Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Nuclear plan workers on the job
------------zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

re: Dwindle (#7339):

Quote
“In my more than three decades in the government I’ve never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.” James Hansen, NASA

-----------------------------------------------

I never said the world was coming to an end in five years--I merely stated that the oceans were in trouble.  You could ask the cod fishermen in the northeast or the salmon fishermen in the northwest or the caretakers of coral beds off Belize or the Phillipines.  Some people think there’s a 10-year span in which we have to correct/change the direction things are
heading; I put it at 5 years, and I don’t give it much likelyhood of happening because it would take all the governments around the world getting together and working toward the common good tomorrow--in other words, changing world history on a dime.

But, you don’t have to take my word for it--like I said, check out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4633681.stm or
http://www.pbs.org/search/redir/http://www.pbs.org/wgb h/nova/worldbalance/eart-nf.html

as a place to start and leapfrog from there.  And for partial info on why I will never support nuclear anything:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/print.cfm?ID=2600

As for water, as the glaciers continue to melt and the rivers they feed dry up, water’s premium goes up. and as the climate continues to change erratically, so does availability of water. Again, don’t take my word for it, start here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3747724.stm
http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990923.html
http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/ptr/water-supp ly-prt.htm

and if you think a ‘war’ over water would be too ‘silly’ or ‘stupid,’ I would point out look how easily some people in the US were conned into going to Iraq. How ‘silly’ that looked in 2002. How stupid and unfortunate it looks now.

And as for us “hippies” with ‘our’ “obsession with exagerating claims and spreading nonsense propaganda,” I guess if

TIME Magazine (April 3, 2006, Special Report, “Be worried. Be very worried.")
NOVA (latest show, ‘Dimming the Sun,’ check listings)
60 Minutes (cbs, Global Warning!, 19 Feb 2006)*
BBC News (see link 3747724 above)
UK’s Royal Society (see link 4633681 above)

and that ‘hippest’ of ‘hippies,’

Queen Elizabeth II (Vanity Fair, No.549, May 2006, pp203-204)**

join me in my concerns, then it’s a group I’m proud to be part of.

*see:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/ma in1323169.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/ma in1415985.shtml

**see:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,13 40279,00.html

----------------------------------------------

1898--Swedish scientist Svante Ahrrenius warns that CO-2 from coal and oil burning could warm the planet.(cbsnews)
1988--NASA scientist James Hansen tells the U.S. Congress global warming “is already happening now."(cbsnews)

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/environment/global_warmi ng/warming2.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/environment/global_warmi ng/warming3.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/environment/global_warmi ng/warming4.html

Hogwash.  Those “environmentalists” who claim that nothing but nuclear power can meet our needs are just peddling a convenient concept.

Renewables (solar, wind, biomass) can meet our energy needs, under assumptions no more outlandish than those made by nuclear energy proponents. Yes, the technologies need to improve—and there is much room for improving these young technologies.  Nuclear power, by comparison, has been fully funded and developed for more than 50 years—and the technology improves at a snail’s pace. 

It makes far more sense to bet on technologies that have plenty of room for innovation instead of old, tired, ultra-polluting nuclear power.

If nuclear is so great, how come the best Silicon Valley venture capitalists are investing billions in new developments in renewable technologies?

Mr. Green has learned that life is often about compromise and figures that using nuclear energy beats using nuclear bombs to get the oil to make our energy.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Patrick Moore...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$PatrickPatrick Moore...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Patrick Moore...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Patrick Moore...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$

Who cares about nuclear?

With oil “dwindle-ing,” and population over 8 billion in a couple of decades, it will be a fun warm place, this earth, especially if you are like me, the top 1 percent of the population.

I shall have a dozen magnetized humans, who will run in circles, churning the turbine to generate my electriciy.

Still, you all refuse to see that nuclear power is our only viable system for eliminating global warming. It is also the only sensible way to eliminate the need for foreign oil. Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest form of energy on earth. All we need to do is learn how to store and dispose of it properly. Nuclear waste is not nearly as dangerous a contaminate as fuel emissions and spilled oil wold wide.

Kyoto, asside from being impossible, would do nearly nothing to prevent global warming. Tiny, fuel efficient hybrid cars, “green” energy, none of these things have the power to prevent global warming from occuring. Nuclear power can provide electricity for all uses, as well as produce hydrogen for cars - using existing engine technology, or using modern hydrogen cell vehicles.

Europe has been using nuclear power for decades, nothing bad has come from it. France, for example receives almost 80% of their power from nuclear sources.

Re: c woof - it doesn’t matter how much heat we produce, only what we insulate inside the atmosphere. With no global warming at all, we would freeze to death in hours in direct sunlight. It’s the insulating effect that makes global warming a danger.

Also, the world isn’t coming to an end in five years, not is there going to be a war for water. You hippies need to learn that it’s your obsession with exagerating claims and spreading nonsense propaganda that prevents people from listening to you.

Firstly, I would like to say that I do not support the use of nuclear materials for anything at any time whatsoever. 10,000 years is a long time. Any time we deal with atomics in any form, we have to deal with matter whose danger lasts hundreds of centuries. We don’t know how to do that. 10,000 years ago we had no civilization.

Secondly, I would like to share with you something I sent earlier to Senator Barbara Boxer, probably something you already know, but this is to cover the bases:

1- Global climate change is already out of control and the planet will continue to warm for the next 100-150 years, so even if you didn’t sign up, fasten your seat belt, because you’re on the ride, whether you like it or not
2- the seas are on the brink of disaster directly linked to global warming as there are many species that depend on the oceans being a certain temperature and as goes the bottom of the food chain so goes the top of the food chain and tho it may already be yet another roller coaster we didn’t sign up for (like our parents, it happened years ago), get used to eating a lot more local vegies
2a-we have a time frame of about 5 years on the life of the oceans, after that it’s extremely iffy as to whether we can recover them in our lifetime.
3- the next war will probably be over water not oil. It is possible that the world could come together (in spite of the US) to deal with the problem, but what humans eat is going to change dramatically [so visit your zoo while you can]
4-Humankind uses power. All uses of power create heat, whether with CO2 or not. How much can we let go of?
5- just make sure wherever you go, it’s well above sea level, whatever that is…

(Someone on the BBC today mentioned a thought of the Glaciers feeding the Ganges River disappearing, leading to a vision of that river drying up...)

Hope this helps

Sincerely,

c woof
Medesto

ps: see also :  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4633681.stm

etc

May Humankind remember they’ve never left the Garden

Patrick Moore:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/badpr.html

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_050801 _2.html

http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=89

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/index.html

http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/bio.html

FYI:  Stewart Brand, the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog mentioned in the article above, has also endorsed a novel of nuclear power by a longtime industry insider (me).  This is a good lay person’s guide to the good and the bad of this power source.  (There’s plenty of both).  The book is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com - and they seem to like it, judging from their homepage comments.

Patrick Moore is no Green. He has been an anti-environmental spokesman for the forest products industry in Canada for years.

So, now he’s flacking for the commercial nuclear power industry. That should please Bush and Cheney to have such an “environmentalist” as Moore on board for a new round of green washing for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

Don’t buy the lies about safe nuclear power.

This is old news. Patrick Moore split with Greenpeace in 1986 - 20 years ago.

His support for nuclear power (and biotechnology) is well known. And he’s not alone: there are other former environmentalists who’ve been bought off by big business. It’s sad, but Moore’s defection does nothing to detract from the core message of sustainability that Greenpeace and many other NGOs continue to push for.