Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS arrested
23 06 2009
Daryl Hannah, scientist arrested at W.Va. mine protest
James Hansen and unidentified woman under arrest by WV state trooper. Photo credit: Antrim Caskey,
Rainforest Action Network Field Photography
SUNDIAL, W.Va. (AP) - More than two dozen people - including actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate
scientist James Hansen - were arrested Tuesday in the latest protest in a growing civil
disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia.
State Police said about 30 people were charged Tuesday afternoon after they blocked State Route 3
near a Massey Energy subsidiary's coal processing plant in Raleigh County.
Full AP story here
In a statement distributed by the Rainforest Action Network, whose executive director was also
arrested, Dr. Hansen said:
I am not a politician; I am a scientist and a citizen. Politicians may have to advocate for
halfway measures if they choose. But it is our responsibility to make sure our representatives feel
the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is politically expedient.
Mountaintop removal, providing only a small fraction of our energy, should be abolished.
No Jimbo, you are an activist and advocate for a cause.
Note to NASA: Now can you fire this guy?
Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets.
YAY
>Eric Gisin wrote:
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q41g9l4BzTgD990JR6O0
>>
>> Dr. James Hansen of NASA GISS arrested
>> 23 06 2009
>> Daryl Hannah, scientist arrested at W.Va. mine protest
>>
>> James Hansen and unidentified woman under arrest by WV state trooper.
>> Photo credit: Antrim Caskey, Rainforest Action Network Field
headline reads..
"Daryl Hannah, scientist arrested at W.Va. protest"
He's keeping good company...
"NAOMA, W.Va. (AP) � Actress Daryl Hannah, NASA scientist James Hansen
and more than two dozen other mountaintop removal mining opponents
have been arrested during a protest in southern West Virginia."
"After the rally, the crowd marched quietly to the plant and attempted
to enter the property. They were blocked by several hundred coal
miners chanting "Massey."
"Hannah, Hansen, former Rep. Ken Hechler and 27 others then sat on the
road and were arrested on misdemeanor charges of obstruction and
impeding traffic."
Hansen is such a douche bag!
The only message that this people are giving here is just
"Hansen is an idiot because he fights against pollution".
I can understand that for coal companies and their paid
supporters, Hansen is a terrible opponent, they would love
> Note to NASA: Now can you fire this guy?
Yes, that would be a real progress for them.
This reminds me of many long fights, for instance the fight
against smoking, and the industry cronies with
"You have to die of something anyway"
"The relationship between smoking and cancer is not scientifically proved"
and all that stuff.
Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they
establish that
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1906507,00.html
<quote>
A team led by Michael McElroy at Harvard University assessed the global
capacity for wind power � the total amount of sheer energy that's being
carried on the breeze � and found that current technology could harness
enough power to supply more than 40 times the planet's present-day
levels of electricity consumption. For the U.S., there's enough wind
concentrated in the Midwest prairie states to supply as much as 16 times
the current American demand for electricity.
<end quote>
Facts are facts, and they do not go away. Even if facts can
be hidden for a certain time with the use of expensive misinformation
campaigns, at the end, the truth is plain for all to see.
Oh..... Daryl Hannah beleives in global warming. Then it must be true.
•• Just a bit more socialist/fascist doggie dung
Is it appropriate to tell Hansen to eat shit??
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
Enviros always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient.
Wind power is 2-3X as expensive as nuclear, lifetime of turbines is unknown.
It would require a huge grid infrastucture into remote areas.
Many other issues with the paper at: Prof: Global windfarm could power entire human race
http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/24/mcelroy_globo_windfarm_paper/
Hansen has been rewarded handsomely for his agw alarmism. You'd think
he would have stuck to what worked for him. Now he's no more than a
run of the mill environ-nutbar activist. NASA must be proud.
Coal is what’s killing us and our frail environment faster than
anything else. Not to worry, because the rich and powerful that we so
worship and otherwise admire do not live downwind from anything
related to coal, and they also do not drink, or hardly if ever bathe
or cook with unfiltered ground/aquifer water that’s otherwise fossil
energy and heavy industrially polluted, so thank God they’ll be
perfectly fine and dandy.
So, perhaps don’t bother ourselves to listen to those knowing the best
available truths about how downright nasty coal really is, and for
goodness sakes don’t allow your kids to become educated or otherwise
any the wiser as to how mainstream systematically snookered and
dumbfounded we’re all becoming. If your kids should ever mention the
dirty words “thorium” or forbid “h2o2”, you must smack the living shit
out of them, else they turn into another James Hansen.
I wonder what professor Steven Chu (our official energy secretary) has
to say about all of this silly fuss over coal?
If we wanted to get a mainstream status quo ear and bountiful mindset
full of coal usage, via technical hype and maximum infomercial BS (be
damn the environment or whatever the collateral consequences), as such
we should all listen-up to and follow the wisdom of William Mook that
actually has a few cleaner alternatives for the continued extraction
and consumption of coal made extensively into synfuel, as well as
increased oil and natural gas extractions that are spiked and/or
saturated with his green hydrogen. Who knows, we might even get a
commercially viable replacement for the bulk of those fossil fuels via
green h2 and perhaps even h2o2 that’ll make burning those Mook
synfuels really nifty.
Of course, this need for a cheaper surplus of clean and much safer
energy should have been entirely resolved and established as of more
than a decade ago, because no new physics or spooky kinds of weird
science or insurmountable infrastructure is necessary beyond what was
fully accepted as doable as of more than a decade ago, including those
40 kw/m2 footprints of combined wind and solar towers that a
sufficient number of existing remote locations could have been
established (essentially harmless to the local environment) if it were
not for all of those pesky coal, oil and natural gas loving
environmentalist that always claim as not being any part of the carbon
footprint or any other energy related problem.
It must be all of those crazy energy hording and mass consumption
Muslims at fault, with all of their lavish temples/mosques for
worship, vast shopping and entertainment malls, sporting and concert
events, plus their personal mansions, fleets of RV spendy stuff, plus
Hummers, yachts and fancy personal jets running amuck. No wonder
there’s such an energy sink and so many other resource shortages.
What do you think?
~ BG
Sure, because there is no fuel to buy, obviously.
Lies and more lies.
> lifetime of turbines is unknown.
Unknown to you. Turbines are a well established technology. Mind you.
> It would require a huge grid infrastucture into remote areas.
>
Yes, and that is not as expensive as keeping plutonium well stored
for the next 25 000 years?
Lies, lies and more lies.
Why don't you get yourself arrested. Moron.
> Enviros always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient.
Gee for a second there I thought you were going to say "truths" instead of "fact".
:-)
Dave
Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with
you you right wing fascist pig
Fukkin identity theft going on here. Screw you and mom
A fire in a turbine. Nobody was hurt, no damage to anything but the
turbine.
Compare that to Tschenobyl, in Ukrania...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo
Another turbine fire. No one is hurt, the damages are
limited to the burnt unit, like above
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o
A turbine suffers from a brake failure and breaks down.
No one is hurt, the damages are only in the failed unit.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ragRSNKE7Sc
A turbine wing breaks, and a piece of metal falls to the ground.
Nobody is hurt. Damages limited to the failed unit.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ
Another turbine fire. No one is hurt, damage only to the failed
unit.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyOiDQGn-6k
Well, in this report an UFO (!!!) crashes into a wind farm. A unit is
damaged. Damages to the UFO are not reported. No human is hurt.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAx_W_pDluM
> ... and many more.
>
> Be happy that you don't live next to such an "well established technology".
Summary:
In all those accidents NO ONE WAS HURT.
In all those accidents damages were limited to the failed unit.
In all those accidents, the dangerous zone is just a few meters from
the turbine.
Compare that technology with:
Nuclear power. In the Tchernobyl accident a large piece of the planet
is contaminated for the next 10-20 thousand yeras!
Other accidents in nuclear turbines are much more dangerous.
Note that nuclear power, conventional (coal/oil) power centers use
turbines too!
Conclusion:
(1) A brake failure or overheating are common problems with wind
turbines. You risk something if you live within 10 meters of one,
and the blades break. Fires or other problems are harmless.
Thanks for proving my point.
Hansen makes NASA look like a bunch of rabid hamsters with his demands to
prosecute "global warming deniers" for "crimes against humanity". That's
not even junk science, that just loonie.
> Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with
> you you right wing fascist pig
There is no right to protest on private property or to obstruct the owner
of the private property's access, however.
They were not protesting, they were blocking lawful business that we depend on.
These assholes should be disconnecting their electric before they "protest" it.
"richp" <travelin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a508344-8508-4c99...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:39 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-
Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with
Another coal, pollution and genetic mutation lover?
~ BG
You've got it nailed.
~ BG
And that's exactly how Hitler would have put it.
~ BG
•• You are dead wrong ~ ~ as usual.
•• Fascist pigs are all lefties just like you.
•• He is a government official, and as such, all
his public speech is of nature "official".
> Fukkin identity theft going on here. Screw you and mom
•• Indeed Rich has lost whatever identity he had.
•• Gisin ~~ It is time you got your stories and
identities correctly. The "loony left" and the
democratic party have always been fascist
at least since the election of Thomas Woodrow
Wilson in 1912 (7 years before Mussolini
coined the name from the symbol of Roman
power the "fasces".
We have had 5 fascist presidents, also called
"BIG Government" and "Tax and Spend"
which you are seeing a lot of today
Wilson, FDRoosevelt, Kennedy, Carter, and
Clinton. Learn about them in Jonah Goldberg's
meticulously researched and annotated
(400 notes) bestseller:
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the
American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics
of Meaning
> They were not protesting, they were blocking lawful business that we depend on.
> These assholes should be disconnecting their electric before they "protest" it.
>
> "richp" <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7a508344-8508-4c99...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 24, 6:39 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-
>
> Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest.
•• Not true~~ As a government official his 'speech' is official
The hell with
> you you right wing fascist pig
•• Rich as usual is confused.
All you lefties are the fascist pigs.
- -
Our cowardly little forger shows that his idiocy extends to his judgment.
lol
As always, lenny post = lies.
You are wasting your time replying to petey at any real length. He knows
virtually nothing about the issue or science in general and is here to
harrass and lie because he works for (and posts from) a freight company.
As always, lenny post = lies.
A pathetic lie.
He's hardly
> the first. Read up on the actual facts surrounding 'Nuclear Winter'.
>
>>
>> I can understand that for coal companies and their paid
>> supporters, Hansen is a terrible opponent, they would love
>>
>
> So when do you (and Hansen) start boycotting everything that uses
> coal-fired electricity to produce?
Denialist logic at its finest! lol
>
> [Good luck in that cave.]
>
>>> Note to NASA: Now can you fire this guy?
>>
>> Yes, that would be a real progress for them.
>>
>> This reminds me of many long fights, for instance the fight
>> against smoking, and the industry cronies with
>>
> :"You have to die of something anyway"
> :"The relationship between smoking and cancer is not scientifically
> proved"
Yep, sounds like GW denialists (and washed up tobacco denialists) Malloy
and Singer. lol
>>
>> and all that stuff.
>>
>
> So when do you (and Hansen) start boycotting everything that uses
> coal-fired electricity to produce?
More of that kindergarten denialist logic! lol
>
> [Good luck in that cave.]
>
>>
>> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they
>> establish that
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1906507,00.html
>>
> :<quote>
>> A team led by Michael McElroy at Harvard University assessed the
>> global capacity for wind power - the total amount of sheer energy
>> that's being carried on the breeze - and found that current
>> technology could harness enough power to supply more than 40 times
>> the planet's present-day levels of electricity consumption. For the
>> U.S., there's enough wind concentrated in the Midwest prairie states
>> to supply as much as 16 times the current American demand for
>> electricity.
> :<end quote>
>>
>> Facts are facts, and they do not go away. Even if facts can
>> be hidden for a certain time with the use of expensive misinformation
>> campaigns, at the end, the truth is plain for all to see.
>>
>
> Yeah, and what does sucking all that energy out of weather patterns do
> to them?
It is a concept paper, no one is suggesting it will be done. And the
answer is, almost nothing.
Got to love that denialist logic! lol
translation: droool
Let us know when he is sentenced and jailed. =)
You mean you don't know?
Lenny post = lies, 100% of the time. lol
Never happened. Please don't lie to us.
funny how you dont mention nuclear waste disposal, how come?
It's the kind of science why the people with actual engineering
brains
work on Autonomous Vehicles, Cruise Missiles, Drones, Cyber Space,
GPS, Holograms,
Electronic Books, and Atomic Clock Wristwaches, rather than with
NASA cranks anyway.
Yes, totally facetious....
//
tbh
•• Facetious humour but not "retard" as in kT.
> Yes, totally facetious....
- -
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
In his "testimony" before congress, he said "In my opinion, these CEOs
should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
The CEOs in question were the ones in the energy industry who were
questioning anthropogenic global warming.
No real scientist has an issue with another scientist questioning his
ideas. Hansen does, and wants anyone who questions him he wants to
imprison and silence.
> Please don't lie to us.
Clearly, you are either ignorant, or lying yourself.
The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with the
fearful masses who had their irrational and baseless fears whipped up by
the death cultist in the "green" movement.
Make a glass out of it and bury it deep. No problem.
> As always, lenny post = lies.
I can't hope but notice, that all you ever posts are argumentum ad
hominem fallacies that slander people without basis.
A very weak argument.
There are also other ways to deal with waste. Fast neutron breeder
reactors, using fusion neutrons, can act as actinide burners. More here:
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/tofeprogram/pdf/etchengATcts.com1083258609.pdf
A Google search for "actinide burning" will return many more additional
sources to the same.
//
tbh
great but how about some facts in place of your rhetoric (so if you
can back up your stuff) please correlate your above post to the link
below, and in composing your reply maybe you should try dropping the
lame attempts at insults, as they only make you look more idiotic...
http://www.hanford.gov/homepage/newsarticles/doe/KEastExcavation.pdf
"Basin removal high priority for protecting Columbia River from
contamination RICHLAND, WASH. – FEB. 3, 2009
CH2M HILL PLATEAU REMEDIATION COMPANY BEGINS REMOVING NUCLEAR
REACTOR BASIN AT HANFORD
Basin removal high priority for protecting Columbia River from
contamination
RICHLAND, WASH. – FEB. 3, 2009 – CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company
(CH2M
HILL), working with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), has begun
excavating a
contaminated storage basin for nuclear reactor fuel at the Hanford
Site in southeast
Washington State.
Workers are demolishing the K East Basin, located approximately 400
yards from the
Columbia River, in Hanford’s 100 K Area. Removing the basin will give
workers access
to contaminated soil under the basin later this year.
“Removing the basin is a top priority in our cleanup work along the
Columbia River,” said Dave Brockman, Manager of the Department of
Energy’s Richland Operation Office. “We want to get to the
contaminated soil under the basin as soon as possible and keep the
contamination from moving toward the river.”
The 100 K Area contains two retired plutonium production reactors, K
East and K West,
which operated from the 1950s to the 1970s. Each reactor also has a
125-foot-long, 20-
foot-deep basin attached to it for storing uranium fuel rods. The
basins and 80 support
facilities around the reactors are scheduled for demolition as part of
cleanup of the 100 K
Area. The DOE is working toward finishing cleanup of hundreds of
buildings and waste
sites in a 210-square-mile corridor along the river by 2015.
“CH2M HILL is on schedule with the safe removal of the basin,” said
John Lehew,
CHPRC President and Chief Executive Officer. “We’re committed to
achieving the
Department of Energy’s vision to reduce the footprint of the Hanford
Site, and we’re
committed to doing it safely.”
Workers demolished the K East Basin superstructure – the concrete
walls and roof above
the basin – in 2008 and began excavating the basin itself in mid-
January. CH2M HILL
expects to finish the excavation work in July 2009.
The million-gallon, concrete basin once held more than 1,100 tons of
uranium metal fuel
rods, known as spent nuclear fuel, as well as radioactive sludge, a
byproduct of fuel
corrosion from years of storage. Water in the basin provided shielding
from the highly
radioactive materials while they were in storage. Leaks of
contaminated water from the
basin were recorded in the 1970s and the 1990s.
Workers finished removing the spent fuel from the basin in 2004 and
radioactive sludge in
2007. They drained the basin in 2008 and filled it with sand mixed
with grout to aid in
demolition. The sand not only provides shielding from radioactivity in
the basin’s concrete
Contact: Dee Millikin
Phone: 509.376.1297
E-Mail: Dee_Mi...@rl.gov
walls but also serves as a platform for the excavation machinery. The
substructure that
remains below grade consists of contaminated concrete walls and
floors.
"This K East Basin has had over 30 years of service in Hanford's
plutonium production
mission, followed by nearly 20 years of waste storage,” said Larry
Gadbois, EPA
Environmental Scientist. “The basin's useful life is over. Now its
final chapter is one of
contaminated debris and dirt we need to remove to safe disposal and
restore this part of
Hanford to safe future uses."
After the basin is removed, CH2M HILL will begin cleaning up
contaminated soil under
the basin, demolishing surrounding facilities, and placing the K East
Reactor in interim
safe storage.
Headquartered near Denver, Colo., employee-owned CH2M HILL is a global
leader in
engineering, procurement, construction, management and operations for
government, civil,
industrial and energy clients. With $5.8 billion in revenue and more
than 25,000 employees,
CH2M HILL is an industry-leading program management, construction
management and design
firm, as ranked by Engineering News-Record (2008). The firm’s work is
concentrated in the
areas of energy, water, transportation, environmental, nuclear and
industrial facilities. The firm
has long been recognized as a most-admired company and leading
employer, including being
named by FORTUNE as one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For and one
of America’s Most
Admired Companies (2008). Visit www.ch2mhill.com.
###
my reply to eric was that he was neglecting the cost of waste disposal
when he claimed wind power was 2-3x more expensive than nuclear. Now
what you are stating is that there are ways to deal with waste, and
that is to design and construct a new type of nuclear power plant, so
in essence you reply is that we can deal with the current plus future
nuclear waste based on a technology that has not been developed yet.
Such new technology costs need to be factored in when comparing
current wind power vs nuclear power, don’t you think?
The whole thing is a red herring. No sane, intelligent person who has
looked at the science thinks that global warming is man made. Other
planets are warming, the correlation between warming and solar cycle is
stronger than it is with CO2, the physics is wrong for adding CO2 and so
on.
The frauds leading this AGW scam don't even believe their own pap, of
course. IF they really did believe that CO2 caused the warming, and that
the warming was going to lead to gigadeath, then their proposed
"solution" wouldn't increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All their solution does is move trillions of dollars out of the US and
into China and the third world. It's a damned lie and it's all about
money.
Hansen has one thing right, what's happening is a crime against humanity;
what's he isn't saying is the crime is on the side of the greenies.
After their exposed, there will be a greenie hanging from every lamp post
in America.
laughing, you are a joke...
> On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:"
> The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with
> the fearful masses who had their irrational and baseless fears whipped
> up by the death cultist in the "green" movement. Make a glass out of it
> and bury it deep. No problem."
>
> great but how about some facts in place of your rhetoric
The problem with leftist dumbshits is that they ignore that we've been
storing nuclear waste for half a century, that methods of storage have
been developed, and they would rather see most of humanity DIE than be
put at a trivial risk of a nuclear waste leak.
Again, it's their America hating agenda that is important to them. They
want to fuck America over good. They don't give a damn about people,
they're just excess dross.
Damned leftist nazis.
so i cite a source showing the cleanup needed to protect the Columbia
River, and you use the phrase "trivial risk", so you are ok with
marginalizing the risk to a major river in the United States.
Actually if you are willing to marginalize damage to our precious
rivers, you should ask yourself why do you hate America so much.
http://www.ccrh.org/river/history.htm
Center for Columbia River History
Columbia River
http://www.hanford.gov/homepage/newsarticles/doe/KEastExcavation.pdf
> current wind power vs nuclear power, don’t you think?-
You omit the cost of keeping the coal or gas fired plants on standby
for when the wind does not blow. In Europe where they are developing
wind power, they also are building coal fired plants in order to
maintain capacity for times of maximum demand when there is no wind.
The same is true of wind farms on the US plains. It is high pressure
centers in the summer months which often cause a loss of wind, exactly
when the demand for electricity is at it's greatest due to the need
for air conditioning. In the winter, there is always the one day
between frontal systems when the high pressure dominates and there is
NO WIND.
Fuel fired plants for maximum capacity must be maintained on standby
which is very expensive. Or you could just tell people that they will
have to wait for the wind to blow if they want electricity, in
conforming to algore's paranoia of global warming.
You also omit the cost of maintenance which brings operational
capacity above 20%. It is cheaper to build extra windmills than to
hire enough crews to keep them all running.
Wind power is good and can save fuel in particular areas. But it
cannot replace fuel fired plants. And this electricity cannot be
transfered over the distances required or run the populated cities of
the east.
Algore is provably insane with his call for a Stalin 10 yr plan to
nowhere. Why doesn't he put a windmill at his house to air condition
his mansion and other houses? Why doesn't he shove a windmill up his
delusional ass?
His plans for other people in no way includes the continued use of air
conditioning or affordable power.
For all his personal time in his air conditioned environment which
inspires his delusionsmm let's just hope he gets a real understanding
of global warming when his profiteering ass is burning in hell.
KD
> On Jun 27, 12:40 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:08:23 -0700, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> wrote:
>> > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:"
>> > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with
>> > the fearful masses who had their irrational and baseless fears
>> > whipped up by the death cultist in the "green" movement. Make a
>> > glass out of it and bury it deep. No problem."
>>
>> > great but how about some facts in place of your rhetoric
>>
>> The problem with leftist dumbshits is that they ignore that we've been
>> storing nuclear waste for half a century, that methods of storage have
>> been developed, and they would rather see most of humanity DIE than be
>> put at a trivial risk of a nuclear waste leak.
>>
>> Again, it's their America hating agenda that is important to them. They
>> want to fuck America over good. They don't give a damn about people,
>> they're just excess dross.
>>
>> Damned leftist nazis.
>
> so i cite a source showing the cleanup needed to protect the Columbia
> River, and you use the phrase "trivial risk", so you are ok with
> marginalizing the risk to a major river in the United States. Actually
> if you are willing to marginalize damage to our precious rivers, you
> should ask yourself why do you hate America so much.
Nope. You're just following Stalin's rule book, when he murdered 20
million Ukrainians. Trump up some damned lie and kill the people who you
hate.
You'd starve and freeze to death millions of Americans under the claims
of a 'clean river', and utterly ignore any better way that has been
developed to store nuclear waste in the last half century.
The "red herring", the damned lie you tell, is that there hasn't been any
technological advances in nuclear waste storage since the mid 1940s. What
a damned lie.
nope, im just showing how idiotic your posts are, and for some reason
you cant handle that, so good luck with that....
The article you cite and the nuclear waste it talks about is from 50+
years ago, from a reactor used to make *weapons*. Because it was part
of 'national security', it didn't have to comply with any commercial
safety regulations and it *is* quite a mess. Savanah river is another one.
But comparing the problems at former *weapons* plants with commercial
nuclear power is quite unfair. There were quite a few other ugly things
done under the guise of 'national security'. Hanford is just one of many.
daestrom
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:"
>> The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with
>> the fearful masses who had their irrational and baseless fears whipped
>> up by the death cultist in the "green" movement. Make a glass out of
>> it and bury it deep. No problem."
>>
>> great but how about some facts in place of your rhetoric (so if you can
>> back up your stuff) please correlate your above post to the link below,
>> and in composing your reply maybe you should try dropping the lame
>> attempts at insults, as they only make you look more idiotic...
>>
>>
>> http://www.hanford.gov/homepage/newsarticles/doe/KEastExcavation.pdf
>> "Basin removal high priority for protecting Columbia River from
>> contamination RICHLAND, WASH. – FEB. 3, 2009 CH2M HILL PLATEAU
>> REMEDIATION COMPANY BEGINS REMOVING NUCLEAR REACTOR BASIN AT HANFORD
>
> The article you cite and the nuclear waste it talks about is from 50+
> years ago, from a reactor used to make *weapons*. Because it was part
> of 'national security', it didn't have to comply with any commercial
> safety regulations and it *is* quite a mess. Savanah river is another
> one.
>
> But comparing the problems at former *weapons* plants with commercial
> nuclear power is quite unfair. There were quite a few other ugly things
> done under the guise of 'national security'. Hanford is just one of
> many.
>
> daestrom
The whole point of his post was to be unfair.
IF CO2 was the end of humanity as the greenies claim, they would be
clamoring for nuclear power as humanities only hope. But they're not. The
'progressive marxist' see a large human population as a problem that
requires a "final solution".
Thus, they seek to deny people all sources of life giving energy, from
coal and oil to nuclear. The only energy sources allowed are those that
won't work.
Interesting, but it does not matter what rationalization you put on it
(national security, energy needs etc), we are just cleaning up for our
past mistakes and we need to understand we cannot just dismiss dealing
with the issue of nuclear waste matter what the cause, so your point
is not really relevant. Next, current waste storage has problems, see
below (Plant Sites with Groundwater Contamination), so my point still
stands as issue nuclear waste storage/disposal and its cost cannot
simply be dismissed...
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Protecting People and the Environment
"Plant Sites with Groundwater Contamination
Recent events at several nuclear power plants have highlighted a
concern with tritium contamination of groundwater, as a result of
unplanned releases, such as those due to equipment degradation. For
example, at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, unintended releases
of tritium through a crack in the spent fuel pool concrete support
wall may have been the cause of the elevated levels of tritium in
groundwater in the area immediately surrounding the plant's spent fuel
pool. In another instance, at the Braidwood nuclear power plant,
unintended releases of tritium from a number of vacuum breaker valves
at the plant caused elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in
unrestricted, public areas."
Again, the red herring fallacy; you compare the waste from making
weapon's grade enriched uranium for atomic bombs to that of making
slightly enriched uranium for nuclear power.
That's fine. Stick to your fallacy, and we'll stick to pointing our your
fallacy. It makes you look silly.
Pretty funny.
Most people are so utterly ignorant, being products of the public
socialist school system, that they think that all the energy they use is
to run their TV at home and the gas in their cars.
Of course, a LOT of energy went into making the food in their cupboards.
They don't think of that. Everything from making the fertilizer to
shipping cost energy.
Then there is all the plastics that they use. That, too, uses energy. Or
aluminum, which is very energy intensive.
This tax, which was rammed through congress before anyone could read it,
was written by special interests that are going to make a bundle off of
the American people, who are being played as suckers.
I'd go through once more why the science of man made global warming is
not even junk science, it is nonscience, but most people wouldn't
understand it. You need an "expert" to tell you what to think. Science
isn't in your vocabulary. If it was, then you already KNOW what's wrong
with the AGW nonscience.
current wind power vs nuclear power, don�t you think?
Yes, but if the current climate change legislation ever becomes law, such
nascent technology could well be worth pursuing, as far as the greenies
think..
//
tbh
Bigger government to go along with the one that's already trillions in
debt.
~ BG
Speaking of spendy waste, think thorium if you want the least spendy
and most failsafe form of unclear waste.
~ BG
Actually, only 7 Trillion to the public, less than half the
GDP, which is better in that respect than some other countries.
The other 4+ Trillion is held by the SS and Medicare trusts.
:-)
The whole world is in debt, and it would make sense for
some cooperative effort for all to take innovative measures to
reduce that debt or even to eliminate it.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/
A lot of chatter from Europe and around the world about
the US trade imbalance being mostly due to importing oil,
but Europe is not far behind in this.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/22/95855/4850
It should be obvious that paying interest on such
huge debt is a burden that can not be withstood, and plans
to totally end all government borrowing should begin.
So all the USA needs to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the
debt. You want a plan to take care of the problem? I just gave it to
you. We need to stop guzzling oil and start selling the stuff. We don't
have very much by world standards, but we have enough to pay the debt.
Tax the hell out of gasoline.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
are you saying that there is no waste produced from CANDU reactors, if
you are making such a statement you would not be correct (so how
ignorant are you?)
na, people like you need to spout idiotic bs and pretend like you
refuted facts, so how about trying to deal with the facts before you
post any more weak attempts at insults...
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Protecting People and the Environment
"Plant Sites with Groundwater Contamination
Recent events at several nuclear power plants have highlighted a
concern with tritium contamination of groundwater, as a result of
unplanned releases, such as those due to equipment degradation. For
example, at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, unintended releases
of tritium through a crack in the spent fuel pool concrete support
wall may have been the cause of the elevated levels of tritium in
groundwater in the area immediately surrounding the plant's spent
fuel
pool. In another instance, at the Braidwood nuclear power plant,
unintended releases of tritium from a number of vacuum breaker valves
at the plant caused elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in
unrestricted, public areas."
so you are claiming i am using a fallacy, so how about your ridiculous
comparisons, you actually complain about me posting a red herring when
you post some serious sinky herring that i wouldnt touch with your
nasty hands.....
no but, thinking so on your part makes it easier for you to post such
a stupid statement, but your idiocy is a function of you, dont blame
others for your ignorance...
No, exactly the opposite, any nationalization is contrary
to the very spirit of the constitution, the spirit of '76 is the
freedom from government control, the rights of the individual,
way to much important conceptual ideology to cover here.
Government has power, almost unlimited power over
the internal workings of the country, but the very purpose
of the constitution is to protect the individual from the
power of the government and protect the individual from
the power of the state, and to define the rights of the
states and the individual.
Money is one of the things the government can
legally control, and what you are saying seems to restrict
the power of the government to the same level of the
individual, as if there is a sacred standard for money
like a gold standard.
>You want a plan to take care of the problem? I just gave it to
>you. We need to stop guzzling oil and start selling the stuff.
That doesn't seem to be the big problem, it isn't the
government that owes the trade deficit, it isn't the government
that uses the oil, or pays for the oil, in fact, there is not
much connection between the national debt and the trade
deficit at all.
The gasoline is payed for at the pump, perhaps the
federal gasoline tax should have been a percentage tax
instead of cents per gallon, but that is past history.
>We don't
>have very much by world standards, but we have
> enough to pay the debt.
>Tax the hell out of gasoline.
That isn't the problem, that is not a solution, and
it does not solve the separate problems of the trade
deficit, oil production versus consumption, the national
debt, the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration,
or even the annual deficit.
Tax is not the answer to any problem, unreasonable
tax creates big problems, it created a big problem for the
British Crown in 1776, and has been the issue in many
conflicts.
And tax will not reduce carbon emissions, it may
even make them worse, taking money from the economy
that needs to be used to improve efficiency and energy
machines that need no fossil fuel.
The premise that government will fund the technology
is a good premise, only it isn't that simple, there has never
been a case where government does it best, even though
some projects are too big for any entity other than government
to fund or manage.
so, you are offering no new solutions, and you must agree the costs
were being ignored by eric (my original point still stands), as there
is still waste to dispose of with a CANDU reactory (cost that you seem
to gloss over and blame on others). Now if you dont like someone
taking your words to the extreme, then you should not do it to others,
dont blame me if you cant handle what you dish out, thats a function
of your lame personality, and your desire to post a bs reply.
another false argument, as past mistakes like hanford should show the
dangers of not properly dealing with nuclear waste, even to idiots
like you. No matter what you still have to deal with transportation,
clean up and temporay/permenant storage of nuclear waste, which all
costs, costs that are part of the industry and the responsiblity of
the energy producer, and cannot be ignored when comparing nuclear vs
wind generation.
On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" Except
it already exists. CANDU reactors (for example) can already be run as
actinide burners."
laughing you jump in to this thread, post bs and wannabe insults, i
call you on it, and you whine and complain about me snipping (even
though i addressed your words), wow you are a high maintenance troll
aren’t you. Now fred, you stated the CANDU reactors "can already be
run as actinide burners.", but then you never stated how you would
deal with the waste from candu reactors (much less transport the fuel
to the site of the reactor). Now this goes to my point, as CANDU
reactor waste transportation and disposal, add to the costs of nuclear
power generation, now whether you like it or not, this is a cost that
cannot be neglected when comparing nuclear vs wind. So fred your kill
file really is of no interest to me, as it is your self-imposed gag
rule, a gag rule you are better off keeping in place otherwise i will
continue to demonstrate how idiotic your arguments really are....
> On Jun 27, 6:45 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:"
> Again, the red herring fallacy"
>
> so you are claiming i am using a fallacy,
I'm not claiming, I am pointing out.
I've gone though a number of your posts to other people, and they are all
simple one liners and are all insults.
You're making the eco-wackos look like eco-wackos. You're not doing your
cause any good.
I suppose if your goal is the insanity defense after this fraud destroys
the US economy, that might work for you.
<pervert reference clipped>
yes, i dont mind getting dirty and mixing it up with trolls like you,
but why do you have a problem if it only takes one line to deal with
the bs people like you have to offer, as you have not addressed the
facts i have cited. Now you should go through your replies to me, and
tell me how many fallacies offered up, then please explain where you
rank on your scale, and be objective otherwise your bs will be
obvious....
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote: :
> :So all the USA needs to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the
> :debt. You want a plan to take care of the problem? I just gave it to
> :you. We need to stop guzzling oil and start selling the stuff. We
> don't :have very much by world standards, but we have enough to pay the
> debt. :Tax the hell out of gasoline.
> :
>
> Yeah, and then you can just default when our GDP drops to zero.
I see that you don't understand that the _REAL_ health of the USA is
measured in trade. Using that as a measure of our "Gross Domestic
Product" has been negative for a very long time. A rise to zero should
be greatly lauded by honest people.
I agree, we need a serious debt reduction plan of action, starting
with a 10% federal employment, retirement and benefit reduction plan
of action per year, for roughly the next 7 to 8 years.
Secondly, we need those failsafe and relatively cheap thorium fueled
reactors, and otherwise everything else provided via green/renewable
energy alternatives, plus a doubling or better of our national energy
grid capacity within the next seven to eight years will get that
federal government overhead down to 48% of what has us in such
unbearable debt as of today.
~ BG