It's more complicated than that. The NSSS was supplied by one of the 4 companies. It may as well have been a heat pump, from that standpoint. But who did the design and installation of the REST of the plant was all over the place. Bechtel was the biggest player, United Engineers and Constructors was another,, Brown and Root, Fluor-Daniel, etc. but the list went on. Some utilities did the contracting themselves, which could be good (Duke Energy) or bad (Zimmer).

Also, aside from the first couple of plants, they were ALL built on a cost-plus basis. That was one reason that costs tended to spiral out of control - the General Contractor, who was supposed to be looking out for the owner's interests, more often than not just passed through whatever inflated costs their subs presented. Since they got a percentage on everything, they had zero incentive to control costs, and the utilities didn't have the expertise to know when they were getting screwed. Bechtel was great at that - it's no coincidence that the Big Dig was a Bechtel project and the overruns were astounding.

As much as it gauls me, Plopez is correct, although reactor designs weren't quite that diverse. In the US there were basically 4 NSSS (Nuclear Steam Supply System) suppliers: GE, who made BWR's; and Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering, who all made PWR's. Within each of the suppliers the designs were similar; the problem came in when the utilities specified the units. Some wanted big, some wanted small. Some wanted X, others wanted Y. So the suppliers competed against each other within that specification, but no 2 utilities had the same specs. Then they'd submit each individual design to the NRC, who would do a de novo analysis on each individual design and license it.

Should they have simply licensed 1-2 designs and be done with it? In retrospect, yes, but keep in mind that, at the time, the governmental style in the US and France were quite different. Licensing only 1 design created a de facto monopoly on NSSS's in France, and they were OK with that. In the US in the 50's and 60's, that looked an awful lot like communism.

I'll pass - I was only 1 year old at the time, so my memory's a little fuzzy.

Whoops, I stand corrected. I think it was the "Summer of Love" that was 1968.

Something I've noticed is that "Decades" are often defined by what happened in the last few years of that decade. The Sixties is remembered for Woodstock (68). The 70's for disco (late 70's/early 80's), Iranian hostages (79-80), etc.

How much do you want to bet that this decade will be remembered as the Social Networking decade (when was Myspace started?)

According to the article, that shouldn't be too hard:

"They were used in vehicles including the Corvair, the Corvette (for a time) and the Impala."

I mean, if the factory could get it into a Corvair...

"They should keep these sort of 'warning' labels to items that have solid, reproducible evidence of significant increases in risks of cancer -- like cigarettes. If they start slapping them on everything that they (in their position as 'a legislator') think might cause cancer, these sort of warnings will lose all meaning."

You mean like in California? Since they passed a law that says that anything that may cause cancer must be labeled, EVERYTHING is getting a label. Why? Because with the sensitivity of current analytical instruments you can find a cancer causeing substance anywhere, even if it's less than micrograms.

The last time I visited, I parked my car in a garage with a big sign on it that says "Warning: this building may contain substances known in the State of California to cause cancer." Really? No shit.

"For the last time: Europe isn't a country!"

Yet.

"Perhaps it was simply the same bloated bureacracy that fail before 9/11, which got warning signs but the signals got lost in the chain of command because they're too busy spying on the emails of millions of others."

The GP was referring to the fact that Hasan's medical supervisors treated him differently because he was a Muslim and gave him third, fourth, and fifth chances that they would not have given other students.

You are aware that local space IS pretty two dimensional, at least where it counts? Nearly all of the objects in the near solar system are on the ecliptic, so they generally WOULD come "straight in".

That being said, the earth IS tilted, and for about half the year the Antarctic is pointing "out".

Besides which, those penguin movies were starting to get pretty damned irritating.

"The radiation is hardly a concern at all. More important is how the hell do you survive the 200-foot-high wave, even if it is just a one-off?"

Per Lucifer's Hammer, learn to surf.

"Why is there such a focus on AGW? Do the environmentalists need to justify their existence in the current post-no-nukes world? (yes, "Inconvenient Truth", I'm looking at you).
Climate change is not rare, climate change capable of destroying humanity is. It is very unlikely that the consequences will hit us in next 100 years, and after that, we'll probably have completely different means available for trying to avert climate change.

I'm not saying that research in this area is wrong, but it should be low priority and the risks must not be overestimated.
We already have something threatening human (and animal) existence on earth, it's called asteroids. Unlike AGW, it's happened before, and will happen again, even if we triple NASA's budget right now (which we nevertheless should strive after to maximize our ability to affect asteroid impacts). This is a much more serious threat to our existence than AGW."

I'd say FTFY, but I didn't - BOTH are ridiculous statements. It's not an either/or choice, you know. And the problem with BOTH is international cooperation and human nature, not technology.

"2. Finally, given the amount of noise in the signal and the number of years it takes to make a statistical difference show up, it is impossible to make any determination of current trends using only a few years. Climate trends need to be taken over decades, not a few years. The shorter the time period, the more likely you are just measuring differences in weather and not necessarily climate."

Really? That didn't stop AGW proponents from declaring that the Katrina hurricane season was due to the warming of the oceans. We had a few bad hurricane years, and it's "proof" of the direct consequences of AGW. Of course, the fact that the past 2 years have been relatively light is brushed off as "statistically insignificant".

The problem with the science of climatology is not that climatologists say "the earth is getting warmer, and we're pretty sure CO2 is the problem"; the heartache starts when that scientific statement is immediately followed by "OMFG! End of the World! Bush's Fault! Carbon Offsets!". Those are not scientific conclusions, but rather social/political advocacy. And if one is going to play that game, one can't bitch when the rules (or lack thereof) are applied back against you.

"You can gain access to more datasets once you exhibit certain basic qualifications (like a relevant degree)."

Martin Luther called - he wants his Reformation back.

You are confusing blame, responsibility, and rights.

You have the right to be secure in your domicile and a woman in her body. Therefore, when someone violates those rights, they are to blame for that violation.

You also have the responsibility to protect your domicile, and a woman to protect her body, in the face of the sure knowledge that others will try to violate them. And when people do not act responsibly, they are at blame for the consequences.

The former is a legal position; modern law is generally rights based, and therefor sanction is levelled by the authorities for the violation of another's rights. The latter is a moral/ethical position, and governs how we function and live in society. While there may be no legal repercussions for irresponsiblity, social repercussions can and SHOULD exist.

Being a victim and being a fool are not mutually exclusive. The woman in The Accuseddid not "deserve" to be raped, but I dare anyone to assert that she was acting responsibly by getting drunk and flirty in a miniskirt in a seedy bar. I can feel sorry for her ordeal, but I cannot feel admiration for her actions.