Well, maybe you can help me. I'm having serious difficulty finding any serious refutation of in-depth studies of radiation hormesis (which you claim makes someone lose all credibility). Maybe if you're so experienced in debating these issue, you could provide me with such a refutation to Bernard L. Cohen's paper published in Health Physics from 1995 titled "Test of the linear-no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis for inhaled radon decay products."

Here is a link to the original paper: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/LNT-1995.PDF

A tl;dr version of it was described here.

While I don't have a direct link, Ted Rockwell makes mention of such studies in his blog from time to time. You might be able to contact him for more specifics.

In the post I linked, he writes the following:

That's fairly short sighted. Aside from all of the people who invested months worth of playtime in their Everquest characters and didn't want to re-do it in a new game, Everquest's raiding game actually challenged the players to think and be creative. On top of that, if you have large amounts of people not leaving EQ due to the above reasons, then going to WoW means leaving a portion of one's social community behind.

WoW certainly improved upon EQ in many ways, but you are completely failing to understand the situation. I can't believe you got modded up.

I have been a PC gamer for years, but that doesn't mean that some games and genres don't work better on consoles. When was the last time you played a good party game on the PC (Worms would be my most recent, and that feels like ages ago)? How about a 2d fighting game?

I just ordered a PS3 yesterday for the purpose of playing Blazblue with friends. Sure, there is an arcade version of the game that I can torrent and play on my PC, but the input feels like shit (even with a PS3 or XBOX360 controller) and it has no online play.

Of course, when it comes to first person shooters, nothing can beat a good duel in almost any of the Quake series on PC.

The obscurity is that the inner workings of the software were hidden. Even if there was a glaring back-door to the system, no one would know about it. With the RAM glitches he was talking about, people got a chance to look into the software and find out where potential holes existed. Said RAM glitches removed the obscurity.

What about the unfortunate people who end up with the same name as registered sex offenders, or people on the no-fly list? It's safer for the employer to just weed out the potential bad seeds early on...

To be fair, when I was reading about Nintendo's new 3D tech in their handheld 3DS, someone mentioned that the same tech was being used in car consoles to provide the driver with a GPS display and the passenger with a movie.

I think it's kind of clever. It's just that given current technology it's so simple that I'm surprised it hasn't been used more.

Yes, actually.

This isn't anything particularly new either. Check out this one from 1979. Even when environmental groups aren't being directly funded by the fossil fuel industry, they are propping up anti-nuke advertising.

MTC isn't a safety procedure. It's an innate part of the design that causes the reactor to passively avoid becoming Chernobyl. And it's far from the only design feature to do that. Better fools may be able to cause great damage to specific components within a nuclear power plant, but they would have to redesign the entire thing to get it to blow up.

You are correct, and the summary is stupid. Nuclear is ideally a replacement for coal and natural gas power plants. Of course, if electric vehicles take off, then we could see more of a use for nuclear in transportation. Then again, maybe people are taking the Ford Nucleon seriously.

One of the major benefits to nuclear power is its energy density. If you got your entire life's worth of energy usage (including heating, electricity, and transportation) from nuclear power, the amount of uranium fuel you would have consumed would be the size of a baseball. It would be converted into a wide variety of materials, and some indeed would be toxic (many radioactive, but for varying durations). But think of how easy it would be to deal with the quantity of material. Given reprocessing (as I assumed anyway), it would be below background radiation levels in 300-500 years.

Try to get your life's worth of energy from fossil fuels (as you mostly do right now), and you are dealing with materials that are just as toxic, but the quantities would be larger by a factor of about 2 million. You can't bury that anywhere. It's going all over the place.

Highlights in the past 4 years:

• In 2007, NRG files for two ABWRs as the first mover in quite a while.
• This year, the Obama Administration has awarded loan guarantees for new reactors and more are being pushed.
• While the Finnish OL3 reactor is taking more time and money, major lessons are being learned as it is the first reactor being built in nearly 3 decades.
• Four reactors are under construction in China.
• More small reactor firms are popping up and gathering attention.
• New uranium enrichment plants are being built, and one has a green light from the NRC to begin operations in New Mexico.
• The nuclear supply chain is ramping up with new component manufacturing plants being built in Louisiana, Virginia, Ohio, and elsewhere.

Source

And of course, the article that was for this story has more information. But who reads that?

I noticed a pretty sharp contrast between you asking for evidence of nuclear power working well, and you providing evidence of nuclear power not working well... Let's compare:

Given the long lifespan of nuclear power plants, a significant portion of them are still operating today. Asking for an example that completed its entire lifespan is basically asking for the first-of-a-kind reactors and very early generation when people were still learning the hard way. You are bound to see tons of costly mistakes made that were corrected by the industry as they followed in the footsteps of the pioneers.

So, that's the level of detail that you ask for, and this is what you provide in support of your argument:

So, you think... but you provide no source or examples. You give no background on the situation that may have caused this hypothetical, but it is clearly a bad one.

This, my friend, is a double standard.

And how do you propose that happens? I'm guessing you are unaware of the fact that all modern nuclear power plants have a negative Moderator Temperature Coefficient. A positive MTC as in Chernobyl means that an increased in temperature causes an increase in power (which loops back on itself).

It's also happening on my Motorola Backflip on AT&T's network. I was hoping that the 2.1 update (Backflips are still on 1.5 at the moment) was going to fix that, but it sounds like it won't.