But ofcourse they can tax geothermal They can tax anything they so darn well please.

Alas I am pretty much out of ideas, and I will just listen at this point.

Hkelukka wrote:
"It probably wouldn't be natural to power NY with geothermal"

Nope, because they can't tax it!

Seriously, we may tax ourselves into extinction here, well before any nuclear threat will.....

NY is a notoriously overtaxed shithole.

Again, just my opinion.......     J

I see the system as wasteful and obsolete as well. That said, it depends on what you view as your goal, if your goal is to get to the end of the journy then what ever is not neccesary for that end is wasteful. But if waste is what the current situation is striving for then it is not wasteful. So the problem is not with being wasteful, but having such a society that the only way we could run it is by being wasteful as too much efficiency would lead to unemployment and through that, deep troubles for the society. We need a shift in the focus of society before we can optimise because the redundancy is the only way alot of normal workers can live and get paid.

LightningEye

The radioactivity isnt on the plane but when you get high enough into the atmosphere certain radioactive particles have an easier time in getting to. If there is a big solar flare while you are flying you can get 100 times the radioation you get in a normal chest X ray. Even if that does not happen the radioation in most flights is slightly higher than if you stand outside of your house.

Fusion cant be used at the moment because they are not yet at a point where it is anywhere near efficient enough. It costs alot, meaning that it requires many engineers and physicans to work on it, which if put to work on another form of power generation would accomplish more. Even if we put all the engineers to build fusion plants the return for the power invested in starting the reaction is very small at the moment. At the moment it is not really possible to build fusion power, but research into this field is progressing at such a rate that in 20-50 years the return for power invested versus power generated will reach such a point that building them will be smart (if it costs several billion dollars at the minimum and you only generate 1 mv/h, then its not really smart as you would have to fill the planet with such generators. Ofcourse this is an exaggeration but not by much)

Geothermal depends on proper settings for the heat to be generated. This already works in iceland due to the immense ground heat generated. But anywhere else you would have to dig a really deep hole or find other ways to use the heat that emenates from the planet. This is also very ecologically damaging because it requires you to mess with groundwater and under layers in the earth. I wouldnt advice this in places that dont have alot of geothermal heat generation normally (like iceland)

Wind is not good for large scale because the power cant be stored anywhere very easily and if the wind stops blowing for a moment the powergrid could be in serious problems. Wind without backups can do 2-5% of normal powergrid, beyond that you need some way to store the power long term and be able to retrieve it. One of these ways is hydrogen. Meaning that you use the power from the wind power plant to form an electrolysis in water and collect the hydrogen generated and stick it in some huge tanks and then use fuelcells or similar to then convert the hydrogen into electricity. Would require alot of hard work to get working properly and would still be relatively unstable. Tho this definetly has its place in some coastlines and other very windy places.

Solar is good in its own right, and should already be used far more than it is used. By for example, making the roof paneling of houses from solar panels and in some cases windows a well. Then having such houses have their own batteries that are connected to the powergrid. So that when they generate power but dont use it, it is stored in the battery until it is full and then it is redirected If possible, back into the powergrid itself. Tho not possible in most places, just storing it in a battery would be enough. Then when they start to use power it would first empty the battery and then start to draw from the powergrid. The downside with this would be the fact that most powerplants would still have to be kept running becaus of the non-steady powerconsumption, there could be times when the sun shines alot and people dont need alot of power. But powering down powerplants is not a good idea because starting them again takes alot of fuel. So they would have to be kept on a "low run mode" but overall it would have a serious impact on power consumption and be a very good idea.

And tidal is also a good alternative. Meaning that you take something along the lines of a wind powerplant underwater in a place where the tide always goes in and out. Like placing a weight on a wind powerplant so it sinks to a certain depth and then putting it in the gulf stream and anchoring it to the bottom and having a powercable lead to a surface. This is highly experimental at the moment but definetly worth the effort due to the very low expenses. However, at the moment is along the lines of wind power, unless we can find a place relatively close to the people that need the elecrticity that has a steady current that runs the same way through the day, it will still have the same problems as with wind power. One such place would be any the fjords in norway or some other such place through the world.  There is another way, in simply anchoring a ball to the bottom of the sea and everytime this ball goes up or down the there is a wheel on the inside that spins because the rope that connectes it to the bottom is pulled on. Its a bit of a difficult concept to think of but it actually worked for a while. Until they stopped working because for some reason the connection between the ball and the ground breaks really really easily or some such. This could be a good idea but it would require large areas where the sea isnt too deep and gets wavy alot.

Different alternative powersources such as these SHOULD be used wherever possible beause they are truly renevable. Thats why iceland is such a good example, they use a geothermal because it is natural for them to. It probably wouldnt be too natural to power NY with geothermal, not to mention, smart, because it would require immense amount of space and time to build. (talking, decades) But even if all of these powersources are taken to the max of what they have to offer we still need to have powerplants Because having all your eggs in one basket invites disaster. And the powergeneration ability of these powersources really isnt large enough to power the entire earth

There are a plenty of powersources that are up and coming. But even if fusion was made feasible at this very moment, it is probable that it would take a century or so until our powergeneration was fusion based completely. In the meantime we need as clean a way to generate power that is also stable. Coal and oil to me are very very bad ideas because of the huge amount of particles and pollution they produce. Tho they can be refined by putting very strict pollution quotas on them. And as such they are a good option if we can get them to clean up their act. Nuclear is also good because it dosnt generate any microparticles which can cause cancer in your lungs like burning coal and oil does. Tho the downside is the waste, that can however already be used in such a way that it is reduced to heavy metals that are not anymore dangerous than most. The possibility of meltdown is still there and should be taken seriously, one way to address this issue is to place nuclear powerplants away from population centers and having a ready responpse plan for all population centers on what do in the event of a nuclear meltdown. I read alot of articles about this topic because there is a nuclear powerplant very close to finland (100 miles or so. less infact i think) that is built like chernobyl. And even the greens in finland agree that if it blows up and we react with the best possible efficiency and contain people in their homes and supply them with iodine and encourage them to stay indoors for a while and make sure the radiation fallout dosnt get into the water reservoirs the death rate is at around 20(to million) immidiatly and a few thousand more later of cancers.

Ofcourse the same study said that if we dont do anything and our response is like the russians had during the chernobyl then the deaths would be in the 100 or 1000 range.

Put that in comparison with how many people die because of not taking care of their health and improper food, suicides, heart diseases, everything that could be prevented with less effort. The deaths caused by nuclear power are miniscule in comparison. And the fact is that the more energy we expend on fighting for electricity, the less energy we will spend on feeding the poor. A weird example but it actually is true once you realise what money is.

Money is simply concentrated effort. When you make an effort you recieve money in exchange. Money is energy made manifest. your physical drive or energy made manifest into a form you can then exchange for something you need. So if society has X amount of money, then it means they also have X amount of effort they can put into upkeep of their society so if they expend X - 1 on something they only have 1 unit of effort left to spend on something else. That is why what it costs is actually a very valid question because if the cost is so astronomical for something, it simply means it requires an immense amount of effort to build and that means that the effort used to build it is away from something else. It is only with the invention of capitalism that this trend became twisted because it is no longer usefull to have all that many people working. But that is another topic.

Pictus wrote:

-When the world is at knees, the savior appears…
The antichrist will rise bringing the ONE order with its false miracles
to fix all the mess they intentionally created…
There will be no opposition, and we are doomed.
The aliens(bad) may show up together with the antichrist.
Speculative mode off.

Doesn't that depend on how you view the book of Revelation?

Yes, also depends on other things too.
Anyway it is just a speculation not an affirmation.
What I believe and hope is the “the big red pill”  ascension stuff.

Also I had no intention of coming across as patronizing you or anyone else.

You have valid arguments here, as well as I and other contributors do.

I do see the current system as wasteful and obsolete, that is only my opinion.

Like Pictus, I am trying to envision other ways to acheive common goals, while I do kinda have that ever present nightmare scenario in the back of my mind.

This debate got hotter than I anticipated.

I only meant for this thead to be some food for thought, and a remembrance for the victims of Chernobyl.

I appreciate everyone's input equally, even if I don't agree with all the views....

I wish the average Joe had a say in this stuff, sadly we don't- and probably never will, so I suppose this thread is ultimately irrelevant and
yes, redundant.

More mental waste.......    J

PS I don't really believe that.

What's radioactive on a plane?

What if fusion, wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal are used complementarily? Money, I know, but what if it was our best option?

Doesn't that depend on how you view the book of Revelation?

"Hkelukka, I think you have fission and fusion mixed up- which is easy to do.

Fusion is the process we have been using right along, fission is the process that is still only a promising alternative."

...

Especially when you make such big big mistakes.

Nuclear fission is a reaction that happens when a heavier element is broken apart with radiation. For example. Certain uranium isotopes when bombarded with forms of radiation break apart and generate radiation themselfs, causing a chain reaction, which can be controlled by certain elements. Preventing the chain reaction from becoming explosive. This is called fission because the material is broken into pieces

Nuclear fusion is where one takes light elements. Certain forms of hydrogen and combine them resulting in a release of the bonds between the previous elements which generates power. Fusion combines 2 elements to generate 1 element. Fission breaks it apart

more on fission here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

More on Fusion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

...

So as not to sound an ass. Dont try to correct me when your on such shaky grounds yourself.

...

Also, it is already very easy to build a car that runs on hydrogen, the problem is with splitting the water to oxygen and hydrogen. That requires power and hydrogen generally is not the easiest of things to store. There have been cars built in finland alone from the 70-80's that run on hydrogen. They are trying to make power cells for a completely different reason, So as to sort of sidestep the fact that you have to use power to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

...

"That got me thinking though, about just how much our current economy and infrastrucure rely on REDUNDANCY!"

And that is bad... how?

And redundancy is only redundant as you percieve it. This ofcourse applies to everything. Let me give you an example.

If you are a top athlete and look at the human body, you will see that the flab around the waste is redundant. Meaning that there is more of it than you need to survive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=redundant) But if you are a member of the opposite sex and you look at the same body you can think "that flab is so nice, i wouldnt have it any other way" SO, what is redundant depends on what you desire of the situation.

If you desire peak efficienty with the least amount of effort put into it, then yes there is alot of redundancy. However, if you instead of percieving the end (a running society) you percieve what the act in itself is. You'll realise that is no such thing as redundancy.

Redunancy only means there is too much of something in some particular situation compared to what is needed to run.

We humans are redundant. Nothing requires us to exists. Nothing hinges upon it (or so i would assume). Your life is redudant in the eyes of the TPTB. Most of us infact are. The simple fact of the matter is that if this society was truly optimied 90% of people would be out of work. That wouldnt be a bad thing as alot of people would be able to focus on other things... Assumming they wanted to, which they dont because they still work. So what you percieve as redundancy is most likely just their choice that you dont agree with.

"Huge sectors of our societies make their living off "industrial waste"-
that meaning the industries that are spinoffs or parasites on other indusries that are inherently wasteful and/or obsolete."

I'm sorry but i cant agree with that on any level. That is very simplistic way of looking at it.

Infact, if anything that is the most natural and ecological way of working. They are in symbiosis. What is pollution to one is treasure to another. You exhale and the forest inhales. If you milk a cow you are living off the "waste" of the cow, keeping in mind that the cow is eating grass, which then is nourished by the cows manure. And the cow is kept safe from predators by you, which is then nourished by the cows milk. All leave on each others waste. Technically ofcourse you are not living off the cows waste but i've yet to see a cow drink its own milk.

Its been interesting talking with you, but i'll leave it at this.

(Warning, cursing ahead)

Edit: Pictures, thats what i'm sort of afraid of too, one of the scary possibilities, one of the marks of this that i have seen is the increase in fear about everything, almost non of it is even reasonable. One example being the fear of nuclear power. We are filled with fear about everything that could help us. One of these fears being nuclear. And if we dear go near that then the good aliens from laa laa land will come and take it away from us because we are unfit to decide our own fate and so forth. They have the inherant superiority to come down to earth and stop us from killing each other because they know whats best for little old humanity *pats on head* I fail to see how that respects free will in any way what so ever. And that is what is most scary. Looking at everyone who is so reasonable go all NUTS about good aliens which come to save us from our own f*cked up choices. Letting us feel all warm and fussy about their high help without which us silly people would kill each other (white mans burden anyone?)

Maybe its just me but anyone who comes to earth and says they will stop us from putting nukes in spaces if we do darn well please can come and kiss my shiny metal butt (futurama joke). All that said, i would NEVER want nukes or any weapons in space. We got enough on this planet to kill everyone if we want to, why put any in space. And all that said, i'm all for disarmament once there is no longer a need to have weapons.. Which is probably never. I can hope tho.

Its like the slavemaster whipping the slave when the slave touched the gun of the master. Baaad boy, you could have hurt yourself... True, but i dont think thats what they are worried about.

I want both sides off this rock. the "good aliens" and the "bad aliens". Anyone who thinks they are best fit to say anything about what i or any of my human brothers can or can not do does not deserve a place in our home. We can argue amongst ourselvs thank you very much. I can say to my brothers (meaning all of you here) anything i damn well please, i am a human and i carry that responsibility so i carry the decicion making as well. But dont non of you god damn smug mother fuckers come down here and tell any of my brothers they are worse than you.. you... f*ck :D

all that said and my attention back on my fellow humans. You can call them your friends, and mind you i have friends from "out there" but once they start telling me what to do they are no longer my friends, recommendations and input is always welcome. Orders, however, are frowned upon.

Also, Excuse my french.

(end of cursing area)

LightningEye,
Something tells me you wouldn't sell out.

All depends on the situation

Sure, it was only to keep the “linearity" of the text as lots
of people read the forum.

That is what I fear…
Speculative mode on:
-The globalized economic is going down by a war with Iran
-Generalized mess, no jobs, no fuel, no food.
-Maybe radiation to sick plus subnutrition plus big stress
-With the weakened population, artificial sickness spread like wild fire.
-When the world is at knees, the savior appears…
The antichrist will rise bringing the ONE order with its false miracles
to fix all the mess they intentionally created…
There will be no opposition, and we are doomed.
The aliens(bad) may show up together with the antichrist.
Speculative mode off.

Yes, they'd all be sooooooo happy!
What a monumental mindf*ck that would be.....

That got me thinking though, about just how much our current economy and infrastrucure rely on REDUNDANCY!

...The nuts & bolts equivalent of paper pushing!

Back to reality, I am not discounting that jobs would be won and lost in the process of changing things.

Huge sectors of our societies make their living off "industrial waste"-
that meaning the industries that are spinoffs or parasites on other indusries that are inherently wasteful and/or obsolete.

There are huge interests at stake, and they will fight like Rottweilers to maintain their place.

Under the aegis of friendly politics, as always.

Lots to think about here....     J

Nuclear power is pretty crude if you think about it. Just some hot rocks stuck in water to boil off steam  that drives turbines which turn the generators. Most of the "exotic" technology goes into making sure there isn't a meltdown. Maybe there are more sophisticated ways that don't rely on steam, like using nuclear radiation to induce phosphorescent glow in some material sandwiched between solar cells. We do need new truly exotic technology that surpasses nuclear. Aliens, where are you? Gimme gimme gimme.

To balance optimistic manifestations, I think we can neither ignore the future or the past.

I am working on it, thanks :-)    J

Fusion is the process we have been using right along, fission is the process that is still only a promising alternative.

Just so other readers are not confused.

You mentioned the corruption of the US in these affairs, and you are quite right.

It's likely my info and opinions have been colored by using the worst possible examples in how a nation should approach these issues.

I'll grant you that.......

So l'd like to offer what I'd consider some of the more realistic alternatives to atomic power.

You mentioned geothermal energy- that would top my list of under-explored and under-exploited technology.

If done properly, this could be an excellent option, and provide more than enough energy, for individual homes at least.

Next on the list would be hydrogen.

To use an example, I will apply this to transportation.

Hybrid vehicles are an improvement, certainly, but I think it's a "stopgap"
technology and should only be a temporary solution.

Because hybrids still employ a conventional gasoline or diesel piston engine.

You may or may not be aware, Bush proposed a while back to begin to exploit more hydrogen extraction.

But guess what?
His proposal was not for extraction of hydrogen from water, by electrolysis,
but for extracting it from petroleum!!!!

This is ludicrous and it's so obvious this is because he is an "oil man" that anyone could have said "come ON, gimme a break!"

If we MUST continue using internal combustion engines, the I think we should be using a cyclical type engine, such as a Wankel engine (rotary),
and NOT a reciprocating piston engine
simply because a vast amount of energy is wasted in the piston/connecting rod assemblies changing direction several times per second.

And that rotary engine could be fueled
by hydrogen derived from a built-in electrolysis device.

Water is the fuel, water is the waste product.

It would likely have to be distilled or highly purified water to keep engine deposits to a minimum- but how much cheaper and safer is that than gasoline refinement?

Once burned and recombined, the vapor could be returned to the water holding tank. It would be a lesser amount than what was consumed, but can you imagine a self-refilling tank?

That would be truly awesome!

Methane is another option, and there are numerous sources of it.

Recently they have discovered ways to extract it from deep ice in certain parts of the world- I only know a little about this one.

While not as perfect and clean as hydrogen, I think methane holds some real promise.

As far as safety regarding a hydrogen or methane production facility, the big risk is handling, just like atomic.

But, there would only be clean explosions in the event of mis-handling, no residual radiation OR  significant  other types of pollution.

By applying these alternatives on a mass scale, we'd be able to power a turbine for electricity production.

This can be done.
None of this is fantasy.

To come back to your comparison, Hkelukka, what price are we willing to pay....... money, or more lives?

That is the question that is all too often answered by people in the positions of power, who usually don't have a clue about the real risks involved, or a concern for anyone but themselves and their crony peers.

Something has to change
and change soon- for there to be any hope for our survival as a species (yes I know a 3D species :-)
 
Thanks for enduring my rant lol    J

There are 3 levels of radioactive waste

Low, medium, lethal (naming might wary)

Low level waste is the clothing and equipment used in a nuclear plant that never comes into contact with pure nuclear waste. It is labled as nuclear waste for some reason that i swear to god i dont understand. The normal nuclear labcoat is LESS radioactive than the labcoat you can buy at your local supermarket.

Medium is the equipment that comes in contact with radioactivy (the actual classification is a bit more complex) and is generally harmful only if you stay around it for extended periods of time. This is perhapse the most annoying category as it really isnt reusable or recyclable in any sensible way. But there are ways to deal with it without causing much damage as it is so low in its radioactivity it can be usually remelted and reused in stuff like ship hulls if possible. Still, keeping in mind that in any modern homes, even if you do take into account the fact that all the radioactivity in the air caused by nuclear detonations and all the uranium in fire alarms and so on. Over 50% of the radioactivity comes from ground radon (this is, assuming that you dont live in a high rise building) So if the amount of recycled medium radioactive metal that is placed into normal metal is low enough, the rise of radioactivity in the normal house will be a few percentage points at the most (still far far less than taking one airplane trip)

Now high/lethal radioactivity is what is really interesting, this is the actual uranium and so on. This, if as they do now, stored into the rock will remain dangerous for millions of years, despite what some scientists claim. And as such should not be dumped so carelessly. In a million years, if enough of this gets into groundwater you will see a slight increase in cancer rates but even then the increase is low, however, it is high enough to warrant a better action regarding nuclear waste as opposed to sticking it in the ground.

There are ways that you can handle with radioactive waste. If you take the average uranium rod that has been "half spent" and use it to increase the radioactivity of another rod you en up with one rod of depleted uranium and one rod of high potent uranium. Now, as we all know, DU is not the nicest of substance. However, it is no longer radioactive enough to be dangours. The reason it is dangerous is because it is a very very highly dangerous heavy metal (think... lead) And when it impacts a tank it catches fire and turns into uranium oxide, which while not being radioactive, will cause ALOT of damage to your cells and cause many many interesting sideffects that will be lethal.

So the danger in this is not radioactivity, its the fact that it is so easily flamable. So disposal of depleted uranium is far far easier as the contamination to ground water is no longer an issue in the same severity as with normal uranium. One way to deal with this is to simply build storehouses, and deal with it as we deal with other dangerous highmetals. Collect it up and stick it in some storage house somewhere (ofcourse, away from homes or cities as is with all the WMD that we store). And unless it spontaniously catches fire the damage will be very small. And if you really nuke a DU storehouse, the least of your worries will be the DU downfall, it will be the radioactivity. So, unless someone really nukes or otherwise destroyes that storehouse, if it is well build will last for many years. It wont even be dangrous to animals because its not edible. Only if it catches fire.

At the moment there are a million and 1 ways to deal with radioactive waste (high radioactive specifically). There are ways to make it so it isnt radioactive anymore and turn it into metals that arnt even DU. The real issue is to get the political and financial backing to actually take this issue with the seriousness that it warrants without causing panic.

As i said, its not the civilian nuclear usage that is so dangerous, its the military, that is just some f*cked up shit. To be frankly honest.

The reason i am trying to "promote" nuclear power is that fact of the matter is that at the rate we are going now, oil and coal and renevables will not be able to hold up, much less increase the overall energy production. And that leaves nuclear, fusion, wind, solar, tidal, groundheat, and a few other not so well known. Fusion is commercially 20-50 years away, wind is laughable as is solar (not a steady enough production to stop power outages). Ground is not feasible in most countries and tidal is a very good option but is also season dependant so could only fill in the gaps. The only way we can do it now is to burn something or use nuclear.

And logically, as long as we want electricity, and living in western society, we obviously do want electricity. Nuclear becomes the only option that is a good and feasible solution. And as i can already say that nuclear will become a huge "in" thing again. It will be very popular and most countris will start rebuilding nuclear plants, simply because nothing else on a large enough scale is anywhere near as cost effective. And as long as we follow this economic pattern then nuclear will be built. So instead of fighting against something that i know very well will not be stopped. I am fighting to get it out of the hands of the people who dont take it seriously and place it in the hands of people that do.

In the US, the amount of corruption is so incredibly high that i am suprised not one of the nuclear plants has blown up yet (3 mile was close). But US is not generally a good example on what is smart and what isnt smart. Tho the same thing will happen everywhere if people are not carefull (same goes for russia).

But the problem with carelessness is not tied into nuclear, its tied into everything. While a nuclear plant blowing up on its own is a really really bad thing. If a petrochemical plant blows up the damage is equally as bad. Think of the water contamination that happened in china a while back.

In the end, i am still of the firm opinion that we should invest in fusion research, build wind, solar, tidal and ground where ever feasible and cover the rest with fission until fusion becomes viable. Conver farmland to grow hemp and use hempoil and mix that with gasoline. Start promoting hybrid cars and promote energy efficiency. But even if all that happens the energy consumption of this planet will not go down unless someone is willing to force 2-4 billion people to live in stoneage. I would rather risk that 10.000 years from now someone will have to think of something to do with that uranium waste than watch society start to crumble as demand for electricity rises and ability to supply that demand decreases.

But overall, we both care for the same thing, keeping people healthy and alive, even if we believe the method of doing that is different.

Agreed Hkelukka- these tests continue and they are horribly irresponsible in my eyes.

My main concern is not with the technology itself, but that we humans have shown time after time we are not competent enough to deal with it safely, it always comes back to that.

Honestly I don't believe there is any safe way to deal with the waste, we put it in containers that are supposed to last 10,000 years. And bury it.

Nevermind the fact that a sleight seismic event could expose an entire "store" of waste.

Let's say the containers do last 10,000 years- then what?

Dig it up and put it in a new coffin?
Can you imagine the scenario where we are the generation which would have to deal with this?  I can.

As far as "live" containment and keeping the reaction cool during energy production, we have proven we cannot even do that!

This is like putting a lion in a bamboo cage- it'll work, for awhile.

In the United States, the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) is little more than a rubber stamp and public relations joke that allow wholly unsafe plants to continue operation.

At a hundred locations worldwide, another Chernobyl event is always potentially a heartbeat away.

I do understand that power generation may be the smallest threat to the planet when compared with things like the Bikini Atoll tests, depleted uranium, etc.

However we are all presently living in a giant microwave.

Another atomic power plant is NOT a viable solution in my opinion. Ever.

Unless we could make significant strides in the use of fission, which is a controllable reaction.

Remember hearing stories about how, when the first devices were tested in the 1940's, many scientists working on the projects were terrified about the possibility of an uncontrolled chain reaction?  I do.

With enough devices being used at the same time, or maybe one device large enough, that is still a distinct possibility.

Hkelukka wrote:
"When people get careless accidents will happen. It is not specific to nulear power"

Absoutely true, and that's just it.
People will get careless-that won't change. So how can we ever truly claim
we are responsible enough or knowledgeable enough for this to be practical?

Pictus wrote:
"Even today the difference is so big, we have a space station and at the same time there are people living in the stone age"

Yes, Pictus....that one should have been obvious to me :-)

Pictus wrote:
"I do feel like a slave, at least a modern rebel one"
Amen to that, brother!