Anyway, here are my replies:
Pro-nuke claims a) disagree b) disagree (shall write a diary on this) c) strongly disagree c1) strongly disagree d) disagree d1) what is "reliable"? Depending on the definition, agree/disagree e) agree (PV, wave, tide) - disagree (geothermal) - strongly disagree (wind) f) disagree (shall write a diary on this); if new problems replacing old ones is oncluded, strongly disagree g) strongly disagree (and I'm for fusion research!) h) A hard one. My trouble with this argument is valid even if some governments can maintain nuclear energy safe. Let's settle for disagree. i) Same as above. j) strongly disagree
Pro-nuke premises: A) Well yes agree, but strongly disagree that nuclear can be a solution even ignoring all else B) strongly disagree C) disagree/strongly disagree (two alternatives in this point!) D) disagree E) strongly disagree (and I'm NOT against high-tech, research and pro-pastoral-life)
Anti-nuke claims: a) strongly agree
Anti-nuke premises: A) strongly agree B) strongly agree C) strongly agree D) agree, though with the qualification that often technological miralces do come but do so with 'side effects' matching or outpacing the hoped-for positives E) Only in part in my case
Conclusion: while premises are not always the same, I am an extremist nuclear sceptic (should volunteer with Robin Wood for a train blocking action during the next CASTOR transport?...), even though I don't reject all pro-nuke arguments like a raving lunatic (maybe the ANSWER crowd should give the megaphone to someone else). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
proving a security risk
Not even the "wild" protesters (say idiots who throw a metal anchor over the catenary the day before, which can then be hit by a regular express train) can cause a spill, you'd need bombs or a deep fall for that.
Protests by "public" groups like Robin Wood et al took precautions. Serious blocks (say, a couple of guys concreted to a cavement in the trackbed) were preceded by groups of people who warn the oncoming train (which travels with low speed anyway, BTW).
(There is a known-to-all coreography to such protests which would make some joke about German stereotypes.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Also, do you find it surprising in this context that the nuclear industry and even the government would seek to keep the existence of these transports secret so that tree-huggers cannot sabotage them?
Give me a break. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Do you chain yourself to sulfuric acid tankers to demonstrate that if terrorist wanted they could cause serious contamination? Do you steal biohazardous waste from hospitals and spread it in children's playgrounds to demonstrate the fundamental unsafety of modern medicine? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Regarding the acid tankers, there have indeed been Greenpeace trespassings to closed chemical plants to prove a point.
Regarding the second, you use a false rhetorical analogy again. I repeat: blocking efforts are blocking efforts, none of them is capable to cause a spill, that's what terrorists could do if they wanted. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the second, you saw me denounce it, and separate it from public protesters.
On the first, no no CASTOR can be hurt by a simple derailment, and you saw me explain that serious blockades by public protesters were preceded by warning groups. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe the coverage you saw of these German protests was just as sensationalist/biased/lacking in context as the US/UK coverage of the French 'riots' last year. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On this specifically: said security arrangements were in place before the blocking efforts, and couldn't stave them off. So if you understand, why the opposed rhetorical question? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Could you run a railway if there were a determined group of SUV drivers ready to lie on the track in front of every train? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
As for the second, of course not - question is which of these protests gains sufficient number of devoted supporters. (BTW, in Greece, private bus and lorry drivers did in fact protested against the upgrade of the Athens-Thessaloniki railway by leaving old buses/lorries in crossings.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That's the kind of protest that leads me to forget all solidarity with bus and lorry drivers.
Hey, how about we get someone to sneak into a reactor core and get a lethal dose of radiation to demonstrate that nuclear power is deadly? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
A question. How far should civil disobedience go before it is punished mildly, severely? Apply this to protesters who you disagree with e.g. anti-abortion activists. Is putting glue in the locks of clinics ok, is blocking the entrance of clinics ok, is harassing women entering the clinics ok, how about employees...? Arguing that such practices were equivalent to the mob enforcing protection money against businesses, the Clinton Justice Department sought to financially destroy the organizations that promoted the protests and their leaders. Any problems with that? How about applying it to those who organize the CASTOR blockades?
Do you consider a sit-in blockade sabotage?
What about people chaining themselves to the rails?
What about people climbing on the railcars? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
i think they're setting back their cause, don't you?
they look ridiculous!
why don't they write letters to the times instead, or better make some nice flan for their man? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.)
And this demonstration is largely irrelevant for demonstrating or disproving the validity of that concern. Unless, that is, you want your government to start treating environmentalist organizations like terrorist organizations?
Yes, they demonstrated a flaw in the security. Yes, this flaw could theoretically be used by a terrorist organization.
But then the argument runs into pretty much the same flaws as the case for torture. Unlike an environmentalist organization, your government's intelligence apparatus will probably be keeping watch on any terrorist organization capable of actually taking action and carrying out a plot like this. If they aren't, you're screwed no matter what, as the terrorists will be able to use any method to achieve their aims.
As for the argument about terrorists crashing planes into nuclear plants... I think all that deserves is a derisive snicker.
g1) nuclear power is not cost-effective, because of all the extra money that protesters can force it to spend on security and slower operations. — agree but let's organize a parachute jump into a wind farm to make wind energy more expensive. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Of course, in light of the other protester motive you haven't addressed, the cost effect very much makes sense. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
There is a known-to-all coreography to such protests which would make some joke about German stereotypes
Precedents Preceding the anti-CASTOR protests was a long-running court and protest battle between locals and activists on one hand and the industry and the (federal) state on the other over the designated nuclear waste storage site. On one hand, there were (and are) more than serious doubts about the stability and water-impermeability of the silty ground near the Elbe river. On the other hand, the original site designation was more informed by going for the least resistance: to a sparsely populated area in an area right next to the Iron Curtain. As the years passed, the state repeatedly applied the method of promising an overview or let-up, then some time later presenting a fait accompli. The initial anti-CASTOR protests in fact aimed at preventing the activisation of the facility.
CASTOR containers and transports The security measures, citing terror, technical accident and protest concerns, included and include:
I note that the police operation was provided by the Land [~federal state] and to a lesser part federal organs free-of-charge to the energy giants, thus the first and biggest protests were also with the hope that the Land (Schröder's BTW) will be the weak link who will refuse to further shoulder the costs. (Alas that wasn't to be.)
Both some locals and activists groups also made more serious obstacles: concrete sleepers, tractors, removed rails, people chained to rails. These were/are usually surrounded by a sit-in, preceded by one or more group of protesters who signal to the train, or warning tables planted ahead. Participants of such actions aimed/aim to be arrested and tried (and usually signed/sign statements in advance). Even such blockades are usually removed in minutes to an hour. (The longest blockade was caused by members of the traditional anti-nuclear group Robin Wood, who prepared a concrete cavity in the tracks of a disused line on the rightly guessed route, and chained-concreted the hands of three members into it the night the train came, causing a daylong delay.)
The dangerous "wild" protests Unlike the aforementioned public activist groups, some anonymous idiots applied truly dangerous hit-and-run tactics: obstacles placed without warning groups or tables behind curves, obstacles placed the day before on branchlines, or hours before on mainlines, anchors thrown at catenaries.
These "wild" actions (if they are, see below) were both dangerous and unprofessional. For, they chiefly hit normal trains - and them hard, unlike the slow-moving quatro-secured CASTOR trains. Especially the last: the CASTOR trains with their diesel locos aren't affected by power losses, nor do they have pantographs for the anchors to get struck in and tear down the catenary, while regular train drivers have been hurt by the anchor cable itself.
On the other hand, we cannot know for certain if concrete plates on the rails or a throw-anchor attack is a "wild" anti-CASTOR protest. For, receiving less media attention, but troubling the German and other railways and their workers, such incidents happen with a worrying regularity, and culprits are almost never caught - probably a rather extreme form of teenager prankstery. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
CASTOR containers and transports The security measures, citing terror, technical accident and protest concerns, included and include: 1. The containers themselves: super-stong metallic containers designed to resist all kinds of chemical effects, extreme acceleration/deceleration (they were tested by throwing them out of airplanes, also in train crashes), electricity etc. (Later though, it was found that hard stresses and wear do cause structural damage on them.) 2. They are put in long trains with multiple locomotives which also serve as buffer. The locomotives are diesel-powered thus autonomous (and are fitted with protective gear themselves). 3. The routing of the trains isn't announced in advance, multiple lines are drawn up. 4. Along the possible lines, police checks for any hindrances the day before. 5. When the train comes, all other rail traffic is stopped on the section so that collision is not even possible. To limit the railway's inconvenience and to make the approach less apparent, the train is often routed along sparsely used or disused branchlines (which paradoxically make the protesters' 'job' easier, most major blockades happened in such lines). 6. The train is 'preceded' by a helicopter, which again checks for hindrances. 7. Along the route when the train passes through, policemen are called out to control the area in a half-hour or so, again checking for any hindrances. 8. The train advances at a slow speed. On some critical spots, at walking speed, surrounded by walking policemen.
1. The containers themselves: super-stong metallic containers designed to resist all kinds of chemical effects, extreme acceleration/deceleration (they were tested by throwing them out of airplanes, also in train crashes), electricity etc. (Later though, it was found that hard stresses and wear do cause structural damage on them.) 2. They are put in long trains with multiple locomotives which also serve as buffer. The locomotives are diesel-powered thus autonomous (and are fitted with protective gear themselves). 3. The routing of the trains isn't announced in advance, multiple lines are drawn up. 4. Along the possible lines, police checks for any hindrances the day before. 5. When the train comes, all other rail traffic is stopped on the section so that collision is not even possible. To limit the railway's inconvenience and to make the approach less apparent, the train is often routed along sparsely used or disused branchlines (which paradoxically make the protesters' 'job' easier, most major blockades happened in such lines). 6. The train is 'preceded' by a helicopter, which again checks for hindrances. 7. Along the route when the train passes through, policemen are called out to control the area in a half-hour or so, again checking for any hindrances. 8. The train advances at a slow speed. On some critical spots, at walking speed, surrounded by walking policemen.
And where is the promised ET compass?
To tell you the truth, like I said upthread, after going through the complete list I got a feeling it's just too damn exhausting. At least the political compass was somewhat entertaining. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
