I think the bigger problem in this nuclear deal episode has been the way congress (yes only congress - no other party of UPA) has handled this 'deal'.
AFAIK the choice of going for the deal was never put for majority vote, no discussion too, even the parties in UPA were not taken into confidence (not that they are capable of handling the details), the 'puppet' actually went to the door of IAEA when in 'minority' ('secular' ?), surprisingly, the 'puppet' who is probably the weakest leader and who only lost his sleep on convenient matters started acting 'strong' to push the 'deal' through as if that was the most important thing had to be handled instead of soaring inflation etc., then the govt gets surprised by the IAEA when they tell the safeguards draft could be published(!), and as always we have a pro congress media praising the 'deal' when actually all we have is the safeguards 'draft' only - the agreement will only be in plac when the US masters dictate their part of draft which will actually consider Hyde act, the reactors to be 'closed', the reactors to be put under 'inspection' etc.
And finally we have 'madam' asking her slaves to 'teach' and 'explain' the deal to the people of India....
RE:Bigger problem...
by Jo Ho on Jul 12, 2008 11:28 PM Permalink
The nuclear option will not benefit India in near term as well. We have huge potential in hydel and tydal electricity generation. I wonder what forces MMS to get in to this deal. Has he taken an American citizenship already?
RE:Bigger problem...
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 11:29 PM Permalink
Knickerwallahs and commies have changed tactics. After the deal has been put in the public domain, there is clause they can attack the government for comprising India's sovereign interests.
So tactically they attack procedures which is a matter of subjective perceptions to deflect attention of the bottom-line of the deal - Is the Deal Good for the Nation?
Former US Ambassador, Talbot his book revealed that NDA through then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh had agreed to sign NPT, sacrificing India's right to nuclear test. This without informing the nation or parliament. Now the BJP is exposed: 1. That it practiced deceit procedurallly 2. It is hypocritical since it opposes the deal citing that India's right to explode a bomb (which actually is not the case)
Omar Abdullah, who was Minister of External Affairs during NDA in tonight's Big Fight confirmed that the NDA was negotiating a similar deal. He also confirmed what they got in the deal was substantially less than what the UPA got. Most importantly, he confirmed that the NDA was prepared to sign such a deal which is distinctly worse.
RE:Bigger problem...
by Joy Abraham on Jul 12, 2008 11:59 PM Permalink
It is not a matter of which political party you support or which religion you belong to or which religions you hate.
BJP and Congress are for this deal. But we as people without political affiliations can say if this deal is good or bad. And in my view this deal is bad for India and good for USA.
RE:Bigger problem...
by TIGER MAN on Jul 12, 2008 11:41 PM Permalink
All Right ...I KNOW CONGRESS JAY BLAA BLAA ALL THE TIME...EVEN IF YOU SAY JASWANT SINGH WAS ABOUT TO SIGN...DID HE SIGN.....SO JUST DONT BLAA BLAA ALL THE TIME ...I KNOW CONGRESS HAVE PROVED TO BE BIG LIERS...
RE:RE:RE:Bigger problem...
by cynic on Jul 12, 2008 11:53 PM Permalink
BJP have proved to biggest frauds of India. Look at what all they did 1) promised gujjars reservations 2) engineered Hogenakal issue in Karnataka 3) their ally(shiv sena) wants Hindu suicide squad 4) RSS wants swadeshi economics with globalisation reduced(along with that goes all high-paying jobs) 5) Advani took out rath-yatra in 1992 promising Ram temple which has never come blah blah blah
RE:Bigger problem...
by TIGER MAN on Jul 12, 2008 11:56 PM Permalink
cynic ...OK BJP HAVE BEEN THE BIGGEST FRAUD OF INDIA...FOR OVER 6 YEARS....HOW MANY YEARS HAVE CONGRESS BEEN A BIGGEST FRAUD AND ROBBBING INDIA...FOR OVER 55 YEARS....
RE:Bigger problem...
by cynic on Jul 13, 2008 12:03 AM Permalink
I do not like both BJP and Congress, both are immature parties, but the Congress is trying to grow up. When was the last time since an Indian PM stood up for his convictions ready to sacrifice the government for what he thinks is right. But philosophy wise I like centrist secular view more than rightisht or leftist view. You gotta admit too that India was in extremely bad shape in 1947 very very poor with nothing about industrialization etc. Many many people had written off India including people who could be considered friends of India. Even today we are still a long way off from development. But congress is maturing. And do not forget that BJP has a lot of maturing still to do.
RE:Bigger problem...
by Jo Ho on Jul 12, 2008 11:25 PM Permalink
Dollar talks, dear. The only question is how much. The rumor is Rs 600 crores all inclusive.
RE:Bigger problem...
by Prakash Asrani on Jul 12, 2008 11:43 PM Permalink
Jo Ho, Have you seen 600 paisa in your life? You are talking dollars and rupees in the same sentense. Only beggers talk in the same language. Which traffic signal is your usual begging spot?
RE:Bigger problem...
by cynic on Jul 12, 2008 11:49 PM Permalink
so how much dollars have BJP received from Pakistan to stall the deal ? after all BJP loves Jinnah
will wait and see in their lifetimes OIL crossing 200$$$ per barrel. The world cannot handle China and India increasing consumption since reserves are finite and the developed countries will not reduce their consumption. If they do it is trouble for all. The only way out of this imbroglio would be to reduce dependance on OIL and GAS and look at other technologies, one of them which is nuclear.
RE:All those anti-deal
by manoo kaushal on Jul 12, 2008 11:08 PM Permalink
After reading you, I'm confirmed that Pro Deal guys know nothing. you should read more about the deal and overall current energy situation in India . You are naive
RE:All those anti-deal
by Joy Abraham on Jul 13, 2008 12:05 AM Permalink
There is no substitute for oil to run cars and buses - bio fuels are are only a small step with more problems. Nuclear power cannot run cars and buses. It will only produce electricity for homes and industries. We can produce electricity from gas, coal, hydro. Wind and solar electricity generation is picking up. Nobody in the world except India and Iran is now after nuclear energy. Iran has uranium but India has not. So no sense in buying uranium which is much more expensive than gas/KWH electricity produced.
RE:All those anti-deal
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:12 PM Permalink
Coal runs power plants, Hydro runs power plant, Solar, wind etc.
Petrol does not run power plants.
Why don't we talk to Iran they have plenty of uranium? Why be slaves? Don't we like the bomb, or should we stop our nulear plant from making a bomb and put them under international inspections.But pakistan and hinia will not do such extreme steps.
RE:All those anti-deal
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 11:42 PM Permalink
Oil is considered the engine of development so much so the US unleashes wars to capture oil producing nations
Petrol may not run power plants but gas does. And after all, the much greater price shock is predicted to be in natural gas - potentially crippling states like Gujarat who highly depend on it.
If price of oil goes up, every commodity. Food supply is hit as agriculture land is diverted to growing bio-fuels. Collapse of the $ and global equity market have seen investments shift to commodity markets where for 6% margin positions can be taken. An estimated $ 4-5 trillion is invested in commodity markets.
Energy needs of India are increasing exponentially. India would require 500-600 thousand MW of power by 2030 up from 132,110 at present. So nuclear power, thou constituting a small share of energy security mix can still make a vital difference.
It must be appreciated there is a break down in consensus regarding big dams and climate change concerns put a huge ? mark on dependence on coal to spearhead our energy needs
RE:All those anti-deal
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:59 PM Permalink
Natural gas is produced in India is different the petrol, because Natural Gas reserves world wide is much greater thn oil rserves, further it is produced naturally in a short period of time mostly methane, from cow dung, etc..
The UPA government on Friday insisted that the country's "sovereign" interests, including in strategic nuclear field, were protected in the IAEA safeguards agreement and expressed confidence about getting an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.This should put all skeptics of the deal to rest. India is a nuclear weapon state and it would fully protect its interest from external interference. As such there is no danger to India's nuclear programme from the text of IAEA. It is committed to continuous supply of nuclear fuel to all civil nuclear reactors. In the event of any disruption,the chances are remote,it would take "corrective" measures including legal action to ensure continuous supply. There is no need to panic on this score as after the agreement, the NSG countries would ensure proper and timely supply to India.The only regret is India should have taken steps much earlier unmindful of the threat held out by the Left. Had this been done before, India would have sailed through the deal with the present Congress passing it in USA. Now that not enough time is left for the Congress to pass the 123 Agreement, India can be satisfied with the approval by Board of Governors of IAEA and thereby NSG granting necessary exemption. NSG comprises of 45 countries, it has enough scope to negotiate with them to ensure uninterrupted supply even during the crisis period for India. In the bargain India would be benefited much. Let UPA pass the trust vote and it would become easy
RE:India's interest fully secured - Asserts Govt
by Real Karnataka on Jul 12, 2008 10:51 PM Permalink
Shame to Miss Mamata Bannerjee..When I was in my early days in my childhood,I use to heard as her opinios "congress is B team of CPM"...Now all Bengal can see ,who is B team of CPM ...BJP and Mamata's Trinamool is B team of CPM
Shame to Miss Mamata Bannejee..When I was in my early days in my childhood,I use to heard as her opinios "congress is B team of CPM"...Now all Bengal can see ,who is B team of CPM ...BJP and Mamata's Tinamool is B team of CPM
RE:Shame to Miss Mamata Bannerji
by Real Karnataka on Jul 12, 2008 10:50 PM Permalink
Shame to Miss Mamata Bannerjee..When I was in my early days in my childhood,I use to heard as her opinios "congress is B team of CPM"...Now all Bengal can see ,who is B team of CPM ...BJP and Mamata's Trinamool is B team of CPM
RE:tiger200002
by Prakash Asrani on Jul 12, 2008 11:46 PM Permalink
You are right. Advani and Karat have started sleeping together already. What that will produce, only time will tell.
AS PER THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE NUCLEAR DEAL DRAFT AGREMENT THAT,
1. IAEA , USA WILL TRACK EACH AND EVERY OUNCE OF THE THE NUCLEAR MATERIAL SHIPPED TO INDIA AND WILL GAIN ACCESS TO ALL IMPORTANT INDIAN MILITARY AND NON MILITARY RESTRICTED NUCLEAR SITES, IN PEACE TIME AND IN WAR TIME, AT INDIA'S COST - ATLEAST US $ 1.2 MILLION PER YEAR PER PLANT. INDIA WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO STOP THEM AT ANY POINT OF TIME, IN THE FUTURE.
2. AS MANY AS 14 EXISTING NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENTS OF INDIA WILL BE OPEN TO CHECKS AND CONTROLS BY IAEA , USA ... TILL NOW IAEA HAS RIGHT TO CHECK ONLY 5 OTHER NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THE WORLD, IN ALL COUNTRIES PUT TOGEHER, OUT OF 400 ODD PLANTS PRESENTLY RUNNING ALL OVER THE WORLD.
3. THE DEAL IS AMBIGUOUS AND NOT CLEAR. USA CAN STATE ANY REASON OR EXCUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND UNDERMINE INDIA , SEGREAGATE INDIA FROM THE WORLD COMMUNITY, IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON INDIA OR ANY OTHER PUNISHMENT (OR MAY EVEN ATTACK, WHO KNOWS).
3. INDIA WILL BE TREATED AT PAR WITH ALL THE NON NUCLEAR STATES OF THE WORLD, AS A NON NUCLEAR STATE. AS THE NON NUCLEAR POLICY AS PER THEIR FORM POLICY NO 66 OF 1954 HAS BEEN SIGNED BY INDIA. ( LATER ON PAKISTAN MAY ACQUIRE NUCLEAR STATUS BECOME A NUCLEAR POWER, LEAVING INDIA A NON NUCLEAR STATE). THIS DEAL SHALL MAKE INDIA A NON NUCLEAR STATE.
4. IT DOES NOT PROMISE ANY FISSIONABLE MATERIAL TO INIDA. NOTHING ABOUT GIVING NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO INDIA
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by Guest on Jul 13, 2008 09:10 AM Permalink
3. THE DEAL IS AMBIGUOUS AND NOT CLEAR. USA CAN STATE ANY REASON OR EXCUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND UNDERMINE INDIA , SEGREAGATE INDIA FROM THE WORLD COMMUNITY, IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON INDIA OR ANY OTHER PUNISHMENT (OR MAY EVEN ATTACK, WHO KNOWS).
Such clear, rational thought, logically arrived at with no recourse to paranoia whatsoever. And done with such finesse; the full caps was such a nice touch, makes the entire rant so readable.
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by nutan dil on Jul 12, 2008 10:22 PM Permalink
HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE DRAFT AGREEMENT, ONLY EXCEPT THE WORDS "SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL" SEEM TO BE HURRIEDLY ADDED IN THE HEADING.
5. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THEY START SUPPLYING FISSIONABLE MATERIAL TO INDIA, INDIA WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THEM FOR NUCLEAR POWER AND THEY CAN DISRUPT POWER IN INDIA AT ANY TIME. BLACK OUT INDIA AT ANY TIME BY STOPPING THE SUPPLY TO INDIA, AS PER THEIR INTERNAL ACTS. BUT INDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BACK OUT FROM THE AGREEMENT WITH IAEA, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ONCE SIGNED.
6. IT IS AN ONE SIDED AGREEMENT. INDIA CANNOT WITHDRAW FROM THIS IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE, EVEN IF USA STOPS SUPPLYING EVEN A GRAM OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO INDIA. INDIA CAN NEVER SHUT ITS DOORS TO IAEA AND USA INSPECTORS ONCE THE AGREEMENT IS SIGNED AND INDIA WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE FOREIGN INSPECTORS TO SECRET MILITARY NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENTS OF INDIA (AS PER IAEA DRAFT AGREEMENT), EVEN IF USA , WEST STOPS SUPPLYING EVEN A GRAM OF NECLEAR MATERIAL. INDIA WILL HAVE NO RIGHT TO GO BACK AND SAFEGUARD ITS NUCLEAR ESTABLISHMENTS.
7. INDIA CANNOT STORE EVEN ONE OUNCE OF MATERIAL WITH ITSELF WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION (EXCEPT I KG OF PLUTONIUM, WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABUNDANT IN INDIA). 8. ANY TIME PAKISTAN WANTS INFOMRATION ABOUT INDIAN NUCLEAR DETAILS, IT CAN TURN TO ITS ALY USA, OR BRIBE IAEA OFFICIALS/ INSPECTORS AND GET THE REQUIRED NUCLEAR DETAILS REGARDING INDIA.
RE:RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by nutan dil on Jul 12, 2008 10:24 PM Permalink
THE TV MEDIA IS SO BUSY ABOUT TELECASTING THE BAIL OF DR TALWAR, FATHER OF BABY ARUSHI SINCE THE LAST TWO DAYS, THAT THEY FORGOT, OR HAD NO TIME ,TO GIVE /DISCUSS THE DETAILS REGARDING THE VITAL SELL OUT OF THE NATION IN THE NAME OF NUCLEAR DEAL. HOWEVER SOME NEWSPAPERS HAVE DONE THEIR JOB BY GIVING DETAILS OF THE NUCLEAR AGREEMENT DRAFT.
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 10:33 PM Permalink
I happy to read your views, also thy includd non-nuclear materials in this agreement, whih hav to b returned.
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by AK on Jul 12, 2008 10:45 PM Permalink
Material balance has to be conducted and remains returned. Should not be a concern.
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:26 PM Permalink
Omar Abdullah, who was Minister of External Affairs during NDA in tonight's Big Fight confirmed that the NDA was negotiating a similar deal. He also confirmed what they got in the deal was substantially less than what the UPA got. Most importantly, he confirmed that the NDA was prepared to sign such a deal which is distinctly worse
RE:RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by somnath bhattacharya on Jul 12, 2008 11:04 PM Permalink
Mr right, you are absolutely right about Omar Abdullah with knowing fact that he has gone with UPA on this deal like Mulayam. So he will say what congress will ask him to say. Mr. Mulayam has been convinced by Mr Kalam bt what about the other Nuclear scientist who have some reservation. Those scientist including Mr Iynger are also having some knowldege about neuclear science. No goverment official are dare to say the constraints of this deal. everybody is looking about its prospects.This deal has both the faces, so lets discuss its pros n cons
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by AK on Jul 12, 2008 10:37 PM Permalink
Times of India and Economic Times are known BJP supporters whereas Hindustan Times is a Congress supporter. So do not go by the newspapers. Read the agreements and decide for yourself.
RE:THE TIMES OF INDIA AND ECONOMIC TIMES OF 11 JULY,
by Real Karnataka on Jul 12, 2008 10:52 PM Permalink
Shame to Miss Mamata Bannerjee..When I was in my early days in my childhood,I use to heard as her opinios "congress is B team of CPM"...Now all Bengal can see ,who is B team of CPM ...BJP and Mamata's Trinamool is B team of CPM
Why is it that we always go for the special statuses. There are two clear statuses in the world today: a nuclear-weapons state and a nuclear non-weapons state. This is as much a technological/scientific definition as it is politic-economic. Why is the present nuclear "deal" being negotiated around a special status definition, or why are we okay with being recognised as a nuclear non-weapons state when the reality/fact is that we have nuclear weapons in our defense arsenal? What's the point of having nuclear weapons and no recognition of it?! The same Indian PSU phenomenon -setup a "govt public company" and then start the imports?
HI , NO one can attack India, We may consume all the so called attackers at one time. We are 1300 Million peoples. For example, Wait for 5 to 10 years, We will be the leaders of star-war games. Many more to come. We are not Super -Power .We will be the upper-power. Our only week point is greedy politicians. Keep the flag high.
USA and China were two staunch adversaries in the 60’s but that did not stop them from extending a friendly hand when Nixon visited there in 70’s. They joined hands, remain cautious friends and recognize each other’s strengths and respect it. Today China has joined the world stage and is considered the next giant. USA and China still remain cautious of each other but it does not stop them from moving forward.
What is important: Can India live up to the conditions stipulated in the agreement? I feel that government should know since they are managing plants today. India is a responsible nuclear power and should not worry about the clause 103. India will continue to be nuclear power and that would be a deterrent that did not exist with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
RE:FEAR
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:16 PM Permalink
China-US Trade, the Chinese benefited hold trade surpluses, year after year for two decades. China became an economic power house.
English and French enemies for centuries are in the EU and the French supplies as much as 20-30% of UK's power
RE:FEAR
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 10:38 PM Permalink
Why should we give up our strategic ability to make atom bombs and put most our nuclear plants under inspections? When Pakistan, china will not be so foolish to do so?
RE:FEAR
by AK on Jul 12, 2008 10:43 PM Permalink
Only nuclear plants that India wants to put under inspection are part of this agreement. If India gets supplies for a particular plant then it is part of the agreement. India will continue to be a nuclear power and that is the essence of the 123 agreement. It makes India specific exception even India has not signed NPT and CTBT.
RE:FEAR
by Guest on Jul 13, 2008 09:12 AM Permalink
Coz we don't need nuclear bombs, we need nuclear energy. We need energy, period, any energy, any amount. I don't see why people don't see this basic reality.
RE:FEAR
by Gopal on Jul 13, 2008 12:03 AM Permalink
The leaders of China are not way-side vendors!!:) There is no condition in the 123 agreement signed between China and US that China will follow US LAW. But the 123 agreement signed by India stipulates that Hyde act is binding on India. Shameful!!
RE:FEAR
by Sharad on Jul 12, 2008 11:59 PM Permalink
USA is a little naive to believe that China can be converted into a friend, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. China is a CUNNING, SCHEMING COMMUNIST country, which is ruled by Generals. Democratic govts have people controlling the abuse of power of the govt, whereas the communist countries don't have such a check on their military rulers and party dictators. In the long run, China may become a democracy when its people become fully aware and educated and assert their rights. That is at least a few decades away in China. CHINA PROLIFERATES THOUGH IT IS A SO CALLED MEMBER OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION GROUP. Unfortunately, the WORLD CANNOT DO A THING BECAUSE CHINA HAS LOT OF ECONOMIC CONNECTIONS WITH THE WEST. Until the world gets a cheap alternative to China, they cannot get rid of China. India can step in and become a manufacturing base for the world and China's evil influence will diminish. BICKERING INDIANS WILL NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN THAT EASILY.
If nuclear energy would have alternative to petroleum, US, France, Japan, Germany would have never looked at petroleum. Just get electricity from nuclear reactors, and run factories and transportation on electricity. Why to look at oil wells.
Incidentally, nuclear energy is not environment friendly. Developed world knows their nuclear technology is not safe. BUT, so what, they always can sell to India after nuclear deal.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:13 PM Permalink
Yes US has not build nuclear plants and so did European countries like UK. Things have changed. The French experiment has shown that it can be safe. Beside spiraling cost of fossil fuels have redefined economic viability. So the US and UK are going big time into nuclear capacity creation.
Out of the 35 new nuclear power plants under construction in the world, Asia accounts for 24 of these. While China is building six new nuclear power plants to get 5,222 MW power for its grid, India too is building six such plants which would add 2910 MW of to its grid.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Kautilya on Jul 12, 2008 10:17 PM Permalink
Please also mention that Japan too is not increasing nuclear energy capacity which is fully dependent on oil from other countries. With all money and technology JAPs would have gone nuclear and would have kicked oil from their country. However it is not happening.
Mr. All Right, for japan nuclear energy is not all right.
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by ASHOK on Jul 12, 2008 10:40 PM Permalink
Mr Kautilya >> Altough Japan is earthquake prone and Nuclear plants should not be any priority at all but in 2003 they were making 3 new plants and 8 more units were planned to run right upto Year 2015. Pls do not make false propaganda.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by All Right on Jul 12, 2008 10:21 PM Permalink
Maybe there were treaty obligations with the US after WW2, that they will not have a nuclear program. Similar could be the case of Germany.
As the price of oil scales $150, we need to see to what extent the nuclear option is being re-evaluated by countries
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Kautilya on Jul 12, 2008 10:28 PM Permalink
It not question of cost-benefit ratio vis-a-vis oil. What developed world want is to make India dumping ground for their discarded reactors. Technology transfer is murky world.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by AK on Jul 12, 2008 10:59 PM Permalink
More than treaty obligations, Japan is paranoid about nuclear since they are the only country that saw the effect of a nuclear bomb.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:03 PM Permalink
Manu, we are fools who pay more then Americans for coke and pepsi but get contaminated drinks. We pay for ship of America, we find out latter it was junk, killed seven navy personnel and officiers; We still cant fix without america's permission, nor we are able to use it in war restriction on seller agreement.
Indians are fools who sent their engineers scientist, to America a puny nation of three hundred million, but have no good jobs or placements for them in our country. There was a Kurana who won Noble Prize who could not even get a job in India that is why he went back to America. India givs Ramanujans Notebooks to America, while we suffer.
Please understand the pathic state of corruption of this country, instead of tring to make thing worse then slavery and colonials, by making India the dumping ground for nuclear waste euphemism of PM spent fuel.
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Guest on Jul 13, 2008 09:25 AM Permalink
Yes yes, I know; shadows are scary too! Unfortunately, Indian or American, they still haven't discovered medication for persecution complexes....
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by ASHOK on Jul 12, 2008 10:26 PM Permalink
pls do not mislead. More people die every years in Thermal power plant accidents than Nuclear. as long as these plants are in WEST ( Keep Commie run plants out) Commies have no respect for safety
RE:RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Sanjay on Jul 12, 2008 11:05 PM Permalink
Ashok go raise your family in three mile Island, or Chernoble, you coolie number one who wish to cap our nuclear program. First cap pakistani and Chinese thn talk to us.
RE:Is nuclear energy answer to petroleum?
by Shankara R on Jul 12, 2008 11:29 PM Permalink
Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States as of September 30, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Many power plants have more than one reactor.
Reactor Name Format Reactor Name Format Arkansas Nuclear html Monticello html Beaver Valley html Nine Mile Point html Braidwood html North Anna html Browns Ferry html Oconee html Brunswick html Oyster Creek html Byron html Palisades html Callaway html Palo Verde html Calvert Cliffs html Peach Bottom html Catawba html Perry html Clinton html Pilgrim html Columbia html Point Beach html Comanche Peak html Prairie Island html Cooper Station html Quad Cities html Crystal River html River Bend html Davis-Besse html Robert E Ginna html Diablo Canyon html Salem html Donald C. Cook html San Onofre html Dresden html Seabrook html Duane Arnold html St. Lucie html Enrico Fermi html Sequoyah html Joseph Farley html Shearon Harris html Fitzpatrick html South Texas Project html Fort Calhoun html Virgil C. Summer html Grand Gulf html Surry html H. B. Robinson html Susquehanna html Edwin Hatch html Three Mile Island html Hope Creek html Turkey Point html Indian Point html Vermont Yankee html Kewaunee html Vogtle html LaSalle County html Waterford html Limerick html Watts Bar html McGuire html Watts Bar html Millstone html Wolf Creek html * Operating reactors are those
