See also: the 1920s proposal to dam the Mediterranean[1] and various plans to expand lower Manhattan[2], some of which were executed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Manhattan_expansion
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Manhattan_expansion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power...
> "the sheer arrogance and imperial ambitions of the modern hydraulic West"
and
> "the most outlandish water development scheme to emerge in the past 50 years".
Yet the Chinese South-North Water Transfer Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran...) currently underway is (or at least was at inception) intended to move nearly half as much water--44.8 billion cubic meters vs 93 billion cubic meters. While still under construction, it's already moving 7 billion cubic meters per https://window-to-china.de/2022/02/20/china-reports-progress... That's only about 1/5 of their planned volume, but IIUC the final, western diversion would provide more water to be diverted for the first two completed (?) routes.
On the face those criticisms might still stand, but the context seemed to be an explanation for why NAWPA was an utter failure from inception, in which case they may soon seem merely short-sighted or at least myopic.
The Trinity test site was open to the public in 1953, less than 10 years after the blast took place. Nowadays, the radioactivity there is only 10 times the average natural radioactivity [1]. That may seem like a lot, but there are places in the world with much, much higher background radiation, and epidemiological studies failed to determine an increase in cancer rates or other health issues [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)#Site_to...
Yeah, I really wonder why even Chinese decided to not go that way...
There can be almost no elevated gamma background, but nevertheless harmful to live there (e.g. Chernobyl).
It's interesting and perhaps a little reassuring that the 2009 review of natural background exposure didn't find conclusive effects other than for radon, but the enthusiasm in the US for peaceful nuclear explosions had already ebbed more than 40 years earlier after some quite cavalier experiments, so it's not so much "why is it unpopular?" as "why couldn't the topic be reconsidered in the light of newer research and less as a cheerleading exercise for nuclear weapons development?". Probably it's hard to judge the economics of PNEs Vs conventional civil engineering since the nuclear industry is quite coupled to the military.
Much of the fallout was due to the fraction of the yield that was from fission, and WP notes that "had this test been conducted after 1965 when improvements in device design were realized, achieving a 100-fold reduction in radiation release is considered feasible". But the public enthusiasm for the program was naturally impaired.
Anyhow, NAWPA is some fascinating stuff... It's completely insane and a terrible idea, but it's hard not to be impressed by the sheer size of it.
Kinda got me wondering now... Would the biggest version of NAWPA exceed the size of the Atlantropa idea, in terms of how much land area they each would flood/drain? I mean, the Mediterranean Sea is pretty big, but...
I'm glad you're working on finding a more polite way to talk about things you disagree with... Your new comment is an improvement, but it's still hella low-key argumentive, and needlessly insulting to the people around you.
You need to learn how to disagree with people without making other people out to be jerks.
I'd've thought that all the downvotes on your last comment would've helped drive the point home, but I guess not. Maybe it just takes time to learn this stuff.
But as for me... Until you take some responsibility for the words you're choosing, and start making better comments, I'm still not interested in trying to have any kind of conversation with you. LMK when you want to try again.
From the article I see that in the past that's something they considered for San Diego as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-06/towing-an...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_European_Enclosure_Da...