Maine woman, 82, busted
for carrying concealed weapon
into Muskie Federal Building.
I see the Energy Department has just set aside 20 billion dollars for nuclear energy. Not that it will matter to anyone, but I am totally, absolutely, positively, adamantly, irrevocably, passionately, and even violently opposed to nuclear energy and I believe this is a terrible mistake. I point out the obvious, there is no way of safely disposing of nuclear waste, none. Oh, you can dispose of it all right, you can try to bury it, dump it in the ocean, ship it to Nevada or, like the French, to Siberia, or worse yet, to Idaho, but that does not solve the problem. It lasts almost forever, is radioactive, and deadly to all forms of life on our planet. As far as I am concerned anyone who is pro-nuclear is anti-life. Nuclear energy is the most horrible example of a species fouling its own nest. But it is worse than that because it is potentially fouling the nest of every living creature on earth. By what right do humans have to put the lives of other creatures at such risk? Furthermore, nuclear energy is so expensive no private company will even touch it, demanding instead huge government guarantees and subsidies that will eventually just sop up more and more taxpayer money endlessly. As far as I know, no nuclear power plant truly operates at a profit, or operates at all without massive federal funding.
Another really stupid idea being widely touted is burning biomass. Here again is an industry that will prey on taxpayers for survival. Realistically, there is not enough forest to stoke these large biomass burning plants that are being built. This means that most of them will be forced to burn waste products of all kinds (garbage, plastics, etc.) thus pouring tons upon tons of terribly unhealthy dioxins and other undesirable elements directly into the air we depend upon. This problem cannot be solved by converting otherwise productive land into tree forests grown simply to be burned as is being attempted in some parts of the world. Small, local, purely wood burning plants might work, but even these are not eminently desirable. For the most up-to-date scientific and other information relating to this problem see energyjustice.net.
We desperately need to change our life-style, at least here in the U.S. and in other highly industrialized societies, if we have any hope of building a sustainable, efficient, and sensible way of life. We must develop truly clean forms of energy, from the sun, wind, tides, and rivers, and abandon our dependence upon nonrenewable resources. And we must do something about our incredible waste of both energy and resources. Our attempts at energy conservation at the moment are either virtually non-existent or pathetic, and our waste products are obscene (consider the North Pacific Ocean, a cesspool of plastic and other waste so huge it can probably never be restored). Remember, there is no waste in nature. We need somehow to rejoin the rest of the flora and fauna in this fully functioning natural plan of life from which we have so grievously strayed. We humans have, through our careless and thoughtless behavior and excesses, upset the delicate planetary balance and our malfeasance is now about to potentially destroy us (just as we have already destroyed so many of the other creatures that inhabited this small planet). We must change, and quickly, if we are to continue to claim a place at the top of the (mythical) Great Chain of Being.
LKBIQ:
“Huaman’s skepticism was substantial. He knew that men are a joke of the gods, sent to mortify the animals.”
Abel Posse
TILT:
Kuru, an incurable neurological disease found in the New Guinea Highlands, was transmitted by cannibalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Honestly, I'd expect a retired Anthropology professor to be more reflective. On the subject of nuclear waste, consider that no one has ever been harmed by it. With all the toxic substances that have done terrible harm to many people, applying the histrionic adjectives you have to material with a perfect safety record shows an inadequate grasp of the facts. In reality, nuclear saves the world from using coal, its only practical alternative. The real-world consequences of coal truly deserve the language you've used. Coal waste actually lasts forever, is radioactive, and is deadly to all forms of life on our planet. The bigger difference is the magnitude. A 1000 MW coal plant generates 300,000 tons of toxic waste each year, not counting the filth released into the air. A nuclear plant generates 23 tons, about a third of a railroad boxcar. Such a small quantity can be isolated from the environment.
The US's failure to deal with spent fuel is due entirely to politics. The technology to render it harmless was perfected fifty years ago, and the money for doing it is waiting in a bank account, all of it paid by utilities that operate nuclear power plants.
I can't guess where you're getting your information. Current nuclear plants in the US generate the cheapest electricity after hydro. They are wonderfully profitable to the companies that operate them.
I think your opposition to government subsidies is reasonable. It would make sense for no subsidies to be granted. If the subsidies were stopped, nuclear would be the only non-fossil electricity source being built.
I agree entirely with you that waste and neglect are the main threat to the planet's habitability. As we have learned, though, failure to expand nuclear energy only results in more use of fossil fuels. I think that political environmentalists have made two errors. First, they failed to argue the case for simpler living. I think it's because they depend on the support of affluent people who want self-righteousness AND vacation homes. Second, they uncritically accepted misinformation from anti-nuclear political groups who had a vision of the future that has no connection to reality.
I invite you to look at information sources different from those you're used to. I've assembled the most authoritative information I could find on a humble web page at http://gwperplexed.niof.org/thecase.htm. If you see any omissions I'd be ever so grateful to know of them.
With all do respect professor Morial Ekafa but as a former professor myself, I would like everyone to stick with the facts first, before making any statement on anything they pretend that they are experts. I think we need to look at those nuclear utilities like PG&E(Pacific Gas & Electric in your area who operates Diablo Canyon NPP), Excelon, and Entergy etc., to see how lucrative to operate a nuclear power plant is before we make a statement like "nuclear energy is so expensive no private company will even touch it,...". Also we do not need swearing for the facts or use multiple synonyms for every word that we put in writing. The facts are so simple and pure that we just need to be equally clearer and humble while we provide them to our audience. As Leonardo da Vinci said" simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." As for Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Power Plants, which I spent a life-time myself cannot even say half of what you already said,in the opposite direction of course, but I just want to provide you a link that gives more than anyone else can say about the subject. Dr.Patrick Moore who is a co-founder of Greenpeace organization that can hopefully clarify the facts for all of us. And I must ad, the most eloquently as possible. With my best regards, Dr. M. Karasulu.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
Post a Comment