This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
North Dakota seems as proper a place as any to me.
would be to put every crappy thing that nobody else wants in Detroit! Think about it: 2/3rds of the city is abandoned and is a SuperFund site. Why not use that as an advantage? Toxic waste? Come on down. Nuclear power plants? Plenty of room here. Chemical manufacturing? Sure, we've got room. Bioweapons research? Sounds good. Really, whats the downside? Property values might go down? 
They did a documentary on that, I think it was called Robocop.Actually, if I was running things, the first thing I'd do after outlawing Boston College and sending Fishy, Flaggy, and Opie to the nearest gulag
Think about it: 2/3rds of the city is abandoned and is a SuperFund site. Why not use that as an advantage? Toxic waste? Come on down. Nuclear power plants? Plenty of room here. Chemical manufacturing? Sure, we've got room. Bioweapons research? Sounds good. Really, whats the downside? Property values might go down?
By all means, bring on the nuclear and chemical engineering jobs. Talk about instant economic diversification.
), but even North Dakotans deserve some measure of precaution and protections taken to ensure their valuable farmland and oil sands are still industries and resources that can be counted on for the next several decades, without fear of a nuclear accident putting them at risk, no?Why can't we shoot the waste into the sun? Our rockets have a high degree of success and I doubt the waste will bother the sun.What, pray tell, does a British law enacted over 150 years ago at the behest of railroad special interest groups have to do with the proper disposal of radioactive waste? Are you arguing that "green" energy groups are lobbying for such legislation as we speak?
I don't think anyone has a problem with said waste getting disposed of in North Dakota (hell, I already said it's the perfect place!
It would be an expensive "add on", but if we were going to use that route, we could encase the waste in a container designed not to take significant damage should a failure occur, maybe even with a protected parachute compartment. I doubt that idea would survive a risk-cost/benefit analysis.
I'm not convinced that your "whole atmosphere" concern is realistic - a nuclear weapon scatters like that because the force of the explosion blasts the spent fuel into tiny aerosol-like particles that can spread with the wind. If a rocket carrying a solid lump of waste blew up, it would pretty much just fall to the earth as a few lumps - Challenger's and Columbia's debris didn't scatter through the atmosphere. Still nasty, but not doomsday.
What, pray tell, does a British law enacted over 150 years ago at the behest of railroad special interest groups have to do with the proper disposal of radioactive waste? Are you arguing that "green" energy groups are lobbying for such legislation as we speak?
I don't think anyone has a problem with said waste getting disposed of in North Dakota (hell, I already said it's the perfect place!
Wow! Never expected you to be criticizing Obama's lack of foreign policy too!
Totally agree with your sentiment. If you issue an ultimatum, no matter how petulant or intemperate, you must follow through, or no one will take anything else you say seriously afterward.
Any doubt there is a direct connection between the failure to enforce the "red line" in Syria, and the annexation of the Crimea?
PS. It would have been far better never to have made that "red line" statement in the first place. But you cannot unring a bell.
).