Ignore my ignorance. My apologies, Lunix, for jumping the gun on my reply!

This would be true, except that later that day (or perhaps the next day) a redaction was submitted, saying he was misunderstood. What he really said was "quite smooth".

What? No, What I'm saying is exactly what was said: They were built to a 40 year old standard, implying standards have changed. I went on to say all nuclear power plants continuously update their facilities, improving their structure and build code, but Japanese government decided not to, and decided not to heed the warnings of the agencies who regulate these standards.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Deep breath...

The code wasn't ignored, it was overturned. The regulators were telling the Japanese government that it was unsafe for the last 5 years. They were also talking about the falsified safety records in the plant. Nobody lied, this was public information. It was just completely disregarded by the Japanese government.

The inspectors are not financially influenced by the industry at all. IAEA, which is the security organization that was warning Japan of the issues regarding Fukushima Daiichi, reports directly to the UN. Their focus is peaceful uses of nuclear technology as well as regulate nuclear safety and security. This industry also has at least two more regulatory councils; WANO, (which was established after Chernobyl by IAEA, the UN, and independent governments/nuclear plants, whose focus is nuclear safety and efficiency) as well as WINS (established in 2008 to influence the safe handling of nuclear material and facilities). I would absolutely hope they used to work in the industry, I can't imagine anybody more qualified to inspect a nuclear power plant than someone from the field. The inspectors don't ignore a single hair, let alone a hairline crack. I've been through inspections before, they are properly thorough. Besides, if one of them lies, they'll be caught red-handed by either of the other two and wouldn't be trusted again.

Neither the regulators nor the industry lie. There's no incentive for the regulators to brush over something, they don't get bonuses for passing more plants, they themselves are regulated by the UN. The last thing they want is to break international law. The liars are the governments. They're the ones that have to sink money into plants that need repairs/reconditioning. Japan happens to be a very proud country and ignored the warnings given. This is what has to stop.

The coal industry is most certainly lying to you. They spend MILLIONS in advertising and attempts at covering up the death numbers. But more importantly, you make a very dangerous, and erroneous, assumption. If you assume people know of the dangers (which is not true, as evidenced by this article stating that ten years ago, one out of five people believed the sun revolves around Earth) you're putting more faith in mankind then they deserve. People live ignorantly by choice.

This is true--correct and unbiased information was hard to come by (and still is to some degree) largely due to Japan's proud government. They do what they can to not appear weak, it's socially ingrained in them. But to call us, or anybody else, a liar is pointing fingers in the wrong area. Most of the problems were covered up until they boiled over, but not by us or the media or by the regulators. Don't call 'guilty' unless you're completely positive of the guilt.

You do realize the Fukushima Daiichi plant is 40 years old, right? It was built to regulatory code in the very late 60's/early 70's. There are a lot of plants built during that time, sure, but every plant that I know of keeps up with the current safety standards and are under constant, continuous monitoring to make sure everything is safe. I fully agree that more regulation is needed in some places, but in the US and Canada at least (and I imagine the UK as well), that regulation is already in place. Why do people fear nuclear power--a form of energy that is proven to be very safe, reliable and environmentally clean (though not renewable)--but they don't say the same about coal, an industry that has an appalling number of deaths?

I don't feel nuclear energy generation is the answer long-term, as we will run out of radioactive material and places to safely store them, but compared to what the world uses currently, it is the solution we need right now and can, at a minimum, sustain us for hundreds of years until we master more renewable sources.

That pretty much nails it right there. Well said.

Not to mention Canada's population is only about 10% of US.

Heh, DTW does the opposite: they only use the scanners and only during busy hours will they open up the metal detectors to relieve foot traffic. Over the last 6 months, flying in and out of Detroit every week, I've only missed the scanners twice, perhaps three times.

I disagree. In fact, it's incredibly taxing on our economy to keep up the prohibition. Unless the government has a hand in selling marijuana (I doubt that marijuana would be their illegal narcotic of choice) then all they're doing is shoveling millions of dollars into the prisons to pay for the prisoners in jail for selling/possessing it.

However, if they legalize and tax it, marijuana would bring in millions of dollars.

Heh, I see what you did there.

In one's application, it asks for your ethnicity. Generally speaking, if you check "Caucasian" and "male" your application is immediately filed in a shredder unless you're incredibly lucky. They give priority to minorities and women.

Technically, you do in fact need consent from both parties being recorded (in this case, Glik and the officer both need to agree) in order to record anything. However, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to record any law-enforcing arm of the government under the idea of protecting one's self from said government (the Constitution and Bill of Rights both suggest this in different ways, i.e. right to bare arms, freedom of press/speech, etc.). But I suppose this is the entire debate, isn't it?

Erm, let me clarify what I said, since I was using the word "private" in two forms. One cannot be declined paying in pennies when you're paying a private or public debt to the government, but one can be declined by a private seller unaffiliated with the government. I see my statement was rather ambiguous to begin with, I apologize.

Only in the case of private sellers can they demand a specific type of payment since they can decline to serve anyone for any or no reason. Fines, traffic tickets, taxes etc. is different--which is what was mentioned. I made nothing up.

It is against Federal law to decline or otherwise punish someone for paying in pennies. Sure, that doesn't stop people from trying to punish you, but if you're an ass to begin with by paying in pennies, they're sure as heck allowed to try and be an ass back. But anyone that knows any facts about currency know that pennies are legal tender for repaying debt, private or public.