Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware Hacking

Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Does A 180 912

Posted by Zonk
from the need-just-a-bit-of-radiation dept.
palegray.net writes "Wired is running a story on how Gwyneth Cravens, a former nuclear power protester has changed her views on nuclear power as a viable solution to the world's energy needs. Said Cravens: 'I used to think we surely could do better. We could have more wind farms and solar. But I then learned about base-load energy, and that there are three forms of it: fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. In the United States, we're maxed out on hydro. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear power, and most of the fossil fuel burned is coal.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Does A 180

Comments Filter:
  • Dutch boy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jonesy69 (904924) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:39PM (#21637237) Homepage
    Fingers? Dikes?

    Eh, its not all bad. I guess after a few hundred (thousand?) years of an irradiated water supply perhaps he *could* plug all those holes!

    Go nuc-u-lar!
  • Good to see. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vorghagen (1154761) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:44PM (#21637293)
    I'm always pleased to hear about an activist (doesn't matter what kind) publicly admit they were wrong after learning more about the subject. Firstly because they took the initiative to actually research something instead of taking as gospel anything those around them say. Secondly because they're big enough to admit they were wrong. I just wish more activists would do the same.
  • Vanadium Redox (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:44PM (#21637295) Journal
    You don't need nuclear. You just need solar and wind power coupled with vanadium redox batteries. Vanadium is VERY common - almost as common as carbon. You set up huge warehouse sized batteries and charge 'em up. At night or when the wind is low or both, you let the batteries run.

    That'll work for a good long while. But in Total Reality we are simply going to have to make OTHER PLANS. We live in a high energy society thanks to fossil fuels. This level of energy consumption is not sustainable, and I would argue, not desirable. We need to adjust our direction of civilisation away from more toys and gadgets to higher quality human interactions and more meaningful labour.

    Sorry all you PR saps and admin assistants at hedge funds and nail salon operators. I would recommend you learn something useful, like FARMING. Or dismantling Las Vegas and Phoenix.

    Until we slide down that far, though, I would recommend Vanadium redox/solar/wind combo. And DO IT NOW. WHILE WE HAVE THE ENERGY TO SPARE.

    RS

  • by Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:46PM (#21637311) Homepage
    how many ppm U235 is most coal burned in the united states again?
  • What's a prote? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Iftekhar25 (802052) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:54PM (#21637377) Homepage

    No, really... what's a prote? Dictionary.com says [reference.com] it's a short form of proteo, which is from proteins. I really don't think that's it.

    The closest possible word it could be is "project."

    That's a really bad typo.

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:54PM (#21637379) Homepage Journal
    Actually, the most obvious way to get past petroleum is not dirty, insecure, expensive nukes, but clean, safe, cheap wind turbines [dailykos.com]. Solar has a lot of promise, geothermal probably the best longterm prospects (though space-based solar is probably the most exciting), and lots of niches for biofuel.

    But just keep in mind that US oil wells average about 10.5 barrels of crude per day (down from a peak about 18.5 in the early 1970s) at 3510Mj:bbl, burned at about 40% efficiency for about 171KW per US oil well (from a peak of 300KW). Which is enough to power about 35 US homes.

    300KW is the about the smallest wind turbine in use commercially. Already. And the US is a leader in the wind turbine tech and industry, despite doing it without any real leadership, and competing with the vast subsidies to petrofuels and nukes.

    But I guess when you're an expert in nukes, even though there's no money or fame left in opposing them, why not just flip sides - especially when there's so much bribe money, and you're so old now that you can hope that the waste won't hit the fan until after you're dead from something else.
  • Shenanigans (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aoteoroa (596031) on Monday December 10, 2007 @12:00AM (#21637451)
    The article was interesting until Gwyneth claimed that only 69 people died from Chernobyl.

    So far about 60 people have died, most of them -- almost all of them -- from immediate exposure when they were fighting the fire in the reactor, and the emergency workers. Nine children, unfortunately, developed thyroid cancer that was not treated
    While it is difficult to prove causation, consider these trends: a paper published by the Chernobyl Ministry in the Ukraine, a multiplication of the cases of disease was registered
    • of the endocrine system ( 25 times higher from 1987 to 1992),
    • the nervous system (6 times higher),
    • the circulation system (44 times higher),
    • the digestive organs (60 times higher),
    • the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue (50 times higher),
    • the muscolo-skeletal system and psychological dysfunctions (53 times higher).

    Among those evaluated, the number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59 % to 18%. Among inhabitants of the contaminated areas from 52% to 21% and among the children of affected parent from 81% to 30%.

    Nuclear power can be safe, and Chernobyl was poorly designed, but to claim only 69 people died from that event is wrong

  • by king-manic (409855) on Monday December 10, 2007 @12:23AM (#21637671)

    People change their minds. So what?

    I used to be pro-nuke, worked for a nuclear company etc, but am no longer so. For me, the biggest issues with nuke are handling long-term bulk waste and the costs: nuke is far more expensive than anything else even though the promises of the 50s and 60s were energy that would be so cheap that it was not worth metering.
    Thats more anti-US nuclear proliferation policy. If you don't mind breeding and re-using your fuel till it's almost non radioactive you get far less waste. You do end of with a lot of radiated other material like all the tools used to handle the fuel and waste. But likewise anything that is radioactive is potential fuel! You just need to spend more dollars trying to make the system more efficient.
  • by Entropius (188861) on Monday December 10, 2007 @12:51AM (#21637939)
    Where I am, solar irradiance is about 700 W/m^2 during the day.

    Solar panels are about 30% efficient, so that's 210 W/m^2 of actual power.

    My laptop runs on about 20W (source: /proc/acpi), so that's a tenth of a square meter.

  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TapeCutter (624760) on Monday December 10, 2007 @12:54AM (#21637969) Journal
    Yes, and the CSIRO has been telling our government that the whole country could easily be run from renewables for at least the past decade.

    The CSIRO also identified the base load issue as a red-herring - hint: in a geographically large country such as Australia, the US, or Canada, the wind is always blowing somewhere. Wind & Hydro provide the base load for other renewables (solar, tidal, wave, geothermal), just as Hydro currently provides a fast switch "base load" for coal fired plants (that require scheduled shutdowns for maintenance and even then they still break down from time to time).

    However our politicians after doing their best to ingnore the issue (lest it affect our coal exports) have been busy colluding with the likes of GWB and GE for the last few years in an attempt to monopolise the nuclear fuel industry.

    It seems to be working quite well if you consider the price hike in Uranium over the last 5yrs or so. IMHO the main reason for this state of affairs is not money but the fact that renewable energy can not (easily) be used as an international political lever in the way that fossil fuels have been since WW2.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:10AM (#21638107) Homepage Journal
    Both wind and solar need more work to be better solutions. If we'd subsidized them the past 60 years (OK, 40 years since NASA) the way we have oil and nukes, we might not have even noticed any energy crises at all.

    But even so, the Mid-Atlantic is just one place. There's lots of others, like across the Great Lakes, and all over the damn place. And that 330GW is just that accessible to current engineering near the ground, not really in the whole atmosphere. To say nothing of cyclones.

    Also, I don't know where you're getting your 10% energy for solar cells stats. PVs aren't just harnessing IR, but rather much of the spectrum. There are perfectly good 25% efficient cells out there in the sunlight, with 42% efficiency achieved this year from concentrators (which are cheaper than their equivalent area in actual cells).

    We're not limited to today's tech. We've got about 5-10 more years where we can use petrofuels without committing to shifting the planet's ecosystems into a new one in which our civilization is likely to fail. We've got decades, centuries after that to perfect it. Or to stare at a pile of nuke waste that will just become a bigger pollution and security problem every year instead.
  • Re:Vanadium Redox (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TrevorB (57780) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:12AM (#21638135) Homepage
    Considering the Earth is a closed system with a fixed amount of resources, our options for maintaining our way of life include:

    1) Significantly reducing the Earth's population, perhaps by a factor of ten. (This includes killing off others and taking their resources)
    2) Leaving the Earth to harvest resources elsewhere.

    Option 1 at best will maintain our present standard of living. Constant exponential increase in standard living, constrained to the surface of the Earth, is impossible.

    Even conservation will at best delay the inevitable.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:16AM (#21638163)
    You're right. Leaving this waste inside of a steel tube 1000 feet into the side of a geologically stable and secluded mountain sounds like a horrible idea. After all, the steel will corrode in a few thousand years, and then THERE WILL BE NUCLEAR WASTE BURIED IN 1000 FEET OF SOLID ROCK! definitely cause for panic.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Synonymous Bosch (957964) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:17AM (#21638171)
    The problem with renewable resources is the people in power, by not being able to control nature, have no means to control production.

    Our society will embrace socialism before it embraces renewable energy as a replacement for fossil/nuclear power.

    This isn't renewable energy's problem - just our society.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:19AM (#21638183) Homepage Journal
    Read the article to which I linked, instead of pulling "a turbine every 50 feet" out of your "hat". And look at the large availablity of offshore, with its 50% higher power.

    You also don't seem to know that the kinds of droughts the US already experiences is already cutting significantly into our hydroelectric power reliability.

    I did not argue that a single turbine could replace every single oil well. I just offered a comparison of oil wells to turbines, because people tend to picture a towering gusher when thinking of oil wells, but turbines are directly comparable. And we never had an oil well every 50 feet. My actual argument was that we don't have the dire emergency requiring nukes that this article's subject now likes to claim. The nuke biz has always presented the alternatives to nukes as absolute paradise vs absolute hell, with no alternatives, and I'm pointing out that wind is quite a viable alternative.
  • by gnuman99 (746007) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:36AM (#21638305)
    There is no *waste* that lasts 100,000 years. Most of the isotopes currently viewed as waste are very good sources of energy. Current reactors are not even built to utilize most of the fuel but to generate nuclear weapons hence the so called *waste*. For example, UK now has a problem with all the *waste* Plutonium being generated by its power plants!! That is the insanity! Plutonium is a better power source than U-235 if you have a real energy reactor. One of the few truly civilian reactors are the CANDU reactors designed in Canada. They utilize heavy water and breed Plutonium and use it for energy at the same time. No Plutonium *waste* there. Heck, they are used now to get rid off the US extra nuclear stockpiles - stuff that can't be handled by US reactors mailing because of the Plutonium content.

    Secondly, don't be freaked out about radiation so much. If you were transparent to radiation such that a Geiger counter would see all the radiation going off inside of you (where the damage is done), it will go into a nice high pitched, continuous whine. You sid/madam, contain enough radioactive radioactive potassium for about 5000 events per second. Add that nice trails of cosmic muons hitting out every 0.5-1 second (enough to go right through you and ionize LOTS of stuff), and you are positively glowing :)

    Also, coal has 2-3 ppm uranium and about 5ppm thorium (means, 1,000,000 pounds of coal have 2-3 pounds of uranium and 5 ponds of thorium). Since US burns about 2200 times that http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/special/feature.html [doe.gov], US alone is releasing about 5000 pounds of Uranium and 10,000 pounds of Thorium into the air. Ok, there are those precipitators, but only about 50% effective on these things (unlike soot). So, about 1 metric ton of Uranium goes poof, into the air *NOW* in the US.

    Anyway, most of the so called *waste* can be recycled. You only end up with maybe one small barrel of waste per large nuclear plant per year. That is much cheaper to watch that one can for 10,000 years than letting all the mercury from the coal power plants pollute the lakes such that we can't even fish there anymore. Sad.

    http://www.computare.org/Support%20documents/Publications/Fission%20Fuel%20Conservation.htm [computare.org]

    BTW: Uranium is not HOT. ANYTHING that has a 10,000 year half-life, by definition, is NOT hot. HOT stuff has a life time of seconds or minutes or maybe up to a few days. Hot stuff is used in medicine.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dbIII (701233) on Monday December 10, 2007 @02:13AM (#21638587)
    Copper, gold and uranium. The nuclear advocates forget that while uranium is not scarce the isotope used for fuel is so large amounts of high purity ore and a Manhatten project worth of gas centrifuges is needed. Turning a heavy metal into a gas requires quite a lot of energy so not just any lump of rock with uranium in it is worth turning into fuel. While there is a lot at Olympic Dam and a few other spots the dream of going 100% nuclear overnight is only possible in the cocaine dreams of PR folks - hence efforts with other fuels like thorium. There are other known very deep deposits of uranium at the bottom of the crust radioactive enough to generate a lot of their own heat - some nuclear advocates may be factoring that in despite it being a massive undertaking to drill a hole over fifteen kilometres deep let alone mine it.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dgatwood (11270) on Monday December 10, 2007 @02:39AM (#21638743) Journal

    Well, there's probably some truth to that. It has frequently been said (citation needed, sadly) that the cotton industry was instrumental in pushing for laws to ban marijuana growing and processing because they realized how much easier and cheaper it is to grow plants from the cannabis family than cotton.

    It grows just about anywhere (unlike cotton), requires dramatically less water to grow, is much less susceptible to damage from insects (since you're using the stalk rather than the fluffy contents of a seed pod), and I suspect that it produces much more fiber per unit of field area, though I don't know for sure.

    So while I'm not saying that the ease of growing it is the only reason it is illegal, yeah, it probably played a part. :-)

  • by zildgulf (1116981) on Monday December 10, 2007 @03:47AM (#21639091)
    Well, let's compare accidents, since they can, and do happen. American and Soviet reactors had similar accidents. The first one is Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. It frightened many people, but did little in reality, not because anyone in the control room knew what to do, for they were clueless for a long while, but because it was designed well. In the Soviet Union, dozens of people died soon after, thousands and thousands died later, and millions were affected due to poor design and a negligent Supervisory Engineer.

    Let's compare the Chemical Industry to Three Mile Island(TMI), since many environmentalist seem to act like anything Nuclear is far more dangerous that anything else. TMI causes millions of dollars in damages to the power plant, and not much else. Yet Chemical accidents, large and small, are routine, causing death and destruction. Munition plants have exploded, many petrochemical plants have exploded, and the now widespread well water contamination caused by a gasoline additive are only a few examples. Remember the Praxair lot in St. Louis? Have we forgotten the images of canisters full of flammable gases being launched like rockets into a nearby residental neighborhood?

    Maybe if we can make more environmentalists see the hard numbers of current deaths due to chemical based pollution and accidents in America, then maybe they will realize that it is our chemical modern world that is killing us, not Nuclear Power. I find it ironic that it was the outcry against chemical based pollution in our air, water, and food that jump started the environmental movement in the 1970s in the first place.

  • by ergonomia (520563) on Monday December 10, 2007 @03:59AM (#21639157)
    Regarding the government scientists falsifying safety data for Yucca Mountain disposal site in Nevada, and the earthquake near the site in 2002, I posted links that are broken (error on my part). Since I couldn't figure out how to edit my original post, here are corrected links:

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600119181,00.html [deseretnews.com]

    and:

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/14/yucca.quake/index.html [cnn.com]
  • by dargaud (518470) <slashdot2@gdar g a u d . n et> on Monday December 10, 2007 @05:26AM (#21639595) Homepage
    The problem with the first 50 years or so of nuclear power generators is that the military had a word in the design. They wanted to be able to produce 'useful' nucleotides with them. At the time cleaner designs were suggested (for instance using Thorium instead of Uranium), but the designs that got money were all backed by the military. Now that politically the issues are settled, engineers are free to work on clean designs again, but that's fairly recent. So not only will we get safer reactors in the future (like neutron-beam driven that you can turn off instantly), but they will also produce much less waste (fewer long life actinides) and have NO possible military applications (no plutonium). Yes, I work in that field.
  • Re:NOT for "us"! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ultranova (717540) on Monday December 10, 2007 @05:48AM (#21639685)

    We have no right to take power from the oceans. Have we any idea what that'll do to the ocean currents? To breeding cycles? To weather? To plankton upon which many other things (directly or indirectly) feed?

    I think this nicely summarizes and demonstrates the main problem with today's enviromental movement: since everything you do affects something, you can't do anything. As a result the enviromentalists are considered nuts and ignored, even when they actually have a valid point (which you don't, especially since hydroelectric takes energy from the rivers, not the oceans).

  • by El Yanqui (1111145) on Monday December 10, 2007 @06:20AM (#21639803) Homepage

    Pick up a copy of "The Design of Everyday Things" - written by someone who reviewed the causes of the Three Mile Island accident. Accidents can happen. I'm definitely pro-nuclear-power at the moment, but we still need to take the safety extremely seriously. Keep the pressure on that industry; we can't afford any accidents.

    That's a great book. The reason there was an incident at TMI was a stuck sentinel valve. The reason there wasn't an *accident* at TMI was because of double redundancy. Incident and accident are an important distinction.
    I spent six years doing nuclear power in the US Navy. A Chernobyl would never occur in the US Navy, who uses more nuclear power plants than anybody and has been doing so for 40 years, because they use a different design with multiple safety features built in. Things like negative temperature coefficients, automatic control rod insertion and many, many more. The more critical difference is that the people running the plant are well trained and aware of what they are doing.
  • Please explain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sherriw (794536) on Monday December 10, 2007 @09:56AM (#21641063)
    I just love the 'nuclear is the only way' people. I just don't get it. Please, Slashdotters, answer me this...

    - How are we 'maxxed out' on hydro?? I guess I'm thinking in terms of Canada too.

    - Why did she skip from hydro to fossil fuels and nuclear? What happened to wind, solar hot water heat, energy conservation - increased energy efficiency, etc? I know that in my Canadian home town... they are close to approving the largest wind project in Canada for my county- the first one in the county. Proof that we are far from 'maxxed out' on wind for example.

    - If the sudden popularity of compact fluorescent lightbulbs has just recently taken off and can make such a difference, as well as Walmart's push for concentrated laundry detergent, etc, etc, isn't this a sign that we have many, many more areas where efficiency improvements can be made. Lets look at trimming the waste.

    - What REALLY is the solution to nuclear waste? Isn't it kind of a joke to assume that any human government or corporation will be around and responsible enough to babysit these waste storage locations for 50 or a hundred thousand years? That's THOUSANDS of generations of humans!!! Puh-lease!

    - It seems to me that it's kind of a give-up to say nuclear is the 'only' solution.

    I'd like to see industry get rid of 'stand by' mode on electronics, pointless status lights on devices, more efficient lighting, turn lights and what not off when no one is in the room or using it (only some schools are starting to do this), remove excess packaging from products and excess water from liquid products, etc, etc.

    I think the nuclear as the only solution people are really saying that nuclear is the only EASY solution.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shawb (16347) on Monday December 10, 2007 @11:56AM (#21642645)
    IIRC, the paper industry was at least as influential in getting anti-marijuana (and through that anti-hemp) laws passed in the United States, particularly Friedrich Weyerhäuser [wikipedia.org] a large captain in the wood pulp and paper industry. He also had a decent toehold in the media through print, and spread anti-marijuana FUD via this power, convincing the public to demand anti-marijuana laws. It seems likely that his actions were out of self interest in that hemp also makes fibers which are quite decent at making paper, as evidenced by the pro-legalization's point that the constitution was written on hemp paper.
  • by otis wildflower (4889) on Monday December 10, 2007 @12:00PM (#21642713) Homepage
    Given that the global warming argument got its political impetus from Margaret Thatcher wanting to push nukes to castrate the NUM (coal miners' union), it's interesting to see her former foes come around to her way of thinking.

    Not that I mind, I am a big Thatcher fan and am glad that she smashed the unions and privatised, if only she could have spun off the BBC it wouldn't be a jobs scheme for unemployable pinkoes.

    And yes, if I could have one, I would have a nuclear battery [slashdot.org] in my basement.
  • by anomaly (15035) <tom.cooper3@gmai l . com> on Monday December 10, 2007 @02:20PM (#21645091)
    TMI had a meltdown, and what happened? Zero deaths OR INJURIES as a result.

    You can't blame nuclear power for the disaster at Chernobyl. Blame the broke Russians and their stupid reactor design, but bad design is the designer's fault, not nuclear power.

    Nuclear power can be made safely, and we have a long track record of exactly that. I'm not a pro-nuke activist, but let's be reasonable, shall we?
  • Re:Please explain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @12:48AM (#21651679) Journal
    - If the sudden popularity of compact fluorescent lightbulbs has just recently taken off and can make such a difference, as well as Walmart's push for concentrated laundry detergent, etc, etc, isn't this a sign that we have many, many more areas where efficiency improvements can be made. Lets look at trimming the waste.

    Which brings up an interesting point... in the last 30 years, average energy usage per capita in the United States has dropped LOTS, something like 40%, with an associated INCREASE in the quality of life. And I see it every day, in a million little ways...

    When I was a kid, we heated a mobile home "hot box" with a gas-based central heater, and cooled with the same central A/C. Today, in my home, we recently extended the house so that it's WAY bigger than the mobile home I grew up in, and I know that the dollar has inflated, that energy prices are much, much higher. Yet my monthly utility bill is about the same (in dollars) as my parents paid in 1980! (About $400/month)

    So we have

    A) Bigger house
    B) Weaker Dollar
    C) Higher-priced Energy
    D) BETTER comfort.
    E) Same price.

    Oh, and my 5 passenger Saturn SL2 [thenetlab.net] gets about the same gas mileage as my dad's VW Rabbit [thesamba.com] while being much safer, WAYYY faster, much better handling around corners and such, similar price range (for its time) and vastly more comfortable, too. Dual airbags, dual OHC, cruises all day long at 90 MPH while getting 30 MPG, the Rabbit barely held 80 to get about 25 MPG, or 33 MPG or so at 55. Oh, and one more thing: my Saturn is just now starting to get a bit "cranky" after being driven for 170,000 miles. Yes, you read that right.

    And it's not like my almost-10-year-old Saturn is all that unique, today's cars are a fair notch better still. Have you looked at the latest Honda Accord Hybrid? That bastard is the FASTEST flavor of the Accord line, while simultaneously having the best fuel economy, though with the heftiest price tag. (BTW: I drove one, I love it!)

    We've gotten lots, lots, lots better, faster, bigger, cheaper. Using CFL bulbs, I can light my whole (larger) house with less wattage than my daddy used to light up just one room. (I remember the dual 100-watt bulbs in the living room fixture, we now use two CFLs in my living room that use just 12 watts each) Further, although CFLs are more expensive than incandescent bulbs, they also last so much longer the higher upfront costs are made up with their longevity.

    On, and on, and on, example after example. Cool, eh?
  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @01:46AM (#21652041) Homepage Journal
    Republicans are just as responsible for killing those efforts.

    How so? It was killed by Executive order. I will agree that Republicans have done nothing to re-start the efforts. The work began and progressed under Reagan and Bush the I, and was ~immediately killed by Clinton.

    And the reason may well be that there's a lot more profit in highly wasteful, dangerous nuclear power plants.

    Only in that they're available to be licensed. IFR's are cheaper to build, use less fuel, and don't have waste storage problems. That's *more* profitable.

    People trying to sell nuclear energy are engaging in bait-and-switch: they are baiting with the theoretically possible efficient reactors

    No they're not. When has anybody ever offered to build any kind of breeder reactor in the US? We've only ever tried to build light water reactors.

    but when it comes to deployment, switch to the inefficient, wasteful, dangerous kind.

    Theoretically dangerous, mind you. Not as dangerous as coal, which kills thousands of people each year. This is a real, demonstrated danger.

    And as long as that's the case, nuclear power is simply off the table.

    Unless you think global warming is a problem worth fixing.
  • Re:NOT for "us"! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thosf (981274) on Wednesday December 12, 2007 @01:49PM (#21673387)

    These enviro-nazis aren't interested in making a contribution - just being noisy mufflers. I wish that we could 'register' these people such that the power companies will disconnect their electrical / natural gas services. Don't want them to be hypocritical by consuming energy that is produced by polluting companies. When they try to gas up their stupid Prius (the one with the replacement battery that will cost over $5,000), the arabs in the gas station should refuse to sell them any unleaded - and tell them they should get a bicycle and set an example.

    Thirty years ago these people (or their hippie parents) were talking about GLOBAL COOLING. They also said that METHANE was the real problem. Since they were wrong (they always seem to be wrong about everything), they started to talk about GLOBAL WARMING. And because there's a huge amount of scientists that refute and dismiss this claim, now they're talking about CLIMATE CHANGE (I guess they're trying to hedge their stupidity by covering both ends simultaneously.)

    And Yes, there is climate change - it happens constantly. In fact, it's the sun that is the culprit for this. If these enviro-nazi ostridges pulled their head out of (you know where - - rhymes with cranial-rectal inversion), they'd see that even the whimpy ice caps on Mars are receding - and at a rate to be expected for it's distance from the sun. But they'd have to admit they were wrong - something that they are genetically incapable of doing. I don't recall seeing any powerplants, SUVs or other CO2 generators being on Mars, so you can draw your own conclusion.

    The earth has already experienced several major ice ages and numerous minor ice ages. According to the scientists, at least the ones that have hard data and communicate rationally, we are actually entering another ice age cycle. So if anything, we need MORE CO2 to offset the temperature decreases that we'll see.

    These robot-mind idiots don't understand that WE NEED CO2. How do you think plants grow? They 'breathe' CO2 and 'exhale' O2. We, however, breathe O2 and exhale CO2. It's a perfect symbiosis. If the frazzled, frantic, irrational tree-huggers want to reduce CO2, then they should either plant more trees (actually grass is way more efficient) or they should STOP BREATHING.

    But to get these misguided and irrational control-freak hypocrates to stop using electricity, natural gas (or equivalent), unleaded gas would be like trying to get a Hyena to become a vegetarian. NOT!

    By the way, I'm also giving away FREE Carbon Offset Certificates to everybody who wants to be 'politically correct'. If you want to get your FREE Carbon Offset Certificate, go to:

    http://www.tw-profitzone.com/free/ [tw-profitzone.com]

    And yes, yes, I'm sure that the slashdot censor nazis will give me a zero rating (something that I wear with pride). Political correctness is just the liberal way of covertly CENSORING Your Free Speech.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly

Working...