Webmaster said:
So, since it is easy, give me a really rough idea of the cost per KWH to do so. If you cannot, it must not be so easy.
Yes, because if I cannot determine the cost of something outside my realm of expertise, that clearly means that the thing is unfeasible.
That's not even sensible, Craig.
Drill a very deep shaft, and lower the stuff down. If you eliminate the cost of fighting about it in court, the actual cost of drilling isn't all that high. If it was, the Chunnel would never have been built (as one example).
Webmaster said:
And can you please calculate that there is no geological formation on the planet proven stable enough to contain this stuff for the length of time it would take?
Says who? You a geologist now?
Webmaster said:
Sure, PV or any technology has hurdles. But, unlike nuclear, they are addressable.
They are? Not by current technology...
Webmaster said:
Hey, I'll back ALL those new nuke plants if they self-insure and if they 99% come up with an actual disposal system for the waste (and actually implement it).
First, you'll have to remove the legal prohibitions on them doing that. You're demanding that place in the top 50% of the Boston Marathon (a significant, but achievable feat for a dedicated individual), but then insisting that they do it with 100 pounds of lead weight attached to each ankle, then saying, "see, you can't do it!"
Webmaster said:
So, as we all like to think, as long as government keeps their hands off of it, no new nukes are likely to be built (or very few)....and, IMHO, that is a good thing.
The only reason no new nukes are being built is because the government is stopping them.
Webmaster said:
France, BTW, ships their nuclear waste to poor countries and all over the world. I guess, as you say, as long as the natives were not coerced (and since they don't even know, they were not coerced).
Really? I thought they stored in in France, like you say in your next post...
Webmaster said:
Maybe you should read this - France is piling up their waste and it is costing BIG. Perhaps we should learn from their experiences.....outlined as such:
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php
So which is it, Craig? Do you even know?
Mike Wilson said:
I'm very glad your friend the mediator got to meet in your kitchen to handle a divorce, but let's face it, that's not the level of mediator that we are discussing... unless you liken divorce mediators in kitchens to federal court justices. Your point above was, if I interpret correctly, comparing mediators to sitting justices of the federal bench. Let's at least continue to be rational and keep the level of mediator we are discussing on the same plane as the federal judge, not some guy deciding who gets the family pet in another guy's kitchen.
Yeah, because clearly if someone does one thing, he cannot do anything else.
I understand that this guy is so skilled, he can even walk and chew gum... at the same time!
Mike Wilson said:
Again, don't assume a fact not in evidence. This is not a matter of failing to do due diligence, this is a matter of the inherent bias of a mediator that is unknown to the party retaining same. Note, mediators' decisions are largely unpublished, which is in stark contrast to the federal bench. Therefore, potential bias points are usually concealed from the parties retaining the mediator and, therefore, there is generally little "due diligence" to conduct.
You would hire someone "blind"? Oddly enough, I would demand extensive references and such. That's what due diligence means.
Mike Wilson said:
Furthermore, whilst any individual brings the sum total of their upbringing to their position in life, the expression of these societal prejudices is more often found in mediators than on the federal bench.
Says who?
Mike Wilson said:
Purporting to know what others "freely admit" is presumptuous, to say the least.
Um, actually no. What you "freely admit" is what you have stated blatantly, in a public manner. So it is the
exact opposite of presumptuous to say that one knows such a thing.
Purporting to know what you
do not freely admit would be presumptuous. Thanks for playing, though...
Mike Wilson said:
In fact, that is not at all what I said... don't let the shades of gray escape you. As noted above, societal prejudices are found in both mediators and the federal bench, as well as in every other individual, in every position in life. If your assertion is that the gravamen of the majority of ninth circuit decisions are based upon personal bias rather than the law, then I, as well as the sheer facts of the matter, clearly disagree. While yours is a convenient stereotype, it is, inherently, wrong.
I'd suggest actually reading the Constitution and the published works of those who wrote it. The plain text of the document and the published statements of the Framers regarding their intent in writing the various portions of it clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of what the Federal government does is completely outside their Constitutional authority. Federal judges are specifically there to prevent the Executive and Legislative branches from doing exactly what they have done. Especially the appeals courts. That they have conspired to aid an abet the other branches in these abuses is proof of gross levels of bias.
The plain text of the Constitution is pretty simple, and any competent schoolchild should be able to interpret it, so one would presume that a highly-educated Federal judge would have enough grasp of the English language to apply it. Instead, they pretend that it says more than it actually says, in some places, and less than it actually says, in others.
Joe
