Petitioning started to overturn California's anti-nuclear law

It's official.

The proponents of the initiative measure to repeal the California nuclear power construction ban have received a ballot title and summary from the California Attorney General's office.

The proponents can now begin to collect signatures.

Under California law, the signature-collecting process lasts 150 days. The deadline for collecting 433,871 valid signatures for the initiative on repeal of California's nuclear power construction ban will be February 4th of 2008.

California Republicans attending the state convention in Indian Wells unanimously support the initiative.

Democrats in the state should TRY to do the same thing. Where shin-guards, however.

However, in the mostly Blue State of California, it's extremely important to gain independent and Democratic support for this initiative. I believe that three of the best ways to reach out to California Independents and Democrats on the nuclear energy issue are:

Reach out to labor unions for endorsements. Electricity is a necessary prerequisite for jobs.

Reach out to Hispanics and African Americans for endorsements. Everyone needs electricity, no matter their ethnic background.

Reach out to scientists, university faculty, and climate researchers for endorsements. There is a wide range of possibilities here, from physicists and engineers to climate scientists who are knowledgeable about the comparative productivity of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Also, high school science teachers are likely supporters.

So far, a few groups have announced their opposition to the initiative, the largest of which are utility reform groups.

Lots of signatures will need to be gathered between now and February.

If you wish to donate to the campaign, you can do so at the Power for California site.

Most of the above from "we support lee" web site here: we support lee

•  tips

  by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:29:02 AM PDT

  •  Why don't you petition to repeal Price-Anderson?

    Certainly, it is the necessary first step for the nuclear power industry to gain any credibility whatsoever.  

    by tbetz on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 02:22:36 AM PDT

    •  the nuclear power industry != nuclear power

      I've almost taken it for granted that global warming is going to require nationalization of the power industry anyway.  It's the desire of an underregulated industry to do things on the cheap that makes nuclear risky.  It's putting profits before people that is going to make the industry kick and scream about every minor change they have to make when major change is what's require.

      The nuclear power industry should be banned, not nuclear power.  

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:24:52 AM PDT

      •  Agreed VelvetElvis!

        The folks in CA should take this opportunity to force the nuclear industry to be responsible stewards - ie require immediate reporting of uncontrolled leaks, and third party verification of levels in both planned and accidental releases.

        The nuclear industry often touts itself as the most regulated industry, yet all leaks are reported and monitored by the offending plant.

        by Bikemom on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:01:18 AM PDT

      •  Well stated!

        by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:49:25 PM PDT

      •  That makes absolutely no sense.

        The nuclear power industry should be banned, not nuclear power.

        How do you have nuclear power without an industry?

        While anyone can claim that utilities are putting profits before safety, you forget that nuke plants are billion dollar assets. If a company were to lose one, you're talking about huge losses in revenue. You better believe companies will protect and maintain their assets especially if they're as large as a nuclear plant.

        by David Bradish on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:23:30 AM PDT

        •  socialization

          I have to admit I find the idea alluring myself. As long as externalities are zero cost items, we won't get energy that isn't killing us all if investors have anything to do with us. That free rent of the commons is the profit margin of coal.

          by woolie on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM PDT

    •  May I ask what bothers you so much

      about Price-Anderson?  

      It hasn't yet cost taxpayers a cent, and each nuclear power station maintains $300 million in liability.  On top of that, the industry as a whole has to pay out $10 billion in liability prior to the federal government stepping in.  

      by raoul78 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:05:18 AM PDT

      •  Other energy providers are not so subsidized...

        ... so Price-Anderson gives nuclear energy providers an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace over other, less potentially harmful, carbon-neutral (or better) energy sources.

        When Price-Anderson is repealed, and the nuclear power industry must buy its liability insurance in the same insurance market as everyone else, I will support the rational and cautious development of nuclear power.

        If there is any to support, under such conditions.

        by tbetz on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:01:14 AM PDT

    •  I have no problem repealing P-A

      as long as all forms of electricity are required to carry their full external costs, without any subsidy. When fossil fuels don't use our atmosphere for free, we can talk about P-A.

      by woolie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:14:08 AM PDT

      •  I'm all for that, as well.

        Economics must stop pretending that there is such a thing as "externalities".

        by tbetz on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:09:58 PM PDT

    •  Because it is not the issue

      and Price-Anderson hasn't ever paid a dime to anyone. It's a non-issue.

      David

      by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:49:01 PM PDT

      •  It hasn't paid a dime...

        ...but it has cost other energy providers, by forcing them to compete with falsely-priced nuclear energy.

        by tbetz on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:11:27 PM PDT

        •  And pray tell ...

          which of these "other energy providers," does not receive some sort of subsidy?

          In the case of fossil fuels, the subsidies are huge! In the case of wind and solar, they are more modest -- unless one takes into account the amount per kWh produced, in which case they dwarf everything else.

          Sorry, I don't buy this argument. I dismiss it for the simple reason that if you actually look at what the market is, all power sources are competing with coal -- no if's, and's, or but's about it.

          This renewables vs. nuclear argument just doesn't wash. The reality is that it's wind vs. coal, solar vs. coal (truly a losing proposition), and nuclear vs. coal, and there is plenty of room to share from what we are able to get from the 50% of electricity production that coal currently enjoys.

          You can give up Price-Anderson (a bill which actually helps protect the public), but at the same time -- in all fairness -- you should give up the production tax credits for wind. The result? Well, many utilities that own nuclear plants will shut them down and build coal plants. Almost nobody will build any new wind farms -- as the American Wind Energy Association points out regularly.

          Have you really thought this thing through? Or is this just knee-jerk on your part? Is this what you want to happen?

          by bryfry on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:55:54 AM PDT

        •  Why is Price-Anderson...

          ...making nuclear energy "falsely priced"?

          The industry pays for it. Price-Anderson has never cost taxpayers a cent.

          Why aren't coal operators paying out insurance claims for the tens of thousands of people they're killing? Where do they get sufficient insurance to cover such claims from?

          by enochthered on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:10:30 AM PDT

          •  The argument is

            that nuclear power companies could not afford to buy the necessary insurance to cover a catastrophic accident.  P-A provides a subsidy by reducing the amount they must pay for insurance.

            If only we could sue coal companies for global warming damages:(

            by raoul78 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:19:55 AM PDT

            •  The accident at TMI...

              cost less than $100M in insurance claims. Under P-A, one reactor is required to cover $300M for insurance for itself. Seems to me, without P-A, nuclear insurance would be lower.

              by David Bradish on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:14:25 AM PDT

    •  Money talks, bullshit walks...

      Nuclear power has plenty of credibility, especially the cold, hard green kind. You see, all the cash flows one way: from the nuclear power industry to state, local and federal governments. You can be damn sure that nuclear operators keep copies of their tax returns, and the Nuclear Energy Institute counts them up. The nuclear power industry pays upwards of $10 billion/yr in taxes, much of it to the federal government that created the Price-Anderson act, which has got be one of the most magnificent feats of financial engineering ever. Nice trade. The federal government has never shelled out a red penny to the commercial nuclear power industy as a result of this act.

      All this talk PA as a subsidy is just a figment of the antinuclear imagination. PA only pays out after $10 billion, so the operative question is what is the probability of a nuclear power plant accident requiring such a payout. It is fantastically small, making the value of such "insurance" very small as well. Hell, TMI-2 only cost $70 million to settle up; assuming that was 1980 dollars, that might be ~$300 million today, which is still a factor of 30 below the PA threshold.

      In any event, the benefits of the PA act are incalculable. If not for the PA act, 800 billion kw-hrs a year would be generated by fossil fuels. The dollar value of such environmental damage dwarfs even the dollar value of the most imaginative "indirect" subsidy calculation concocted by Greenpeace or the REPP.

      by perdajz on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:21:48 PM PDT

•  No. Geothermal is far better.

  My understanding is that the Salton Sea area has more than enough geothermal power potential to power more than the entire state for a thousand years.

  by eyeswideopen on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:34:48 AM PDT

  •  I've actually worked geothermal...

    and it is good. Creates lots of nasty sulfer and heavy metal stuff, but it's cheap and it's "good". I agree. But it's not 'better'. The reason it is so limited right now world wide is that all the good geothermal sites, that is, where the magma is close to the surface to make it worth drilling down and collecting the steam are few and far between. Otherwise we'd be using it everywhere. I do love the stuff.

    I'm all for exploiting it everywhere we can, but ther simply isnt' enough of it that can be used for generation cheaply. Nuclear is far better for that.

    David

    by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:40:40 AM PDT

    •  My brother works in geothermal.

      My understanding is that the heavy metals can be recovered for industrial use. Nuclear waste is still a huge unsolved problem, the exorbitant cost and the potential for terrorism makes it a bust. Nuclear companies can't do it in a truly free market, ie no government subsidies or government insurance policies. Wind is far better -- even without significant subsidies, it has been growing very rapidly.

      by eyeswideopen on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:21:23 AM PDT

      •  Radioactive waste...

        ...is, scientifically and technologically, a solved, a completely solved, problem. In terms of social and political acceptance, these aspects are unsolved.

        Nuclear energy is proven financially sustainable.

        As for the potential for terrorism, what exactly are terrorists going to do to a nuclear power plant?

        by enochthered on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:12:14 AM PDT

        •  If the biggest hurdles are not solved

          then radioactive waste remains a problem. In addition, waste is only solved in the short term - it will outlast every storage solution that has thus far been proposed.

          If you don't care about the people who will be around at the time the containment fails, it's solved. If you do care, then it's still an issue.

          And we only have to look at global warming and the y2k computer panic as examples of how proactive the human race is at finding solutions to impending problems far in advance of when the problem will be a problem. As long as we can push the solution off to a later day, we will.

          Some people don't want to burden future generations with our problems.

          by mataliandy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:17:35 AM PDT

          •  I like to imagine

            people 25,000 years in the future are technologically sophisticated enough to understand how to deal with some old, buried waste. If they aren't, any deaths will be lost in the background of a society with a 40-year life expectancy.

            by woolie on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:31:14 PM PDT

          •  Repeat

            after me: OKLO. Mother nature's very own case study in the disposal, remediation and transport of fission products. After two billion years and no engineering whatsoever, the byproducts of a natural nuclear reactor moved about 10 ft. I think we can do at least as well with just a little effort.

            by perdajz on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:14:38 PM PDT

        •  terror is theatre

          what's scarier than nuclear power? well, except for bombing any one of a hundred thousand soft targets...

          by woolie on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:32:33 PM PDT

    •  Geothermal creates sulfur and heavy metals?

      By George, it's a miracle.  Why hasn't the rest of the world been told?

      I was actually in The Geysers when that field, still the world's largest despite years of neglect and misuse, was being developed.

      The sulfur in the air was so thick that copper pipes were eaten like termites eat old wood.

      The technology has since been developed to deal with sulfur and the other constituents of the brine that is being mined.  Such was necessary in order to develop quite plentiful geothermal resources.

      The reason it is so limited right now world wide is that all the good geothermal sites, that is, where the magma is close to the surface to make it worth drilling down and collecting the steam are few and far between.

      Pure hogwash.

      Recent auctions by BLM drew hefty bidding.

      It is not just chance that the bidding was particularly heavy in Nevada.  Nevada is particularly receptive to geothermal development but most funding comes from outside the country where there is not the strange hostility and ignorance of the potential of geothermal energy.

      The paradox of the U.S. being the world's largest producer of geothermal power and the most hostile to its development is the story of one man.  B.C. McCabe and his Magma Power were drilling holes in numerous locations in West in the 50's and 60's while Saudi sweet crude sold for maybe $5/bbl and gas went for about 35 cents a gallon.  He even built a patented binary cycle plant that is the model today for lower temperature fields.  All projects except The Geysers were financial busts and that one remains a great success.

      Best,  Terry

      by terryhallinan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:02:46 AM PDT

      •  No Terry, that's hogwash.

        SOME geo thermal is being developed...actually we should say prospected but NOT plants are being built. Why? Investment is a trickle if all that free energy is there.

        The problems are several fold. The current Clearlake/Geysers are is UNIQUE because it has it's own steam pack ,no depleted over many years. Calpines bought it up from PG&E and is not losing money on it.

        So the latest greatest technology is dry hot rock water injection. Incidentally, there is a very little heavy metal or sulfur issues involved with this. Australia is the only place I know of where they are actually laying plans for plants. I'm all for geothermal because it's on daemand, 24/7 and is proven. But until its ready for prime-time and real money gets invested in actual turbine/generators, I'm not interested.

        David

        by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:55:01 PM PDT

        •  Some Hogs For You To Wash, David Walters

          SOME geo thermal is being developed...actually we should say prospected but NOT plants are being built. Why? Investment is a trickle if all that free energy is there.

          Ever hear of the City of Rocks, David?  That is a place where some of the pioneers in covered wagons on the Oregon Trail wrote their names in axle grease on the rocks.  You can still read them if you have a mind to do so or you can just sneer at those primitives.

          Some pioneers kept on the trail to Oregon. Others split off to take the Donner Pass to California. Some of tho latter even resorted to cannibalism to survive the winter on the Donner Pass.

          Sometimes good to know where you are going.

          They won't allow you to dig for loot supposed to have been buried in the City of rocks by bandits who robbed gold shipments and stagecoaches.  But you can take a short swing around to the Raft River where they are right now putting the finishing touces on one of those geothermal power plants you claim is not being built.

          Raft River Project Update; First Power Production Expected in Fourth Quarter 2007

          Wednesday July 25, 9:00 am ET

          BOISE, Idaho, July 25 PRNewswire-FirstCall -- U.S. Geothermal Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UGTH; TSX.V: GTH), a renewable energy development company focused on the production of electricity from geothermal energy, announced today construction progress on its Raft River geothermal power plant in southeastern Idaho.

          The construction of the Unit One, 13-megawatt power plant is under the direction of Ormat Nevada Inc., a subsidiary of Ormat Technologies Inc. (NYSE: ORA - News). Plant construction is proceeding on schedule and budget...

          http://biz.yahoo.com/...

          I suppose you can claim that it is all a hoax like people who still claim the moon landing was just concocted in a Hollywood studio but some of us believe Sandy Claus is coming.

          Unfortunately Goldman Sachs came first.  US Geothermal gets the glory and Goldman Sachs gets most of the gold.  There might still be a bit of gold for US Geothermal as lots more is planned.  Estimates vary widely as to the extent of the field which was abandoned by your government a generation ago.  There was even an operating power plant on the site for a few months.

          The crust of the earth is soaked with water but nobody knows how to find it outside of water witches.  Not everyone believes in witches.  Some don't even believe in what is happening if they will only look.

          Here are some purty pitchers of the City of Rocks with signatures in axle grease of some pioneers.  

          You can find pitchers of a power plant being built here if only you will look and believe.

          Up to you.

          Best,  Terry

          by terryhallinan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:39:50 PM PDT

        •  Some More Hogwash for you, David

          McCabe and his lifelong friend and partner in a lumber business, Dan McMillan, purchased leases on 5,500 acres in the Geysers region and began drilling test wells. To finance their leasing and drilling operations, McCabe and McMillan each decided to form a drilling company and then sell stock, which served as the premise for McCabe's company, Magma Power Company, founded in 1955, and McMillan's company, Thermal Power Company, started a year later. After three years and six productive test wells, the two businessmen, in 1958, convinced Pacific Gas & Electric, the region's giant utility company, to purchase their steam and establish a pilot generating plant. This joint venture between Magma Power and Thermal Power became the first successful geothermal project in the United States.

          Calpine is currently in bankruptcy BTW but hopes to retain the geothermal plants, natural gas-fired power plants and some others.

          See here.

          The Geysers is not unique as you claim, David. See here:

          The first geothermal power plant, built at Larderello, Italy, in 1904, was a dry steam plant. The Larderello steam field is still producing electricity today.

          Lots of good hogwash here, David:

          A hot dry rock geothermal facility is created and tested in Fenton Hill, New Mexico, with financial assistance from DOE. The facility generates electricity two years later, in 1980.

          It was later abandoned as not economical.

          What we need is in fact a "man made heat exchanger" to harvest the heat produced by the rocks. For this reason, European scientists launched an experimental geothermal energy project – Hot Dry Rock- which has put the European Union at the cutting edge of the field today. This experimental site of this project is located in Soultz-sous-Forêts, near Strasbourg.

          A project like this one can only be carried out by an international consortium. Today France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Norway are involved.

          See here.

          Of course a lot of people don't know that it takes an international consortium, including a number of companies operating in Australia and one in Spain.

          The one proven technology is utilizing heated aquifers for mining heat.  The surface has just been scratched.

          Hope hot dry rock technology makes it too.

          Best,  Terry

          by terryhallinan on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:07:34 AM PDT

          •  I stand corrected...

            Washing hogs, though, is not like washing guinea pigs. "13 MWs"??!!! The plant I worked at was 200 MWs! The whole of the Geysers was almost to 4,000 MWs! Now down to over 2,000.

            Let's be clear: I am 100% for doing what it takes to develop geothermal where ever it can be. But it can't been in even 1% folks of those color coded maps that show most of Nevada "OK for geothermal".

            Since I'm for technology and understand the long term...which is why I'm for continuing spending lots of money of breeder reactors, Thorium in LWRs, and PBMRs, I'm also in the pro-Geo camp. But, like breeders, it's not yet ready for prime time, with only one or two mini-plants available (just like breeders, incidentally). Let's hope that they move forward. I'm even for subsidizing Geothermal to get it going. But right now it can't provide shit, so don't hold this up as the current solution until we start seeing multiple GW geothermal plants going up SOMEPLACE.

            David

            by davidwalters on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:18:13 PM PDT

•  Nuclear is Soooooo Liberal

  So we read at least weekly. Or is it weakly.

  by Gooserock on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:40:25 AM PDT

  •  Nuclear is technology. The politics of nuclear is

    how we employ it: for the personal profit of a few or the for bettering humanity. If it betters humanity it is neither "liberal" nor "conservative", it just betters humanity. Why oppose it?

    David

    by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:42:02 AM PDT

•  too bad you guys

  didn't push for a signiture gathering campaign last week.. right in the middle of the heat wave as the Electric bills were sent out.  Maybe if you put people infront of Grocery stores during the 4th - 10th or thereabouts.. Let people be thinking about their electric bills when you tell them that power generation would help.

  Just saying.. I don't really know enough to know whether I support it - but I'm not dead set against nuclear energy, as long as there is a real plan for disposal, and a real concern for fault lines.  Remember, if there is an old silver mine nearby - probably not a good place for a nuclear plant.

  by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:20:36 AM PDT

  •  let me answer both above

    comments.

    The heavy metal and sulpher problems ARE managemble. You can can bury them in geological sites, which is done now or recycle them where applicable. I just brought it up because it's expensive to do this but it must be done.

    The same is true of nuclear. First the partially spent fuel that is perjerotively called "waste" can be recycle and burned up serveral dozen times beefore final disposal of the barely ratioactive leftovers.

    But how much waste, folks, is there, really? 77,000 tons. That's about 1/10th of what one big coal plant produces in 1 day! Think about this: the entire 50 year long commerical fleet of nuclear power plants in the US has produced during this time the amount of 'waste' that would, at most, cover the floor of a large Costco about 4 feet deep. That's it. The amount of waste ONE NPP produces in one year is about the size of a teachers desk in school.

    One needs to put this into proportion about 'waste'. It is NOT a problem.

    Secondly, this waste that does exist...I would ask you: what is your solution to it? What would YOU do with it?

    Basically it can be left as is, where it's been left for decades in pools of water with no problem at all. That's the real answer for now. Secondly, it can be reprocessed as I suggested above to get even more energy out of it.

    But, realie this: ANY solution is a reason to keep nuclear power and expand it. This is why the fake-Green movement is so worried about these solutions and never ever offers any up: they don't want a solution because it means more nuclear energy.

    David

    by davidwalters on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:32:26 AM PDT

    •  Fake Green movement? Such bullshit!

      You aren't the first nuclear lobbyist on this site.

      We are occasionally inundated with them.

      "Reaching out to hispanics for nuclear energy."

      What a crock of shit.

      by Brahman Colorado on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 01:56:38 AM PDT

      •  Walters is not a lobbyist

        So indeed, he is not the first. But the phrasing was suggestive of falsehood.

        by GRLCowan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:27:30 AM PDT

      •  Actually,

        That was from We Support Lee linked in the body of the diary. At any rate, by "fake" green I don't mean the sincerity with which Greens approach the issue, rather their inability to see the problem with coal and their luddite anti-nuclear approach.

        The whole point of all these discussions inside the Democratic party, among pro-planet/pro-human people (meaning everyone but the big capitalists and their appoligists) and even among many conservatives is that the right now coal kills and only nuclear can seriously come close to killing coal. There is nothing else. I'm not even talking about climate change, I'm simply talking about the everyday spewing of micro-particle soot, uranium and mercury.

        For a Green to say they are pro-people is an oxymoron if they have no plant to get rid of coal. Since wind and solar can't do this, they end up becoming "lobbyists" for carbon interests. This is exactly what is happening in Germany  where to deal with the stupd planned phase out of nuclear energy, they are building 26 coal plants! And...THE GREENS VOTED FOR THIS. They are in government. So...when I say anti-nuclear greens are "Fake",it's because they are.

        DAvid

        by davidwalters on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:55:04 PM PDT

•  Education is needed

  There is a lot of lingering FUD and luddism from the anti-nuclear movements of decades past.  Some folks are going to be harder to convince than others that global warming has shown that coal is more toxic to the environment than nuclear will ever be.

  People need to understand that the key to safe and clean nuclear power is regulation and inspection.  It's the idea of minimalist government that encourages doing things on the cheap that is the problem.  A properly regulated and monitored state run nuclear power industry like we see in France is what we need.  Energy requirements of the future are going to be dicey enough that we really need to get the profit motive out of the picture.  I hope Enron was enough to get that ball rolling.

  Concepts like cars that never need refueling should be enough to at least make most people give it a second thought.

  by VelvetElvis on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 03:13:39 AM PDT

  •  Nuclear-generated motor fuel still gets used up

    "Concepts like cars that never need refueling" have nothing to do with nuclear energy as I understand it.

    --- G. R. L. Cowan, boron car fan
    How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?

    by GRLCowan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:19:25 AM PDT

    •  moving parts would go first

      Ford had plans in the late 1950s to build a nuclear powered car that would go 5000 miles without needing to refuel.  Using modern reactor technology combined with electric cells could extend that to where fuel included with the car would last the lifetime of the vehicle, but you probably know all this.

      by VelvetElvis on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:35:46 AM PDT

      •  I do ...

        and I know why it makes no sense. Take it from me: in cars, nuclear energy really would be dangerous. Unless they were as big as aircraft carriers.

        I don't know what was going on back in the 1950s to get Ford's name onto that idiocy, but then again, I don't know (but have suspicions) why several automakers are pursuing, or say they are pursuing, air-breathing hydrogen fuel cells as vehicle prime movers.

        by GRLCowan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:41:19 AM PDT

•  "[Wear] shin guards"

  Might want to watch out for dogs too.

  Rosie, our German Shepherd, has only scared off a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Man oh man, was she proud.  Sounded really fierce. The poor old ladies thought they were about to see Jehovah.  Shameful thing Rosie did.  

  We wouldn't sic Rosie on you even if we lived in California and then Rosie would only try to lick you to death.

  But you wouldn't get no signature either. Rosie might give you a paw print.

  The first effort I read about attempting to deposit nuclear waste in deep wells was reported to cause earthquakes.  

  Italy used to pay Russia to dispose of its waste.  The Russians put it in caves.  That is not what caves are for though I am not sure what caves are for.

  The waste problem continues to fester and there is no solution in sight.  If it is easily solved, for heaven's sake solve it.

  Then maybe I will sign.

  But I doubt it.  I prefer green to mean.

  Best,  Terry    

  by terryhallinan on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:25:46 AM PDT

•  Is there a MSM link about this petition?

  couldn't find one.  

  by Bikemom on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:17:21 AM PDT