Lalmohan wrote:a tennessee backwoods man once told me (or possibly told someone who wrote it and I subsequently read it) that: when you mud wrestle a pig, you get covered in mud and pakistaniat, but the pig is happy
mind you, if he really was a tennessee backwoods man then he is likely to be covered in coal mining slurry as well
Boss very apt analogy.
But I find it very interesting to look at the kind people Sanku likes to quote. Of course this assumes he is discerning in his choices and just doesn't post the first link he gets. The last one was some maverick geologist who said elsewhere that the nuclear accident was a deliberate nuclear attack on America's food supply. It's there on this thread, I've posted the relevant links.
Regarding the last link which he quoted to say that the liability cap should be raised was written by a pretty lady (she is good looking, ask Gogal cacha, as good as the Lal Chicks) named Shikha Dalmia.
I did a bit prodding around and I came across a very interesting link. In an article titled
The heart of the problem James Hrynyshyn quotes the same article and has added his thoughts.
Some excerpts:
No one is more surprised than I to see something worthwhile reading in The Daily, Rupert Murdoch's iPad magazine. You might even be forgiven for suspecting an April Fool.
This is priceless. However, it may be lost on Sanku bhai.
Dalmia's indictment goes far beyond the nuclear industry, though. Intended or not, it strikes at the heart of the economic philosophy that dominates pretty much the entire planet To wit:
The liability cap effectively privatizes the profits of nuclear and socializes the risk.
Liability caps are just one of many tools that serve to privatize profits and shift risk onto the public. Without the protection afforded the industry by governments everywhere, it is doubtful a single private-sector nuclear reactor would be splitting atoms anywhere. But the nuclear industry is nothing special.
Only in the past few years have a few jurisdictions cottoned on to the reality that the combustion of fossil fuels does exactly the same thing. The owners of coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants reaps the profits, but the rest of the planet must deal with the consequences and risks -- the millions of people that end up in hospital and graves from the pollution and myriad other species that suffer untold fates from habitat destruction and toxification. Putting a price on carbon emissions is a small step in the right direction, one that has yet to be taken at the federal level in North America or China, which collectively are responsible for half of world's total emissions.
Now we have folks here arguing that fossil fuel is cheaper because even if there's an accident it would be nothing like a nuclear accident.
That's true to a certain extent but how about what happens when there's no accident in fossil fuel run power plants?. What about the millions of people who end up in hospital as the quote above says?
So taking this line of reasoning further, damned if we do damned if we don't. We suffer the consequences if there's a nuclear accident (btw the numbers of deaths from nuclear is far less). And we suffer if there's no accident in fossil fuel plants.
We have made no serious efforts at reform to prevent another financial crisis. What are the chances of making substantial reforms to the nuclear industry? Or the fossil-fuel industry? The fact is, if we did redistribute profit and risk everywhere it is out of whack, the face of capitalism would be unrecognizable. That face wouldn't allow the concentration of capital in so few hands because they wouldn't have the strength to carry the risk.
And here's the most interesting para:
This is why so many people deny the facts of climatology and the need to change our ways. Not because the science is uncertain. (Uncertainty is the hallmark of good science) Not because climatologists are all in on some New World Order socialist conspiracy. (Scientists prosper by undermining their colleague's theories, not participating in group-think. And besides, how do you explain Republican climatolgists?) Not because Al Gore is a hypocrite (What would that have to do with anything?) Not because the world was warmer 1000 years ago. (It wasn't). Not because the sun is to blame. (It isn't). Because reversing the inexorable rise in global average temperatures will require a new way of organizing our economies, one that scares the captains of industry far more than the spectre of rising sea levels, desertification, and ocean acidification scare the rest of us.
Bottomline folks, its not a zero sum game. Less nuclear does not equal to better health, less harm. As I've written before, in terms of analogy, nuclear accidents are like plane crashes - gruesome and deadly. But in terms of probability of being involved in an accident it's probably safer to travel by plane from say Mumbai to New Delhi than it is to travel by road.
We can't ignore nuclear power and the IMO the biggest takeaway from this tragic accident is not nuclear is a NO, NO but rather it is possible and imperative to design as many safety features as possible in future nuclear plants that we build. By we of course I mean India.
).. if you even ate a 100 gram of the this sushi .. you will glow ityadi...)