Yucca Mountain Johnny is saying goodbye
June 25, 2007 6:04 AM   Subscribe

The Problem of Nuclear Waste, for kids: Imagine what your house would be like if no one EVER took out the garbage. Not only would your home be dirty and stinky, but it would also be a very unhealthy place to live. See Yucca Mountain Johnny while you can, because it looks like he won't be around much longer.
posted by cerebus19 (41 comments total)
 
I 'm looking forward to scoring with hot mutant chicks myself. Think of the possibilities.
posted by jonmc at 6:07 AM on June 25, 2007


I gotta admit Johnny doesn't add much to the site, but he does look friendly, and the collision physics games are amusing for a few minutes. There's no little explosions though. I wanted explosions.
posted by pupdog at 6:11 AM on June 25, 2007


It is important that we stop encouraging children to buy nuclear waste disposal facilities.
posted by srboisvert at 6:22 AM on June 25, 2007


I guess this means Black Lung Bobby now has to work twice as hard. If only Solar Susie was a little more efficient.
posted by humanfont at 6:30 AM on June 25, 2007 [3 favorites]


France recycles used nuclear stuffand is able to reuse it and has no waste to dump...gosh, how silly that is.
posted by Postroad at 6:34 AM on June 25, 2007


Of course, if we had even one reactor that worked on the thorium fuel cycle, we could exchange our 10,000 year nuclear waste for more managable 500 year nuclear waste.
posted by adipocere at 6:38 AM on June 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


France recycles used nuclear stuffand is able to reuse it and has no waste to dump...gosh, how silly that is.

O RLY?

Just to be clear, "reprocessing" isn't the same as "reusing"; as you can see from that page, most of the reprocessed stuff will still be buried when they figure out a good disposal plan. I mean, the French approach to nuclear energy and waste disposal is saner than the U.S.'s, don't get me wrong, but they're not miracle workers.

And if you don't trust the U.S. DOE's take on French waste management, there are many other sources that are much less sanguine about the quality of the French program; that one actually comes off as something of a whitewash.
posted by rkent at 6:44 AM on June 25, 2007


Well great. This will really help dissuade child-voters from supporting the Yucca Mountain project.

Oh wait.

The Problem of Nuclear Waste, for kids: Imagine what your house would be like if no one EVER took out the garbage.

Wow, it would be like a landfill, Where does "Johnny" think the garbage goes when it's taken out? Actually what Johnny supports is the exact opposite, that nuclear waste be stored on-site rather then being taken to a land-fill.
posted by delmoi at 6:51 AM on June 25, 2007


We don't have a choice. We'll need nuclear as a non-carbon source of energy -- at least for a while.

Your choices are simple:

1) Use nuclear, and worry about containing the waste, which because of the amount of waste (hundreds to thousands of tons) is easy to do if you just stop being so afraid of anything "nuclear"

2) Die, since coal and oil dump billions of tons of carbon dioxide -- and millions of tons of radioactives, primarily radon, into the atmosphere. Indeed, far more material is release directly into the atmosphere by coal stacks that we create in reactors.

In fact, I think we're going to die. Even if the US and Europe stopped producing atmospheric carbon tomorrow, China and India aren't going to halt their industrialization.

We might have been able to fix this twenty years ago, but Oil was king, Coal was queen, and Nuclear was Evil.

Suck it, humanity.
posted by eriko at 7:07 AM on June 25, 2007 [3 favorites]


It's so sad that the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow and the Earth has no molten core in eriko's world.
posted by DU at 7:16 AM on June 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


In the early days of the oil industry, no one wanted cude oil. It was awful stuff, gummed up equpment, killed plants etc... It took at least a generation to get use out of the stuff. Then, no one wanted asphalt. Heck, we made it into roads to get rid of the stuff. Now Alberta and Venezuala make billions of dollars per year making gasoline out of the nastiest bitumens.

We don't want to throw perfectly good "nuclear waste" away. Lock it up somewhere convenient, maybe, but chucking it away is stupid. Untill it's iron, fission is still possible, just harder. Our kids will curse us for throwing away their fuel if we chuck it in the sun, or something equally idiotic.

Yucca mountain doesn't have to last 30,000 years, just long enough for our kids to figure out how to burn it.

(I have no opinion on the wisdom of cartoon waste managers).
posted by bonehead at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2007


In fact, I think we're going to die. Even if the US and Europe stopped producing atmospheric carbon tomorrow, China and India aren't going to halt their industrialization.

Hm, that seems familiar. Where have I heard a similar idea before...?

"Without the participation of United States, China and India — the main emitters — we will not stop global warming," Masatoshi Wakabayashi said.

Oh, right! That was it. China and India say something very similar.

So you may be right. As long as the the biggest emitters of CO2 are reluctant to act unless the others do, we are screwed.

Yucca Mountain Johnny was on NPR this morning. So was a climate change game meant to put nuclear power (and all the other options) into perspective.
posted by Tehanu at 7:53 AM on June 25, 2007


quick video on the $880 m rail line to serve the site here
posted by acro at 7:54 AM on June 25, 2007


Typical that this congress can't seem to do anything about the big problems, like health care or immigration, but they have no troubles vanquishing a cartoon character.

I wonder if they'll have to place an order with Acme to do it.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:56 AM on June 25, 2007


From the site: "Nuclear waste will stay radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years."

Forgive my ignorance but are we really talking about half-lifes of 200,000+ years?

IIRC from my high-school physics lessons, aren't we talking in the 100 - 1000 year range?
posted by humblepigeon at 8:07 AM on June 25, 2007


Wikipedia says that Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. So after 24,000 years, you've still got half of what you started with.
posted by straight at 8:42 AM on June 25, 2007


For that matter, even a substance with a half-life of "only" 1000 years will be around to tune of 1/8th in 128,000 years, if I know my binary number system.
posted by DU at 8:50 AM on June 25, 2007


Humblepigeon:

are we really talking about half-lifes of 200,000+ years?

Yes. There is a decay chain all the way to iron. Some of the isotopes have long half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years, some short, a few minutes. Generally, the shorter the halflife, the greater the radioactivity (it's more complicated than that though), but you'll eventually have a material with all isotopes, including iron, present in the mass.

How many (thousands?) of years it takes until the waste is "safe" is just a matter of what you decide to call "safe". There isn't a magic moment when it stops being radioactive.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:51 AM on June 25, 2007


The most common uranium isotope, for example, has a half life of 4.46 billion years.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:55 AM on June 25, 2007


For that matter, even a substance with a half-life of "only" 1000 years will be around to tune of 1/8th in 128,000 years, if I know my binary number system.

You may know your binary number system, but you don't know your exponentiation: it would take 3000 years.
posted by phooky at 9:02 AM on June 25, 2007


omgi'manidiot

I knew I was messing something up. I'll go back to maintaining my mission critical software now.
posted by DU at 9:03 AM on June 25, 2007


Also, if you graph readings from a geiger counter (or pause to think about it, but playing with toys is more fun than thinking :-) you'll notice the half-life concept doesn't apply directly to how radioactive a substance is, since the decay chain results in a mixed bag that is changing its isotope ratios - the substance might spend some time becoming less radiactive over time, then start getting more radioactive again (as more and more of one isotope decays into a more radioactive isotope), then start getting less radioactive again (as that isotope decays into another). If you were to graph it, the average of the plot would be a decelerating downwards trend, but there can be bumps and spikes and dips. (And in many cases, since you know the decay chain, you can predict when those bumps and dips will happen, to confirm that you've got what you think you have).
posted by -harlequin- at 9:07 AM on June 25, 2007


We can dispel all this fear about nuclear energy by switching immediately to nucular energy.
posted by goatdog at 9:23 AM on June 25, 2007


It's so sad that the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow and the Earth has no molten core in eriko's world.

Quick, what's the cost of converting the entire energy use of Humanity to geothermal, solar and wind (and you forgot wave power?) And, while you are at it, what is the time frame for such a conversion?

Currently, it's close enough to infinity that it doesn't matter -- we *cannot* replace oil/coal with geothermal/solar/wind. We won't get enough power, and the people on this planet will not given up their energy use until it is far too late. You cannot stop the burning of oil and coal with solar panels, period. Unless another source is provided that replaces fossil fuels -- that is, cost on the same order of magnitude, and is available in the same order of magnitude, we will keep burning them first.

It may be in the future that we can -- Solar, in particular, is getting better, and as cost rises, wind becomes more competitive. But here's the problem: Carbon.

People will keep burning oil and worse, coal, as long as it is so cheap, per kilowatt, than anything else. So, by the time we can replace coal and oil with solar, geothermal and wind, we're dead from the complete collapse of the biosphere due to global warming. Every person on the planet wants to use more energy, and they want to pay less for it, and every day, there are more people on the planet making those demands.

We need something that can compete with oil and coal in terms of power, in production scales. 1MW solar plants and 10MW wind farms aren't enough. They can help a bit, but they simply can't do it in the timeframes we're looking at. We need 1GW nuclear stations -- they are the only technology that we have able to supplant a significant fraction of petroleum energy at any cost we can afford.

Nuclear doesn't solve the transportation problem, unless we get a miracle battery, but it can at least mitigate the electricity creation problem, and it buys us time we desperately need. Nuclear can't solve the problem forever, even with Thorium conversion, because there just isn't that much energy available. We should be able to get 50-100 years, after that, things get dicey in terms of raw fissionables.

However, we cannot afford to throw away this buffer, because we just don't know what the tip over point is for atmospheric carbon loads. At some point, we get carbonate breakdown and we're Venus, but we don't know where that line is -- we just simply don't know at what point the runaway starts, and we don't know the start of the chain that leads from a high nitrox, 20C atmosphere to a high carbon dioxide, 450C atmosphere. Hell, it might have already happened, and we don't realize it yet.

We cannot afford to find out empirically. If it happen, everyone dies, everything dies, period -- all that Earth was will be gone, replaced by rocks melting in the infernal heat and acid of a CO2 atmosphere.

That's what's at stake -- EVERYTHING. We fail this, we all die, and we're too damn close to failing. We have to stop burning oil and coal, but Humanity will not do so until you can give them the same amount of power in some other form.

If you have a workable, produceable technology that can build the gigawatt plants that we need at prices comparable to coal and oil plants, for the sake of all that is holy, PUBLISH THE PAPER.

We can't afford to wait twenty years for solar and wind to get to the 100MW level, much less 1GW. We certainly cannot wait the fifty years for Fusion Power (which has, of course, been fifty years away for pretty close to fifty years now.) We cannot continue on our only course. For the US alone to supplant fossil fuels for electricity alone (this is just a fragment of the problem, mind you), you need to generate on the order of 200TW/hrs a month.

That's the US alone. That's electricity alone. You need more for the world, and you need more for transportation. We need nuclear fission, because it's the only bandage we have to buy us the time we need to completely remake our entire civilization to live without fossil fuels.

I honestly don't think we have a prayer of pulling this off, but without nuclear fission, we're done. Nothing else can handle even 30% of the load, and it'll take decades to reduce the load by 70%.
posted by eriko at 9:48 AM on June 25, 2007 [7 favorites]


We can't afford to wait twenty years for solar and wind to get to the 100MW level...

I must admit that I didn't plow through all of your hackneyed talking points, so you may have already defined this one away, but it only took me about 3 seconds with google to find more than one solar plant in the 10s of MW levels already, including one at 64 MW. Somehow I don't think you'd have to do 20 years of R&D to get that one to 100 MW.

Also, why is it so hard to understand that not every hWh we use has to come from non-fossil sources on Day One? Diversity, diversity, diversity. Reducing oil consumption by 10% with solar gets us 1/10th of the way there. Reducing by 10% with wind gets us another 1/10th. A couple more of those and you're halfway done.
posted by DU at 10:01 AM on June 25, 2007


eriko: We can't afford to wait twenty years for solar and wind to get to the 100MW level...

DU:
I must admit that I didn't plow through all of your hackneyed talking points, so you may have already defined this one away, but it only took me about 3 seconds with google to find more than one solar plant in the 10s of MW levels already, including one at 64 MW. Somehow I don't think you'd have to do 20 years of R&D to get that one to 100 MW.

Sanlucar la Mayor Solar Platform, Spain: 300MW of solar thermoelectric power - sufficient to meet the electricity demand of Seville in its entirety - up and running by 2013. On a playing field still heavily tilted in the direction of the fossil-fuel king. Just for instance.

On the subject of nuclear power, on the other hand, here's The Economist ca. 1998: "not one, anywhere in the world, makes commercial sense." I met the guy who wrote that line at a conference last spring. Far as he's concerned, nothing's changed, and the affordability of renewables has only grown by leaps and bounds. Level the playing field, says he, and nukes just don't make any kind of economic sense, except to energy planners blinkered by a century of centralized production.

Finally, eriko, the scaling problem you're obsessed with quickly dissipates if you start looking at a decentralized grid with limitless entry points. The initial shock to the system can be a bit rough, but if you fully commit - as Germany, Denmark, Japan and now Spain have - you start to see combinations of efficiency gains and widespread small-scale production (production by the masses, to use the phrase preferred by both Gandhi and E.F. "Small is Beautiful" Schumacher, in place of mass production) that are at least as impressive as waiting 10 to 15 years for overdue over-budget reactors to come on line.
posted by gompa at 10:24 AM on June 25, 2007 [2 favorites]


switching immediately to nucular energy

... whose half life is only four years.


bah-dump tah!
posted by CynicalKnight at 10:28 AM on June 25, 2007


We have to stop burning oil and coal, but Humanity will not do so until you can give them the same amount of power in some other form.

I'm very happy to have people choosing better energy sources (and 'better' may even include nuclear), but it is lifestyle that is causing our problems. As long as energy is cheap enough, people will find new and bigger ways to waste it.
posted by Chuckles at 10:46 AM on June 25, 2007


Hey, gompa, thanks for that. I honestly didn't know about that and I think it's a very cool idea.
posted by malthas at 12:43 PM on June 25, 2007


Wow, sharp contrast with the WIP “This is not a good place” scary messages. Can’t remember where I saw them, but they were pretty haunting. People wanted to build big blocks, put up ‘evil’ signs, scary earthworks, etc.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:14 PM on June 25, 2007


Obliquely related:
This place is not a place of honor. No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here.
(thank god we seem to value the task of explaining Yucca Mountain to future/alien civilizations a little more highly than that of explaining it to our own kids)
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 1:18 PM on June 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sanlucar la Mayor Solar Platform, Spain: 300MW of solar thermoelectric power

Where do you get that? I've read that link twice, and it doesn't provide 300MW, it provides 10MW peak, and 24GW/hr a year. The Braidwood Nuclear Power Station provides 24GW/hr every day that it runs. (1GW output power, 24 hours in a day.) They plan to expand to nine towers, but everything I see says it'll be eight more towers just like this one -- which means 90MW/peak, and it would take Braidwood -- just one reactor -- nine *days* to generate that power.

That's impressive for solar, and a really bad joke for coal. Solar has this problem that, averaged over a year, you can't generate power for more than 12 hours a day (the planet is in the way the rest of the time) Coal burns 24 hours a day, mod plant maintenance. Wind's power factor is even worse.

I'm not saying that Wind and Solar aren't important. They are critical. I'm saying that we'll need nuclear as the transition, because the critical factor isn't petroleum depletion, it is carbon enrichment, and we absolutely much dramatically reduce the carbon load on the atmosphere, and we need to do so right freaking now.

The solar and wind plants coming online now aren't even matching the increasing load. Sanlucar la Mayor is an impressive platform, but in terms of replacing oil, it's not helping one bit. We need it, we need the research, we need to find out the true cost and the real problems of this particular style of solar plant, so that we can, in the far future, supplant nuclear with solar (because as soon as we lick the petroleum problem, we're going to start running out of useful fissionables)

As to the costs? Simple engineering and rational legislation would dramatically reduce the cost of nuclear power, and what price do you place on the biosphere? The total cost of the full Sanlucar plant is projected to be 1.2 billion euros. The first large CANDU plants cost roughly 10 billion euros (I'm doing a double conversion here -- exchange and inflation) for 500MWe output -- but they run every day, all day, for at least 11 months of the year. The later CANDU plants (for example, in South Korea and China) came in on time and under budget.

We've made real mistakes with nuclear -- PWRs are too complex, and I've ranted here before about the stupidity of the RMBK design. We have also put 20 years of effort and research into better designs -- the big focus being passive safety, which also leads to simpler and more reliable designs (example -- if your reactor uses convection to cool the core, you don't need pumps. Pumps that aren't installed never break.)

GE's ESBWR design is very impressive -- much cheaper than the Generation III AP600/AP1000 from Westinghouse, and more reliable (GE abandoned the APWR design when they figured this out) -- and outputs 1550MWe. One of these =150 Sanlucar la Mayor. One of these can be built in five years -- I suspect you could build out the full Sanlucar in less time, but the current plan is over ten. Building 150 Sanlucar plants in five years? That's an effort.

Even if an EBSWR cost 20 billion, it would be cheaper and faster to build. If we actually apply economies of scale to a reactor design -- as the Canadians have -- you'll find the cost per copy dropping rapidly.

Nuclear isn't a forever solution -- but it is a no-carbon solution that we can implement now. We could, for about 500 billion, replace the *entire* coal and natural gas generation capability in the US in less than a decade. It would hurt, esp. the first three years, but we could do it, and the difference on the carbon load would be huge.

We can't do this with solar anytime soon. We can't do this with wind, anytime soon.

Finally, eriko, the scaling problem you're obsessed with quickly dissipates if you start looking at a decentralized grid with limitless entry points.

It doesn't change the problem one bit. Indeed, it makes the problem vastly harder. Distributed power is good for base loads, but is bad for peak loads. The whole point of a grid is that you can have base and peak load plants. The base load plants -- coal, nuclear and hydro are the biggest three in the US -- handle the load that exists throughout the day. The peak load plants -- Natural Gas is the biggest, along with other petroleum plants (and solar, because it only generates power during the peak usage hours) come online when they're needed. Since you can't know where the peaks are in a given day (Heat wave in Minneapolis!) you need to be flexible about the power.

You need the grid. Attaching a bunch of small plants and dividing the grid means that you can't route power to areas that are generation poor but load rich. Attaching a bunch of small plants to an undivided grid dramatically increases the complexity of the grid.
posted by eriko at 1:31 PM on June 25, 2007 [2 favorites]


It is the case, no matter where you stand on nuclear energy, that there's huge amounts of nuclear waste stored all over the US in facilities that run the gamut from much safer than Yucca Mountain to much, much, much more unsafe than Yucca Mountain. For example, I don't know how far they've gotten along on the cleanup at Hanford, but there were high-level wastes stored above ground in rusting storage tanks. There's a lot of waste that is stored in unsafe, unsecured, and ecologically dangerous places around the US. We've needed WIPP and Yucca for a long time and in both cases special interest groups and local interests have interfered. Local interests because of the NIMBY thing that I despise with a passion, special interests because these storage facilities can be seen as encouraging future nuclear production, no matter the past problems.

I'm a native New Mexican and I've been hearing about WIPP and its opposition all my adult life. I also lived for a number of years in Santa Fe, where the WIPP opposition is centered. And, frankly, the opposition has disgusted me more than the pro-nuke propaganda ever did.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:32 PM on June 25, 2007


Sanlucar la Mayor Solar Platform, Spain: 300MW of solar thermoelectric power

Where do you get that?


Oops. Here:

The 300 MW Sanlucar la Mayor Solar Platform will be completed by the year 2013 and, utilizing a wide range of solar technologies will produce sufficient energy to cover the consumption of some 180,000 homes, equivalent to the needs of the city of Seville. The project requires a 1,200 million euro investment.

Distributed power is good for base loads, but is bad for peak loads. . . . You need the grid.

Well, of course. No serious advocate of a more decentralized grid suggests no grid at all, and even most climate-change doomsayers will admit that some carbon-emitting fuel sources can remain on the grid - say, hyper-efficient natural gas-fired CHP plants for heating and peak loads - in a sustainable energy regime. That said, in the German case hundreds of thousands of small-scale power plants (mostly residential solar) were added to the existing grid without precipitating the chaos often predicted by big-grid advocates.

The idea is to move away from massively centralized one-way production and distribution systems (i.e. the present-day grid), which intrinsically reward enormous inefficiencies (Walt Patterson calls these "perverse subsidies"). Among other things, the business-as-usual grid never charges the real-time cost of a kilowatt-hour of power, even though, for example, the real cost of adding peak-load power for all that A/C at mid-afternoon in a hot city is hugely expensive (both economically and environmentally, in most jurisdictions), and would implicitly reward generating power from, say, rooftop solar at your vacant house while you're at work.

A final note about the level playing field idea: not a single nuclear plant in existence has had to pay its full price of operation. Emissions from uranium mining aren't factored in, and neither is the cost (essentially unknowable, but obviously a lot) of 10,000 years of storage. And this is without getting into the national security costs of a world with way more fissionable material in circulation. It's also my understanding that the fuel produced from the French reprocessing method is essentially weapons-grade plutonium. Try working that into your costing.
posted by gompa at 3:50 PM on June 25, 2007


The current limitation on solar panel production is the limited availability of silicon, the limitation on major hydroelectric power is that most developed nations have already used most or all of the suitable sites (micro-hydro is still possible I suppose). Wind power has some site selection limitations, but generally is increasing in usage at a rapid rate.

Although the Economist is right about the economic inefficiency of Nuclear Power, I'd guess (and it is a guess) that if you factored in all the externalities into the price of oil and coal that nuclear would start to make a lot more sense. Those externalities may never be factored into the price, which is our real mistake to my mind.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:10 PM on June 25, 2007


A is For Atom --Adam Curtis
posted by acro at 4:57 PM on June 25, 2007


The current limitation on solar panel production is the limited availability of silicon

Just to leave no hair unsplit, if the millions being dumped into thin-film solar isn't totally off base, the silicon shortage will soon be irrelevant.
posted by gompa at 7:29 PM on June 25, 2007


The current limitation on solar panel production is the limited availability of silicon

Actually, silicon is the second most abundant element on Earth.

I'm guessing you mean limited availability of cheap-silicon-waste-from-the-semiconductor-industry, saving where the costs of refining the silicon have already been paid for.
However, last year, a plant was built to make solar panels from scratch - their thinking is that the process is now cost effective enough that they can turn a profit even without getting all the free processing via semiconductor production. (I imagine their panels will be of higher quality because they can optimised the process for their product).

So that limitation appears to be already gone. (Not to mention the other kinds of solar cell technology that aren't silicon slabs)
posted by -harlequin- at 11:30 PM on June 25, 2007


@eriko: "Your choices are simple:
1) Use nuclear, and worry about containing the waste...
2) Die..."

Nice attempt to frame the argument as a dilemma between nuclear and death. Simplistic FUD.

We need a scientifically designed energy strategy -- which, to my knowledge noone is openly working on. Designed *by experts*, not for political ends, to find a balance between economic growth and a safe, sustainable future.

The first thing we'll need to face: we've gotten hooked on wasting energy.

We've been continually investing in an infrastructure that has been known to be non-sustainable for decades. Too bad, because we'll need to change our ways to being green- (e.g. human and animal) friendly.

Unless we start a serious discussion about the future we want, we -- as we so often do in America -- will wind up in trouble. But people who think it'll be possible to keep running up the energy credit card as we have are living in a fool's paradise. We need to face conservation seriously -- develop an energy budget. Only then will we know what our energy options are.

The pigathon will soon be over.
posted by Twang at 11:39 PM on June 25, 2007


The first thing we'll need to face: we've gotten hooked on wasting energy.

I should have come back to this earlier. Yes, you're absolutely right. The problem, though, is conversation takes time.

The big problem isn't nuclear/non-nuclear. The big problem is carbon/non-carbon. Nuclear/non-nuclear is a trivial problem compared to it.

We need nuclear in the interim to help get rid of coal. Conservation will help. Then we get the time to go completely renewable.

Without global warming, we wouldn't need nuclear. But it's here, it's real, and in talking to the guys doing the hard research, well, they're scared. So I'm scared. That's why I won't toss nuclear overboard. Nuclear's problem are hard, but destruction of the entire biosphere is vastly harder.
posted by eriko at 6:07 PM on June 29, 2007


I respect your opinion, eriko, though I disagree with it -- we need to have this discussion, out in the open, on the highest levels, with a minimum of political pressure, ASAP.
It's incumbent on science to put together the clearest consensus possible to get the people behind this discussion, because we'll need to be pulling together if we're going to chose the best course.
posted by Twang at 12:27 AM on June 30, 2007


« Older Viewing American class divisions through Facebook...   |   ...So the musician would have a place to put his... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments