Childish twats - fusion project.

I'm not playing anymore, I'm taking my ball in.

This project could benifit the entire planet yet they can't decide on where to build it, all down to one countries opposition to a questionable war.
Personally it should be built in France, nothing against Japen but 10 years of hard work could all crumble should there be an earth quake.

news.bbc.co.uk...

They should be looking to investing in alternative energy sources. They're clean, safe, free and in endless supply. They are out there, they are just being with-held due to the financial greed of a small power elite.

Surely this reactor will become the largest potential terror target in the world?

screw fusion.
Screw "clean" wind, solar,etc.
screw coal.
screw natural gas spikes.
be free.
Manipulate magnets.
www.befreetech.com...

Are you saying, "oh thats impossible."
Well watch the videos.

Fusion project decision delayed

Officials from several countries meeting in Washington were divided on whether to build the international reactor in France or Japan.

The US has been against the French option because of France's opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Aaargh, forget those goddamn petty political differences for once and think what is good for humanity. #in' childish.

In the middle of canada, a neutral stable earthquake free country...

Originally posted by mystra
Surely this reactor will become the largest potential terror target in the world?

Yup if Bush and Cheney can't make money off it you can bet some Arab well at least someone dressed like an Arab will blow it to kingdom come.

Originally posted by Netchicken
In the middle of canada, a neutral stable earthquake free country...

Great idea really.

[Edited on 20-12-2003 by DiRtYDeViL]

Originally posted by Netchicken
In the middle of canada, a neutral stable earthquake free country...

Actually as you probably know, Canada was in the running for this project which was to be build east of Toronto very close to the newest and biggest nuclear generating station in Canada called Darlington.

The federal government killed it because they wouldn't put up the funds and a lot of people here are not happy about it I can tell you. Who knows we likely would not have gotten it as these kind of projects usually go to the big boys anyways.

I have to agree that France is a good choice in regards background in this industry but Japan has probably more reactors than anyone and I know they are heavily dependent on them.

If I was to compare one countries efficiency and precision over annother I would pick Japan over France any day.

Allow me to retort on some of the above posts.

1. It has been said that the US opposes the French option because they opposed the Iraqi war.

Answer: This seems odd, although the US might have an opinion on the ITER site, it actually doesn't really matter. Why? Well, the US have agreed to fund a small part of ITER, however, this small part didn't actually allow them to vote on anything. So they can say all they want on where they want ITER to be build, but it is not going to matter.

2.Surely this reactor will become the largest potential terror target in the world?

Answer: Why, there is no gain in it. You will devastate some infrastructure and probably the people at the site will be killed. However, I know where this question is coming from. It is thought that any nuclear reaction is dangerous and can lead to a runaway situation. This is where ITER differs. In order to maintain the nuclear fusion reactions, deuterium and tritium have to be externally heated, when the power is switched off, the reaction stops. Worst case scenario: Loss of magnetic containment, causing the hydrogen plasma to hit the wall, causing major structural damage to the reactor vessel, probably destroying it. Casualties: Probably no more than ten.

I heard that plasma technology can't be used for military purposes, but isn't it possible that DARPA already has one operational, just in case it could get useful?

My bid is Japan- they have the industrial capacity to get things running quickly and efficiently. Anyways, it's no like there can be only one reactor. Once this one is up, we can build more, right? This is all about bragging rights, in my mind. Why not do both at the same time? Then everyone but the Americans will be happy.

Plasma, by nature is hot. Things which are hot can be used in a destructive manner, no? Plasma technology has the potential for weapon systems, but not for a good long time.

DE

[Edited on 21-12-2003 by DeusEx]

Originally posted by DeusEx
Why not do both at the same time?

Because it would be really expensive. The pricetag for one reactor is estimated at 12 billion dollars.

[Edited on 21-12-2003 by Paradigm]