Yes, as explained by Stephen Hawking in "The Grand Design". Great book, if anyone hasn't read it yet, do so.

What do you expect? To admit that an engineering challenge cannot or should not be attempted would be...cowardly, unprofessional, and reflect badly on engineering in general. Go Nuclear!!!

Never mentioned are the many deaths caused by animal attacks while gathering firewood. Think of how many deaths would be avoided if people warmed themselves beside a nice warm nuclear fire rather than depending on wood. Not to mention deforestation.

Quakes and tsunamis are not preventable. Nuclear accidents are hopefully preventable. So when one happens, some humans f up.

I agree that all our political parties suffer from limited integrity. Everyone, I think realizes this. What we really need is for someone who chooses to restate this obvious point to devote some research to finding some political organization somewhere that can be held up as an example of good behavior. If everyone is superior, no one is superior, when everyone is inferior...

marbles? ping-pong? hide-and-go-seek? dodgeball? Are these games given tax relief?

Very low power usage. I guess some windows updates go through IE, but nothing else.

Energy production will inevitably lead to some human casualties. Who is going to decide by what means these deaths occur? You?

Seems to the general public I guess, that for some reason statements regarding nuclear safety are automatically suspect, for some reason. Greed? Paranoia? Stupidity? Almost certainly both sides are driven by the same emotions.

Do you suppose that current designs include the ability to be upgraded when future safety advances are developed? I sure hope so.

Absolutely, this applies to any and all industries, and anyone who doesn't realize that this is a problem is incredibly naive.

"The takeaway should be that nuclear power plants need to be upgraded to keep up with the times..." So, it is acknowledged that the decisionmakers were really too stupid to realize this? The "takeaway" is that the decisionmakers in nuclear construction are not to be trusted.

"And as I said yesterday, once we get the public over that fear, we still have to address the *real* problems of Nuclear: What to do with the waste, and how to stop cheap bastard energy corporations from cutting safety corners in the name of profits." Haven't you got it backwards? Once the problems of what to do with waste, and how to stop cheap bastard etc... Then the public will get over it's fear.

does ANYBODY believe that? do you suppose that they suggest this to corporate customers?

"how 'ya gonna keep 'em down on the Engineering farm?" um, lessee, uh, maybe by PAYING them?