Skip to main content

View Diary: Status Report of the Ontario Coal Phase Out. (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ha indeed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LIsoundview, Plan9
    • Google search
    • French, perhaps real but Greenpeace source so probably not
    • Russian military
    • US military
    • Indian mining
    • US military

    Why do elephants paint their toenails red?
    I don't know
    To hide in cherry trees
    They don't do that
    What, you haven't seen them?
    No
    That shows how well it works then

    •  So radioactive waste is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tigana

      ok if it's leaked by the military?
      Or by mining?

      The dreadful health effects are the same.

      I thought the google just might enlighten you a bit.
      Sorry.

      •  We're talking about sources of electricity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LIsoundview

        If you look into toxic effects of heavy metal mining you will find that uranium mining is relatively clean.   Why are you untroubled by the toxic effects and known dangers of coal-mining?  Are you OK about the toxic heavy metals like mercury, lead, and arsenic (and uranium) in coal waste?  

        Are you OK that coal waste is exempt from hazardous waste restrictions and is stored in the soil, water, and air, and kills 24,000 Americans per year?

        The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

        by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:26:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is false logic, Plan9 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emmasnacker

          If someone is against nuclear waste, that does not mean that they don't care about or turn a blind eye to other toxic metals.

          •  this is one case where it's black and white (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9

            Pick coal or nuclear waste.  Anything else as a source of power is a diverting lie.

            One waste or the other, which do you chose?

            •  Sorry, the black and the white of it for me (0+ / 0-)

              is that I choose neither. There is already too much of both thank you very much.
              There are plenty of power sources available that do not have toxic effects, except maybe if you are a bat, raptor or fish.

              •  And which of your sources can provide baseload? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matthew B

                "Plenty of power sources" you say.  Would you please name some sources that can power trains, factories, hospitals, schools, etc. reliably, 24/7, and don't need backup?  

                Wind and solar operate only operate about 1/3 of the time.  By 2020 they may provide 6% of our energy if the DOE is correct.  So where do we get the other 94%?

                If you refuse fossil-fuel power and nuclear power, and you know that hydroelectric in the US only provides about 5%, how do you propose in the coming decades to generate electricity for the population of the US? I am very eager to know your solution.  

                Since you think in absolute terms, I am guessing you have an absolute solution.  If we are not going to rely on a spectrum of sources of energy generation (nuclear, renewables), then we are going to need your absolute solution.  

                Thank you.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:14:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  solar power toxic wastes (0+ / 0-)

                Do you have any idea how much energy, raw material and toxic chemistry it takes to produce a solar panel or a windmill?  Or did you though until now that solar panels and windmills grow like trees in forest somewhere? You certainly need to do your homework.

                Besides, did you know that wind only blows sometimes? Have you seen clouds? These sources are chaotic by nature. If you deploy them, you absolutely must back them up woith some spinning reserver - typically a fossil fuel burner.

                Therefore, the "solar" alternative is from 60-90% depending on location and mix a bad old fossil 'alternative', with all its problems from toxic pollution to climate change.

      •  What is it about nuclear power (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9

        that makes people blame the ills of other activities on it?

        Military activity is not nuclear power
        Mining is not nuclear power

        Nuclear power does not have dreadful health effects

        A Google search is not a reasoned argument

        OK. enough rant.

        Leaking nuclear waste is a concern. It needs action. The easy detection of radioactivity usually means that it is caught at levels below serious.

        But if it's not caused by nuclear power, you should not blame it on nuclear power. Agreed?

        •  Agreed. I was in a hurry, and didn't (0+ / 0-)

          look at the links closely enough.
          That said, with a million and a quarter hits, I'd bet the google contains several more examples of radioactive contamination caused by improper waste storage. I guess you discount the huge Russian leaks as they were from old subs, and not land generation plants?
          You are right, nuclear power does not have dreadful health effects. Unless the plant leaks, blows, we put it in bombs to spread democracy around the middle east, or the waste escapes it's temporary shelter. Then it does. Look at the pictures of the DU babies. Go ahead, look.

          Results 1 - 10 of about 1,120,000 for health effects radioactive waste.

          •  I have mentioned my disgust before (0+ / 0-)

            about this appalling abuse of birth defect children pictures by the antinukes, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

            And - again - you're talking about the military.

            •  It might be more appropriate to (0+ / 0-)

              be disgusted by the cause of the defects. Oh, I understand that the pro-nuke crowd wants to deny the cause. A lot of the people suffering the effects of nuclear waste contamination disagree with you.

              In 1997, federal medical researchers at the Naval Health Research Center and the CDC determined that babies born to Gulf War veterans were more likely to suffer from certain birth defects including malformations of the eyes, jaw, and spine.

              Much as you would like to stuff various aspects of the nuke industry into neat little boxes, and ignore half the science, nuke waste is nuke waste, and it's harmful. And it's not just the waste. Pro nuclear people would have us believe that there is nothing coming out of the stacks.

              According to credible physicists such as Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project, nuclear reactors release more than 100 chemicals into the air. These chemicals are created only in nuclear weapons and reactors. They are radioactive and cause cancer by damaging cells. Each chemical enters the body through breathing and food and affects the body in a different way. For example, Iodine-131 attacks the thyroid gland, Strontium-90 seeks out bone and Cesium-137 disperses through the soft tissue. The fetus and infant with rapidly dividing cells are most affected. Studies of reactor communities have shown increased deaths in babies and increases in childhood cancers...snip

              Totten also ignores the connection of nuclear power to nuclear weapons proliferation. This issue is extremely well presented in the 2005 book published by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a well-respected scientific think tank headed by Arjun Makhijani. Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change by Brice Smith addresses the historic connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons from its inception in the forties with the Manhattan Project. This important connection should not be ignored.

              •  Mangano and Makhijani have been debunked (0+ / 0-)

                Even conservative radiation-protection scientists do not accept their shabby research and bogus claims.

                No nuclear weapon has ever been made from a civilian nuclear plant supplying electricity.  The plutonium is the wrong kind.

                You cannot compare the dirty business of the former USSR in handling nuclear materials with commercial nuclear power in the U.S.  That would be the same as saying that steel is sometimes used to kill people (in bullets) or has accidentally killed people, so we should not permit the manufacture and use of steel.

                Spontaneous birth defects occur in the Chernobyl region at the same rate they always have.  Eleven international agencies, like WHO, have conducted intensive studies and analysis of data and have found no increase of birth defects in the region.

                Chemical pollution has been associated with birth defects, and it is widespread in industrial areas in E. Europe.

                The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                by Plan9 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:21:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  sure, (0+ / 0-)
                and all the gulf war vets are oncologists, which means they can be absolutely sure that their cancer is caused by DU and not exposure to traces of chemical warfare agents used in Iraq.

                (Besides, DU isn't really a byproduct of the nuclear power industry.  It's a byproduct of Jimmy Carter's stupidity.)

                •  don't engage in the argument on DU projectiles (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plan9, emmasnacker, Joffan

                  Whether or not DU weapons are causing ill effects is totally irrelevant in the discussion on nuclear power.

                  If it wasn't for the demand of U235, the projectiles would just be natural uranium.

                  And if it wasn't for the use of oil, the war would have never been fought.

              •  Look I can see you are convinced (0+ / 0-)

                but this is not evidence. Nowhere near the evidence required for such extraordinary claims. The Gulf War veterans were exposed to a range of complex chemicals and the extreme stress of the battlefield; blaming everything on DU is not only unfounded, it runs counter to the physics of the element and most importantly distracts from the search for the true source of their problems.

                Your quote from Hattie Nestel (who?) does nothing to convince me that Mangano is anything other than propagandist who picks natural fluctuations in illness to pretend that something is going on that is not. His alarmist claims has been assessed by numerous state medical authorities and have been found baseless on all occasions that I know of.

                The nuclear power industry has a safety record it can be proud of. Your gut opposition to nuclear power is forced to rely on bullshit for want of real arguments. Please try to separate military use of nuclear materials from civilian. The military uses would exist without any nuclear power sector.

            •  google antinuclear idiot (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bryfry

              google claims 51,100 hits on that one LOL

              Oh, and by the way, Google's search engines lie about the total number of hits by a factor of 5X to 10X

              •  But why ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Plan9

                do I have to go searching the internet for an antinuclear idiot, when so many stop by these diaries to exhibit their ignorance?

                Oh, and by the way, Google's search engines lie about the total number of hits by a factor of 5X to 10X

                Yeah, but who is going to actually check and count "about 51,000" sites? I wouldn't call it a "lie," since it's an order of magnitude type of calculation. Thanks. I didn't know this, but I'm not surprised.

                •  off topic (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bryfry

                  Hm, under 5 minutes to show that they lie by 51X in this case:

                  google's last page of links

                  They let you click ahead 100 at a time so that's only 10 clicks to get to the last page.

                  I have noticed that since google went public that they maximize click through revenue over relevance and their  search engines have grown less and less useful.

                  I wonder if an inflection point will be reached where it gets so bad that their volume of users drops rapidly causing a crash.

          •  DU is not nuke waste! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9, emmasnacker

            Once again I spot the claim that DU is nuclear waste.  OK, so really it is.  It is waste left over from fuel processing.  But the majority of the public believes that nuke waste means radioactive spent fuel.  It is misleading to characterize DU generically as nuclear waste when the public thinks the term means something different.

            I'm not an expert, but depleted uranium has LESS radioactivity than natural uranium since much of the U235 has been removed.  As has been pointed out several times already, if the military wanted to they could use natural uranium for their projectile weapons.  

            Linking the military use of DU to the existence of civilian nuclear power is not a rational argument.  Yes, the military uses depleted uranium because it is available (from both military and civilian activities).  But if it were not available, they would use the chemically identical (although isotopically different) natural uranium.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site