Category Archives: burning behavior

Anti Nuke Movement Has A Great Holiday Planned – Marching with Santa Claus

Posted on by
Reply

Sounds like a hot time in Southern California.

http://obrag.org/?p=68347

Anti-Nuke Events Proliferate as the Holiday Season Arrives

by on November 29, 2012 · 0 comments

in Energy, Environment, Organizing, Peace Movement, Popular, San Diego

It may be the season for shopping for consumers. It may be a time to recharge for political campaigners. But for the anti-nuclear activists in the region it’s time to intensify their efforts. Following are a half dozen programs, protests and events compiled by the Peace Resource Centerfor the coming days.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

The People Who Defend Nukes Are Ruthless – They can admit no fault

Posted on by
Reply

It always amazes me that the nuclear power business is just a beard for nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a thing of the past, but no one can admit it. Thus the amazing charges in this case. What about the lax security measures? That is where the prosecution should start.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/11/21/muzzling-an-anti-nuke-trial-defense/

Muzzling an Anti-Nuke Trial Defense

November 21, 2012

By John LaForge

Three disarmament radicals who snuck into the Y-12 nuclear weapons complex last summer are preparing for their February 2013 trial, and face the prospect that any mention of nuclear weapons will be forbidden.

Y-12 is the 811-acre site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that’s been building H-bombs and contaminating workers and the environment since 1943. On July 28, Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli and Greg Boertje-Obed snipped through fences and walked up to the new Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility building. They unfurled banners, spray-painted the building with phrases such as “Woe to the empire of blood,” poured blood, prayed and broke bread.

Now they face felony charges that carry a maximum of $500,000 in fines and 15 years in prison. Additionally, in what looks like an attempt to scare them into pleading guilty now, federal prosecutors have mentioned bringing two heavier charges, including sabotage “during wartime,” which together carry up to 50 years imprisonmen

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Pro Nuke Article Starts Out With A Bang – And closes with a whimper

Posted on by
Reply

Again, you have to take this crap, well like a load of crap. Still it represents the industry opinion, so in fairness I put it up, but this is the last one.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=184146

Anti-nuke madness & global warming

Gwynne Dyer
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 – After the loss of 10 million American lives in the Three-Mile Island calamity in 1979, the death of 2 billion in the Chernobyl holocaust in 1986, and now the abandonment of all of northern Japan following the death of millions in last year’s Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, it is hardly surprising that the world’s biggest users of nuclear power are shutting their plants down.Oh, wait a minute. … This just in! Nobody died in the Three-Mile Island calamity; 28 plant workers were killed and 15 other people subsequently died of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl holocaust; and nobody died in the Fukushima catastrophe. In fact, northern Japan has not been evacuated after all.They have already shut them down in Japan. All of the country’s 50 nuclear reactors were closed for safety checks after the tsunami damaged the Fukushima plant, and only two have reopened so far. The government, which was previously planning to increase nuclear’s share of the national energy mix to half by 2030, has now promised to close every nuclear power plant in Japan permanently by 2040. The new Japanese plan says that the country will replace the missing nuclear energy with an eightfold increase in renewable energy The truth is that as the Arctic sea ice melts and grain harvests are devastated by heat waves and drought, the world’s third-largest user of nuclear energy has decided to go back to emitting lots and lots of carbon dioxide.
:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Are People Who Are Opposed To Nuclear Power Also Opposed To Science – I always try to be fair

Posted on by
Reply

First this person loads this article with oblique invective. Not all liberals are opposed to nuclear power. In fact he never even defines what a liberal IS. Second, he bases his arguement on health issues while dismissing the costs of the power stations and the displacement of that cost to investments in renewable sources of energy with no evidence to support those dismissals. Then there is the issue of waste storage which proved so decisive in the Fukushima accident – eg. causing the most destruction and the most danger. From a larger perspective, we have our own nuclear fusion plant going on with the Sun, and we got back up in the Moon causing the tides. We don’t need no stinking nuclear power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-ropeik/are-antinuke-liberals-sci_b_844783.html

Are Anti-Nuke Liberals Science Deniers?

Posted: 04/ 5/11 03:37 PM ET

 

David Ropeik

David Ropeik

Author, “How Risky Is It, Really?”

The first glimmers of hope begin to shine from the nuclear crisis in Japan, but they will do little to brighten the views of some about nuclear power. As the disaster at Fukushima has shown, nuclear certainly has risks, as do all forms of energy. But the disaster has also reminded us that it’s really hard to get people to change their minds about a risk, once those minds have been made up. And close-mindedness isn’t the brightest, or safest, way to make the healthiest possible choices about how to stay safe.

As a TV reporter in Boston I covered several nuclear power controversies. Seabrook. Pilgrim. Yankee Rowe. These were great stories… lead stories… because they involved possible public exposure to nuclear radiation, and everybody knows that’s really dangerous. My stories were full of ominous drama and alarm. But when I joined the Harvard School of Public Health and researched nuclear power for a chapter in a book, RISK, A Practical Guide for Deciding What’s Really Safe and What’s Really Dangerous in the World Around You, I was ashamed to learn how uninformed and misleading my alarmism had been. Ionizing radiation is indeed a carcinogen. But it’s not nearly as potent as most people fear.

94,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been followed for 66 years by epidemiologists from around the world and, compared to normal cancer rates in Japan, only about 500 of those survivors have died because of the radiation. About two thirds of one percent. The radiation also caused birth defects in children born to women pregnant when they were exposed, but no long term genetic damage. These findings are widely accepted in the scientific community. Governments around the world base their radiation regulations on them.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Meditations On Being Opposed To Nuclear Power – Isao Hashimoto 2053 nuclear explosions 1945-1998

Posted on by
Reply

OK, I tried to load the video here and failed again. Totally. But there are enough links below to get you to the video which is really cool. It is a video that shows the location of all the “known” nuclear bomb tests up to 1998. Now, that doesn’t mean ALL the tests because it does not show the Israeli test off South Africa nor does it include the Korean attempts. Still it is so much like a War Games screen and it is real. Also very well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyGnq7d4MLg

http://youtu.be/gyGnq7d4MLg

:}

Go there and view. More tomorrow.

:}

The Sangamon County Board Voted Against A Wind Farm Yesterday – This is a tragedy

Posted on by
Reply

Yet when I go to the SJ-Rs Website I can not find the article to share with you. That is a really really bad mistake by a paper that is on its last legs. These guys claim that their digital Product is as good as their print Product, but guess what?  Maybe not. Anyway here is the home page. You go there see if you can find it.

http://www.sj-r.com/

:}

In the mean time here is an article that I could find discussing or should I say disgusting the issue. This is a real brazen attempt by vested interests to keep a wind farm out of the State Capital. I do not know whether it is the Republican parties hatred of the topic of man caused global warming in general, or because of oil and gas interests in the Capital. This is the stupidest thing the County Board has ever done. There are wind farms all over this state and Sangamon County is the only one that has to have “special” zoning codes for them. This after the City Council of Springfield, at no ones request, placed height restrictions on personal wind turbines so as to render them ineffective. This county is completely gross.

http://www.sj-r.com/local/x871170515/County-board-to-debate-new-wind-turbine-proposal

County board to debate new wind turbine proposal

Posted Nov 15, 2012 @ 09:08 PM

The Sangamon County Board has scheduled a special meeting Monday to look at changes to county wind turbine rules that would increase the minimum distance between a turbine and a house.

The board imposed a moratorium on wind turbines in January so it could revamp its zoning rules. The turbines use wind energy to generate electricity.

The county now requires a large wind turbine to be at least 1,000 feet or three times the diameter of the rotors, whichever is greater, from a house. The setback from the property line must be at least 1,200 feet.

While no wind farm proposals are before the county board, Springfield Project Development, a joint development between American Wind Energy Management and Oak Creek Energy Systems, is planning a wind farm in western Sangamon County.

:}

I would say, go there and read like I usually do but. More tomorrow.

:}

The Sun Blew Up – Twice to be exact

Posted on by
Reply

This just means that global warming will be worse this winter and by next year there will no longer be deniers. But this just means it is too late.

 

http://www.space.com/14811-huge-solar-flares-erupt-sun.html

Sun Fires Off 2 Huge Solar Flares in One-Two Punch

by Tariq Malik, SPACE.com Managing Editor
Date: 07 March 2012 Time: 07:03 AM ET

UPDATE: See SPACE.com’s latest news on this massive solar flare event here: Biggest Solar Storm in Years Is Bombarding Earth Now

The sun unleashed a cosmic double whammy Tuesday (March 6), erupting with two major flares to cap a busy day of powerful solar storms. One of the flares is the most powerful solar eruption of the year, so far.

Both of the huge flares ranked as X-class storms, the strongest type of solar flares the sun can have. They followed several weaker, but still powerful, sun storms on Tuesday and came just days after

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

The United Nations Makes These Type Lists All The Time – There is a reason for that

Posted on by
Reply

The U.N does a whole lot of good. It does not balance out the bad that humans do to each other and to the planet. Not even close, but they are trying. Again in third world countries no less.

http://www.unep.org/

Afghanistan, UNEP Launch USD $6 Million Initiative to Help Communities Adapt to Effects of Climate Change

Bamyan, Afghanistan, 11 October 2012 – The Government of Afghanistan, through its National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), has launched a USD $6 million climate change initiative, the first of its kind in the country’s history.

This landmark scheme – to be implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funded mainly by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – aims to help communities that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as drought, and to build the capacity of Afghan institutions to address climate change risk.

“The Government of Afghanistan is showing a remarkable commitment to working with communities for a landscape approach to dealing with climate change in the country,” said Michael Keating, UN Afghanistan Resident Coordinator, speaking from Bamyan in the Central Highlands, some 200km west of Kabul.

“We also welcome the opportunity to help Afghan institutions better deal with shocks and hazards, and increase resilience at a decentralized level,” he added.

UNEP identified Afghanistan as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, because of the potential impacts and its current limited capacity to react to these impacts. Climate change adaptation is especially important in developing nations, since those countries are predicted to bear the brunt of climate change effects. The overarching goal is to reduce the vulnerability of biological systems to these impacts.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Ameren Gets Off The Hook From A Plan They Crafted – New low for Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

I was going to start a meditation on Environmental and Energy Conservation websites today but then I got to this story in the Illinois Times. I am actually citing the one from the St. Louis Dispatch but you can find the Illinois Times one here:

http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-10536-state-gives-ameren-a-pollution-pass.html

So here is the piece from the SLD, mainly because I hardly ever link up with them.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/ill-regulators-delay-ameren-pollution-controls/article_123019f5-fe57-5971-9600-4f4c4d7281cb.html

Ill. regulators delay Ameren pollution controls

State regulators have granted Ameren Corp. a five-year delay in the installation of pollution controls at a large coal-fired power plant in southeastern Illinois after the company threatened to close other plants and cut hundreds of jobs.

The Illinois Pollution Control Board granted the delay Thursday, giving the St. Louis-based company until 2020 to install equipment to control smog, which is linked to heart and lung problems. The company had initially agreed to do it by 2015.

Ameren had argued that because of the drop in electricity prices _ driven in part by competition from natural gas plants _ it could no longer afford to finish installing sulfur dioxide scrubbers at its Newton plant under the original timetable.

Environmental groups lambasted the regulators’ decision, saying it undercuts the state’s pollution standards. Ameren said the move was necessary to save jobs.

:}

Go there and read. More tomorrow.

:}

Energy Deathprint – One of those pesky externalities you never hear about

Posted on by
Reply

This article is both disturbing and self explanatory.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources

 

James Conca, Contributor

Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass.  Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as externalities and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of  CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).

But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially Brian Wang for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.

:}

Go there and read. The numbers are disgusting. More tomorrow.

:}