Quote:

Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

---

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:

Did anyone mention how he sees people as gutless worms and how concerning that is?

---

Repertoire89 said:

Clean / safe energy or bust, people are more worried about jobs and petty conveniences than the future of life on this planet.
The space programs are a long way from saving us, we're not investing shit in that and resources we need to continue building things like computers are finite.

---

Ellis Dee said:

As much as I don't like military it's nice to see this. I heard the protesters where being sprayed down with water hoses, in North Dakota that could be a death sentence.

---

Even if nobody dies, that's practically torture except that they aren't trying to extract information.

---

By definition it is terrorism.

---

Nope, terrorism is what the protesters are doing, "harassing people going to work, starting fires and throwing Molotov cocktails, threatening the press"

***yeah, the DAPL protestors are terrorizing innocent people, how NOBLE of them

---

Did you read the OP?

Quote:

posted by OP:

For the Standing Rock Sioux, the Dakota Access project poses two immediate threats. First, the pipeline would run beneath Lake Oahe, the reservoir that provides drinking water to the people of Standing Rock. (An earlier route that avoided native lands was ruled out in part because it posed a danger to drinking water.) Second, according to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the building of the pipeline would destroy the sacred spots and burial grounds that were overlooked in the Corps’ assessment.

---

People have the responsibility to protect their land, homes, and families. If their water supply is destroyed then the people will die off. Under these circumstances murdering the invasion force is fully justified. I'd sympathize with these Sioux even if they began killing off these invaders (workers). And these people have been through this kind of genocidal terrorism before and its indelibly burned into their racial memory how the near extinction of the buffalo destroyed the vast majority their recent ancestors. The Sioux way of life is worth fighting for. Its forth killing for and its worth dieing for. And I for one hope they prevail over the evil intentions of their enemies.

---

And now the real story

The original route for the pipeline was planned to run across the reservation, all natives were fine with that, the price offered was 10 million, the natives counter offered with 50 million to allow it, DAPL offered 20 million, the natives rejected that and demanded the 50 million. DAPL said fuck you then, "well go around the Rez"

***fast forward a few months and we have this

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:

Did anyone mention how he sees people as gutless worms and how concerning that is?

---

CHeifM4sterDiezL said:

Did anyone mention how he sees people as gutless worms and how concerning that is?

---

Quote:

“Most civilians who’ve never served in a uniform are gutless worms who’ve never been in a fight in their life,” Wes Clark Jr. declares. “So if we don’t stop it, who will?”

---

Quote:

“So if we don’t stop it, who will?”

---

^this is very true.

It's a really nice sentiment to have so many non-indigenous actors, healers, musicians, and other activists heading to Standing Rock in solidarity, but these veterans can be of aid on the front line in ways that MOST civilians simply cannot.