Uh. Actually, Fukushima killed NOBODY.

The earthquake and the tsunami killed people, sure. But not the reactor meltdown.

NO short-term radiation exposure fatalities were reported.
There were 37 physical injuries and 2 people taken to the hospital with radiation burns.

But no deaths.

So sure, if Fukushima happened once a year, we'd wind up with a lot of earthquake and Tsunami victims at first.
Then we'd build structures that can withstand those conditions, and even be able to stop the meltdowns. Either through better engineering or by switching to safer nuclear technology (oh yeah, and not trusting those ass-covering cock-mongers at TEPCO).

Or we could move over to inherently safer nuclear technologies like LFTR.

Sorry, but YES.

This isn't about "brighter colors" and "whiter whites".

It's about providing for the world's energy needs WITHOUT massive greenhouse gas pollution, whose effects could kill off significant chunks of life on this planet.

Unless YOU want to be one of the unlucky 99% who is volunteering to go shiver and starve in a cave someplace.

Sorry, but doing completely without ionizing radiation is a patent impossibility on this planet.

The view that "there is no safe level" is idiotic in light of this. Obviously there ARE safe levels. Or we'd have people in certain areas of the world keeling over from "massive" radiation exposure.

Granted, chances of funding to determine safe levels via human testing are completely non-existent (for good reasons), but there are areas all over the world sporting inordinately high levels of background radiation. Yet you don't see people keeling over of radiation-related causes.

And, I was waiting for you to bring up bombs. Want to put a pall over discussion of nuclear POWER? Simply mention an atom bomb.

Realistically, there should be TWO values for radiation exposure.

1: Single-instance exposure. How much you can SAFELY be exposed to in a single pass (for things like chest X-Rays, nuclear cleanup work, and the like.)
2: Exposure over-time.

Never mind that, even were all nuclear power stations (and their accumulated waste waste), and the effects of every nuclear test in history to disappear from the planet TODAY, you'd STILL be living in an environment FILLED with radiation.

And how do you explain places like Guarapari Brazil, with its naturally radioactive beaches? Where the average exposure a year is 175 mS? Yet they don't have higher instances of cancer and radiation-related disease?

I'm sorry, your views of radiation, and its place in nature are uneducated, fear-driven and have no real basis in "science".

Ty Warner, the inventor of beanie babies, is worth $2.6 billion.

Yeah, but he didn't buy any.

I see a lot of that attitude today and it's always by leftists who are utterly frustrated that opposition is allowed to exist.

We have state after state where Republicans are trying to keep old people, minorities and students from voting.

Tell me where Democrats are trying to keep anyone from voting. It's always projection with you guys, isn't it.

Considering how quickly, completely, irreparably and FALSELY someone's reputation can be savaged nowadays, this is just rife for abuse.

My assumption is anyone that would mistake a quote from some 1950's John Birch guy for a statement from a Founder is probably more worried about black people or Mexicans voting than preserving government by, of and for the People.

Still doesn't say anything about Civics. It just lists the brands, not the models. I'm guessing Accords at least. So, Prius and Camry over Varis and Mustangs and larger Fords over Fiestas.

Some of us look and see that the words of our founders "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.

Except, no "founder" ever said that.

Unless you consider Ronald Reagan one of the founders, which considering your sentiment, is quite possible. Either people have the right to consent to their government or they don't. Whether or not there are social programs does not change that. What that quote (from the 1950's) is really saying is, "We'd be better off if people who disagree with me weren't allowed to vote".

Some rich people drive crappy old Honda Civics.

Citation?

and bitcoin does poke north of 100k each

*teehee*

I can get you a good deal on some beanie babies.

Boy there must be a lot of drug addicts that shop at Dell, TigerDirect, and Overstock.

Not to mention the ones working there.

As always with these cameras. It's NOT about the law, what's legal, or enforcing the law.

It's about making a profit. A revenue stream. I'd say "first and foremost", but that implies there's another reason. And there just isn't. It's about extracting ever more money from the citizens through any means necessary. Even though Chicago's signing away 90% OF THE TICKET REVENUES TO THE CAMERA COMPANY!

And the cameras aren't set up "everywhere" to give uniform coverage.

They're set up in areas and in such a way as to maximize the APPEARANCE of a violation from the camera's perspective.

Basically these sorts of camera deals need to be illegal.

If the city isn't going to buy the systems outright and administer/enforce them itself, they shouldn't be allowed to go through a third party company who has a profit motive involved in what is otherwise a law enforcement issue. It's a total conflict of interests.