What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Get Her To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - An easy way to get a woman to start a conversation with you - no fancy lines required...
182 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+51Shah (Mohammad-Reza) and his father (Reza) were both pure nationalist and had the best interests of Iran in mind, but then they were also both dictators, Shah was supported by the US and his father was appointed and supported by the British. In case of economic plans for Iran, they were both very open-minded and favored capitalism with all of it's advantages (and of course drawbacks).
Now, back to the topic...
Shah, during his last decade, announced his plans to significantly reduce Iran's dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear plants sounded like the most viable option at that time. They started with two (one being the current Bushehr plant) and he wanted to raise the number to 32 nuclear plants in 30 years. His endgame was basically transforming Iran to electrical energy hub of the middle-east and replace exports of Oil with electricity and Natural Gas. Sadly, us (the Iranian people, or well, our fathers) followed a mad Ayatollah and overturned him. - NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -10/+36America should be the one's building more Nuclear plants... -_- Fear and false scare's from the past, which don't apply anymore these days, are the only thing stopping it... Oh yeah, that and the oil industry.
I really wish the whole Oil supply of earth would run out RIGHT NOW... just so those big companies would be screwed, and we could finally start using better stuff. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25At his time the ONLY freedom that we didn't have was political freedoms. Now with the Mullahs regime, we get 80 lashes for drinking, 80 for having extra-marital sex (and stoned to death if either party was married). Right at the moment 19 students are being tortured to death in Evin prison just because of ASKING PEACEFULLY for freedom of speech. The economy is in ***** too, which was not the case at the time of Shah. Ever been to Iran? The national TV praises the mullahs, but 70 million people praise the memory of those two great kings. My dad (and many many others), have always regretted what they did during the revolution.
- tehWyman, on 08/19/2009, -4/+28I know I'm supposed to bury this, but as what?
- mattgilberg, on 10/10/2007, -16/+37Dude, that was so insensitive, the Shah is a touchy subject. Don't you remember the Reagan Administration and how the U.S. and Iran used to be best buddies (Iran-Contra)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates Sound familiar? He used to covertly sell them weapons, now he wants to bomb their asses.
- docneuman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16i work at the power station in pilgrim as a nuclear engineer.
1. if we ran out of oil right now, we would not be allowed to run our nuclear power plant. legally we require to hold about 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel to run generators if power is lost. this is in order to ensure our safety systems have power.
2. nuclear waste is not relevant. sure nuclear 'waste' lasts 'thousands' of years, but i'm sure you were unaware that nuclear fuel is virtually harmless after about 2 years. 2 years in our onsite storage, then they can be safely shipped/buried/ or even better, reconstituted. about 95% of the power in nuclear fuel is untouched when it's put away forever...we also have the technology to get more of it out. the government and oil companies are the biggest hurdle in nuclear energy...not technology or spent fuel. - Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Trust me , you dont want it to run out right now. There are no provisions in place to handle that situation. You need to understand all of the implications. It would be chaos.
- evil-doer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13canada has more oil than iran and has had many nuclear power stations for decades. you dont normally produce electricity from oil. its very dirty. are canadians terrorists?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Am I reading these messages wrong or are people thinking the Shah is still in power?
- iMelody, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The shah is currently doing absolutely nothing.
...he's been dead for almost thirty years. - 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11How about we stop being stupid and burning oil, and use nuclear plants to generate electricity so we can still have some oil left to make plastics?
- bryano, on 10/10/2007, -20/+30Way to go, submitting news that is at least 20 years old and probably fake. The 30 year safety record could only have come in 1984, which was 5 years after the Shah of Iran was exiled. However, Massachusetts built their third power plant, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station in 1954.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Ok, I am now convinced that with a few exceptions, Digg is populated by morons on both sides of the aisle. People keep pointing out that she Shah of Iran is not only exiled but dead and people still keep talking about him like that isn't the case. Did you idjits flunk history?
- nendoke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I am Iranian and I confirm eclipse words,
Please shut your mouth when you are not in Iran and can not see the ***** from Inside the golden shield. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Guys, the Shah is DEAD been dead since 1980. Ok..get it? DEAD.
- Buelldozer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You're reading it right. You see most diggers have such limited historical knowledge that they don't realize that the Shah was deposed in ***1979***. That's 28 years ago folks, dang near three decades. This article is very, very, very old.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The most problematic "nuclear waste" is unspent fuel. The only reason this is a problem is that we don't have breeder reactors that can use it as fuel. The remainder of the waste is only dangerous for a few decades and can be treated the same as any other industrial waste, ie keep it out of the water supply and it's not a major deal. Look up glassification.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wow. These replies really show how young and absolutely stupid some Digg members are.
- JohnnyBlood, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12I think you need to read better...that or stop revising history.
The Reagan administration was not buddy-buddy with Iran. For starters you imply the Reagan administration was allies with the Shah of Iran. The Shah of Iran was deposed in 1978. Further, the sale of TOW and Hawk missiles to Iran was intended to (1) garner support for the release of 30 hostages being held by the Iranian government and agents of the Iranian government, (2) collect funds to arm the democratic Contras in Nicaragua (which was clearly illegal), and (3) to balance the table in the Iran-Iraq War.
Yes, the United States was allied to Iran up until the Jimmy Carter administration and the Iranian Islamic Revolution. And yes, the Reagan administration did illegally sell arms to Iran in the late 1980s. But the Reagan administration was not allied to Iran at all. They were merely a conduit to serve other goals...albeit illegal ones. And Iran was not trying to build nuclear weapons in the 1980s either. - 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Dirty bombs are media scare weapons. The only way to keep the radioactive material concentrated enough to cause any real damage is to make sure it only covers a small area -- small enough that conventional explosives would be more effective. If you spread the material over any significant area then the radioactivity is so diluted that it doesn't really cause any damage. The biggest problem is that it costs a lot to clean up. OMFG, they're going to cost us money, we better go start a war then 'cause those are free.
- Buelldozer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+61984? The Shah died in ***1980***.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Life has been boring lately... this might stir things up!
- quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5welcome to america, where im entitled to an opinion without the needed education to back that opinion.
- DynaDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah... this article is very confusing. The Shah was exiled in '79 and died in '80 which, as mentioned above, was 5 years prior to the 30 year safety benchmark. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran who is being referred to in the article, was the son of Reza Shah Pahlavi. Reza Shah was an iron fisted nationalist who wanted to break Iran of its Islamic fetter and westernize the country so that it may one day realize its potential. He was a strategic master, a commoner who rose up from the ranks to bring his confused country to glory. He forced the Islamic ways, such as women wearing veils, out of the social spotlight with force. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was a spoiled rich kid raised in the lap of luxury. He was easily manipulated and lacked the might and strategic mind of his father. It was not till he was turned away by his so called Western Comrades in his time of need when he realized his failure. So call them dictators if you like, but they do bare an uncanny resemblance to another father and son... one with brains, the other with .... well ... nothing.
- iamorlando, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Before you form your opinions about an atomic iran, it would not hurt to reexamine what kind of country Iran is in the first place. Ill give you a hint, its not like fox news describes it.
http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/rageh_inside_iran.htm - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4A-Freaking-Men. No wonder it's impossible to have a decent debate on here.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Israel.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We're currently going through peak oil years. Our industrial society is enjoying tremendous benefits brought by discovery of oil a century ago. We know it is not going to last us much longer. We have to options - either to invest the wealth we have accumulated, thanks to oil, or to spend our last savings trying to delay the inevitable economic restructuring.
I admire Iran's decision to invest money into electrical energy, while they still have the funds to spare.
What's bothering our leaders is that while the dollar's strength rests heavily upon the oil trade. Our economy is as much about the dollar as it is about the oil. Even though we do not produce oil in the Middle East, we have agreements through OPEC that allow its distribution in exchange for USD. We print money for the trade exclusively and we allow countries like China to get dollars in exchange for things they make. We produce nothing in the process. We consume.
For oil there is OPEC. For electricity we don't have a monopoly over in Eurasia. As oil becomes less affordable, electricity will become the new measurement of power. Nothing is going to stop countries like Iran from selling electricity to their neighbors and we can't possibly compete with that, as we can't stretch our power cables across the ocean. We could be building our own power plants for rent in foreign countries, but we're not doing that either. We're wasting whatever is left of our wealth on war - buying us few more days of economic prosperity at the expense of future potential.
Unable to make our lives better, we're keeping the standard of living higher, by inhibiting other nations, keeping them from developing, hypocritically denying them the paths that we took over the course of the last century.
Iran might have plans to develop weapons as a byproduct of their energy plan, but that scares our empire a lot less than them sticking to their official plan - making electricity (something we cannot control). We're afraid of competition, cause we cant compete with what's coming - an oil-free world economy. - bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+440,000 Gallons a plant? That's still a small price isn't it? How often does a plant go down?
- 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You missed it.
- molecule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4there were a bunch of protests in Iran a few weeks ago because the state introduced fuel rationing.
- mablco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4huh? you should get into the habit of proofreading your comments. *****, you get 2 ***** minutes!
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You really need to research the history there and actually copaire it to the way things are today before making stupid comments like that.
- ColonelJessup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Anyone interested in this particular subject should read "Atomic Iran" by Jerome Corsi.
Can anyone argue why Iran shouldn't have nuclear energy? - nodonoug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I thought the 'second nuclear plant' claim was on the town, not the state.
- hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6This is simple, oil is more valuable to sell than it is to use. I'd do the same thing, try to produce power as cost efficiently as possible so I could sell my oil to the stupid Americans who are afraid of cheap, clean nuclear power.
- nodonoug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4as was said above, the shah hasn't been in power for decades...this advertisement was written when Iran was friends with the U.S.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Bury as inaccurate. Look at the date on the top left of the picture (July 29 07). Apparently, Stansel Spencer thinks he is being clever or profound, but alas, he is just being a jerk. And NO WAY am I clicking on his link.
- JimmyRyan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5This is about as obvious a news story as.. "BREAKING: People are still breathing, and plan to keep doing so."
- Buelldozer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This article is decades old. The Shah was deposed in 1979 and died in 1980.
- Subiklim, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7No, canadians are not terrorists. That's why we don't label them as the axis of evil.
Iran on the other hand, has a president who refuses to acknowledge that sixty years ago 6 million jews were systematically slaughtered. Countless times he's advocated the destruction of Israel.
Nuclear power is great in the right hands... - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Dude...the Shah was exiled decades ago.
- CrashKC, on 08/25/2008, -1/+5"things would suck for a bit, but in the end things would be getting a lot better."
Wow. You are just shockingly, shockingly stupid. - Firemeboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm all for nuclear power plants, but the ad is misleading. We're not going to run out of oil any time soon. We might run out of cheap oil, but there are still plenty of other place to get it, it's just going to cost a bit more. As prices go up, there are still plenty of places we can get oil, it's just gets a bit harder to extract.
But again, I'm all for nuclear power. You can put it in my back yard. - PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why was he? Because he didn't subscribe to their way of doing things? Seems like that's all it takes these days.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The chaos that would ensue is probably inevitable... If I understand human psychology right, they won't change unless they have to (= oil runs out and/or secret deposits are announced to be on seriously critical levels). Proactively spend a lot of money for "nothing" in new technologies, but only for the future? Wut's dat. :-p
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7They have a homeland in freaking Jordan. Jordan is 75 - 80% Palestinian. The king of Jordan has said they are welcome back as long as they accept his rule like the majority of other Palestinians do. They are not in Jordan now because they tried to overthrow the king and failed. In response the king used the military to kick them out of his country and slaughtered a bunch of them in the process. The people in Beirut welcomed the Palestinian refugees with open arms and the Palestinians returned their hospitality by turning Beirut into a killing zone. This whole "fighting for a Palestinian Homeland" is 100% *****. The other Arab nations are fully aware of what I just shared. The king of Jordan made the statement of Palestinians having a homeland in Jordan during a gathering of Arab leaders. The Arab world likes to use this small group of Palestinians as an excuse to attack Israel. They couldn't care less about their plight.
YOU should really get acquainted with these facts before saying something as ignorant as what you just said. - kaiser44, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5they have no refining process in Iran
- docneuman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4you're retarded.
do your research...there is a hell of a lot more nuclear potential than there is for oil. even if we contunted the path we are going now with nucelar (ie only use 5% of the power that's in the fuel) we would be able to support or Energy for THOUSANDS of years. also, "toxic waste" is *****. after 2 years the fuel is virtualy harmless. if we reprocessed it, there would be no waste.
do your research and dont argue with nuclear engineers. - nodonoug, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7for ridiculously old stuff, I usually just use 'dupe' and figure that, had digg been around then, it would've already been submitted.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is