Third Party & Independents: Archives

And, I’ve been trying to figure out why the incidence of cancer in my family is higher than previous generations.
I don’t know if detection is better these days, or if there are more carcinogens in the environment, or both, or what?

Some people say we create 99.9% of all our problems.
This definitely falls into that category. Too bad the innocent (i.e. children) always have to suffer for others’ negligence and/or greed.

Great article!
You know, there are currently ten US states suing the federal government over its mercury policies, claiming they have failed to protect children and pregnant women from mercury poisoning.

Here is a related article which talks about the weakness of the EPA’s science regarding mercury.

Thanks for the link, Adrienne.

Excellent post, David. I like how the voluntary emissions program is described as having “mixed results”. If it wasn’t so dangerous, I’d laugh my ass off.

The really funny thing is, you’ll start to see denizens of the red column over here swearing that ingesting Mercury isn’t really all that bad. And besides, the NET total of Mercury poisonings has reained the same over the last four years. :/

Oooh, mercury is very dangerous. A school in DC was shut down for like 3 or 4 days due to a mercury spill this year.

The spill was caused when someone accidentally broke a thermometer.

Yeah.

Republicans do not believe in Mercury Poisoning. Ergo, let them have the cloud.

Residents in the Great Salt Lake area are becoming believers real quick. The question now is will they rationalize this as Clinton’s fault or face up to the fact that their party had not the political will to look out for their safety interests first. I wish them well, and all who will breathe in the vapors or drink the tainted water as the mercury migrates around the globe. I just hope they will hold their party responsible.

They will blame the homosexuals. Just wait and see.

AP-

The “mixed results” equate to a 40% reduction according to the responsible State Agency.

David-

Since 40% of all mercury emissions come from coal fired electric plants, I wouldn’t blame Clinton any more than Bush for the fact that this county has never had any standards for mercury emissions. To set the standards probably means browning or blackening most of the east coast. At least Nevada is doing something about the mine releases.

I’m sure all of you will support GW’s call for more reliance on nuclear energy in the face of these dangerous emissions.

George, you are kidding I hope about Bush’s nuclear push. We don’t know what to do with all the nuclear waste sitting in barrels above ground all around the country as it is. You and Bush want to increase this waste with abandon? Hell no!

Thanks George. I notice the 40% reduction is claimed by “industry officials” but not verified by the EPA or the NDEP. But I’m sure that will be enough to satisfy the people living down wind of those Mercury clouds that they’re… What? Figments of their collective imaginations? Swamp gas from the desert, maybe?

And I have no problem with nuclear power. You mind if we store the waste in your garage?

BTW, Clinton did set Mercury emissions standards, and Bush repealed them.

AP-

I’m sure if God Almighty certified the numbers they would be dismissed as some sort of a vast right wing conspiracy cooked up in prayer by Tom Delay…

Short of closing all of the coal fired plants, nuclear stations, and tearing down the hydro dams, nothing will satisfy those people living downwind from whatever; nothing will satisfy the Greens or unabashed partisans like you as long as there’s a Republican to blame..

And that’s where the Greens lose it in my opinion. Time and time again they go too far in their rhetoric. Plus, when it’s a Republican admin to boot then you Democrats can’t resist piling on. The fact is this administration’s environmental record is probably C- to D+, and probably a grade below Clinton’s EPA performance. But it certainly isn’t the anti-environmental, kill its own with mushroom clouds and poison gases, monster as portrayed by its opposition. David’s glee in killing Red Staters is similar to that made up line in the Reagan movie……

And although my line above about nuclear energy was tongue and cheek, I certainly am pro nuclear. The Europeans have come to realize that it’s the lesser of many evils, and volume reducing technologies like vitrification and MOX have significantly lowered their HLW issues. Give me an NPR next door over one of those coal fired plants any day.

George in SC:
“I certainly am pro nuclear.”

From an interview with Helen Caldicott that recently appeared in Grist Magazine:

Question: There’s a concerted effort right now to rehabilitate the image of nuclear power. Proponents argue that fossil fuels are more damaging to the environment, as well as being in short supply, and that nuclear is the best option going forward. What’s going on here?

Helen Caldicott: The people saying these things are not biologists, they’re not geneticists, they’re not physicians. In other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about 20 to 30 tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years … As it leaks into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.
It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. The most common plutonium isotope has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows —and we’re not the only species with testicles. What we’re doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that.

Question: Yet as society begins to recognize that we do have to get away from the petroleum economy, there’s a lot of enthusiasm amongst environmentalists for hydrogen — enthusiasm that’s shared by the nuclear industry.

Helen Caldicott: Well, of course, they’ll do anything. I’ve been dealing with them for 30 years and they lie — they frighten me. I can debate with generals about nuclear war and feel much more comfortable because they know that what I’m talking about is true. The nuclear industry just lies its way through the whole thing.
They say nuclear power is the answer to global warming. Well … the Department of Energy and the EPA will tell you that, at the moment, the process of uranium enrichment for fuel for nuclear power releases huge quantities of CO2. And that does not include releases from decommissioning of the reactor and transportation and long-term storage of the waste.
Meanwhile, the enrichment of uranium is responsible for over 90 percent of the CFC-114 gas released into the air in the U.S. Now, CFC is banned internationally under the Montreal Protocol because it destroys the ozone layer, one. Two, CFC gas is 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent as a global warmer and heat trapper than CO2. So the nuclear industry is lying. And advocates for nuclear power have fallen for the nuclear industry’s lies. Not propaganda, but lies.
Of course we’ve got to stop burning oil and coal. Those grotesque vehicles that get 10 miles to the gallon should be banned! Americans have no idea about conservation. Europeans have the same standard of living as you and they use 50 percent less energy because they turn their lights off and they conserve. We are actively killing the earth by the way we live.

George in SC:
“The Europeans have come to realize that it’s the lesser of many evils,”

From the same interview:

Question: But some European countries derive more of their power from nuclear energy than the U.S.

Helen Caldicott: Many countries in Europe are starting to realize that what they’ve done with nuclear power is ridiculous and immoral. Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have now passed laws to close down the reactors. So they’re learning, but a little too late. Where are they going to put the waste?

Adrienne-

Are you trying to make my point about Green’s going over the top?

What forms of energy will the Greens accept that are currently available and viable?

You cant use wind power because its fans can kill birds.

You cant use hydro-elec. because you must dam the rivers and the snaildarter fish will suffer.( I agree with that one because it effects all the other fish too).

You cant use nuke plants because nobody wants to allow burying the waste under a mountain?

Clean burning fuel made from grains is an option but the plants that refine it stink, cant have that.

Geo-thermal can work but you are pumping the clean,fresh water to the surface, extracting the heat, and spilling it back on the surface, I dont like that plan.

Solar works(kinda) if you live in a desert with 365 sunshine, the saudi’s could look into that option.

I agree we need cleaner energy sorces but it must be in “someones” back yard, and it must be vialable and cost effective.

I’m not bashing the green party, I agree on the same goals they want, I just wish they would put more into developing energy acceptable to them, and a lil less into fighting everything else.

Beagle, I can’t speak for all Green’s, but, I am a Green supporter on many issues, so, I will reply to your question.

Wind- I have not heard of birds flying into and being killed by wind generator props. It it is true, there is little doubt the bird loss could be minimized via very small and inexpensive fixes. Coloring the blades, stringers attached to the blades to make them far more visible come to mind. Green’s are both capable and willing to accept the least of evils with energy.

New dams simply need to be erected to accomodate the species that depend upon the navigable river. No problem.

Nuclear is out until a guaranteed safe method of waste disposal becomes available. A lot more research needs to be done in this area, both theoretical and practical. Morphing hot material to cold material has to be possible. We need to spend the money to find the answer, since nuclear power is one of the best options PROVIDED waste can be safely accomodated.

Vegetation fuels - smell? Smell is a simple matter of chemistry. A little science can remedy that.

Geo-thermal works fine by recirculating the water back into the ground for reheating. Your objection here is factually based on current technology. Homes can and some are, being heated by circulating in a closed pipe system a viscous liquid which heats in the earth and cools through heat exchangers at the building and recirculates back to the earth for reheating.

Solar works fine on a whole lot less sunny days than 365 with the use of storage batteries to carry the load through cloudy periods. Automated switches also will put the load back on the grid for those lengthy cloudy periods where batteries have to wait to be recharged. The savings could still be substantial and environmental savings huge.

And you are forgetting the absolutely most pristine and cost efficient energy saver of all - biomass. Earth bermed homes use up to 1/4 the energy of non-earth bermed homes. In addition, the cost of materials to construct would be much less than traditional building materials and since you are constructing of concrete, or mortar skin coating, maintenance costs are zero. Putting businesses underground would save vast sums of energy since heating and cooling costs would be reduced up to 75%.

But, the hinge pin in all this discussion is the cost of continuing with fossil fuels. Not just the barrel and refining costs, but, the legislative, war, and environmental costs as well. When fossil fuel’s real costs are summed, alternative energy sources and savings applications suddenly become far more affordable.

It really boils down to education and separating energy lobbyists from politician’s campaign contributions. Then, and only then, can we effect the kind of research, alternative development, and savings that alternative energy and savings promise.

David,

“It really boils down to education and separating energy lobbyists from politician’s campaign contributions. Then, and only then, can we effect the kind of research, alternative development, and savings that alternative energy and savings promise.”

Actually, I doubt even then we’ll get any progress in that area unless by some miracle a cheaper and more efficient fuel source is discovered. For us as a people to pursue with earnest an alternative fuel source, the alternative must dissappear (buy which I mean crude oil). When things get really desperate is when human ingenuity kicks in. Anything before that… well, I wouldn’t hold my breath (or maybe I should, damned polutants).

Zeek said: “Anything before that… well, I wouldn’t hold my breath (or maybe I should, damned polutants).”

That was funny! You may be right! Demand may have to far exceed supply before we invest in the future with determination, but what a wasteful and costly way to go. That would mean paying through the nose to OPEC to keep their wealth standards high while causing hardship in America for business, the economy and 200 million Americans.

I?m sure if God Almighty certified the numbers they would be dismissed as some sort of a vast right wing conspiracy…

I’d be satisfied if someone other than the minig companies themselves certified it. :)

George, I was being tongue and cheek too. Nuclear power is not inherently evil, but the spent fuel and contaminated waste is a problem - unless you’re Ronald Reagan and believe it can all fit under a desk. Until there’s a method to dispose of it, it seems silly to keep producing it.

And I agree with you that some environmentalists go over the top. But I’m not an environmentalist. I’m just a selfish American citizen who doesn’t want to be poisoned by Mercury clouds. So sue me. :)

David,

Right now in Ill. near horricon marsh a farmers wind generators are about to be shut down by an eviro group because they feel they might kill birds. I have no link but if you google wind generators/Ill/horricon marsh you’ll likely find something.
I agree about earth bermed homes, you could save alot untill they changed the damn building codes to say that you had to have a bunch of giant egress windows that a 400# fireman could get through. any saveings was lost when they did that.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14562

http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

First link is a nay for wind power, the 2nd is a yea, take your pick.

You cant use nuke plants because nobody wants to allow burying the waste under a mountain?

IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), but I understand the basics of nuclear power to be:

1) Dig up radioactive stuff (uranium) that is already buried in the ground.

2) Refine (enrich) said stuff so that you can use it.

3) Start a nuclear reaction with it, creating heat that you use for energy. This breaks down the radioactive element into more inert elements that we can’t use for such reactions. These inert elements remain as impurities.

4) When we get too many impurities built up to use the (still radioactive) stuff anymore, get rid of it and get some new stuff.

So the beginning state is one of having radioactive stuff (uranium) buried in the ground. As such, is a similar end-state necessarily a bad thing?

Of course, the biggest problem with, for example, the Yucca Mountain idea is not where you put the stuff, but how you get it there. The material sits in relative safety now. It would probably be much safer at Yucca Mountain. But it will be much LESS safe on trucks/trains shipping it across country. Shipping spent nuclear fuel from New England to Nevada, across entire midwest and heartland, plus two mountain ranges, is just asking for a disaster.

Ok, windows I can understand, but wind-mills? Just how stupid are these birds? I think I will have to favor Darwinism here and just say let ‘em die.

Rob, the problem with your assessment is concentration. We mine the stuff from the ground, yes. But, it is diffusely dispersed in the ground. A fissure opens up and naturally occuring uranium is in very low concentration in its natural state.

The problem is, when we are done with it, we have no way to diffuse it back in small quantities amidst 100’s of millions of tons of rock. When we are done with it, whatever we do with it, it remains highly concentrated and thus constitutes a vastly greater risk to life than in its natural form.

Many of the containers you say are relatively safe where they are, are in fact rusting out or electrolyzing through. Relative is a very relative word. The danger is not insignificant and it grows with each passing month. What if a plane crashes and explodes into a few hundred barrels of this stuff sitting a couple miles out of town? “The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind”, Dylan said.

David,

Indeed, there’s a reason I said “relative” safety. It can’t stay where it’s at forever. Something needs to be done with the stuff.

My point is, even dividing the Yucca Mountain plan into two facilities, one in Nevada and the other in, say, West Virginia, would greatly reduce the transportation risks.

**COUGH**COUGH**

I CAN’ BREAF! THERE’S A PAIN IN MY CHES’ AN I CAN’ BREAF!!

Transportation risks aside, they are large, it is the long term stability of in ground resovoirs in seismic areas that is really scary to me and should be for any who now, or ever will have to, depend upon underground water reserves one day. Plate techtonics play hell with the whole notion of burying it in concentrations and forgetting about it.