs and plants.
I really appreciate the
I really appreciate the sentiments posted here too. I feel like we've had a breakthrough. Keep your chin up Anon. Life is beautiful. : )