Yeah, but the People's Party (ÖVP) which was kind of centrist (liberal economy, socially conservative) is moving more and more to the right side of the spectrum. They have been in the government for decades and are more organized and connected. In my eyes they are a greater danger to society than the right-wing FPÖ.

Together they have the majority, and I don't trust the head of ÖVP (Nehammer) in his promise not to team up with Kickl (FPÖ head).

that the law only requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians already in the crosswalk

Where I live it's different. If someone wants to cross at a crosswalk, they have the right of way. If a child want's to cross anywhere, they have the right of way. Not on freeway (Autobahn) or highway (Schnellstraße) of course.

Also there is the Vertrauensgrundsatz (trust principle?). If yo cannot trust someone to know the laws or follow the law (children, visibly under influence, ...) treat them as such. Keep distance and keep slow, give right of way if necessary.

Thank you! When i get better shows and music will be great.

I'm a teacher, I got some native kids in my classes, or at least their parents are natives, from Iraq and Syria. The kids are very proud of me for trying to learn their language and that is great motivation 🙂

In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man's switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.

The dead man's switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).

They wore explosive belts. That's why i supect they intended to blow themself up. Sure, I could be wrong. But then you got to find better sources.

I'm trying to learn arabic. But by now i only got the letters/alphabet. and some words.

I started in Duolingo but aside from the lessons for the letters it is pretty unhelpful. Language Transfer ist great, although its focus in son speaking. For reading and writing i'm continuing with Arabic Unlocked.

Why are you getting cynical now?

I asked where it states that Putin bombed the school. Your own source contradicts your comment. So please explain.

You are comparing it to an AIM-9, NASAM uses AIM-120. But the diameter compared to those pictures still is an issue.

More importantly: There's still the problem with blast power. This incident destroyed (not even completely) a relatively small side building of the hospital. If it was a regular Kh-101 the damage would be significantly larger. The updated one even more so (double the warhead, reducing range).

Where in that article does it say it was bombed deliberately? And by Putin?

The first explosions were the bombs placed by the attackers themselves. The fighting afterwards was as expected.

America does WHAT now?

No, i don't need sources on that. I'd like to hear claims on what happened in and around the square... Why it's called a massacre? How many were killed? On which side were those killed? Were the 'sides' as clear cut as we are told? Why were there protests and why did it escalate?

What happened exactly at Tiananmen Square? You have some good sources?

E: Yeah, i get it. "Look it up! Everyone knows!" I did, and I'd like some sources on the claims everyone thinks that happened. Most media outlets call it massacre but forget to put numbers, reasons and sources in the articles. What do YOU think what happened? What did YOU hear/read? What was the reason for the protest and what was the reason for the escalation?

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high...

I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).

More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.

E: typo

I got an error there. They are built by water sources but 11 of 15 power rely on evaporative cooling via cooling towers. There is the possibility of dry cooling, which doesn't use external water.

• Geological stability is not relevant with on site storage in spent fuel pools or dry caskets.
• If you keep risk assessment up to date that is not a problem (tsunami walls, emergency pumps/generators automatic shutdown, ...)
• Security risks are of a concern not only for nuclear power plants. Think of pumped hydro. The Ukrainian reactors at Zaporizhzhia have very high standards of protection. Thick concrete walls, steel containment. It would be cheaper to start nuclear attacks, than to try to create a nuclear catastrophe by damaginh the reactors. But better save than sorry, hence the warnings by IAEO.
• Ground stability is a factor in every building. Especially high ones with small ground area and strong forces acting on them... like wind turbines.

You do know that you can build nuclear power plants almost anywhere?

Four of the french ones are not at water sources. The biggest in the US is located in a desert. Katar has nuclear reactors.

Why would site selection be difficult?