If some try to say I favor one party over the other, I hope to go on record as JUST BEING FAIR....

From A. Gore and his INCONVENIENT TRUTH, NOT telling us 'what we CAN do to eliminate the global warming problem', instead of pointing fingers at our humanity. I call for him to be fair and tell us how NUCLEAR can reduce a lot of the problems we face...HE HAD THE CHANCE TO HELP WHILE IN OFFICE BUT HE REFUSED!

So being fair Bush vs. Kerry, I am disturbed and fuming that there was deliberate(?) destruction of Kerry votes in the Ohio recount and heard a couple of people have/are being prosecuted for destroying votes that MAY HAVE put Kerry ahead!

Tha's why I laugh when politics are involved....and will not get into deep discussions as they change with the wind and when the dust clears we see the corruption...which I will have no part of!

But I enjoy throwing ideas out for discussion...which I may give up commenting on in the POLITICS COLUMN from now on.   

If nukes could solve the global warming crisis, Mr. Gore would have given them a lot more lip service.
But nukes are not the answer.  So that's that.
::)

If nukes could solve the global warming crisis, Mr. Gore would have given them a lot more lip service.
But nukes are not the answer.  So that's that.
::)


Hahahahaha. You actually understood what he said? :D

Popular myth is that nukes are clean, safe, and cheap and can solve our energy needs.  This has persisted for fifty years despite....everything.

Other popular myth right now, "Guys like Gore just complain about stuff, they don't have any answers."

Correction:  Gore doesn't have answers you people want to hear!

If nukes could solve the global warming crisis, Mr. Gore would have given them a lot more lip service.
But nukes are not the answer.  So that's that.
::)


I live across the river from the Surry Nuclear Power Plant as well as close to the Yorktown Power Station. Looking at their enegy production levels and fuel use, my guess is YPS pollutes quite a bit more than Surry.

The real reason no one considers nuclear viable is because of incident at TMI - exactly 0 nuclear plants have been built since that day nearly 28 years ago. Waste disposal is also a biggie...

As long as we can rape the Middle East for fossil fuels, we are never going to see any real alternative fuel sources implemented in the US.

I live across the river from the Surry Nuclear Power Plant as well as close to the Yorktown Power Station. Looking at their enegy production levels and fuel use, my guess is YPS pollutes quite a bit more than Surry.

The real reason no one considers nuclear viable is because of incident at TMI - exactly 0 nuclear plants have been built since that day nearly 28 years ago. Waste disposal is also a biggie...

As long as we can rape the Middle East for fossil fuels, we are never going to see any real alternative fuel sources implemented in the US.

See, if they could just get the liberals in congress out of the way, they would have built new nukes galore in the past 3 decades. 
It's easy to forget how much energy of all kinds it takes to make nuclear engery get up and go.
I don't mean material energy alone.  I mean--at least here in the U.S.--the bureaucratic red tape and the financing of a nuke plant---Phhew!  If Dr. Einstein knew there would be so much paperwork, he would have spent his career devoted to solving the problem of paperwork!

As long as we can rape the Middle East for fossil fuels, we are never going to see any real alternative fuel sources implemented in the US.


I would qualify that statement.  As long as money can be made by raping the Middle East fossil fuels.......

Popular myth is that nukes are clean, safe, and cheap and can solve our energy needs.  This has persisted for fifty years despite....everything.

Other popular myth right now, "Guys like Gore just complain about stuff, they don't have any answers."

Correction:  Gore doesn't have answers you people want to hear!


Look at the numbers...coal burning power plants  have emitted 10,000 times more dangerous chemicals in the air than a nuke pplant would..plus our technology is being used in France and India who are miles ahead of us to beat the pollution problem...

Nukes are the BEST alternative to what is being used now....the reports are a plenty to back this up....give in and admit if you are looking to solve the problem, go with nukes(for now)...

Look at the numbers...coal burning power plants  have emitted 10,000 times more dangerous chemicals in the air than a nuke pplant would..plus our technology is being used in France and India who are miles ahead of us to beat the pollution problem...

Nukes are the BEST alternative to what is being used now....the reports are a plenty to back this up....give in and admit if you are looking to solve the problem, go with nukes(for now)...

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm

I don't have time to list all this crap myself, and even if I did, you wouldn't pay it any mind.

Nukes emit dangerous carcinogenic isotopes constantly.  Of course, fossil fuel plants are not clean, but in case of "meltdown" at your coal plant, the region won't be uninhabitable for 20,000 years. 

Nukes appear clean, but their filthy, dangerous hidden costs are well known. 

I hate the term "anchor baby."

COW POWER!!!!




Cat

COW POWER!!!!




Cat

Conscientious people will continue making the effort as they always have.  I don't see the entire energy infrastructure getting overhauled until we have no choice but to do so.  That won't be pretty.  We might enter a new dark age in more ways than one!
I don't hear the activists get this message across often enough:
We are going to have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.  It's easier to do it now than to do it when there are no fossil fuels left.

American business has a problem.  It does not think long-term.  Investors want to make money right now, damn the costs down the road.  That's where the so-called "free market" fails us.

Conscientious people will continue making the effort as they always have.  I don't see the entire energy infrastructure getting overhauled until we have no choice but to do so.  That won't be pretty.  We might enter a new dark age in more ways than one!
I don't hear the activists get this message across often enough:
We are going to have to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.  It's easier to do it now than to do it when there are no fossil fuels left.

American business has a problem.  It does not think long-term.  Investors want to make money right now, damn the costs down the road.  That's where the so-called "free market" fails us.



I agree. If they were smart (I know, I know) they would be thinking down the road. Just think off all the $$$ to be made in alternative energy sources. But, they don't want to put those little pea brains of their in action. The status quo has worked for about 100 years-why not continue. Of course there is the matter of GREED!!! If it looks like oil production may be down, let's raise the prices. Does $3.00 a gallon sound familar?



Cat

I agree. If they were smart (I know, I know) they would be thinking down the road. Just think off all the $$$ to be made in alternative energy sources. But, they don't want to put those little pea brains of their in action. The status quo has worked for about 100 years-why not continue. Of course there is the matter of GREED!!! If it looks like oil production may be down, let's raise the prices. Does $3.00 a gallon sound familar?



Cat

Indeed.  A lot of the guys writing doomsday books point out that civilizations collapse from failure to adapt.  Ours might collapse if we cannot adapt to the end of abundant fossil fuels.  We--you and I, all of us--depend on fossil fuels more than we realize.  However, we cannot go on the way we are going for another 100 years.  Probably not even 50. 
It's not like the old days when the soil dried up and folks went hungry, the tribe migrated to more fertile gounds.  There are 300 million members of the American "tribe," and no more fertile grounds.
If we succeed in adapting, whatever our civilization looks like in 2107, it will be vastly different from the one we live in now.

Nukes emit dangerous carcinogenic isotopes constantly.  Of course, fossil fuel plants are not clean, but in case of "meltdown" at your coal plant, the region won't be uninhabitable for 20,000 years. 

Nukes appear clean, but their filthy, dangerous hidden costs are well known. 


A minor correction is in order here: nukes emit radiation, and decay into various isotopes, but they do not emit isotopes.

Besides, it's much more fun firing off our nuclear waste at enemies of the US than burying it! (not to mention be a possible cause of GWS)

A minor correction is in order here: nukes emit radiation, and decay into various isotopes, but they do not emit isotopes.

Besides, it's much more fun firing off our nuclear waste at enemies of the US than burying it! (not to mention be a possible cause of GWS)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Red!
Depleted uranium, my azz!  It makes me sick thinking about how many people are going to be sick for the rest of there lives because of this crap.  If it gets into the chromosomes, it could be multi-generational!

You are inhaling 10,000 times more pollution from coal burning plants than you'd get from nuclear!

Costs are a different story, you'd want to pay to keep people safe ..I wouldn't mind paying extra...compared to all that gets destroyed by the current system...

I choose nukes for now.

My neighbors son adopted a young girl from Chernobyl, remember Chernobyl? Maybe you should check in with that place when you start thinking pollutants.

My neighbors son adopted a young girl from Chernobyl, remember Chernobyl? Maybe you should check in with that place when you start thinking pollutants.



Curious. Does the girl have any health problems?



Cat

Curious. Does the girl have any health problems?



Cat


Intellectually a bit slow, she has a brother still over there who is the same way.  Her skin is very pale and she has a problem with rashes.  She has to be checked a yearly basis for signs of cancer.

Intellectually a bit slow, she has a brother still over there who is the same way.  Her skin is very pale and she has a problem with rashes.  She has to be checked a yearly basis for signs of cancer.



How old was she at the time of the disaster?



Cat

My neighbors son adopted a young girl from Chernobyl, remember Chernobyl? Maybe you should check in with that place when you start thinking pollutants.

The pro-nukers still claim only a few people died at Chernobyl, and there really was no long-lasting ecological damage outside the immediate plant site.  I'm completely unconvinced.  Furthermore, the children who were in utero at the time of the meltdown are now having children of their own.  Major genetic damage can skip a generation.  Women who were pregnant in April, 1986, might have given birth to genetically normal babies, but what of their grandchildren?  Well, I don't expect the post-Soviet Russian government to be any more candid than the Soviet government.

The bible says in Revelation that wormwood shall fall from the sky.
What is the Russian word for wormwood?  Chernobyl!  True.

How old was she at the time of the disaster?

Cat


About a year old.  I don't know what happened to her parents, and she never speaks of them.  She and her brother were in an orphanage. Her brother is still in Russia

The pro-nukers still claim only a few people died at Chernobyl, and there really was no long-lasting ecological damage outside the immediate plant site.  I'm completely unconvinced.  Furthermore, the children who were in utero at the time of the meltdown are now having children of their own.  Major genetic damage can skip a generation.  Women who were pregnant in April, 1986, might have given birth to genetically normal babies, but what of their grandchildren?  Well, I don't expect the post-Soviet Russian government to be any more candid than the Soviet government.

The bible says in Revelation that wormwood shall fall from the sky.
What is the Russian word for wormwood?  Chernobyl!  True.



When it comes to any disasters with NUKE plants have you taken into account they were from HUMAN ERROR??

Check out FRANCE, JAPAN AND INDIA..they are by far surpassing OUR abilities to do well in eco-saving because of all the misinfo out there holding us back from future developements to help.

Their plants have held up quite well over time and can be done just as good in this country.

But thanks to those who try to scare others with TMI and RUSSIA disasters, they need to look at the solution as a whole.

Even right now there is a high percentage of Nuke power providing the lights for Californians, but they can't get it from their state thanks to the scared anti-nuke freaks who won't permit it in the entire state! Yet they scream for a solution and keep coal plants operating!

There is a report on pushback.com that addresses these questions and fears by the Lawrence Livermore Facilities and a great book of reference to nuke power.

(If need, I will get the name next time or the articles posted should answer any doubts).

For now I propose the use of nuclear power..until a better alternative can be found, but please- DICAPRIO/GORE/POLITICIANS...no whining about saving us without looking into this info.!   
 

When it comes to any disasters with NUKE plants have you taken into account they were from HUMAN ERROR??


Ay-yi-yi!  How do you come up with this stuff.  Of f**king course they're from "human error." 
Nuclear power plants don't grow in the wild!
:D

Only a few comments.
First, in his book A Gore DOES suggest actions that individuals can take, like using compact florescent lights instead of incandecents (we are gradually replacing ours), insulating homes etc.  We can, and should, also organize politically to get changes in gov't policy.

Second, I agree with the anti-nuc folks here.  The risks aree too great and the unsolved waste problem too dangerous to go nuc.

Ay-yi-yi!  How do you come up with this stuff.  Of f**king course they're from "human error." 
Nuclear power plants don't grow in the wild!
:D


I was addressing the NUKE NUTS that think the plant will melt into the ground releasing all the danger..

There is more nuke material around DENVER than there is near 3 mile Island due to the altitude..

For those that are worried of the storage...it has been figured to dispose of it in the mountains that would probably take up the size of a few gymnasiums...the spent wasted fuel rod that can supply power to a family of 4 for 20 years would fit into a shoe box!

Multiply that times the number of these shoesboxes needed and that's the size of the area needed to store it...Also as time goes on, the waste can be put back into the ground leaving even less that needs to dissapate longer...we already EAT uranium in our foods!No complaints from me.

Our operating nuclear plants have been around for about 50 years!

Any risk? France is using theirs to supply power to the Europeans that COMPLAIN how bad it is, yet those European hypocrites still TAKE it!

Changing to better lightbulbs is fine, but the 'global warming' Mr. Gore speaks of regards getting rid of CO2 which is in dangerous multiples from coal burning plants AND THE California Energy Commisiion is backing building up ANOTHER ONE IN WYOMING!!!!

What creepy liars! Save the planet and continue building coal plants! Nuclear is our best way to go for now..AND for other worriers...of course, you don't just build the plant, you need to design it properly and test the idea WHICH CALIFORNIA won't be a part of! YET, they rely on the nulear power from  Arizona to supply their homes and businesses with no problems from that!

THAT'S my answer to some of the misguided info and it is what some aren't telling you because THEY  are making money with their departments assembled to continue warning us the warming is bad etc... 

     

We have had a nuclear power plant up here near Saint John, NB Canada for about 30 years now. The Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Plant has  a CANDU reactor, which stands for "CANada Deuterium Uranium". It is a Canadian designed reactor that is far different than the reactors that caused the problems at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. If any irregularities arise within the system, it automatically goes into shutdown mode, and cannot be brought back up online again for at least a week. Although quite a few shutdowns have occurred throughout the years, no incidents of major threats to the public have arisen(at least, that we know of). Not that the facility hasn't been tainted by scandal, though. Back in 1990, an assistant plant operator named Daniel Maston made international headlines when he tainted the watercooler there with a sample of heavy water that was consumed by 8 of his coworkers. I don't quite remember what happened to him, but measures were put into place to make sure that another incident like that would never happen again. You would have an easier time walking into Fort Knox emptyhanded, and walking out with a fist full of hundred dollar bills than you would trying to gain access to the heavy water now at Point Lepreau. I don't know what the purpose of our nuclear plant up here is though. We must be selling the power, because we sure don't utilize it, as we have a different facility powering our lights. We have a coal fired plant up here called Coleson Cove that is our main power source. We also have Canada's largest oil refinery here, two pulp mills, a major brewery, and a host of other pollution sources. Why have a nuclear facility if it's not to replace pollutants in the air, such as the pollution that the Coleson Cove plant produces?? I don't know. This city stinks to high heaven on some given days, that it makes me wonder why any tourists would ever come back for a repeat visit. Maybe it's so blind people can find their way into the city on their own.

I was addressing the NUKE NUTS that think the plant will melt into the ground releasing all the danger..
I don't want my nuts nuked.  It's not the danger, it's the radiation.

There is more nuke material around DENVER than there is near 3 mile Island due to the altitude..
Comforting thought for the day.

http://For those that are worried of the storage...it has been figured to dispose of it in the mountains that would probably take up the size of a few gymnasiums...the spent wasted fuel rod that can supply power to a family of 4 for 20 years would fit into a shoe box!
And stays deadly radioactive 10 times longer than the entire history of human civilization.  No thanx.  I'll take the Italian loafers instead!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame.gif

So you see, the Yucca Mountain planners were toying with idea of a monastic order to keep in perpetuity warning all who pass of the dangers within the hills!  They were also trying to figure out universal danger symbols people 50,000 years from now will understand.  As long as human nature stays the same, that would only encourage us.  What would our archeologists do if they found ancient pictograms saying "Stay of vault.  Very dangerous." 
Ever see "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?  Actually, the end of "Time Bandits" would be a better illustration:
"Mum, Dad, don't touch it...it's evil!"
ZZZZAAAPPP!!!!


Multiply that times the number of these shoesboxes needed and that's the size of the area needed to store it...Also as time goes on, the waste can be put back into the ground leaving even less that needs to dissapate longer...
How long again before we can put radioactive materials back into the ground?  Fond of mutated lifeforms are we?

we already EAT uranium in our foods!No complaints from me.
WTF?  Comforting thought of the day #2.

Our operating nuclear plants have been around for about 50 years!
And a great many of them were due to go offline more than 10 years ago, sometimes 20!  Would you store your gasoline in a rusted out can?

Any risk? France is using theirs to supply power to the Europeans that COMPLAIN how bad it is, yet those European hypocrites still TAKE it!
Did you think all Europeans are bicycle-riding hippies on welfare?
The French love their nukes and their network of plants seems to work pretty well.  However, they still face operational and storage dangers, and godforbid terrorists start targeting France!

It's funny, the last time I remember the American Right singing the praises of France, that country was testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific!  I remember Rush scoffing, "Oh what's gonna happen?  Some dolphin gets an earache?  Environmental whackos!"


What creepy liars!
Judge not lest....

Save the planet and continue building coal plants!
Copyright "Save the Planet, Build Coal Plants!," and make a cool million off bumper stickers!
:P

Nuclear is our best way to go for now..AND for other worriers...of course, you don't just build the plant, you need to design it properly and test the idea WHICH CALIFORNIA won't be a part of! YET, they rely on the nulear power from  Arizona to supply their homes and businesses with no problems from that!

THAT'S my answer to some of the misguided info and it is what some aren't telling you because THEY  are making money with their departments assembled to continue warning us the warming is bad etc... 

     

I think I could deal with a nuke plant generating power to my house, but I'll be damned before I turn the ignition on an atomic car, if you kow what I'm saying...

I don't want my nuts nuked.  It's not the danger, it's the radiation.
Comforting thought for the day.

http://For those that are worried of the storage...it has been figured to dispose of it in the mountains that would probably take up the size of a few gymnasiums...the spent wasted fuel rod that can supply power to a family of 4 for 20 years would fit into a shoe box!
And stays deadly radioactive 10 times longer than the entire history of human civilization.  No thanx.  I'll take the Italian loafers instead!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame.gif

So you see, the Yucca Mountain planners were toying with idea of a monastic order to keep in perpetuity warning all who pass of the dangers within the hills!  They were also trying to figure out universal danger symbols people 50,000 years from now will understand.  As long as human nature stays the same, that would only encourage us.  What would our archeologists do if they found ancient pictograms saying "Stay of vault.  Very dangerous." 
Ever see "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?  Actually, the end of "Time Bandits" would be a better illustration:
"Mum, Dad, don't touch it...it's evil!"
ZZZZAAAPPP!!!!

How long again before we can put radioactive materials back into the ground?  Fond of mutated lifeforms are we?
WTF?  Comforting thought of the day #2.
And a great many of them were due to go offline more than 10 years ago, sometimes 20!  Would you store your gasoline in a rusted out can?
Did you think all Europeans are bicycle-riding hippies on welfare?
The French love their nukes and their network of plants seems to work pretty well.  However, they still face operational and storage dangers, and godforbid terrorists start targeting France!

It's funny, the last time I remember the American Right singing the praises of France, that country was testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific!  I remember Rush scoffing, "Oh what's gonna happen?  Some dolphin gets an earache?  Environmental whackos!"

Judge not lest....
Copyright "Save the Planet, Build Coal Plants!," and make a cool million off bumper stickers!
:P
I think I could deal with a nuke plant generating power to my house, but I'll be damned before I turn the ignition on an atomic car, if you kow what I'm saying...


The point is NUKES is all around but WACKOS are trying every angle to scare you to death...
No, you wouldn't want a rusted can storing the waste...do you know HOW MUCH WASTE is sitting on the ocean floor from things buried YEARS ago that are dangerous...ooops the lid came off and waste is seeping to the surface...NICE IDEA FOR A MOVIE but where's the actuality? Not happening..

Fear of radiation? You get more radiation sleeping next to that significant other than you would from a piece of nuke waste buried far in the mountains...50 years from now most dangers of it would have dissapated and that's why we have 'keepers of the castle' for no one to get to it after we are long gone..

Take France out of the picture..INDIA, CHINA far ahead of us!.....any other questions to ease the fear?

Nice scenarios you paint but each idea has to be tested before they would build something that would fall apart....can't change the food composition, so eat away...

Liars, hypocrites....yes... that's what speaking of eliminating the problem and NOT really going after the major source which is so evident, they distract us from the REAL causes they warn us against.



 

Fear of radiation? You get more radiation sleeping next to that significant other than you would from a piece of nuke waste buried far in the mountains

My Atomic Bride

Wasn't that a '50s b-movie?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/ear.gif

Another eye opener...does anyone know that Mt. St. Helen's erruption sent gasses out into the atmosphere that 10YEARS worth -of what is being created by humans-has done...

Shiver, shiver....