Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Tue, 11/20/2007 - 22:33.
Nothing I wrote even vaguely suggested that a nuclear reactor can "explode like a nuclear bomb." So spare us the ritual display of techno-babble. One red herring down.
Why don't you ask the folks of Niigata if "accidents that we might encounter at a modern-era nuclear reactor are containable"? This statement is meaningless unless you define terms. Niigata failed to explode like Chernobyl or melt down like TMI? Gee, thanks. The residents of Niigata should be grateful that only 1,200 liters of radioactive water leaked? And what do you mean by "modern-era"? All the industry boasts about advances since the last generation of reactors seem to concern cost and time overruns, not health and safety. Another red herring down.
So we've "solved" the problem of nuclear waste? Is this why the presidential candidates are stumbling all over themselves to avoid taking a clear stance on Yucca Mountain—at least until after the Nevada primary? Why don't you ask the Western Shoshone, on whose treaty lands the facility is to be built? They've joined in an alliance with local ranchers and environmentalists to oppose the project, charging it threatens precious water sources with contamination in the arid environment. But what do you care? You don't live near Yucca Mountain, and the government decided to build the facility in that remote locale precisely to buy your complacency. You just get to enjoy the electricity. Where you stand depends on where you sit, as the Marxists say. Third red herring down.
If you think nuclear power will save us from global climate destabilization, you are the one who is incapable of being rational and logical. As we've pointed out before, by the Energy Department's own figures, "Of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day, 40 percent is used by passenger vehicles." Cars don't run on nuclear power, except on The Jetsons. And nuclear power—with its inevitable issues of waste disposal, routine emissions (how come you guys never talk about that?) and risk of catastrophic accident—is, at best, just exchanging one devil for another. Nothing is more irrational than believing we can address the global climate crisis without drastically reducing our levels of energy consumption. Fourth red herring down.
Now go away.
»
Reply
google2
For more breaking news and world events, seeThe first open media site where anyone can report from anywhere
Advertisements:
Propaganda:
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
Disingenuous techno-geeks strike again
Nothing I wrote even vaguely suggested that a nuclear reactor can "explode like a nuclear bomb." So spare us the ritual display of techno-babble. One red herring down.
Why don't you ask the folks of Niigata if "accidents that we might encounter at a modern-era nuclear reactor are containable"? This statement is meaningless unless you define terms. Niigata failed to explode like Chernobyl or melt down like TMI? Gee, thanks. The residents of Niigata should be grateful that only 1,200 liters of radioactive water leaked? And what do you mean by "modern-era"? All the industry boasts about advances since the last generation of reactors seem to concern cost and time overruns, not health and safety. Another red herring down.
So we've "solved" the problem of nuclear waste? Is this why the presidential candidates are stumbling all over themselves to avoid taking a clear stance on Yucca Mountain—at least until after the Nevada primary? Why don't you ask the Western Shoshone, on whose treaty lands the facility is to be built? They've joined in an alliance with local ranchers and environmentalists to oppose the project, charging it threatens precious water sources with contamination in the arid environment. But what do you care? You don't live near Yucca Mountain, and the government decided to build the facility in that remote locale precisely to buy your complacency. You just get to enjoy the electricity. Where you stand depends on where you sit, as the Marxists say. Third red herring down.
If you think nuclear power will save us from global climate destabilization, you are the one who is incapable of being rational and logical. As we've pointed out before, by the Energy Department's own figures, "Of the 20 million barrels of oil consumed each day, 40 percent is used by passenger vehicles." Cars don't run on nuclear power, except on The Jetsons. And nuclear power—with its inevitable issues of waste disposal, routine emissions (how come you guys never talk about that?) and risk of catastrophic accident—is, at best, just exchanging one devil for another. Nothing is more irrational than believing we can address the global climate crisis without drastically reducing our levels of energy consumption. Fourth red herring down.
Now go away.