??? Perhaps this could have been retitled "coal burning ecofrauds took ya!"

Please refer to the article by scientists who have done their studies and are there to tell you that coal burning has put MORE waste and hazardous material into the air than nuclear power plants would  and the ecofrauds are telling us how gas pollution is the problem....IT IS COAL BURNING..putting out uranium and thorzine into the air that we breathe and what are we doing about it????

see article on: pushback.com

 

I think both are not good (along with petrolium). I think we need to go with renewable engery sources-like wind, solar, etc.



Cat

Oh, you're absolutely right, coal-burning causes horrible pollution, especially the low grade crap they burn all over China.
Now, if there's a screw-up at your coal plant, it won't make the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years and give you 8-legged grandchildren, but that's a different kettle o'fish!
:P

Oh, you're absolutely right, coal-burning causes horrible pollution, especially the low grade crap they burn all over China.
Now, if there's a screw-up at your coal plant, it won't make the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years and give you 8-legged grandchildren, but that's a different kettle o'fish!
:P


True enough, but I gotta agree with Cat on this one (I really have to  ;)).  Fossel fuel and radioactive fuel are just bad news.

Plus the timescale on the radioactive nuclear by-products is kind of scary: we're talking tens of thousands of years of radiation-producing waste, which has to be stored safely somewhere (and protected, so that it can't be nicked by terrorists to make their dirty bomb)

But... burning coal ain't good; petroleum is limited; gas is very limited... the sooner we start looking to increasing efficiency rather than upping supply, the better.

Plus the timescale on the radioactive nuclear by-products is kind of scary: we're talking tens of thousands of years of radiation-producing waste, which has to be stored safely somewhere (and protected, so that it can't be nicked by terrorists to make their dirty bomb)

But... burning coal ain't good; petroleum is limited; gas is very limited... the sooner we start looking to increasing efficiency rather than upping supply, the better.

We have yet to reckon the full effects of the Chernobyl accident.  That was in April, 1986, a mere 18 years ago and a blink in radioactive time.

Nuke plants were built with a 30 year lifespan.  After a nuke plant is decommissioned there are millions of pounds of radioactive waste that will be dangerous for thoussands, perhaps millions, of years.  This didn't phase the nuke proponents of the 1950s because they put their faith in science developing a solution to the problem before the 1980s.  They didn't.  They still haven't.  In America, they are hollowing out a mountain in Nevada.  The scheme is to store the drums of hotstuff under the mountain, in "seismically safe" conditions.
If 20,000 years from now when we're all dead and gone and there's a future civilization (or a future band of Mad Max-style roving nomads), we'll have to make sure they don't monkey around with the hotstuff.
First the planners thought of starting an order of monks who would keep the story of the poison-under-the-mountain alive.  Realizing it is implausible to keep an order of monks going for hundreds of thousands of years, they decided to mark the site with danger signs in language and symbols of various origins. 
They have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.  If our archeologists were excavating the site on an ancient civilization and they came upon hiroglyphics saying, "DO NOT ENTER THE FARTHEST CHAMBER"  What's the first thing the would do?  Exactly! 
To put it another way, remember the end of Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits ?  "Mum, Dad, don't touch it, it's evil!"

I think both are not good (along with petrolium). I think we need to go with renewable engery sources-like wind, solar, etc.


I agree.  Another "renweable energy" source that a lot of people overlook is hydro.  But that is often shot down because it is not "enviromentally friendly".

The simple fact is, wind and solar can't produce enough to meet our needs.  In Southern California, one of the major sources for electricity is Natural Gas.  This is a great choice, because it burns very clean, and is basically a waste product of oil drilling.

Personally, I hope that someday we can successfully harness Nuclear Fusion.  That has the potential of being the cleanest form of electricity.  But because of the word "Nuclear", it does not get the funding it deserves.

I agree.  Another "renweable energy" source that a lot of people overlook is hydro.  But that is often shot down because it is not "enviromentally friendly".

The simple fact is, wind and solar can't produce enough to meet our needs.  In Southern California, one of the major sources for electricity is Natural Gas.  This is a great choice, because it burns very clean, and is basically a waste product of oil drilling.

Personally, I hope that someday we can successfully harness Nuclear Fusion.  That has the potential of being the cleanest form of electricity.  But because of the word "Nuclear", it does not get the funding it deserves.

I agree there's much more potential in hydro.  Any proposal you come up with, somebody's going to hate it.  That's guaranteed.  Wind and solar can't do everything, but they can be very useful supplements.
So, you think if we only funded the research more, we could really produced cold fusion?  Achieving cold fusion would be a major breakthrough.  Then you have to make it economically viable.  Nuclear fission has never been economically viable. It's been a big old energy welfare program for the past 50 years.  France is pretty much all nuke.  I might be wrong, but I thing the government owns the whole thing.

So, you think if we only funded the research more, we could really produced cold fusion?  Achieving cold fusion would be a major breakthrough.  Then you have to make it economically viable.  Nuclear fission has never been economically viable. It's been a big old energy welfare program for the past 50 years.  France is pretty much all nuke.  I might be wrong, but I thing the government owns the whole thing.


Cold fusion is about as realistic as a perpetual motion machine.

It is still controversial, with some studies saying it is real and others saying it is faulty measurements.  But no matter if it is real or not, it is nowhere near enough of a difference to produce energy.

Fusion is getting closer every year.  There was a great documentary last year I saw on cable (I want to say it was in the Science Channel).  With the advances in superconductors, they are now able to contain the reaction safely, and are getting energy back out of the reaction.  But they are still not getting enough to make it profitable.  But that was the problem with fission also at one time.

We all know that fusion works, just look at the sun.  And while fusion is a long term project which may not happen in my lifetime, it has the potential to make the largest positive impact.  It will enable clean energy, which will someday eliminate the need for fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Personally, I hope that someday we can successfully harness Nuclear Fusion. That has the potential of being the cleanest form of electricity. But because of the word "Nuclear", it does not get the funding it deserves.

I live about thirty miles from the JET (Joint European Torus) project - (http://www.jet.efda.org/), which has been "nearly there" since I was at school... but you're absolutely right about the funding side: when fission was all the rage and got the billions in research funding, TPTB thought that fusion wasn't necessary; once the downside of fission was realized, the word "nuclear" had acquired a taint that throwing more money at nuclear research was unpopular.  It's kind of hard to credit the amount of money round the world that has gone into fission research: many, many times that of all other potential energy sources put together.

The problem I have with nuclear...well, one word-Chernopyl  :\'(






Cat

The problem I have with nuclear...well, one word-Chernopyl  :\'(


Chernobyl was a real disaster, that could have been prevented.

This disaster involved a nuclear FISSION plant.  And the reason why it was as bad as it was, is because the Soviet Union as a rule did *NOT* use a containment dome over the nuclear pile.  If they had, Chernobyl would probably have been about as damaging as 3 Mile Island.  WIthout the dome, huge areas were made uninhabitable for generations.

If Fusion is ever prefected, this will not be a risk.  This is because unlike Fission which requires Uranium, Fusion uses Hydrogen.  The byproduct of Nuclear Fusion is Helium, which is about as harmless as can be.

Even a "Hydrogen Bomb" itself is fairly low in radiation.  It is the Fission bomb INSIDE that is used to set of the Hydrogen chain-reaction that releases most of the radiation.

I agree.  Another "renweable energy" source that a lot of people overlook is hydro.  But that is often shot down because it is not "enviromentally friendly".\

Here in Mishawaka Indiana, I have extremely cheap electricity because the local utility is a hydroelectric rig on the Saint Joe River.  Hydro is a great "niche" energy source where the conditions are right.  However, doing something like a "Three Gorges Dam" project does not damage the environment, it eliminates it.

Renewable energy is also a great way to go when conditins are right.  Windmills in high-wind open areas.  Solar panels in sunny areas, although to date solar panels are vastly more expensive than conbentional nuke/coal/hydro power.

In my opinion there is no one "ideal" power source.  You have to look at the resources available in a given area and how best to use them.  The Southwest has lots of sun and open expanses that can fire windmills.  The Northeast has not enough sun to do the job, and windmills have a place but not enough generation capability to do the whole job.

Also, more attention needs to be placed on housing design and placement to reduce the NEED for energy.  By putting a simple platinum-coated film on my patio doors and windows, I've reduced my A/C load by about 35% this year.  That's HUGE.  Housing also needs to have more tree and/or vine placement to shield housing from the sun;s rays and, again, cut the energy load.

another thought to consider re: radiation... do you know you get more radiation SLEEPING next to your partner than from the  nuclear radiation given off nearby if a truck passes taking it to the storage?

The amount of spent nuclear rods to be stored, after use, would fit a SHOEBOX and this would have services a family of 4 for 20 years...there must be some room in that mountain somewhere for that much shoebox sized space?

Sure the bio and geo power would be better, but until they make a way to fit our cars and compact it enough...Someone also liked harnessing wind power.....Do you know how many windmills it would take to cover the shore of the oceans!? That idea is not practical.
Solar, what happens when the sun isn't out? That happens.

Hopefully someone will find the answer...

There is one more form of free electricity available, but almost nobody takes advantage of it.

For over 10 years, solar panel shingles have been available.  These can do a lot to reduce our dependence on electricity.  And because of PUC requirements, the local energy companies MUST buy any surplus electricity generated by them.

I know 1 person in LA who bought a house with them installed.  Even during the shy-high electricity rates in 2000, his monthy bill was under $50.  He even installed batteries to provide energy during blackouts.

Just imagine how much of our energy could be taken care of if more businesses and homes installed these shingles.  I have seen estimates that as much as 30% of our energy could be provided by these during daylight hours (the time of peak energy useage).

I have never heard of those shingles, but they sound great.

Actually, in doing a bit more research, I learned some more about this roofing material.

I even found out that the Pentagon already has it's roof covered by them!  And the Government is placing them on 20,000 other government buildings.  And that a 300-400 square foot section of roof covered with them can provide 60-90% of the household electricity useage per year.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?851

Personally, I think these are a GREAT idea.  After all, it is easy to complain about the cost of electricity and the polution involved in it's production.  Now, there is a way for these people to actually DO something about it.  And don't forget, Solar Power is yet another technology that got a lot of it's initial funding from military contracts.

Here are some other links to check out in reguards to solar shingles.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/power/success_stories/solar_roof.html
http://www.ips-solar.com/projectphotos/pv.htm

Personally, I think these are a GREAT idea.  After all, it is easy to complain about the cost of electricity and the polution involved in it's production.  Now, there is a way for these people to actually DO something about it.  And don't forget, Solar Power is yet another technology that got a lot of it's initial funding from military contracts.



I don't doubt solar power got funding from the military, but where did you get that information?  It's ironic the Pentagon uses solar shingles!  Military funding isn't necessarily a bad thing in my book.  If it was not for military funding in the first place, we wouldn't be able to send messages back and forth on this medium!

Figures sound good but as expected...what happens during 'nosun' days and to the people of Seattle with rain75% of the time and other areas.

Until then....we'll have to work with ????

Remeber the wise idea of George Carlin....'We use all solar then we'll wind up with a using of the sun tax!" ;D

I don't doubt solar power got funding from the military, but where did you get that information?  It's ironic the Pentagon uses solar shingles!  Military funding isn't necessarily a bad thing in my book.  If it was not for military funding in the first place, we wouldn't be able to send messages back and forth on this medium!


It was not hard.  Do a Google search for *"Solar Power" Pentagon*.  In fact, the first link I posted talked about it.  It seems that the Pentagon has had this in place since 1999. 

Figures sound good but as expected...what happens during 'nosun' days and to the people of Seattle with rain75% of the time and other areas.

Until then....we'll have to work with ????


Well, there you have to get much more involved with the "power grid".

One of the major links in the West Coast power grid runs through California-Oregon-Washington-Idaho-Wyoming-Nevada-Arizona.  This is how states like California (which is a deficit electric producer) gets the electricity from Idaho (which is a surplus power producer).

Basically, this grid acts like a "battery".  This is where Enron came into the picture.  It was a large-scale electricity broker, which arranged to but all surplus power from one region, and then resold it to another.  If there was no demand for the power, they took a loss (because you can't "save" the electricity).  If there was a demand for this electricity, they sold it and made a profit.  Either way, states like Idaho made money because they had a sure customer to buy it.  The problem is that Enron got greedy, and tried to inflate the demand.

A lot of the power plants work only during the day.  This is because this is the peak time.  During evenings, they often drop below 50% of capacity.  "Brownouts" often happen when the current demand exceeds the supply, and exist until more plants come on-line or increase output to make up the difference.

A lot of the power in the West Coast comes from places like Idaho and Wyoming, because of the NIMBY attitude of the people in places like California.  This lets them feel good about being "environmentally conscious", while still getting the electricity to support their standard of living.

So if this did come to be, houses with solar cells in places like Nevada or California (which has a LOT more sunlight) will help make up the loss of states like Oregon and Washington, which have a lot more rain each year.

Then we'll have people screaming how they want to be ecology friendly but are descriminated against because they can't use solar except in the sunshine states! Unfair they will shout! :D

Oh, saw the $$figures for the panels...looks like it will be awhile before anyone mid-level can partake...

I think everybody needs to think about how they use electricity and, more importantly, waste it. 

How many people leave computers on all the time, even overnight?  Or leave the TV on standby? (I know we're guilty of this at home). Or turn on every light in the house?

Also heating and air conditioning settings could be adjusted slightly so that things are kept in a comfortable range rather than hot and too cold.

I forget the exact figures but interms of population the US uses an incredibly high percentage of the world's electricity

I think everybody needs to think about how they use electricity and, more importantly, waste it. 

How many people leave computers on all the time, even overnight?  Or leave the TV on standby? (I know we're guilty of this at home). Or turn on every light in the house?

Also heating and air conditioning settings could be adjusted slightly so that things are kept in a comfortable range rather than hot and too cold.

I forget the exact figures but interms of population the US uses an incredibly high percentage of the world's electricity

America has about 5% of the world's population and uses about a third of the world's resources.
Not sure about electricity, per se, but since I keep hearing all these patriotic guys saying "God bless America," and "America is the greatest country in the world," we must be entitled to it, right?
::) :P

There is one more form of free electricity available, but almost nobody takes advantage of it.

For over 10 years, solar panel shingles have been available.  These can do a lot to reduce our dependence on electricity.  And because of PUC requirements, the local energy companies MUST buy any surplus electricity generated by them.

I know 1 person in LA who bought a house with them installed.  Even during the shy-high electricity rates in 2000, his monthy bill was under $50.  He even installed batteries to provide energy during blackouts.

Just imagine how much of our energy could be taken care of if more businesses and homes installed these shingles.  I have seen estimates that as much as 30% of our energy could be provided by these during daylight hours (the time of peak energy useage).



We just got a video from Carlo's daughter and husband. They just had solar panels installed and video taped the installation. The film was bascially made for our son-in-law's student but it was very informitive. After they were installed, the meter did slow down. When they turned off the pump to their pool, it went backwards which meant that they were already sending electricity back to the electrical company. I wish that we could do that but where we live, it would be covered with snow for months.  :-\\




Cat

I wish that we could do that but where we live, it would be covered with snow for months.  :-\\


Actually, you should check one of those sites I listed.  They actually showed the roof COVERED with snow, except for the solar panels.

Remember, being Black, they hold heat longer, making it easier to melt off.  And because they are vinyal, the snow will slide off.  And don't forget that even indirect light (like that THROUGH the snow) will generate electricity, which causes heat, which will melt off the snow faster.

Actually, you should check one of those sites I listed.  They actually showed the roof COVERED with snow, except for the solar panels.

Remember, being Black, they hold heat longer, making it easier to melt off.  And because they are vinyal, the snow will slide off.  And don't forget that even indirect light (like that THROUGH the snow) will generate electricity, which causes heat, which will melt off the snow faster.



We will check it out.




Cat

Oh, you're absolutely right, coal-burning causes horrible pollution, especially the low grade crap they burn all over China.
Now, if there's a screw-up at your coal plant, it won't make the area uninhabitable for 20,000 years and give you 8-legged grandchildren, but that's a different kettle o'fish!
:P


First off I think nuclear power should be explored, every liberal I have heard on this subject points to research done on nuclear power in the 1970's.  Its 2004, we have different technology.

Maxwell, Maxwell, Maxwell.  Coal burning isn't that bad.  Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature?  Most of it via photosynthesis, the plankton-free oceans, and soil.  The idea that the other 5% of gases, the ones created by humans (more specifically Americans, at least according to liberals), are the villains defies logic.

First off I think nuclear power should be explored, every liberal I have heard on this subject points to research done on nuclear power in the 1970's.  Its 2004, we have different technology.

Maxwell, Maxwell, Maxwell.  Coal burning isn't that bad.  Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature?  Most of it via photosynthesis, the plankton-free oceans, and soil.  The idea that the other 5% of gases, the ones created by humans (more specifically Americans, at least according to liberals), are the villains defies logic.


Geez GW where have you been, things do get a bit slow when you aren't around to rebut :)

Geez GW where have you been, things do get a bit slow when you aren't around to rebut :)


I have been felling awful for the past few days.  On August 11th, 2004 one of my best friends died and then just a few days ago on September 03, 2004 a close family member died of cancer.  Its been the hardest month of my life.

First off I think nuclear power should be explored, every liberal I have heard on this subject points to research done on nuclear power in the 1970's.  Its 2004, we have different technology.

Maxwell, Maxwell, Maxwell.  Coal burning isn't that bad.  Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature?  Most of it via photosynthesis, the plankton-free oceans, and soil.  The idea that the other 5% of gases, the ones created by humans (more specifically Americans, at least according to liberals), are the villains defies logic.

Yeah, that's what that crazy old man Reagan used to say.  No legitmate scientist agrees with you.  The only scientists who would say anything remotely as bogus are the scientists who are PAID to say so.  I'm not going to piddle away my time explaining the greenhouse effect to you because at this point you are willfully ignorant!

I have been felling awful for the past few days.  On August 11th, 2004 one of my best friends died and then just a few days ago on September 03, 2004 a close family member died of cancer.  Its been the hardest month of my life.

My condolences.
:\'(

I have been felling awful for the past few days.  On August 11th, 2004 one of my best friends died and then just a few days ago on September 03, 2004 a close family member died of cancer.  Its been the hardest month of my life.



I know we disagree politicially but I am very sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and your family.




Cat

Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature?


Personally, I do not believe in the "Greenhouse" THEORY at all.  To me, it is nothing but a "lot of hot air".

Here is a simple fact:  The earth has been warming up for over 20,000 years.  Geologically, we are still in an "Ice Age".  1 entire continent is still covered with a miles thick glacier, and will remain so for a long time to come.

To give an idea how much things have changed in a relatively short time geologically (2,000 years), just look at Death Valley.  Just over 2,000 years ago, it was still a large LAKE!  During the first few centuries AD (or CE, whichever you prefer), it dried up, and is now one of the hottest regions on earth.  And unless somebody can blame the pre-Columbian indians (circa 1st century) of "destroying the ecology", I would say that was a natural occurance.

How about a look at what was once "normal" on this planet?

During the Jurrasic period, there were no "polar ice caps".  Zero, zilch, none.  The South Pole actually had a large and thriving dinosaur ecology, which had adapted to living 6 months in the sun, and 6 months in darkness.  Think about it, approximately 70 MILLION YEARS, with no polar ice caps.

And at the other extreme, a great many scientists believe that from 600-700 million years ago, the ENTIRE EARTH was covered with one huge covering of ice.  It was not until this global ice pack melted that recognizeable life started to appear.

Myself, I do not believe that "mere man" can create such a huge impact on something as grand and immense as the entire planet.  I think that that is the utmost in conceit that we can "destroy" this planet.  In fact, even if we TRIED, I believe that nature will counteract anything we try.

ANd for those of us old enough to remember how these same Scientists looked at things in the mid 1970's, they were then saying that the polution was creating a "Global Ice Age".  Suddenly 20 years later, "Global Ice Age" became "Greenhouse Effect", and the world was warming, not cooling.

The fact that the earth was ALREADY warming (and has been for thousands of years) does not matter I guess.

I have been felling awful for the past few days.  On August 11th, 2004 one of my best friends died and then just a few days ago on September 03, 2004 a close family member died of cancer.  Its been the hardest month of my life.


Sorry to hear it, we did miss your aggravation.  It all  takes time, welcome back.

First off I think nuclear power should be explored, every liberal I have heard on this subject points to research done on nuclear power in the 1970's.  Its 2004, we have different technology.

Maxwell, Maxwell, Maxwell.  Coal burning isn't that bad.  Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature?  Most of it via photosynthesis, the plankton-free oceans, and soil.  The idea that the other 5% of gases, the ones created by humans (more specifically Americans, at least according to liberals), are the villains defies logic.


Different does not equal better.  The actual reactores might be saker, but what do you do with the waste?

Photosynthesis does create carbon dioxide, but plants absorb more of it than they produce, thus the concern with burning the rain forests (which also creates carbon dioxide).

We do produce a significant part of the green house gases (and those that cause acid rain).  The other industrial nations also contribute significant quantities, and industrializing China is a serious offender.  Max, by the way, mentioned China too, so no one is blaming the US, so why bring it up?





I have been felling awful for the past few days. On August 11th, 2004 one of my best friends died and then just a few days ago on September 03, 2004 a close family member died of cancer. Its been the hardest month of my life.


Sorry toi hear  of your loses.  Please accept my sympathy to you and your family.  Don't forget to cry.  My best to you and your's.  Welcome back.

DC

Personally, I do not believe in the "Greenhouse" THEORY at all.  To me, it is nothing but a "lot of hot air".

Here is a simple fact:  The earth has been warming up for over 20,000 years.  Geologically, we are still in an "Ice Age".  1 entire continent is still covered with a miles thick glacier, and will remain so for a long time to come.

To give an idea how much things have changed in a relatively short time geologically (2,000 years), just look at Death Valley.  Just over 2,000 years ago, it was still a large LAKE!  During the first few centuries AD (or CE, whichever you prefer), it dried up, and is now one of the hottest regions on earth.  And unless somebody can blame the pre-Columbian indians (circa 1st century) of "destroying the ecology", I would say that was a natural occurance.

How about a look at what was once "normal" on this planet?

During the Jurrasic period, there were no "polar ice caps".  Zero, zilch, none.  The South Pole actually had a large and thriving dinosaur ecology, which had adapted to living 6 months in the sun, and 6 months in darkness.  Think about it, approximately 70 MILLION YEARS, with no polar ice caps.

And at the other extreme, a great many scientists believe that from 600-700 million years ago, the ENTIRE EARTH was covered with one huge covering of ice.  It was not until this global ice pack melted that recognizeable life started to appear.

Myself, I do not believe that "mere man" can create such a huge impact on something as grand and immense as the entire planet.  I think that that is the utmost in conceit that we can "destroy" this planet.  In fact, even if we TRIED, I believe that nature will counteract anything we try.

The fact that the earth was ALREADY warming (and has been for thousands of years) does not matter I guess.



The problem with this is that it neglects the fact that the earth is a dynamic place.  There have been several periods in earth history when there was only 1 continent - pangia.  And we HAVE effected the earth.  The Americas werer once populated by what is called the "mega-fauna" of huge mammals, probably driven to extinction by - you guessed it - us, as have hundreds, if not thousands of spiecies.  The eastern states' skies were once BLACKENED by the flocks of passenger pidgions, which are now gone.  There is a black moth that 150-200 years ago was white. 

This is not to say that there are other factors at work.  The problem is to sort out cause and effect.  Think of it this way though:  All fossil fuel is just that, FOSSIL fuel.  That means that it is solar energy stored and concentrated by geological processes, like and energy savings bank.  Some societies have used up theirs, to there detriment.  This, and other examples of over-reliance on a specific technology, have caused even advanced civilizations to fall apart.  A good book on this is Paradise For Sale by Carl N. McDanial & John M. Gowdy, U Cal Press, 2000.

For Maxwell...the scientists were part of the story on pushback.com disputing the former scare stories of nuclear opposed to coal.....were they being paid? Dr. Bill Wattenburg whao broadcasts weekends on KGO -AM 810 San Fran. has been to the meetings for YEARS pointing out the benefits and finally reports confirm what he has been saying all along....

The fear of what is in the waste from the fuel rods can be safely stored away, you get more radiation from sleeping next to someone at night or running a microwave than you would get from being 50 feet away from high tension wires...you would be surprised how much nuclear waste and such travels on our roads to be hauled away and the composition of what is in some of that waste ALL CAME FROM THE EARTH i.e..uranium,..(to begin with).

Anuclear power plant never broke down by itself-Chernobyl was a human error and 3 mile isle which put fear in everyone...

There was a recent news report how guards at nuclear power plants were dismissed/fired for sleeping on the job and not noticing errors-the company that hired them is being looked at for that problem...

Global warming-as Dennis Miller discussed...gee we're gaining a degree or 3 every 100 years or more...I think we could unbutton a button and be cool with it. What?, Is Arizona starting to feel the heat??? Hey TURN THAT FURNACE DOWN- IT'S 1.3 DEGREES HOTTER!

Global warming-as Dennis Miller discussed...gee we're gaining a degree or 3 every 100 years or more...I think we could unbutton a button and be cool with it. What?, Is Arizona starting to feel the heat??? Hey TURN THAT FURNACE DOWN- IT'S 1.3 DEGREES HOTTER!


According to Patrick Michaels, professor of enviromental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in enviromental studies at the Cato Institute says if we do nothing to stop global warming we could have an average temp. of at the most 2.5 degrees F higher.  Woah, 2.5 in 100 years!  Say it ain't so.  Also two-thirds of all that warming would take place in winter, and a full three-quarters of that would happen in the dead of Siberia, northwest Canada, and Alaska (ie places where no body lives.)

According to Patrick Michaels, professor of enviromental studies at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in enviromental studies at the Cato Institute says if we do nothing to stop global warming we could have an average temp. of at the most 2.5 degrees F higher.  Woah, 2.5 in 100 years!  Say it ain't so.  Also two-thirds of all that warming would take place in winter, and a full three-quarters of that would happen in the dead of Siberia, northwest Canada, and Alaska (ie places where no body lives.)

What you, Saver, and dopey Dennis Miller don't understand (and what the petroleum industry-funded Cato Institute won't tell you)  is the significance of the degree of temperature change.  If the temperature in the room rises 3 degrees you barely notice it.  If the temperature in your body rises 3 degrees, what happens?  You run a fever of 101.6 and feel like total hell!  You feel boiling hot and then shiver with chills, maybe you vomit, maybe get diarrea, or break out in rashes, or your esophageal and sinus glands swell up.  Basically, you can't function. 
Your body is a complex organic system that requires a precise temperature for optimal functioning.  Here the direct analogy ends.
We find the Earth requires a fairly precise temperature to provide conditions optimal human thriving.  Your fever occurs when your white blood cells set out to destroy the enemy.  Not so with the Earth's "fever."  Our planet provides no white blood cell equivalent to look out for our interests, our planet doesn't need us at all.  Life thrived on Earth when there was but one hot jungle continent and no polar ice caps.  Life thrived on Earth all the same when half of it was covered in glaciers miles thick.
Perhaps the "success" of human civilization was by dint of geological fortune.  If the level of the oceans rise by just a foot, a billion people will die and much of the world's economy will be wiped out.  Unlike the hunter-gatherer tribes of the past, our world is very inflexible.  We can't just move to higher ground and greener meadows. 
Some argue the melting of the polar ice caps in a geological inevitibility and there's nothing man can do to stop it.  Does this mean we should spend our last century partying it up with fossil fuels?  I don't know.  If you have congenital heart disease, will your doctor say, "It's gonna happen anyway, so smoke up"?  Only if he works for Phillip-Morris.

The fear of what is in the waste from the fuel rods can be safely stored away, you get more radiation from sleeping next to someone at night or running a microwave than you would get from being 50 feet away from high tension wires...you would be surprised how much nuclear waste and such travels on our roads to be hauled away and the composition of what is in some of that waste ALL CAME FROM THE EARTH i.e..uranium,..(to begin with).
Care to clarify?  You went from fuel rods to tension wires in the same sentence.  Anyway, I'd sooner go to bed with a bunch of spent fuel rods than I would my ex-girlfriend, and I think I'll put uranium on my breakfast cereal because it's from the Earth anyway.

The problem with this is that it neglects the fact that the earth is a dynamic place.  There have been several periods in earth history when there was only 1 continent - pangia.  And we HAVE effected the earth. 


I fully understand this point.  I believe that the changes in our ecology are natural.

Our planet has a long history of rather drastic climate changes in a relatively short amount of time.  The current "global warming" is just another part of a thousands of years old trend of global warming.  It is well known that costal areas of our planet are becoming flooded.

Venice and New Orleans were once both above sea level.  Venice did not start with canals for streets, that was an adaptation they did in order to keep their city where it is hundreds of years ago.  The ancient port of Alexandria (and the more ancient ones that were before it) are all under water.

Even more telling, is the discovery of ancient civilizations that were previously unknown, all under water.  Off the coast of Washington, they have found "coastal" settlements dating to the migration of humans to North America.  Most of these are 50-100 feet underwater.  And off the coast of Okinawa, they have found a huge stone ziggurat under 75 feet of water.  By estimating the rise of the oceans, it is estimated that this structure is 10,000 years old (this matches some of the estimates of the age of the original Sphinx in Egypt).

The Earth is warming, and has been warming for thousands of years.  Of course, there is another reason this is happening.  Scientists in Germany have discovered that the Sun is releasing more radiation now then at any time during the past 1,000 years.  Is it to much to imagine that THIS could be one of the major factors?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


The Americas werer once populated by what is called the "mega-fauna" of huge mammals, probably driven to extinction by - you guessed it - us, as have hundreds, if not thousands of spiecies.  The eastern states' skies were once BLACKENED by the flocks of passenger pidgions, which are now gone.  There is a black moth that 150-200 years ago was white. 


There was a fascinating program on Mastadons and Mamoths on the Science Channel last year.  They did some math, and realized that stone age humans could not have driven them to extinction.  There were just to few humans, and to many of those large pacyderms.  Their current theory is a combination of both the elimination of their habitat by the end of the last Ice Age, and disease.  They said it was not possible that humans could have destroyed 2 breeds of mamals, that lived on 4 different continents in such a short amount of time.

At the same time, a lot of other animals became extinct.  Dire Wolves, Mammoths, Giant Armadillo, Mastadons, Similidon (Sabre Tooth Tiger), Short Faced Bear, Giant Sloth, American Horse, American Camel, American Lion, and those are only some of those in North America alone.  Europe and Asia had similar mass extinctions that occured at the end of the ice age.

For the most part, the extinctions allowed more modern animals to take their place.  The American Horse and Camel became extinct.  These were animals that were ONLY in existance in the Americas untli the end of the Ice Age.  Both migrated to Europe, Asia, and Africa, where they continued to evolve and change.  The only remaing relatives to survive into modern times is the Llama.

Also consider Australia also had almost all of it's Megafauna die out.  And the affect of humans on that continent was the least of all.

I do accept that we have driven animals to extinction.  I also accept that nature does not care.  Nature has killed far more species then man can ever hope to kill.

I do accept that we have driven animals to extinction.  I also accept that nature does not care.  Nature has killed far more species then man can ever hope to kill.

We may be next!
:o
BTW, some theorize humans could not survive in North America until the predatory megafauna went extinct.  We were no match for the big badass bears and cats.  Interesting theory, but I have my doubts.  Humans still coexist with polar bears, crocodiles, and Komodo dragons.  Humans coexisted in Australia with the Komodo dragon ancestor that was five times the size of a Komodo.  I saw one documentary that theorized early aboriginals killed off these giant lizards by encircling them with fire when they were snoozing in the morning.  Who knows?

BTW, some theorize humans could not survive in North America until the predatory megafauna went extinct.  We were no match for the big badass bears and cats.  Interesting theory, but I have my doubts.  Humans still coexist with polar bears, crocodiles, and Komodo dragons.


Not only that, we still coexist with modern elephants on 2 continents.  We also live with Bengal Tigers, which are not much smaller then the similodon was.  And while the large marsupials died off, their smaller and faster cousins survived.

Earth has done this several times too.  Once animals grow to a certain size, they often die off quickly.  This happened with the Trilobite, which had grown to massive sizes (when compared to the size of most animals alive at the time).  They lived for 350 million years, and were at the top of the food chain when they suddenly went extinct.  None have survived.

If it is true that humans could not survive until the big animals were all gone, then why did some die and some survive?  You made an excellent point.  If humans were responsible for the extinction of the mastadons, then why were the elephants not driven to extinction at the same time?  North American horses and camels went extinct, but not the ones that migrated throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe.  And why would humans hunt the Similidon to extinction?  Until more modern times there was no serious threat to Lions, Tigers, or any of the other big cats of the world.

Sadly, the "big game hunting" is responsible for a great many endangerd species.  I do not believe in the practice of hunting and killing wild animals to get a hide or trophy.  Nowadays, poaching is the biggest threat to endangered species.  If we could stop that problem, many of them might have a chance to survive.

Maxwell, Maxwell, Maxwell. Coal burning isn't that bad. Did you know that 95% of greenhouse gases that have been linked to global warming are created by nature? Most of it via photosynthesis, the plankton-free oceans, and soil. The idea that the other 5% of gases, the ones created by humans (more specifically Americans, at least according to liberals), are the villains defies logic.

Where did you go to school?  Photosynthesis is the process by which plants fix carbon dioxide and create oxygen: it is the ONLY process known to man that removes greenhouse gases.  (which, of course, is why mankind is gleefully chopping down the forests which do most of the hard work)

Plants and animals together create a carbon cycle in which CO2 is added and taken away from the atmosphere: if I actually believed your 5% figure, I'd be surprised it's so high - bearing in mind that we'd be talking CO2 produced by every living animal, bacterium etc. for man to be adding 5% on top of that is actually quite scary.  Face it, you don't know WTF you're talking about, which is not exactly a sound basis for debating the issue.

Speaking as a scientist, I'm not convinced by the greenhouse gas/global warming theories: there's too much we don't know, and the models used are inevitably flawed... but it's only a matter of scale: it should be obvious to all but the most insular thickheads that to keep creating humungous quantities of CO2 while removing large numbers of the only things that can get rid of said gas is not sustainable - at some point, be it in five, fifty or five hundred years, the closed ecosystem we call the earth will change irrevocably, at which point it'll be way too late to do anything about it.

To summarize: burning fossil fuels for power is unsustainable; nuclear fission has some very nasty long-term consequences; renewable energy sources will never generate enough - so unless we (the human race) learn to generate power from fusion or some new similarly clean and all-but-limitless source, we don't have a long term future on this planet.

Where did you go to school? 
Big Petrochemical-Tobacco U.

To summarize: burning fossil fuels for power is unsustainable; nuclear fission has some very nasty long-term consequences; renewable energy sources will never generate enough - so unless we (the human race) learn to generate power from fusion or some new similarly clean and all-but-limitless source, we don't have a long term future on this planet.

Nuclear fission isn't cheap either.  Here in America the nukers promised us electricity too cheap to meter, yet the nuclear power industry never got off the government dole.  A big controversy when I was growing up in New Hampshire was the Seabrook Nuclear Power plant.  NH didn't have a nuke yet, but the state was pushing for the plant project at Seabrook.  The plant was vigorously opposed by environmental concerns because it was right near the ocean.  Civic planners also said there was no effective evacuation route if the plant melted down.  Anyway, the process of building the plant was hampered by so many SNAFUs that it bankrupted the state utility company Public Service of New Hampshire and the state agreed to pay off some debts to Massachusetts with electricity from the plant intended for NH!  The jerry-built bucket of bolts finally went online in, I think, 1987 and was immediately beset by technical difficulties.  Once those rods are hot, they're hot for the next 200,000 years!