Vote with your feet and if necessary your wallet.

I always fly with JAL now because their economy class gives you 10cm extra leg room. It doesn't sound like much but it makes a massive difference. They have plenty of staff to do check-in and let you take an extra hold bag over what most of the competition offer. They charge the same or only slightly more (£20-30 on a flight costing £850).

Don't put up with shitty service for the sake of a few bucks or shopping around.

Solar is already way cheaper than nuclear, has been for a few years now. Wind, geothermal and hydro even more so.

I agree we need diversity, but the massive drain nuclear is placing on the available funding distorts the market. It's so bad that in the UK we have to guarantee well above the normal selling price of electricity for the lifetime of the plant just to get some Chinese guys to build it for us, because no-one here wants to. They know that Scotland's wind and eventually other renewables making it a losing proposition otherwise, and even with the vast subsidy it only works if the Chinese build and run it at a knock-down price.

PS. apologies for the excessive link copy/pasta, genuine mistake on my part. Doesn't affect my argument though, or validate your bullshit.

Sorry bro, you are full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

References:
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.iaea.org/Publicatio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/r...

Note how I didn't say it was unsafe. You made that up and then used it as a straw man. My point was actually that it is safe, but that the rule has developed based on more than just the relative safety of that one number.

Nuclear plants don't emit an even level of radiation in all directions. They emit radioactive particles that then move around on the wind, in the soil and in the water. These particles can accumulate, so the level needs to be kept very low so that they can keep dispersing.

Your comparison with things like x-rays and airliner flights is bogus because those are one-time exposures from outside the body. The goal of this rule is not only to limit that kind of exposure, it is to limit the build-up of radioactive particulate matter in the environment and in people's bodies.

Relaxing the rules may in theory be safe. The problem is that if you give people an inch they will take a mile. We knew that in the 1970s, but despite Fukushima the EPA seems to have forgotten it now.

Nuclear isn't profitable without heavy subsidy. It seems only fair that a business which is entirely dependent on government hand-outs should have to play by some fairly strict safety rules.

The alternative is to just let them get on with it, in which case they will be filing for bankruptcy next Tuesday when they find they can't get any insurance, can't afford to run the plant and can't deal with all the lawsuits coming their way. I'm up for that, but only if every penny of subsidy is immediately transferred to renewables.

So remind me, what are the most popular car brands in the US? Toyota and Honda, companies that are willing to invest vast amounts of money in new technology and get support from their government? Seems to be working pretty well for them.

Japan understands that the future is with new types of engine - hybrid, electric, fuel cell, something else. If Japan is to stay the world leader it has to develop these technologies, get the patents, get the knowledge and expertise, get the market before anyone else even comes in to it. They already pretty much own the hybrid market, for example, and most the non-Japanese hybrid system are based on licensed Japanese technology anyway.

The American car industry is dying. Japanese manufacturers are already winning in the US market. It's because they invest in R&D, pump money into things that can take decades to pay off. Their government understands that and helps out, so that Japan has a strong domestic car industry. In the US you just bail out car companies when they fail, doing little to actually help them succeed. The exception was with EVs, and it paid of spectacularly with Tesla. You should be doing more of that.

They were criticised by the EU for not implementing the necessary changes. They just passed more or less what we had before, in the hope that by the time anyone has managed to sue them they will have yet another law ready.

The problem is the word "free". Technically it may be true that you can play for free, but realistically kids are not going to want to stop playing for hours or even a day when the offer of paying some cash to carry on is thrust in front of their faces. The EU does not accept bullshit technicalities as justification for misleading advertising, so such games should not be described as "free" when for all practical purposes they are not.

It's only a problem if you are thinking about short term profits. Look at the Japanese bullet train network, and particularly at the new maglev line currently under construction. The deal with grades by going through mountain ranges with tunnels. The cost is astronomical, but they are willing to amortize it over very long periods of time. They know that the service will be popular (and affordable), and always much faster and easier than flying. Even the current 320kph trains are, although this thing is projected to hit 8-900kph.

The trick is to build new, dedicated lines for the high speed trains. Even if they run parallel to the existing ones. The up-front cost is higher but over the railway's lifetime it is worth it. Unfortunately that requires companies that can see beyond next quarter's profits. Give Japan Rail East a call, ask about their new linear motor (maglev) bullet train and how much it costs.