Marijuana.com

Hiz Highness

They're responsible insofar as they're the ones in power right now. All administrations have ties to corporate interests. The current one is no different.

. . . I was having fun watching the Bush worshippers cry about Clinton (again) though. You didn't have to ruin my fun.


-HH

 

Stephanie S.

FROM: Dr. Helen Caldicott
Founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility

Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is “clean” and, therefore, the answer to global warming.

We heard this during the last round of talks in Bonn, and we can expect to hear more of the same as we move closer to the next round of Kyoto talks that are coming up in Marrakesh in October and November.

However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.

While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.

Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world’s uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades.

But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That’s the scale we’re talking about.

And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor.

From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived.

Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults.

Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.

Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities.

Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation.

Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.

So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is unforgivable.

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

Hiz Highness

From MIT
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

high relative costs: Corporations have cheaper ways of making a larger profit. They aren't going to spend money on nuclear power plants when the tax payers will spend money to help them secure fossil fuels.

perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects: To be fair, past nuclear disasters have shown that these "effects" aren't only "perceived".

potential security risks stemming from proliferation: Laws preventing proliferation put in place by whom? THE MAN! . . . I mean, the government.

unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes: Don't have anywhere we can cheaply dump all the radioactive by-product.

As I said: the administration, the ever increasing defense budget, and corporate power brokers.

If the tax payers are wiling to give the military endless amounts of money to conquer areas with natural resources, the corporations can capitalize on those resources and sell them to the American people, and the administration can fill their campaign coffers with corporate donations and whip the people into a patriotic frenzy over the war . . . why would we waste money on developing nuclear energy?

The system is working out so well for those in power. Why change it?

-HH

Stephanie S.

Let's build some fences on our borders to keep those dang Mexicans out.
Let's build a nulcear power plant and spend a lot of money to protect it.
Let's haul 70,000 Metric Tons of Nuclear waste to a dump site in Yucca Mountain, NV. So what that the property values of peoples homes in the area would plummet. So what if, by some chance an earthquakes occurs there that the results could be complete contamination of the water supply to the surrounding areas.


What a lovely country we'll have, our borders protected, nuclear energy, it'll be great! So what that the ecosystem would be in a shambles, by gosh we'll have "clean energy" and fences.

The Ycca Mountain project is fatally flawed in so many ways. Decades of research, dozens of scientists and thousands of people disagree with the president and the DOE.

Some light reading on the subject

It may help to remember, liberals, environmentalists, people with reverence for life, all life aren't just lpoking for ways to oppose Bush or to just oppose things in general. Opposition to a force as destructive as nuclear power is a humanitairan, a life, a planetary endeavor to make the world better, not further pollute and destroy the gift we've been given, earth.

I enjoy wildlife, hiking, boogeyboarding on the Pacific Coast, trips into the desert for a day or two of meandering and enjoying nature.
I value and treasure the wonders of nature and believe that every life is just as valuable as mine. If you believe for some reason that say, a Blue Jay's life is less valuable than yours, well, fine, that's your choice. Alot of people shoot animals for fun and carry the same thinking. But a lot of people don't agree with that thinking. To disregard the negative environmental impacts that are quite possible with nuclear energy, well, it's just unfair to life, I think.

peace

Hiz Highness

Dude . . . that blue jay talk is why people constantly paint California liberals as nuttier than a Payday bar. You're killin' me here with that blue jay stuff.

-HH

 

Stephanie S.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that too hokey for ya? It's wierd huh, how people think with reverence like that. See, I think its wierd when people don't. How many times have I been referred to in a negative way because of my location?
Hrm, I guess I won't go that route and say some things that come to mind about people's attitudes in other parts of the country. I'm working on my tact, it's a California touchy feely trait I guess.

You're killing me here, with your labeling and intolerance.

peace

Hiz Highness

That's reverence? Seeing no difference between the value of a human baby and a blue jay?

Are you in California? Are you a liberal? Who's labelling, I'm stating fact.

As for intolerence . . . quantify your claim. I see lots of accusations of intolerence from people here in these forums, but it's almost always used while they are attacking someone else. Show me my intolerence, or be adult enough to apologize for your false attack on my character.

I don't honestly believe you'd have to flip a coin if you were in a position to save either a human child or a blue jay. Am I wrong?

-HH

Stephanie S.

Did I suggest somewhere that a birds life is more valuable than a human baby?
No, you insinuated and assumed, incorrectly.

That's not labeling and intolerant? Okie dokie.
Did I attack you somehow? If so, please quantify that claim. I've been trying not to, well, with most people anyways.

peace

Hiz Highness

Did I? I could have sworn you said:

"I value and treasure the wonders of nature and believe that every life is just as valuable as mine. If you believe for some reason that say, a Blue Jay's life is less valuable than yours, well, fine, that's your choice."

Let's apply some logic to your statement:

1) SS believes all life is as valuable as hers. Let's label SS's life as A.
2) A blue jay has a life. Let's label a blue jay's life as B
3) A human baby has a life. Let's label the baby's life as C

If B = A
and
C = A
does
B = C

The laws of mathematics (and logic) say YES.

I didn't insinuate and assume anything. I just know how to read and apply logic to people's bizzarre statements.


The half-sentence you quoted? No. Even the half-sentence of mine you quoted didn't display intolerence.

Yeah, you accused me of intolerence. Send me some of whatever you're smoking. I'm going to need it after this thread.

-HH

Stephanie S.

I said, " I value and treasure the wonders of nature and believe that every life is just as valuable as mine. If you believe for some reason that say, a Blue Jay's life is less valuable than yours, well, fine, that's your choice. Alot of people shoot animals for fun and carry the same thinking. But a lot of people don't agree with that thinking. To disregard the negative environmental impacts that are quite possible with nuclear energy, well, it's just unfair to life, I think."

I believe that every life is as valuable as mine.
Your mathematical "logical analysis" lead you to misinterpret what I said and make a rude statement about what "People think of Californians".

I believe that every life is as valuable as mine. Would I save a human baby before a blue jay? duhhhhhh. Your implication is misplaced and wrong.
I think that you are displaying intolerance. I am so very sorry if that hurts your feelings or if you deem that to be an attack. It just seems logical that when you say, "People think that Californian's are as nutty as a Payday Bar," that the speaker is slightly intolerant and applies labels.

The fact that you label my statements bizarre displays intolerance. I don't think that your intolerance is bizarre, its pretty common, that's why I left the south.

peace