Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

What to Say to Those Who Think Nuclear Power Will Save Us

By Rebecca Solnit, Orion Magazine. Posted July 25, 2007.


As the energy crisis heats up, you may need a refresher on the evidence against nukes.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Chances are good, gentle reader, that you are going to have to sit next to someone in the coming year who will assert that nuclear power is the solution to climate change. What will you tell them?

There's so much to say. You could be sitting next to someone who hasn't really considered the evidence yet. Or you could be sitting next to scientist and Gaia theorist James Lovelock, a supporter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy™, which quotes him saying, "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available, energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."

If you sit next to Lovelock, you might start by mentioning that half the farms in this country had windmills before Marie Curie figured out anything about radiation or Lise Meitner surmised that atoms could be split. Wind power is not visionary in the sense of experimental. Neither is solar, which is already widely used. Nor are nukes safe, and they take far too long to build to be considered readily available. Yet Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth Catalog fame, has jumped on the nuclear bandwagon, and so has Greenpeace founding member turned PR flack Patrick Moore. So you must be prepared.

Of course the first problem is that nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything. A bicycle is a better answer to a Chevrolet Suburban than a Prius is, and so is a train, or your feet, or staying home, or a mix of all those things.

Nuclear power plants, like coal-burning power plants, are about retaining the big infrastructure of centralized power production and, often, the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power. But this may be too complicated to get into while your proradiation interlocutor suggests that letting a thousand nuclear power plants bloom would solve everything.

Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they'd like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard, which mostly they would rather not, though they'd happily have it in your backyard. This is why the populous regions of the eastern U.S. keep trying to dump their nuclear garbage in the less-populous regions of the West.

My friend Chip Ward (from nuclear-waste-threatened Utah) reports, "To make a difference in global climate change, we would have to immediately build as many nuclear power plants as we already have in the U.S. (about 100) and at least as many as 2,000 worldwide." Chip goes on to say that "Wall Street won't invest in nuclear power because it is too risky. ... The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island taught investment bankers how a two-billion-dollar investment can turn into a billion-dollar clean-up in under two hours." So we, the people, would have to foot the bill.

Reprint Notice:
This article appears in the May/June 2007 issue of Orion magazine, 187 Main Street, Great Barrington, MA 01230, 888/909-6568, ($40/year for 6 issues). Subscriptions are available online: www.orionmagazine.org.

Nuclear power proponents like to picture a bunch of clean plants humming away like beehives across the landscape. Yet when it comes to the mining of uranium, which mostly takes place on indigenous lands from northern Canada to central Australia, you need to picture fossil-fuel-intensive carbon-emitting vehicles, and lots of them -- big disgusting diesel-belching ones.

But that's the least of it. The Navajo are fighting right now to prevent uranium mining from resuming on their land, which was severely contaminated by the postwar uranium boom of the 1940s and 1950s. The miners got lung cancer. The children in the area got birth defects and a 1,500 percent increase in ovarian and testicular cancer. And the slag heaps and contaminated pools that were left behind will be radioactive for millennia.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, nuclear power

An antinuclear activist in Nevada from 1988 to 2002, Rebecca Solnit just put up a clothesline in the backyard and will get around to installing the solar panels any day now. National Book Critics Circle award-winner Solnit's most recent book is Storming the Gates of Paradise.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Lot's of emotional rhetoric.
Posted by: ahmlco on Jul 25, 2007 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few facts. But let me just take on "Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they'd like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard..."

If that's the your best first shot then you might as well admit that we're doomed, as apparently no one wants ANYTHING in their backyard. Go anywhere, and someone is against windmills (kill birds, spoil views, affects property values), solar panels (unsightly, HOAs kill-on-sight), tidal (environmental impact, might kill some crabs), geothermal (environmental), coal (global warming, greenhouse gases), oil (more greenhouse, geopolitical issues), hydrogen (manufacturing, distribution) and so on, and so on.

Now, while solar and wind can certainly help, please tell me what we're going to do on cold winter nights when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Neither solution will provide a constant source of power, and neither solution can currently provide power in industrial quantities.

While we can build solar and wind facilities today, we can't STORE the power today, and the few solutions we have (like hydro pumping) are only suitable in a small number of cases and locations.

Nuclear may have issues, but those issues can be solved if we stop with the FUD and get on with it. Nuclear may have an impact, but it's less than digging up, transporting, and burning megatons of coal. Or spending billions finding, drilling, transporting, refining, and burning oil and gas.

80% of France runs on nuclear and they also manage to reprocess 1,700 tons a year (btw, the nitric acid method is obsolete).

Now, what's our problem again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Equally bad... Posted by: ahmlco
» Emotional Rhetoric?!? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» You frighten me! Posted by: ahmlco
» Good for you Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Good for you Posted by: ahmlco
» RE: Lot's of FUDISTA rhetoric. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Food for thought. Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Lot's of emotional rhetoric. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Frog lover. Posted by: eddie torres
» I agree Posted by: fanny666
» Good Luck Alm Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Good Luck Alm Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Good Luck Alm Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Good Luck Alm Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Lot's of emotional rhetoric. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Thorium
Posted by: janusville on Jul 25, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I come across Nuclear Energy discussions I am flabergasted that Thorium is not discussed. As far as I can tell, it is the perfect alternative and has all the plusses of Uranium-derived energy, without any of the negatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thorium Beds are Hot Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
The sensible cutback alternative
Posted by: wildbill on Jul 25, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, none of the energy alternatives seems very good at this point, and none seems capable of replacing the old sources before the "Big Crunch" comes. So the one good answer seems to be to end the waste and excess that we Americans have come to love and are now pushing upon the rest of the world (see "China"). But does anyone see that happening anytime soon?

As I leave my 1100 sq. ft. house and drive my 4-cylinder economy car to work each day, I pass unending construction of inefficient 3000-4000 sq. ft. houses, and I'm passed by an endless line of 3-ton V-8 and V-10 SUVs and pickups, most carrying only the driver at speeds well beyond the posted limit. Does anyone think America is going to give up its wretched excess before it is faced with no other choice?

In the '60s people were afraid of nuclear war and often uttered the feeling that if it came, it would create a situation "where the living will envy the dead." Today, apparently any foreseeable future is one where the living will envy the dead. Welcome to hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power and the Iraq war
Posted by: George Fleming on Jul 25, 2007 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many nuclear power advocates are like the supporters of the Iraq war. Their motives are suspect, they lie to promote it and they want someone else to pay for it. They are gung-ho for nuclear power (the war) but they don't want a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood (would never sign up to fight in it).

No one can rationally discuss nuclear power without a good understanding of the work of Phillip Smith and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. From the opening page of their website, http://www.stormsmith.nl/

"Two novel concepts are introduced: the 'energy debt' and the 'energy cliff'. Beyond the energy cliff the nuclear system cannot generate net useful energy and will produce more carbon dioxide (CO2) than a gas-fired station.

Nuclear power would reach the energy cliff within several decades, if the world nuclear capacity would remain at the current level, and much sooner in a nuclear renaissance scenario."

David Fleming reviewed their study in his April 2006 paper "Why Nuclear Power Cannot Be a Major Energy Source", http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.pdf

"It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste. As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world’s total current electricity demand for about six years. Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a ‘climate-friendly’ technology."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Concerns with nuclear power
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Jul 25, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is often a tendency when arguing the pros and cons of a matter, to only concentrate on that area best suited to that person's particular point of view. The pro nuclear poster above has made some very good points concerning the alternatives, and also mentions the French recycling program. However what we should all be looking at is:

1) What countries are the primary suppliers of Uranium and what are their protocols concerning world safety and Uranium use?
Australia currently has a Three Mines Policy, but the current Government wants to open up ALL our mines.

2) How safe is the transport of such material, in view of it's alternative use, namely WMD's?
If we are talking of world use of nuclear, it has to be assumed not all these user countries will be able to reprocess their nuclear waste. So will they send their waste to France, or similar countries? And isn't that preferred method of transport tanker size ships? Don't we already have a very worrying Pirate network already boarding oil tankers on most oceans of the world? What's to stop a terrorist attempt to hijack a tanker loaded with nuclear waste? Makes a suicide bomber look like a speck of sand on the beach of terrorism compared to a tanker of nuclear waste being blown up, or run aground, anywhere where the wind will drift the waste to a country's main populous.

3) What are the International Agreements, particularly the UN ones, concerning transport of Uranium, the treatment of depleted Uranium, the safety aspect of shipping nuclear waste, and the conditions relating to recycling nuclear waste?
As far as I know there are, as yet, no world conventions to such a situation where multiple countries start large increases in the use of nuclear power.

4) How safe is the option of 'deep earth' burying of nuclear waste?
We are currently in the middle of an ongoing nuclear debate where our Government wants to bury nuclear waste to our one and only nuclear facility at Lucas Heights in Sydney. A preferred site is in the baron and desolate northern sector of South Australia. The claim is that particular area is earthquake free. But even the most die-hard conservative scientists, supporters of this nuclear waste dump, say they can't speak for how stable Australia will be, earthquake wise, past the next thirty years. This stuff needs a hell of a lot more time than that before it becomes harmless.

And for anyone thinking that what happens down here won't effect say, the US, just remember Chernobyl and the effect it had on Europe, and it was just one reactor. Japan has a number of nuclear power stations, and their country is the most unstable in the world. Which way will the wind blow if an earthquake cracks one or more of their reactors? East...towards Continental USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuklar Powr.
Posted by: itchyvet on Jul 25, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has covered the matter quiet well, IMHO.
Comments made ref solar/wind power being unable to be stored are incorrect, like wise wave power, I'd strongly suggest rather then type out glib responces, people actually do some homework and research alternative energy BEFORE hitting their key board.
If every NEW home builder installed solar panels and deep cycle batteries they'd be self sufficient in power right from the day dot. On top of that, you can then sell your excess power to the suppliers. IMHO, this is what the powers that be,(power providers) are totaly 100% against, as it would neutralize their whole infrastructure over night and there go the profits.
It's also possible to instal similar solar set up on exisiting homes where the same scenario can be followed, note, the technology to do this, is avail able RIGHT NOW, not next year or ten years (how long does it take to build a Nuk power plant ?) All it takes is the initial outlay and then it's easy street from therein.
Australia ? YEP, it's correct, our esteemed conga line of sycophants we have in our Govt right now, are trying to shove nuk power down our throats, whether we want it or not. And I've seen the posts here support this rubbish, I've asked in the past, who is going to finance these white elephants and I'm never given an answer.
Similarly, I've asked who becomes financialy responsabile on the closing of said plants and the disposal and clearing of sites from contamination ? Again, this question has not been answered by the advocates.
Let's face it folks, the only justification for Australia having nuk power, is the desire to rip the stuff outa the ground and sell it off to World wide power distributors, just like we do with ALL our raw mineral resources, allowing Multi National Corproations to make zillions of dollars and leave us with a monster hole in the ground, whence they will then very kindly offer to sell us back the waste to place back in the hole, at the same time, convincing us all, they're doing US a favour.
Reckon I'm kiddin, check out our esteemed Deputy Sheriffi's favourite supporters of these proposals, follow the financing trails of said supporters, you'll soon discover the money to persue this issue does NOT come from Australian sources and neither will the profits go to Australian sources, at the same time, ask yourselves will these same sources also pay for the disposal of nuk waste and the restoration of contaminated sites ? And, don't hold you breathe waiting for an answer, you might drop dead first.
Comparing apples to oranges, (coal/Nuk power) it's claimed nuk is cheaper and less polluting, however from where I sit, it takes a hell of a lot of FOSSIL FUEL, (thereby pollution) to dig the stuff up, process it and transport it to power stations, then again, takes a hell of a lot more for reprocessing and disposal, whereas coal gets dug up, no processing involved, transported to power stations, sometimes adjacent to mines, and only disposal id fly ash which does have industrial uses as well and is no danger to humans or animals or fauna.
Sorry folks, keep yer nuk power, I can live with modern clean coal plants and solar/wind/wave/thermal power. All of which are available RIGHT NOW at minimum cost to consumers without conglomerates controling prices for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuklar Powr. Posted by: EinMD
Build it in my backyard, I'll still drink the water
Posted by: Boomerang on Jul 25, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
100 nuclear power plants to sustain US demand? Why the hell aren't we getting started on that right now? Solar and Wind farms can pick up the slack, but France has already shown that nuclear power can be safe and effective. The author is just fear-mongering about radiation. Yes, there have been problems, in the past, but the author makes it sounds like everywhere nuclear power goes, horrible radioactive wastelands follow.

And then there's this gem: the same general processes that produce fuel for power can produce it for bombs. Maybe if we went out and built 100 heavy water reactors, but in a light water reactor, what little plutonium is produced is also partially consumed by the reactor, leaving very very little byproduct. Certainly not enough for a bomb, unless you're extremely patient. The reason we fear nuclear power in Iran is because they've built a heavy water reactor whose main byproduct is Plutonium. That's why it's obvious they're trying to make weapons.

And you've got to love the fear-mongering (on the same level as the administration) of "if you use it, da terrrists might get it!" And the "fact" that mining uranium will take fossil fuels is also hilariously inane: doing anything is going to require fossil fuels. Building a wind farm requires fossil fuels. Your breakfast required fossil fuels to bring it to you, so don't try to run that ridiculously irrelevant argument.

The benefits just outweigh the risks. And anyone who wrings their hands worrying about Chernobyl should take a moment to think whether the Chernobyl accident was the product of nuclear power or the product of incompetent Communism building a nuclear reactor and encasing it in graphite as a coolant rather than using the better-on-its-face method of water cooling. Obviously, I'd posit the latter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Aggie joke Posted by: dkm
Mother Nature Weighs In
Posted by: k_pr on Jul 25, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The easiest argument against nuclear power: Anyone hear about the earthquake in Japan and what it did to their nuclear power plants?

Case closed. No toxic spills with wind or solar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mother Nature Weighs In Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Mother Nature Weighs In Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Yeah, try reading... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Yeah, try reading... Posted by: k_pr
» Yep, their refining facility... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
So, you are sitting next to someone who thinks nuclear is the answer
Posted by: suprmark on Jul 25, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, it's not the answer to all of life's problems, but nuclear power is a necessary part of moving towards solving global climate change. My background is in physics and I know the dangers of radiation. As for the dangers of radiation, please recall that Marie Curie lived to the age of 66 despite handling radiation without any protection for most of her life. I would be happier in a world of only renewable power, but if you would like to convince me not to promote nuclear as a stepping stone you will have to show me how you plan to convince China, India, and the rest of the developing countries not to build any non-renewable sources of power.

Nuclear power plants, like coal-burning power plants, are about retaining the big infrastructure of centralized power production and, often, the habits of obscene consumption that rely on big power.
Ah yes, the obscene consumption of India... I'd forgotten about that. And what's up with cancer wards - those machines use far too much power.

Instead, you may be able to derail the conversation by asking whether they'd like to have a nuclear power plant or waste repository in their backyard, which mostly they would rather not, though they'd happily have it in your backyard.
Actually I'd happily put it in the Canadian Shield. Solid bedrock far from any tectonic plate boundaries. Hey, it could stay there for millennia and not bother anyone. Funny that.

Yet when it comes to the mining of uranium, which mostly takes place on indigenous lands from northern Canada to central Australia, you need to picture fossil-fuel-intensive carbon-emitting vehicles, and lots of them -- big disgusting diesel-belching ones.
Right, because coal mining uses none of those machines. And transporting 40m (120 ft) wind turbines can be done on a bicycle, right?

The miners got lung cancer.
I've never heard such a thing before, miners having respiratory problems! Mines are dirty, and that doesn't mean they won't have to be used to extract the resources for solar cells and wind turbines.

To make nuclear fuel, the ore must be "enriched,"
No. CANDU reactors, and a number of other designs do not need enriched fuel.

The biggest experiment in reprocessing was at Sellafield in Britain
Ah yes, use a first generation plant built decades ago as your example of what is being built now. We all know the Model T was the best car design ever, and built well into the 50s.

the same general processes that produce fuel for power can produce it for bombs
Yes, that is the problem with energy dense material. Should we ban knives because they can cut people as well as vegetables?

The waste from nuclear plants is now the subject of much fretting about terrorists obtaining it for dirty bombs
It seems just like people are just as afraid of nuclear power as flying, despite knowing the statistics (almost 450 plants operating nearly continuously for an average of probably 30 years and two major accidents, one of which didn't actually cause any loss of life, is a bad safety record?). Nuclear magnetic resonance, for example, had to be changed to magnetic resonance imaging for public consumption because people were too afraid of the word nuclear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We're all eyes... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: We're all eyes... Posted by: kindacold
» Excellent comments suprmark Posted by: geoff_canuck
So, you are sitting next to someone who thinks nuclear is the answer pt2
Posted by: suprmark on Jul 25, 2007 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now the facts should be on your side, but do ask how your neighbor feels about nuclear bombs, just to keep things lively.
I oppose them, as do the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Odd that despite the supposed terrible danger posed by radiation people have repopulated those two cities.

The truth is, there may not be enough uranium out there to fuel two thousand more nuclear power plants worldwide
Fortunately we can reprocess the fuel, or use breeder reactors which produce more fuel than they consume.

Still, the biggest stumbling block, where climate change is concerned, is that it takes a decade or more to construct a nuclear plant,
Yes, do nothing! Or build thousands of wind turbines and solar cells, I'm sure they will survive the extreme weather that's expected to increase just like the nuclear reactor that ran continuously during Katrina.

that every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is murderously filthy, imparting long-lasting contamination on an epic scale; that a certain degree of radioactive pollution is standard at each of these stages, but the accidents are now so many in number that they have to be factored in as part of the environmental cost; that the plants themselves generate lots of radioactive waste, which we still don't know what to do with -- because the stuff is deadly ... anywhere ... and almost forever.
Yes, that's true. But coal is worse - and yes, coal does generate radioactive waste. And just like acid rain was eventually reduced, and coal mining accidents have dropped, nuclear power will become safer over time.

I doubt I have convinced more than a couple of people of the safety of nuclear power, but that isn't my goal. I look at the cost in lives from Chernobyl - 56 plus a few thousand extra cancer deaths, and much of the life near there extinguished - and at the heat wave in Europe a few years back which killed 35 000 people (OK, the blame can't squarely be put on global warming, but...) and I say the chance of another nuclear disaster is less likely and less damaging than the effects of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is that alternative? Posted by: mjabele
» good points... Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: good points... Posted by: suprmark
We need an international ban on nuclear energy!
Posted by: WhuThe?!? on Jul 25, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And mines and cluster bombs, oh yes, and on neocons!
I think the author and many posters have made the point quite clearly. A no-brainer if I ever saw one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Especially Neocons Posted by: bob t
Nuclear beats coal
Posted by: Ugly Moe on Jul 25, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While everyone debates the best solution, the worst one possible (coal-fired electricity) seizes the moment.

Don Quixote rides again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternatives
Posted by: bcain on Jul 25, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The alternative to every conventional source of energy has been known for decades. It is clean, non-polluting, virtually unlimited and best of all, it's free! And because it's free is the reason why few have heard about as it. It has been ruthlessly suppressed in the public sector, and militarized behind 17 layers of beaurocracy. It's the other inconvenient truth that those in control see as the way of losing that very control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternatives Posted by: bcgirl125
Fewer People Beats Nuclear, Coal, Oil, Pollution, etc.
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Jul 25, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excerpt from the article: "It's a sacrifice they're imposing on people far away and others not yet born, a debt they're racking up at the expense of people they will never meet."

Hmmm. Seems like this statement should remind everyone of the other fact, that government, business and religion won't address: overpopulation.

Sure, many are starting to speak out against climate change and are in favor of the environment (as long as they're still in control or make a tidy profit from it), but how many people are willing to take a stand against overpopulation, by doing their part, adopt vs procreate, don't have any (or more) kids, consume less? You don't hear these groups advocating any controls over the ever-increasing population, do you?

Of course this idea won't get you elected, heck, you can't even be an atheist in america and get elected, (well it's rare, certainly rare enough that people in positions that affect policy don't speak up as much as those that believe in some diety) and that's part of the problem, with not enough people willing to work towards reducing the population, with religion failing to speak out against having children, and with too many people still believing we should continue to have more kids.

Some people want kids to keep ahead of some other group, by race or color, nation or religion that there's no stopping that type of thinking, feeling outnumbered by somebody you hate or fear.

And don't forget americans need more kids to grow up to pay into social security for today's workers to have retirement funds, and there's a simple formula for having more kids, where business, religion and government all want and need more consumers and more soldiers...are you getting the idea we're at cross purposes, when we all want something but aren't willing to pay the price for once, by not contributing to more of the same mess, and there's no winning when it comes to arguing against a growing population, is there?

I've heard and read all the arguments, sure, love and care for your kids, but why can't anyone see the sacrifices made for the children not equivalent to the sacrifices we aren't imposing on ourselves, which is to save this world from ourselves?

How illogical are humans? It's true, whatever excuse people make for having kids, it is based on selfishness, and a disregard for the rest of us who choose not to have kids, or to adopt. To those who ask whether I recycle, or what is my contribution to the environment, I say: "I do recycle, and I don't believe in making more babies. That's abundantly more effective than simply recycling, isn't it?"

But of course, there are no laws preventing childbirth, and people are currently free to have kids, who am I to judge, but when I read about environmental issues and issues of excess, I can't help but think we're doing it to ourselves...at least those deciding to have kids. I became a poster when I read an AlterNet author who was writing about the environment, was worried for the future of his 20-month old kid, and I thought, that's 29 months ago, wasn't the planet as screwed then as it is now?

Why don't people see the connnection, instead of yelling at people like us, who ask for less people, not more? What excuse do people have for having more kids, especially americans, who consume more and don't need kids to help manage a plot of land, or when they get too old to care for themselves (well, that's another touchy issue but no guarantee kids will care for their parents).

Sidebar Ads Powered by Google:
Nuclear Power Jobs
Nuclear Power Jobs Listed by State Search or Post Utility Resumes

Navy Nuclear Power
Acquire highly specialized skills as a Nuclear Power Officer.

Invest in Uranium
Learn How This $13 Stock Could Soar to $57!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The facts
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 25, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for telling me about Environmentalists for Nuclear
Energy. I joined up.

Question: How much coal company stock does Rebecca
Solnit own? Does Rebecca Solnit own a coal mine? Is
Rebecca Solnit married to a coal company executive?

Let's review the facts. Rebecca Solnit has a degree in
English literature from San Francisco State University.
Rebecca Solnit has written a lot of books and magazine
articles about a lot of subjects, none of them scientific.

Asteroid Miner has a degree in Physics from Carnegie-
Mellon University and more than enough graduate credits
for an advanced degree in engineering. Asteroid Miner is
retired after working for the US government as a scientist
and engineer. Asteroid Miner's experience includes
research in nuclear weapons effects. Asteroid Miner has
NO connection with the nuclear power industry. Asteroid
Miner has never worked for the nuclear power industry. It
is just that Asteroid Miner would rather not go extinct
because of global warming.

"Fact" in Rebecca Solnit's article: Rebecca Solnit is
paranoid about nuclear waste and nuclear fuel reprocessing.
The truth: Nuclear "waste" is valuable fuel if only the
politicians would allow it to be used as fuel. We could
refuel our reactors from the waste.

"Fact" in Rebecca Solnit's article: Rebecca Solnit thinks we
don't have enough nuclear fuel sources.
The truth: If breeding is allowed, enough uranium and
thorium goes up the smokestack of an average coal fired
power plant to FULLY fuel 500 nuclear power plants of the
same capacity. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of
uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4
tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds
of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are
only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the
cinders. We Can extract uranium and thorium from the
smoke and cinders of coal fired power plants.

"Fact" in Rebecca Solnit's article: Rebecca Solnit thinks it
takes too long to build nuclear power plants.
The truth: Paranoid people like Rebecca Solnit cause a lot
of pointless delays and raise the price of electricity by their
protests. If the safety level of nuclear power plants were
LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants,
the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap
indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.

The truth: Besides carbon, coal also contains:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc
Thorium

The truth: We have only 200 years before we go extinct if
we keep on burning coal. See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
Compared to extinction, a few nuclear wars are minor
problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why am I so stupid? Posted by: eddie torres
If only INDUSTRIAL HEMP were not outlawed 70 years ago
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 25, 2007 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would we not be stuck deciding among oil, coal, nuclear. Face it. All 3 are non-renewable, environmentally destructive, and are what these resource wars are based on. If you wanted electricity, instead of coal or nuclear, try hemp charcoal instead. And instead of crude oil, try hemp oil instead. Back when the automobile was invented, engines were not designed for petroleum until BIG OIL took over and only then did the downhill begin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A bicycle is a better answer to a Chevrolet Suburban??
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jul 25, 2007 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Better for what? Exercise, yes. Getting the groceries home, probably not assuming you have more than 1 person in your home. Taking the soccer team to the field, no. Driving to another state or country, no. It is idiotic statements like this that you find throughout the whole article. It is nothing more than typical neo-con evagelicalism in another dress. Making judgements on people, being holier-than-thou, and proclaiming the 'end times'. Just the 'end times' is the 'warming' instead of the 'apocalypse'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fusion, not Fission!
Posted by: edgar_michel on Jul 25, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first want to say that the only short term solution is a significant contraction of our economy. We need to focus on local agriculture and re-fertilization of the land instead of relying on mass fossil fuel based conglomerate agriculture that really produces poor quality food stores in the first place.

Second I would like to posit that Nuclear Fusion probably has the best chance to providing long-term energy to the technological side of our culture because it is energy in excess of the radiant energy we receive from the sun and like oil, allow us to continue to advance our technological culture, but unlike oil will provide no natural gas that can be converted into high yield fertilizers needed for conglomerate style farming necessitating local agriculture even after fusion energy generators are in full production. Also fusion has the potential of a small footprint in that as the technology develops it should be possible to miniaturize, say down to the size of a suburban house, power plants based on fusion, allowing these power plants to be distributed locally obviating the need for ever more extensive power grids.

Third, fusion power plants do produce radioactive waste in the form of radioactive iron, nickel, manganese, etc. from the containment structure of the fusion generator, that are dangerous for about 24 years before becoming inert. That is much different from plutonium byproducts from fission reactors which are lethal for at least 50,000 years. But there is even now technology surfacing that suggests that these radioactive byproducts from fusion might be completely mitigated. The new design of the ongoing ITER project uses a three foot lithium bath to capture stray neutrons by producing helium 3 and tritium neither of which is radioactive at all. And if we can make the containment structure out of say, carbon nanotube laminate, then the only radioactive byproduct will be carbon 14 which breaks down very slowly over billions of years which means that only very tiny amount of radiation is produced during normal lifetimes.

Lastly fusion produces energy in addition to the radiant energy from the sun which we need for the natural life processes on earth that have had the time of billions of years to optimize. We need our natural environment to remain healthy while we develop advanced systems that will allow us to travel beyond our own solar system. We have to realize that the stability of our planet requires us to forever remain cognizant of the fact that the life of our planet is dependent on maintaining the fragile, delicate life supporting conditions that very few planets in our galaxy exhibit.

Contraction of our economy is inevitable. We need to accept that and start planning for it if we are going to have any chance to develop advanced systems to allow our world cultures to flourish beyond the end of the next decade. That means that the American empire needs to come to an end so that we Americans here in the United States can begin to build the infrastructure of the 21st century before we are left woefully behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

false dichotomies
Posted by: DeAnander on Jul 25, 2007 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth: We have only 200 years before we go extinct if we keep on burning coal.

and somehow this implies that the only other option is nuclear? my oh my, how did our species ever survive, thrive, diversify and spread all over the earth in the last 40,000 years without the benefit of massive centralised electric generation facilities for the first 39,900 of them?

there is a huge difference between "extinction" of the human race -- which might indeed happen if we go on burning fossil fuels of any kind -- and collapse of the hegemonic rule of a handful of rich whitefellahin, which might just happen if we went to decentralised and sustainable energy production and reduced our demand. like getting out from under a crippling debt, we'd suddenly be far less controlled and controllable. that's what really scares the pontificating classes, imho.

the technocrats aren't scared of gambling with extinction; they've been doing that for decades, since they first figured out how to put armageddon in a can for easy transport. the extinction of species, cultures, languages, etc -- they don't give a tinker's damn about it, they facilitate that process every day as they design more "efficient" ways to liquidate the biosphere, as they Enclose life forms and destroy millennia of accumulated agronomical wisdom worldwide. imho the "we" whose extinction is being anxiously forecast here is the international aristocracy of rich white guys who control everyone's access to food, water, and electricity. localised renewable energy might indeed spell the end of their kingship over us -- and that reign can end, for all I care. it's about time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: false dichotomies Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Where's the support for solar and wind-generated electricity?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 25, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, it's just not as profitable. However, there is a major effort underway by the likes of General Electric to 'make the world safe for nuclear power' - see for example, Buffett puts up $50 million for nuclear fuel bank, Idea is to provide an alternative to spotty proliferation, Broad, NYT, 2006.

The real idea is to attempt to sell nuclear power expansion to the rest of the world. As usual, the push is for the IMF and the World Bank to provide loans to countries like India in order to provide funds that will flow to General Electric and related interests - all backed up by the US taxpayer. It's a very lucrative notion, and nuclear power plants are notorious for cost over-runs as well.

The technology is dead-end, the waste storage problem hasn't been solved, nuclear fuel reprocessing is incredibly polluting and is only used today to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons programs - and there are quite limited reserves of uranium, especially if nuclear power is expanded.

The whole program is being sold by PR firms for the benefit of General Electric and other nuclear firms - 'safe, clean, green nuclear energy' - lots of nice words that have no relationship to reality. See the Nuclear Power Industry PR Program (Apr 2006 kickoff).

Solar and wind and efficient energy storage are the real solutions to the carbon emissions problem. We should be building solar cell plants, wind turbine farms and electric car factories, not new nuclear power plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» There is none because... Posted by: bob t
Why The Arguments Fail
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jul 25, 2007 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Of course the first problem is that nuclear power is often nothing more than a way to avoid changing anything. A bicycle is a better answer to a Chevrolet Suburban than a Prius is, and so is a train, or your feet, or staying home, or a mix of all those things."

no middle ground. while the article may not be a back to the caves proponent--at least i hope not--that statement pretty muc triggers a gut reaction to reject everything he/she writes.

while i might disagree with some of the arguments against nuke, and be inclined to enter dialog regarding them, i'd be complete disinclined by the obvious bias. why should i, a self-employed businessman take a bicycle to my client's sites? i do business in SoCal, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and my best contract right now is in Mexico.

i can't bike out to mexico, indeed, i can't just bike over to the business district 16 miles north of me with my bread and butter contracts. i guess, based on the writer's bias, i should work closer to home and not be so ambitious? and public transit wouldn't cut it either.

i'm sorry, but until writers like this show they're willing to work a middle ground on terms other than their own, there will always be folks like me blocking them out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why Your Arguments Fail Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: Why Your Arguments Fail Posted by: heftysmurf
» RE: Why Your Arguments Fail Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Why Your Arguments Fail Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» hey parm Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: hey parm Posted by: parmenicleitus
» RE: typos Posted by: parmenicleitus
Isn't the point to reduce emissions that cause global warming?
Posted by: asilsfable on Jul 26, 2007 12:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And how is nuclear energy going to solve that when so much of CO2 emissions come from cars and airplanes?

In fact, the very people decrying the existence of more people on the planet, i.e. kids, ignore the fact that a family of four that stays put creates less carbon emissions than a single jet-setting business person.

It's a red herring and you science folk are not getting it. Nuclear energy will do relatively little to reduce our emissions while (if we don't invest enormous R&D like the French do in coming up with solutions to mitigate the waste) creating a hazard that only takes ONCE to become a disaster. Only once.

I'm for a sane and sound nuclear policy--which means devising a way to completely use all by-product in a sustainable way. In addition, government policy on appliances, car mileage and electronics needs to be stringent to conserve energy and get the most out of our present resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:cars and airplanes Posted by: AsteroidMiner
nuclear is the way to go
Posted by: jirikhimti on Jul 26, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The energy available from the 10,000 US nuclear warheads has enough energy to meet US electricity needs for the next 50 years. This is a cheap source of energy that should not be overlooked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as unpopular as it might be...
Posted by: skydog on Jul 26, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to do all of it, and fast. Solar, wind, conservation, geothermal -- and nuclear. Anything and everything but fossil fuels.

And if we quit arguing and start doing, right now, maybe, just maybe, we can save our planet from global warming. Doing all of it still may not be enough, because while we all argue with each other, nothing is getting done. And time is running out.

Surely leaving out nuclear because of over amplified fear guarantees not only that we fill our last few precious remaining pristine areas full of oil wells in a futile quest for more oil, it also guarantees a huge shift to coal -- the net of which is an apocalyptic life far different than the life we enjoy today. No isolated nuclear disaster, no matter how extreme, even a full-on terrorist attack with a nuclear device, compares with these global consequences.

Either we take global warming seriously, or we don't. The choice is ours to make. Yes, nuclear causes legitimate concerns, but I hope that we don't let perfection become the enemy of the good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

chrisandbarb
Posted by: Chrisandbarb on Jul 26, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish the good people who are against Nuclear Power could give a rational argument. Instead they always try to use rhetoric that twists so many exaggerations and lies in the mix to inflame and scare people you have to lump them in with the Dick Cheney types (those who feel making a big lie is OK as long as it gets what you want).

I have worked in the electric power industry for 30 years, first as an environmental engineer at several coal fired power stations, than at nuclear stations, now at hydroelectric plants. I have inspected all phases of nuclear production from Uranium processing, enrichment, transportation, use, and storage. And, unfortunately reading Solnit’s article will do little to enrich people’s knowledge on Nuclear Energy only inflame people (just like reading Cheney’s stuff on Iraq).

Nuclear energy is better than coal energy for the environment by a factor of at least 20. Any logical rational comparison of electricity production through coal compared to that of nuclear energy would show that. What remains is fear mongering to try to make them comparable. While coal gives the U.S.A. 51% of our electricity and Nuclear about 20%, wind sits at 2% and solar at around 1%. Other countries with wide differences in politics like Germany, Japan, Scandinavia, England, South Africa also rely on Nuclear Power for a large chunk of their electricity. Unless we are willing to give up our air conditioners and electricity when we want it (and most are not), solar and wind will never make up the majority of the production. Even Al Gore and Ralph Nader will turn on the air conditioner when the temperature hits a hundred (or they will jet over to somewhere cool). A million retirees in Arizona would die in a year without air-conditioning.

While nuclear waste is a challenge, it is less of a technical challenge than a political one. If we could keep the fear mongering crowd out (those willing to lie to make people fear nuclear power) and let good science reign we would have had a burial site decades ago. Nuclear waste in a couple thousand years is less radioactive than the Uranium that was mined out of the mountain in the first place. It is not that technically challenging to make the waste less environmentally damaging than the original (natural) stuff that was pulled out of the ground. The fear mongering lies and politics is the problem.

The reason the Western U.S.A. is looked at for a waste storage site is that technically it is a better place to put waste. Utah turns out to be a good candidate. Large sections of the state (hundreds of square MILES) are salt flats that have no drinkable water, no inhabitants, no crops, no livestock, nothing for 30 miles in any direction. A whole county has been designated by the state for hazardous waste use.

We are experiencing right now in Iraq what happens when fear and lies lead to a decision rather than logic. Large environmental and health damage is happening now in our energy choices as we burn more coal and oil to avoid nuclear power because of fear and lies given by people like Solnit.

Of course once the lie is out there it is like a tale given by Rush Limbaugh it stays out there and is repeated as if it has some truth to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's put it more simply, then...
Posted by: parmenicleitus on Jul 26, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following reasons against nuclear power are put in gross, simplistic terms. It amazes me that folks here continue to demand abstractions (such as statistics) in place of readily experienced and observable facts. But demand they do, so let's put it in very gross terms.

Nuclear power plants are big. Really big.
They take lots of concrete/cement.
Concrete takes lot's of energy to produce.
Nuke plants take steel. Lots of steel.
Iron is used to make steel.
Iron is mined.
Iron mining pollutes.
Iron mining leaves big ugly holes in the earth.
Steel is manufactured.
Steel takes lot's of energy to produce.
Steel takes (as far as I am aware) coal burning plants to be manufactured.
Coal, as many here complain, pollutes.
Coal is mined.
So, steel making pollutes.
Lot's of big trucks haul these manufactured items.
Trucks are also made of steel and plastics, and so on.
Trucks also take gas.
Gas is made out of petroleum.
Petroleum pollutes every step of the way from drilling to refining to use.
Some say we are in Iraq because of petroleum, and wars are partly caused because of petroleum.
People die in wars.
Wars also pollute.
Petroleum must be shipped by petroleum guzzling machines.
Petroleum spills are real.
Petroleum kills marine life.
Petroleum kills birds.
Uranium is mined.
Uranium is radioactive.
There is lot's of “tailings” after the mining and refining process.
Tailings remain radioactive for a long, long time.
Uranium pollutes every step of the way.
Radioactivity causes cancer and birth defects.
Nuclear power plants are big.
Their size means more land will needed.
And on and on...Need more be said?

Ultimately, I believe that the answers to our woes will not be found in technological hubris but in a massive shift of perspective consisting in part in a turn away from humanist self-inflation. Do I believe this is likely? Unfortunately, not without catastrophic upheavals in the natural environment and simultaneously the human social, political and economic worlds, in order to drive home the reality that we are living far beyond our means and with unreasonable expectations. My diagnosis is grim. I leave you with a quote:

“A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. “ -Garrett Hardin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's put it more simply, then... Posted by: parmenicleitus
Economics
Posted by: themotie on Jul 26, 2007 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are plenty of countries where nuclear hasn't been banned. If there was an economic case for nuclear, we would have seen some action. It now appears that the building Finnish reactor (of which much tend to be made) is a loss leader, i.e. that the builders know they are losing money but hope it will sell them more reactors further down the road (drain?). Nuclear simply isn't that great.

Apart from that, I (sadly) believe skydog is on to something. Not that I think we'll be able to do enough in time anyway. Oh well ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear + Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Posted by: gradioc on Jul 26, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me say first that I don't have any financial stake in this argument and find it highly insulting that the anti-nuclear crowd thinks everyone who disagrees with them is on some payroll.Many of the arguments here involve how much portable fuel it takes to support a nuclear plant and assume that portable fuel must be fossil-based. It doesn't have to be that way.Hydrogen fuel cell technology is the next stage in our energy learning curve. It is here and viable right now. The only question has been how we provide the energy these cells will store.I firmly beleive the immediate future will be based on nuclear plants creating power that goes into hydrogen. Given our present state of technology I just don't see any realistic alternative.I don't think wind will ever be more than a spot source in the few places it is really viable, much like geothermal.I have high hopes for solar in the long run. I can envision massive collectors out in orbit that beam a concentrated energy to a point on Earth, but this is just science fiction right now.And I have news for those that think we can conserve our way out of this. There are billions of people in Asia and Africa wh are tired of living the lives you Luddites envision for us. They want their piece of the pie and they want it now. And pie in the sky just won't cut it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bad arguments Posted by: themotie
What to say...
Posted by: bob t on Jul 30, 2007 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is easy, tell them remember the half life and future generations. Should they not understand just explain the concept of half life.

Should they deny that tell them there is no such thing as a free ride. If they deny that they must be Republicans especially corporate Repubs or 'end time' Rethug evangelical fundies who don't care about anything since they will be 'raptured' into heaven.
At that point no further arguments or explanations are necessary nor will they serve any purpose. Among right wingers ideology trumps everything else, including human life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]