Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Ok, wait, stop! Right there! WTF does that mean? Ok, at least I understand that the first sentence is a joke, in light of the recent world issues regarding who has nukes and who's trying to get them. But what about the next sentence? Are you trying to say that we should not have pursued nuclear capabilities at all? Are you saying that nuclear power is not a safe choice for power? Do you really discount all the good that nuclear studies have done? All the knowledge we've gained? You'd really say "we should not have learned that, it was dangerous knowledge?"
Really?
|
Not at all.
Why don't we have coast to coast nuclear now that the tech is damn near meltdown proof and far more efficient?
Let me help out by being as clear as possible while still trying to maintain my individual style:
I think it might have something to do with an extreme and nonsensical regulatory burden authored by competing energy interests and some militant, vegan, petrouli soaked, yet still foul smelling, professional protesters, loitering about a heavily bumper-stickered and slogan painted VW van that I saw on the Venice boardwalk the other day.
