George Soros-- we need more foreign influence in the United States.

[999969999]

I'm quoting from the ultra-liberal, left-wing commie Media Matters, so Clocky and Lucifer won't have to worry about the source too much...

http://mediamatters.org/research/201011110032

"QUESTIONER: My name is Lee Retiener, and sir, it seems to me four options have arisen today, only one of which is new and hasn't been spoken of yet. Your option of creating a new community of democracies, which in a sense is pronouncing the U.N. a little bit dead [...] The second is improving the United Nations. Its failures -- I don't mean in the Security Council but over the past 20 years and through the dominance of the Group of 77 and the new world economic order -- gave Wolfowitz the right, the power, and the philosophical justification, and those like him, to do what he has now done. That's part of the answer to the question that was asked earlier. So improving the United Nations, which is a long-sought-after goal, is one to which great effort would have to be given. But there's another way, which would be entirely unconstitutional, but I advance it not for the sake of humor, but only to help thought -- which is to create a third branch of Congress for foreign governments only. Proportionate representation in the United States Congress so that the Chinese can legitimately give money, so that Israel can give us money --

[unintelligible]

The question is whether we need and whether Mr. Soros and his foundations can help to bring more foreign influence into the United States instead of relying on what is essentially a balance between Democrats and conservative Republicans, which hasn't worked and is not about to start working.

SOROS: Look, I think -- I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order, and that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet, it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup. I don't think you can correct it by giving the Chinese government a vote in Congress. But it is a flaw, and I think this is where American leadership is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to retain the dominant position we currently enjoy."

I am curious to read what everyone thinks about Soros' comments. Is our system flawed because only citizens of the United States get a say in what goes on in our own congress?

[clocker]

Is our system flawed because only citizens of the United States get a say in what goes on in our own congress?
No, there's a lot more wrong than that.

[devilsadvocate]

I'm quoting from the ultra-liberal, left-wing commie Media Matters, so Clocky and Lucifer won't have to worry about the source too much...

If it's a full factual quote with all context included the source doesn't matter. You seem to be under the impression that challenging incorrect statements is something only a liberal would do.

you also seem ignorant of what communism actually is.

Out of interest, the article you linked to corrected Beck. Who do you feel more accurately reported the conversation, Beck or the website?

[999969999]

Is our system flawed because only citizens of the United States get a say in what goes on in our own congress?
No, there's a lot more wrong than that.

So, you agree with Soros?

And what other things are wrong with the U.S. in your opinion? You said there is a lot more wrong than that.

[999969999]

I'm quoting from the ultra-liberal, left-wing commie Media Matters, so Clocky and Lucifer won't have to worry about the source too much...

If it's a full factual quote with all context included the source doesn't matter. You seem to be under the impression that challenging incorrect statements is something only a liberal would do.

you also seem ignorant of what communism actually is.

Out of interest, the article you linked to corrected Beck. Who do you feel more accurately reported the conversation, Beck or the website?

The Media Matters website did include the full quote. But in this particular case, the rest of the quote really didn't help improve my opinion of Soros. And even Media Matters admits that Soros did say this: "Look, I think -- I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order, and that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet, it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup." Do you agree with this?

[devilsadvocate]

Do you think we should have bases on foreign land? Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc. Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral?

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own?

If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do?

[999969999]

Do you think we should have bases on foreign land? Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc. Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral?

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own?

If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do?

Answer my question first, and then I will answer yours.

[999969999]

Is our system flawed because only citizens of the United States get a say in what goes on in our own congress?
No, there's a lot more wrong than that.

Clocky, I'm still waiting for your oh so intelligent answer.

[devilsadvocate]

Answer my question first, and then I will answer yours. Your answer is in the questions I posed.

I'll help you out by explaining the context of what Soros was responding to.

The USA is the biggest influence on the world forum. We expect what we want without giving the rest of the world a say.

His response is that we should take the views of the rest of the world into account when we decide on foreign policy. It's NOT about foreign influence in our domestic business and he did state other countries shouldn't have a vote in our government. It's about listening to others who enjoy or suffer the effects of what we do outside the USA.

Now you've made a few statements hinting you prefer an isolationist approach to world politics. If you can forget what Beck told you Soros is saying and actually read and understand what Soros said, then you may find you agree with much of it.

[999969999]

Do you think we should have bases on foreign land? Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc. Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral?

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own?

If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do?

Now to answer your questions...

Should we have bases on foreign land? No. I support pulling our troops out of all bases throughout the world and bringing them home to the U.S., and downsizing the military to a merely defensive force. I would use them to defend the northern and southern borders, and secure the seaports and shipping lanes around the U.S.

Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc.? No. We have no business spreading "democracy" throughout the world. We need to mind our own business and start focusing on our own affairs.

Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral? We should start becoming neutral. And this includes our support for Israel-- it needs to come to an end. This is one area that I have flip-flopped on and now I disagree with Beck and all the other conservative talk show hosts on this issue. We need to get out of the middle east entirely, and that means cutting off all support for Israel as well.

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own? Do we really treat international issues on what's best for America? I don't think we do. Why do we have such a huge trade deficit? And no, we can't expect other countries to be looking out for American interests over their own. But then, we need to start doing what is best for our own country and stop trying to be the world's policeman and friend and humanitarian, as well.

If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do? We need to start getting off of foreign oil so that it would not matter if that happened. I watched a recent 60 Minutes (CBS) episode where they said we have enough natural gas in the United States mainland (not offshore) to last for generations. Some of the ranch machinery and trucks in my family's business already run on natural gas. If the United States would convert our cars to run on natural gas (as well as using electric vehicles, etc.), we wouldn't need foreign oil anymore.

[devilsadvocate]

Do you think we should have bases on foreign land? Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc. Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral?

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own?

If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do?

Now to answer your questions...

Should we have bases on foreign land? No. I support pulling our troops out of all bases throughout the world and bringing them home to the U.S., and downsizing the military to a merely defensive force. I would use them to defend the northern and southern borders, and secure the seaports and shipping lanes around the U.S.

Do you think we should be interfering with foreign politics, elections etc.? No. We have no business spreading "democracy" throughout the world. We need to mind our own business and start focusing on our own affairs.
So you are mostly with Soros on this, instead of interfering and imposing we should leave them to it, while Soros thinks we should be asking them if they actually want us interfering or imposing (1 for 1)
Should we be supporting one country over another or remain neutral? We should start becoming neutral. And this includes our support for Israel-- it needs to come to an end. This is one area that I have flip-flopped on and now I disagree with Beck and all the other conservative talk show hosts on this issue. We need to get out of the middle east entirely, and that means cutting off all support for Israel as well.

So you close to Soros on this, instead of interfering, imposing and taking sides we should be listening neutrally to both sides(2 for 2)

We treat international issues on what's best for America, do you think other countries should be looking out for American interests over their own? Do we really treat international issues on what's best for America? I don't think we do. Why do we have such a huge trade deficit? And no, we can't expect other countries to be looking out for American interests over their own. But then, we need to start doing what is best for our own country and stop trying to be the world's policeman and friend and humanitarian, as well.
Trade agreement and foreign policy aren't really the same thing. I'll give you a disagree on this because Soros has used financial clout to promote democracy in other nations, however he is not a country and the topic is about how he thinks the USA should participate in world affairs. He does seem to have a rather hypocritical stance in this respect (2 for 3)
If the middle east suddenly put an embargo on oil what should we do? We need to start getting off of foreign oil so that it would not matter if that happened. I watched a recent 60 Minutes (CBS) episode where they said we have enough natural gas in the United States mainland (not offshore) to last for generations. Some of the ranch machinery and trucks in my family's business already run on natural gas. If the United States would convert our cars to run on natural gas (as well as using electric vehicles, etc.), we wouldn't need foreign oil anymore. This last isn't really about Soros, it's just to discover you views on what we should do if we suddenly had our main energy supply cut off. The answer you gave was very evasive and a textbook answer any generic politician would give if asked for specifics.

The problem with your answer, as good an idea as it may sound, is that it's an idea, not a reality. (I guess in the circles you reside in you are a commie)

So to avoid any confusion I'll ask more specifically-

If the middle east put an embargo on oil TODAY with the cars, planes trains ships, power stations and infrastructure we have TODAY, what should we do?

[MagicNakor]

While the US does import oil from the Middle East, it imports far more from other sources.


Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-10 Aug-10 YTD 2010 Sep-09 YTD 2009
CANADA 1,936 1,933 1,976 1,938 1,926
NIGERIA 1,107 942 1,021 886 720
MEXICO 1,098 1,158 1,116 1,124 1,119
SAUDI ARABIA 1,082 1,080 1,072 1,031 1,013
VENEZUELA 919 974 928 1,014 998
IRAQ 422 281 462 428 456
ANGOLA 404 472 409 401 475
ALGERIA 366 374 333 433 276
COLOMBIA 308 346 328 285 259
RUSSIA 236 334 289 163 252
ECUADOR 229 236 196 147 196
BRAZIL 177 249 269 262 326
KUWAIT 172 251 204 246 179
GABON 71 74 46 32 72
UNITED KINGDOM 70 121 138 117 111

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-10 Aug-10 YTD 2010 Sep-09 YTD 2009
CANADA 2,475 2,483 2,535 2,358 2,456
MEXICO 1,256 1,282 1,253 1,271 1,233
NIGERIA 1,174 985 1,056 912 759
SAUDI ARABIA 1,093 1,132 1,086 1,045 1,042
VENEZUELA 1,008 1,022 1,006 1,146 1,120
RUSSIA 648 786 623 486 620
ALGERIA 543 565 508 655 498
IRAQ 422 281 462 428 458
ANGOLA 417 484 419 414 485
COLOMBIA 363 372 360 301 284
VIRGIN ISLANDS 302 339 262 280 291
ECUADOR 229 242 198 153 200
BRAZIL 181 251 287 268 343
UNITED KINGDOM 178 266 277 295 252
KUWAIT 172 251 206 246 182

Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

For purposes of this thought-experiment: It would hurt a little (mostly pride), but would hardly be catastrophic (in terms of energy supply).

If the idea is for more of a Fortress America, all energy trade routes are blockaded and military response isn't an option.

:shuriken:

[devilsadvocate]

While the US does import oil from the Middle East, it imports far more from other sources.
:shuriken:
You are correct, about imports, however even if it were just the middle eastern Arabian countries we would be hit very hard. Desert storm wasn't about freedom. We would either have to pressure other countries to take up the slack or face shortages and economically crippling price hikes. I deliberately didn't say all countries embargo. The scenario is about noticable reduced supply.

But if it makes a difference 9 could also answer if we make it that all the countries we have interfered with placed an embargo.

Fuel is the USA's Achilles heal

[clocker]

The US sphere of influence is dramatically shrinking.
The question is not whether foreign concerns should be allowed to influence US politics, the question is "Why should they care"?

[999969999]

[QUOTE=999969999;3535680]


So to avoid any confusion I'll ask more specifically-

If the middle east put an embargo on oil TODAY with the cars, planes trains ships, power stations and infrastructure we have TODAY, what should we do?

If it happened TODAY we would be screwed. We would have to rely on reserves and ration it.

But here is what I was mentioning as a more long term solution:

"(CBS) Natural gas has always been the ugly stepchild of our national energy debate, never enjoying the political muscle of oil and coal, and never capturing the imagination like solar panels and wind farms. And to top it all off, it was in short supply.

But that is changing, and now this stepchild is being touted as the hope of the future - the answer to our energy problems.

What has brought about the change is there is a new unconventional process for extracting natural gas from shale, a dense rock formation two miles underground. And if you're sitting on top of it, you may become a new American phenomenon: a "shaleionaire."

And yet, if the BP spill taught us anything, it's that exploring for energy has safety risks. But that can get lost in all the excitement.

What is increasingly evident is that shale gas is overwhelmingly abundant right here in the U.S.A.

Shale Gas Drilling: Pros & Cons
Extra: Meet The "Shaleionaires"
Extra: Gas Drilling Horror Story
Link: Haynesville Shale

"In the last few years, we've discovered the equivalent of two Saudi Arabias of oil in the form of natural gas in the United States. Not one, but two," Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, told "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl.

"Wait, we have twice as much natural gas in this country, is that what you're saying, than they have oil in Saudi Arabia?" Stahl asked.

"I'm trying to very clearly say exactly that," he replied.

Chesapeake Energy is the largest independent gas producer in the country. McClendon is on a mission to get the U.S. off foreign oil and dirty coal.

Gas has nearly half the carbon emissions of coal, and no mercury.

"But natural gas is still a fossil fuel," Stahl pointed out.

"So is it perfect? No," McClendon said. "The answer is it's not perfect. But for the next 20 years, natural gas is probably our best bet. And the good news is, we've got it. And we've got as much of it as anybody else in the world."

There are shale formations across large parts of the country, and there is production or exploration in over 30 states. It's an American energy renaissance.

Some 10,000 wells will be drilled in northwest Louisiana, in some of the poorest communities in the country, where impoverished farmers are becoming overnight millionaires as they lease their land for drilling.

"I never dreamed of money like this," C.B. Leatherwood told Stahl. "

Leatherwood, a retired oil field worker, got a bundle to drill under his farm: $434,000.

His cousin, Mike Smith, also profited: he was paid nearly $2 million.

"So what'd you do that day?" Stahl asked Smith.

"I sat back and thought about it for a, all day. And I said, 'I'm a millionaire.' And that didn't sound right," he replied.

They actually call them "shaleionaires," and they don't mind putting up with the noisy, smelly drilling when the wells are built because they get a cut of the profits, which could last for years and add up to millions more.

Last year, shale drilling generated almost $6 billion in Louisiana in new household earnings. As the rest of the nation plunged into a recession, the region added over 57,000 local jobs, and the Cadillac dealership in town is hopping.

People have known for a century that shale contained gas, but it was too difficult and pricy to extract."




I can personally say that the conversion from regular gas to natural gas on our businesses trucks was easy and relatively cheap, and they work great.






And yes, I realize that it is an imperfect solution and there will be some people who will have to be relocated from their homes and farms and communities, much like we currently use eminent domain to take land for highways, etc.

[devilsadvocate]

If it happened TODAY we would be screwed. We would have to rely on reserves and ration it.

So no acts of aggression, that's what I'm trying to find out.

The rest I'm really not inclined to bother with.

[999969999]

If it happened TODAY we would be screwed. We would have to rely on reserves and ration it.

So no acts of aggression, that's what I'm trying to find out.

The rest I'm really not inclined to bother with.

No, no acts of aggression. What would that get us? We need to look for our fuel needs within the United States and we have it all right here, but we are going to have to disband the E.P.A. and ignore groups like the Sierra Club, to get to our own natural gas resources so we can use them.

[clocker]

So, basically you think it's perfectly OK to completely trash the environment just to produce energy?
What's the point of being able to drive around in a wasteland or having a fully fueled vehicle when you're dead?

[999969999]

So, basically you think it's perfectly OK to completely trash the environment just to produce energy?
What's the point of being able to drive around in a wasteland or having a fully fueled vehicle when you're dead?

It won't completely trash the environment and it won't become a wasteland. Those concerns are completely overblown by econuts like you.

There will be localized areas around the drilling that will need the help of good old eminent domain. We do it for roads, why not do it for fuel?

I should also point out that I live within easy driving range to a huge coal fired electric generating plant, and it isn't hurting anyone or anything around it. Econuts hate them, but they make use of a cheap and plentiful supply of coal we have right in the four corners area of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico.

[clocker]

Ah, the myth of "Clean Coal".
What took you so long to bring up that canard?

[devilsadvocate]

There will be localized areas around the drilling that will need the help of good old eminent domain. We do it for roads, why not do it for fuel?

So you're fine if your family farm falls to eminent domain?

Just out of curiosity do you think energy production should be nationalized?

[clocker]

So you're fine if your family farm falls to eminent domain?

Even better question:
How would you like a strip mine in Eagar?

Coal is only "clean" when you're nowhere near it.

[999969999]

So you're fine if your family farm falls to eminent domain?

Even better question:
How would you like a strip mine in Eagar?

Coal is only "clean" when you're nowhere near it.

Ha! We're sitting in an extinct volcanic caldera. Our land is worthless for mining. But if they paid us what our land was worth plus moving costs to re-locate to Pinetop, they can have Eagar and go nuts with it if they want to do that. Eminent domain.

Coal is clean now. On a clear, chilly day, I can see the smokestacks from the powerplant once I go over a hill. I have no problem having a coal plant nearby. I love electricity.

[999969999]

Some interesting maps-- especially for Clocky-- can be found here:

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/springervillecoal/





Springerville Generating Station
Owners: TEP (Units 1 and 2); Tri-State Generation and Transmission (Unit 3); SRP (Unit 4)

Operator: TEP/UniSource

Location: Springerville, Ariz.

Description: Springerville Generating Station (SGS) is a state-of-the-art coal-fired power plant that will assure fuel diversity for a secure Arizona energy future and also enhance national energy security by using a dependable, domestic fuel source.

Total generating capability: Units 1 and 2 each bring 380 MW, for a total of 760 MW. Unit 3, which began operation in 2005, adds 400 MW for a combined total of 1160 MW. Unit 4 was completed in December 2009, adds another 400 MW, bringing the facility's expected capacity to 1560 MW.

Fuel source: Low-sulfur coal

Plant construction: Units 1 and 2 were completed in 1985 and 1990, respectively. Unit 3 was completed in summer 2006. Unit 4 was completed in December 2009.

Plant operations: Springerville supplies power to Tucson Electric Power (TEP), Tri-State Generation & Transmission, and the Salt River Project (SRP). Air emission controls on Unit 4 will meet EPA's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements. Furthermore, emission controls on Units 1 and 2 were upgraded as part of the plant expansion. As a result, emissions from all four units will be less than the original two units.

Currently, power from SGS units 1,2 and 3 is transmitted to Tucson and into the grid serving Arizona. In addition, some of the SGS energy is used by Tri-State Generation & Transmission, a Denver-based wholesale power cooperative with member distribution systems in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Nebraska.

The plant utilizes a proven and dependable water supply. Well fields that supply the four units are from aquifers deeper and separate from the aquifer that the towns rely on.

[devilsadvocate]

You didn't answer.

Should energy production be nationalized, should government be drilling or mining?


Should eminent domain be used to take a mans home to build a golf course or a mini mall?

[MagicNakor]

It won't completely trash the environment and it won't become a wasteland. Those concerns are completely overblown by econuts like you.

Have you been to any working mines, oil-rigs or tarsands? "Wasteland" is the perfect word to describe what happens to those areas. Ironically some of the cutting-edge advancements in "green technology" is as a result from trying to clean up and detoxify those areas.

If you were serious about caring for the environment and "clean energy", you would be advocating nuclear power.

:shuriken:

[clocker]

Coal is clean now. On a clear, chilly day, I can see the smokestacks from the powerplant once I go over a hill. I have no problem having a coal plant nearby. I love electricity.
Radon is odorless and colorless.
Ergo, radon is clean now as well.

[999969999]

You didn't answer.

Should energy production be nationalized, should government be drilling or mining?


Should eminent domain be used to take a mans home to build a golf course or a mini mall?

No, energy production should be a private, for-profit venture. But the government has an interest in helping to promote domestic energy production for the prosperity and security of the country. So, instead of being the enemy of domestic energy production, like it currently is, it should try to be helpful.

Eminent domain should be used whenever the public has an overriding need for something, like a road or energy. The majority of the local town votes that they want a golf course or a mini mall there, then I think eminent domain should be used. Like I said, if they want to pay us what the land is worth and some moving costs to relocate to Pinetop, Arizona, then they can have our land and go nuts with it. I don't care what they put there. I'm not attached to land. It is just something to use and something which has value and can be bought and sold.

[999969999]

It won't completely trash the environment and it won't become a wasteland. Those concerns are completely overblown by econuts like you.

Have you been to any working mines, oil-rigs or tarsands? "Wasteland" is the perfect word to describe what happens to those areas. Ironically some of the cutting-edge advancements in "green technology" is as a result from trying to clean up and detoxify those areas.

If you were serious about caring for the environment and "clean energy", you would be advocating nuclear power.

:shuriken:

Yes, Clifton, Arizona is not very far from here and they have open strip mine for copper, and the town is doing fine...

http://www.google.com/images?q=clifton,+az&hl=en&rlz=1T4GWYE_enUS274US274&prmd=ivm&source=lnms&tbs=isch:1&ei=wrb_TJfGE4H-8Abv-MmFBw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CA0Q_AU&biw=802&bih=440

I agree with you. I love nuclear power. It is clean, safe, and provides plentiful energy. I wish they would build a nuclear plant in Springerville. I would be fine with that.

[999969999]

Coal is clean now. On a clear, chilly day, I can see the smokestacks from the powerplant once I go over a hill. I have no problem having a coal plant nearby. I love electricity.
Radon is odorless and colorless.
Ergo, radon is clean now as well.

That's not what I said.

What I am saying is that there is a coal plant not far from here, and it does nothing benefit our community. I have no problem with it being there. I like it. It is not hurting anything.

[999969999]

Well, I have to go meet a customer for lunch, so off I go! Later!

[clocker]

I love nuclear power. It is clean, safe, and provides plentiful energy. I wish they would build a nuclear plant in Springerville. I would be fine with that.
And your plan for handling/disposal of the waste is what, exactly?
Oh, nevermind...radiation is odorless and invisible ergo, completely safe, just like your beloved coal fired generating plant.

[devilsadvocate]

No, energy production should be a private, for-profit venture. But the government has an interest in helping to promote domestic energy production for the prosperity and security of the country. So, instead of being the enemy of domestic energy production, like it currently is, it should try to be helpful.

Eminent domain should be used whenever the public has an overriding need for something, like a road or energy. The majority of the local town votes that they want a golf course or a mini mall there, then I think eminent domain should be used. Like I said, if they want to pay us what the land is worth and some moving costs to relocate to Pinetop, Arizona, then they can have our land and go nuts with it. I don't care what they put there. I'm not attached to land. It is just something to use and something which has value and can be bought and sold.
Wow

You support government having the right to take private property from one and give it to another private entity

That doesn't sound like tyranny to you?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBInZrRx5c

Could come in handy. Towns could vote to use eminent domain to displace families with differing religious views, just make sure to build a mini mall there to cover up the real reason. Don't like those immigrants? no problem, replace them with movie theater.

[999969999]

I love nuclear power. It is clean, safe, and provides plentiful energy. I wish they would build a nuclear plant in Springerville. I would be fine with that.
And your plan for handling/disposal of the waste is what, exactly?
Oh, nevermind...radiation is odorless and invisible ergo, completely safe, just like your beloved coal fired generating plant.

What do we currently do with nuclear waste from Palo Verde?

Why would this be any different?

[clocker]

Palo Verde's waste sits on site because there's nowhere else to put it.
Given how harmless it is, you could probably make some bank by storing it in your garage.

[999969999]

Palo Verde's waste sits on site because there's nowhere else to put it.
Given how harmless it is, you could probably make some bank by storing it in your garage.

It must not be that big of a deal then, if it is being stored next to a huge city like Phoenix.

Hiroshima still has people living in it. It's not a wasteland.

[clocker]

Brilliant example.
I hear that Chernobyl is lovely in the winter also.

[999969999]

Does this sound like a nuclear wasteland to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

"As of 2006, the city has an estimated population of 1,154,391, while the total population for the metropolitan area was estimated as 2,043,788 in 2000.[27] The total area of the city is 905.08 km², with a density of 1275.4 persons per km².[28]

The population around 1910 was 143,000.[5] Before World War II, Hiroshima's population had grown to 360,000, and peaked at 419,182 in 1942.[28] Following the atomic bombing in 1945, the population dropped to 137,197.[28] By 1955, the city's population had returned to pre-war levels.[29
"

[clocker]

It's unclear as to how you think a city that was bombed once is comparable to long term storage of nuclear waste.
Hint: It's not.

[999969999]

It's unclear as to how you think a city that was bombed once is comparable to long term storage of nuclear waste.
Hint: It's not.



So, you're saying that a nuclear bomb puts out less radiation than spent fuel rods being stored away? I'll admit I haven't read anything about this, but it just makes sense to me that a nuclear bomb would put out more radiation than spent fuel rods.

And still, how do you explain that Palo Verde is storing it's nuclear waste just to the west of Phoenix without any problems? If it's such a big deal, wouldn't Phoenix be concerned about this matter?

[clocker]

I have no idea whether or not Phoenix is concerned or not.
Of course, given that Phoenix thought building a major metropolitan area with no real water supply supply was a good idea, I'm not sure how much it "thinks" about anything.

Let me ask you this...
How do you handle trash at your house?