Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 838 838

-------- high security costs -Yes. Would you have it any other way? -------- centralised (sic, unless you're British) power == transmission efficiency loss -Helps cut down on security costs, in this case, plus cuts down on management overhead, plus cuts down on transmission costs. This electricity is bound for San Antonio and Austin, and the infrastructure to send this electricity is largely in place -------- needs to be new a water source -Same with gas plants, coal plants, etc. You HAVE to cool a power plant. There are federal regulations as far as what gets discharged from a facility. Regulations about chemical/particulate contents, temperature, etc. -------- potential security risk -Yes, but security measures (physical security as well as security on control systems) are put in place to mitigate these risks, as much as possible -------- potential accident risk -Control systems monitor these units like you wouldn't imagine. -------- unknown costs of long term waste disposal -Federal regulations limit the ability to use all resources effectively; start there! -------- unknown costs of long term decommissioning -I don't know costs, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't. -------- long build times (we need to fight climate change before 2014) -Nukes are the long term solution for large scale generation. Wind and solar can't touch this level of generation. Long term solutions take time to do correctly. -------- potential for nuclear technology to be leaked to rogue states -Like Arkansas? Seriously, you can get all you need to build a nuke from Wikipedia and a physics textbook. It ain't brain surgery. -------- not truly renewable -> requires uranium in short supply (at a reasonable cost) -How badly do you need Uranium? Afraid we'll run out before more WMD's can be built? It would be a shame to use it for useful purposes such as electricity. -------- massively unpopular with vast majority of people. -You don't like it, because it's unpopular. That makes sense. Could it be unpopular because most people don't know much about it? Nah, that can't be it... -------- historically has proven to be tons more expensive than original estimates. In UK it was sold as 'too cheap to meter', yet ended up overpriced, uneconomic and needing colossal UK taxpayer bailouts. -Good thing this doesn't involve the UK. Texans and Japanese. Good combination, in my book.
The Courts

Submission + - The 63,000,000,000 billion dollar lawsuit-> 1 1

Crazy Taco writes: This has to be the most ridiculous lawsuit ever filed in the history of the United States court system. Apparently a South Carolina inmate wants to sue Michael Vick for 63,000,000,000 billion dollars (and I don't believe the amount is a typo). He claims Michael Vick stole two white mixed pit bull dogs from his home in Holiday, Fla., used them for dogfighting operations in Richmond, Va., and then "used the proceeds to purchase missiles from the Iran government." His complaint alleges Vick would need the missiles because he pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in February of this year. The complaint goes on to state that "Michael Vick has to stop physically hurting my feelings and dashing my hopes" and requests that the money, "backed by gold and silver," be delivered to the front gates of the Williamsburg Federal Correctional facility in South Carolina.
Link to Original Source
Biotech

MIT Team Creates Cancer Stem Cells 124 124

MIT scientists and colleagues have found a way in the lab to create large amounts of cancer stem cells, the cells that can initiate tumors. The work, reported in the August 13 issue of Cancer Cell, could be a boon to researchers who study these elusive cells. Labs could easily grow them for use in experiments.

Brain damage is all in your head. -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...