papildināta (16:54) - Mainīta Neatkarīgo nacionālo mediju padome - tajā iecelts jurists un maksātnespējas administrators

I don't think cobalt is the best examlpe for LNT-related costs. A lot of operational hassles, and required shielding, were a result of cobalt contamination and hardware. I also don't believe the costs of removing cobalt are very significant, certainly in the grand scheme of things. If LNT went away, I think they'd still stick with the low-cobalt components, and just relax the shielding and operational requirements even more (as that would save more money). Anyway, no issues like cobalt could ever result in a significant reduction in nuclear's costs, on the same scale as the increase after TMI. I don't think anyone here is being sufficiently ..couragous .. in their suggestions as to what would, or should, change if we truly did throw out LNT, and the associated mindset. I believe that all of our fundamental philosophies about nuclear are driven by the entrenched notion that a severe accident event at an LWR is capable of causing mass casualties, and that this must be prevented and/or mitigated at all costs. This notion is largely based on LNT. Note that even at Chernobyl, no members of the public in the surrounding area (e.g., Pripyat) received an acute dose. Did any members of the public receive a dose of more than 10 Rem (the apparent threshhold) in any given year? Sure enough, actual statistical evidence of health effects (other than perhaps thyroid cancer) is sketchy at best. If you truly adhere to the Rockwell school about the potential impacts of an accident at an LWR (as do I), then you must conclude that none of these extraordinary (and expensive) measures are necessary. These measures include the huge array of safety systems, containment domes and (most of all, and my personal favorite) the extremely onerous (NQA1) quality assurance procedures that only the nuclear industry as to follow (and which more than doubles the cost of just about everything, as Rod pointed out in one of his posts long ago). Never has so little public health and safety benefit been purchased with so much money. Even w/o a containment, an LWR would release much less than Chernobyl did, and Chernobyl has little impact if you discount LNT The fact that even the nuclear advocates on this site will probably label me as crazy for suggesting these things is an indication of just how politically impossible it would be to ever relax nuclear's regulations/requirements so that they would be remotely comparable to those that fossil fuels enjoy. Thus, the only way for a playing field that is remotely fair to be approached is to greatly increase the requirements on fossil fuels, i.e., hold them to remotely the same standards as nuclear, where all toxins/wastes are completely contained, with a negligible chance of release. I would, again, ask all those pro nuclear yet anti global warming policy folks how they think nuclear could possibly have any future, under such a grossly unlevel playing field. My question to them is always the same, so what will you be doing in your next (non-nuclear) job?

mūsu ziņu daļas šefiene uzskata to par pagodinājumu ka viņai jāiet uz Dzirnavu ielas Šķēles biroju saskaņot ziņu sižetus

oho, un kads vel grib apgalvot, ka AŠ ar to nav nekada sakara?

Un rullēs atkal tos stulbos krievu seriālus, no kuriem vēmiens metas!

Diena ir perfekta! Divas Madaras - Volksne un Volksone - ir atceltas un viena Madara - tā, kas Vilksone, ir iecelta! :D Paldies Dienai par jautrību visas dienas garumā. :)

Madara Volksne & Madara Volksone = Madara Vilksone

Kolātam neliekas ka viena kaimiņvalsts(kuru jau nu nevar nepamanīt uz kartes pat Kolāts) jau sen pārņēmusi Latvijas ēteru,un izskatās ka tas nemaz Kolātam nerūp?

Es neko nesapratu - atceltas Madara Volksone un Madara Volksne, un iecelta Madara Vilksone... Kurš te ir traks?

Vecaja Padomē 2 Madaras Volksones, nu ir 1 Madara Vilksone... Ja, valodu likums ierullē, respect!

Un es atkal līdz šim TV3 īpaši neskatījos, arī "nekā personīga" bez Jaunalksnes nav tas. Un arī tad es bieži viņas viedoklim nepiekritu, jo nebija nacionāls, bet pārāk kosmopolītisks, un arī tās filmas man nepatīk.

Uzlikt uz kliba zirga lielas gonkas-nozime pazaudet visu!Klibie kleperi :Guntis,Ainars un Andris neattainoja ceribas!!

Toties Ēķim privātbizness zeļ un plaukst,brauciet visi uz Cinevillu,tur viss kā nākas,būs arī gāgai savs kumoss.

lauķi, tu toč esi lauķis. viņi jau nepērk kanālu, bet auditoriju... LNT un TV3 Latvijā apvienos, visu optimizēs, atstās labāko piedāvājumu no abiem, raidīs vienā kanālā un liekos darbiniekus atlaidīs...

Būs vēl viens kanāls, ko skatīties

Joprojam kaut kadas nesaprotamas shemas