quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: The only thing that is BS is that they're only making 4% profit. Get real, someone is cooking books or something to get those numbers. You don't raise prices 400% in the past 5 years and not generate more profit. You don't see profits above 10 billion/year and say it's only 4%. Those numbers are manipulated beyond belief. I think the important question here is, why are you defending these oil companies? My guess? You're one of the investors driving these prices up to insane levels. Or, you read faux news and believe everything they tell you. Then again, I don't think many people listen to you. I don't see how someone could actually take someone seriously that has blindly supported the direction this country has been heading for the past 4 years.

Faux news? Do you think any one will take you seriously? And if you are going to claim that prices have raised 400% you might actually want to think first before posting. Gas wasn't $1 5 years ago. You also fail to understand that profit % has gone down for oil companies but have risen because they sell more product then they did before. And they don't just make money on gas at the pump. There is the range of 200 products made from a barrel of oil. Those prices have gone up too. Also the price of additives has gone up. You have a very limited understanding and what you do have is severely flawed.

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 06-11-2008).]

I dont like to shell-out the extra gas bucks thats for sure; yet it's the only way we will get serious out alt fuel supplies and types. High cost make it worth inesting in other alternatives. You watch, as soon some company gets close to providing/proving say, a shale-oil method/supply, the price of gas will go down. It wont stay down forever, we are running low on easy to get to crude. Hmm.... now what did I do with my blueprints for an H2o powered engine? What the heck the idea was all wet anyway.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Faux news? Do you think any one will take you seriously? And if you are going to claim that prices have raised 400% you might actually want to think first before posting. Gas wasn't $1 5 years ago. You also fail to understand that profit % has gone down for oil companies but have risen because they sell more product then they did before. And they don't just make money on gas at the pump. There is the range of 200 products made from a barrel of oil. Those prices have gone up too. Also the price of additives has gone up. You have a very limited understanding and what you do have is severely flawed.

Anyone who has their head out of the sand will.

I was referring to oil, which has, indeed, increased 400%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...creases_of_2004-2006

"crude oil prices increased 400% from 2003–2008"

Maybe I'm not the one with a severely flawed, limited understanding.

[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 06-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Anyone who has their head out of the sand will. I was referring to oil, which has, indeed, increased 400%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...creases_of_2004-2006 "crude oil prices increased 400% from 2003–2008" Maybe I'm not the one with a severely flawed, limited understanding.

Yet gas hasn't hasn't risen 400% I thought we were talking about gas. Seeing as the thread title was "Mad at gas prices". But that still doesn't negate you glaring errors in understanding the industry and who it works or how it makes its profits. If you did understand you'd understand that 400% increase is why oil companies profits are less per unit they were before and not more. Maybe you're not the one with limited understanding...........

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 06-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by ron768: Go ahead, your entitled to your opinon. Just like Imm entitled to mine. I didnt serve 20 years defending the Constitution to keep my opinon to my self. But if you read the post, you should have figured out that the gas price wasn't what set it off. Today, it might just be.

Well, I am thankful for your service in defending the constitution. Genuinely.

And you want to express your freedom under that constitution, to give your opinion. But you defended a constitution that grants the entirely stupid middle eastern guy the freedom to express his stupidity by flying a foreign flag the day after 9-11, but think it is ok for those 4 guys to violate his constitutional rights that you earned him over 20 years?

And if you are going to approve his being punished for dishonorably using the freedoms you earned for him, then the 4 guys have a lot more beatings to deliver.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: The current meteoric rise in gas prices is DEFINITELY AND CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY a consequence of policies about oil and energy that have been pushed by DEMOCRATS.

Putting it in caps doesn't make it true.

Gas prices right now are being caused by speculation by investors. Not supply, not demand, not ANWAR.

Much the same way the housing market was inflated, so is the oil market.

I think it's funny that Republicans shot down a Democratic bill designed to target the real reasons of inflated oil( in your own style, SPECULATION ) and it's the Democrat's fault because they won't open ANWAR.

Get real.

If we could just get the news media to broadcast a bunch of stories about the 'plummeting' of oil futures in the market... this would all be over for a while.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: The only thing that is BS is that they're only making 4% profit. Get real, someone is cooking books or something to get those numbers. You don't raise prices 400% in the past 5 years and not generate more profit. You don't see profits above 10 billion/year and say it's only 4%. Those numbers are manipulated beyond belief.

yeah, right under Congress' nose.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Where are my Excedrin?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: ANWAR's oil wouldn't last long at present consumption rates--even considering we are now down a bit in our consumption. Maybe 3 years??

That's what all the greenies said about the Alaskan Pipeline. Its been pumping oil now for about 3 decades.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: OK, WHO CARES! There is your answer. It is NOT YOUR MONEY to question their salaries.

YES IT IS MY MONEY THAT IS PAYING THEIR SALERY EVERY TIME I BUY GAS.

But if you look at a profit margin, isn’t the employees salary taken out before the they get a profit?

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: YES IT IS MY MONEY THAT IS PAYING THEIR SALERY EVERY TIME I BUY GAS. But if you look at a profit margin, isn’t the employees salary taken out before the they get a profit?

No, it's not your money being invested into the company. If you'd like, you can boycott their product and maybe the INVESTORS can then decided to question THEIR CEO's salary.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Was that profit of 4% before or after they paid these guys?

AFTER, because wages are an expense, just like anything else. That means the CEO made the money, not Exxon.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: AFTER, because wages are an expense, just like anything else. That means the CEO made the money, not Exxon.

Thank You.

In that case could it be that they, (the oil Companies) are paying their corporate officers to much? The reason for only getting a 4% profit margin.

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Thank You. In that case could it be that they, (the oil Companies) are paying their corporate officers to much? The reason for only getting a 4% profit margin.

So Mr Bitter,

If you owned say a welding company. It makes a profit of $400,000. You just want to sit back and let someone else run it. Is $40,000/year okay to pay the manager running your company? (10% of your profits went to pay the guy running your company.)

So Exxon Mobil made $40 Billion last year. They pay their CEO $400 million. (1% of their profits.) That's not okay?

If that guy running your company, by skill or dumb luck or right time right place takes your company and triples your profits. (Now, you made $1.2 Million with him in charge) You aren't going to raise his salary to $120,000 and he isn't going to demand a higher salary???????? If you say "no" you're a liar!

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: YES IT IS MY MONEY THAT IS PAYING THEIR SALERY EVERY TIME I BUY GAS.

THEN DON'T BUY GAS!

Who is holding the gun to your head? Ride a Bike, Walk, Convert to Propane, you make it sound like THEIR business is YOUR business.

The same rules of supply and demand work for ALL industries. If you don't like it don't buy it!

Jeez, I can just see you screaming and ranting at the cashier at Best Buy about the salary of the CEO of Sony because you are FORCED to buy a DVD player for more than you THINK it should be priced.

Pitiful

.

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 12-04-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Thank You. In that case could it be that they, (the oil Companies) are paying their corporate officers to much? The reason for only getting a 4% profit margin.

Actually the reason they only get 4% is because they haven't raised product price at the same rate they are being charged more for raw resource. Percentage profit has dropped but total profit has risen. And if you think less then 1% of profits is to much to pay a person who has increased profit more then that less then 1% which in turn paid for his salary and more is to much you have no grasp of what good business is. But we already knew that.

You people piss and moan now but I'd like to see what you would do if big oil hadn't taken less profit % and raise gas prices to fall in line with rise in oil prices. The reason they make more is because they sell more. Its the supply and demand side of the economics. If my company only made $5 profit I wouldn't last very long as that profit isn't just tucked away. It is used to pay for the up front cost of the next fiscal cycle whether its yearly or quarterly. If you have any grasp of business you'd know that. But for you that would mean having an education and we know you look down on people who are better educated then you. Like managers and CEOs.

Since the Early 1970's when we peaked in oil production we have steadily dropped from a high of over 11 million barrels per day of production to less than 5 million barrels per day of production today.

In that same time period we have increased demand for oil from 15 million barrels per day to over 20.

So we were making 11 and using 15 and we bought the extra 4 from Canada, Mexico, and even a little bit came from the Mid East. After OPEC went ape **** in 1973 we began to reduce our oil consumption with the construction of nuclear power plants, we converted oilbed powere stations to coal and we improved engine efficency in cars and began driving more 4 and 6 cylinder vehicles. Then....

JANE FONDA!

Yep, The China Syndrome hit the screens, everyone began terrified of nuclear power and no new plants were built. The greenies started their tree hugging to eliminate coal. The environmentalists put the kibosh on any new refineries, and our need for more oil went back up to where it was just 10 years eariler and has been rising ever since.

The problem is that since we have killed nuclear, killed coal, and killed new oil exploration and drilling, our exisiting wells are drying-up! in 2006 we produced a paltry 5.1 million barrels per day, today, just 2 years later, we are producing 4.9 million barrels per day. In 10 years we will be producing 2.1 million barrels per day unless we START DRILLING NOW! BRING BACK THE ATOM! CLEAN COAL FOR EVERYONE!

Amen. We have the technology to make relatively clean use of coal, and the US has LOTS of coal available. Nuclear is probably the single biggest alternative energy source out there, and we've left it on the shelf for way too long. There are plenty of ways to drill for oil without making a mess of the environment. Sure, it'll run out sooner or later but a decent energy plan would be looking at short range goals, intermediate range, and the long run as essentially separate problems with differing solutions. There is no one fix that will make everything better... but a combination of solutions would do a lot to ease our transition in energy use.

Short term, I still think it would help to get energy in general off the commodities market. Allowing taxpayers to deduct gas to and from work from their taxable income wouldn't hurt either. The IRS already knows where you live and where you work; it could assume a reasonable mpg and do the math. People get all kinds of tax breaks for all kinds of things; expenses directly related to getting to work really ought to be one of them. Doing a proper job of maintaining our roads is imperative. Five mile long traffic backups, 10,000 cars idling and burning fuel at 0 mpg for 20 minutes a day is a significant waste. Sure we need construction zones to keep the roads in shape; but it wouldn't hurt to have someone actually working in those zones rather than just using our roads to store orange barrels in the spring, summer, and fall. Personally my mpg falls quite a bit when the ground thaws and rises when the ground freezes; there's no reason it should do that.

Intermediate term, quitting being so damn squeamish about where and how to explore our own natural resources is imperative. Getting proven alternatives up and running in increasing amounts is imperative.

Long term, a decent network of public transit wouldn't hurt. Serious development of clean renewable energy sources would help. Tax incentives for research and development wouldn't guarantee anything, but certainly would increase our odds of coming up with other large scale viable technologies. Hopefully in the longer term, battery technology will greatly reduce the need for internal combustion as a whole.

We do see bits and pieces of ideas here and there, but all our representatives can seem to do is argue and point fingers... we need to just lock them all in in a room, shut off the A/C, padlock the bathrooms, and tell them not to come out till they can agree on an actual plan.

Tear this apart as y'all see fit

quote Originally posted by Toddster: The problem is that since we have killed nuclear, killed coal, and killed new oil exploration and drilling, our exisiting wells are drying-up!

What? Sorry, but what the hell does nuclear and coal have to do with oil and gas?

If your car's running on U-235, I think the NRC and DHS probably wants to know about it.

A tiny, TINY percentage of oil goes to power stations. We're already running on 50% coal and 20% nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..._in_the_USA_2006.png

It doesn't matter if we switch to 100% nuclear, it won't affect gas or oil prices!!

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Putting it in caps doesn't make it true. Gas prices right now are being caused by speculation by investors. Not supply, not demand, not ANWAR. I think it's funny that Republicans shot down a Democratic bill designed to target the real reasons of inflated oil( in your own style, SPECULATION ) and it's the Democrat's fault because they won't open ANWAR. Get real.

Well, I completely agree with you that putting things in caps doesn't make it true.

I agree that SOME of the cost of oil right now is due to speculation. There are a couple of ways to approach that. You could try to do it the democrat party way, which is to try to directly legislate behavior. Of course, while doing so, you also trample individual freedoms. But who cares about that, because we know best and we know what is fair.

Another way to approach it is to pass legislation to allow more drilling to increase supply. Just the MENTION of that will put an end to speculators driving up oil prices. So you haven't trampled individual freedom, you still accomplish the goal, and for several years you keep the prices lower to give the FREE MARKET time to adjust strategies to minimize as much as possible the impact on individual workers and their jobs.

So, there, I got real.

Now I would like you to get real. Within that bill that the democrats wanted that would address speculation, was a HUGE attempt at increasing taxes on oil companies. Which would be passed to consumers. That was a price you were willing to pay? Especially when there was a free market way available?

[This message has been edited by frontal lobe (edited 06-12-2008).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: If we find it economically more feasible to change a sizeable portion of the vehicles on the road to electric, then having more nuclear capacity producing electricity will help provide the energy for that at a reasonable price. It won't happen immediately (and maybe never), but reducing the number of miles driven by gasoline powered vehicles will lower the demand and will reduce prices.

If we weren't rebuilding Iraq, perhaps we could afford rebuilding here, but the current electric grid is already at capacity. Changing too much would put it at the breaking point. I'd prefer we filled up with domestic electricity (regardless of the source) rather than terrorist oil. I think we are already making steps in that direction.

"Mad at gas prices?" Yes. And I think consumers are about to get even.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/...xon.mobil/index.html


There ya go, Mr Bitter. Exxon Mobil is selling all of it's corp owned gas stations. They're not profitable enough. I know you won't understand most, if any, of the article. If you do have trouble with comprehending the article, my 11 year old might be able to explain it to you.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: What? Sorry, but what the hell does nuclear and coal have to do with oil and gas?

I know, I know. Count to ten. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

Ah, see, I'm calm.

Ehem, What does Nuclear and Coal have to do with oil and gas, you ask?

OK, I see how someone could look at our production of electricity and note that only about 3% comes from oil, like renewables, and think it won't be enough to make a difference. But this is short sighted.

Let us first look at where American energy is used:
1) 40% is for electricity production
2) 30% is for raw heat
3) 30% is for transportation

You've already figured out #1. But you haven't looked at the big picture. The 30% for raw heat is almost TOTALLY oil and petroleum as is transportation. Natural gas is the big dog in heating and where you find oil you find natural gas. How are we going to heat our houses without further exploration? Hmmm, we could convert to electricity...but that means more coal!..OR nuclear!

So, as the bartender said to the tin horn, "We have Oil, Coal, and Nukes. What's yer poison"?

quote It doesn't matter if we switch to 100% nuclear, it won't affect gas or oil prices!!

If we went from 19.9% to 100% nuke for electricity and heating, our oil consumption would drop about 40%. Or in other words, from 20 million barrels per day to 12 million barrels per day.

The Great Karnac sees a MASSIVE fall in oil prices in your theoretical future.

Oil companies don't really pay their taxes. We pay them. Punitive taxes on any corporation would only make its product/service cost more for the consumer.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Oil companies don't really pay their taxes. We pay them. Punitive taxes on any corporation would only make its product/service cost more for the consumer.

That logic works for any business. So does the one that says you don't pay your taxes the company you work for does. Raising taxes never makes things cheaper for any one. The cost is always passed.

But I just read this and its interesting.
http://seekingalpha.com/art...-tax-bill-30-billion

Any one know how much Exxon got back in subsidies?

quote Originally posted by sostock:I can't imagine making $10 now and spending $4 a gallon.

Believe me, it sucks.

quote Todd: corn subsidies

This to a million. Ethanol is the best bet we have with out current solar and fusion technologies. There are loads of other plants to use rather than corn that produces many times as much ethanol. All the corn subsidies are doing is encouranging farmers to plant even more of a crop that is murdering the environment because of its irrigation and fertilization requirements.

We need to stop this asinine corn boondoggle and fund everything from it into switchgrass, algal, and jatropha research. Throw the corn husks and cobs back into the field to replenish the land. At least the three I mention need little fertilization and are weeds and pond scum.

[This message has been edited by AP2k (edited 06-12-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: That logic works for any business. So does the one that says you don't pay your taxes the company you work for does. Raising taxes never makes things cheaper for any one. The cost is always passed. But I just read this and its interesting. http://seekingalpha.com/art...-tax-bill-30-billion Any one know how much Exxon got back in subsidies?

That 30 billion is a totally ficticious number; more like 7-10 billion actually paid. Most is deferred from one year to the next ad nauseum.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: That 30 billion is a totally ficticious number; more like 7-10 billion actually paid. Most is deferred from one year to the next ad nauseum.

Do you have any way to back that up? Like a report or something.

nope

5 years ago, oil was down a lot lower than today--Absolutely true.
5 years ago, the total global demand for oil was a lot lower than it is today--Absolutely true.
5 years ago, China and India weren't getting a big proportion of the world's know reserves--absolutely true.
5 years ago, the oil companies weren't drilling in nearly as deep water as they are around the world--absolutely true.
(a single deepwater rig today costs as much as $100 million-unheard of 5 years ago)
5 years ago, the known reserves showed a lot more optimism than they do today--absolutely true.
5 years ago, most analysts expected to see a little more stability in the mid east come about--absolutely true.
5 years ago, no one was aware of just how vulnerable and fragile the oil production states were to hurricane caused shutdowns--absolutely true.
5 years ago, not nearly as many people (both in and out of the oil business) were convinced we had reached 'peak oil'--absolutely true.

All of these truisms have had a big effect on the upswing in oil prices--and so, to a lesser extent--has speculation.

I'll answer your other question too.

The stockholders are the owners of the oil companies-they approve the CEO's salaries and compensation. I voted yes for Mr. Tillerson's salary with my proxy vote. That salary came out of mine (and millions of other stockholder's) dividends.

quote WHO SALARY TOTAL COMPENSATION STOCK VALUE Median Household Income $48,000 N/A N/A John Carrig, CFO, ConocoPhillips $817,500 $16,416,379 $15,546,225 Rex Tillerson, CEO, Exxon Mobil $1,750,000 $16,726,742 $9,832,947 David O'Reilly, CEO, Chevron $1,650,000 $31,543,185 $34,425,403 J. Van Der Veer, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell 1,775,000 euros 4,692,909 euros N/A Tony Hayward, CEO, BP 877,000 pounds 2,153,000 pounds N/A Steve Ballmer, CEO, Microsoft $620,000 $1,279,821 N/A Jeffrey Kindler, CEO, Pfizer $1,462,500 $9,513,440 N/A Reed Hastings, CEO, Netflix $850,000 $2,418,577 $36,452,238 Leslie Moonves, CEO, CBS $5,323,367 $36,816,827 $6,647,781 Source: Forbes, U.S. Census Bureau Note: Executive pay as of end of 2007 fiscal year. U.S. Median household income as of 2006. http://www.thepittsburghcha...16375011/detail.html Just answer the question, Was that profit of 4% before or after they paid these guys?

I'll be happy to answer this question.
The profit was afterwards, just as it was after they paid the wages of the guy that sweeps the floor in the lobby of their headquarters. Neither employee's salary has anything at all to do with how much you & I pay for gas at the pump. Both have something to do with how much the owners of the company makes, and I and all the other co-owners (stockholders) are fine with it. (Well, most of us are--the Rockerfellers are not really happy about it) Ray Tillerson has led the company to record profits, extremely effeicent operations, the BP merger, and as I see it, he should be rewarded with like compensation. It may emotionally irritate you that one person can make that much money, but it really doesn't affect anything about you in the real sense. I personally know many blue collar XOM employees, and none of them are upset with it either. Unless I am mistaken, their unions are also happy with it, as I do not know of any union strike at Exxon--at least not at the facility my friends and relatives work at.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: I know, I know. Count to ten. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 Ah, see, I'm calm. Ehem, What does Nuclear and Coal have to do with oil and gas, you ask? OK, I see how someone could look at our production of electricity and note that only about 3% comes from oil, like renewables, and think it won't be enough to make a difference. But this is short sighted. Let us first look at where American energy is used: 1) 40% is for electricity production 2) 30% is for raw heat 3) 30% is for transportation

Source? Seems like a large coincidence they all end in "0". Must be like winning the lottery.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/...e_us_cons_sector.htm

2/3 of oil goes to transportation use. 20% goes to industrial uses (which includes PLASTICS... Thank the bottle water drinkers for your high gas prices). And some minuscule percent goes to electricity and heating.

So no, oil doesn't break down like you think, and we're already using coal, nuclear, and renewable energy for electricity. Oil doesn't play into it.

Your assertion that finding natural gas will affect oil prices doesn't work either. That's like saying if we find a huge coal deposit, gas prices will drop. It won't. They're separate markets.

[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 06-12-2008).]

On top of that, natural gas prices are way up as well, and coal is following oil price increases right up the ladder. A fossil fuel is a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel is a fossil fuel. None are renewable.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: On top of that, natural gas prices are way up as well, and coal is following oil price increases right up the ladder.

So is gold. And silver. And food.

Inflation is a ***** .

Our worthless dollar isn't helping matters.

Food is a local or regional thing--gold silver, oil and gas are set on a global market, which has no bearing in regards to our weak dollar or our inflation rate. A stronger dollar might increase our buying power a bit, but the world spots would be the same +- a tiny bit.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Oil companies don't really pay their taxes. We pay them. Punitive taxes on any corporation would only make its product/service cost more for the consumer.

Thank you.

As for nuclear....

Jane Fonda and China Syndrome didn't help matters, but what really nixed nuclear power in the US was Three Mile Island.

If the news media had been pro-nuclear, it would have been played a lot differently. Instead of a couple weeks' worth of NUCLEAR MELTDOWN ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it would have been more like: "Today a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island power station malfunctioned. All the reactor's safety systems functioned properly, and although a partial meltdown of the reactor core occurred, a major disaster was averted thanks to the quick thinking of the plant's staff. There was a minor release of radioactivity, to prevent an explosion, but officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission say there is no cause for alarm. The release of radioactivity was slight and came in the form of radioactive hydrogen, which will rise rapidly in the air and pose little threat to the surrounding area. Total exposure for plant workers is expected to be less than the NRC's mandated maximum exposure of 100 millirem per year, and will be even less for those outside the grounds of the plant."

Instead, of course, 3MI was flogged as a "major disaster".

Total casualties from 3MI: 0.00
Total radiation-related illnesses caused by 3MI, including cancer: 0.00

If you had camped out atop the containment vessel of the malfunctioning reactor for the duration of the event, you would have been exposed to 1,500 millirem of radiation. To put that in perspective: in 1979, if you had gone in for an angiogram, you would have been exposed to 25,000 millirem of radiation.

Eh? "Chernobyl"? The Chernobyl reactor was a graphite-moderated reactor, which is an unsafe design no one in the free world uses anymore, particularly as a commercial, power-generating reactor. And the Chernobyl reactor was kept in a steel building not unlike a typical commercial structure you might find in your average industrial park, not a concrete-and-steel containment vessel that's got six-foot-thick walls.

The Chernobyl reactor was deliberately mis-operated; the operators were performing a long-delayed low-power test and had to disable safety systems to perform the test because the control system kept trying to shut the thing down.

In the end, EDIT as of 2006 /EDIT according to the United Nations, about 60 people died as a result of the Chernobyl event. Most of them were firefighters; a few were children who got thyroid cancer.

* * *

In the meantime, if you add up all the fatalities in the world from coal mining just in the 20th century, and compare it to all the nuclear-related deaths ever (INCLUDING Hiroshima and Nagasaki!) you'll find that nuclear power has killed far fewer people than coal has.

Ed

[This message has been edited by edhering (edited 06-13-2008).]