Split topic- From the AA board

[UAL_TECH]

Well, here I am (always being called a liberal for my support of unionism) calling you a liberal (man have times changed)

I lived in CA for 13 years and still have family there. Sure as hell don’t want one in my back yard. I especially don’t want one “Humboldt that was shut down in 1976†built on/near a fault line. Then again, if a Mag 8 hits anywhere near the plant, I don’t think it will matter if the plant is on a fault or not. Have you looked at a fault line map of CA? The state is littered with them. And those are just the ones they know about.

Of course not, why would I take the time to discuss this with you if I had not actually done my research (tongue in cheek) <Insert roll-eyes here> . There are numerous locations outside of the ‘known’ California fault lines that will sustain the building of nuclear power plants but every time there is a discussion on building one, we have the same activists proclaiming death and doom. Ranting about TMI and Chernobyl, and how it will create three eyed fish and ruin the habitat of the one eyed newt. Well, get over it. We are (currently) on top tier of the food chain and for us to continue to be here, something has to go. I would rather have our species survive than a one eyed newt and the three eyed fish that has been proven to be unrelated to nuclear power, but more so related to the pollutants we put in the air (like petrol and coal).

They will not stop if we stay, won’t stop if we leave. We have no credibility either way. Israel has credibility up the a$$. Everyone knows if you screw with them you will get smacked back to the stone age and do people stop messing with them? Nope, they keep coming. Like the freaking energizer bunny. We went in looking for WMD, none found. We went in looking for OBL, nope… no luck their either. We went in saying it would be a limited engagement not planning on staying. Nope, we are building bases and we are there for the long haul. Now we have British nationals looking to blow up our planes. Like you said, they do not play by our rules. Our credibility is not an issue, our existence is. I refer you back to Israel. All the credibility, none of the safety.

I disagree with you on this point as well. We will have greater credibility if we would increase our presence to the point that is necessary to squash the terrorists and their efforts.
Will it take a lot of capital?
Yes it will.
Will it take more young lives?
Yes it will, in the short term, but will save many lives in the long term.
Will it be a better outcome in the long term for America?
Yes, if properly executed, I believe so.

As I have said before, our enemy knows our weaknesses and uses it against us at every opportunity. They know we are a generally kindly nation (which they see as being weak) and that we have no malice towards any race, religion, creed or nationality ( as we are a mix of them all ) but they do know that we are fractionalized in our beliefs and actions because of our homogenized society. Therein lays our differences. Our enemy is a very tightly knitted group that understands ‘our’ compassion and will use it against us at every opportunity.

Know your enemy!!!

Yes I advocate that we leave unless you plan on staying there indefinitely. Do you? I am not of the opinion that the people of Iraq will ever get along to the point that they can control their own nation much less keep invaders out. Irans control of Iraq IMO is not a if but a when. Something we should have looked at before we went in. Would’a could’a should’a. The US people will never authorize permanent presence in Iraq. No pres will ever admit it is needed. At some point we will pull out and then …… BOOM!

We will ‘always’ be in the Middle East in some form or fashion. If we know our enemy and act accordingly, we will serve not only our country, but the rest of the world as well.

Ahhh, but he and Pres Cheney have claimed that we are safer and that we are winning the war on terror.

Hindsight is 20-20. Do you have a crystal ball that says that we are not?

Defeatist? I call it realist but what ever. There will be more attacks on the US and some of them will succeed. Iraq will never be a democratic nation much less a free nation. W and Pres Cheney went into Iraq for reasons unknown and completely screwed up the Mid East. Sadam was a dick head but he maintained the balance of power there. He kept his people under control and he kept Iran at bay. Now the Iraqi’s are about to implode and Iran is getting a woody just watching.

You can call it whatever you want, but if you are a ‘realist’ then you would look at all sides objectively and then make a determination based on empirical data (as much as can be gleaned) and your own personal experiences. I do not disagree that we should have never went to Iraq and I also agree that Saddam (even being the tyrant that he was) did maintain a ‘type’ of stability in the region.

But that was then, and this is now.

I do not see how a ‘cut-N-run’ will help us today and/or in the future. ‘WE’ must be decisive in our future actions and be committed in the outcome.

Of course, this will take strong leadership to make hard decisions, and I cannot see anyone on the property with these qualities today.

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[Seatacus]

It never ceases to amaze mw how we are so willing to sacrifice nature and our surroundings to satisfy our pathetic needs.

Well I think the sacrifice is worth it ( and it is not that big of a sacrifice)just to rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil. Humanity is more important than nature. Right now our dependence on foreign oil makes us deal with those who don't like us and more vulnerable to terror. Remember our country and economy is so dependent on energy. So what if there is a pipeline in the arctic. Many years ago you might have complained about the Pacific Coast Hwy. ruining the looks of our coastline, it's no big deal!!! Those of you who are experiencing power outages around this country, I bet a nuke plant would look pretty good right now. If the oil countries cut us off right now we could be subject to a recession or maybe a depression and then many would wish that additional pipeline in the Arctic was built yesterday. Going after known energy sources is a quick fix. Alternate fuels??? Great, but I think we need energy independence sooner than that.....

 

[Garfield1966]

Not really sure what the first phrase is about so I’ll leave it alone. I will say that I tend to be liberal in a majority of my views.

I thought about that possibility after I posted. Fine, no risk of earthquakes. That leaves Human error. What are the odds? Who knows. The thing is that it will only take one accident to really screw things up. If there are fish with three eyes as a result of the accident, there will also be children with birth defects, adults suffering from various maladies as well such as in the article linked above and in a National Geographic article from a few months ago in the same topic.

What I am asking is why do we need to go from one antiquated dirty technology (fossil fuel) to another dangerous technology (Nukes) with out at least making an honest effort at solar and hydrogen? Remember, a nuke plant is a gift that will keep on giving for 10’s of thousands of years.

I think you are over rating the credibility issue. Like I mentioned, everyone knows Israel will light up your sky if you mess with them. Hezballa(sp?) still screwed with them. Although rumor has it they were not expecting to have Southern Lebanon leveled. Still, the whole world knows that if you FU&K with Israel you will have a meet and greet with the IDF and yet they still poke the bear. I guess one could argue that it would be far worse if Israel just sat idly by. While that may (probably) be true, I think their actions are far different than ours. Israel, for the most part, takes a rifle and takes out the one(s) responsible and moves on. Hez was all over S. Lebanon hence the mass strikes IMO. The US seems to take a sledge hammer and just swings randomly in the hopes the fly will be kind enough to place him self under the falling hammer. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat (by most accounts). Afghanistan, as far as I recall, no one questioned. We loose credibility when we go somewhere for reasons not substantiated by fact and then refuse to acknowledge that we screwed up and then refuse to ask for help.

While I agree we are fractionalized in our beliefs, I also believe that when provoked, as in WWII, 9/11 we will act as one. Our weakness comes from our leaders going off on their own to do things that are damaging to the nation. I do not recall much out cry when going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. The outcry was with Iraq. I do not see that as weakness.

To say that we are safe because we have not been attacked is to say that my house is safe because it has not burned down. My house may burn tomorrow or the next day, no one knows. We are only safe till someone succeeds. Given our lack of airport/harbor/boarder security, I am surprised it has not happened already.

 

[Seatacus]

Not really sure what the first phrase is about so I’ll leave it alone.
I thought about that possibility after I posted. Fine, no risk of earthquakes. That leaves Human error. What are the odds? Who knows.The thing is that it will only take one accident to really screw things up.

What I am asking is why do we need to go from one antiquated dirty technology (fossil fuel) to another dangerous technology (Nukes) with out at least making an honest effort at solar and hydrogen? Remember, a nuke plant is a gift that will keep on giving for 10’s of thousands of years.

What I meant was that I could sacrifice that pristine view of nature for an oil pipeline. We have been doing it for decades. The Pac Hwy. was an example on ruining a view just so we could drive our cars on the pretty coastline. We build things in the middle of beautiful areas all the time. It's no big deal and we have lived with these man-made things for quite a while.

As far as the risks of building a nuke plant and having problems? You'll never be able to eliminate all risks just have to do your best at it and realize that the benefit is worth the risks. Do you want to shut down the nuke plants we have all ready???? There are risks in flying too, human error, mechanical failure. But we still line up to get on board.

And those of you who don't want to use coal for fuel for environmental reasons just remember that whatever coal the USA burns it will be a drop in the bucket compared to China.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Not really sure what the first phrase is about so I’ll leave it alone. I will say that I tend to be liberal in a majority of my views.

I thought about that possibility after I posted. Fine, no risk of earthquakes. That leaves Human error. What are the odds? Who knows. The thing is that it will only take one accident to really screw things up. If there are fish with three eyes as a result of the accident, there will also be children with birth defects, adults suffering from various maladies as well such as in the article linked above and in a National Geographic article from a few months ago in the same topic.

Then do not fly on airplanes or use technologically advanced tools as they are all human made and may fail due to human error. We should shut down Kennedy and ground the SR71. Do not get a catscan or take chemotherapy because it can’t be trusted.

What I am asking is why do we need to go from one antiquated dirty technology (fossil fuel) to another dangerous technology (Nukes) with out at least making an honest effort at solar and hydrogen? Remember, a nuke plant is a gift that will keep on giving for 10’s of thousands of years.

UnLike the destruction of the O’zone by petrol and coal. We should have been dead serious on this issue since 1974, but we cannot go back in time, can we? And because we continue to repeat our mistakes, we will never see a different outcome. Had we went balls on for alternative energy, our discussion today would likely be different, but that’s what is funny with the future, it’s hard to predict and history has a tendency to repeat itself (if we allow it).

I think you are over rating the credibility issue. Like I mentioned, everyone knows Israel will light up your sky if you mess with them. Hezballa(sp?) still screwed with them. Although rumor has it they were not expecting to have Southern Lebanon leveled. Still, the whole world knows that if you FU&K with Israel you will have a meet and greet with the IDF and yet they still poke the bear. I guess one could argue that it would be far worse if Israel just sat idly by. While that may (probably) be true, I think their actions are far different than ours. Israel, for the most part, takes a rifle and takes out the one(s) responsible and moves on. Hez was all over S. Lebanon hence the mass strikes IMO.

And Israel would still be kicking a$$ today if the US (pressured by the UN) did not ask them to stand down. We did the same thing 10 years ago and allowed the ‘HEZ’ to rebuild their strength and be re-supplied with the support of Iran.

The US seems to take a sledge hammer and just swings randomly in the hopes the fly will be kind enough to place him self under the falling hammer. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat (by most accounts). Afghanistan, as far as I recall, no one questioned. We loose credibility when we go somewhere for reasons not substantiated by fact and then refuse to acknowledge that we screwed up and then refuse to ask for help.

I agree, Iraq had nothing to do with 911. How does this knowledge help us today?

It seems to me that you are more caught up with the idea that we should have never been in Iraq than dealing with the fact that we are there. Too late now. If you can prove criminal action by the people that put us here, fine, I’m behind you!!! But it still does not address where we are, and we (at least I) am living the present and I cannot change the past.

While I agree we are fractionalized in our beliefs, I also believe that when provoked, as in WWII, 9/11 we will act as one. Our weakness comes from our leaders going off on their own to do things that are damaging to the nation. I do not recall much out cry when going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. The outcry was with Iraq. I do not see that as weakness.

Well, this is rich. On one hand you advocate a ‘cut-N-run’ while admittingly knowing that Iran will step in with their open desire to obtain nuclear capabilities. Then you state we will act as ‘one’ at some later date. Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that we drop Iraq now and come back in some future event in full force after we let these nuts blow the heII out of a few of our cities?

To say that we are safe because we have not been attacked is to say that my house is safe because it has not burned down. My house may burn tomorrow or the next day, no one knows. We are only safe till someone succeeds. Given our lack of airport/harbor/boarder security, I am surprised it has not happened already.

Not really sure what this phrase is about so I’ll leave it alone.

B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

Seatacus and UAL Tech

Humanity is not more important than nature. We rely on nature to keep us alive. The ocean and the forests are what give you air to breath, water to drink and food to eat. To think that we as a world can just keep abusing nature and go about our merry way is short sighted and dangerous. The world, and especially americans seem to always want the quick fix. No one seems to look long term at the ramifications of their actions. We want it all and we want it now and we do not want to sacrifice anything. No where have you made mention of fuel efficient vehicles or public transportation. Ford truck sales are down 46% from last year. DUH!!! Fuel prices have gone up and all the dumb a$$es who bought all the SUV’s, trucks etc are bitching at the pump.

Considering that even if someone got authorization to build a Nuke plant to day, it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 years to get the thing operational. Not to mention the fact that you need to find someone to finance it. Given the risks involved that may be a bit difficult as I understand it. If we were cut off from oil (BTW, who are they going to sell it to if not us?) I would be wishing that we had solar/hydrogen/wind power. I would be wishing that the promises made by our government during the last fuel crisis were kept. Had they been kept, we would not need to have this conversation right now. Yes yes, hind sight is 20/20. And if we actually make the effort to break away from fossil fuels and Nuke now, in 20-30 years we will not need to have this conversation again. I fear that society will never learn from their mistakes. The environment will be plundered, our children will suffer from more health maladies than they currently do, ground water will be tainted, food will be tainted and .. well you get the point.

And actually I do hate PCH. It’s a blight along with al the houses and the pollution it brought to the coast.

Your flying argument is hollow on several counts. When plane crashes, it kills those on board who chose to fly and a few people on the ground at the impact sight. There is no radioactive fall out, no contamination. There is no risk of people hundreds of miles or thousands of miles away from being harmed by the fall out from a Nuke accident. There is no risk of children being born with cancer or physical defects because a plane/train or automobile accident. Yes I would like to shut down the existing plants and would do so in a heart beat.

UAL,

Israel has credibility (assuming we are talking about the same thing) was my point. They are still being attacked on a regular basis. So credibility alone will not keep the US safe. I also feel that we undermine our own credibility by shooting our elves in the foot on a regular basis.

I advocate a cut and run now because I feel that eventually we will leave and at that point, Iraq will implode. Unless we want to adopt Iraq as a US protectorate, install a US government and stay there for ever. That is basically what is there now. The only thing preventing the implosion is our presence. We have not and I do not think we ever will change the mind set of the Iraqi people. Most hate us, some tolerate us, none like us. We have created more animosity among other Arab nations (Iran, Syria, Yemen … ) and they will do more and more to hurt us. My rational is if I’m going to get smacked either way, why not pull out now and save a little bit of grief. The end result IMO will be the same, just a matter of when not if.

I’ll work on a better explanation for the last question. I need to dig out a old college book on argumentation. It’s a type of argument that relies on it’s self for support.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I need to dig out a old college book on argumentation. It’s a type of argument that relies on it’s self for support.

Good enough, if you cannot collect a thought on your own, by all means, grab a book on how to be argumentative and let's forget the silly notion of supporting your position based on truth and analysis and continue this foray on the teachings of your book rather than a discussion of different geopolitical viewpoints.

This could be quite interesting actually.

BTW, is this book quite large? :blink:

Hate to be sticking it in your bum if it would cause permanent damage.

B) UT

 

[TWAnr]

Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.

More lies. Repeatedly posting these does not make them true.

In chronological order:

• On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.
  
  Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
  
• On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
  
• On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
  
  On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
  
• On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
  
• On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)

In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:

In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.

. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.

. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.

Snopes.com - Rumors of War (Dead on the Tracks)

 

[Garfield1966]

Good enough, if you cannot collect a thought on your own, by all means, grab a book on how to be argumentative and let's forget the silly notion of supporting your position based on truth and analysis and continue this foray on the teachings of your book rather than a discussion of different geopolitical viewpoints.

This could be quite interesting actually.

BTW, is this book quite large? :blink:

Hate to be sticking it in your bum if it would cause permanent damage.

B) UT

I thought we were keeping this civil. No need to be a prick. The item I am ooking up has to do with argument structure such as slipery slope, straw man .. etc. Not the content of the argument.

 

[local 12 proud]

More lies. Repeatedly posting these does not make them true.

And living in denial has been called a mental disorder. :wacko:

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

 

[TWAnr]

And living in denial has been called a mental disorder. :wacko:

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person faced with a fact that is uncomfortable or painful to accept rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

You are very good at self diagnosis, having described yourself to a T.

 

[Seatacus]

Seatacus and UAL Tech

Humanity is not more important than nature. We rely on nature to keep us alive. The ocean and the forests are what give you air to breath, water to drink and food to eat. To think that we as a world can just keep abusing nature and go about our merry way is short sighted and dangerous.

Hey Garfield- I believe people are most important. Nature (the environment)is a lot more resilient than most believe. I do believe we are to be good stewards of the environment but I don't believe that man has the ability to have that much of an impact. For example, some worry about man producing greenhouse gases and causing global warming. But what ever man can produce is just a drop in the bucket compared to what one volcano can produce in one day. I don't believe that mankind is that big of a player on this earth. This planet will survive and we will too if we don't kill each other in the process.

No where have you made mention of fuel efficient vehicles or public transportation.

Bring on the fuel efficient vehicles. I am all for that. I do have one question though. Are airplanes considered fuel efficient. Wouldn't it be better to have trains to move the masses.

Considering that even if someone got authorization to build a Nuke plant to day, it would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15 years to get the thing operational. Not to mention the fact that you need to find someone to finance it. Given the risks involved that may be a bit difficult as I understand it. If we were cut off from oil (BTW, who are they going to sell it to if not us?)

The whole process of building a nuke plant could be made safer and quicker if we could mass produce them and make them smaller, perhaps maybe the size of the nuke plant on an aircraft carrier.

And who are the oil producers going to sell to if not us? Try China, India, and Russia. All three are just itching to replace the US as the next superpower.

And if we actually make the effort to break away from fossil fuels and Nuke now, in 20-30 years we will not need to have this conversation again.

I don't think we have 20-30 years to wait. Extracting more fossil fuel now is the best value and the quickest. Get more oil now then work on alternate forms of energy. I really fear that being relient on Middle East oil puts the US in a very precarious position. Any cut in our supply and our economy is going to have a rough time(remember, they don't like us very much). If this country goes into a depression forget about taking your nieces to the Arctic, we will all be living like the Amish (how long does it take to get to the Arctic with a horse and buggy). Extract every thing we can now is a good thing. And it is really not that much of an impact on our environment. You may lament having to see a pipeline in the Arctic but the Arctic is a big place and if you don't want to see a pipeline just go about 10-2500 miles to the East and you probably won't see one.

The environment will be plundered, our children will suffer from more health maladies than they currently do, ground water will be tainted, food will be tainted and .. well you get the point.

Isn't our environment cleaner now than before? Isn't the mortality rate in the US down and people are living longer. And I believe that our air and water quality is the best in years. You call fossil fuels dirty but I don't see a lot of people complaining about it. Most people I know just want more of them and make it cheap.

And actually I do hate PCH. It's a blight along with al the houses and the pollution it brought to the coast.

Do you hate the Hoover Dam? Some may find it a blight on Black Canyon but just think of all that electricity it produces.

Your flying argument is hollow on several counts.

My argument about flying was that there is a possibly for human error to cause injury to those who are on the plane. And those people on the plane are aware of it and they still line up to fly. That's my point.....

Garfield- I respect your opinion but you and I just disagree.

 

[Garfield1966]

When I speak of environmental impact, I am not just looking at emissions. I am also looking at deforestation, the impact of all the land that is concreted over, the use of water for irrigation, the use of chemicals, run off that contaminates the water table, strip mining, hazardous waste dumps, elimination of entire species from the planet (yes some are natural) and the list goes on. I don’t really think anyone can really know the impact we have had on the planet. There is no do over button to see what it ’would have been like’ had we taken a different path. I believe that the impact we have had is far greater than most seem to believe. Yes the planet will survive, but the water we drink is contaminated, the air we breath is horrible (asthma rates increase every year).

http://www.msgtruth.org/disease.htm

According to Scientific American, June 2000, pg 30 "Asthma Worldwide", asthma was rare in 1900. Now it is considered epidemic. It kills 5,000 Americans yearly, and 180,000 word wide according to the World Health Organization. Asthma is now the most common childhood chronic disease...

The rise in asthma was 42% in the US from 1982 – 1992. The death rate rose 40% from 1982-1991.

That is linked to air quality pure and simple. That is just one example of how we are killing our selves.

Not sure about airplanes vs trains. My guess would be for a large plane 73/75 ..etc would that they are more efficient. Trains are definitely better for the transportation of goods. Either are far more efficient than a private vehicle. I am guessing the time factor will also play into it some how.

Good point with the nuke plant idea in terms of the speed but you still need to fine a location willing to accept it, you still have a huge risk when an accident happens and then you have to deal with the waste. I seem to recall seeing a program showing the French disposing of the waste in 55 gallon drums into the ocean. Not sure if they still do that or not. The oil market is a fee market. They do not have the cash or need for all the excess oil that would be available if were to stop buying it. OPEC would have to jack the proces up so high to compensate for the loss of revenue that even China, India and who ever else could not afford to buy it … wouldn’t that be a hoot.

My concern with your plan to dig up more oil is it will lower the prices like it did after the first oil crissis in the 70’s and people will become more complacent as they did in the 80’s and 90’s and we will not develop any alt fuels as we failed to do in the 80’s and 90’s and here we are in 2006 cranking out suv’s, trucks and V8 muscle cars. If the Nuke idea we a short term fix with a guarantee that alt fuels would be heavily researched, I might go for it. Unfortunately, there are far to many people in power who have a vested interest in keeping the people dependent on fossil fuels. I spent 2 weeks in Europe recently and while I was there I did not see 1 light truck. Only a hand full of SUV’s. Saw a butt load of Smarts and at least 1 out of 2 cars was a diesel (not including the one I rented). There was Bio-diesel at ever fuel station. Why is the US unwilling to do that?

I agree that we do not have 20-30 years. I do believe that by drilling for more oil, as I said above, will only make us complacent and postpone to a later date what needs to be done now. From what I have read, it is still cheaper for us to buy oil from the ME than to refine our own (we export quite a bit of our own oil).

As I indicated above, the evidence seems to indicate that our environment is far dirtier now than it has ever been. Drugs and modern medicine are why we are living longer, not the environment. People don’t complain because most of them are dumb asses who could not formulate an sentence on their own. You are educated and have a view point. Granted it is different than mine but you can present a rational argument and articulate your opinion. How many others are out there like us compared to .. well you get the point. These are the same people when asked on the street who their VP is have this glazed deer in head light look. I do agree with the last sentence of that paragraph. The people, for the most part want it quick and cheap … dammed the consequences.

I understood your plane analogy but my point was and is that when a plane crashes, it kills a few people, worst case lets say 1,000. If a nuke plant goes bad, you are looking at potentially several thousand plus contamination that will exist for thousands of years. The human error point that you bring up is my biggest concern. In most catastrophes, that is the cause. Given the lack of over sight in industry, accidents are par for the course and seem to be part of the cost of doing business. The BP pipe line had not been maintained in over a decade and could have been an environmental and economic disaster. We do not have the over sight to ensure that does not happen in a Nuke plant. I do not trust the NRC to do it’s job and I sure as hell do not trust the owner of a Nuke plant to make sure it’s safe.

Yes we do have different points of view but the exchange of ideas is all ways a good thing. Hopefully, we learn from each other.

 

[Seatacus]

I am also looking at deforestation, the impact of all the land that is concreted over, the use of water for irrigation, the use of chemicals, run off that contaminates the water table, strip mining, hazardous waste dumps, elimination of entire species from the planet (yes some are natural) and the list goes on.

Yes the planet will survive, but the water we drink is contaminated, the air we breath is horrible (asthma rates increase every year).

I've heard that the USA has more forest now than it did a couple of centuries ago. I could find the facts somewhere if you like. To me trees are just a crop to be harvested. I guess that's why they are managed by the Dept. of Agriculture.

Contaminates from industry I agree should be managed and contained.

I don't know about where you live but I drink right out of the tap. No problems at all.

As far as the air quality goes, no problem here either. You want to see bad air go to China. My wife was there on business and she said it was gross. It was so dirty there she would buy a pair of shoes when she was touring factories and then left them there as she got on train to Hong Kong. The USA is is not perfect but I stiil think they do better than many countries as far as keeping pollutants in check.

As far as elimanation of species goes sometimes that just happens. I wouldn't promote it but when it comes to occupying the same habitat my vote goes to people. Can you name one species that is extinct that if it were to come back mankind would be better off. T-Rex ? Wooly Mammoth? Sabretooth Tiger? Carrier Pigeon? Dodo Bird?I can only imagine if the California Grizzly on the state flag were to come back how much fun that would be. I bet schools wouldn't let kids out on the playgrounds. In California we have Cougar habitat overlapping with people habitat and the Cougars are attacking people. I have a trail behind my house with signs posted warning of bears and cougars, if I start noticing them I will have to make some adjustments to my lifestyle or start packing heat when I walk my dogs. If it is me or them, I would rather it be them. Where I live we have a bunch of loggers out of work because of some little owl. An owl that has been known to live other places besides the forests we want to cut down. I support the loggers, the owl will find some place else to live. I am really not a heartless person but I feel people are the most important....

 

[Seatacus]

The rise in asthma was 42% in the US from 1982 – 1992. The death rate rose 40% from 1982-1991.

That is linked to air quality pure and simple. That is just one example of how we are killing our selves.

Possibly air quality but there is so many other variables too. Lifestyle, stress, kids in daycare. To pinpoint just air quality I find questionable. The countries with the dirtiest air should have the most athsma, right. Heres a good question, find out which countries have the dirtiest air and see if they have the most athsma.

Not sure about airplanes vs trains. My guess would be for a large plane 73/75 ..etc would that they are more efficient. Trains are definitely better for the transportation of goods.

My guess would be for trains, hands down. If they can haul goods better than why not people. So what if it takes more time, we gotta save fuel , right........

I do believe that by drilling for more oil, as I said above, will only make us complacent and postpone to a later date what needs to be done now. From what I have read, it is still cheaper for us to buy oil from the ME than to refine our own (we export quite a bit of our own oil).

This is true but someone has to take the lead and make something happen with alternative fuels. It is cheaper to buy from ME now , but who knows for how long? When some country over there decides to melt someone elses country we'll see how cheap oil is then.

As I indicated above, the evidence seems to indicate that our environment is far dirtier now than it has ever been.

Maybe I missed it but what evidence. The link you gave was some guy whose main research is Mono Sodium Glutamate ( a flavoring salt in Chinese food). He could be right but could you find something a little more mainstream? Heck, I could go get some material from one of my professors who swears that D.D.T. is the greatest. Sorry I am not a big fan of blogs or any other internet statistics unless it comes from somewhere I can verify or is 100% certain to be official.

Please don't get me wrong. I love the environment (I was originally going to be a park ranger when I got out of college but I already had this cool airline job)and I think man can exist in this world without destroying it. The environment always seems to bounce back somehow from what mankind dishes out.