What about the environment?

[vero]

There has been much debate about Iraq and taxes, but what about the environment. My main concern is how the actions of the current administration will affect the future generations.

The most recent gov't projection of the budget defecit for the next fiscal year is 413 billion dollars, and upwards of 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. That's quite a debt to pass on to our children.

In addition, the environmental policies and practices of the Bush administration
are devastating. See below........Veronika


Subject: "I am a Steward of the Earth"

>> Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
>>
>> Eugene Weekly - October 7, 2004
>>
>>
>> Bush's Crimes Against Nature
>>
>> By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
>>
>> [Editor's Note: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is arguably the nation's most
>> prominent environmental attorney. His new book is "Crimes Against
>> Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals are Plundering the
>> Country and Hijacking Our Democracy." On Sept. 23, he made an
>> impromptu appearance in Eugene, Oregon. Below is an edited transcript
>> of his talk.]
>>
>> I've written a book about Bush's environmental record, but it's not
>> so much about the environment as it is about an excess of corporate
>> power and the corrosive impact of that on our democracy.
>>
>> And it's not about a Democrat attacking a Republican. I've been
>> disciplined for 20 years as an environmental advocate about being
>> non-partisan and bi-partisan in my approach to these issues. I don't
>> think there's any such thing as Republican children or Democratic
>> children, and the worst thing that can happen to the environment is
>> if it becomes the province of a single political party. But you can't
>> talk honestly about the environment today in any context without
>> speaking critically about this president. This is the worst
>> environmental president we've had in American history.
>>
>> If you look at Natural Resource Defense Council's website, you'll see
>> over 400 major environmental roll-backs that have been promoted by
>> this administration during the last three and a half years, and I
>> tell you it's part of a concerted deliberate attempt to eviscerate 30
>> years of environmental law.
>>
>> It's a stealth attack. They have concealed their radical agenda from
>> the
>> American public using Orwellian rhetoric. When they destroy the
>> forest,
>> they call it the Healthy Forest Law; when they destroy the air they
>> call
>> it the Clear Skies Bill. And most insidiously they have put polluters
>> in
>> charge of virtually all the agencies that are supposed to protect
>> Americans from pollution. The head of the Forest Service is a timber
>> industry lobbyist. The head of public lands is a mining industry
>> lobbyist who believes that public lands are unconstitutional. The head
>> of the air division at EPA is a utility lobbyist who has represented
>> the
>> worst air polluters in America. The second in command at EPA is a
>> Monsanto lobbyist. The head of Superfunds, an agency critical to
>> quality
>> of life here in Oregon, is a lobbyist whose last job was teaching
>> corporate polluters how to evade Superfunds.
>>
>> If you go through all the agency heads, sub-heads and secretaries in
>> the
>> Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of
>> Energy and EPA, you'll find the same thing:
>>
>> The polluters are running regulatory agencies that are supposed to
>> regulate them. And these are not individuals who have entered
>> government service for the sake of the public interest, but rather
>> specifically to
>> subvert the very laws that they are in charge of enforcing. This is
>> impacting our quality of life in America in so many ways that we don't
>> know about because the press simply isn't doing its job of informing
>> the
>> American public, scrutinizing these policies, connecting the dots
>> between the corporate contributors and the dramatic decline in
>> American
>> quality of life that we are now experiencing.
>>
>> This year for the first time since the passage of the Clean Water
>> Act, EPA announced that America's waterways are actually getting
>> dirtier. The New York Times ran a story that the levels of sulfur
>> dioxide (that causes acid rain) have grown 4 percent over the last
>> year. I have three
>> children who have asthma and one out of every four black children in
>> this country in our municipalities now has asthma.
>>
>> Asthma rates have doubled among our children over the last five
>> years. Whether it's hormones in our food or antibiotics, something is
>> causing our children to have these kinds of haywire immune systems.
>>
>> We do know that asthma attacks are triggered primarily by two
>> components
>> of air pollution: ozone and particulates. About 60 percent of those
>> materials in our atmosphere are coming from 1,100 coal-burning power
>> plants that are burning coal illegally. They were supposed to have
>> cleaned up 15 years ago. The Clinton administration was prosecuting
>> the
>> worst 70 of these plants for criminal violations.
>>
>> But this is an industry that donated $48 million to President Bush
>> and the Republican Party in the 2000 cycle and has given $58 million
>> since. And one of the first things that President Bush did when he
>> came into office was to order the Justice Department to drop those
>> lawsuits against those utilities.
>>
>> According to the EPA, just the criminal excedences from these 70
>> plants
>> kill 5,500 Americans every year. And then the Bush administration tore
>> the heart out of the Clean Air Act abolishing the New Source Reviews
>> section that require these companies to clean up their pollution. That
>> decision is killing 30,000 Americans every single year, according to
>> EPA, including 165 people in the state of Oregon.
>>
>> Last week the federal EPA announced that in 19 states it's now unsafe
>> to
>> eat any freshwater fish because of mercury contamination.
>>
>> In 48 states it's now unsafe to eat at least some of the fish or most
>> of
>> the fish, and Oregon is one of those.
>>
>> We know a lot about mercury now that we didn't know 10 years ago. We
>> know that one out of every six American women now has so much mercury
>> in her womb that her children are at risk for autism, blindness,
>> mental retardation, cognitive impairment, heart, liver and kidney
>> disease. I have so much mercury in my body--I got levels tested
>> recently--that I was told by Dr. David Carpenter, who's a national
>> authority on mercury contamination, that a woman with my levels,
>> which are three times the safe levels, would have a child with
>> cognitive impairment. He estimated
>> a permanent IQ loss of 5 to 7 points in her children. He said the
>> science is very certain. Today there are 630,000 children born in this
>> country every year who've been exposed to dangerous levels of mercury
>> in
>> the womb.
>>
>> Clinton, recognizing this catastrophic national epidemic,
>> reclassified mercury as a hazardous pollutant under the Clean Air
>> Act, which triggered a requirement that those plants remove 90
>> percent of the mercury within three and a half years. It would have
>> cost them less than 1 percent of revenues and it would have solved
>> the problem. Well, this is the same industry that's given that $100
>> million to the president, and eight weeks ago President Bush
>> announced that he was scrapping the Clinton-era regs, substituting
>> instead regulations that the industry never has to clean up their
>> mercury contamination.
>>
>> So we are living today in a science fiction nightmare where my
>> children
>> and the children of millions of other Americans who have asthma are
>> being brought into a world where the air is too poisonous to
>> breathe--because somebody gave money to a politician. And where my
>> children and the children of most Americans can no longer go fishing
>> with their father and come home and eat the fish--because somebody
>> gave
>> money to a politician. And the mercury in the waters here in Oregon,
>> the
>> fish are too dangerous, particularly for children and women. Some of
>> that mercury is coming from the power plants, most of it's coming from
>> old mining tailings and from Superfund sites. On the Willamette River,
>> that's where the mercury's coming from. Well, guess what? The Bush
>> administration has allowed the Superfund to go bankrupt, which means
>> that those sites will probably never get cleaned up.
>>
>> Superfund (money) is raised through a tax on polluting industries,
>> and it's a very, very small tax. But they don't like it.
>>
>> They don't mind the tax, what they mind is that that fund is used as
>> a leverage to force them to spend billions of dollars to clean up
>> their mess. And this is how it works. The Superfund doesn't just
>> clean up orphan sites, but it can also be used by EPA to clean up the
>> sites of recalcitrant polluters. So the EPA--there's a provision in
>> Superfund that says that if a polluter refuses to clean up its
>> Superfund site, the EPA can go to them and say, OK, fine, we're tired
>> of dealing with the lawyers and enriching your lawyers. What we're
>> going to do instead is clean it up ourselves and charge you triple.
>>
>> It's called the Treble Damages Provision.
>>
>> At virtually every Superfund site that's been cleaned up by industry
>> over the past 20 years, since 1981, it's been cleaned up because of
>> the threat of the Treble Damages Provision. It's the only thing that
>> makes them clean up. Well, guess what? That threat no longer exists.
>> The teeth
>> have been ripped out of EPA so that they will no longer be able to
>> force
>> polluters to clean up their sites. As a result of that, most of these
>> sites along the Willamette will never get cleaned up, and if they do
>> get
>> cleaned up, guess who's paying for it? You and I and the American
>> public. How ridiculous is that?
>>
>> It's always been illegal to pollute the Willamette--the 1888 Rivers
>> and
>> Harbors Act said you can't pollute any waterway in the U.S. Even
>> before
>> that it was illegal to pollute. They were able to get away with it.
>> They
>> thought they could make more money by polluting. Now we've got an
>> administration that rather than telling polluters they have to clean
>> up
>> their mess, they're saying that the public instead is going to foot
>> the
>> bill.
>>
>> All of these issues, and there are many, many others, examples of how
>> corporations are controlling our government and plundering the
>> commons, stealing what belongs to the American people, our air and
>> water, the commonwealth, the shared resources, the public land, the
>> wandering animals--the things that give us a sense of community, the
>> source of our
>> values, our virtues, our character as a people. And we're plundering
>> those. And if you ask people at the White House, why are you doing
>> this?
>> What they'll say when they're not lying to conceal this radical agenda
>> and mask it from the American people, they'll say well, we have to
>> choose between economic prosperity and environmental protection. And
>> that is a false choice.
>>
>> In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is
>> identical
>> to good economic policy--if we want to measure the economy based upon
>> how it produces jobs and the dignity of jobs over the generations,
>> over
>> the long term, and how it preserves the value of the assets of our
>> community. If on the other hand, we want to do what they've been
>> urging
>> us to do with this White House, which is to treat the planet as if it
>> were a business in liquidation, convert our natural resources to cash
>> as
>> quickly as possible, have a few years of pollution-based prosperity,
>> we
>> can generate an instantaneous cash flow and the illusion of a
>> prosperous
>> economy, but our children are going to pay for our joy ride. And they
>> will pay for it with denuded landscapes, poorer health and huge
>> clean-up
>> costs that will be amplified over time, and that they'll never be able
>> to pay.
>>
>> Environmental injury is deficit spending. It's a way of loading the
>> costs of our generation's prosperity onto the backs of our children.
>> There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself.
>> I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic
>> way to
>> distribute the goods of the land. It's also the best thing that can
>> happen to the environment because a true free market encourages
>> efficiency and the elimination of waste, and waste is pollution.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> Americans have to understand that there is a huge difference between
>> free market capitalism which democratizes our country which makes us
>> more efficient, more democratic, and the kind of corporate crony
>> capitalism which has been embraced by this administration and which
>> is as antithetical to democracy in America as it is in Nigeria.
>>
>> This is an administration that's about plundering our air and our
>> water,
>> plundering our national treasure, shifting our wealth, plundering the
>> great relationships we had with people all over the world, and
>> shifting
>> the wealth of those assets to large corporations who are its donors,
>> who
>> are the lowest bottom feeders who profiteer on the American people.
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Sponsored Links]

[jd77]

corporations are evil

we are being poisoned

the earth is warming

3 of 4 black kids have athsma

the sky is falling

It's all Bush's fault!

[tileguytodd]

I happen to Live in an area predominantly federal forest lands
Superior National Forest
Chippewa National forest comprise almost 1/2 the lands in northern minnesota with State lands also being huge.
Many acres are also owned by Paper and mining companies.Most of the acreage that is Privatly owned is open for muliuse to the public.Hunting,4 wheeling etc.
Federal Government timber harvesting is at an alltime high for restrictions.The mandates that must be followed to harvest timber on federal properties that are up for stumpage is extreme(i feel this is a good thing as it eliminates hack operations who care less about the forests.)
New harvesting technology is a must and timber cruisers are allowing selective harvest with few exceptions.
Has anyone in here seen the new timber harvesting equipment??
The new harvester is designed for selective harvest and low impact on the nations forests.It is designed to make use of a renewable resource while keeping the forests healthy.Thinning and harvesting trees which have reached thier full maturity is better than allowing it to die in the woods.Wood products are important to our society.we need them for paper,furniture,housing and a million other things that many take for granted.

I agree that we have some environmental issues to deal with,Timber harvesting in my area however is not one of them!!

[Bri]

http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper113/20041017_TOP_TONE.JPG


Poor bugger got caught up as they were stringing the wire.

[Bill Vincent]

New harvesting technology is a must and timber cruisers are allowing selective harvest with few exceptions.
Has anyone in here seen the new timber harvesting equipment??


Not up this way. If you've got a skidder, a triaxle truck with a loader, and a couple of chain saws, you're good to go. All you need to do is buy acreage or pay stumpage to the owner, and you can clear it right down to the ground, if you want. It's a major issue up in the northern areas of the state.

AS for Bush and the environment, this is one of the few problems I've had with this administration. Not so much with things like timber harvesting, but more like lack of interest in research for alternative fuels and the possibility of tearing even more into the Alaskan Wilderness. Like the Exxon Valdiz and Prince Edward Sound tragedy didn't teach them a thing. However, if I weigh out the pros and cons for each of the candidates, I can't say FOR MYSELF that I see more that I like in Kerry. My biggest hurdle to get over is that of him being a traitor to this country. Because of that alone I wouldn't vote for him as county dog catcher.

[John Bridge]

Veronika,

That was a long post. It's better if you make a couple succinct points. ;)

I'm a conservationist. I would like to preserve portions of the Earth for future generations. I think it's important, but I don't depend on somebody like Bush to do it. It's not his job. Think about it. He can't do it. :)

[Unregistered]

Sorry about the long post. I did take out some, but wanted it to be Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's words not mine. A friend sent it to me and there wasn't a link, just text.

Thanks to all of you who took the time to read it tho. It's a topic that wasn't really addressed in the debates and just wanted to make the information available to those interested in environmental issues. The president makes major decisions on policies that effect the environment, and I believe it is one of the duties of the president to be caretaker of the land he governs. The point in the above speech is that major corporations that are harming the environment are backing this administration. Just something to think about.

[vero]

Oops, thought I was logged on, that was me :shades:

[oma]

Couple of points. First, based on some reasearch I did a couple of years ago concerning alternative energy forms and availability, the DOE, over the past twenty plus years, has spent somewhere in the ballpark of 90 billion dollars on alternative energy research and development. The problem is not the lack of funding, but the lack of anyone todate's ability to come up with a viable alternative energy source that is reliable and affordable.
Also, speaking of "the environment", pollution and greenhouse gas increases are on the decline rather than increasing based on several studies I have read. We won't just magically fix the environmental problems we may or may not have, and the president is not responsible for it. If that were the case, environmentalists would not have voted for Clinton. It all gets so silly that one man (whoever it happens to be) gets the blame from the doomsdayers.

[Bill Vincent]

I don't believe one man takes all the responsiblity, but when he says that expanding exploration for oil in Alaska is the only way. I have to disagree. I think that's a blatant disregard for our environment. If it were a desert area, that would be one thing-- there's not really anything there to ruin, but look at what happened a few years ago from just one ship.

[oma]

When and where did he say that exploration in Alaska was "the only way"? Also, what did Bush have to do with the Valdiz? I thought that was a drunken man on board that caused that disaster. Am I mistaken?

[Bill Vincent]

Back last year some time I specifically remember hearing him say that it was the only way to get rid of our dependence on the middle east oil. I remember because it pissed me right off. As for the Exxon Valdiz, don't be putting words into my mouth-- I never said that he had something to do with it-- only that he should have learned from that incident, which he obviously hasn't.

[oma]

So, what should Bush have learned from the Valdiz incident? That drunks should not be in control of an oil tanker? I'm sure he would agree completely.

Let's get back on the subject of alternative energy and saving the environment. There's no viable alternative to the gasoline or diesel engine for autos except for the small hybrids, and those are only suitable for communters. People like you and I, who have jobs and/or hobbies that require hauling capacity can't use them. When there is a non-polluting pick-up that I can haul building and gardening/ farm materials in, I will be in line to buy one.
Solar power is a great source for partially supplying a home, but due to climate and location, is not an option for most of the world population. Wind power only works in areas where there is, on average, 14 mph winds on a consistent basis. That's not inclusive of that many areas, and then the animal rights activists get their panties in a wad because birds inadvertently get killed in the blades of wind generators.

I am all for alternative energy sources, but we don't yet have the technology or knowledge to supply them on a large scale.

[Bill Vincent]

So, what should Bush have learned from the Valdiz incident? That drunks should not be in control of an oil tanker? I'm sure he would agree completely.

Excuse me for saying so, but that's ignorant. No-- what he should have learned is that he shouldn't take risks like that with our natural resources-- that it's environmental suicide. As for the rest of your post, if the r&d had been put into alternative fuels and energy, we wouldn't BE in this position. Concerning this second part of my answer, no, I don't put that all on Bush, but he's not completely without blame. What I DO put all on Bush, though, is attempting to expand oil exploration in Alaska.

[Bri]

I have to agree with Mr Bridge. Waiting for our leaders to do something about the environmental problems we have is not the answer. As individuals, each one of us can make a difference...a huge difference. Let's face it, goverments do what WE tell them to do in most cases. There's no point telling the gvt to banSUV"S.. WE have to stop buying the stupid things and they will stop making them. Honda can't make the PRIUS fast enough...every other auto maker is now scrambling to get there Hybrid out...years ahead of schedule. Unfortunaltly, people seem to turn a blind eye to this type of problem. I have a good example. I posted a picture of a MOOSE HANGING FROM A POWER LINE! and nobody even mentioned it. :uhh: ;)

[John Bridge]

So Bri, thanks for siding with me, but I thought the moose was just another of your off-key jokes. ;)

Bill, brace yourself. You and I are going to go head to head again. :D

(By the way, it's ValdEZ, the Exxon Valdez. In Alaska that's pronounced Valdeez. Never knew why. Ignert sourdoughs, I guess. :) )

I think Bri really captured the essense of what's happening here. A lot of the people who drive the SUVs are actively involved in paper, plastic and glass recycling efforts. Some of them turn in their beer cans, even. I never have enough to make it worthwhile, of course. ;)

As to comparing the North Slope of Alaska to a dessert, you are of course correct. It's not. It's the complete opposite of a dessert; it's a frozen one. It's icy tundra, and hardly anyone lives there or would want to live there. It's a perfect place to drill the ground for oil. It doesn't mess anything up at all.

I've said it a lot of times: I'm no Bush fan. But's it's really not up to him. He's just a politician.

[Bri]

I think I read somewhere, that if every vehicle on the road got, oh I forget now...some tiny number like 4 extra MPG's, then we wouldn't have to import any mid-east oil. If we all looked to match that with our next auto purchase, then Mr Bush doesn't have to call MR Cheney and ask him where Alaska is. :)

That photo was from Alaska..a hydro crew was stringing new power lines when it was caught and lifted 50 ft in the air. IT was still alive when they lowered it down again, but they thought it would be too stressed to survive. So they ate it. :twitch:

[oma]

"Excuse me for saying so, but that's ignorant. No-- what he should have learned is that he shouldn't take risks like that with our natural resources-- that it's environmental suicide. As for the rest of your post, if the r&d had been put into alternative fuels and energy, we wouldn't BE in this position. Concerning this second part of my answer, no, I don't put that all on Bush, but he's not completely without blame. What I DO put all on Bush, though, is attempting to expand oil exploration in Alaska."

Out of all the years of shipping oil in tankers, there have been how many major spills? What was Bush to learn from an oil spill that should directly impact whether or not we drill in Alaska? Sorry, but your reasoning makes no sense to me, because I don't understand how you take a single incident and link it to drill location. An oil spill can happen anywhere along oil tanker routes given the right circumstances. There is nothing specific to Alaska that supports your point from what I can see. It's like saying that since Alaska had a major oil spill that we should not import oil from any of our suppliers.
I believe that what I said was that DOE funds were spent on alternative energy research and development. What do you mean that it should have been put into alternative fuels and energy. Where lies the difference besides your inclusion of "fuels" in your own statement? Don't the two fall into the same category in a discussion of alternative energy sources?

[vero]

I absolutely agree with Mr. Bridge and Bri about the president not having sole responsibility for the environment. Individuals have to take responsibility for sure. What I meant is that if we had a president that made the care of the environment a priority, and supported policies that demonstrated that, people would embrace more environmental awareness and responsibility. (pulling out of the Kyoto agreement was a blatant example of his disregard) There are huge numbers of organizations and individuals that care and are lobbying for environmental policies that are extremely frustrated with this adminstration. The Sierra Club's most recent review of the year and how Bush's decisions have set things back is very sad. :shake:
Yes, we all have responsibility, and one of those is to elect leaders that make the environment more important than money. ;)

Oma, I know there has been a lot of research on alternative energy for cars, and some major breakthru's have been made. The hybrids on the market are a great step forward, and as Bri said, if we increase the demand for such vehicles the market will respond. I heard there is a hybrid suv coming out soon. Biodiesel is big here on the island, and I know of a farm truck that runs on it, so the technology does exist, however the major oil companies have been blocking much of the alternative progress as they see it as a threat. Hopefully this is changing, as people are becoming more aware of the need to find alternatives.

Thanks for sticking up for Alaska Bill. :nod:
We had some of the native people(Gwich'in) from the area they were proposing to drill come visit here and speak about their fight against the drilling. It was very moving. Subhankar Banerjee is a photographer that created a book about the region in an effort to save it. So far it worked! You can see some of the gorgeous pictures on the site.

http://wwbphoto.com/gallery.html


It's much more than "...icy tundra, and hardly anyone lives there or would want to live there. It's a perfect place to drill the ground for oil. It doesn't mess anything up at all." These people who have been living there for thousands of years and are fighting with all they have not to lose it.

“Ralph Waldo Emerson called wilderness ‘uncontained and immortal beauty’ for the simple reason that wilderness was free. That is what makes the coastal plain so beautiful and so valuable. The wildlife great and small— caribou, polar bears, voles and vetch—live as they have for centuries.” William H. Meadows

[tileguytodd]

Well I absolutly agree with the Power crew.No sense letting perfectly good steaks go to feed a pack of wolves.Get out the Weber :D

[oma]

Vero, I don't usually frequent the Christian Science website, but came across this article on another news site, and thought you might find it of interest. It contains some information on current business and government interest in becoming energy independent. Also, some of the large oil corps (BP is the primary one that comes to mind), are trying to create a niche market for themselves in alternative energy products.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1021/p13s02-stct.htm

[RandyL]

You got a buffalo gun Todd? :)

Does anyone know where one would go, if one wanted to get a list of all the things in the world that are made out of oil? :uhh:

[jjwq8]

Slick Willies? :twitch:

[Steven Hauser]

You know there is plenty of tar pits in Canada. We could get the oil there as well. The technology needs to be tweaked and cost infrastructures reduced, I think I heard about some militant enviromentalists that were planning some nefarious actions. A preemptive strike to protect freedom would be in order. :eek: Who said that!! :rofl:

Not many people, and a foreign country to boot. :D

Let 'er rip Bri. I deserve it.

[Bri]

Nahh...not my job. :) Actually, the US gets a lot of oil from Canada..from those tar pits you are discribing.

But, this is interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3755780.stm

[davem]

The EPA is one of our customers. They are buying systems from us like crazy for the first time in a decade. During the Clinton administration they didn't have a two nickels to rub together, now they have so much money they don't know what to do with it all. A quick survey around their building and it seems like most everyone there was hired under a Republican administration.

Don't believe the stereotype liberal propaganda that Dems are the environmentalists that must save us from the evil Republicans. That page in their playbook is getting a bit tattered. :)

[Bri]

stereotype liberal propaganda


Yeah, I'm getting tired of hearing that too. ;)

[John Bridge]

That's what I'm saying. We can deplete the world's oil supply while taking care of the environment. Won't be long till it's over. What's everybody worried about? :D

[flatfloor]

Bri, somebody did.

What about nuclear energy? I know, I know, the sky is falling but over the last 50 years we have over 100 nuclear energy plants producing power and no accidents. Please don't say Three Mile Island because there was no damage from that.

[jvcstone]

How about Chernoble (sp) can't ignore the damage both human and environmental from that one.
JVC

[flatfloor]

Chernobyl occurred in a country that is bankrupt and can't even keep their trains running. No comparison. There are 400 other reactors worldwide. I believe the Japanese are entirely dependant on it or at least very close to it.

[davem]

Yeah, but the russians can't be trusted with a potato gun for crying out loud. :)

[Bill Vincent]

Not only that, but more and more are closing down all the time. I know of three just here in New England that have sat dormant for years-- one of which almost since its completion, that being Millstone II in Eastern Connecticut.

[flatfloor]

And I have Shoreham right here on L.I. which never even opened. Why are these places closing? Because of the Chicken Little Syndrome that's why. :nod:

[tileguytodd]

Who was Chicken Little and why did he cross the road??
It surely couldnt have been to avoid a closed nuclear power plant could it??
And what does this have to do with sheep anyways??
ah,never mind,wrong thread :D

[Bill Vincent]

And I have Shoreham right here on L.I. which never even opened. Why are these places closing? Because of the Chicken Little Syndrome that's why. :nod:

I disagree. 3 mile Island was a gentle suggestion. Chernobyl was "Okay-- last chance. " And there were alot of us who got the message. Nuclear energy is not the alternative we're looking for. It's a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

[jvcstone]

Biggest problem with the nukes is that the technology is so dang expensive, both to build the plant, and then to safely decomission it when it runs it's life. That's assumming that there isn't any problems while running.
Good thinks happening with wind farms, and that coupled with some solar breakthroughs should carry us into the future without risking catastrophic damage to this world we live in.
JVC

[John Bridge]

Wind farms aren't the answer. They don't generate much, and they're uglier than nuke plants. I'm for increased nuclear plants. We can't keep burning coal.

Solar is quaint, but at best it's just an auxiliary source.

[flatfloor]

Whale oil? ;)

[Steven Hauser]

:D

[tileguytodd]

Well on Sim City they collect solar power in space and beam it down
Lets get us a few of those :D :D