> Even if the core system is cost effective, and it's by no means sure
> that it would be in a genuinely free market, the rotating squads of
> marines, the rapid response tactical team on permanent standby,
> amortization on the black helicopters, and the ongoing covert
> surveillance, makes it decidedly economically unattractive. And even
> the softball sized thingy assumes an unimaginable attraction for some.
> Especially if you can acquire a number of them.

> The biggest obstacle is people's irrational fear of nuclear power.

> IMO in a "genuinely free market" folks with a business interest in nuclear
> power would have had the incentive to spend the money to educate the
public
> about it, to explain why rotating squads of marines, black helicopters,
etc
> etc are unnecessary. The point is that looked at rationally, nuclear is
far
> far safer than a lot of other things which are stored in warehouses and
> protected by nothing more than a padlock (fertilizer comes to mind). Any
way
> you look at it, Chernobyl was a much smaller disaster than Bhopal.

Not enough time for a full response, luckily for all :-).

Note that my answer had NOTHING to do with the safety of nuclear power per
se.
The squads of marines, black helicopters, etc have NOTHING to do with people
running unloaded power tests, shutting down coolant systems at the wrong
time when the system made it possible to do such a stupid thing or even with
DIY  maintenance or Lada/Civic arguments. All those need considering but do
not address my point.

I find it hard to imagine that any amount of free market education will
deter the folks who put bombs inside nightclubs in Bali, and more outside,
timed for a few minutes later to pick up any round-one "survivors"*, or
those (same or others) who lived in MY city (within about 20 km of me
apparently) and planned to attack the closest nuclear reactor (just across
the pond in Sydney) with the timing aimed for the then pending Sydney
Olympics (did THAT get in your newspapers?), or who a few days ago managed
to get a car into a 'secure' area in Iraq and then simultaneously
redistributed pieces of it to hundreds of adjacent civilians, or the Tokyo
nerve gas attackers who used Sarin nerve gas because it was the most
effective matetrial they could easily acquire or manufacture, or ... .  For
such people, the unit as a whole or the baseball sized object are worth
considering.

* A friend of mine was amongst the final survivors, requiring significant
hospitalisation along the way. He would probably have some comments to make
on the need for the black helicopters.

FWIW comparing Chernobyl to Bhopal has its merits but the ratio didn't have
to be the way it ended up and could have been substantially different. And
what caused both "accidents" provides hard lessons re why the non black
helicopter aspects are more important than the salesmen or the claim of
"irrational fears" allow.

I fly often enough that I am more comfortable with it that I once was. But
on every flight I am aware that my life is totally in somebody else's hands
and that often enough to be disturbing, people who fly die because other
people are lazy, stupid or greedy, or want them to die.  When I drive much
of the same applies, but I have a bit more control of the ability to be a
statistical outlier (either way). I'm more comfortable with that, even
though the risks are actually higher.


            Russell
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist