Wayne SW/MO

You can argue whether Chernobyl was under communism all you want, but fact is it occurred in '86 and the Soviet Union didn't disintegrate until '91. That's not even consideing when it was designed and built. Lenin and Stalin defined communism in the Soviet Union and the individual was never important beyond the use they defined. Three Mile didn't cause a danger, unless you consider ignorant fear a danger. There are 442 plants that have been built since 1954, and one built and designed under a system that was always suspect, lacking safety containment, caught fire. OB that depends, in 1839 he certainly tested the water like one. I would have sworn it was Rush.

Two wrongs don't make a right!

But it was when the plant was built and the accident happened. The US has a clean record with the exception of some sloppy, and what should have been criminal, storage. That is hardly a reason to avoid nuclear power generation. We had serious problems in the past with dioxin dumping, but we still seem to demand white toilet paper for some reason? Al I agree 100% that there should be different options for transportation. City buses would seem to be a sure candidate for hydrogen power, wind power could probably feed a train grid, but for the average family I don't see using dirty electric power to power the family car as a step in the right direction, but more like passing the buck. In our society we use electricity 24/7 and generation is the only option we have to do that now. Everywhere we look we see nothing but band-aids, that cure nothing, applied at questionable expense. The government hasn't said that the billions poured into solar and wind will help us to any great degree, but that it will create jobs and make billionaires. OK, they didn't really point out the billionaires it will make.

They were, but not the 767, unheard of at the time. They were also a unique design, something that is left out by most theorist. One of the reasons that nuclear plants take so long to build is because of all the safety and quality control steps. One of the controls is a massive containment cap to keep it all in, and as a by product, keep things like pesky planes out.

Show me where big oil has a measured concern about renewable energy. Why would they be concerned with an industry that they don't currently participate in? Do you know of a generating plant that runs on gas or diesel? If they had their way we would be using Natural gas, something they do have some interest in and that is cleaner than coal. You and others just cop out by blaming a radio commentator or a political party, but you can't back it up with facts. Neither party to date has come up with a viable plan that isn't based on $$$$$$$. I don't have a Rushbeckian fear because I don't listen to him, not that I have any problem with him. After all he has the same rights under the first amendment that you do, even if you would like to abridge them I'm a big boy and I can do my own research without his help. I have many reasons to doubt wind power and solar, if for no other reason I like to have electricity through the night.

I've always fished them with a cast straight across stream and then let them swing. It seem that most of my hits come at the bottom of the swing, so get in a hurry to make the next cast. I agree with Dano that they seem to improve with some wind cover.

Better hope it doesn't melt too fast.

That's a ridicules comparison. There are 442 plants in the world to date. How many have been attacked? There are 104 in the US, again how many have been attacked? Even those built before the present threat are easily protected. It's interesting that while we are humping over windmills and solar panels that will need to go on forever across the countryside to supply us with a partial answer to renewable energy, China is building nuclear generating plants all over their countryside. You can't store AC energy and a nuclear plant can meet demand on a sunny, windy day or a cloudy, quiet day, even during the night.

I wouldn't exactly call the Nevada desert a backyard. Ever been there? Do a little research on what settles in your backyard today from coal powered plants. So this is preferable to water vapor and controlled ,captured spent fuel? Then there is this. Hidden Cost

I haven't seen anything, but I'm glad the MDC is still working on stream smallmouth.

I, knock on wood, have never had more than a slight stick. I do have a fear of trebles and smallmouth at the edge of my kayak or canoe though. I'm very cautious and often use a cheap landing aid.

But Eric they aren't that involved in power generation. As far as lobbing goes, no area is exempt and when you add in the political contributions it's hard to find any good guys period. I think that the oil companies can see the hypocrisy of electric cars at this time. The bottom line is that the whole process is a mess. Each political power has a different idea of what we should do about transportation. If they ever settle on a viable alternative to oil for transportation I suspect the oil companies will get on board because they have the distribution system. They will be in the drivers seat for bio diesel, or natural gas. It seems that the South American countries are presently able to work around our technology and offer alternates, but all we have is high dollar polluting electricity as an option.

Hypothermia is all to often overlooked. This time of the year you have to get out of the water fast.

Come on Eric, what do the oil companies have to do with electricity generation? It's not hard to find information pointing out that coal fired generating plants produce more toxic waste then nuclear plants do. The problem is that we're behind and it's been risky to even plan a nuclear power plant. That seems to be waning, but it takes along time and lots of money to build one plant. The issue of storage of spent fuel was derailed by the senate majority leader, he didn't want it in his desert.

I agree!

Don't go there Tim, crazy I mean. If I'm not mistaken the way around the fact that warmer periods have existed is to point out that this one is over a shorter period of time. Shorter than any in history, but how do we know that? Tree rings are obviously a good guess, but not perfect either. The little Ice Age according to some scientist could have been caused by a rapid warming. I simply have a problem accepting the fact that man is the primary cause of global warming in excess. If that's not enough I'm expected to accept that most of the billions we're inserting into the cure aren't going to make billionaires without any realistic progress. When you're my age it's easy to be a skeptic because this isn't my first rodeo and I've heard most of the hype before. To quote you Tim," The academy is almost universally in agreement." We hear that most scientist are in agreement, but we don't hear wheather they are doing independent research, or just picking the side with the most members.

He's not from Fair Grove. He's from Lead Mine I believe, or Tunas? My son is, but I don't know if he knows the men involved.

So Eric do you dispute the statement by the Academy that "It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes." I don't doubt that temperatures can be accurately estimated for past periods, but aside from tree rings, what can be done to estimate real time periods, which is very important to the present theory?

So the prostitute is a whore, but there's nothing wrong with the John? There's not much to debate when it comes to lobbyist, they operate with the blessings of congress. In case either political persuasion wants to blame the other, I don't believe any bills addressing it has risen in congress during either period of control. While Klamath's use of geothermal is a good thing, and solar water heaters for residences is a good thing, they are drops in the bucket and straw in the wind for solving the major pollution problem. If hydrogen powered busses, for instance, can't get off the ground, I don't see any hope for scattered, regional sources making any significant dent.

If we're so dedicated to reducing our co2 output, why do we avoid nuclear production? I actually found it laughable that Cape Cod should be exempt from windmills, 20 miles out in the ocean, but not rural America. windmill farms could be discounted on ugliness alone, but add in the environmental impact on wildlife and they're only good for that industry. How long will it be before some environmental group complains that solar covers too much of the desert? Why do we rely more on coal then Natural Gas? While NG is not the ultimate answer, it is a better alternative in the interim. We see a push for electric cars, yet vehicle pollution and electricity production are literally neck and neck in co2 pollution? It would seem to me that bio-diesel would be a better trade off, the plants probably use up as much co2 while growing as they would produce as fuel. I don't see the oil companies as culprits, it doesn't compute, they have the distribution system for alternative fuels. They obviously aren't going to make a big investment until an alternate is settled on. So while we seem to be running down the dead end road toward urban golf carts, they do what anyone or company would do, stay in business by producing a sure thing.

They should rethink the precedent they're setting, a bull elk in rut is probably more dangerous than a cougar in flight.

From the National Academy of Scientist. "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years examined what tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" can tell us about the planet's temperature record, and in particular how much confidence could be placed in a graph that became known as the "hockey stick," which depicted a steep rise in temperatures after a 1,000-year period in the last few decades of the 20th century. The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes." I suppose I'm the only one that also see's the irony in the drive to make more electric cars, given the fact that the two biggest polluters are cars and the production of electricity????? Probably a perfect example of going from the frying pan to the fire.