ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

LNG was defeated yesterday!

yes, the sickest of our world would propose that the solution to global warming would be to produce MORE global warming ... and nuclear FISSION the filthiest and deadliest of the lot!

technology is simple, and our spectrum of tools infinite -- when we return to a state of grace -- a life of moderation and harmony with nature.

then and only then, when we have REDUCED our rapacity (our energy and waste production) by a factor of then -- only then will we have the healthy integrity of world body/mind and infrastructure to bring forth the plasma fusion, superluminal stardrive, and other cosmic-scale energy devices that our world can use to participate in a solar- and galactic-scale civilization.

again, the knowledge of nature and the technological 'magick' is here being archived and used in our culture today. what is missing is the integrity of lifestyle, spirituality, and intention ...

the healing and awakening that we are collectively experiencing ... in our global cultural reconnection ... of these next five years of the Mayan calendar completion.

this beginning of the two-thousand year epic of knowing/Aquarius, of the thirteen-thousand cycle of the Golden Dvapara Yuga.

again, yes, the nuclear recombinations produce thousands of times more light/heat/energy release than the chemical -- and proton dissociation more than the nuclear.

yet reforesting the Earth does NOT require the release of thousands or millions of times MORE energy and waste in our culture ... it simply requires producing ten times less.

again, then and only then, will we have a sane and harmonious world which will allow for superluminal communications, superluminal superconducting computing, and superluminal interstellar travel ... in moderation, preserving garden earth's oceans and rainforests and wildlife.

if you are interested in the continuum electromagnetic wave physics of creation, please read of the discovery of the structures of the electron and proton, and nucleus ... the superluminal wave topology of the proton ... at my GroupKOS archive:

http://groupkos.com/mtwain/

for ALL our Earthly and Cosmic relations,

Millennium Twain

I will never support nuclear power. We had nuclear in Sacramento for years. When I moved there, our region's electric bills were the 11th lowest in the nation. We were quite proud of this, that is until the real bills started to come in. We saw a never ending cycle of breakdowns/shutdowns. In the end, we voted to shut down Rancho Seco permanently. The nuclear waste had to stay on site for years before they found a place that would accept it.

I will go with the argument that designs of today are much safer and more efficient.But you still have the problem of waste, and no society will ever be able to take on the task to dispose of and guard it.

If our own country can't even manage the City called the District of Columbia, which Congress has all authority over, can't run a clean and safe hospital, protect it's men in harms way with basics of armament, tell it's people the truth in intelligence reports going into war, can't protect us from imported silver ware that would be made out of low level nuclear waste,(almost happened until some out of government people screamed about it) and the list can go on and on, how can we have any confidence in the integrity of their claims. None (integrity) exist.

That's just the people side of it. The science tells us that it is impossible to store this waste for the tens of thousands of years required. Containers decay, there are lots of metal 55 gallon drums of waste in our oceans from us and other countries.Officials ignored science then and will always do so.
The new and improved storage containers will last much longer, maybe long enough, but what if they are damaged by bombs, earthquakes.

The real Bill for Nuclear Power is always hidden by it's proponents. I would rather spend the $4,000,000,000 several Solar Power Plants across California, where the only waste is the replacing of panels that don't require special disposal and an armed guard.Portugal and Germany are putting solar power plants online in a big way, saving fuel, saving the environment.No armed guards required.Portugal's plant cost $75,000,000, initially it serves 8,000 homes, but soon will increase that amount.

I want to say thanks to Kenley and Leslie for their hard work on this and a few other things they have been doing.

My bad: the above post was meant to be placed on the initiative thread, just the same, thanks.

OXYMORONIC!

re: "then and only then, when we have REDUCED our rapacity (our energy and waste production) by a factor of then" ...

sorry for the typo, that should read REDUCED our rapacity by a factor of TEN!

Millennium

How many beekeepers does it take to change a light bulb?

i'm glad you're on this, Brian. i was gonna post on this very topic, in honor of you.

how come nobody (and i mean at the level at which giant infrastructure decisions are being made) is talking about REDUCING the amount of energy we use? all we hear is how we can make MORE to meet our "growing needs".

how about "reducing global warming by reducing global warming".

I wish I knew the answer to that. All I come up with is money is to be made. Solar power would reduce the warming by our replacing a current source with it. But as MT had mentioned several threads back, it's more than providing 'clean' energy, it is reducing our individual use of it as well, that will also reduce warming since we are not using up all our toys or buying more toys for the sake of use.Forgive me MT if I didn't quite use your words verbatim, but at least that is what I got out of that one comment.

I don't know if anybody took the time to view the 60 minutes video on nuclear power in France but some of your concerns were addressed in that show. The "waste" is really a misnomer since it can be recycled with very little left over. Maybe some of your anger should also be directed at the people of France.
Evan, the reason that we need more power instead of less power is because our population is continually growing. Also if we have a good thriving enconomy where people are bettering there lives and prospering and creating new jobs more energy is needed for those people who can now afford a new computer or a new electric car. (which could run off of nuclear power by the way) It's always difficult to embrace a technology that you don't understand. Look at when the first Spanish Conqistidors landed in the New World, the Aztecs at first thought that the horse and rider were actually one, since horses where not native to the Americas.
In my continueing segments I will go into more detail of why we have been forced to burn dirty filthy coal for the past 30 years and how we are poisoning our environment by doing so.

Cheers,

Brian

Typical numerically illiterate Californians.

Is this 1982, or is it Memorex? [you guys display exactly the same mode of thinking you did 25 freakin' years ago].

The reality is that nuclear energy is a huge avoider of greenhouse gas emissions.

Where was that Solar California you guys promised us back around 1979? It's not like there aren't incentives for solar. Last I heard...Solar II near Barstow was decommissioned because it was unprofitable.

I guess when people have money to burn from multi-million dollar homes, they can spout nonsense.

your contribution holds no value for me, "mycat..."

i would like it very much if you would stop calling names and making broad accusations. however, i hear your frustration.

meanwhile, Pelosi, Clinton, and Obama favor more nuclear power plants

Nuclear is clean, nuclear is safe. It has the best opposition oil money can buy.

Their nuclear-waste lie is persuasive unless you know that long-cooled nuclear waste's radioactivity is significantly less than the amount naturally underfoot.

Interestingly, if they're any good at all, they can't study nuclear energy for very long without becoming aware that where their personal skins are concerned, it's safer. So Greenpeace activists wanting to study the thinning Arctic ice quiely get on board nuclear icebreakers. They could wait for a diesel, but they know nuclear is safe. They just won't say that lest they lose the oil money they get from civil servants, our largest oil-profiteer group.

Have we forgotten Chernobyl so quickly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

AGAIN, if we (human beings) could pursue ANY technology without ALSO using it to make weapons, i'd feel much better about nuclear energy. (not all better, but much)

and since nuclear technologies make the ABSOLUTE VERY WORST weapons we (yet) know of, it drops very quickly from my list of things that are worth pursuing.

Gimaha,
After the Challenger disaster, did we stop going into space?

There is no need to make it into weapons. Gunpowder if responsible for more weapons than anything.
Evan, would you consider yourself a pacifist?

Brian

Not everyone against nuclear power is inept or in hysterics. Some actually studied the issue painstakingly and with thoughtful, deliberate study and came to the conclusion that it is a bad path to follow.

To say that nuclear waste has no more radiation than that found normally in the back ground measurements, of our natural environment is not honest nor does it further the argument for Atomic Power.

The truth is, that some waste is as described, not all, not half, very little.

There is enough nuclear waste alone in the United State to cover a football field over four yards deep. That is known waste. Of that amount, of which is at or below what one would measure in nature would be quite insignificant.

By policy, the U.S. has not, since the 70s, allowed these wastes to be processed, by that, I mean prepared for to be recycled, for a number of reasons.

The only thing I see prudent, in proponents argument, is that processing is a good thing. If we process this, that football field of waste, over 40,000 metric tons, then recycle same, we reduce our stockpile totals by incredible amount, reducing total waste, waste that now has a reduced Half Life of 1,602 years, instead of the 10x and hundreds of thousands of years before treatment. By doing so, we reduce the negative impact to mother earth from our previous misadventure.

The French have such technology and are developing a one step process that is much faster and cheaper. Already many countries such as Russia and 10s of others are taking advantage of this. This is a great thing. But there is a problem. It doesn't get rid of all the waste.

We still would have to store waste, including added waste if we adopt new power plants as proponents desire, That is where I break with pro nuclear group.

As for the scientist who stepped on/in the nuclear icebreakers as opposed to waiting for a diesel powered breaker is not to say they really had a choice. Personally, I support limited use of nuclear powered ships, I see tremendous advantages doing so, without going into it here.

To say nuclear power is clean is not completely honest either. Yes, you don't have the green house gases emitted, I'll give you that. And I'll give you a freebe: Imagine all the fossil fuel that doesn't have to be extracted, moved, stored, refined, trucked and piped throughout the country.(I thought you'd like that one).

Let me say to all you proponents this: All those advantages, all those unbelievable saving will vanish the instant one of these plants near one of our big cities goes very wrong: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl.

It should be mandatory for all proponents to do a tour of Chernobyl and surrounding areas, much like what Israelis have done in regards to the memory of the holocaust.

People are still dying there this very day from the effects of a disaster that occurred 21 years ago the 26th of this very month. Birth defects are the norm, life span limited. Animal life feeding on each other keeps the cycle of contamination moving, and some extent spreading it further out by leaving the area on foot or by flight. Things are not good there and won't be for decades, some say centuries.

Of course the Plants of today are vastly better, safer and much bigger producers, yet, they will always produce waste, all the processing and recycling will not eliminate it all.

Here is an odd point to make, but very telling. With all the green house gases ever emitted by man, if we were to stop or reduce our input of same, the Earth would clean herself up in a matter years. In fact, if we stopped producing all green house gases today, the mother earth would clean herself up before the contamination at Three Mile Island or that at Chernobyl.

All the advantages are not worth the risk.

I believe we need to focus on Solar Power, Wind Power and you might find this surprising, Hydrogen fusion-some call it 'Sun in a Bottle'. This process, if we get it going shows the most promise of bringing vast amounts energy for cheap without pollution.

One plant could put out the power of dozens of present day Nuclear Power Plants.

That's what we need to focus on, not the same battles that we fought back in 1982.

I was going to go into more detail on some of the misconseptions about nuclear power in one of my upcoming segments. However, consider that the uranium that is present in the earth does in fact decay and emite radioactive gas which is radon. Some geologic areas have more than others. When you test for radon in a house it will come up through a hole in your slab (if you have a slab house). Areas where pipes may come through from underground is where the gas enters. When man extracts uranium out of the ground we are actually using it up. Of course this is over simplified but my point is that with the advent of containing the used fuel in molten glass form, the radioactivity is lower than it is in nature.
There were no birth defects with any of the expecting mothers who were in the Chernoble area. The reactor that the Russians built was inherently dangerous and the proceedures which lead to the disaster were really incredibly stupid and the "explosion" was not an atomic one as many people think, which you are probably aware. 31 people died in the initial accident. When you look at coal deaths the number is many times that of nuclear. But that is going to be part two!

Brian

As I write this, we are having a big rain storm out here and is at times, pounding the rooftops as well the newly formed puddles on the ground. This reminds of other things that fall to earth.

Particles from space bombard the earth every second. Some are deflected by the earth's electro magnetic shield, others cruise right on through to be bounced around by objects on the surface, such as the ground, buildings and yourselves to be sure to have their energy absorbed. Then there are those that will travel down through the top dead center of the tallest building on earth continuing on to and into the earth continuing for hundreds of feet.

These same particles, if you were to be on a high altitude plane or on a space ship, would be visible to you when you shut your eyes. The particles excite the biology of your eye creating bright flashes of spot and streaks.

It is widely believed and accepted that these same particles played a roll in evolution by their passage through the DNA code sequences that are ready for the promulgation of a species. These particles can break and eliminate an element of the genetic code, causing a realignment thus a different result in the promulgation of a species. The affect of which may hinder or enhance the species in their environment.

So it is with the particles that are emitted by radiation.

When the accident at Chernobyl occured, there were many un-yet born babies, whose genetic efficacy was completed. That is to say their code was already developed into the persons that they are to be. But, that does not mean they were not affected.

The genetic codes ready for promulgation by the parents at that time, and the codes the unborn children are to hand down in following conceptions were damaged. In other words,those children to follow all those existing at the time of contamination, including the unborn's offspring, were damaged.

The following generations have a one four chance of being affected by various abnormalities that I won't get into here, but it's real and it's is still occurring.

To those so strongly opposed to nuclear power, I have a few questions for you to answer. It does no good to spit out facts to you, and if you answer these simple questions you'll have a greater understanding of what you are up against. (Or maybe you'll re-examine your point of view) If you're not all that familiar with nuclear power, chances are you'll learn quite a bit and be able to make up your own mind instead of relying on anecdotes and banter.

1. Megawatt hour for megawatt hour, how much waste is created by a coal plant and by a nuclear plant?

2. How many square miles of solar cells and/or windmills would put out the equivalent of a 1000 megawatt electric nuclear plant? How do the installation costs compare?

3. How many people have been killed or injured in (US) natural gas related, coal related, petroleum related, and nuclear related energy industries in the last 50 years? What is OSHA's opinion on the nuclear industry?

4. How much radiation was the public exposed to in the Three Mile Island accident? How does this compare to the average US exposure from natural sources? How does this compare with an average chest X-ray image?

5. What are the two theories for the cause of the Chernobyl meltdown? Does the US have any reactors using this type of design? Does the US have any plants with a similiar (lack of) containment structure?

6. What is reprocessing? How do the French deal with the waste from their fleet of nuclear plants? What percentage of France is powered with nuclear energy?

7. How does the concentration of Uranium-235 (the isotope that maintains current nuclear fission chain reactions) differ between reactor fuel and bombs? Is it possible to take fuel from a reactor and create a nuclear bomb?

To those suggesting fusion is the answer: take a look at magnetic confinement. Is it a good option? Probably. Is it ready for commercial power generation? Probably not (yet).

Nuclear isn't the only answer. Neither is solar, wind, coal, or natural gas. But until we find new (clean) sources of energy, we need to use the technology we have now to solve today's energy problem.