So instead of having one reasonably small nuclear power plant powering an entire city, you'd rather overcrowd the skies with solar panels and kill the birds with fan blades. Lovely.

Did you know that the process of manufacturing solar panels is more environmentally destructive than simply burning oil or coal? And that when they wear out, they're about as easy to absorb into the environment as nuclear waste, but guaranteed to have a lot more to get rid of?

As well, solar panels are a lot less useful north of the line where the sunlight is not strong enough to activate Vitamin D production in the human body for seven months out of the year, and distribution from places like Arizona is prohibitively expensive and environmentally problematic. And wind only works when you have, you know, wind, preferably coming in a constant speed and direction.

Interestingly enough, you did not mention the one alternative energy source that I do find promising, and that is using geothermal to heat and cool buildings. With use of geothermal and nuclear-powered energy, we could truly make coal-burning a thing of the past.

But we're not going to do it with windmills and solar panels, at least not until technology advances far above where it is today.

Please give me the names and sufficient evidence to prove the superiority of these alternatives.

And either strip-mine the world trying to feed our electrical needs, or just shut down those hospital ventilators and traffic lights and send us back to the Stone Age... which would require a drastic decrease in population because modern technology allows us to live a lot better on a lot less with a lot less pollution than ever before.

I don't like where your train of thought is taking us. Will you be the first to volunteer to die?

Dropping the word 'modern' in this discussion would lead me back to my original point: Avoiding building and upgrading nuclear reactors for electricity generation due to fear of breakdown in ancient models is like avoiding buying a 2010 vehicle because you believe it will run like a 1960 Ford Edsel.

It just doesn't make much sense.

In other words, you don't know how to explain how a modern reactor must unavoidably malfunction in the same way as Chernobyl, therefore it was a silly question from a rude person.

Not really sure why that makes it a good idea to not build any more reactors and not repair the ones we already have. In your attempts to try to make me wrong, you're only hurting your own point.

Still, the other responder makes a good point... "How many large, deadly accidents have occurred with pressurized water reactors?" I would not try to predict, say, the likelihood of mechanical failure on a Prius by looking at the failure rate of a washing machine, or a vacuum cleaner, even though all of them contain electrically-powered motors, because the implementation is so different that you can't possibly compare the results of a crash.

Yeah, gotta call BS on this one. You're claiming that, no matter what precautions are taken, no matter how many reactors, no matter what kind they are, no matter how they're built, that An Accident Will Happen Every 40 Years and that it Will Be Bad.

I simply don't understand your line of thought.

The important thing to understand with statistics is that they can be changed. If a certain percentage of people get heart disease, that doesn't mean I just ignore my cholesterol numbers because that percentage "is going to happen anyways". If a certain percentage of cars fail on the road, that doesn't mean that the manufacturer will get nowhere by redesigning the line to eliminate the flaws. And if a large deadly accident "happens every 40 years" (basically meaning that we've had one large deadly accident in almost 50 years of running nuclear reactors), that doesn't mean that the new safety features on modern reactors means nothing because it's going to find some mysterious way of defying physics and chemistry and blow it's top Anyways.

You are seriously acting as if nuclear power is magic or something.

Except, of course, that if there weren't such burdensome regulations preventing nuclear plants to be built or fixed up, it wouldn't be only a matter of time before an old, over-used machine breaks down.

Still, thanks to safety protocols, the chances of one turning into Chernobyl when it goes is pretty near nil. More likely, it'd just shut itself down.

Fine, but the next time you buy a brand new car, you need to factor in how much extra it'll cost you in part replacement and physical injury from airbag-less crashes, because you're assuming it's going to run like a 1960 Ford Edsel.

Is it really any worse than the way the federal government already operates?

Which at this point is kind of like the parent saying that he won't stop you from going, he'll just dock your allowance and forbid you the use of the car.

Everything the Federal Government has, it took from us, and everything it gives back to us, it does with strings attached. Sadly, it takes so much that we can't get by without what it gives back...

Yeah, because Israel has so far to go before it becomes as civilized, democratic, and upright as Turkey...

The problem I have with 3D movies is nausea, not headaches. I'm not sure how to get that fixed. I suspect it's motion sickness. I'm probably going to be the old goat sticking to my ancient LCD flatscreen when everyone else has gone 3D decades ago...

2) According to the study, the vast majority of fathers were neither criminals, in and out of jail, nor unemployed.

1) You've pretty much got the actual reason down right there.

Because a 16-year-old girl can bear and raise her own children to be a well-adjusted, contributing member of society, but there's no WAY she could EVER help her parents raise her 1-year-old brother to be a well-adjusted, contributing member of society, because at some point teenagers just cross a magic line and suddenly become PEOPLE.

I am the eldest of five, thank you very much. I changed the diapers of my youngest three siblings. I tutored my youngest brother in algebra.. I was a paid calculus tutor at the time. Now I'm a mother of my own, and guess what! I didn't need to go to a class to learn how to change a baby.

Live it, or at least watch it in action, before you assume it's nonsense.