July 4, 2008
Video: Google Video
I’m still trying to get over the fact, that part of the problem in the Philippines, with regards to their debts, is the fact that just one of the things that led to their debt, was that they built the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, built in of all places, on the Bataan Peninsula, with 3 earth quake faults and 2 active volcanoes close by. Also, almost 50% of their GDP is spent on servicing their interest only loans, whilst they spend 3% of GDP on health.
May 4, 2008
I’m not altogether convinced that Nuclear War and MAD is not unthinkable, it may be unthinkable for reasonably rational people. However, not only are there irrational people out there; Nixon was one, and as they say, Shit Happens, and whilst there are some tens of thousands of Nuclear weapons… which is more than enough to put an end to consumerism for good, along with Religious differences, it will also solve our problem of global warming, because not only will a Nuclear Winter occur, we probably wont be here to worry about it.
Now the curious thing is, the very people who are promoting Nuclear energy as a solution, are in fact the same people responsible for our lack of energy, because of their waste, neglect and greed. The solution now ‘some people say’; I love using FOXisms, build more Nuclear Power Plants because they are ‘safe’, but not apparently so safe for Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria. So the question is what are they to use… think about it. We are being hard sold a pup.
If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out? – Will Rogers.
April 25, 2008
When I first came across this ‘little’ bit of footage I thought, well I; like many others, knew a lot of this stuff either factually or instinctively, but, WOW! I hadn’t managed to piece the things together as well, nor as comprehensibly.
After I’d lifted my jaw back off the ground and push my eyes back in their sockets, I thought this explains fully why things that need to be done never get done, it explains fully why they are trying to push Nuclear Power down our throats and when they do talk about solar energy… it has to be in space, where small businesses can’t be fully involved, if at all.
This series explains sooo much and it dovetails with sooo much… it even explains the Subprime mortgage crisis; which I always felt was contrived, and how it will result in taking from the ‘poor’ and giving to the extremely rich. It explains why all countries are in debt and how that’s used to effectively make democracy nothing but an diabolical illusion, an ‘in’ joke for those in power.
This sequence of footage has got it all folks, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Jesus and Mary; both of them. It has Secret societies, major cities like London, Rome and New York. It has the ancient Pyramids of Egypt with their Pharaohs, as well as the Pope and the Queen with all their wealth Gold and precious jewels, you name it, it’s got it… I hope you enjoy the series (all 29 of them) as much as I do.
April 23, 2008
Yeah right… define ‘safe’ please. Take a good look at this poor kid folks, think about his ‘life’ and then do a little risk management assessment, ask yourself, will solar, wind, geothermal or tidal power ever do anything like this, could they in anyway lead to Extinction?
They are a bunch of barefaced liars. They tell us they have solved the Nuclear waste problems… that’s total bullshit! Ask them how much, what type of waste and where they have buried this vitrified waste, and then ask them how much of their 2,000 tons of Plutonium they have buried. Ask them how much more waste they are going to have to secure over the next few million years, ask them how much it cost to build these Nuclear power stations, how many it will take to reduce the carbon emissions by half, how long will it take to do that and build the plants necessary, then ask them how much it costs to decommission these ‘safe’ Nuclear power plants.
They say it will help with global warming… hellooo! The same sorts of people who initially denied that Climate Change and Global Warming was real, then denied it was largely as a result of human activity; in fact they still are denying that. Now they want you to trust them on Nuclear Energy, and they are spending millions on this campaign of bullshit… don’t buy it folks.
Think back folks. Think about how often they have told you that there are WMDs or that something is safe, then later we have found out that not only were they wrong… but they’d deliberately and calculatingly lied to us.
If they hadn’t wasted a Trillion dollars on Iraq they could have probably put solar cells on all domestic buildings in the US, nobody would have had to die, not Americans and especially not Iraqis… they’ve killed ten times more Iraqis than Saddam did! Do you really think that this time they are telling the truth about Nuclear Energy being safe and clean? Hey if you do, I’ve got a bridge and an Opera house going cheap.
To show you how totally stupid and blinded by greed these proponents of Nuclear Power are, look where they want to build one of their ‘new’ power plants… that’s an ‘extinct’ volcano (like St Helens) right next to the proposed site, and it’s not like they haven’t put Nuclear Power stations on other stupid sites, like 3 Mile Island.
But wait there’s more, check this out and remember St Helens when you read “The utility’s engineers had assured the commission that no likely earthquake could break the nuclear reactor’s concrete-and-steel containment structure.” Notice later that they were more than a little lose with the truth…. ‘Trust me it’s safe’?
There are dozens of reasons why it’s a stupid idea and there are dozens of other solutions. The Nuclear Power is nothing more than an attempt to maintain control over the worlds energy… the last thing they want are solutions they can’t cash in on, the fact that you can provide most of your needs with local non mega corporate solutions just fills them with dread.
April 16, 2008
Photo: David Crigger / Bristol (Va.) Herald Courier
“OPPOSITION: Demonstrators march through Abington , Va., last month to protest a proposed coal-fired power plant. Legal clashes over coal are rivaling those over nuclear power decades ago.”
“Environmental lawyers make a concentrated effort to stop new ones from being built; a coalition claims 65 victories in the last year. But industry groups are fighting back.”
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer.
“WASHINGTON — Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.”
“They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.”
“The plant-by-plant strategy is part of a campaign by environmentalists to force the federal government to deal with climate change. The fights are scattered from Georgia to Wyoming, from Illinois to Texas, but the ultimate target is Washington, where the Bush administration has resisted placing limits on carbon dioxide and Congress has yet to act on a global warming bill.”
This is an excerpt from the full article by Judy Pasternak who is a Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, for the full story please click on the website link below.
February 27, 2008
Nuclear Power is far too expensive, would take far too long and the consequences, if something goes badly wrong, is a major worry. Also the question of waste has not been solved and the idea that vitrification will solve the waste problem is fascicle. For a start at present we have something like 2,000 tons of Plutonium waste, that’s about 2,032,093 kilograms or about 4,480,000 lbs. Now from memory the critical mass of Plutonium is about 5kgs or about 11lbs, which means your going to have to parcel it up into say 1,000,000 lots… mmm that’s a lot of lots to bury and secure for a half a million years or more, a period longer than Man’s been in existence!
Now we have only built 2 or 3 Nuclear power stations in something like 20 years and now ‘they’; want to build probably thousands of plants world wide, to undo the damage that probably the very same corporations who were behind the very energy companies that caused the problems, and after denying those problems both during the polluting and after it became obvious… not unlike the tobacco industry’s ‘I have no knowledge that smoking is injurious to health’ whom ‘they’ one way or another probably own.
It’s about 15 to 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, and if we take the Nuclear industries guesstimates of how many people will be employed building a Nuclear power plant, guess what, they’ve solved the western world’s unemployment problems, that’s if they can find the workers with the necessary skills sets, which I doubt… it’s clearly a case of ‘When your snout’s in the trough the rim’s your horizon’.
February 23, 2008
The following list outlines the main nuclear accidents involving fissile material, fission or a nuclear reactor. This list does not show military accidents and it does not show the radioactive accidents outside of nuclear reactors and fission / fissile matter.
My questions will always be roughly the same regarding nuclear.
Why do we need to introduce more nuclear waste into the equation and the obvious problems relating to it’s storage?
Why do we need to increase the risk of more nuclear accidents by building more reactors.
Given some effort we could create a hugely successful alternative industry, firstly to replace coal and gas and eventually phase out the existing nuclear. I know this will require a big effort, but I really believe it could be done without nukes.
Accidents by decade
December 12, 1952 Chalk River, Ontario Reactor core damaged
A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor’s rated output at AECL’s NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor’s heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.
May 24, 1958 Chalk River, Ontario Fuel damaged
Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up.
July 26, 1959 Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California Partial meltdown
A partial core meltdown took place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases.
POST CONTINUES Read more
February 20, 2008
TOO MANY REACTORS AND NOT ENOUGH CARBON REDUCTION
Studies performed by MIT, Commission on Energy, and International Atomic Energy Agency all agree that approximately 1500 to 2000 new atomic reactors would have to be built to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enough to make a meaningful difference.
There are currently 449 nuclear power stations (approx), If we were running around 2000 reactors in total we would exhaust our main uranium reserves in a few decades. We would then need to mine lower grade uranium, this would itself cause more greenhouse emissions. If the potential 2000 reactors were used to replace the coal stations, we would have a 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions. If used as a new capacity to replace true renewable sources, then our emissions would actually increase.
TOO MUCH MONEY
1500 more reactors would cost trillions of dollars. New reactors going online in the US in the 1980s and 90s cost on average 4 billion dollars each. Reactors to recently come online in Japan in the last few years were in the order of $2000 / KW.
Taking an average larger power plant of 1200MW and an average conservative cost of $1250 / KW, this gives a construction cost of 1.5 billion.
Yearly costs per 1000kg of avoided CO2 emmisions are $68.9 for wind and $132.5 for nuclear power.
TOO MUCH TIME
Construction of 1500 new reactors means that we will need to open a new reactor every 2 weeks beginning today, for the next 60 years. This is impossible as the current nuclear manufacturers are only capable of doing half this amount if they are pushed to their absolute capacity. Climate change cannot wait for Nukes.
TOO MUCH WASTE
Operating another 1500 or more new reactors would create the need for a new Yucca Mountain sized radioactive dump site somewhere in the world every 3 to 4 years. Yucca Mountain has been in progress for almost 20 years and still is at least 10 years from being finished. The state of Nevada has also vigorously opposed the construction of the Yucca facility.
Due to the opposition to radioactive dump sites many countries including the US are attempting to reprocess the nuclear waste, as a means of managing the waste. This is a dangerous technology, linked with increased Leukemia rates amongst children living nearby reprocessing plants as a result of increased radiation being released into the surrounding environment.
POST CONTINUES Read more
February 18, 2008
Video: The Wave Dragon System, see www.wavedragon.net
In our attempt to encourage a genuine look at alternatives to the filthy and disgusting coal fired power stations, and the ridiculously proposed Nuclear power plants with their prohibitive initial setup costs, the absence of any real solution for their waste and the fact that mistakes made with Nuclear power plants may result in a wide spread catastrophe… which is why any attempt to place such plants inevitably results in prolonged legal battles that often go on for years and years. So we will have a look at Wave Power.
POST CONTINUES Read more
February 17, 2008
I think that most open minded people would agree that Climate Change / Global Warming is here, it is happening as we speak.
Man is without doubt responsible for a major percentage of this global warming. Quite possibly our major problems began with the industrial revolution.
So some among us want to fix the problem of global warming using Nuclear Power. You have people like our former Australian Prime Minister John Howard saying that we need to investigate nuclear power.
Well coal is definitely a problem, BUT nuclear is not the answer.
Two years ago at a national press club conference here in Australia a person by the name of Professor Ian Lowe was asked to speak. Below is Ian’s response to the supporters of nuclear power. Now Professor Lowe is no crazy crack preaching under the guise of being green, he is a qualified physicist who among other qualifications was trained at the University of York, supported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, so I believe he is very qualified to speak on these matters.
Professor Ian Lowe AO, ACF President, on Nuclear Power.
“Proponents of uranium mining are again loudly promoting nuclear power as a ‘climate friendly’ energy option. ACF President Professor Ian Lowe’s address to the National Press Club, reproduced below, explains why nuclear is no solution to climate change…
I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. One of the foundations of a sustainable future must be reconciliation with the Indigenous people of this country.
Forty years ago, I was preparing for my final exams. Having studied electrical engineering and science part-time for seven years at the University of New South Wales, I did well enough to spend the following year doing Honours in physics. I then went to the UK for doctoral studies at the University of York, supported by the UK Atomic Energy Authority. At the time, like most young physicists, I saw nuclear power as the clean energy source of the future. I want to tell you today why my professional experience has led me to reject that view.
I was nominated to speak here today by the Australian Conservation Foundation, of which I am President, and The Natural Edge Project, of which I am co-patron with former Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen. ACF has been a leading independent force for conservation for nearly forty years. With about 30,000 members and supporters, ACF works with community, business and government, inspiring people to achieve a healthy environment for all Australians. The Natural Edge Project is a sustainable development think tank hosted in-kind by Engineers Australia. Both organisations are staffed by dedicated people who work tirelessly for the good of our nation. It is a real honour to be associated with ACF and The Natural Edge Project.
There is no serious doubt that climate change is real, it is happening now and its effects are accelerating. It is already causing serious economic impacts: reduced agricultural production, increased costs of severe events like fires and storms, and the need to consider radical, energy intensive and costly water supply measures such as desalination plants.
POST CONTINUES Read more