> There is no consistency, and that alone can give rise to errors

...just like this one.

I'll leave aside your first point as its pretty moot. Counting (current and future) deaths that may or may not be directly or indirectly attributable to radiation fallout effects is as controversial as counting civilian deaths in war.

I think one of the issues people have is not whether nuclear energy can be delivered safely in theory. Most people accept that we can engineer decent solutions to technical problems. The problem is actually a regulatory one (the same point you make regarding stricter rules).

How is it possible that someone thought it was OK to build a string of nuclear plants of a style ill-suited to earthquakes, in a region of the world where 5 continental plates intersect? That was unlikely to be an engineering decision. It was more likely to be a politician's industry advisory body playing down the risks while trumpeting the up-side and greasing palms along the way. Yes, its the way of the world. And its precisely this that makes nuclear worrying. When it comes to engineering, I don't have a problem. When it comes to regulation, I have precisely zero faith in the ability of regulators to police this industry (or in fact many others (and I'm pro-regulation) but that's a whole other discussion).

A classic well-studied example of "political" decisions trumping engineering ones is the sorry saga of the space shuttle Challenger booster rocket O-rings.

On a different note, I'd like to point out one of the things that is constantly overlooked is the fact that virtually no nuclear plant is commercially insurable without massive government subsidies. Take away props like the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and nuclear economics don't look so good.

If we're going to be spending trillions of tax dollars on anything, I'd like to see some money being thrown at retro-fitting coal stations with solar thermal kit (making use of the existing heat-conversion plant and (potentially) adding hot-salt heat storage for base-load capability).

> The Guardian has made similar public claims ...

I've said it before. The Guardian do not have clean hands in this saga:
http://wlcentral.org/node/839

As someone else here put it, I wouldn't trust Assange with my life but I would trust him with my leaks. More importantly, I would trust him with my leaks well ahead of the vast majority of bottom-feeding scum in the mainstream press.

> unless the CIA or the government is somehow clairvoyant

The Swedish prosecutor's abuse of legal process may pre-date the leaking of the diplomatic cables but it sure as hell doesn't predate the 2008 US Army Counterintelligence plan to discredit Wikileaks:
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2259550/military-plan-destroy-wikileaks

"The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site."

OK - I've done the search and can't find a reference at all for your tag line in which JA is quoted to have said that "killing people is fun". If it was said, it wasn't reported or Google haven't indexed it - which would imply. If it wasn't said (as I suspect), then you are just making shit up to smear the guy.

FWIW, the search string I used was:
+"julian assange" +"killing people is fun"

The head of CENTCOM on the other hand HAS admitted that shooting people is fun...
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2010/07/09/killing-people-is-fun-says-head-centcom-head/

If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.

In Australia, this behaviour is colloquially referred to as a "c*nt's act".

You claim that WL hasn't acted like a "normal charitable organisation". I'm sorry? What? They are an organisation trying to change the way governments (of all flavours) deal with their citizenry - i.e. they want to make it impossible for governments to continue to operate on the basis of subterfuge on a grand scale. Capitalizing on controversy is part and parcel of making people (not just geeks) aware. Tell me, how many people on the street had even heard of WL 2 years ago, let alone were aware of the stuff they had released?

As for making a "profitable business" - give me a break. From what? Selling t-shirts? Do you have any idea how much it takes to fund a decent legal defence when multiple state actors are out to get you? I don't either but it sure as hell won't be cheap.

Are you fucking kidding me? You'd take the self-serving words of the editor of a paper which has for years been a pro-war propaganda machine?
 

Might there be "mono-culture" type problems arising? Presumably the source cell cultures for industrial scale production would come from a limited (maybe even a single?) genetic line. The kinds of bacteria that love meat as much as us would have a standing target to evolve against.

Of course I have no real idea as I'm not a biologist. Anybody qualified to answer?

Hi clarkkent09!

Did you check out that clip of Natalie Portman eating hot grits?
You can download it here.

Of course you'll probably need to install the Conficker codec to watch it but believe me its worth it!!!

Cheers,
Lady Field Marshall Idi Amin Gaga.

We don't need anyone to call for a mass execution. People forget that most systems self-regulate. Like the bacteria in the petri dish we will - at some point - get to the edge of the dish and find there's no more resources left. At which point there will be a massive die off. There may well be some of us left over to start again. Or not. Who knows?

And to those of you that think we can terraform Mars or something and just ship out there - I call BS. We can't do the basics on THIS planet economically. What makes it likely that we'll be able to do so on another planet where everything is X (where X>1) times harder?

I'm sorry dude but you can't just say that without a citation.

http://wlcentral.org/node/839

The Guardian do not have clean hands in this matter.

The problem here is you need a "theory of ghosts" that defines the alleged phenomenon in terms of physically measurable effects or attributes. What is a ghost? Is it supposed to be something which "appears" (emits light), can influence/affect other objects (either through electrical/magnetic fields, radiological effects or other apparent application of force).

Once you have a theory of ghost you can develop tests to detect the effects of ghost. Of course, all of this just means that "ghost" is something that has physically measurable effects. There is no way of linking this back to some sort of metaphysical concept like "soul" or "spirit" (unless you develop theories for the whole lot in terms of physical effects and causal links). It could well be that "ghost" turns out to be just a name for some other physical phenomenon as yet not understood e.g. phlogiston, aether.

Amazingly the parent is sitting at Score:1 instead of +5,Informative.

Wow. Just wow.

> What is in the water in these places?

Brawndo! It's got 'lectrolytes. It's what plants crave!