 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space Policy / July 2009NASA's Jimmy "Apocolypse" Hansen arrested for anti-coal crusade
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q41g9l4BzTgD9 90JR6O0 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. > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ > http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q41g9l4BzTgD9 90JR6O0 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Tuesday in the latest protest in a growing civil disobedience > campaign against mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia. YAY >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q41g9l4BzTgD9 90JR6O0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> 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." > >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar... > >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > road and were arrested on misdemeanor charges of obstruction and > impeding traffic." Hansen is such a douche bag! > Hansen is such a douche bag! How many peer reviewed scientific climatology papers have you published? > > >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar... > > >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Fukkin identity theft going on here. Screw you and mom > > > >>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar... > > > >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > Hansen is such a douche bag!- > Fukkin identity theft going on here. Screw you and mom •• Indeed Rich has lost whatever identity he had. >>>>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar... >>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > •• Indeed Rich has lost whatever identity he had. As always, lenny post = lies. >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar... >>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Hansen is such a douche bag! Our cowardly little forger shows that his idiocy extends to his judgment. lol > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. 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. > Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they > establish that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be hidden for a certain time with the use of expensive misinformation campaigns, at the end, the > truth is plain for all to see. 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_wi ndfarm_paper/ >> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they >> establish that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Enviros always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. > Wind power is 2-3X as expensive as nuclear, 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. > >> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they > >> establish that [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Unknown to you. Turbines are a well established technology. Mind you. Yeah, well established... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-2m4A_6NQ&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ragRSNKE7Sc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyOiDQGn-6k 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". >>>> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they >>>> establish that [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH-2m4A_6NQ&NR=1 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. > >>>> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they > >>>> establish that [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Summary: > In all those accidents NO ONE WAS HURT. You can guarantee this for the future? > In all those accidents damages were limited to the failed unit. As I said: Well established technology... > In all those accidents, the dangerous zone is just a few meters from > the turbine. So why don't you do us the favour to stand just a few meters away from such a windmill next time when well established technology fails? > 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. Running over by a car is also dangerous. How many people will be ran over the next 10-20 thousand years? Your comparison is flawed. > Note that nuclear power, conventional (coal/oil) power centers use > turbines too! > > Conclusion: > > (1) A brake failure or overheating are common problems with ... well established technology? > wind > turbines. You risk something if you live within 10 meters of one, > and the blades break. Fires or other problems are harmless. So why don't you do us the favour to stand next to such a windmill next time when well established technology fails? > Thanks for proving my point. Dream on. >>>>> Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where >>>>> they establish that [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Thanks for proving my point. 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. > 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 > > Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they > > establish that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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/mcelr... And that's exactly how Hitler would have put it. ~ BG On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is 2-3X as expensive as nuclear," funny how you dont mention nuclear waste disposal, how come? > On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros > always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is 2-3X > as expensive as nuclear," > > funny how you dont mention nuclear waste disposal, how come? 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. >> On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros >> always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is 2-3X [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Make a glass out of it and bury it deep. No problem. 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 >>> On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros >>> always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is 2-3X [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > // > tbh Correction: instead of breeder reactors, the mechanism using fusion neutrons is a "near term fusion device" as an experiment. Fast breeder reactors can do the same using a different process. // tbh > >> On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros > >> always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is 2-3X [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > // > tbh 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? On Jun 27, 2:27 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Such new technology costs need to be factored in when comparing > 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 a.s? 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 a.s is burning in hell. KD columbiaaccidentinvestigation :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, dont you think? Except it already exists. CANDU reactors (for example) can already be run as actinide burners.  Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson > :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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." > -- Thomas Jefferson 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?) columbiaaccidentinvestigation :> :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. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :you are making such a statement you would not be correct (so how :ignorant are you?) I'm saying what I said, you stupid bastard. Go back and read it again. Stop trying to inject your own illiterate idiocy. Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" I'm saying what I said, you stupid bastard. Go back and read it again. Stop trying to inject your own illiterate idiocy" 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. columbiaaccidentinvestigation :On Jun 28, 3:29 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" I'm :saying what I said, you stupid bastard. Go back and read it again. : Stop trying to inject your own illiterate idiocy" Interesting that you've now snipped what I said so that you could bleat the following: :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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :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. And you can go back in my killfile, where you lived for so many years, you lying little twat. <plonk> Signature"So many women. So little charm." -- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing On Jun 28, 6:17 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" Interesting that you've now snipped what I said so that you could bleat the following:"..." And you can go back in my killfile, where you lived for so many years, you lying little twat. <plonk> 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, 12:07 pm, "Tim Heise" <cable...@comcast.net> wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in > messagenews:pan.2009.06.27.18.51.59@ontomars.org... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > // > tbh 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? 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 > On Jun 27, 12:07 pm, "Tim Heise" <cable...@comcast.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > // > tbh Speaking of spendy waste, think thorium if you want the least spendy and most failsafe form of unclear waste. ~ BG On Jun 27, 7:15 pm, "Tim Heise" <cable...@comcast.net> wrote:Yes, but if the ...as far as the greenies think."\ 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... >>> On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros >>> always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > // > tbh 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. > >>> On Jun 24, 11:43 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:" Enviros > >>> always leave out the fact when they are inconvenient. Wind power is [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - laughing, you are a joke... >> 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... He was one of the 'whities' that used to regularly lynch 'blackies' as well. American retards, you just gotta love em, no matter how f.cking stupid and retarded and violent and murderous they are. And they are. This message of forgiveness was brought to you by the sect of the noodley purple spaghetti monster gods : http://www.venganza.org/ All hail the noodly appendage. 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 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_Millikin@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. ### > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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 f.ck America over good. They don't give a damn about people, they're just excess dross. Damned leftist nazis. > > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" > > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 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 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), >> > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" >> > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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. You're just following Stalin's rule book" nope, im just showing how idiotic your posts are, and for some reason you cant handle that, so good luck with that.... > Trump up some damned lie and kill the people who you hate. Quoting Marvin the Martian, anonymous usenet coward : "After their exposed, there will be a greenie hanging from every lamp post in America." "Damed leftists nazis" What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is that they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's outlawing carbon. 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. > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is that > they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's outlawing [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > isn't in your vocabulary. If it was, then you already KNOW what's wrong > with the AGW nonscience. I don't think the politicians even care about the "science" of AGW anymore. With the Climate Change legislation showing some promise of becoming law, they only think about unprecedented power such will give them. // the > > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is that > > they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's outlawing [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > // > the Bigger government to go along with the one that's already trillions in debt. ~ BG >> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is that >> > they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's outlawing [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ~ 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. >>> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is >>> > that they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > 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. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson :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. Signature"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine > Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: : > :So all the USA needs to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: : :> :So all the USA needs to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :Product" has been negative for a very long time. A rise to zero should :be greatly lauded by honest people. I see that you don't understand the definition of GDP. It's not the same as Balance of Trade. Signature"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine > :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: : :> :So all the USA needs > to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the :> :debt. You want a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see that you don't understand the definition of GDP. It's not the > same as Balance of Trade. I understand the definitions. I just think that GDP as currently defined is a total farce and worthless as tits on a boar hog. The rightarded want to define any sort of sovereign gain or loss accounting as "mercantilism" which then translates into who has the most gold. The GDP tells us how much we are working our a.ses off and that is all it tells us. If we all work 90 hours a week instead of the current 60 then the GDP will rise. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson :> :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: : :> :So all the USA needs :> to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the :> :debt. You want a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : :I understand the definitions. So your misuse above was deliberate? :I just think that GDP as currently defined :is a total farce and worthless as tits on a boar hog. Try learning something. Then your 'thinking' will work better. :The rightarded :want to define any sort of sovereign gain or loss accounting as :"mercantilism" which then translates into who has the most gold. This isn't political, you stupid a.s. :The GDP :tells us how much we are working our a.ses off and that is all it tells :us. If we all work 90 hours a week instead of the current 60 then the GDP :will rise. Well, no, it won't, unless there is a market for the output of all those extra hours. Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson > :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: :> > :> :On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:19:56 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :> :> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Well, no, it won't, unless there is a market for the output of all those > extra hours. But that has been the ploy all along. "fake" demand for lip gloss created by advertising and debt, debt, and more debt. The GDP rises because it is pumped up by the debt, induced demand, and labor that is "make do". And you bet your a.s its political. The "basket of goods" approach to the deflator is horse crap of the most obvious form. The GDP can be manipulated by changing the basket of goods and even then it does not count the investments necessary to ones retirement. The GDP is a bogus piece of crap for measuring economic performance. You want a reality measure of economic performance? Here it is: As the number of hours of labor needed to OWN your retirement dwelling increase the economy deteriorates. As the number of hours decreases then the economy is improving. That is a better indicator than any other that I can think of. Success is the minimization of economic rent while holding health and longevity constant. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson :> :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: :> :> :> :On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:19:56 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :> :> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :because it is pumped up by the debt, induced demand, and labor that is :"make do". And you bet your a.s its political. You're too stupid to bother with further. If you ever learn something about economics AND successfully dislodge your head from your a.s, have someone let me know. <plonk> Signature"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine :> :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: :> :> :> :On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:19:56 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :> :> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :because it is pumped up by the debt, induced demand, and labor that is :"make do". And you bet your a.s its political. You're obviously too bloody stupid to bother with further. If you ever learn anything about economics AND succeed in dislodging your head from your a.s, have someone let me know. <plonk> Signature"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine > :> Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote: :> > :> :On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:37:20 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :> :> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > <plonk> The true brainwashed neoconomist has spoken. I am so, so dismissed. And Peter Pan is a place to wash yer tallywhacker. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson > The true brainwashed neoconomist has spoken. I am so, so dismissed. Sadly only few escape the brainwashing. The only true resource is concentration. Hate disrupts it and care feeds concentration. You can have em the way you want em. Be nasty, everyone will be nasty. Be kind, everyone will be kind. Some people need to receive a lot of kindness. Specially the nasty people need it. When we can all get along, when we can talk fairly and respect another, then it will be obvious there is so much technology that we rudely ignored. So much people who we have insulted rather than give them a chance to show what it is they worked at all their lives. So much hate we didn't talk about the things that actually matter. When there is no respect for the inventor, the scientist or the philosopher then one can not objectively look at what the point is they are trying to make. If you cant objectively study and judge the points made then you can not compare them either. We have good fusion technology, sonic, radio or electric. We have great nuclear technology, 100% clean, it is actually easy to burn it. We have amazing wind turbines, bigger and better than 10 000 years ago. Even clean coal can be done, it is easier than you think. If one shows love and has passion for any of those topics-and puts some actual effort in the investigation with respect for all people involved, reads, listens, watches their work - of course except from the rude donald duck type persona who can only quack the quack untill they have that world war they crave for, mind those persona, they have a 100% successrate over the last 300 million years. They always get that war they want. And after that war then even they are willing to look at the solutions. The imagination is just not there by lack of care. If one shows love and passion for any of those topics- one can only conclude there is a magic forest of things we didn't look at, things so amazing that you indeed couldn't have guessed the research results without anyone doing it. The most simple example has to be flying windturbines. They can go up many km depending on the strength of the wires. Up there there is so much wind one could power a city with a very small set of popellers. http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm But to address the bickering some more. If concentration or coperation is our only resource on this planet then you now know the value of our money is directly based on the amount of hate one can spew. You put the fusion researcher with his positive results in the center of a group of haters and the whole technology miraculously disapears as if it was Edisons Etheric force. Wrights flying bicycle or Tesla's intelligence over distance. Enhough hate will unmake it so. People talk about the cost of wind energy but the actual cost is based on the amount of people who refuse to get it. You know how mass production works, you know how tech levels evolve. Those who refuse to get it set the price of the product. More and more destructive hate doesn't make the money any more valuable or does it little children? If we would have mass produced windmills in 1980 they would have been cheap as dirt, specially in 1980 money. In 2040 our coupons may have lost the same amount of value, there might not be any oil, there might not be oxygen to burn coal, a lot can happen. But if those windturbines are still standing they will make just as much energy then as they do now. A climate change debate? Why would we need climate change to implement 10 000 year old technology? Long ago we use to plant trees on location, then when they was big enough we would on location turn them into a windmill shaped building where the mechanical energy was pumped straight into production. No grid, no batteries, no converters, no electricity but... everything worked fine? And when the wind didn't blow there wasn't any work to be done either. People don't live to work, you can entertain yourself in stead, true story, no rly! Get a hobby or something. Learn to play an instrument. Study history. We can build fabulously efficent machines today, LED's can be powered with small toy turbines the year round. The alternative is simple, if you cant learn to care about others you will continue to have the Tee Vee do your thinking for you, ignore everyone and you can have the Tee Vee tell you who to vote for. And you really really will. Spread enough hate and you will eventually have that nuclear war it leads to. Conservation of empathy. Remember it, there isn't anyone to blame other than yourself. All those idiots acting like monsters, it is all your fault. :-) Remember it, ____ http://go-here.nl >>>> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is >>>> > that they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >So all the USA needs to do is to nationalize its oil and pay off the >debt. 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. > >>>> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is > >>>> > that they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > some projects are too big for any entity other than government > to fund or manage. You and I think very much alike. However, there are measures of national management that can be federally mandated and enforced with a much smaller federal and state government overhead. Unfortunately, at this late point we do not have good options, only bad ones. ~ BG >>>>> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is >>>>> > that they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > from government control, the rights of the individual, way to much > important conceptual ideology to cover here. The oil that lies in the commons of the sovereignty is already "nationalized". I just wish that people would understand that fact of objective reality. That oil belongs to the people of the sovereignty equally and it does not belong to those who are located closest to it or to the politicians in Washington or to the oil companies. The people in Washington have a fiduciary responsibility to the people regarding all the common natural resources. > 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. No "individual" owns the oil being discussed. > 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. Different subject but I see the point. You are correct in that fiat money is not backed by oil, gold, or anything else. The actual "backing" for fiat money is the ability to tax. No tax, no value. http://www.gate.net/~mosler/frame001.htm ------------------------- The concept of fiat money can be illuminated by a simple model: Assume a world of a parent and several children. One day the parent announces that the children may earn business cards by completing various household chores. At this point the children won't care a bit about accumulating their parent's business cards because the cards are virtually worthless. But when the parent also announces that any child who wants to eat and live in the house must pay the parent, say, 200 business cards each month, the cards are instantly given value and chores begin to get done. Value has been given to the business cards by requiring them to be used to fulfill a tax obligation. Taxes function to create the demand for federal expenditures of fiat money, not to raise revenue per se. In fact, a tax will create a demand for at LEAST that amount of federal spending. A balanced budget is, from inception, the MINIMUM that can be spent, without a continuous deflation. The children will likely desire to earn a few more cards than they need for the immediate tax bill, so the parent can expect to run a deficit as a matter of course. To illustrate the nature of federal debt under a fiat monetary system, the model of family currency can be taken a step further. Suppose the parent offers to pay overnight interest on the outstanding business cards (payable in more business cards). The children might want to hold on to some cards to use among themselves for convenience. Extra cards not needed overnight for inter-sibling transactions would probably be deposited with the parent. That is, the parent would have borrowed back some of the business cards from the children. The business card deposits are the national debt that the parent owes. ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. Oh but there is......... > 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. But I thought you said it didn't matter..... >>We don't >>have very much by world standards, but we have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > production versus consumption, the national debt, the increasing > atmospheric CO2 concentration, or even the annual deficit. Oh but it _IS_ the problem and it very much part of the solution. All the money leaks out to China and they have been stupid enough to stuff it into interest bearing mattresses called T-Bills. That game is about done as they are realizing that they have been trading their labor for a stack of paper that without US government taxation, has no value. The money has had value because the Chinese are dumb enough to trade real stuff for it. > 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. You really have no (@&$%#$&* clue what fiat money is, do you? > 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. It depends on what is done with the tax proceeds, moron. > 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. Now how this relates to the observation that past governments have not done an acceptable job of managing the people's resources is debatable, but a large tax on gasoline rebated to the public on a quarterly basis in the exact same form as the stimulus checks that were done in early 2008 is the absolute best means by which the government can encourage the development and deployment of alternative fuels. The government has done a very poor job of picking winners using direct subsidies. A tax on that which is killing us that is simply rebated to the people who are not so stupid as to just pump it back into their gas tanks would seem to be a highly intelligent move. And as the rebate is bottom weighted to those earning very little then they will break even or better in the deal. Most people will CONSERVE gasoline and buy more lip gloss. And if unsubsidized ethanol is economically good then we will see it in the tanks instead of gasoline. Most righties seem to misunderstand the purpose of the tax system. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson > >> > What most people don't understand about the Obama "Carbon tax" is that > >> > they themselves are carbon based life forms, and Obama's outlawing [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > huge debt is a burden that can not be withstood, and plans > to totally end all government borrowing should begin. 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 On Jun 27, 7:20 pm, "Tim Heise" <cable...@comcast.net> wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in > messagenews:pan.2009.06.28.01.53.36@ontomars.org... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > // > the Bigger government to go along with the one that's already trillions in debt. ~ BG And the great collapse bound to happen sometime, no telling when.. // tbh > On Jun 27, 7:20 pm, "Tim Heise" <cable...@comcast.net> wrote: >> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > // > tbh The great collapse already happened, moron. Unlike California, the US government can print money at will and pay off the debt. The tax system will determine who wins and who loses. Signature"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson >> "BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:f1d2dc64-ec14-4093- [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >government can print money at will and pay off the debt. The tax system >will determine who wins and who loses. Nothing has to be printed now that electronic deposit is the preferred method, and requires no trees cut for paper. >>>> On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" >>>> The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > technological advances in nuclear waste storage since the mid 1940s. What > a damned lie. I understand why you want to go to Mars now... We should be getting away from the radioactive planet earth as soon as possible... > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 >> On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" >> The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 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. > The whole point of his post was to be unfair. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > coal and oil to nuclear. The only energy sources allowed are those that > won't work. Note that this discussion started when I posted an analysis of the National Academy of Science of the U.S. that stated that the U.S. could tap into a wind energy potential of 16 times the cosumption of electricity. Republicans dislike science, and it is no wonder that they reject that study. They propose to continue pollution because they want their special interests preserved: coal and gas industry would disappear if wind and solar energy would win. But even they, they know they are doomed. That is why their aggressivity, their insults, that only serve the purpose of hiding their complete lack of arguments. We have this "marvin the martian" person, that says that we have just to "make glass" out of it, and bury it. Problem is, the glass should stay untouched for thousands of years, longer than the period of human history. Apparently safe environments aren't safe because ground water that corrodes the glass and takes the radioactivity slowly into the ground water table. Highly radioactive products emit heat, what makes keeping the glass in one piece difficult, specially when you think in periods of centuries. And all that for what? Wind energy doesn't PRODUCE any of this problems. The consequences are obvious, and all the insults of this "martian" will not make that go away. I think the best thing for him would go to Mars ASAP! >> The whole point of his post was to be unfair. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tap into a wind energy potential of 16 times the cosumption of > electricity. Ah yes. The infamous "appeal to authority" fallacy, the bane of science. The "National Academy of Science" said it, you believe it, that's that. Can't convince you otherwise except by applying a 2x4 repeatedly to your forehead. So, what's the point? > Republicans dislike science, and it is no wonder that they reject that > study. Ah! Now ad your bigotry and hate to the equation! Yes, it's "Republican Science!" where did we hear that crap before? Christian fundamentalist have fabricated this "creationism" science. That's bad, but it doesn't break my leg or pick my pocket. There's no law based on creationism. The idiot commies have taken over the congress and have passed "cap and trade" which will destroy the US economy and cause people to starve to death or freeze to death. Religious fundamentalist science will annoy, but the commie science will kill you and destroy the nation. > They propose to continue pollution because they want their special > interests preserved: coal and gas industry would disappear if wind and > solar energy would win. That's the problem; you're so utterly ignorant of the engineering involved, you think that it is simply a matter of "who wins". < snip tripe > On Jun 28, 10:28 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" Ah yes. The infamous "appeal to authority" fallacy...Can't convince you otherwise except by applying a 2x4 repeatedly to your forehead." so you are not smart enough to make your point, and you are so desperate to convey your weak idiotic opinon you feel the only approach you have left is to declare your authority through violence, 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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 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-conta m.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." >> > On Jun 27, 11:52 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" >> > The only expensive part about nuclear waste disposal, is dealing with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > stands as issue nuclear waste storage/disposal and its cost cannot > simply be dismissed... 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. 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, 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..... > 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> > > On Jun 27, 6:45 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" > > Again, the red herring fallacy" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > <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.... There are many reasons to disbelieve the hype about man made CO2 causing global warming. First of all, the entire thing is based on "correlation proves causation", as there is no physics behind it. CO2 increases, and global temperature increases. Ergo, CO2 causes global temperature. There is even a mechanism for this, but the mechanism can't explain the warming more than 0.03 kelvins, a trivial amount. Any REAL scientist knows that "correlation proves causation" is a logical fallacy. Correlation between A and B can mean: 1) A causes B. 2) B causes A. 3) C causes A and B. 4) dumb luck causes A and B to be correlated. The problem with the CO2 correlation with global warming (which is all the IPCC can come up with) are multiple: 1) The correlation went negative in 1998. CO2 has been increasing, but global temperature has been going down. 2) The correlation between solar cycle and global temperature has been a much stronger correlation than the correlation between CO2 and global warming; this suggests that CO2 is an effect of solar cycle and/or warming and not the other way around. 3) Jupiter and Mars are also warming, correlated with the earth. The AGW advocates are quick to point out that Solar cycle alone cannot explain the warming. The damned hypocrites over look that CO2 alone cannot cause the warming as well, and their whole EFFORT is to find a way for CO2 to have caused the warming. Most of these efforts claim that CO2 is a "leverage gas", causing more water vapor and thus the warming. Most of the warming on earth is due to water vapor. Consider Mars: much more CO2 than in our atmosphere, and it's a carbon dioxide frozen wasteland. Pretty darned cold! CO2 didn't do Mars much good. So, what does cause the climate change? A guy named Svensmark worked this out a couple of years ago by following the obvious hint of the solar cycle. He found that the changes in solar cycle affect the amount of solar wind, and the solar wind "shields" the earth and other planets from cosmic rays. These cosmic rays, as Svensmark has shown at CERN, cause cloud formations when they reach the lower atmosphere. These clouds reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. We have an obviously BOGUS "man made global warming" fraud, and sound science showing what the claimate change is really about. Why did congress, then, pass a tax on carbon? First of all, when it comes to representatives, we have the best congress other money can buy; in this case, the Chinese. Our congress, in a bold act of treason, sold us out to the Chinese and the 3rd world. Consider that Al Gore, chief fraud of the man made global warming scam, was CAUGHT RED HANDED with $100,000 of Red Chinese Army money. The Red Chinese Army stands to profit by trillions in the latest legislation. American industry will get the hell out of the US and move to China, where they can produce CO2 all day long tax free and without limitation. That's right, the "cap and trade" legislation doesn't do a damned thing to lower man made CO2 emissions. ALL it does is move the CO2 production OUT of the United States and INTO China. If these frauds really believed that we were all going to die due to CO2, they would have done something other than moving money out of the US to china. So, what's up with columbia diaster or whatever his name is? He's a true believer, and idiot loser out to "save the planet" from the (rational) people who "deny" that man made climate change is real. He really believes his god "Obama" can change the world's climate. Oh well. The American people have bought into this stupidity, and Darwin's laws are still in effect. They will starve, they will freeze to death, and they will die. The trick of course is to figure out how not to die with idiot lemmings. That's going to be hard to do. On Jun 28, 10:01 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" ...So, what's up with columbia diaster or whatever his name is? ..." interesting rant, but you should address the facts from the sources i cited instead of acting like an idiot... > On Jun 28, 10:01 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" > ...So, what's up with columbia diaster or whatever his name is? ..." > > interesting rant, but you should address the facts from the sources i > cited instead of acting like an idiot... I pointed out you made a red herring fallacy, comparing the production of weapons grade nuclear material and the storage of that waste over half a century ago to modern spent nuclear fuel today. You ignored that and ranted on like a jackass on parade. You are too typical of the mindless but "useful" socialist idiot. On Jun 28, 10:12 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:" I pointed out you made a red herring fallacy, comparing the production of weapons grade nuclear material and the storage of that waste over half a > century ago to modern spent nuclear fuel today. You ignored that and ranted on like a jackass on parade. You are too typical of the mindless but "useful" socialist idiot." 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." actually you started off your replies to me by attempting to blame the need to safely store nuclear waste on others which is a fallacy, and you went down hill from there, your ignorance is your problem not mine. So how did you rank on your objective logic scale anyways, did you factor in your bs about stalin and your other idiotic ignorant political bs? Now since i quoted something from the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, you need to address the fact that there are problems, which directly contradicts your idiotic opinions. I know you think your opinions are correct, but try addressing the facts.... http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-gr... 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." > There are many reasons to disbelieve the hype about man made CO2 causing > global warming. [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > The trick of course is to figure out how not to die with idiot lemmings. > That's going to be hard to do. With our "no lemming left behind" policy, what could possibly go wrong? btw, if we relocate our Selene/moon out to Earth L1, it'll change our climate and many other factors for the better. (just thought I'd toss that in for good measure) ~ BG columbiaaccidentinvestigation :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... Of course it can, since we do not currently have a reasonable storage/disposal/reprocessing program largely because of enviro-whackos like you. Signature"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden On Jun 27, 6:57 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" Of course it can, since we do not currently have a reasonable storage/ disposal/reprocessing program largely because of enviro-whackos like 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-conta m.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." 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 columbiaaccidentinvestigation :On Jun 27, 6:57 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" Of :course it can, since we do not currently have a reasonable storage/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :refuted facts, so how about trying to deal with the facts before you :post any more weak attempts at insults... Here's your fact - the reason fuel sits in TEMPORARY cooling ponds at all those reactors in larger quantities and for longer durations than any of the designs ever intended is because idiots like you won't allow either fuel recycling or a permanent storage solution. :http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-conta m.html :UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] :Basin removal high priority for protecting Columbia River from :contamination Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson On Jun 28, 3:33 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:" Here's your fact - the reason fuel sits in TEMPORARY cooling ponds at all those reactors in larger quantities and for longer durations than any of the designs ever intended is because idiots like you won't allow either fuel recycling or a permanent storage solution." 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. > columbiaaccidentinvestigation > : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > storage/disposal/reprocessing program largely because of > enviro-whackos like you. I have to bite my tong every time someone says something to the effect of, "Nuclear energy shouldn't be expanded in the US because we've never solved the waste disposal problem". Um, yes we have. The problem is all the protests, lawsuits, and etc. prevent the US Government from actually opening the facility. In the mean time, all that waste is being stored "on site". In my opinion, that's more dangerous long term than putting it in a secure storage facility. Dumb environmental whackos. They're too stupid for our own good. ;-) Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is always plenty of blame to go around. :-P Jeff Signature"Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon >> columbiaaccidentinvestigation >> : [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > storage facility. Dumb environmental whackos. They're too stupid for our > own good. ;-) You are a f.cking retard. > Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain > Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get > the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is > always plenty of blame to go around. :-P I blame retards - like you > Jeff Typical enviro mental breakdown. A noo-age email too. >>> Of course it can, since we do not currently have a reasonable >>> storage/disposal/reprocessing program largely because of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >> Jeff > Typical enviro mental breakdown. A noo-age email too. It's just an observation, retard. Let me reiterate, you are an American retard. With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity. Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C. EDF warned last month that France might need to import up to 8,000MW of electricity from other countries by mid-July — enough to power Paris — because of the combined impact of hot weather, a ten-week strike by power workers and ongoing repairs. EDF must also observe strict rules governing the heat of the water it discharges into waterways so that wildlife is not harmed. The maximum permitted temperature is 24C. Lower electricity output from riverside reactors during hot weather usually coincides with surging demand as French consumers turn up their air conditioners. One power industry insider said yesterday that about 20GW (gigawatts) of France’s total nuclear generating capacity of 63GW was out of service. Much of the shortfall this summer is likely to be met by Britain, which, since 1986, has been linked to the French power grid by a 45km sub-sea power cable that runs from Sellindge in Kent to Les Mandarins. A statement from EDF played down the heat problems, saying that the French system continued to meet customer demands — but similar heatwaves have caused serious problems in France in the past. In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C. France has five plants located by the sea and EDF tries to avoid carrying out any repairs to them during the summer because they do not suffer from cooling problems. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLU67986320090630 >>>> Of course it can, since we do not currently have a reasonable >>>> storage/disposal/reprocessing program largely because of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>> Jeff >> Typical enviro mental breakdown. A noo-age email too. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional > capacity That' s a problem intrinsic of any energy source that use steam to produce power; if France used coal was perfectly the same Anyway, difficult to believe that France needs some external power, given the fact about their ten plants daily feed the energy needs of neighbour countries like Italy or Germany (about 15% of the electricity needs in Italy is nuclear imported from France) > Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain > Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get > the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is > always plenty of blame to go around. :-P •• Unfortunately your comment is way off topic. You would do better to open a new thread with a detailed exposition of the problem. - - In real science the burden of proof is always on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one iota of valid data for global warming nor have they provided data that climate change is being effected by commerce and industry, and not by natural phenomena. >> Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain >> Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > effected by commerce and industry, and not by > natural phenomena. Canadian Retard. > leonard7...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Canadian Retard. Are Canadians also republican? Jeff Findley seems exactly like a Republican retard. Rising oceans and dozens of other indications, all of which are accelerating us towards a warmer environment is apparently not good enough science. Apparently peer replicated measurements of receding ice and terrific volumetric loss must be bogus science according to Jeff Findley. ~ BG > Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain > Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get > the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is > always plenty of blame to go around. :-P > What ever became of the idea of mixing the waste with molten glass and just forming it into blocks that you could then drop into the deep ocean? Pat Whales will eat them and mutate into giant ship eating monsters. > What ever became of the idea of mixing the waste with molten glass and just forming it into > blocks that you could then drop into the deep ocean? > > Pat On Jul 2, 5:59 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:" I have to bite my tong every time someone says something to the effect of, "Nuclear energy shouldn't be expanded in the US because we've never solved the waste disposal problem". Um, yes we have. The problem is all the protests, lawsuits, and etc. prevent the US Government from actually opening the facility. In the mean time, all that waste is being stored "on site". In my opinion, that's more dangerous long term than putting it in a secure storage facility. Dumb environmental whackos. They're too stupid for our own good. ;-) Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is always plenty of blame to go around. :-P Jeff" so you post that idiotic bs, and you call other people whackos, you are a joke. A wacko is someone who thinks his hate of people is sound science. Hansen, and his desire to charge "deniars" with crimes against humanity, is just such a wacko hater. There are many more lesser thinkers who share his substitute of hate for reason. There are many good reasons to question the claim that golabal warming is man made. 1) The IPCC's claim that it is "very likely" that it is man made is purely based on the correlation of human CO2 output with global warming. This has serious problems. a) The correlation went negative after 1998. b) "Correlation proves causation" is a fallacy no real scientist would make, so the credentials of anyone making this correlation claim is debunked. c) There is a stronger correlation to solar cycle and global warming than there is to CO2 an global warming, so it would appear that either solar cycle is the cause and warming and CO2 increases are effects. d) There is warming on other planets, which would either be a fantastic coincidence or suggests a common cause. 2) CO2 does absorb IR, but the physics is such that CO2 alone cannot explain the warming. All the climate change computer models use CO2 as a leverage gas, driving more water vapor into the air. Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas of all, causing most of the greenhouse effect. Studies show that the additional CO2 causes, at most, 0.03 Kelvins of warming, which is in the noise range. 3) The earth has warmed and cooled in past periods without any human made CO2 gases. IT is not explained why this warming period, which started before human made gases were being generated, is human made and the others were natural. 4) Common lower division chemistry of CO2 shows that there is an equilibrium between [CO2]aq and [CO2]g, and this constant won't change unless there is a temperature increase. What's more, if we add 5% of our man made CO2 to the natural CO2 entering the atmosphere, most of it MUST enter the oceans. We haven't added enough CO2 to the atmosphere/ocean/ carbonate rock system to cause the observed increase. Clearly, simple college chemistry dictates that CO2 is an effect of warming, not the other way around. We didn't even put the carbon dioxide there. 5) Svensmark came up with a theory that explains why there is a strong correlation between global warming, warming on other planets, ans solar cycle. Solar activity produces a solar wind, the particles of which deflect incoming cosmic rays. These cosmic rays would cause cloud formation much like a physicist's cloud chamber, and these clouds reflect incoming sun light. The lack of absorbed sunlight causes the earth to cool. Svensmark's theory explains the last 4.5 billion years of climate data, while the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis failed to explain the last decade; indeed, it cannot explain much outside of the 1990 decade. I could go on, but it is clear that any real scientist, when these facts are pointed out, would also question the validity of the man made global warming hypothesis. Why would there be so many posers pretending to be scientist claiming global warming is man made? For the answer to that, all you need to do is look at the solution these frauds propose: it is about money. Al Gore, for example, was caught RED HANDED with $100,000 that he got from the People's liberation Army of Red China. The Chinese Army owns much of Chinese industry, and stands to make great profits if we pass the "cap and trade" tax. WE don't know how much money the Chinese did manage to get to Al Gore, but what we caught him with is only the tip of the iceberg. The entire IPCC is funded by the UN general assembly, which represents countries that will benefit by trillions if we pass cap and trade, as most of the General assembly is made up of third world countries. So, there you have it. Man made global warming isn't just bad science, it isn't even junk science; it's a fraud, it is NONSCIENCE. And the goal is to scam millions of idiot Americans out of their jobs and their livelihoods. If, after reading this, you still support cap and trade I have another scientific fact for you: DARWIN. You are about to win a Darwin award. > DARWIN. You are about to win a Darwin award. f.cking fascist retard. >> DARWIN. You are about to win a Darwin award. > > f.cking fascist retard. Your post supports my point that leftist greenies have mistaken their irrational hate for "science". You didn't reply to a single one of the multiple reasons to question the debunked anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. There can be no reasoning with the unreasonable. Minds like "kT" are why wars must be fought. >>> DARWIN. You are about to win a Darwin award. >> f.cking fascist retard. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There can be no reasoning with the unreasonable. Minds like "kT" are why > wars must be fought. Says violent f.ck Bob Webster, who thinks violence is reasonable. On Jul 3, 7:50 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:59 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> > wrote:" I have to bite my tong every time someone says something to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > so you post that idiotic bs, and you call other people whackos, you > are a joke. Google Groups/Usenet is saturated with brown-nosed clowns as morons, puppet masters, their parrots and minions that all claim being Atheists but seem to act as though Old Testament devout as you can possibly get. Otherwise, most other folks do not realize but less than 10% of what’s so nasty about coal. Energy that’s derived from an open cycle of grandiose excavating and consuming mass quantities of coal is nothing but bad news, as well as the same can be said of oily sand or most any other hard to get and typically energy intensive processing of such fossil fuels. For a number of valid reasons, the atmospheric direct combustion of raw coal always has been and always will be detrimental to everyone and everything under the sun. The burning of old tires is actually a thousand percent (meaning ten fold) cleaner and safer to all involved, although most of a tire is made from fossil fuel to begin with, so we’d still have an environmental and otherwise spendy kind of energy recycle problem unless those tires can be cost effectively imported from Mars or the moon Titan. Secondly, we basically need to replace coal with those failsafe and relatively cheap thorium fueled reactors, and otherwise everything else provided via green/renewable energy alternatives, plus a doubling or better that of our national energy grid capacity within the next seven to eight years is what will help to get that federal government overhead down to a 48% dull roar of what has us in such unbearable debt as of today, and thereby getting us forever out of our national and local debt at the same time. California is certainly a good example of what not to do. If we’re going to utilize every last cubic meter of coal within this century (including those lowest grades of coal), and that of consuming massive volumes of our atmosphere for creating raw heat, as well as for polluting of most everything in sight, we might as well go with William Mook, and use his green hydrogen saturated synfuel that’s derived from coal. http://www.mokenergy.com http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&qt_s=1&q=mok%20energy&sa=N&tab=gw I can also agree with “What A. Fool” and those few others that think alike, whereas we need a serious debt reduction plan of action, such as starting with a 10% federal employment, retirement and benefit reduction plan of action per year, for roughly the next 7 to 8 years. Only then perhaps we can kill the messenger(s). Yourself, “What A. Fool” and I think very much constructively alike, that we do not need bigger government. However, there are measures of national management in our best interest that I believe can be federally mandated and enforced with a much smaller federal and state government overhead. Unfortunately, at this late point in the game that we’re badly losing at, it seems we do not have good options, only bad ones. Obviously those of the forever Big Energy mindset are opposed to revising anything except on behalf of bigger government along with those special interest concessions that go along with their bought and paid for elections of favoring whatever’s benefiting those of Big Energy. In other words, what goes around comes around (meaning there’s apparently no such thing as a bad government that’s on the Big Energy hook). I on the other hand would change this obfuscation policy of government continually looking the other way until it’s simply too late in the game, but to do anything but to stare dumbfounded at the nearly insurmountable mess and subsequent debt we’ve created. “What A. Fool” is also correct about our currency, in going all via debit card or spendy interest and service fee saturated credit cards is perhaps our only way out of the more spendy federal coinage and paper currency overhead. Save the trees and precious metals for better usage, not to mention saving all the related energy our paper loot and coinage takes. The US Mint(s) plus their associated secondary buildings, warehouses and their extensive motor pools could then be better used as a daycare and other services for accommodating the new poor and destitute, such as those having been recently evicted and/or having lost their jobs and about to lose most everything else because of what our mostly republican government that clearly wasn’t doing its job for the previous decade. ~ BG You the f.ck did you get so brain damaged? Nuclear waste disposal is a non-issue, only the paranoid think it is. On Jul 2, 5:59 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:" I have to bite my tong every time someone says something to the effect of, "Nuclear energy shouldn't be expanded in the US because we've never solved the waste disposal problem". Um, yes we have. The problem is all the protests, lawsuits, and etc. prevent the US Government from actually opening the facility. In the mean time, all that waste is being stored "on site". In my opinion, that's more dangerous long term than putting it in a secure storage facility. Dumb environmental whackos. They're too stupid for our own good. ;-) Unfortunately, the current administration doesn't view the Yucca Mountain Repository as a viable site. Of course, the Bush Administration didn't get the facility opened either in the 8 years they were in power, so there is always plenty of blame to go around. :-P Jeff" so you post that idiotic bs, and you call other people whackos, you are a joke. > You the f.ck did you get so brain damaged? *>LOL!<* --Gads, the irony.. The irony.. :> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ :> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] : :"Hansen is an idiot because he fights against pollution". No, the message is that Hansen has an agenda that he is willing to break the law to push. This makes his science suspect. 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? [Good luck in that cave.] : > Note to NASA: Now can you fire this guy? : [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : :and all that stuff. So when do you (and Hansen) start boycotting everything that uses coal-fired electricity to produce? [Good luck in that cave.] :Today, the National Academy of Science published a report where they :establish that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :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? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > Yeah, and what does sucking all that energy out of weather patterns do > to them? Energy is conserved, retard. >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-arrested/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > No, the message is that Hansen has an agenda that he is willing to > break the law to push. This makes his science suspect. A pathetic lie. He's hardly > the first. Read up on the actual facts surrounding 'Nuclear Winter'. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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.] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > :"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.] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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. > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. Oh..... Daryl Hannah beleives in global warming. Then it must be true. > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > 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 sh.t?? - - 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. > > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 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. >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > 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. translation: droool > > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > them more careful in how they went about > performing their evil acts. You've got it nailed. ~ BG >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... >> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > them more careful in how they went about > performing their evil acts. As always, lenny post = lies. > 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. >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Oh..... Daryl Hannah beleives in global warming. Then it must be true. Got to love that denialist logic! lol > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. 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 sh.t 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 > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why don't you get yourself arrested. Moron. > > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Why don't you get yourself arrested. Moron. Another coal, pollution and genetic mutation lover? ~ BG > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with you you right wing fascist pig > 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. >> 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. Let us know when he is sentenced and jailed. =) The loony left is truely the undemocratic fascist right today, religious zealots who force their radical views on the majority. They were not protesting, they were blocking lawful business that we depend on. These a.sholes should be disconnecting their electric before they "protest" it. 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 you you right wing fascist pig > The loony left is truely the undemocratic fascist right today, > religious zealots who force their radical views on the majority. •• 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 a.sholes should be disconnecting their electric before they "protest" it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. - - 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. :> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... :> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] :Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with :you you right wing fascist pig He wasn't arrested for protesting. He was arrested for BREAKING THE LAW while protesting. Not a 'right'. If he'll actually break laws to push his agenda, how trustworthy is his science? Will he bend on that to push his agenda? SignatureYou are What you do When it counts. > He wasn't arrested for protesting. He was arrested for BREAKING THE > LAW while protesting. Not a 'right'. If you were breathing in my spaceship cubicle without recycling your carbon dioxide with numerous plants, I'd throw you out the airlock. You are breathing on my world and burning and chopping down my plants. >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... >>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > If he'll actually break laws to push his agenda, how trustworthy is > his science? Will he bend on that to push his agenda? You mean you don't know? > >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Under the US Constitution he has the right to protest. The hell with > you you right wing fascist pig •• 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". 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. >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...... >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > them more careful in how they went about > performing their evil acts. Lenny post = lies, 100% of the time. lol NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. 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. > NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. > > 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. Can you point us to 'Marvin the Martian's' peer reviewed published scientific climatology papers? Thanks in advance. > NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. > > 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. It's no wonder we are going back to the moon. // tbh >> NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > // > tbh Indeed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26179944/ >>> NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26179944/ Good luck with that endeavour. However, even though fusion will not produce greenhouse gasses, it will produce Donald Duck gasses. It will get everyone squeaking....:) Global squeaking instead of global warming. // tbh >> Indeed. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > produce greenhouse gasses, it will produce Donald Duck gasses. It will > get everyone squeaking....:) Global squeaking instead of global warming. Is that retard humor? I heard of that. >>> Indeed. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is that retard humor? I heard of that. Yes, totally facetious.... // tbh > >>> Indeed. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Is that retard humor? I heard of that. •• 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 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. leonard78sp@gmail.com : Canadian retard. > NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. > > Hansen makes NASA look like a bunch of rabid hamsters with his > demands to prosecute "global warming deniers" for "crimes against > humanity". Never happened. Please don't lie to us. >> NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. >> >> Hansen makes NASA look like a bunch of rabid hamsters with his demands >> to prosecute "global warming deniers" for "crimes against humanity". > > Never happened. 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. >>> NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ideas. Hansen does, and wants anyone who questions him he wants to > imprison and silence. He wasn't proposing imprisoning them for questioning the science, retard, he was proposing to imprison them for purposely destroying the Earth after being informed in no uncertain terms by science that is what they are doing by profiting off the extraction, refinement, distribution and sale of dirty carbon based fuels burned inefficiently by combustion. >> Please don't lie to us. You are the liar, not James Hansen, nor the IPCC, nor the UN. "Inaction is inexcusable." http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf > Clearly, you are either ignorant, or lying yourself. What a f.cking retard you are. > NASA would do well to terminate Hansen's employment. > > 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. 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. > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. Energy that’s derived from an open cycle of excavating and consuming coal is nothing but bad news, as well as the same can be said of oily sand or most any other hard to get fossil fuel. Coal always has been and always will be detrimental to everyone and everything under the sun. Burning old tires is actually a thousand percent cleaner and safer to all involved, although most of a tire is made from fossil fuel to begin with, so we’d still have an environmental and otherwise spendy kind of energy recycle problem unless those tires can be imported from Mars or the moon Titan. I agree with “What A. Fool” and those few others that think alike, whereas 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. Then perhaps we can kill the messenger. 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 is what will get that federal government overhead down to 48% of what has us in such unbearable debt as of today, getting us forever out of debt at the same time. Yourself, “What A. Fool” and I think very much alike. However, there are measures of national management that I believe can be federally mandated and enforced with a much smaller federal and state government overhead. Unfortunately, at this late point in the game that we’re badly losing at, it seems we do not have good options, only bad ones. Obviously those of the Big Energy mindset are opposed to anything except big government and those special interest concessions that go along with a bought and paid for election of whatever’s benefiting those of Big Energy. In other words, what goes around comes around (meaning there’s no such thing as a bad government that’s on the Big Energy hook) ~ BG > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. Energy that’s derived from an open cycle of excavating and consuming coal is nothing but bad news, as well as the same can be said of oily sand or most any other hard to get fossil fuel. Coal always has been and always will be detrimental to everyone and everything under the sun. Burning old tires is actually a thousand percent cleaner and safer to all involved, although most of a tire is made from fossil fuel to begin with, so we’d still have an environmental and otherwise spendy kind of energy recycle problem unless those tires can be imported from Mars or the moon Titan. I agree with “What A. Fool” and those few others that think alike, whereas 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. Only then perhaps we can kill the messenger(s). Secondly, we need to replace coal with 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 is what will get that federal government overhead down to a 48% dull roar of what has us in such unbearable debt as of today, and thereby getting us forever out of debt at the same time. Yourself, “What A. Fool” and I think very much constructively alike, that we do not need bigger government. However, there are measures of national management in our best interest that I believe can be federally mandated and enforced with a much smaller federal and state government overhead. Unfortunately, at this late point in the game that we’re badly losing at, it seems we do not have good options, only bad ones. Obviously those of the Big Energy mindset are opposed to revising anything except on behalf of bigger government along with those special interest concessions that go along with their bought and paid for elections of favoring whatever’s benefiting those of Big Energy. In other words, what goes around comes around (meaning there’s apparently no such thing as a bad government that’s on the Big Energy hook). I on the other hand would change this obfuscation policy of government continually looking the other way until it’s simply too late in the game, but to do anything but to stare dumbfounded at the nearly insurmountable mess and subsequent debt we’ve created. “What A. Fool” is also correct about our currency, in going all via debit card or spendy interest and service fee saturated credit cards is perhaps our only way out of the more spendy coinage and paper currency overhead. The US Mint(s) plus associated warehouses and their extensive motor pools could be better used as a daycare and other services for accommodating the new poor and destitute, such as those having been recently evicted and/or having lost their jobs and about to lose most everything else because of what our mostly republican government that clearly wasn’t doing its job for the previous decade. ~ BG > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-ar...http://w ww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gC5Q_Tu5jbx6LXL42Q4... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Meanwhile, back at the RealClimate ranch today, the sound of crickets. Energy that’s derived from an open cycle of grandiose excavating and consuming mass quantities of coal is nothing but bad news, as well as the same can be said of oily sand or most any other hard to get and typically energy intensive processing of such fossil fuels. For a number of valid reasons, the atmospheric direct combustion of raw coal always has been and always will be detrimental to everyone and everything under the sun. The burning of old tires is actually a thousand percent (meaning ten fold) cleaner and safer to all involved, although most of a tire is made from fossil fuel to begin with, so we’d still have an environmental and otherwise spendy kind of energy recycle problem unless those tires can be cost effectively imported from Mars or the moon Titan. Secondly, we basically need to replace coal with those failsafe and relatively cheap thorium fueled reactors, and otherwise everything else provided via green/renewable energy alternatives, plus a doubling or better that of our national energy grid capacity within the next seven to eight years is what will help to get that federal government overhead down to a 48% dull roar of what has us in such unbearable debt as of today, and thereby getting us forever out of our national and local debt at the same time. California is certainly a good example of what not to do. If we’re going to utilize every last cubic meter of coal within this century (including those lowest grades of coal), and that of consuming massive volumes of our atmosphere for creating raw heat, as well as for polluting of most everything in sight, we might as well go with William Mook, and use his green hydrogen saturated synfuel that’s derived from coal. http://www.mokenergy.com http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&qt_s=1&q=mok%20energy&sa=N&tab=gw I can also agree with “What A. Fool” and those few others that think alike, whereas we need a serious debt reduction plan of action, such as starting with a 10% federal employment, retirement and benefit reduction plan of action per year, for roughly the next 7 to 8 years. Only then perhaps we can kill the messenger(s). Yourself, “What A. Fool” and I think very much constructively alike, that we do not need bigger government. However, there are measures of national management in our best interest that I believe can be federally mandated and enforced with a much smaller federal and state government overhead. Unfortunately, at this late point in the game that we’re badly losing at, it seems we do not have good options, only bad ones. Obviously those of the forever Big Energy mindset are opposed to revising anything except on behalf of bigger government along with those special interest concessions that go along with their bought and paid for elections of favoring whatever’s benefiting those of Big Energy. In other words, what goes around comes around (meaning there’s apparently no such thing as a bad government that’s on the Big Energy hook). I on the other hand would change this obfuscation policy of government continually looking the other way until it’s simply too late in the game, but to do anything but to stare dumbfounded at the nearly insurmountable mess and subsequent debt we’ve created. “What A. Fool” is also correct about our currency, in going all via debit card or spendy interest and service fee saturated credit cards is perhaps our only way out of the more spendy federal coinage and paper currency overhead. Save the trees and precious metals for better usage, not to mention saving all the related energy our paper loot and coinage takes. The US Mint(s) plus their associated secondary buildings, warehouses and their extensive motor pools could then be better used as a daycare and other services for accommodating the new poor and destitute, such as those having been recently evicted and/or having lost their jobs and about to lose most everything else because of what our mostly republican government that clearly wasn’t doing its job for the previous decade. ~ BG |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.