Who believes in Global Warming?

“Geothermal heat pumps go INSIDE your house, so that looks less goofy than the dumb-looking AC unit outside your house.

Solar PV panels can now be incorporated directly into the roofing tiles if you don't want the standard PV look. If normal-looking roofing tiles look goofy to you, I hope your roof is made from thatch.

You can make all the domestic hot water a 4-member family needs from an area smaller than the size of one garage door. Now garage doors - they are goofy looking. DHW solar panesl look a lot less goofy than garage doors.

A hundred thousand people use some form of solar or geothermal heating/cooling/electric right now. Today. I guess you need to change your perception of goofy, or a hundred thousand people are all wrong. No, wait, we're talking about YOUR perception. Ok, a hundred thousand people are wrong. You are right.

You'll look pretty goofy when you die an early death because your (still not available) personal nuke malfunctions and farts a cloud of radioactive steam into your basement. Oh wait, nobody dies from cancer due to nuclear accidents according to you. So you'll be Ok when that thing malfunctions.

You can throw any nuclear reactor design at me and you are still proved wrong. Humans design, build and run reactors so human fault will cause nuclear accidents. Especially the type caused by terrorists flying commercial jets into them. Which brings us back to the fact that solar and other RE sources don't need any security. The materials in them aren't a risk, and they are decentralized so a single attack can't take out the supply for a hundred thousand houses like it would happen with an attack on a nuke.

Just the terrorism issue alone should make you think twice about nukes. France gets 80% of its electricity from nukes right now. Just a few major terrorist attacks on their nukes and that country is royaly screwed. Instead put solar on everyone's homes and the terrorists can't do a darn thing.”

“Oh, and Sarge you just gotta stop posting articles and references that shoot down your own arguments. From the pebble-bed reactor writeup on Wikipedia (the first link that comes up when you click on your link above).

"The radioactive waste which must either be safely stored for many human generations, reprocessed, transmuted in a different type of reactor, or disposed of by a method yet to be devised."

Oops, looks like it doesn't take 40 years for nuclear waste to become sand for a child's sandbox.

Or this: "Critics also often point out an accident in Germany in 1986, which involved a jammed pebble damaged by the reactor operators when they were attempting to dislodge it from a feeder tube. This accident released radiation into the surrounding area, and led to a shutdown of the research program by the West German government."

Oh boy, looks like that new pebble-bed technology is really safe. No chance for anything to go wrong there, huh?”

“And from another link on the first page on the issues with pebble-bed reactors. My comments in bold:

1. It has no containment building. Oh goody, no way for terrorists to get in there! And weren't you saying that Chernobyl's biggest issue is it didn't have a containment building? Now who is flip-flopping?
2. It uses flammable graphite as a moderator. This is what burned at Chernobyl for 10 days!
3. It produces more high level nuclear wastes than current nuclear reactor designs. Oh joy, even more nuclear waste.

4. It relies heavily on nearly perfect fuel pebbles. Yup, those humans and their contraptions are just so perfect, you know! No chance mistakes could foul up the works here.
5. It relies heavily upon fuel handling as the pebbles are cycled through the reactor. Instead of keeping the fuel in one place it gets moved all over the place. Yipee!
6. There's already been an accident at a pebble bed reactor in Germany due to fuel handling problems. Covered in my last post.
last edited: 5/18/06 12:19:44 PM”

“Tech, you build that solar car port at work and you're in there.I think you are forgetting one important missing part-where does your utility bill come from?”

“Tech...TERRORISIM?????WHAT PIPE ARE YOU SMOKING (LOL)?

The Savannah River Site is one of the most secure areas in the Country....LOL....actually when I think about it....Tech has some severe guilt for something....let it out dude.”

“Where does my utility bill come from? Within a year or two, it will come from ME.”

“XL - what does guilt have to do with this discussion?”

“Another great quote for Sarge:

"The nuclear industry has been subsidized an average of $3 billion dollars per year. The industry was also just bailed out nearly $100 billion dollars by rate payers . The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site is now approaching $100 billion dollars. If we use just a portion of that money for renewables (solar, wind, fuel cells etc.) we'd have plenty of electricity and very little wastes. Using the "yard stick" of economic feasibility, the nuclear industry is a complete failure.

Anyone whom recommends a "nuclear revival" has not reconciled the costs."”

“techntrek - It is interesting that you overlooked the fact that those things you list as shortcomings can be worked around. It seems your attitude is one of "let's not try something that has awesome potential because I'm scared". The fact is it's more efficient than all that crap you're talking about.”

“Not reconciled the costs!!!

And you're trying to sell me solar power!

Dude, get real.”

“Wow! does that mean your less dependant on the Enrons of the future? I really still think those panels ,props and rotars are far uglier than those good old power lines. We could keep the overhead lines if
I make tricity on my house and transport across the country to your house.I always wanted to be the dumby that ask the englishman, with the bright sweater ,the knuckle ball questions about the product.”

“Evergreen ESLR down 17%
Sunpower SPLR down 24% in a week.”

“Sarge, if those billions that just supported the nuclear industry paid for solar panels instead over the last 10 years, we could turn the switch off on all other forms of generation right now. And I'm only talking about the tax subsidies. I'm ignorning the costs borne by the utility customers on top of the tax subsidies.

Seems your math is wrong somewhere.

Those things I quoted above can NOT be worked around. They are part of the fundamental design of pebble reactors. No containment walls due to passive convection cooling...
Higher levels of radioactive waste due to a larger amount of pebbles vs. rods...
Use of graphite (still) because obviously that is the best material to contain the heat...

How do you "fix" a basic design requirement?”

“I've said my peace. If you want to continue supporting the demise of the greatest man-made energy source which could save the planet, fine.”

“Let it out Tech...the guilt is probably self imposed. (LOL)”

“Admit it Sarge, you lost. You wanted facts, I gave them to you. You gave me citations to support your own facts, and I used them against your own arguments. Better luck next time.”

“Ok techntrek. You win. You gave me *cough*facts*cough* which are irrefutable. I better just face it.

PS - Welcome to the 21st Century. The Vietnam war is over.”

“Tech...LOL...you still think that the toilet flushes by MAGIC? Come on, my family lives with in 50 miles of TWO major nuke facilities...not a problem..other than maybe our pwer costs are a bit lower.

MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY TEXAS CITY, TX Explosions than ALL THE NUKE Reactor accidents combined....”

“Intels war is over. DEll to use AMD.”

“Headlines May 19, 2006

MYTHS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, Part 2 by Charles R. Hosler
MYTHS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, Part 2

by Charles R. Hosler

MYTH #7: IF THE EARTH WARMS, IT WILL BE
DISASTROUS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN SOCIETY
* Historical records have revealed that during warm periods civilizations flourished; during cold periods, there are more droughts, famine, disease and war.

* Considering the massive impact that cold periods have had on civilizations, we have to wonder if the current global warming concerns are overblown. Some scientists are asking, "Are we being saved from glacial devastation by our current industrialization?"

* The nature of our planet's orbital dynamics and position of the continents as they influence ocean circulations are the main controls to climate change, not human activities.

MYTH #8: EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE MORE COMMON IF THE WORLD WARMS
* Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director of Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, shows that the frequencies of hurricanes, thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes have not increased in recent years.

* The geologic record clearly shows that today's climate is in no way
extraordinary or identifiably different from what one would expect due to
entirely natural processes.

* There are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.

* Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says, ". . . There is no sound theoretical basis for drawing any conclusions about how anthropogenic climate change affects hurricane numbers or tracks, and thus how many hit land."

* As global population increases -- and an increasing desire to live in areas prone to natural disasters (e.g., coastal areas subject to hurricanes) -- are the fundamental causes for increased natural disasters.

MYTH #9: HUMANITY IS CAUSING EARTH'S POLAR REGIONS TO WARM RESULTING IN UNUSUAL RATES OF ICE MELTING
* Arctic ice responds primarily to changing wind patterns.

* Climate in the Arctic is dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations, probably a result of a combination of solar variations, ocean changes (e.g., Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO), and large scale circulations (North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation).

* Temperatures in most of Greenland have dropped in recent decades. Alaska temperatures rose suddenly in 1976, due to a regime change in the PDO, but temperatures have remained more or less steady since then.

* The mammoth West Antarctic Ice Sheet , which contains enough water to raise the world's oceans about 6 meters, is not melting. Instead, it is thickening and Antarctica is getting colder.

* Studies by California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Lab found that Antarctica is expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice per year.

MYTH #10: SEA LEVEL IS RISING QUICKLY AND IT WILL GET WORSE IF THE POLAR ICE CAPS MELT DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING
* Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age; it has not accelerated recently. The total rise has been over 120 meters and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century; there was no increase in the rate during the strong warming between 1900 and 1940, nor did the rate decrease when the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1975.

* Geologic data indicate that only temperature variations on a millennial time scale can affect the rate; climate fluctuations lasting decades or even centuries are apparently too short to affect the rate of melting of the polar caps.

* Scientists believe that the polar ice sheets will continue to melt for another 5,000 to 7,000 years, until they disappear.

* Unless another ice age commences, sea level will keep on rising and there is nothing humans can do about it.

* Only if massive quantities of inland Antarctica and Greenland glaciers melted would sea levels rise enough to submerge coastal settlements; the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean sea level changes (i.e., ice cubes in a glass of water).

* Scientists have shown that sea level was only two meters higher 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were almost 6C warmer than now.

MYTH #11: KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES BY CUTTING AIR POLLUTION
* The Kyoto Accord (Protocol) is a treaty designed to reduce the human production of greenhouse gases (GHG), the recent increase in our atmosphere which has been associated with "unnatural" global warming. Since most of the world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.

*Since only about 2 percent of all GHG are produced by human activity ( the rest produced by nature), it is apparent that those who support the Kyoto Protocol because they believe it will reduce pollution, are deceived.

* Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant; it is a benign trace gas constituting only 0.037 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. It is not toxic. It keeps the Earth from being in a perpetual ice age and it increases plant growth.

* Many scientists maintain that CO2 treaty restrictions, via Kyoto, imposes an unreasonable burden on the economies of energy intensive societies.

*It will be many years before science can make any meaningful predictions of the influence of CO2, if any, on global climate. When it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere, the alarmism of government, the scare scenarios of the media and special interest groups is clearly unwarranted.

* Instead of using a GHG treaty (Kyoto Protocol) to reduce air pollution,
policies should be taken specifically aimed at reducing air pollution -- e.g., the installation of scrubbers to remove sulfur oxides; or, the construction of nuclear energy power plants for the production of electricity.

MYTH #12: SOLAR AND WIND POWER CAN SOON BE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTES TO THE BASE LOAD ENERGY NEEDS
* Unfortunately, this is hopelessly impractical. Both of these energy sources are far too diffuse and intermittent to even provide more than a small fraction of the energy needs of any major industrialized nation.

*Regarding wind power, just to provide the electrical power needs of a small city, would require hundreds of windmills, located in a windy area; the cost of building these monstrosities is enormous and they would cause significant visual and nose pollution, not to mention the death of thousands of birds.

* Dr. Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, states, "To produce an average of 1,000 MW, the power produced by any large conventional (coal, gas, oil, nuclear) power plant, would require about 833 square kilometers of wind turbines -- an area equivalent to a mile-wide swath of land extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles." Most of the time windmills produce very little power.

* The story is similar with solar power. An efficient solar plant would have to occupy over 600 square kilometers to match the needs of a regular nuclear power plant. The construction of such massive solar plants requires millions of tons of concrete, steel and glass, the production of which would produce air pollution equivalent to several years of fossil fuel plant operation.

* Solar energy can never be a significant contributor to large-scale energy needs in a major industrial country.

* We should use solar energy in applications where it makes practical and economic sense, such as designing homes to make use of passive solar energy.

* A major transition to solar or wind energy is impossible. The same is
generally true of all renewables. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, geothermal, wind, and photo voltaic add up to only one quarter of one percent of worldwide primary energy production.

* Renewables will continue to be a very small player in the global energy scene. Only nuclear power has the potential to replace large quantities of fossil fuel in the foreseeable future.

SYNOPSIS: The United States is not the real problem for "global warmers" -- scientific truth is. Scientific measurements and investigations simply do not add up to the conclusion that humans are affecting global climate. Even if we forsake science, and take the position of "error on the side of caution", the economic cost -- 2 percent or more of global economic productivity -- is a steep price to pay for extremely uncertain and potentially negative consequences.

It is hoped that members of the Legislative Commission on Climate Change will consider the scientific information provided herein. The Commission should consider this as a time for scientific assessment, not a time of impulsive policy action targeted at a problem that may not be a problem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: "Myths and Envirotruth Regarding Climate Change", http://www.envirotruth.org/myths.cfm ,November 3, 2003.
George C. Marshall Institute News, June 2005; November 2005.
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by Patrick J. Michaels, Copyright @ 2005 George C. Marshall Institute, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Charles R. Hosler is a meteorologist, retired from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He and his wife, Carolyn, live in Fearrington Village, North Carolina.”

“Yeah...but could some starving academic get some free money from government if they weren't able to claim they were studying GLOBAL WARMING?

Face the facts, the scare tactic (and the inherent GUILT of HUMANITY) is the only way those in Academia can get that free money...what the heck it beats working for a living.”

“This appeared just today: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9191-europes-new-nuclear-reactors-will-not-be-911proof.html

lonesurveyor - I guess that solar and wind technology is so impractical that the tens of thousands of people that currently run their homes exclusively from solar/wind/microhydro are just imagining that their lights turn on. Really they have big rats on hamster wheels turning generators in the basement.

"* A major transition to solar or wind energy is impossible. The same is
generally true of all renewables. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, geothermal, wind, and photo voltaic add up to only one quarter of one percent of worldwide primary energy production."

That would be because nukes get billions in tax boosters while the solar/wind industry only gets a few millions. Check out the 2005 energy bill for proof. If solar got the money instead, the nuke industry would collapse and everyone would have solar panels on their roof. Its just a matter of where the money goes, not due to some major problem with solar technology.”

“Do any of you ever consider that you both might be right. American BONEHEAD thinking that only one solution exist for each problem. Places where it's windy should have nukes to blow away the radiation leaks and places where there is no wind should have wind mills so the lack of wind won't wear the wind mills out.
last edited: 5/19/06 9:09:30 AM”

“Like the incomplete sentence above? The heat of the sun will be here whether we extract energy or not. Nukes lie somewhat inert in the ground. Why create heat with nukes when we live with the suns heat either way.”

“While I'm idioting. It's a shame an ocean is in the way cause we could just buy energy from the FRENCH.”

“Ethanol: Myths and Realities
Source: Business Week
Publication date: 2006-05-19

With high gas prices making alternative fuels increasingly attractive, no alternative fuel has received as much attention as ethanol. Some hail the fuel, which can be derived from plants including corn, wheat, barley and sugarcane, as a savior of American energy policy, while others see it as a fad popularized by its heavily subsidized corporate backers.

The reality is complex. Though still a tiny industry compared to gas, ethanol could become a more prominent part of the U.S. and world fuel supply in coming years.

Still, as ethanol's public profile rises, there's plenty of misinformation swirling around and a host of questions. What exactly is ethanol? How is it made and used? And is it really a viable alternative to gas? Here's what you need to know now.

What exactly is ethanol?

The fuel is derived from plants through a fairly straightforward process. In one common method Corn, is first ground into a fine powder, mixed with water, and then heated. An enzyme is then added to convert the mixture into sugars before yeast is added to ferment it. The resulting liquid, called "beer," is about 10% alcohol. A distillation process then separates the alcohol from the rest of the mixture before the remaining water is removed. The result is essentially pure alcohol. A small amount of gas is added to render the liquid undrinkable. Then the fuel can be used by itself or as a supplement to gasoline to power cars.

Ethanol has three advantages, at least in theory: It's renewable, it can be domestically produced, and it burns cleaner than gas. The world's largest producers of ethanol are the U.S., which makes it primarily from corn, and Brazil, which mashes the stuff out of sugarcane.

Beyond high gas prices, why is everyone talking about ethanol?

It's becoming an increasingly important part of the fuel supply, and has the potential to become still more crucial. President George W. Bush and members of Congress have expressed support for ethanol use. And this spring, refiners in parts of Texas and the Northeast have been replacing a gasoline additive called MTBE [for methyl tertiary-butyl ether] with ethanol. MTBE, a chemical used to oxygenate fuel, can contaminate drinking water. And Ethanol which does not present the same danger, can serve the same purpose in fuel.

That's not all. The 2005 energy bill requires that the U.S. boost its ethanol production to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, up from about 4 billion in 2005. This sounds like a whole lot of ethanol, but bear in mind, last year the U.S. slurped up almost 140 billion gallons of gas.

Are there any problems with ethanol?

Oh, yes. Ethanol can't travel in pipelines along with gasoline, because it picks up excess water and impurities. As a result, ethanol needs to be transported by trucks, trains, or barges, which is more expensive and complicated than sending it down a pipeline. As refiners switched to ethanol this spring, the change in transport needs has likely contributed to the rise in gas prices. Some experts argue that the U. S. doesn't have adequate infrastructure for wide ethanol use.

Also, ethanol contains less energy than gas. That means drivers have to make more frequent trips to the pump.

Doesn't producing ethanol on a large scale use a great deal of energy?

Yes. Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce.

There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units [BTUs] of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. [That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.] By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.

Producing ethanol could get more efficient soon as new technologies help farmers get more corn per acre of land and allow ethanol producers to get more of the fuel from the same amount of corn. The companies developing new corn technologies include chemical giant Dupont (DD) and Monsanto (MON), which sells genetically modified seeds as well as chemicals for protecting crops.

So where can I find ethanol?

There's a good chance you're using it already. It's mixed into gas in many regions of the country including the corn-belt Midwest, and states like California and New York which had already banned MTBE. The regions making the transition this spring are the Northeast and parts of Texas.

Cars in the U.S. can normally drive on E10, a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, that is sometimes called gasohol. It's how Americans usually take their ethanol. Relatively few cars available here are "flex-fuel," meaning that they can run on much higher concentrations of ethanol. The fuel E85, which is 85% ethanol, is sold at some gas stations concentrated in the Midwest.

Is ethanol cheaper than gas?

Surprise, surprise, it isn't. The move this spring by more regions to use ethanol means that demand has spiked, driving up prices. On Monday, the New York harbor price was around $3 per gallon compared with about $2.28 for gasoline [before being mixed with ethanol]. In other words, for now ethanol is helping to increase prices at the pump, not to push them down.

So ethanol production and distribution are also controlled by market forces, right?

Only to a certain degree. In addition to heavily subsidizing the ethanol produced domestically, the U.S. government levies a 54 cent per gallon tariff on imports from other countries, such as Brazil, a lower-cost producer. This, of course, discourages the U.S. from importing cheaper ethanol.

Why not eliminate the tariffs?

Well, the idea behind the tariffs is to foster domestic production of ethanol. But amid the ongoing furor over high gas prices the idea of repealing the levy has gained momentum in Washington. Though it would probably annoy ethanol producers like agricultural giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), removing the tariffs could have some benefits. It would help ease price pressures and would likely encourage Brazil to boost its ethanol production. However, it's probably not a short-term solution.

Brazil is undergoing an ethanol revolution far more drastic than that in the U.S. Flex-fuel cars which can run solely on ethanol are widely available and the ethanol supply is short enough that the government recently reduced the mandatory ethanol content in gasoline from 25% to 20%.

"Brazil is the model" for how ethanol can be brought into use, wrote Citigroup (C) analyst P. J. Juvekar in a recent report. But while buying ethanol from Brazil could be useful in the future, it's not going to reduce the pain of a road trip this summer.

What companies stand to benefit from increased ethanol use?

There is a crop of American ethanol producers. ADM is by far the largest, pumping out about one-quarter of the U.S. total. MGP Ingredients (MGPI) is one of the many smaller companies involved. Verasun Energy and Aventine Renewable Energy, two other producers of note, have recently filed to go public.

What can we expect to change in the future?

At present commercial corn-based ethanol comes from corn kernels. One of the more exciting ethanol prospects on the horizon is cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from a number of plant by-products, including cornstalks. Although it's unlikely to be commercially available for at least a few years, cellulosic ethanol eventually could help substantially reduce costs. In other words, your car in the future could run on the refuse of farms across the U.S.


Publication date: 2006-05-19
© 2006, YellowBrix, Inc.”

“Just read the following article today, which relates to the info in the last paragraph of Sarge's article. Looks promising, the method apparently powers itself since the manufacturing plant can burn the waste to make electricity.

http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/turning-grass-into-gas.html”

“Anyone who has followed my posts on this subject will realize the material I pasted this morning is contrary to what I really think.

I think its amazing how much misinformation there is on all sides of the 'environmental degradation' debate

and I might just step back and watch you guys continue to flap your gums, uh, keyboards, on this issue.
last edited: 5/19/06 2:43:33 PM”

“sorry we didn't fall for your trap, lonesurveyor. perhaps next time”

“I guess that solar and wind technology is so impractical that the tens of thousands of people that currently run their homes exclusively from solar/wind/microhydro are just imagining that their lights turn on. - techntrek (sarcastically)

The first "zero energy" home costing less than $200,000 was built in Oklahoma by Ideal Homes just recently.

I figured that based on what I pay for electricity and gas, it would take me 79 years for the house to pay for itself (the additional costs of the house for the photovoltaics and heat-pump features).

In case you're interested, 37% of the price of the house went to making this house green!

Uh, yeah ... I don't think so.
last edited: 5/19/06 10:29:19 PM”

“Does the machinery turn into green geishas at night? Wow!”

“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12373328&dopt=Abstract

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0112/msg00162.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16506213&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html”

“Liquidators (Russian: ликвида́торы) is the name given in the former USSR for approximatively 600,000 people who were in charge of the removal of the consequences of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl disaster on the site of the event

Health of liquidators

Memorial to liquidators at Mitino cemetery, MoscowBetween 1986 and 1992, it is thought between 600,000 and one million people participated in works around Chernobyl and their health was endangered due to radiation. Because of the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s, evaluations about liquidators' health are difficult, since they come from various countries (mostly Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, but also other former Soviet republics). Furthermore, the government of Russia has never been keen on giving the true figures for the disaster, or even on making serious estimates (independent scientists are often silenced). However, according to a study by Belarussian physicians, rate of cancers among this population is about four times heavier as in the rest of the population. All the figures quoted by various agencies are controversial — see the main article, Chernobyl disaster for more on this.

In April 1994, a commemoration text from the Ukrainian embassy in Belgium counted 25,000 dead among the liquidators since 1986.
According to Georgy Lepnin, a Belarussian physician who worked on reactor #4, "approximatively a 100,000 liquidators are now dead", of a total number of one million workers.
According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600 000,liquidators) and 165,000 disabled [1].


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidators


Yuri Bandazhevsky (born on January 9, 1957 in Belarus), former director of the Medical Institute in Gomel (Belarus), is a scientist working on sanitary consequences of the Chernobyl accident.

Amnesty International has stated on their website "His conviction was widely believed to be related to his scientific research into the Chernobyl catastrophe and his open criticism of the official response to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster on people living in the region of Gomel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bandazhevsky
last edited: 5/19/06 11:47:53 PM”

“Wow! I hadn't realized just how few cancers there were as a result of the accident. Thanks for sharing.

Even though those numbers are amazingly low (58 thyroid cases), with safer technologies and moderation from a non-3rd world country, nuclear power is about the safest thing we've got going. Safer than bike riding and skateboarding.”

“That 2nd post shows just how backwards of a country they are. Thanks for that too.”

“They always were far behind except when the CIA told the american people. BEWARE EVIL EMPIRE.”

“First of all, let's address the skier. He's a young, highly successful person having a great time. I suppose just because his lifestyle choices are different from Sarge's, he's a "freak."

Secondly, as techntrek has pointed out, there's no solution for the storage, and although the safety record of plants in the United States and in France is pretty good, there aren't enough engineers to safely build the number of required plants to meet energy growth in the United States over the next 25 years.

And there's not enough money, either. Check out the cost to build a plant today and then multiply that by two to three hundred. That's how many are needed to meet demand.

I'd suggest we consider drastic reductions in consumption and the adoption of point of use technologies like wind for local consumption. Walk. Ride your bike. Buy locally produced organic foods that are IN SEASON.

Buying seasonal produce is important because it takes as much energy and fossil fuel to produce out of season produce in greenhouses as it does to ship it from Florida on a truck.

It's all about living locally and in sync with the earth, not trying to twist and contort everything to meet the needs of capital and growth.”

“I'd suggest we consider drastic reductions in consumption and the adoption of point of use technologies like wind for local consumption. Walk. Ride your bike. Buy locally produced organic foods that are IN SEASON.

Ok, you start.”

“Ignore Atom Breaker and think what you want. He wants the tax payer to cough up more money for the nukes so the private sector can take over and make all the money and continue to control your supply. The less you rely on the corps. the better you will be in the long run. These monsters have bought up all the solar cos. when the tax breaks were tossed and control prices until they find what will replace gasoline profits. Listen to him you'll just as well move to FRANCE, he must be french.”

“I started a long time ago. Would love for you to join us.”

“I've used 38gal of gasoline since Katrina and do all the cflb's and solar water heat etc.”

“That's so cool karma police! I don't know anybody who doesn't own a car (or ride in them). I bet you're in great shape! What's it like having a windmill on your property? Do you see a lot of dead birds that run into it?”

“You can own a car, just drive less. I commute 100 miles per week between my office and home, but do occassionally use our company vehicle.

I grow some food, but not all. But the main reason I grow food is just for the pure pleasure of gardening.

It's all about everyone making simple reductions. Afterall, that saves money and is therefore the conservative, Barry Goldwater approach.

It's called fiscal conservativism, Sarge.”

“It's called relativism, karma.”

“Well, I disagree, Sarge.
The principles of conservation and sound fiscal managment apply throughout our culture. We're all facing the same issues. The only difference is whether you believe those issues really exist.

But the issues DO exist.”

“Republicans seem to always only understand only one of the principals of conservatism ,'Lower Revenues'.When it comes to the harder part ,'Stop Spending' they're lost.”

“You seem to miss the point, karma. The point is, if you DO believe that the issues DO exist, then stop comparing your actions against people who DO NOT believe those issues exist. If I believed what you seem to believe, that we are all doomed unless we do something now - I'd surely do much more that "reducing" my bad habits. You need to get rid of them. You drive to work, same as I do. You grow some of your own food, same as I do. You make simple reductions, same as I do (I'm careful what lightbulbs I buy, for example) - And I don't even believe what you believe that we are all doomed. You basically live your life no different than I do - Yet you're going around telling everybody they're consuming too much and need to wake up and do something about it.

Perhaps you should lead the way instead of complaining about how everybody else lives their life. God forbid you're going around trying to push legislations down our throats and you barely live your life any differently than I do.”

“then stop comparing your actions against people who DO NOT believe those issues exist.

I'm not COMPARING my actions against anything. I'm simply stating that I believe there is a problem, and what I'm doing to help. If you don't believe there's a problem, then we have nothing to discuss.

I'm only interested in discussing solutions, not trying to win "converts." You study the data and reach your own conclusions.

If I believed what you seem to believe, that we are all doomed unless we do something now

I never said anyone or anything was "doomed."

Yet you're going around telling everybody they're consuming too much and need to wake up and do something about it.

No, I made no judgements about your lifestyle. I have made judgements about what our society, as a whole, seems to be doing.

Perhaps you should lead the way instead of complaining about how everybody else lives their life.p

I'd suggest you not make judgements about me.

You drive to work, same as I do.

No, I commute 100 miles per week via a Bianchi Giro. Sorry I left out that important little detail.

God forbid you're going around trying to push legislations down our throats and you barely live your life any differently than I do.

Legislation? Where did that come from?
last edited: 5/21/06 2:32:35 PM”

“Karma - there are several farms in the Mid-Atlantic that use Geodesic Dome design for their greenhouses. The designs not only make them highly efficient (almost to no extra energy required) but they are able to grow produce & fruit previously thought impossible to grow in this area. The greenhouses are considered "sustainable". Also, many of the organic farmers use sand in basements to store fruit for out of season selling. no extra energy used for this.”

“karma, I think somebody took over your log-in because in an earlier post somebody with your name told us to make "drastic" changes in our lifestyle, including changing public infrastructure. Maybe you should report the identity theft to the authorities.

I'd suggest we consider drastic reductions in consumption and the adoption of point of use technologies like wind for local consumption. Walk. Ride your bike. Buy locally produced organic foods that are IN SEASON.

I seriously doubt hardly a day goes by when you don't ride in a gas-guzzling vehicle, or use commercial products which were not created and circulated without the same.

Perhaps you're using a recycled typewriter with a morse code setup to communicate with us. Cool!”