While environmentalism has become a religion to our friends on the left, here are just a few reasons why they're being swindled:

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5287_0_4_0_C/

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html

Resist the urge to sip Herb's latest batch of Kool-aid, folks.

What I've never understood is why the possiblilty of Global Warming being real is such a threat to conservatives. Why is it? Why fight it so urgently? Can't we let the scientists decide and then take whatever action is needed? Why is this concept a threat?

Because it involves those people that do not align well with the agenda. If we accept global warming, then we must also accept that some people, currently being villanized, maybe shouldn't be.

All about denying anything that might weaken the effort.

IMHO, real conservatives are highly likely to consider the matter and form a rational opinion. I don't think it's a partisan threat at it's core.

Neo-conservatives, and false-conservatives in general, see everything as partisan, no matter what. To them, this is a threat, for at least the reasons given above.

As I understand it, the real scientific "debate" is: what, if any, influence does human activity have on climate change? The use of quotes in the preceding sentence is deliberate because in that context it is really an unanswered question and not an argument or political-style debate. There are no accepted models yet that would show, "if we cut carbon emissions by xx% over the next 10 years, we might be x degrees cooler in the year 20xx."

I don't think that there is any need to politicize this issue; just let the scientists do their work. There are other environmental quality issues that are more pressing.

I read the one from heartland.org (the only link that was automatically made into a link). The "reasons" against global warming are amusing and sometimes contradictory.

Basically, the biggest reasons:

- science has been wrong the past. So they must be wrong about global warming, too. That's a stupid argument, actually.
- it will cost too much so why bother?
- global warming might be a good thing
- the temperature of the lower troposphere over the last 23 years hasn't changed (so the glaciers and polar ice caps must not be melting I guess.)

Actually I'm becoming resigned to the "Global Warming is inevitable anyway" argument. I've become convinced that the only way to do anything significant about Global Warming is to cap world population growth, which is not going to happen. Just getting everyone to drive a hydrogen car and use solar panels at home isn't going to change much when the world population of energy consumers, meat eaters, tree killers is growing exponentially.

Andrew

"While environmentalism has become a religion to our friends on the left, here are just a few reasons why they're being swindled:"

I like this sentence if only because it details that down deep somewhere, the entity that has named itself "herb" in this thread on these boards, whatever it may be in real life, considers religion a swindle. He uses the word in a derogatory fashion and uses the word swindle as if it was a natural result of believing in religion.

On the other hand, we can just adapt as we go along to the point it consumes our county's entire budget fighting off the rising waters and the wrath of mother nature (or the lack of one) to the point of being unable to fund a military and invade other countries for imaginary reasons.

Lets hope there is still time at that point to turn things around a bit.

considers religion a swindle...

Interesting indeed!

That does explain being willing to use religion as a tool as well.

The right wing, like Drudge, like to point to heavy snows in the east this year as examples of why there is no "global warning," but they fail to point out that in a lot of areas in the Northeast that get a lot of snow each year, they got much less this year.

It is more appropriate to call it "global change," as some areas get colder and some get warmer.

(i was kind of hoping good ole Herb would answer my question, but i guess that was too much to ask)

"What I've never understood is why the possiblilty [sic] of Global Warming being real is such a threat to conservatives."

Threat? It's more of a sick joke played on unsuspecting liberals and the easily manipulated. In this pagan culture which thumbs its collective nose at God, environmentalism has indeed become a religion:

http://www.vaclavklaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=3eLwSP6fD2kj

Herb

so you believe that humans' actions have absolutely no affect on the environment and that all the world's resources will be infinitely plentiful?

We need to be smart, but the sky is not falling.

Herb

We are not being smart - that's the point. The sky does not fall overnight.

Andrew

Herb- I have a pair of rose colored glasses you left on another thread.

Yes, we do need to be smart and wouldn't that entail doing such things as conserving gas and energy, and recycling and the like?

Gee, sounds a little like an environmentalist suggestion.

edit: If not those things...what do we need to do to "be smart"?

"Yes, we do need to be smart and wouldn't that entail doing such things as conserving gas and energy, and recycling and the like?"

Absolutely. Those will also lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources, as will wind, geothermal, biodiesel, nuclear, liquified coal and domestic oil exploration.

The problem I have is the extremist nature of our sudden global warming catastrophe. Just like the left blames the right for scaring us, look at what the left is doing. Same thing.

Believe it or not, I recycle.

Herb

Since when are scientists "the left"? And the title of this thread, which you wrote, says "Global Warming is a scam". Meaning, not true. So please own up to what you say. You are saying it's a false concept. No mention of the "extremist nature" that bothers you.

Oh, and thanks Herb for pointing out my typing error. Thank goodness you're here nit-picking everything.

The Real Bottom line:

Global Warming is too costly for the Fortune 500 Companies to concede.

It's called GREED!

Herb said>>>
We need to be smart, but the sky is not falling.

So...... Let's wait until it does????

I can list 9 reasons why it's not a scam.

Here's something to drive right-wingers crazy:

1. Global warming is a real problem.....

2. .....and it's all Bill Clinton's fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

Report from the Sonoran Desert: Phoenix had five days in a row last week where new record highs in the 90s were set, including two consecutive days at 99, the earliest in the year such hot weather has occurred since records have been kept (beginning in 1907 or so)... And we are beginning the 12th year of a serious drought down here...

Let me remind you that this IS a desert, and our annual rainfall amounts to about 7-1/3 inches a year. I'm not totally convinced of the global warming alarms...yet. But I'd rather be a good steward of the land and environment, just in case. (Being an Oregon native taught me that concept.) Anything less is burying your head in the sand...and that sand is DAMN HOT here in June and July!

Put 10 people in a 10' X 10' room and monitor the temp.
Put 100 people in that same room and monitor the temp again. It will rise much faster and reach a higher level.

1900 1.6 billion people on earth.
July 2006 6.5 billion people on the same globe.
How much more pollution today than in 1900....tons!
Over a 400% population growth.
So by 3000 we will have 26 billion people? I doubt it.....war will break out most likely prior to that. I think the world can only take so much before a major natural or manmade calamity takes place!
If you mistreat the planet....then expect the planet to mistreat you. It is really kind of simple. Melt to Ice and the planet warms up. Crowd more people and all of their belongings into the same area and more heat is generated while the environment needed to process that heat is destroyed for the increasing population.
I don't think we will see anything like "Day After Tomorrow" but the earth will have some major upheavals if things do not change and we keep proceeding the way we are.

I think it's caused by all of Al Gore's hot air.

Put a dome over DC and we could call it a "TURDarium"!

Well, i broke my vow not to engage with Herb, and he responds the same way he always does to me, which is to not respond, or just throw up some link to some youtube propaganda film. So, I will reinstate my vow.

Three things to consider about global warming.

1. Is the earth warming.

2. Is it caused by man made activity.

3. Is it good or bad? the earths temperature has gone up and down many times over the century,
One thing is certain, its not going to stay the same.

Go watch the old movie "Soylent Green"! That is were we are headed if we do not make changes and safeguard the environment now for our children's, children's sake!

Brilliant. You have solved it. Thanks.

No Problem!

I was crediting Nwokie - but heck - you can have some too.

I just hope this global warming don't kill off all of the crow's! I'd hate to have to start eating my hat instead!

"Since when are scientists "the left"?"

Actually, Warner-I was in the process of responding to your post and was waylayed.

Scientists are not, by definition, the left.

But as seen in other politically charged situations like with evolution, some leftists are scientists. And simply because one is a scientist means only so much. That's because there are opposing views on global warming.

Choose to ignore me if you wish but I am an environmentalist. I'm a fisherman and I recycle. Many liberals don't do that much.
I'm just not an extremist.

Herbert "Nixon Started The Environmental Protection Agency" Milhous

Started the EPA and RESIGNED in disgrace!

resigned in disgrace, right, thats why the country had such a large public display of appreciation for him when he died.

Herb living in Oregon we come by recycling a little more natural than many other states. I have been recycling before the first Earth Day. It's not some heroic feat in this state to mention you recycle. Because most of us do it and have been for years.

I don't fish but I'll assume you do that all legally as well. Most people I know who fish do it by the book and it makes it more enjoyable for everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by extremist in environmental terms but here at the Taylor residence my wife has put together some wonderful edible landscaping. She goes organic with many aspects of her garden. Having free range chickens in the urban area is now more common than you might think.

Along with clothing swaps and freecycle.org we are putting less into landfills.

It's more than just saying you recycle it's really a philosophy that you live and in our case pass onto our kids.

With today's technology we have better opportunities to be environmentally responsible. It's all about balance and thinking about those who will follow us. As the native American's say "Walk lightly on the earth."

That's all very well and good, Chris.

Both you and I have a smaller carbon footprint than Mr. Gore...and that's a good thing. I don't think our planet would survive long if we all jetted around the world spewing toxic jet emissions.

Herbert M.

And he makes zero difference.

There will always be people jetting around the world because we have jets! Nobody is going to take you seriously on this matter. Nobody.

It will last longer with the toxic jet emmissions than with the toxic Herb emmissions!

*Plonk

Sorry man no offense....just taking advantage of that open door!

Why do you guys on the left defend this hypocrisy?

You attack Mr. Bush, but turn a blind eye when it's YOUR guy, like Mr. Gore.

Talk about hyper-partisan around here. At least I deal straight when it comes to conservative scoundrels, a la' Newt Gingerich.

Oh, I forgot. Since it's all grey, leftists can make it up as you go along. Got it.

Herb

Herb...it won't matter for much longer...the Rapture is on it's way and all of the good souls will be out of here. Washington DC will likely be the most crowded place on earth after that!

I'm with Warner. Just don't have the energy for this.

Happy trails Herb...

Yeah.

Can't handle the hard questions, so go ahead.

Flip the chess board over.

I gave you more credit, but I was wrong.

Later.

Herb

Climate Science from Climate Scientists

Climate Change Attribution Graph

How about we put the board away carefully?

We return later, with maybe some fresh perspective and with that, some energy.

I've got significant life / family struggles happening right now. The conversation must add value, or I'm just not up for it.

Not all about you Herb, you need to know that.

Fair enough.
You got it.
Take care.
Later.

Herb

Cribbage anyone?

"Later. Herb"

You put it out there that you reached maturity before "tubular" and "gnarly" and then you come in with a "later?" I'm 36 and that is after my time. Is this a new "hepcat" Herb, or a crack in the facade? You are a hard fellow to figure.

Environmental religion might be wacky to some folks, but it served some native tribes all over the planet for many centuries. Some civilizations were so clean that they didn't leave a single trace.

I'm with FBR. "Swindle" would be a small group of powerful people who profess to believe in the works of a dissident, murdered in the Middle East by an Empire, while at the same time, murdering dissidents in the Middle East with an Empire. For what this time? Oh, oil, so that quickly brings us back to topic.

Al Gore has a carbon footprint that is comparable to anyone in his position. If you are an executive or other professional, you are among the many who need to understand the problem. By driving and flying in the film, he demonstrates the impact fully without simply just cutting it out and ignoring it. The power base lives that way and can understand it.

Gore is not saying anything in the movie that isn't already internationally recognized as fact. The film simply helps catch the more insulated folks up on what science has known since before Rachel Carson wrote, "Silent Spring" and -- like Teddy Roosevelt almost a century ago -- puts environmental issues into public focus.

To rearrange a phrase from Herb's so-called glory years: Earth. Love It or Leave It.

Hey, hey...

I see somebody just trying to relate. I'll bet, dollars to dougnuts, Herb is older. I'll also bet Herb sees me as somebody younger.

That use of expression is a sincere attempt to set down the arms and take a step back. It's nothing more than that.

To clarify what I wrote. I'm wanting to converse. You people here are good friends. Shutting that out is not good for me. However, I do not get any positive energy out of bogus conversation. Labels, barbs, etc... are all off the table right now where I'm concerned. Either it has real value, or it just doesn't. That's all.

Missing said it very well, that's how I feel also.

Hey Chris!

Pinochle perhaps? (however the heck you spell it)

Never was a Cribbage fan!

Prefer Poker to both of the above. Play for candy, drinks, pennies, etc... Lots of fun.

Should try to do an online for fun private poker room for the board some time....that would be a hoot!

Thanks, Missing. You nailed it.

And to slightly correct Littlesongs:

"To rearrange a phrase from Herb's so-called glory years: Earth First! We'll log the others later."

Herbert M.

Dark, that would be fun indeed!

(On a side note. Poker is a game of skill between players. House only takes a constant percentage to pay for the venue, unlike most other pure games of chance. It should not be regulated the same way the other games are! Frist is a complete hoser for shoving that in last year. Arrgh!!!)

Nwokie said>>>
resigned in disgrace, right, thats why the country had such a large public display of appreciation for him when he died.

HUH? Where the hell where you when he died?? At a PRO-Nixon party??? WTF....
And they will do the same for GDUHbya and DUHbya when he dies. And God forebid... When Slick Willy dies too!

www.partypoker.com

play for free table #4072915

"....At a PRO-Nixon party???"

A Pro-Nixon party?

Where? Where?

Herb

In jail Herb...
Cell #345 DCSP

Ouch.

Herbert Milhous

I gotta a band-aide for that....

Ya know, people now take pot shots at Presidents Jefferson and Washington because of their misdeeds, since they owned slaves.

At least it can be said about Mr. Nixon that he never did.

Herb

There's footage of the Pro-Nixon party available on youtube. However, the best 18 minutes of the party have been deleted.

Must have been a Rosemary Woods production.

Herbert M.

Reportedly part of the dialogue that ended on the cutting room floor was when the partygoers encouraged Nixon to take the helm of the bar-b-que but he nervously replied

"I am not a cook!"

But he went on to cook one of the finest White House BBQ meals in recent memory.

only because he brought out the best China.

You also have to admit that Nixon played Checkers very well.

arf!

"Must have been a Rosemary Woods production."

See, I poked a little and you made me laugh out loud. Good to see you Herb. Good to see all of you. Hope you are having an environmentally friendly weekend. I bet everybody recycles those beer bottles and that big fat Sunday paper.

For those of you that think that global warming and all the things that go along with it - ALL of the things - indulge me for just a moment;

What would it take for you to support change? Specifically. Spell it out. Name it.

You need to re-ask that question CJ, because I can't tell who or what position it's directed to.

"See, I poked a little and you made me laugh out loud. Good to see you Herb."

Good to see you too. Your getting a joke like that says a great deal about your knowledge of history in general, and Nixon minutiae in particular. You're obviously well-read.

Best-

Herb

I think everybody over the age of 45 knows who Rosemary Woods is. That is NOT Minutiae, unless you think people are really dumb.

Ask 10 people randomly of any age. You won't get 50% remembering.

Have a nice day, Mrs. Merkin. You always seem to need one.

Herb

The wife and I went to a seminar on solar energy this morning at the Eco Trust Building in the Pearl District. We are planning on adding solar to our house in the next few years.

Here are some things we are planning to do hopefully soon. Buy an electric car. For all those non-highway errands. New windows for the house that are more efficient. (We got the house insulated a few years ago which made a big difference). Add solar shingles when the time comes to put a new roof on our house. A tankless water heater. Common place in Europe but not so much here.

We recently upgraded to a new fridge that is energy efficient and have an energy efficient washer. Many of the upgrades do come with tax credits.

It's not always about saving money but using energy wisely.

I'll ask 10 people 45 or older and report back...I was shocked that Mr. M knew, he's not really a current events kind of guy, especially back in HS, and he knew who she was.

1 down, 9 to go.

Where do you think an electric car gets its energy?
Usually a coal or oil fired generator.

Could be solar, could be hydro, geo thermal, combustion of renewable fuels, etc...

We've a lot more options where electric power is concerned, than we do with fossil fuels. The latter is finite, where the former is quite sustainable in many cases.

The same thing applies to biodiesels. They are sustainable, in many cases, as well.

These things are very significant where building out alternative energy systems are concerned. Falling back to, we just burn oil for electrical energy is really not doing the process justice.

Really? I didn't know that.

So therefore...electric cars are bad?

Their not particulary any better than regular cars, until we start generating most of our electricity from renewable sources.

If we started building nuclear power plants, that would go a long way in resolving a lot of problems, from balance of trade to pollution.

Over in the Tri-Cities area there are tons of wind turbines. Why there is not a wider use of this free and non-polluting or fish killing resource is beyond me. It does take a little land to put them on but that is it. There is constant wind in some areas....harness that power instead of nuking humanity and creating waste that will be around slightly longer than a twinkie will!

Someone needs to invent a rotating battery system that can charge empty batteries while others that have been charged fuel the car. Then, as those die down to nothing, they get charged by the rotation of the batteries.

Never have to recharge again. One time. That's it. All done.

Battery rotation is the future. In fact, it's SO much in the future I don't even know what I'm talking about yet.

Environmentilsts have a fit over wind turbins, they claim their unsughtly and kill birds etc.

Couple of years ago they were going to put some offshore at marchas vinyard, and ted Kennedy and his friends killed it, because it spoiled their view.

nuclear power plants have the tendency to spoil my view too and cause some of my children to glow in the dark.

Yeah, I'll take the bird loss over the atomic issues anyday.

My biggiest issue is that we really do not have a solid plan for handling the stuff after it's been expired, and while running it. The cost of a slipup is just way too high.

Can U say "Churnobil"?

No, but I can say Homer Simpson.

Bill Wattenberg on KGO would really disagree with the "Homer Simpson" stereotype of nuclear plant management. He seems to devote a lot of his show to making the case that, at least in this country, nuclear power is pretty safe because the design and operation of the plants, as well as the disposal of the used fuel, is very heavily regulated. However, in some developing countries, there might be serious issues with safety at nuclear plants.

A disclaimer is needed here, of course: I have never worked in the nuclear power industry, so I don't know what regulatory hoops these people have to jump through to keep their plants open. Of the 50-some years that nuclear power plants have been in operation in this country, though, I think that Three Mile Island is the only accident that we have had where there was a risk of exposing the general population to radioactive material.

We've done fairly well in this regard.

But, given the long half-life of this crap, even one mistake is gonna have a serious impact! To me, that puts the risks too high, given the numerous alternatives.

Some solid research is very likely to shake out a few other options, we are aware of, but not ready to realize their potency.

Alfred, you mean Chenobyl wasn't a Homer Simpson buffoon-type error but rather, a engineering flaw that a team of highly qualified engineers couldn't bring under control?

KSKD, Who is to say that Astro van parked down the street from your house has a couple stolen spent fuel rods somebody though would be worth money?

Well......if you start being luminescent without the aid of a black light then "Houston, we have a Problem!"

Originally, Soviet authorities put the blame solely on the operators of the Chernobyl plant. As more information surfaced about the design of the reactor in subsequent years, analysts concluded that there were more factors involved--primarily:

1) The operators weren't properly trained about some counter-intuitive quirks in the reactor's behavior that were a product of its design. For example, inserting control rods into the reactor is supposed to slow down the nuclear reaction. However, in the Chernobyl reactor, inserting the control rods momentarily increased the power output before the desired effect took place; the operators didn't know this.

2) The reactor only employed partial containment, which made it easy for radioactive material to escape after the explosion.

3) The plant staff was lax in following safety procedures. The operators in charge of an experiment at the plant had switched off many of the plant's safety systems, and this was against plant safety guidelines.

This is the information that I gleaned from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Causes
which cites the work of Valeri Legasov and of the IAEA's 1993 report on the Chernobyl disaster.

Can you just picture Portland a ghost town like Chernobyl had Trojan melted down. Then we would have also had those three eyed two tailed Salmon to deal with downstream as well!
I would rather eat fish out of the Willamette after a bad rain storm. They may be a little brown but at least they are not glowing!

Environmentilst scare tactics, no US power plant has ever harmed anyone, and the 3 mile island was old style reactor, and the safety devices worked.

Nuclear power is safe and clean.

Unless you decide to bath in the waste it produces!

WIND......Free and Clean!
SOLAR....DITTO!
The Damn Dam's are already there so leave them!
Coal pollutes the atmosphere and rapes the land to feed it!
Nuclear is just not the right alternative because of the toxic waste it produces!

Actually, Dr. Bill Wattenburg, arguably one of our greatest scientific minds and a widely respected KGO 810AM radio announcer, agrees with Nwokie and Herb on nuclear energy.

So you guys who worship at the altar of science, don't give us your squishy, namby-pamby bologna on this. Many accomplished scientists endorse nuclear power. As is pointed out by Dr. Wattenburg, you're already getting radiation from various forms of energy and often more than nuclear power typically emits.

Dr. Wattenburg has worked on many classified projects. Just check out the guy's resume:

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/resume.html

My brain hurts just reading all his prestigious accomplishments. I wonder how high his security clearance must have been to be working on nuclear weapons design?

Herb

Wind power comes from putting up hugh windmills, which convert wind energy, to electric energy, if the wind dont blow, they dont work.

Also how do we know we're not affecting the environment with them? if we slow the wind down, thats gotta affect something, hey, maybe windmills are causing "global warming".

I don't care how safe the reactor's are or how much ambient radiation they give off. I am worried about the storage drums and containers for the spent fuel that may not be disposed of correctly and cause environmental problems or the blatant disregard and just flat dumping into the oceans of materials like this. It is big business and the maximum daily fine is a joke to people dumping large loads of toxic waste into the oceans. Are the waste storage facilities gaurantee'd to last as long as the waste product they contain? Probably not! Don't just focus on the plants clean front side you gotta take a look at the crap coming out the back side to! Sure we kill a few fish or birds with dams and wind turbines but that beats having a SalmonHead or a Bald Owl or a Beareaver now don't it! Hell who know's maybe one day a Jackolope will be a real critter and then we can shoot them with our guns!

catching up:

Current solar panels take more energy to manufacture than the generate in their lifetimes. New thin-film cells do better, but still ain't too efficient.

Electric cars are still good for the environment even if you have to charge them from a coal-fired plant. The reason? Because of the nature of our electrical demand. The vast majority of electrical demand happens in relatively small windows of the day, the largest being "just after work" in the late afternoon/early evening. Because the utility needs enough capacity to sustain the peak load, any additional load placed on the grid during *off* peak times is essentially "free" (not quite free, but you get the idea). Therefore, if you charge your car at night, you're using power that would otherwise be wasted- a net environmental benefit, regardless of the power source.

Nuclear(or nucular if you prefer): it IS possible to make a safe and secure nuclear plant, and to responsibly handle the waste(waste that is so INCREDIBLY MINISCULE in quantity when compared to the pollutants we dump by the trainload into air, land and water every day). You know the old saying- if we can put a man on the moon...

Think about it, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were designed by guys with PAPER, PENCIL and a friggin SLIDE RULE! With modern computer aided designs, much better things are possible.

And it's not (just) environmentalists who are against wind farms... it's rich assholes.

Oh, and neither ethanol nor hydrogen are the way of the (near)future... it's biodiesel guys.

I thinks i iz gonna get me one o them thar log cabinz up in the hillz next to a stream and complet with an outhouze! Carfill if you iz comin my way....cauz rememember "The Hillz Has Eyez"!

Biodiesel? Where you gonna get all that grain to make biodiesel, oh take it away from food production, which will make food prices skyrocket. And it takes almost as much fuel to grow products, as the amount of biodiesel, for mall quantities its great, because you can use leftover and waste product, but when you go large scale, its very inefficient.

That's the great thing, you don't NEED to use grain or any food crop to make the BD.. that's what we're using *now*, because that's what's most plentiful and cheap(thanks to agribiz subsidies).

In the future your biodiesel will be made from algae that yields 10-40x what soy does, and grows on otherwise unarable land/water.

As far as the energy balance of BD goes, once again, growing oil crops for BD is only fuel-intensive if you use fuel-intensive crops! That's the beauty, you can make it out of damn near anything. Unlike ethanol, where you have the choice of corn, sugar cane or beets, all of which are energy intensive and are food crops.

Hell...just install nozzles in the drive thru an Mickey D's. Ya...give me a number 1 and fill'r up with fry oil!

I thought that global warming was killing all the algae? Start taking more from the ocean, and you kill off those little sea critters that eat it.

we're talkng grow-your-own algae. no need to give everything a scam-spin.

grow your own, where? your talking about an awful lot of ocean area.

Some are talking about algae pools in the desert, others are talking about using the algae to clean powerplant exhaust of CO2 while simultaneously producing fuel oil. There are many options. It doesn't need to be in the ocean.

You also need to get off of the "it's impossible to completely replace our petroleum usage with biofuels, so lets not bother" mentality.

If we were to(for example) develop our biofuel capacity sufficiently to change our transportation infrastructure (trucks, trains, ships) to a 50%(or 20% or 80%, whatever is most feasible) blend of BD, that would put us WELL on the way to eliminating our foreign oil dependence. Doesn't that seem like a good thing?

i didnt say it wasnt good, but the environmental impact will be hugh, much more than a few nice clean nuclear reaqctors.

"environmental impact will be hugh, much more than a few nice clean nuclear reaqctors."

really, how can you say "nice, clean" when you have chenobyl on the record? You don't get to count the hits and ignore the misses.

This statement is more factually correct: Nuclear power is a nice clean source of energy save an occasional chenobyl and a lack of safe storage locations for spent fuel rods -- RADIO ACTIVE FOR YEARS by the way.

By the way, I wonder where Trojan's fuel rods are? NWokies's back yard? I don't think so.

Chernobyl was an old,very dirty reactor, not built to anywhere close to US safety standards.

More people have died in ted kennedys car, than in US nuclear accidents.

There is no way, your going to get the EPA permission to flood hundreds of square miles of desert.

Maybe they are there in Okie's possesion. I've told you guys before that my brother worked for a Hanford Contractor, Battelle, in the Tri-cities. He was friends with people who worked at Hanford, he told me stories from his buddies, and how all kinds of stuff never arrived at the loading dock, and just went "missing" and the DOE and Army had no idea where it went or why it didn't make it there. One time it was a tank or two, and they never found them.

Ever drive out to the entrance of Hanford? Now that's frightening, and it's probably even worse since 9/11. It's probably like Area 51.

Hey, now let's talk about the water quality in the Hanford stretch of the Columbia River? Now that's where there's some special fish that Okie might enjoy eating. You can fish and hunt and visit there, can't you? You can't? Why not?

Oh yeah, I just remembered.

"The Online Encyclpedia of Washington State History" helped me.

http://216.254.10.116/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7438

The reactors also produced massive amounts of radioactive materials and chemical wastes. In 1947, when there were just three reactors at the site, Hanford released more than 684,000 curies of radioactivity. The partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979 released only about 15 curies. When plutonium production was at a peak, in the 1960s, radiation from Hanford was measured as far west as California and as far north as Canada. In addition to discharges of toxic materials into the air and water, some 440 billion gallons of hazardous liquids were disposed of directly into the ground at Hanford.

In the 1980s, the Department of Energy (DOE) -- successor to the Atomic Energy Commission -- was forced to make public previously secret documents showing the extent and the severity of the contamination. By almost any measure, the Hanford Site was the most polluted place in the Western Hemisphere. Spurred by angry citizens, lawsuits, and political pressure, DOE began a complex and expensive cleanup program. More than $60 billion has been spent on the project to date, and an estimated $200 billion more will be needed to neutralize the toxic legacy of America’s nuclear weapons program.

Mixed Heritage

The nuclear heritage was both a curse and a blessing for the Hanford Reach and the surrounding lands.

During the peak years of plutonium production, the discharge of water used to cool the reactors raised the temperature of the river, disrupting aquatic life. The closure of the last reactor, in 1991, eliminated that problem, but meanwhile, leaks were discovered in underground tanks used to store high-level radioactive wastes. Radioactive groundwater is still flowing from the site into the river. In June 2005 a group of researchers reported that traces of plutonium had been found in pike minnows and clams pulled from the Reach. Samples of river mud, mulberry bushes, lichen, and deer and mouse scat tested higher in radiation than expected. The Reach also contains high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other industrial pollutants.

And this is just for HerrB,

WHY THE HANFORD MATTERS TO FISHERMEN

Avoiding a Radioactive Columbia River
Glen Spain
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

http://www.pcffa.org/fn-sep02.htm

"Hanford continued to produce highly radioactive nuclear fuel and plutonium for nuclear weapons until the 1980’s, when it was finally closed and abandoned, leaving behind a deteriorating industrial complex that was too radioactive to continue to use. Like so many military projects of the era, little thought was given to later cleanup. The practice of the time was to just walk away from the problem and let others deal with it later.

Efforts to grab the land for development since closure have been ongoing and intense. Fortunately, under the Clinton Administration, with support from commercial fishermen and many others, the land was designated as a national monument in a hotly contested debate over its fate with local farmers and ranchers (see “Hanford Reach Protection a No-Brainer,” FN May 1999, available at: www.pcffa.org/fn-may99.htm).

Leaving a Legacy of Nuclear Waste

Unfortunately, today the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is one of the most radioactive places in the world. Little was known about the dangers of nuclear waste in the 1950’s and 60’s when the place was at its peak of production, and disposal methods were primitive. For years, the chosen disposal method for the tons of toxic industrial chemicals and highly radioactive slurry needed to produce just one pound of plutonium was to put the stuff in single shelled underground tanks or to bury it in barrels in unlined trenches. Over the last 50 years an estimated 440 billion gallons of contaminated liquids were directly disposed of by pouring them into the ground.

The site now contains 177 underground storage tanks in a huge “tank farm,” holding millions of gallons of high-level radioactive waste in a soup of highly corrosive chemicals and potentially explosive. At least 67 of these underground tanks have leaked at least one million gallons of highly radioactive waste into the groundwater. More tanks begin leaking each year as they continue to corrode. More than 200 square miles of Hanford’s groundwater aquifer have now been contaminated. Further contamination comes from 2,300 tons of corroded spent nuclear fuel rods held in two water-filled basins less than 500 yards from the Columbia River. The place is one huge Superfund toxic waste site, which the law requires the federal government to clean up.

Unfortunately, plumes of radioactive waste are now slowly migrating through the aquifer toward the Hanford Reach, threatening critical fall chinook spawning and rearing areas. Some studies have already found traces of these radioactive and toxic chemicals leaking into the river, though thankfully not yet in amounts to cause serious health concerns. But unfortunately, more contamination is only a matter of time. The question is, what can we do today to prevent this problem from becoming much worse in the future?

One small comfort is that the situation used to be worse. When Hanford was in its production heyday in 1964, contaminated water used to cool nine plutonium production reactors was also carrying radioactive wastes far downstream. Contaminated groundwater first reached the Columbia River in the 1950’s. During that decade filter-feeding shellfish well down the Pacific coast, well south of the Columbia estuary, started showing up with very high radiation levels from short-lived isotopes that could only have originated at Hanford. In 1954 alone it was estimated that almost 3 million curies of radiation were released directly or indirectly into the river from the Hanford facility."

Yeah, it's all really so safe and harmless, right guys?

Based on Mayan Prophesy Dec 21, 2012 should be our last day.....I think is some effect of what man has down to the environment, but I think we need to understand that the earth it self is in constant movement and some changes have nothing to do with the green house effect. The sun is actually moving closer to the earth, so it can't be blamed on one thing.

mrs, m, thanks for the info. If you don't mind, I think I am now going to get in Ted Kennedy's car.



ps: to nwokie: I said, you don't get to count the hits and ignore the misses. so what you said was: All nuclear power plants are SAFE, unless they're UNsafe. (Hint: take a critical thinking class)

There is always www.criticalthinking.org. About 60 bucks will cover the basics nicely, with the occasional in depth effort as well.

Hell of a deal.

I said clean, Vhernobyl wasnt by any definition clean. By youe reasoning first time ant new technology causes deaths, it should be abandoned, by that view we would have given up on auto's and airplanes decades ago.

First time some klutz falls and drowns in a pool of algae, we should abandon that concept right? Or theres a bad batch that spreads bacteria and kills some folks, gotta abandon it.

Are youe (sic) drunk?

if he is he might have a better chance of making sense.

nw, if you can improve the technology so that there is no radioactive byproducts or waste, you got my support.

Same here.

This may be possible too. Maybe we won't get it to zero, but we may well be able to seriously deplete the materials far beyond what we do today. That would prevent bombs from being made, make waste accidents safer, yield more per mass, etc...

To bad there is not a power source that ran off of stupidity. If there was Washington would have an un-depleateable supply to power the world!

Actually, I was typing from the tiny keyboard on my palmpilot, and ridding on a crowded max.

Yesterday was a busy day.

Currently Europe is building several nuclear power plants, that dont make weapons grade plutonium, and the nuclear waste is much lower than older plants.

The next generation of nuclear plants, will have even less.

I'm not saying we build lots of nuclear plants, just a few, along with increasing wind and other so called renewable sources. There is no one answer currently, but if we could generate 20 percent of our power from nuclear, another 20 percent from wind, another 20 percent from solar, and another 20 from coal fired plants using very clean coal, we would be in pretty good shape, until that technological breakthrough comes through.

It already has and C-Systems has buried it!

Great movie on the theory of discovering a Hydrogen energy source and how a theoretical government agency squashed it. "Chain Reaction"

"Chernobyl was an old, very dirty reactor, not built to anywhere close to US safety standards." I call bullshit. It was a reactor design that every person in the Northwest should be familiar with: Hanford.

The N-Reactor that lived upstream had no containment dome and a graphite core. It was also not shut down until the Chernobyl disaster brought the problem to light. Odds are, Chernobyl would have closed too, if Hanford had burned and poisoned the whole region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
No containment dome?
http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/RBMKvsLWR.html
Hate to tell you this, but russia still runs reactors exactly lke the one at Chernobyl.

Upstream. I live in Portland. The Hanford complex, the Umatilla depot, and for better or worse, Canada, is upstream.

Thanks for the anglers perspective Mrs. Merkin. We are all treehuggers folks -- if we love this place we call home. I do not care if you bowhunt, backpack or stargaze, if this poisons the land, the outdoors will be our enemy.

To say that the Soviet union would have closed a reactor, because of an accident here, is unrealistic, they didnt close chernyobals 3 sister reactors, of the exact same design for 14 years.

Here is a bunch of reasons why GW isn't a scam........

http://travel.msn.com//Guides/MSNTravelSlideShow.aspx?cp-documentid=385955&gt1=9 337

Whatever science proves, it's been tradition that the right doesn't like it, at first but then they grudgingly get used it.

Since the left usually falls for the "scams" those scheming scientists are trying to pull, it means that scientific discoveries become liberal ideas.

There's no way that the right is going to want to embrace those ideas even if it kills them.