Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Green light for nuclear fusion project

I especially like this one;)
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."

...more, on topic ,,, I like to think that the linked discourse was, in part, inspired by our own (I like to think it, anyway;) I hope you enjoy the page ~regards

"Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple" ~Dr Suess

esin wrote:
"One would think that would be an
easy sell. However, they ran into a "buzz-saw"; one of the most anti-nuclear Administrations to come to power in Washington. The Clinton Administration with Al Gore running energy and environmental policy; just didn't want to hear about it."

Given the fact that while Clinton was President he had to work with a Republican Congress for several years and no funding was proposed.

And given the fact that the GOP has been running the White House and both houses of Congress for the past 6 years and hasn't show interest either.

The truth it would seem that there are only two political parties in the US and neither one is the least bit interested.

Laying this off on Clinton and Gore may make you feel good but it doesn't correspond with political reality. Fission can not be sold to the lay-public as they have seen far too many examples of the industry lying to them.

The issue that needs to be dealt with is not technological it is the repetition of lying and misrepresentation by the industry and its supporters. Even when they are telling the truth ... no one believes them.

DA wrote:

"The issue that needs to be dealt with is not technological it is the repetition of lying and misrepresentation by the industry and its supporters. Even when they are telling the truth ... no one believes them."

So true, and not just confined to science, or even just to American people. The rest of the world has trouble believing anything the US administration says. I like to consider the history of treaties signed by the US government, and then kept. The native Americans may be able to tell us the ratio. The evidence shows that once you sign a treaty with the US government it is already too late. You're doomed!

Did you really get the impression that any of this makes me "feel good"? I've alluded to the true nature of the reality of this topic,,, the real 'simple' reason(s) [see two posts back]

... and one would think that with all of your zeal for exercising some control over the anthropogenic contributions to global warming,,, that you might actually see why it is we persist in our exploitation of 'ancient carbonaceous matter' despite its cost(s).

Each of the political parties' answer first to private agendas, the least of which is 'life, a generation or two, hence. The lay public is far and away the easier to sell on fission safety and effectiveness, however, apparently, we must put considerably more effort into educating the educators~

esin wrote:
"Did you really get the impression that any of this makes me "feel good"?"

Laying it off on Clinton-Gore is not reality ... it is spin doctoring. The truth is that if it had been proposed to Bush-Cheney it wouldn't have seen the light-of-day either.

If you have gotten the impression I am against fission energy you have the wrong impression. I think the industry has sealed its own fate by lying to the public. That does not mean I would vote against building a reactor in my neighborhood. The two are mutually exclusive.

The politics of fission are simple. The industry that expects to profit financially from the production of electricity, and as a byproduct the production of waste, must solve the problem. Laying it off on the taxpayers is a non-starter.

Let me restate that ... telling me you have a new, safer, cleaner technology will not get my support. Telling me you are economically viable without corporate welfare will. You are fighting the wrong battle.