NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96QN30O0&show_article=1

Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes

CAIRO (AP) - A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom's ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.

The woman's lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.
..
..
The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi's late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.
..
..
The court said it based its ruling on "citizen information" and testimony from al-Anzi's father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

"Because she said she doesn't have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed," the court verdict read.
..
..
"How can a verdict be issued based on suspicion?" Laila Ahmed al-Ahdab, a physician who also is a columnist for Al-Watan, wrote Monday. "A group of people are misusing religion to serve their own interests."

Sawadi told the court she considered al-Anzi as her son, because she breast-fed him when he was a baby. But the court denied her claim, saying she didn't provide evidence. In Islamic tradition, breast-feeding establishes a degree of maternal relation, even if a woman nurses a child who is not biologically hers.


Silly laws, perhaps, but at least they're applied to both genders equally so all this none-sense about trampling the rights of women can be forgotten, right? :tongue:

*facepalm*

Can we please stop buying oil from these people??

*facepalm*
Can we please stop buying oil from these people??

Yes of course.

We Westerners can buy oil from:

Iraq (we invaded them for oil after all!)
Iran (very nice country, expecially about womens' rights...)
Sudan (even better... :rolleyes: )
Russia (ve tink ve coold also speak a little about Kavkaz and Ookraina, da?)
Venezuela (kapitali$t $wine$ are welcome if they pay us a lot more)

Maybe renewable energy sources are good ALSO on the political level.

Yes of course.

We Westerners can buy oil from:

Iraq (we invaded them for oil after all!)
Iran (very nice country, expecially about womens' rights...)
Russia (ve tink ve coold also speak a little about Kavkaz and Ookraina, da?)
Venezuela (kapitali$t $wine$ are welcome if they pay us a lot more)

Maybe renewable energy sources are good ALSO on the political level.

You'll get no argument from me, I've been saying as much since I first started posting here.

You'll get no argument from me, I've been saying as much since I first started posting here.

I know, buddy. Gimme five!

Maybe renewable energy sources are good ALSO on the political level.
Renewable energy sources mean diddly squat - sans water power.

Nuclear power is the way to go (incl. geo-thermal energy).

Of course, having huge solar and wind farms generating hydrogen used in cars is also a valid plan, but as a fundamental source of energy they're s*it because of the fluctuations in power production.

I know, buddy. Gimme five!

*high fives*

Seriously, though...I'd really like to see a poll that shows what support in the US might be for sanctions against Saudi Arabia for all the stuff like this that we hear about on a regular basis.

Not that it'd ever happen...but I'm curious to know what public opinion is on the idea.

But of course, this has nothing to do with Islam. It isn't real Moslems who are doing this! They're just distorting the true teachings of Islam!

What a crap-can of a country and a crap-can of a culture. :rolleyes:

Ebil Moslems.

EDIT: Posted at 16:50 (same time as my above post):
But of course, this has nothing to do with Islam. It isn't real Moslems who are doing this! They're just distorting the true teachings of Islam!

What a crap-can of a country and a crap-can of a culture. :rolleyes:

Awesome.

Renewable energy sources mean diddly squat - sans water power.

Nuclear power is the way to go (incl. geo-thermal energy).

Of course, having huge solar and wind farms generating hydrogen used in cars is also a valid plan, but as a fundamental source of energy they're s*it because of the fluctuations in power production.

One of the best reasons to develop alternative energy sources, especially nuclear, is to dry up the cash flow into the disgusting hell-hole that is Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran. Stop buying their oil and their economies crash, and suddendly they're of absolutely no importance to the world, since their only present value derives from the geological accident that they're sitting on big pools of oil.

One of the best reasons to develop alternative energy sources, especially nuclear, is to dry up the cash flow into the disgusting hell-hole that is Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran. Stop buying their oil and their economies crash, and suddendly they're of absolutely no importance to the world, since their only present value derives from the geological accident that they're sitting on big pools of oil.

Sure. Except for China buying their oil.

2 young men, loafs of bread and a widow you say?

hawt.

SNIP

what about Norway? :tongue:

But of course, this has nothing to do with Islam. It isn't real Moslems who are doing this! They're just distorting the true teachings of Islam!

What a crap-can of a country and a crap-can of a culture. :rolleyes:

Yah, it's called Wahhabism, a movement that resurrected an outdated interpretation that never even garnered much support during its inception and then experienced a healthy support from foreign nations.

Yah, it's called Wahhabism, a movement that resurrected an outdated interpretation that never even garnered much support during its inception and then experienced a healthy support from foreign nations.

Get your elitest facts out of here, damn intellectual...

One of the best reasons to develop alternative energy sources, especially nuclear, is to dry up the cash flow into the disgusting hell-hole that is Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran. Stop buying their oil and their economies crash, and suddendly they're of absolutely no importance to the world, since their only present value derives from the geological accident that they're sitting on big pools of oil.
You are aware that most of the US's oil, at least, comes from ... the US? And Canada? And Russia? Only something like 10% actually originates in the Middle East. Europe probably gets more of it from the Mideast, being closer, but then Europe is full of sissy hippie-tolerance-pinko-commie-fags who ride their bicycles everywhere because they can't afford cars due to their outdated socialist economic policies. <.< Actually, I'm not sure where Europe gets its oil. Someone could search for it, if they really wanted to.

Yah, it's called Wahhabism, a movement that resurrected an outdated interpretation that never even garnered much support during its inception and then experienced a healthy support from foreign nations.
... which a disproportionately large number of Muslim governments subscribe to?

Personally, I think the problems run deeper than just a few extremists who happen to be in power. It's not something fundamentally wrong with the culture so much as something fundamentally wrong with the economics.

but then Europe is full of sissy hippie-tolerance-pinko-commie-fags who ride their bicycles everywhere because they can't afford cars due to their outdated socialist economic policies.

This^

... which a disproportionately large number of Muslim governments subscribe to?

Actually, its far more complex then that. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are actually secular(ish), but in order to hold on to power, pander to the extremist religious fringes in order to try and stave off a coup.

Actually, its far more complex then that. A lot of Middle Eastern governments are actually secular(ish), but in order to hold on to power, pander to the extremist religious fringes in order to try and stave off a coup.

Oh.

Why do they worry about the extremists? If they try anything illegal, the police can throw them in prison or something. You know, like in normal countries.

Oh.

Why do they worry about the extremists? If they try anything illegal, the police can throw them in prison or something. You know, like in normal countries.

A lot of times, the extremists can gather the support of the people, and attempt to make the leaders look bad by "not being muslim enough".

Plus, in normal countries, the extremists groups arent usually well funded, well armed, and well trained.

To be fair, Saudi Arabia isnt that good of an example of this, as they are a bit of a theocracy. I was more refering to countries like Jordan.

... which a disproportionately large number of Muslim governments subscribe to?

Personally, I think the problems run deeper than just a few extremists who happen to be in power. It's not something fundamentally wrong with the culture so much as something fundamentally wrong with the economics.

I agree about the economics being a major contributor to the situation in the Middle East; however, a disproportionately large number of government most definitely do NOT subscribe to Wahhabism. It has seen a major upsurge in recent decades, but, as you said, that has to do with economics and, I'll add, security issues. Poor people can be perfectly content in their poverty so long as certain security needs are met.

Keep in mind, also, that Saudi Arabia is very good at exporting soft power. They don't have an internationally efficacious military. They do shell out A LOT of cash around the world to religious schools that export Wahhabism; a slow, but, as we are now seeing, fairly effective method of influence.

The thing with religious extremism is that it is an extremely effective method of unifying support. I will say that Islam is especially effective at this, but so is Judaism. They are politically primed religions in that they are religions that largely concern themselves, by explicit dogma, with worldly conduct and sovereignty. This allows both religions to function effectively as a default template for extremists seeking populist support or the remainders of a revolution to shortcut to stability. The difference is a question of historical enfranchisement, but we can see Israel experience the pendulum swing, as well.

I agree about the economics being a major contributor to the situation in the Middle East; however, a disproportionately large number of government most definitely do NOT subscribe to Wahhabism. It has seen a major upsurge in recent decades, but, as you said, that has to do with economics and, I'll add, security issues. Poor people can be perfectly content in their poverty so long as certain security needs are met.

Keep in mind, also, that Saudi Arabia is very good at exporting soft power. They don't have an internationally efficacious military. They do shell out A LOT of cash around the world to religious schools that export Wahhabism; a slow, but, as we are now seeing, fairly effective method of influence.

The thing with religious extremism is that it is an extremely effective method of unifying support. I will say that Islam is especially effective at this, but so is Judaism. They are politically primed religions in that they are religions that largely concern themselves, by explicit dogma, with worldly conduct and sovereignty. This allows both religions to function effectively as a default template for extremists seeking populist support or the remainders of a revolution to shortcut to stability. The difference is a question of historical enfranchisement, but we can see Israel experience the pendulum swing, as well.

Basically, this. You went into a lot more detail then I did, however. I bow to your superior fortitude.;)

Basically, this. You went into a lot more detail then I did, however. I bow to your superior fortitude.;)

I'm currently in my Sociology 367: Religion in America class. Core requirement classes during you last semester + a laptop = e-fortitude. Your intrawebs will suffer beneath the heel of my boredom!

Why don't their own people rise up? Unbelievable? I think we should start supplying guns to women in Saudi Arabia may be they will do it for us.

Why don't their own people rise up? Unbelievable? I think we should start supplying guns to women in Saudi Arabia may be they will do it for us.

Because, in Saudi Arabia at least, the standard of living is actually rather high. Even if they have no political and social rights, the government, due to its extreme wealth from oil revenue, provides a great deal of services.

Because, in Saudi Arabia at least, the standard of living is actually rather high. Even if they have no political and social rights, the government, due to its extreme wealth from oil revenue, provides a great deal of services.

Except for foreigners - both men and women - who constitute a substantial portion of the population and work force.

I think they release stories like this just to piss people off. Look how backward and oppressive we can be and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

75 year old women are well past the mingling stage. That is someone grandmother. What would be the difference if she went and bought them at a market?

Possibly the most damning statement. From the same article...

The woman's conviction came a few weeks after King Abdullah fired the chief of the religious police and a cleric who condoned killing owners of TV networks that broadcast "immoral content." The move was seen as part of an effort to weaken the hard-line Sunni Muslim establishment.

Renewable energy sources mean diddly squat - sans water power.

Nuclear power is the way to go (incl. geo-thermal energy).

Of course, having huge solar and wind farms generating hydrogen used in cars is also a valid plan, but as a fundamental source of energy they're s*it because of the fluctuations in power production.

Nope.

I don't dislike nuclear power, but it has huge costs and problems with wastes - we don't want nuclear waste falling into the wrong hands, or being thrown around mindlessly. We can find something better for lesser costs (and risks) - and economically-feasible nuclear fission is still to come.

Also, your argument is a bit flawed, because, by all standard definitions, geothermal isn't considered "nuclear" - though I'm aware of the nuclear reactions going on in the Earth's core. By the same standard, though, thermal solar and photovoltaic are nuclear, too - derived from nuclear reactions going on in the Sun.

Imo, as a fundamental source of energy, solar farms producing hydrogen (which can be distributed immediately or stocked) are ok: google or wiki the TREC (or DeserTREC) project. The fundamental factors about the efficiency are:
how much of the Earth's surface you employ for thermal solar plants
the temperature of the hot reservoir
where you place the plants (the ideal being hot deserts)

Iirc, the TREC project's papers claim that a thermal solar plant (with a hot reservoir at about 550 °C, not just water of course) about the size of 1/10 of the desertic areas of Algeria would produce enough energy to fulfill the world demand of energy.

*high fives*

Seriously, though...I'd really like to see a poll that shows what support in the US might be for sanctions against Saudi Arabia for all the stuff like this that we hear about on a regular basis.

Not that it'd ever happen...but I'm curious to know what public opinion is on the idea.

Make the poll.
Then tell a simple truth: "Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi prince".
Make a new poll.
Compare.

Ebil Moslems.

Your forgot the lulz. Remember the Theorem.

Your forgot the lulz. Remember the Theorem.

I do love your theorem.

One of these days Sauron will tell the Middle East to go fuck itself...and then maybe once theyve had a taste of Africa Level Income, maybe theyll wise up and beg to rejoin civilization...


thats my hope anyway.....

One of the best reasons to develop alternative energy sources, especially nuclear, is to dry up the cash flow into the disgusting hell-hole that is Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran. Stop buying their oil and their economies crash, and suddendly they're of absolutely no importance to the world, since their only present value derives from the geological accident that they're sitting on big pools of oil.

*laughs hysterically*

Sure. Except for China buying their oil.
:fluffle: 'Zactly. And you know, just forget about all the other emerging oil dependent economies. Just stop buying their oil and all will be solved!

One of these days Sauron will tell the Middle East to go fuck itself...and then maybe once theyve had a taste of Africa Level Income, maybe theyll wise up and beg to rejoin civilization...


thats my hope anyway.....

The Dark Lord wont ever tell the Middle East to go fuck itself. Hes a Muslim, remember? He's clearly taking orders from Mecca.


Unlike this guy, who didnt have a cozy relationship with any Middle Eastern dictators:http://s111.photobucket.com/albums/n158/codename_009/?action=view&current=BushKissingSaudiPrince.jpg

*laughs hysterically*


:fluffle: 'Zactly. And you know, just forget about all the other emerging oil dependent economies. Just stop buying their oil and all will be solved!

You clearly forget that 'Merika is the center of the universe. When we stop doing something, everyone does. When we say something or somewhere is irrelevent, then by god, you better believe is irrelevent.

75 year old women are well past the mingling stage. That is someone grandmother. What would be the difference if she went and bought them at a market?

I resent this comment. I plan to be slipping viagra to all the men in the old folk's home, then taking out my teeth and giving hummers as an afternoon treat.

I resent this comment. I plan to be slipping viagra to all the men in the old folk's home, then taking out my teeth and giving hummers as an afternoon treat.

And, you know, out of curiosity, which home will this be? :p

You clearly forget that 'Merika is the center of the universe. When we stop doing something, everyone does. When we say something or somewhere is irrelevent, then by god, you better believe is irrelevent.

"Everyone"?

We are everyone. Europe may be filled with commie tree-huggers, but they're just an extension of America. Same with Canada, even if they are a bunch of pot-smoking homosexuals. Mexico wants to be an extension of America even if it's not. And other countries? They're all economically dependent on us after all; think how many Indians and Chinese are working in American jobs. When we say jump, they'd better jump. And if they don't, we can nuke 'em. (America! Fuck yeah!)

"Everyone"?

We are everyone. Europe may be filled with commie tree-huggers, but they're just an extension of America. Same with Canada, even if they are a bunch of pot-smoking homosexuals. Mexico wants to be an extension of America even if it's not. And other countries? They're all economically dependent on us after all; think how many Indians and Chinese are working in American jobs. When we say jump, they'd better jump. And if they don't, we can nuke 'em. (America! Fuck yeah!)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Earth_Flag.svg/720px-Earth_Flag.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Earth_Flag.svg/720px-Earth_Flag.svg.png

Exactly, except it needs to be bigger, and with more nukes.

Or you could buy the dirtiest oil from Canada. Hard choices.

Nope.

I don't dislike nuclear power, but it has huge costs and problems with wastes - we don't want nuclear waste falling into the wrong hands, or being thrown around mindlessly.
Huge problem with a barrel of high active waste per year? That's less radioactive material than what's spewed from a standard coal plant in similar period of time.
We can find something better for lesser costs (and risks) - and economically-feasible nuclear fission is still to come.
We can't, s'rry: Nuclear power - that is fission power - is the cheapest, safest and most environmentally friendly alternative to oil economy available....Well, at least cheapest and least space hogging... ;)

I agree in that nuclear power carries certain unique risks, namely terrorists getting hands on of dirty material, however we have very few studies that could assess the possible worst case scenario involved. Especially if the accepted - but poorly studied - LNT-model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) is shown to be inaccurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis).

You also have to consider that few spoonfuls of biological agent thrown to a water reservoir would carry a much greater risk than dumping a barrelful of plutonium (or most likely any other radioactive agent) to such reservoir. A quote from a source (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html):
In the 1940s some 26 workers at US nuclear weapons facilities became contaminated with plutonium. Intensive health checks of these people have revealed no serious consequence and no fatalities that could be attributed to the exposure.

See also the last paragraph of this PDF (http://consolidationeis.doe.gov/PDFs/PlutoniumANLFactSheetOct2001.pdf).

Chernobyl accident is also controversial, because the casualties tied to the accident range from 56 to millions depending on your source and follow a political division rather than any specific scientific method. The fact is that only 56 deaths have been directly linked to the accident and I'm inclined to believe a total figure in range of several thousands at maximum - Consider, for example, that the background radiation levels near Kiev, a hundred or so km from Chernobyl, are completely normal.

All in all, in my personal opinion, the biggest danger of nuclear power is the FUD-factor: The political gains made from opposing nuclear power and feeding the panic.

The issue of nuclear weapons is also an interesting dilemma: Should only certain independent nations have the privilege to own such an arsenal - and thus have an undisputed right to bully others - or are they an universal right - and thus selling those weapons to other nations, organizations and individuals would be 'OK'?

Also, your argument is a bit flawed, because, by all standard definitions, geothermal isn't considered "nuclear" - though I'm aware of the nuclear reactions going on in the Earth's core.
My answer is bit of a pun on the issue of nuclear power. ;)

By the same standard, though, thermal solar and photovoltaic are nuclear, too - derived from nuclear reactions going on in the Sun.
True that, and same can be applied to oil or (most) biopower as well - After all, they're just stored nuclear power :)

However the distinction between geothermic and solar power lies in that direct solar power on the surface of Earth isn't a stable source of energy nor applicable across the globe: Consider eg. arctic and sub-arctic climates.

Iirc, the TREC project's papers claim that a thermal solar plant (with a hot reservoir at about 550 °C, not just water of course) about the size of 1/10 of the desertic areas of Algeria would produce enough energy to fulfill the world demand of energy.
And similar surface area investment to nuclear power would power several dozen Earths... :tongue:

You also have to consider the expenditures - incl. construction, upkeep, environmental and safety - hundred thousand square kilometers of solar paneling, worldwide hydrogen transport and local storage of hydrogen would have.

edit:
And really, this is bit off topic...

These same folks beheaded 6 innocent Somalis based on future crimes. You know, "we suspected that they were going to rob and hurt a taxi man." Nothing new here.

But of course, this has nothing to do with Islam. It isn't real Moslems who are doing this! They're just distorting the true teachings of Islam!

Good thing you finally came to your senses, Leeroy. I mean, I'd usually expect some bullshit from you, claiming Islam to be like this, but this time I really congratulate you on coming to your senses.

Yes of course.

We Westerners can buy oil from:

Iraq (we invaded them for oil after all!)
Iran (very nice country, expecially about womens' rights...)
Sudan (even better... :rolleyes: )
Russia (ve tink ve coold also speak a little about Kavkaz and Ookraina, da?)
Venezuela (kapitali$t $wine$ are welcome if they pay us a lot more)

Maybe renewable energy sources are good ALSO on the political level.

Canada?

You clearly forget that 'Merika is the center of the universe. When we stop doing something, everyone does. When we say something or somewhere is irrelevent, then by god, you better believe is irrelevent.
That kind of arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Some countries in the Middle East would benefit from America saying fuck you to the region. Some would hurt a little and some wouldn't even notice, one way or the other.

I mean, fuck, even if America, the nation, refused to deal with Middle Eastern countries, does anyone actually think that would stop the various US based corporations from doing such? Regional economic centers are developing in the Middle East, regardless of American involvement, encouragement or desires. The world will continue to spin, whether or not we, as a nation, wish it otherwise. We ain't fuckin' Superman and I don't see us spinning the world backwards anytime soon.
These same folks beheaded 6 innocent Somalis based on future crimes. You know, "we suspected that they were going to rob and hurt a taxi man." Nothing new here.

Unfortunately, the Arab states couldn't give less of a shit about Somalia or any Horn of Africa state unless it either (a) directly threatens their economic interests, of which there are many, or (b) it weakens Western influence in the region, or (c) it increases Arab influence in the reason. For most of that proxy bullshit, they go through Islamist channels, too, so there is a certain image they have to foster even when they're kind of paying half attention.

That kind of arrogance never ceases to amaze me. Some countries in the Middle East would benefit from America saying fuck you to the region. Some would hurt a little and some wouldn't even notice, one way or the other.

I mean, fuck, even if America, the nation, refused to deal with Middle Eastern countries, does anyone actually think that would stop the various US based corporations from doing such? Regional economic centers are developing in the Middle East, regardless of American involvement, encouragement or desires. The world will continue to spin, whether or not we, as a nation, wish it otherwise. We ain't fuckin' Superman and I don't see us spinning the world backwards anytime soon.


Why do you hate America?

Huge problem with a barrel of high active waste per year? That's less radioactive material than what's spewed from a standard coal plant in similar period of time.


That's why no one still has found a definitive dumping site for nuclear wastes, iirc.
Anyway, yes, coal plants send much more radioactivity into the atmosphere. That's why coal power is stupid.


We can't, s'rry: Nuclear power - that is fission power - is the cheapest, safest and most environmentally friendly alternative to oil economy available....Well, at least cheapest and least space hogging... ;)


Cheapest? Actually I've seen various papers stating that the cost of a kW produced via nuclear fission costs about as much as 1 kW produced via coal plants, if you count the cost of building the powerplant AND the well-to-wheels costs (that is, you have to find uranium, transport it, enrich it, and dispose of DU).
Tomorrow at work I'll try to retrieve them, I'll post the linkies, but they are in italian iirc.


You also have to consider that few spoonfuls of biological agent thrown to a water reservoir would carry a much greater risk than dumping a barrelful of plutonium (or most likely any other radioactive agent) to such reservoir.
True (though the real problem with Pu is its toxicity!). Anyway the most effective terror use of radioactive wastes would be in a dirty bomb, that is spraying it over a wide area through a chemical explosion.


Chernobyl accident is also controversial, because the casualties tied to the accident range from 56 to millions depending on your source and follow a political division rather than any specific scientific method. The fact is that only 56 deaths have been directly linked to the accident and I'm inclined to believe a total figure in range of several thousands at maximum - Consider, for example, that the background radiation levels near Kiev, a hundred or so km from Chernobyl, are completely normal.

The WHO gives figures of about 4000 deaths in 20 years, iirc.
Kiev isn't a good example as the prevailing winds go northwest from Chernobyl and Kiev is about 100 km south.
The 56 deaths linked directly to the accident are those people who received lethal doses at the moment of the accident itself within the power station, and the people who intervened in the first moments, like firefighters.

I agree that Chernobyl was probabily the worst nuclear power station accident possible (basically a reactor working without shielding, directly in the atmosphere), and frankly 4000 deaths in 20 years don't strike me too much (Italy has about the same amount of death in car accidents every year), expecially if compared with the figures of the IES (the Institute for Environmental Sustainability of the European Commission) about the loss of man-years of live due to chemical pollution in Europe, coming mostly from carbon combustion.


All in all, in my personal opinion, the biggest danger of nuclear power is the FUD-factor: The political gains made from opposing nuclear power and feeding the panic.

I assume you discount bribery. I'm scared by italian politicians, expecially by Berlusconi, making laws about fission powerplants and nuclear waste. AIEE!


The issue of nuclear weapons is also an interesting dilemma: Should only certain independent nations have the privilege to own such an arsenal - and thus have an undisputed right to bully others - or are they an universal right - and thus selling those weapons to other nations, organizations and individuals would be 'OK'?

I think that if one country signs the NPT, it would be correct also to begin dismantling its own nuclear arsenal (not many chances, I know). Otoh, you don't sign the NPT, then no collaboration in physics and no trade of uranium for ya from NPT countries.
As for individuals with nukes, wtf. Don't mistake me for a Randist. ;)


However the distinction between geothermic and solar power lies in that direct solar power on the surface of Earth isn't a stable source of energy nor applicable across the globe: Consider eg. arctic and sub-arctic climates.

Ok. Yet once you got hydrogen you can transport and stock it quite safely.


And similar surface area investment to nuclear power would power several dozen Earths... :tongue:

Several dozen thousands of Earths, maybe.
Anyway, the point is that to make a solar thermal power you need only steel and glass, and the most dangerous material involved is salt water. That is, nuclear power is very concentrated and solar thermal isn't. Still it costs a lot less in building, operating and eventually dismantling.


You also have to consider the expenditures - incl. construction, upkeep, environmental and safety - hundred thousand square kilometers of solar paneling, worldwide hydrogen transport and local storage of hydrogen would have.

Environmental = 0, as you get water as byproduct of the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen. Actually, if you extract hydrogen from sea water, that process produces oxygen and salt as byproduct.
As for hundred thousand sq.km of solar paneling, it's not photovoltaic: it's just mirrors (steel and glass, highly recyclable).
As for worldwide hydrogen transport: pipes (you can use the same gasducts we already use for methane) and hydrogen-powered ships (similar to methane carrier ships: they stock the methane, keep it cool through the evaporation of part of it, and the part that evaporates is used to power the ship).


edit:
And really, this is bit off topic...
True. But very interesting.

Why do you hate America?

Because I hate chocolate and ice cream and rainbows. :(

But, seriously, we withdraw all influence from the region and the biggest beneficiaries are Saudi Arabia and Iran, though whether or not they'd tear each other apart is an entirely different discussion.

I actually get that (kind of) a lot when discussing topics like sovereignty, regional blocs and international organizations like the UN and the ICC, etc. People have a habit of confusing state sovereignty with security and progress. They also have a habit of confusing ignoring a thing with condoning that thing. Personally, I think we should just continue our relations with Saudi Arabia while exercising diplomatic pressure for change. The country is liberalizing, all be it slowly. Compare Saudi Arabia of today with Saudi Arabia of two, even one, decades ago and you see a country that is becoming better to live in.

Pewpews tends to rarely solve things long-term and, really, it's the long-term I care most about. Believe me, if I think it would benefit my family and loved ones, I'd have no qualms murdering every single other living entity on the planet. I don't see that being beneficial in the long-run, though. We're a cooperative species, unfortunately certain aspects of our group instincts tend to muddle up things.

Canada?

Canucks hate America. *nods*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG-CFJ74X1o

Make the poll.
Then tell a simple truth: "Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi prince".
Make a new poll.
Compare.

I was thinking along the lines of an actual, professional, national poll than an NS poll.

Canucks hate America. *nods*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG-CFJ74X1o

It's not our fault Canadian Beer sucks.

Canucks hate America. *nods*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG-CFJ74X1o

Heh, 'no enemies'. Ah, the mid nineties was blissful.

I was thinking along the lines of an actual, professional, national poll than an NS poll.

Yes, me too.
The average NSGer already knows that Osama is a Saudi prince, so being told it wouldn't change the results.

We are everyone. Europe may be filled with commie tree-huggers, but they're just an extension of America. Same with Canada, even if they are a bunch of pot-smoking homosexuals. Mexico wants to be an extension of America even if it's not. And other countries? They're all economically dependent on us after all; think how many Indians and Chinese are working in American jobs. When we say jump, they'd better jump. And if they don't, we can nuke 'em. (America! Fuck yeah!)

If you look at it this way, shouldn't American hardcore rightwingers actually be fond of the omnipotent ZOG machine? Afer all, they are the ones responsible for their nation's dominance over the globe, aren't they?

I find the law silly and outdated. but it is there law i don't care.

Cheapest? Actually I've seen various papers stating that the cost of a kW produced via nuclear fission costs about as much as 1 kW produced via coal plants, if you count the cost of building the powerplant AND the well-to-wheels costs (that is, you have to find uranium, transport it, enrich it, and dispose of DU).
Tomorrow at work I'll try to retrieve them, I'll post the linkies, but they are in italian iirc.
The problem with those studies is the source: If the source is "green" then nuclear power is prohibitively expensive, if it's "blue" (as in right wing/capitalists) then nuclear power is cheap. The absolute truth is somewhere out there.

However, comparison to coal is somewhat misleading: Coal power is normally cheap - Probably the cheapest way to build a large enough power plant in average is to make it a coal plant BUT that's excluding the costs of green taxes, health hazards, EU emissions trading and global warming impact.

True (though the real problem with Pu is its toxicity!).
Actually no, it's toxicity per se is probably on par with other heavy metals.

The source I linked in my previous post:
On both counts there are substances in daily use that, per unit of mass, have equal or greater chemical toxicity (arsenic, cyanide, caffeine) and radiotoxicity (smoke detectors).

Here's another source (http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Plutonium):
Orally, plutonium is less toxic (non-oncogenically speaking) than several common substances, including caffeine, acetaminophen, some vitamins, pseudoephedrine, and any number of plants and fungi. It is perhaps somewhat more toxic than pure ethanol, but less so than tobacco and many illegal drugs (some such as LSD and marijuana are negligibly toxic). Considering the pure chemical toxicity it probably ranks with lead and other heavy metals.

Anyway the most effective terror use of radioactive wastes would be in a dirty bomb, that is spraying it over a wide area through a chemical explosion.
Aye, and the biggest impact of that would most likely be the terror effect itself when compared to, say, possible casualties of an airplane bombing.

The 56 deaths linked directly to the accident are those people who received lethal doses at the moment of the accident itself within the power station, and the people who intervened in the first moments, like firefighters.
IIRC Wikipedia (yes, yes, but it sources the WHO study ;)) sez those 56 include 5 to 7 or so cases of child thyroid cancer.

As for individuals with nukes, wtf. Don't mistake me for a Randist. ;)
It was an exaggarated thought experiment.

Although, "home nukes" could create an interesting situation, especially in neighbourhoods with high levels of unrest. :tongue:

Ok. Yet once you got hydrogen you can transport and stock it quite safely.
But, but...Hydrogen is highly explosive! Remember the Hindenburg! :tongue:

Environmental = 0, as you get water as byproduct of the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.
Except that...

Fuel cells or hydrogen compatible combustion engines aren't made of thin air
Especially fuel cells can contain expensive, possibly toxic rare metals
Containment of hydrogen isn't a 'solved problem', that is tankful of hydrogen won't get you as far as tankful of fuel Cryogenic cooling and compression will expend a lot of energy by itself
The container materials will be (at least) more expensive than what normal fuel tanks are made of
Due to nature of hydrogen, the containers have to be more massive in order to contain it in the first place
The size requirements of an efficient hydrogen energy source might exclude smaller vehicles (lawnmovers, chainsaws, et al)

In short: You're downplaying the environmental impact and the technological challenge the construction of 5-6 billion CHEAP hydrogen powered high tech automobiles and other vehicles + functioning and secure infrastructure would present.
Actually, if you extract hydrogen from sea water, that process produces oxygen and salt as byproduct.
True that.

However I do wonder is local over oxidation of atmosphere a risk?

As for hundred thousand sq.km of solar paneling, it's not photovoltaic: it's just mirrors (steel and glass, highly recyclable).
Mirrors and generators are energy intesive to manufacture and maintain....Perhaps one of those not so uncommon dust storms strikes and you have to wipe each and every mirror clean again. ;)

Besides, mirrors, generators, thermal towers and power wiring aren't just "steel & glass", eg. the reflective coating in mirrors is made of metal

Although, a "wind tower" - Glass/Dark tower, steel support & generator with glass covered base is pretty close (ie. sun heats air under the glass, air rises in tower and runs the turbines). ;)

Dunno what's it really called, IIRC they planned one in India...Google search for solar chimney (http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/lowtemp/image024.jpg) found the idea.

As for worldwide hydrogen transport: pipes (you can use the same gasducts we already use for methane) and hydrogen-powered ships (similar to methane carrier ships: they stock the methane, keep it cool through the evaporation of part of it, and the part that evaporates is used to power the ship).
H2 is much smaller molecule than methane molecule is, therefore H2 leaks much more easily.

What's more is that the temperature needed for liquification of Methane, under normal air pressure, is -168 C while hydrogen requires -252 C.

Now - I don't have the phase diagrams, chemistry knowledge nor do I know the capabilities of methane carriers but I suspect a normal methane tanker would be able to carry hydrogen without heavy modification/reconstruction.

edit:
True. But very interesting.
Mods might as well split the topic if they find this chatter too off topic ;)

Actually, if you extract hydrogen from sea water, that process produces oxygen and salt as byproduct.
The oxygen will be mixed with chlorine, since the electronegativities of the oxide and chloride ions are similar, and the electricity won't "know" we didn't want the chlorine.

In the debate about oil policy, people seem to have forgotten two things:

1: Power generation only accounts for approx. 2% of oil use. Shutting down every oil-fired generator in hte country will make virtually no difference. The culprit is transportation, which accounts for nearly 70% of oil use. Cut back on that, and you're cookin' with gas!

2: Oil is a fungible commodity: i.e., so long as world demand stays the same, it matters not who buys from whom - the market price will remain the same, because if the US buys from Kazakhstan or Canada, Europe and China will have to buy from the Middle East. Therefore, sanctions against Saudi Arabia will have absolutely no effect, unless all oil-buyers join in. Which they won't.

The oxygen will be mixed with chlorine, since the electronegativities of the oxide and chloride ions are similar, and the electricity won't "know" we didn't want the chlorine.
Depending on the method used, I'd hazard a guess other elements - like chlorine or rare metals - might be additional benefit rather than waste.

In the debate about oil policy, people seem to have forgotten two things:


2: Oil is a fungible commodity: i.e., so long as world demand stays the same, it matters not who buys from whom - the market price will remain the same, because if the US buys from Kazakhstan or Canada, Europe and China will have to buy from the Middle East. Therefore, sanctions against Saudi Arabia will have absolutely no effect, unless all oil-buyers join in. Which they won't.

Seems like the only choice is military intervention.

No - that's the second choice.

The first is to reduce global oil demand to the point that oil is no longer a strategic commodity, at which point the Islamic states of the Middle East can sink into well-deserved irrelevance, civil strife and poverty.

While the rest of the world goes on without them or their fanaticism.

No - that's the second choice.

The first is to reduce global oil demand to the point that oil is no longer a strategic commodity, at which point the Islamic states of the Middle East can sink into well-deserved irrelevance, civil strife and poverty.

While the rest of the world goes on without them or their fanaticism.

that's not going to happen inform Obama the invasion begins in 24 hours.