White House publishes a statement supporting the use of Nuclear Power - Polidicks

Tudd if you wanna make a toxx out of this like I suggested yesterday, here's this. Since nuclear energy ~appears~ to be an interest to Trump, if a funding bill is passed through congress to increase nuclear energy's output on the grid from its current 20% to 40% or more within Trump's term, I will eat my own words. Literally. Likewise, if it doesn't happen you do just that as well. Sound fair to you?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52388008] Like great. Nuclear at the cost and expense of the environment. This isn't an increase, this is a shifting of budgetary priorities, and frankly, it's a stupid fucking shift.[/QUOTE] I am not sure how I was being dishonest considering my Yucca statement is right. Sorry I didn't mention the other cuts that got wall to wall coverage on here, but I didn't state anything to be dishonest on that either. Ah, so now you are trying to argue shifting to nuclear is dumb for some reason? Actually his support for Nuclear ironically might mean he does more for the environment then previous presidents considering it would greatly lower emissions faster and more cost effectively than going Solar/Wind for our major population centers.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387984] I know people have some bad reading comprehension or memorization[/QUOTE] They sure do Tudd. They sure do :v:

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52388016]Tudd if you wanna make a toxx out of this like I suggested yesterday, here's this. Since nuclear energy ~appears~ to be an interest to Trump, if a funding bill is passed through congress to increase nuclear energy's output on the grid from its current 20% to 40% or more within Trump's term, I will eat my own words. Literally. Likewise, if it doesn't happen you do just that as well. Sound fair to you?[/QUOTE] We can hit up Forum Discussion or PM on this so we don't clog the thread like the last one, but I still will only do it with the fair condition regarding Trump.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388022] and more cost effectively than going Solar/Wind for our major population centers.[/QUOTE] I showed you yesterday that wind and solar are extremely profitable and viable for the US economy [QUOTE=joshuadim;52384387][url]http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/12/news/economy/solar-energy-job-growth-us-economy/index.html[/url] [QUOTE]The solar industry added 35,000 jobs in 2015, up 20% from the previous year, according to the Solar Foundation, a nonprofit in Washington D.C.. The group is not funded by solar companies.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160111160822-chart-solar-energy-job-boom-780x439.png[/IMG] [QUOTE]Americans overall are just starting to see wage growth pick up, but solar workers have already seen paychecks improve. In December, wages in the United States rose 2.5% compared to a year prior. Solar installers are making $21 an hour on average, up 5% from a year ago -- or double the national average, according to the Solar Foundation.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In contrast, oil and gas firms slashed nearly 17,000 extraction jobs in 2015 as energy prices continue to plummet. Oil prices are down a stunning 70% in the last 18 months and hovering just over $30 a barrel, a 12-year low. There are about 209,000 solar energy employees in the U.S. They include solar panel installers, designers, engineers, sales folks and managers. Today, the solar industry workforce is bigger than that of oil and gas construction, and nearly three times the size of the entire coal mining workforce.[/QUOTE] _________ [url]http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1425276/gamesa-reports-77-profit-increase-2016[/url] [QUOTE]The Spanish manufacturer, soon to be a part of the Siemens Group, reported revenues of €4.6 billion for its full 2016 financial year — an increase of 31% year-on-year. Sales totalled 4.3GWe — up 36.2% — and were mostly in the company's core markets of India (38%) and Latin America (24%). Europe, the Middle East and Africa was its third largest region, contributing 17% to the sales volume, with the US (12%) and Asia-Pacific (9%) making up the rest. Earnings before interest and taxes (Ebit) totalled €477 million, increasing 47.9% compared to a year earlier, surpassing the company's outlook for 2016. Turbine order intake amounted to 4.69GW in the year, a third of which was secured in the final quarter of the year, the manufacturer said.[/QUOTE] _________ [url]https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/02/dong-energy-sees-profits-double-2016-expects-tough-2017-will-phase-coal-2023/[/url] [QUOTE]Danish offshore wind energy giant DONG Energy reported a massive 119% increase in operating profit in 2016, as published this week, and accompanied it by the news that the company would completely phase-out coal by 2023. DONG Energy published its 2016 full year financial results on Thursday, reporting an operating profit (EBITDA) of DKK 19.1 billion ($2.7 billion), an increase of 119%, or DKK 10.4 billion ($1.5 billion). In fact, the company experienced preternaturally strong results across the board, with increases in nearly every category including net profit (DKK 12.2 billion), gross investments (DKK 15 billion), and a decrease in the company’s net debt of DKK 5.7 billion down to only DKK 3.5 billion. “The results for 2016 are highly satisfactory,” said Henrik Poulsen, CEO and President, obviously shooting for understatement. “We have delivered an underlying growth of 95% in operating profit (EBITDA), driven by strong growth in Wind Power.[/QUOTE] ________ If solar and wind aren't practical, how come companies from all around the globe in numerous regions are recording massive profits and earnings?[/QUOTE] or did you conveniently forget that already

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388022]I am not sure how I was being dishonest considering my Yucca statement is right. Sorry I didn't mention the other cuts that got wall to wall coverage on here, but I didn't state anything to be dishonest on that either. Ah, so now you are trying to argue shifting to nuclear is dumb for some reason? Actually his support for Nuclear ironically might mean he does more for the environment then previous presidents considering it would greatly lower emissions faster and more cost effectively than going Solar/Wind for our major population centers.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's fairly dishonest for you to not mention that Nuclear means there's less for climate science, and environmental protection. Funny you mention that this would help lower emissions. Yes. It would. But I'm sorry, that's not the sole goal of environmental protection. Illegal waste dumping, dump of waste in waters, etc, those are all vastly important issues Trump has done more than put on a backburner, he's full on put those issues in the freezer, shifting funding from them to literally anything else he can, as we see here.

I support nuclear power. Clean and very efficient. Only problem is the waste produced. All you can do is store it until you run out of space.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388022]Actually his support for Nuclear ironically might mean he does more for the environment then previous presidents considering it would greatly lower emissions faster and more cost effectively than going Solar/Wind for our major population centers.[/QUOTE] You are never going to get liberals to praise a president who cuts spending to protect the environment, fires science advisors, and pulls out if international emissions agreements just because they are pro-nuclear. Would also love an answer to this one [QUOTE=Raidyr;52388003] Have you ever readjusted your statements based on overwhelming evidence given to you on these boards?[/QUOTE] Considering you are the poster child for dogmatically repeating the same mantra over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your only punishment thus far (besides complete lack of credibility) is special treatment from the mod team.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52388038]I showed you yesterday that wind and solar are extremely profitable and viable for the US economy or did you conveniently forget that already[/QUOTE] That's unsustainable considering the amount of energy produced for the number of jobs it takes. It's also a heavily subsidised industry.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52388040]Yes, it's fairly dishonest for you to not mention that Nuclear means there's less for climate science, and environmental protection. Funny you mention that this would help lower emissions. Yes. It would. But I'm sorry, that's not the sole goal of environmental protection. Illegal waste dumping, dump of waste in waters, etc, those are all vastly important issues Trump has done more than put on a backburner, he's full on put those issues in the freezer, shifting funding from them to literally anything else he can, as we see here.[/QUOTE] The idea is that the appeal of lower emissions from a nuclear-based energy network will distract liberals (or moderates who give a shit about the environment) from all the other heinous stuff Republicans do.

[QUOTE=download;52388073]That's unsustainable considering the amount of energy produced for the number of jobs it takes. It's also a heavily subsidised industry.[/QUOTE] Technology is always improving, and with what we have now, with those kinds of job numbers, wages, and company earnings, it's still very much growing and increasing

[QUOTE=joshuadim;52388038]I showed you yesterday that wind and solar are extremely profitable and viable for the US economy or did you conveniently forget that already[/QUOTE] Actually it was just alot of replies by the time I got back to debating, and I had to gloss over this one because it was abit redundant considering you are looking at the growth with heavy subsidies included. For example the first article mentions a US company, which companies can do pretty well with smaller projects thanks to the 40% of the US Energy Budget going into subsidizing these companies. Also the first article mentions this: [quote]Businesses and homeowners are eligible for a 30% tax credit if they install solar panels on their property. That's been in place since 2006 but in December Congress renewed the tax credit for another six years. That lowers installation costs considerably.[/quote] Which is a huge deal. Take the subsidies away and it would be a completely different story though, and again, it would be better if that just went into Nuclear anyways. The Spanish company is actually part of the German-based Siemens conglomerate. Which is also heavily subsidized by the German government and even [url=https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/energy-and-efficiency/sustainable-power-generation-facts-and-forecasts.html]Siemens[/url] thinks that they are too high to the point of negatively affecting German citizens paying for it. The Danish company was [url=https://www.ft.com/content/99150262-d368-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0]heavily reliant[/url] also on subsidies. [quote]The UK was in the throes of encouraging renewable energy with subsidies. Dong pounced. Today, the UK is the world’s biggest offshore wind market and home to 880 Dong employees. The company fully or partly owns eight projects, with four more under construction.[/quote] Luckily, they are trying to move away from subsidy free projects, but to ignore how they got big into the renewable market is just ignorance or arrogance. Essentially, I have no problem with companies doing well under subsidies. Atleast the subsides are not getting wasted, but they don't make the competing fair at all, and I still think those subsidies should have gone to Nuclear first, and then renewables as a supplement.

This is just a statement of support. Trump hasn't done anything to the bill, this is all trump flash and no substance.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52388054]You are never going to get liberals to praise a president who cuts spending to protect the environment, fires science advisors, and pulls out if international emissions agreements just because they are pro-nuclear. Would also love an answer to this one Considering you are the poster child for dogmatically repeating the same mantra over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your only punishment thus far (besides complete lack of credibility) is special treatment from the mod team.[/QUOTE] I have changed my positions before or acknowledged stances as early as yesterday, but maybe it just doesn't happen often because some people argue terribly against me or just make a bunch of noise instead of points.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52388121]This is just a statement of support. Trump hasn't done anything to the bill, this is all trump flash and no substance.[/QUOTE] I mean he probably will sign it. It's coming from his own party and nuclear power isn't so reviled that giving it tax credits will win him many detractors. Any influence on the WH budget propsoal will likely be negligible

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388112]Actually it was just alot of replies by the time I got back to debating, and I had to gloss over this one because it was abit redundant considering you are looking at the growth with heavy subsidies included. For example the first article mentions a US company, which companies can do pretty well with smaller projects thanks to the 40% of the US Energy Budget going into subsidizing these companies. Also the first article mentions this: Which is a huge deal. Take the subsidies away and it would be a completely different story though, and again, it would be better if that just went into Nuclear anyways. The Spanish company is actually part of the German-based Siemens conglomerate. Which is also heavily subsidized by the German government and even [url=https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-future/energy-and-efficiency/sustainable-power-generation-facts-and-forecasts.html]Siemens[/url] thinks that they are too high to the point of negatively affecting German citizens paying for it. The Danish company was [url=https://www.ft.com/content/99150262-d368-11e6-b06b-680c49b4b4c0]heavily reliant[/url] also on subsidies. Luckily, they are trying to move away from subsidy free projects, but to ignore how they got big into the renewable market is just ignorance or arrogance. Essentially, I have no problem with companies doing well under subsidies. Atleast the subsides are not getting wasted, but they don't make the competing fair at all, and I still think those subsidies should have gone to Nuclear first, and then renewables as a supplement.[/QUOTE] Could you provide some quotes from the articles you linked that you use to support your argument? I can't tell by just reading them.

[QUOTE=Toybasher;52388042]I support nuclear power. Clean and very efficient. Only problem is the waste produced. All you can do is store it until you run out of space.[/QUOTE] Luckily, Gen IV has really limited this problem with how little waste is produced and can be used for other functions. [media]https://youtu.be/t7FvxN_gkt4[/media] [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;52388155]Could you provide some quotes from the articles you linked that you use to support your argument? I can't tell by just reading them.[/QUOTE] Sure, Siemens; [quote]Solar Energy: The most Heavily Funded Renewable Unaffordable Subsidy Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG), which governs the priority afforded to renewable energy sources, went into effect in April 2000. The law has played a key role in the country’s renewable energy boom and has since been copied by 50 countries worldwide, according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology. The EEG requires grid operators to purchase electricity from renewable sources at a set price from those who produce it. The EEG has served its purpose in Germany, where it has undoubtedly driven the expansion of renewable sources of energy. As a result, it has proven to be one of the most important tools for achieving the country’s energy transition targets and protecting the climate. However, many experts say the EEG urgently needs to be reworked.. A study conducted by the RWI institute for economic research states that electricity consumers paid around €52.3 billion in subsidies for renewables between 2000 and 2012. These subsidies mainly consisted of an EEG surcharge, most of which had to be paid by private households and industry. As a result, private households paid around 29 euro cents (ct) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2013 -- more than 40 percent higher than the EU average of 20 ct per kWh. Industry, by contrast, paid approximately 15 ct per kWh, and thus 24 percent more than the EU average of 12 ct per kWh (excluding electricity-intensive companies, which pay a reduced EEG surcharge). A comprehensive reform of the EEG went into effect in August 2014. The reform is designed to limit the expansion of government support for renewable sources of electricity generation. However, consumers still have to pay the EEG surcharge along with their electricity bills. What’s more, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) estimates that electricity prices will rise in Germany by another 15 to 35 percent between now and 2030. According to the BDI, this increase will be due in part to the fact that the energy transition will require Germany to invest €200 billion in its electricity sector by 2030. However, this investment will be partially offset by business opportunities for German companies. For example, the BDI estimates that a successful energy transition could generate €60 billion in sales for German companies by 2020. It would mainly benefit companies that offer solutions for making the electricity supply secure, affordable, and sustainable. [/quote] The other one I have posted a quote already, but here is a better source I just found with the Danish company literally admitting they needed the subsidies from 2010. [quote]Government subsidies are turning renewable energy into big business. Although fossil fuels remain by far the dominant energy source and generate big profits, in some markets government price supports are making renewable power a less-risky corporate bet than conventional fuels. Wind farms "have a better return on investment than coal plants," says Anders Eldrup, chief executive of Dong Energy, a company based in Denmark that is shutting down coal-fired power plants and building wind farms, including this one in the U.K., called Gunfleet Sands.[b] But that is true only in places with hefty subsidies, he says. "Without that, they wouldn't work." [/b][/quote] [url]http://www.dce.coop/sites/dcec/files/PDF/Press/clean_energy_sources_wsj_jan10.pdf[/url]

So your statements about wind and renewables are pretty hollow then as nuclear also requires similar levels of governmental intervention I mean you can act like we're all too stupid to make a cogent argument that you'll pay attention to, but I've watched you sweep so many intelligent posts, cogent arguments, and well thought out points over the last 16 months that I don't have the energy anymore. No one does. In a way, you've won because you're endless abundance of unflinching support is fucking exhausting to argue against. It's not hard to argue against, numerous points are constantly brought up that you curiously have ignored, hand waved away, or all other various forms of disregarding that you've honestly mastered. It's not hard to argue against, it's merely an exhausting exercise of bashing ones brains against the figurative red brick wall that is your endless support for Trump.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52388205]So your statements about wind and renewables are pretty hollow then as nuclear also requires similar levels of governmental intervention[/quote] I have already stated that the subsidies should be more in Nuclear. I am not even for removing all subsidies from solar/wind. Of course, I rather we didn't have to subsidize in general, but I also recognize that to lower carbon emissions some intrusion is necessary. I just prefer it go to the better power source that fix such issues now and is more cost effective when dealing metropolitan needs. [quote] I mean you can act like we're all too stupid to make a cogent argument that you'll pay attention to, but I've watched you sweep so many intelligent posts, cogent arguments, and well thought out points over the last 16 months that I don't have the energy anymore. No one does. In a way, you've won because you're endless abundance of unflinching support is fucking exhausting to argue against. It's not hard to argue against, numerous points are constantly brought up that you curiously have ignored, hand waved away, or all other various forms of disregarding that you've honestly mastered. It's not hard to argue against, it's merely an exhausting exercise of bashing ones brains against the figurative red brick wall that is your endless support for Trump.[/QUOTE] I also have to put in alot of effort considering how many people I typically have to reply against. It isn't like I can post with no effort considering you can actually be banned for such a thing. I use sources when I can and when it isn't something ridiculously hard to find. I don't put in the time to curate my posts like some of the more extravagant posters, but I do enough that I feel I get my point across. I totally could put in some more effort to save me time from re-explaining or having less people assume some missing pieces I overlook of-course. At the same time I have to acknowledge that some people will just assume the worst of me, and that this isn't something I should focus all my time on to perfect. Honestly, I would be far more respondent if people didn't come off so aggressive all the time in regards to compromising. People are extremely rude when it is unnecessary and just creates even more faux-outrage.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387984][url]http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/nuclear-energy-is-on-the-front-burner-says-sec-rick-perry.html[/url] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/334663-trump-to-nominate-three-to-nuclear-commission[/url] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/trump-s-team-is-asking-for-ways-u-s-can-keep-nuclear-alive[/url] [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/nuclear-power-industry-revamps-climate-pitch-trump-era[/url] [url]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586873/?#sp=show-clips[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html[/url] Again you have an article that mentions Trump's Campaign team inquiring about it, Trump nominating 3 Nuclear Commission, a boost in the Energy Department to reviving Yucca Mountain, and now this. You have been severely wrong with your previous statements and have to further readjust them.[/QUOTE] you're still posting these articles? they were destroyed multiple times, especially the 4th one which you are still somehow posting despite it being "nuclear executives want trump to invest in nuclear power" and not trump actually doing anything

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387733]There were some sillybillys (including one who was going to Toxx me) saying Trump wasn't going to do anything on Nuclear. Hopefully this trend keeps on going. Gotta say I am pleasantly surprised today. Mostly because things are going faster than expected. :v: [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Sadly it is mostly from the Democrat side opposing it. [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx[/url][/QUOTE] yeah, its only been balf a year and hes well on the way to running america into the ground

[QUOTE=Tudd;52388140]I have changed my positions before or acknowledged stances as early as yesterday, but maybe it just doesn't happen often because some people argue terribly against me or just make a bunch of noise instead of points.[/QUOTE] How fucking rich. "I just don't change my mind often because people argue terribly against me" says man who conveniently ignores arguments that debunk fundamental aspects of his stance and instead focuses on peripheral points.

Nuclear combined with a reckless disregard for the environment could be a disaster. I'm sure Trump wouldn't have any problems just dumping spent nuclear fuel on the oceans.

I just hope trump isn't gonna fuck shit up with nuclear and set public perception of nuclear back another few decades

[QUOTE=Xavith;52389171]I just hope trump isn't gonna fuck shit up with nuclear and set public perception of nuclear back another few decades[/QUOTE] I can't wait for Chernobyl 2.0 because Trump will tear down regulations and appoint absolute fuckwits into charge who will rush shit just for publicity and money reasons.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52387969]Where is Silence I Kill You to tell us about how this affects his reactor construction job [/QUOTE] Solidifies it. Not only that, but it's going to help future nuke projects happen which will ensure that I definitely have a job for the forseable future. I can't wait to build more after this one is over. [QUOTE=Big Bang;52389100]Nuclear combined with a reckless disregard for the environment could be a disaster. I'm sure Trump wouldn't have any problems just dumping spent nuclear fuel on the oceans.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/effects-of-dumping-radioactive-waste-in-ocean-need-more-study-scientists/2157923"]Read up on it a bit.[/URL] I'm not saying that we should do it, but water is a very efficient absorber of radioactive isotopes. There's a reason we keep spent fuel in pools besides cooling. [editline]22nd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;52389249]I can't wait for Chernobyl 2.0 because Trump will tear down regulations and appoint absolute fuckwits into charge who will rush shit just for publicity and money reasons.[/QUOTE] Cherynobyl was a design and operation flaw, not necessarily a construction one. And you have no clue about the nuclear industry if you think it's just a rush for publicity and money and you think operators will sacrifice safety for money.

As someone from Europe it is really interesting for me to see so many people on the thread liking the idea of an increase in nuclear power plants. Why would you want to support a source of energy that produces highly toxic waste nobody really knows how to get rid of? I don’t want to demonize anyone, I really am curious on why you guys feel like supporting nuclear energy.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52389264][URL="http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/effects-of-dumping-radioactive-waste-in-ocean-need-more-study-scientists/2157923"]Read up on it a bit.[/URL] I'm not saying that we should do it, but water is a very efficient absorber of radioactive isotopes. There's a reason we keep spent fuel in pools besides cooling.[/QUOTE] Not only no, but fuck no. The fact that it hasn't [I]yet[/I] caused any ill effects doesn't mean that the practice isn't inherently harmful to the environment; it implies nothing but just disposing of something that could be highly toxic even long after we're gone, in a place where we can no longer see it. I have read on it, and the United States is signatory to not one, but three separate conventions that prohibit dumping nuclear waste in oceans, so don't even think about it. Your implication that the practice can't be harmful is wrong, not because I'm saying it, but because, empirically, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm]unrestricted dumping of nuclear waste in oceans has already caused damage to coastal villages in Somalia[/url]. Nuclear waste disposal is not an easy problem to solve, and I really wish nuclear power advocates would focus more of their effort in finding a solution that doesn't involve just forgetting about it.

[QUOTE=Dim;52389278]As someone from Europe it is really interesting for me to see so many people on the thread liking the idea of an increase in nuclear power plants. Why would you want to support a source of energy that produces highly toxic waste nobody really knows how to get rid of? I don’t want to demonize anyone, I really am curious on why you guys feel like supporting nuclear energy.[/QUOTE] Well, frankly, it's the [url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1f1d8d6c709b]safest[/url] and most efficient source of power on Earth. When I say safest, I'm talking about the industry standard comparison of deaths per kilowatt hour. As you can see in the link above, coal in the US, even with our excellent safety regulations, is still the deadliest at 10,000 deaths/TkWh. Nuclear is magnitudes better at 0.1 deaths/TkWh. The only other thing that even begins to approach it is Hydrodynamic at 5 deaths/TkWh. Beyond that, we actually do know how to dispose of most of the fuel. Up until now, the vast majority of nuclear reactors have had solid fuels. Easy to make and to make efficient (especially back when all of this was only theory). But it has the significant downside that you can't remove fission product poisons. You see, the end of life for a reactor core isn't really when you've "burned" all of the fuel. It's when you have a poor enough ratio of fission poisons to fuel that you can't build a self-sustaining (critical) reaction anymore. Spent fuel, if it could be processed, could go on to power more reactors. And this is also why liquid fuels are rising in popularity on the design table (continuous purification means burning very nearly all of the fuel). The problem with the old fuel is all legal. We have the technology and techniques not only to reprocess it, but to do so smartly. It's just that in the US, Congress would have to legally approve what you do with the fuel. And Nuclear Anything is toxic to politics.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;52389289]Not only no, but fuck no. The fact that it hasn't [I]yet[/I] caused any ill effects doesn't mean that the practice isn't inherently harmful to the environment; it implies nothing but just disposing of something that could be highly toxic even long after we're gone, in a place where we can no longer see it. I have read on it, and the United States is signatory to not one, but three separate conventions that prohibit dumping nuclear waste in oceans, so don't even think about it. Your implication that the practice can't be harmful is wrong, not because I'm saying it, but because, empirically, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm]unrestricted dumping of nuclear waste in oceans has already caused damage to coastal villages in Somalia[/url]. Nuclear waste disposal is not an easy problem to solve, and I really wish nuclear power advocates would focus more of their effort in finding a solution that doesn't involve just forgetting about it.[/QUOTE] No one is "solving it" because the issue is already solved: Bury it deep underground and forget about it.