Environment

[JohnBirchSociety]

During the early 80’s I was working on a classified government program that involved the global effects of massive solar induced currents that flow through our planate creating magnetic variations (false compass readings). Such studies show that the prime factor effecting climate is without doubt the sun. Most of this study concerned careful annalists of solar cycles. We knew then that recent variations in the sun’s cycles were mild on the extreme side and that we are approaching an era of greater variations that could result in some very extreme changes including a possible reversal of the magnetic poles.

I am also an environmentalist that quit the Serra Club because it became more political than scientific or rational – I have never been a member of green peace. I have also commuted by bicycle for most of my life. With this in mind I would like to respond.

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

Without question this is true but it is not about greenhouse gases – it is about the depletion of our forests on a global scale.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

Do not kid yourself – the people that know about nuclear power do not live down wind. There is however, a bigger problem with deposing of nuclear waste.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

They are expensive to clean up – from the standpoint of cost alone it is a grave disaster.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

The truth is that we do not make hardly any green house gases – vast herds of grazing animals create more greenhouse gases than humans. The primary carbon gas produced from burning fuels is carbon monoxide which is not a greenhouse gas. Converting carbon monoxide (which is not a greenhouse gas) to carbon dioxide (which is a greenhouse gas) is a process in nature that has little to do with anything humans are doing and there is no proof that the carbon monoxide levels will change significantly the aggregate amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

We are. Some are more polluted than others.

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

This is true – however the reason appears to be volcanic activity. But that is not politically popular and there is nothing we can do about it. It is a lot more fun to blame somebody.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

We do not know if the ozone is in decline or if we are experiencing some kind of cycle. Freon will destroy ozone but Freon has a great alibi – it is too heavy – 6 times heaver than water and there is no water that high in the atmosphere.

The Traveler

1) Needless deforestation is devestating to local / regional areas, but does not affect global climate.

2) Are you kidding me? Down-wind? You must be kidding me. If you were involved with science as you say, then I'm astonished! I recommend you read the book "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear". And, again, no person has been harmed in the United States as the result of a nuclear accident at an electrical generation Nuclear Power Plant (commercial, not experimental)...

3) Yes, oil spills are costly. Especially for the lost oil. However, there is no long-term effect to them.

4) Agreed. I believe Termites produce a great deal of the stuff...

5) We are not noticeably polluting the oceans in other than a very localized manner. Remember, I'm talking about global issues.

6) Actually this is not true. The ice-caps are not melting at an alarming rate. In fact, we have more ice this year than last year.

7) Ozone is produced by the interaction of the UV energy from the Sun and the Oxygen in our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop it or increase it. It is patently cyclical in nature.

Global climate changes have solely to do with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the energetic activities of the Sun in respect to the Earth.

There are local environmental problems. They should be addressed. There are no global environment problems.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Sometimes problems are global. The air we and others breathe does not stop at national borders and neither does polluted water. Radiation knows no global borders either.

I live in NM where the first nuclear bomb was detonated and where the US has the largest research area for nuclear weapons-Los Alamos. They mine uranium here. The history is not pretty. Many people were made sick mining uranium. Power plants may be safe, but what about mining? What about long-term storage?

Is coal the answer-clean coal? Unfortunately the pollution and carbon emissions of one country does not stop at another.

Global problems and global solutions are needed.

Isolationism does not work in an area of global problems.

If you want to see the result of less government regulations-go to some of the developing industrial countries of the world. Take a deep breath. Taste and Smell the air and look at the rivers and streams and enjoy the pollution of their large industrial cities.

Global problems-demand global solutions.

-Carol

Nothing man does pollutes the atmosphere in a global manner.

If you are worried about radiation, what is the source of the radiation you are worried about? Surely not commercial Nuclear Power Plants, which do not contribute radiation to their environments. Surely not above ground nuclear explosions? We've had over 700 of them is 60 years, with no radiation problems (other than localized).

Uranium mining can be very dangerous, for the LOCAL miners who breathe in the dust. That is a local problem, to be resolved through local action. It has no global impact.

Long-term storage of waste is a simple matter. Underground salt mines. They are the most geologically stable areas we know of. As we remove the salt, we put in the waste, in containment vessels that are sealed in reinforced and lined concrete.

There are no global environmental problems.

Nations that allow pollution, like China, have extreme local problems. They need to fix them.

There are no global environmental problems.

[MarginOfError]

Yes we do have an impact, on a local, and rarely, regional scale.

The regional impact of human activity occurs more often than you would think. A couple of examples:

For years Maine has struggled to keep emissions from it's paper mills and factories low so that the air quality would meet EPA standards. Yet, miraculously, the emission levels in Maine are so low that they could not possibly be the cause of poor air quality in Maine. A little more study found that the air pollution in Maine was drifting over from steel and auto factories on the Great Lakes.

The world didn't know about the Chornobyl disaster until Swedish (I think) scientists noticed absurdly high radiation levels.

Monopolies only exist through Government intervention, so you point is not valid.

Thanks for clarifying. I now understand that government created the Anti-Trust act to break up monopolies created by government. Those sneaky little devils.

[a-train]

If you want to see the result of less government regulations-go to some of the developing industrial countries of the world. Take a deep breath. Taste and Smell the air and look at the rivers and streams and enjoy the pollution of their large industrial cities.

Global problems-demand global solutions.

-Carol

I am all for a global solution to global environmental concerns, I just don't believe that cleaning up the planet at the end of a gun barrel is the proper manner. Free trade with those nations that are big polluters will help us reach agreeable policies. Sanctions, threats, super-national powers that subvert national sovereignty, international monopolies through international treaties, these things will not work.

The feelings between the west and China are already icy because of assertions from the west that trade should be limited by Chinese pollution and be the reward for Chinese cleanliness.

Our computers are shipped to the east where men stand in pools of dangerous chemicals extracting the precious metals from computer components with their bare hands while allowing the run-off to go into natural water systems. Is this because these men just don't want better jobs in cleaner environments? It is because of economic conditions that these men work in these situations. Free trade would be the fastest way to cure the situation.

-a-train

Edited October 20, 2008 by a-train

[Fiannan]

Anyone see the Penn and Teller program (won't mention the show's name) on the global warming issue and Al Gore? Might be able to catch segments over at YouTube. Quite interesting.

[rameumptom]

Well, here in the Peoples Republic of California, we are bombarded with advertisements proclaiming the perils of "global warming" and other such nonsense.

I thought I would list the absurd, and patently false claims of "environmentalists", and then through your comments we can address the real issues / solutions.

Nonsense (False):

Ram: You seem to have already answered your own point with a pejorative. Obviously, you do not wish a discussion, as this seems to be "nonsense" to you.

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

Ram: I believe our environment IS affected by the activities of man. To what extent it is affected, I am unsure of. Weather patterns have been shown to be affected by pollution. Whether that affects us globally or not, or to what extent, is another matter.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

Ram: It IS unsafe - to a degree. If it were absolutely safe, no one would have an issue with it. So far, we've seen melt downs at 3 mile island and at Chernobyl. Is it fairly safe? So far. Will it stay safe in a world of terrorism? Don't know. How do we safely store spent rods? Don't know.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

Ram: They can and they do. They can and have severely impacted or destroyed the fishing industries in many areas, such as in parts of Alaska, for many years. It takes years for those toxins to abate from seashores and from the water, during which animals, fish and plankton are all affected.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

Ram: Probably true. At the same time, other sources of greenhouse gases (like cattle belching) doesn't help, either.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

Ram: We are. Threats to fishing are immense. Mercury levels in tuna and other fish have given us warning of the amounts of sea food we eat (and particularly for our kids). Coral reefs are dying in some areas, due to human contact and pollution.

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

Ram: This is true. How much of it is manmade, and how much is the solar activity increasing/warming, I don't know. As it is, Mars and Jupiter are also warming up, and I don't think we can blame much of that on manmade pollutions.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

Ram: The ozone layer depletes and repletes itself often. Still, we should ensure we don't do anything stupid to increase the depletion of it. We are, after all, discussing our ability to survive radiation flooding in from the Sun. Taking fluorocarbons out of refrigerators, etc., was a good idea.

Comments?

I think there are common sense things we can do to improve our environment. It isn't an either/or issue. But we've been commanded to be good stewards of this earth, and I don't think we've done a very good job of it, at times. It sickens me to walk along pristine paths, only to find some idiots have raped and scarred it with trash, beer bottles, and cigarette butts.

In the last 5 years I've lived here, just a few dozen yards from a creek and wonderful walking/biking paths, I've seen teenagers toss a shopping cart and a bicycle into the creek! When trying to explain to them the importance of the environment, several of them displayed a lack of caring. One called me an environmental whacko. When I asked them to think about saving a nice place for their kids and grandkids, one teen said he didn't care what we left any of them.

That kind of attitude is prevalent in our greedy and materialistic world today. And it will pollute our souls, as well as our planet.

[rameumptom]

Monopolies can be created by government, but many are made in nature. Microsoft is a near monopoly. It wasn't created nor sustained by government. It has crushed many competitors over the years. There are many examples of monopolies, some short term, some long term, that have wreaked havoc with competitors, without the government participating.

Some environmental factors are global. One tsunami that hit in Indonesia in 2004 went around the world and hit the South American coast at 2 feet. As animals travel globally (birds, for instance), they can carry bird flu from China to the rest of the world. So too, can environmental issues affect many locations.

Coal firing plants in China are now polluting California. Is it a major addition to their pollution? Not at this time. But as they continue to add more, it will add up.

While there is a lot of sham "science" going on, some of it is real, as well. I used to belong to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, 20 years ago. As with others, I've seen they've become political groups seeking to politicize anything and everything. I no longer deal with any of them. BTW, I used to also closely follow the JBS. I've found that they have some truths, but are too radicalized and suspicious of everything. Both types of groups (left and right), IMO, are going to lead our nation and world into oblivion.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Ram: You seem to have already answered your own point with a pejorative. Obviously, you do not wish a discussion, as this seems to be "nonsense" to you.

Ram: I believe our environment IS affected by the activities of man. To what extent it is affected, I am unsure of. Weather patterns have been shown to be affected by pollution. Whether that affects us globally or not, or to what extent, is another matter.

Ram: It IS unsafe - to a degree. If it were absolutely safe, no one would have an issue with it. So far, we've seen melt downs at 3 mile island and at Chernobyl. Is it fairly safe? So far. Will it stay safe in a world of terrorism? Don't know. How do we safely store spent rods? Don't know.

Ram: They can and they do. They can and have severely impacted or destroyed the fishing industries in many areas, such as in parts of Alaska, for many years. It takes years for those toxins to abate from seashores and from the water, during which animals, fish and plankton are all affected.

Ram: Probably true. At the same time, other sources of greenhouse gases (like cattle belching) doesn't help, either.

Ram: We are. Threats to fishing are immense. Mercury levels in tuna and other fish have given us warning of the amounts of sea food we eat (and particularly for our kids). Coral reefs are dying in some areas, due to human contact and pollution.

Ram: This is true. How much of it is manmade, and how much is the solar activity increasing/warming, I don't know. As it is, Mars and Jupiter are also warming up, and I don't think we can blame much of that on manmade pollutions.

Ram: The ozone layer depletes and repletes itself often. Still, we should ensure we don't do anything stupid to increase the depletion of it. We are, after all, discussing our ability to survive radiation flooding in from the Sun. Taking fluorocarbons out of refrigerators, etc., was a good idea.

Comments?

I think there are common sense things we can do to improve our environment. It isn't an either/or issue. But we've been commanded to be good stewards of this earth, and I don't think we've done a very good job of it, at times. It sickens me to walk along pristine paths, only to find some idiots have raped and scarred it with trash, beer bottles, and cigarette butts.

In the last 5 years I've lived here, just a few dozen yards from a creek and wonderful walking/biking paths, I've seen teenagers toss a shopping cart and a bicycle into the creek! When trying to explain to them the importance of the environment, several of them displayed a lack of caring. One called me an environmental whacko. When I asked them to think about saving a nice place for their kids and grandkids, one teen said he didn't care what we left any of them.

That kind of attitude is prevalent in our greedy and materialistic world today. And it will pollute our souls, as well as our planet.

I never said man has no affect on environment. Since we are part of the environment, we affect it. We do not, however, globally affect it. I'm talking about the false science / position that we globally affect our environment.

Actually, Chernobyl was the only melt-down. Interesting that it had graphite bricks for containment. Three-mile Island was no where near a melt-down. Not even close. American / European commercial electrical generating Nuclear Power Plants are nearly immune from any terrorist attack. I have been in the containment vessel of a Nuclear Power Plant (Berwick, Pennsylvania, USA) and short of a Nuclear Bomb going of right on top of it, there is no force available to breach the containment vessel / building. If a gang of terrorists broke into such a site, they MIGHT possibly be able to breach the coolant facilities / mechanisms and cause a very localized radiation leak. But this is so unlikely as to not really warrant not building Nuclear Power Plants. Again, no person in the United States has died as a result of a Nuclear accident at a commercial electrical generating Nuclear Power Plant. It is the safest form of electrical generation in the history of the world.

Spent nuclear fuel can be completely, safely stored in underground salt mines, which are the most geologically stable regions of the world (by their nature). This poses NO problem, and in no manner is it global.

Oil spills cause a good deal of localized damage to industry and life in the ocean. They are not global in scale, and they abate, naturally in a few short years. Again, not a global problem.

The largest source of methane release is the Ocean, by hundreds of thousands of magnitudes more than mankind. After that, animal / insect life releases more than man dreams of doing. This is again, not a human issue, and not a global human issue, by any stretch of the imagination.

There's no indication that the mecuric levels in naturally harvested sea-food have risen due to the activities of mankind. Rather, mecury is naturally released in the Oceans of the world. Again, not a global problem or a human problem.

Coral Reefs are dying, and growing. This is the nature of life. There is no indication that man causes this at an accelerated rate.

Global climate changes are determined by the Earth's orbit, and Sun activity. Period.

Sorry, flurocarbons are heavier than air and water vapor (tis why they are so useful in refrigeration). They cannot get into the Ozone-layer. The Ozone is made by UV radiation from the SUN interacting with Oxygen in our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop it, our speed it up. Again, it is entirely dependent upon our orbit around the Sun and Sun activity.

Irresponsible pollution is bad. Greed is bad. Selfishness is bad. They are all bad. We agree on these things.

The point of this thread is that there are no GLOBAL environmental issues caused by man. THEREFORE, there is no need to implement global governance oversight on these supposed matters. The GLOBAL environmental movement is another name for Communism.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Monopolies can be created by government, but many are made in nature. Microsoft is a near monopoly. It wasn't created nor sustained by government. It has crushed many competitors over the years. There are many examples of monopolies, some short term, some long term, that have wreaked havoc with competitors, without the government participating.

Some environmental factors are global. One tsunami that hit in Indonesia in 2004 went around the world and hit the South American coast at 2 feet. As animals travel globally (birds, for instance), they can carry bird flu from China to the rest of the world. So too, can environmental issues affect many locations.

Coal firing plants in China are now polluting California. Is it a major addition to their pollution? Not at this time. But as they continue to add more, it will add up.

While there is a lot of sham "science" going on, some of it is real, as well. I used to belong to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, 20 years ago. As with others, I've seen they've become political groups seeking to politicize anything and everything. I no longer deal with any of them. BTW, I used to also closely follow the JBS. I've found that they have some truths, but are too radicalized and suspicious of everything. Both types of groups (left and right), IMO, are going to lead our nation and world into oblivion.

Monopolies only exist through government intervention. They cannot exist in a free market.

You might want to dig a bit deeper on the Microsoft concept about monopolies.

There are no man-made global environmental issues.

I live in California. China is not polluting us, other than with their bad quality products.

You've found what isn't so about the JBS. That says a lot about your ideas.

Look. This is about global, man-made environmental / climate issues. On every count, there is not a single man-made global environmental issue. Throughout this thread I've shown the actually absurdity of even making the assertion that there are. The science cannot be clearer on the matter.

[JohnBirchSociety]

The regional impact of human activity occurs more often than you would think. A couple of examples:

For years Maine has struggled to keep emissions from it's paper mills and factories low so that the air quality would meet EPA standards. Yet, miraculously, the emission levels in Maine are so low that they could not possibly be the cause of poor air quality in Maine. A little more study found that the air pollution in Maine was drifting over from steel and auto factories on the Great Lakes.

The world didn't know about the Chornobyl disaster until Swedish (I think) scientists noticed absurdly high radiation levels.

Thanks for clarifying. I now understand that government created the Anti-Trust act to break up monopolies created by government. Those sneaky little devils.

Ah, those darn monopolies. Hey, you might want to find a monopoly that was not government created.

As for Anti-Trust, that's just for the monopolies that the government doesn't like.

[rameumptom]

I'm seeing that this is a thread not for discussion, but for JBS to push his agenda. It is much too easy to deny anything others write, and insist that nothing man does affects things globally. Personally, I think it can happen easier than you think. I'm not convinced we are causing global warming, but I do believe we cause global pollutions all the time.

You are welcome to teach your extreme right ideas all you wish. I'll go find a thread where people wish to share ideas and consider one another's thoughts. You do not know me from Adam, nor do you know the things I've studied over the years. To waive your hand at all others have said and summarily dismiss our statements does not make a discussion. and so I'll go find one elsewhere.

[FunkyTown]

In a logical argument, sweeping statements are not made. Please cite sources for all your points, JBS.

[JohnBirchSociety]

In a logical argument, sweeping statements are not made. Please cite sources for all your points, JBS.

I have not just made sweeping statements. I've stated clearly why such statements are valid.

Let's take the most pertinent one to global climate, namely, the SUN.

The SUN emits 3.86*10^26 Watts of power per second ("The Sun" at nineplanets.org). That's 386 Billion Billion Megawatts per SECOND. Of such energy the Earth receives approximately 1.740*10^17 Watts per SECOND, or 1366 Watts per square meter of surface exposure per SECOND (The Solar Constant).

Nothing that man does, including the atmospheric detonation of atomic weapons (our most powerful devices) even comes close in magnitude to these numbers. In fact, even the most powerful of natural forces on the planet, such as large scale volcanic eruptions do not compare. The increase / decrease of the energy received, and at what part of the planet it is received, over time, impacts our global climate. That is why it is cyclical (See: Milonkovitch Cycles). These cycles have resulted in the ice ages and the counter to them. It has been happening long before we arrived on Earth and will continue after we leave.

In one second, the SUN emits more energy than all of humanity has emitted through its' activities in all of human history! Yet we think that we are contributing (even miniscully) to the climate variations that have always occurred on our Earth? Now that's pride!

Speaking globally, it is all about the Sun and our orbit around it. It has nothing at all to do with our feeble (in comparison) activities. Oh, darn, there goes another sweeping assertion (preceeded by the facts of the case)!

[Moksha]

I have a roof over my head, heating, food in my belly, good cheap healthcare and running clean water, I am wealthy.

-Charley

Most Americans have that except for the good cheap heathcare and sometimes the roof, the heating and the clean water. But besides that we are pretty much alike.

Hey, everbody benefits from diverse voices, unless if course it is Gilbert Gottfried.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm seeing that this is a thread not for discussion, but for JBS to push his agenda. It is much too easy to deny anything others write, and insist that nothing man does affects things globally. Personally, I think it can happen easier than you think. I'm not convinced we are causing global warming, but I do believe we cause global pollutions all the time.

You are welcome to teach your extreme right ideas all you wish. I'll go find a thread where people wish to share ideas and consider one another's thoughts. You do not know me from Adam, nor do you know the things I've studied over the years. To waive your hand at all others have said and summarily dismiss our statements does not make a discussion. and so I'll go find one elsewhere.

What is my agenda? It is to avoid the destruction of human enterprise through the imposition of globally mandated regulations that are based on fraud.

Sir, I've not just denied what you've written. I've given examples of why it ain't so. The primary example is the Sun and our orbit around it. The impact it has on our climate is total in comparison to even the gravest of planetary events (catastrophic volcanic eruption like Mr. Pinatubo in 1991, or Krakatowa in 1883). To assert that the efforts of mankind, that in no way compare in number to the SUN (statistically irrelevant) is to miss the most important (and by all available measurements, the only long-term) denominator in global climate change / status.

That's my agenda. If you cannot debate on the basis of fact, then maybe your assertions are wrong, like those of Mr. Gore and company.

[Traveler]

1) Needless deforestation is devestating to local / regional areas, but does not affect global climate.

2) Are you kidding me? Down-wind? You must be kidding me. If you were involved with science as you say, then I'm astonished! I recommend you read the book "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear". And, again, no person has been harmed in the United States as the result of a nuclear accident at an electrical generation Nuclear Power Plant (commercial, not experimental)...

3) Yes, oil spills are costly. Especially for the lost oil. However, there is no long-term effect to them.

4) Agreed. I believe Termites produce a great deal of the stuff...

5) We are not noticeably polluting the oceans in other than a very localized manner. Remember, I'm talking about global issues.

6) Actually this is not true. The ice-caps are not melting at an alarming rate. In fact, we have more ice this year than last year.

7) Ozone is produced by the interaction of the UV energy from the Sun and the Oxygen in our atmosphere. There is nothing we can do to stop it or increase it. It is patently cyclical in nature.

Global climate changes have solely to do with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the energetic activities of the Sun in respect to the Earth.

There are local environmental problems. They should be addressed. There are no global environment problems.

1. There are 3 major forest areas on the earth, the northern ring, southern ring and the tropical rain forests. Never in the history of man have we seen the depletion of these forests -ever. We do not know at what point the damage to these woodlands will affect the global climate. We do know from history what localized deforestation has done to local climates. A rain forest can be changed to a desert by deforestation. In addition the USA is having difficulties with Kudzu destroying our Eastern forests and the pine beetle is causing havoc in western forests. The population of man is the largest it has ever been – please do not underestimate the damage that stupidity and ignorance can cause.

2. Nuclear energy plants may be safe (for now) but nuclear waste disposal is not safe. There is no country in the world that will accept nuclear waste from any other country regardless of the financial benefits – that alone should tell you something.

3. Here is a link to the raw data concerning the polar Ice cap data from NOAA. NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Polar Region Ice Core Data

The ice cap is melting.

The Traveler

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Not to completely butt in...but I voted for the Green Party in the Canadian elections. I do believe in government intervention, especially in the parlimentarian system as the government and the cabinot are formed from MPs (members of parliament) who are local leaders voted in by a constiuency of about 300,000 people. In that sense the government is able to work on a national level as well as a local level, and I believe it to be truly 'of the people', especially in the case of our minority government, where it cannot wield abosulte power, but is checked by the fact that the combined votes of the other opposition parties outweigh theirs.

The reason I voted Green is for two reasons:

I believe that in Canada at least we can deal with environmental concerns here.

Economically I believe in that in the long run we can benefit from throwing off our reliance on oil and use alternate energy supplies (I am not opposed to nuculear energy, but it is not the only source of energy. Most of British Columbia is powered by Hydro electricity).

[Elgama]

2. Nuclear energy plants may be safe (for now) but nuclear waste disposal is not safe. There is no country in the world that will accept nuclear waste from any other country regardless of the financial benefits – that alone should tell you something.

Traveler i know what you mean the problems decomissioning the nuclear power plant near here have been bad and I think the whole process will take 30-50 years - nobody wants to live down wind of a nuclear plant its why they are sighted as far away from major population centres as possible. It is not the only way to go my area gets a good percentage of its power from wind and water

-Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

1. There are 3 major forest areas on the earth, the northern ring, southern ring and the tropical rain forests. Never in the history of man have we seen the depletion of these forests -ever. We do not know at what point the damage to these woodlands will affect the global climate. We do know from history what localized deforestation has done to local climates. A rain forest can be changed to a desert by deforestation. In addition the USA is having difficulties with Kudzu destroying our Eastern forests and the pine beetle is causing havoc in western forests. The population of man is the largest it has ever been – please do not underestimate the damage that stupidity and ignorance can cause.

2. Nuclear energy plants may be safe (for now) but nuclear waste disposal is not safe. There is no country in the world that will accept nuclear waste from any other country regardless of the financial benefits – that alone should tell you something.

3. Here is a link to the raw data concerning the polar Ice cap data from NOAA. NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Polar Region Ice Core Data

The ice cap is melting.

The Traveler

1) Please demonstrate that man is causing deforestation of the scale that "environmentalists" claim (For instance, in the United States we have more trees then we had 200 years ago, by some estimates). Then, please demonstrate that the deforestation is causing a global climate change.

2) Nuclear Waste disposal is safe. It is being blockaded by "environmentalists" that realize that if Nuclear Power is actually used, many of their "issues" will disappear. It is about power over man. Electrical Nuclear Power generation is the safest form of energy production in American history. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at a power generating plant. Storage of waste is very simple, and very safe. We place the items in containment vessels, then store the vessels in the safest geological areas known to mankind (salt-mines).

3) The polar ice caps are melting? Hmmm...another false claim. Here's the data to show what I mean:

Are the ice caps melting? ? The Register

So again, there is no global climate issue caused by mankind.

[Elgama]

2) Nuclear Waste disposal is safe. It is being blockaded by "environmentalists" that realize that if Nuclear Power is actually used, many of their "issues" will disappear. It is about power over man. Electrical Nuclear Power generation is the safest form of energy production in American history. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at a power generating plant. Storage of waste is very simple, and very safe. We place the items in containment vessels, then store the vessels in the safest geological areas known to mankind (salt-mines).

Then why being close to one of the top nuclear decomissioning university courses has Dounreay had so many problems and near misses? Also after Chenobyl did we in the UK suffer so much??? the aftermath here was horrible

-Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

Then why being close to one of the top nuclear decomissioning university courses has Dounreay had so many problems and near misses? Also after Chenobyl did we in the UK suffer so much??? the aftermath here was horrible

-Charley

Chernobyl was no example of commercial electrical generation in the fashion that the United States / Europe / Japan have been doing in the safest fashion ever achieved of ANY power generation in human history.

Chernobyl, for example, used graphite bricks as containment. We are so far advanced from that (and always have been) that it's like comparing a 747 to the Wright Brothers Plane at Kitty-Hawk and then proclaiming the 747 is unsafe.

Experimental Nuclear Stations can be dangerous, and I certainly would not want to be around one gone wrong. That's a no-brainer.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about commercial electrical power-generating Nuclear Power plants. They are the safest, most energy efficient means of electrical production, ever devised by man. They are the solution to electrical generation needs of the civilized world.

[Elgama]

Chernobyl was no example of commercial electrical generation in the fashion that the United States / Europe / Japan have been doing in the safest fashion ever achieved of ANY power generation in human history.

Chernobyl, for example, used graphite bricks as containment. We are so far advanced from that (and always have been) that it's like comparing a 747 to the Wright Brothers Plane at Kitty-Hawk and then proclaiming the 747 is unsafe.

Experimental Nuclear Stations can be dangerous, and I certainly would not want to be around one gone wrong. That's a no-brainer.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about commercial electrical power-generating Nuclear Power plants. They are the safest, most energy efficient means of electrical production, ever devised by man. They are the solution to electrical generation needs of the civilized world.

Having lived near these two I have issues lol

Dounreay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sellafield Ltd

Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

Having lived near these two I have issues lol

Dounreay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sellafield Ltd

Charley

One more time, for all to see...

Experimental Nuclear Reactors are inherently dangerous, because they are experimental. I would advise a large birth around them and very, very stringent regulation of them.

On the flip side...commercial, non-experimental, nuclear power plants of the standards seen in France / England / Japan / US / Canada, are the safest means of electrical generation in human history. In fact, they are the safest means of power generation in human history.

Disposal of their waste is not an issue. It has been resolved in the safest possible manner.

I'm sorry you lived by EXPERIMENTAL nuclear reactors.

[Elgama]

One more time, for all to see...

Experimental Nuclear Reactors are inherently dangerous, because they are experimental. I would advise a large birth around them and very, very stringent regulation of them.

On the flip side...commercial, non-experimental, nuclear power plants of the standards seen in France / England / Japan / US / Canada, are the safest means of electrical generation in human history. In fact, they are the safest means of power generation in human history.

Disposal of their waste is not an issue. It has been resolved in the safest possible manner.

I'm sorry you lived by EXPERIMENTAL nuclear reactors.

r

yes I understand the arguements you are making and the difference between the reactors very well I can produce all the various equations as to why they work etc I was contemplating specialising in Nuclear Decomissioning just before I got married, however very similar arguements were made about Sellafield and Dounreay with the latter the problem wasn't with its working its with its decomissioning - when these new plants are decomissioned safely then I may be more secure with the idea. I just don't like the idea of too many being built before we see what happens over their lifespan.

Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

r

yes I understand the arguements you are making and the difference between the reactors very well I can produce all the various equations as to why they work etc I was contemplating specialising in Nuclear Decomissioning just before I got married, however very similar arguements were made about Sellafield and Dounreay with the latter the problem wasn't with its working its with its decomissioning - when these new plants are decomissioned safely then I may be more secure with the idea. I just don't like the idea of too many being built before we see what happens over their lifespan.

Charley

Now, I can agree with that. Done wrong, anything nuclear is a problem.