XPOST fm LBN: Former China nuclear head jailed for life over bribes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4621530#4621530

BBC

The former head of China's main nuclear energy company has been jailed for life for taking almost $1m in bribes. Kang Rixin was dismissed last year from the state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, the biggest operator of nuclear power plants in China.

...Reports at the time of his arrest said the bribes were paid by a foreign company that wanted to build nuclear power stations in China.

"Kang was convicted of having abused his power, enabled profits for others, and taken large amount of bribes," official news agency Xinhua said, quoting a court official.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11794199

I couldn't imagine that :sarcasm:

rec to no avail

If nukes are so great, why would nukies be acting like criminals?

all those safe plants? Have you ever noticed they are a lot like gwb was in that they take no responsibility for anything. Its always someone or something else at fault. Us for holding their feet to the fire to do the construction right and to have the proper permits, thats our fault too you know. Safe, cheap and clean nuclear energy is the biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people.

Remember when GM complained making cars safer would cost too much?


Clean water? Can't afford clean water. Or clean air.
Or saving endangered species? Too much $$.

Same shit different day.

:woohoo:

I do.

Just like the Massey mine company's corruption leads to safety issues in mines.

Difference is, the corruption concerning the nuclear plant led to proper punishment for the guilty party, while Massey has already caused deaths, pain, suffering and in many cases a drastic lowering in the quality of life and freedom of expression for its employees and their families.

Where are your posts about those things? Where are you when the fossil fuel industry is killing hundreds, thousands, or even millions prematurely every single fucking year?

pri·or·i·ty
noun \prī-ˈȯr-ə-tē, -ˈär-\
plural pri·or·i·ties
Definition of PRIORITY
1 a (1) : the quality or state of being prior (2) : precedence in date or position of publication —used of taxa

b (1) : superiority in rank, position, or privilege (2) : legal precedence in exercise of rights over the same subject matter

2 : a preferential rating; especially : one that allocates rights to goods and services usually in limited supply (that project has top priority)

3 : something given or meriting attention before competing alternatives

If anyone defends the use of coal, I'll happily respond. But since this is a Dem site with a strong consensus that coal must be replaced, the debate that is front and center is what replace coal with and how we do it.

It is telling that nuclear supporters MUST try to focus the discussion on the advantages nuclear offers over coal. They push that point because they want to promote the false image that because nuclear doesn't suffer from the exact same set of negative externalities as coal, nuclear is therefore as green a choice as renewables.

That is false. Nuclear may not have precisely the same set of externalities as coal, but it has some of them and a whole host of its very own, very severe set of external costs.

It is NOT a green choice.

:rofl:
"Where are your posts about those things?"

from the sounds of this.
cry :cry: much? jeeze louise

In all seriousness though what's massey coal mines have to do with Nuclear power and bribery. The deaths from a cave-in is hard to hide but the increase in cancers from nuclear power plants is easy to blame on any number of other causes so the nuclear industry as it is accepts no responsibility whatsoever. Denial is the word I'm looking for. Fools who support nuclear energy is what I'm getting at :-). Sometime when you feel like it do a little search on when the numbers of cancers started increasing to the numbers they are at today and the rise of nuclear energy and then tell me there likely isn't any connection between the two. Go ahead and check it out you might learn something or, hell, just stay there in denialand, no sweat off my balls.

Why don't you come back with something about the numbers of people who die from pollution and I'll point you in the direction that the high numbers are due to cooking and heating with open fires or poorly designed stoves in third world countries, places where we could be making a difference if only we'd make the effort rather than throw all our marbles down a nuclear hole where we don't have any left for anything else. Go ahead and tell me all about those deaths and twist it all up to where it isn't even recognisable as fact. I'm used to reading those kind of arguments around here a lot when it comes to nuclear power and the many (not) good qualities. :hi: