[Rhodes22-list] Going green - many ways

[Brad Haslett]

Robert,

"As we consider the nuclear option, we would do well to
think of the consequences of nuclear material getting into
the hands of people with no desire to live and let live.

The concentration of potentially harmful power in such
portable form has to be tempting.  Imagine the result of
a dirty bomb in Manhattan."  - Robert

Precisely! Such nuclear material is now available and more is being made.
Not by us, but by our "allies" and others who definitely can't be trusted.
The harassment of air travelers will not end in our lifetime because the
fascination and interest of AQ in the harmful use of airliners will not end
in our lifetime.  The air transport system is probed, surveyed, and tested
continuously.  The enemy would plant a dirty bomb in Manhattan and will do
so given the opportunity, regardless of whether we endorse peaceful uses of
nuclear energy.  You are correct, there is utility in increments to every
alternative but no "magic bullet" or "one size fits all" solution to energy.
A cautionary note is in order; we must be careful not to confuse energy
policy with social policy.  The two are not necessarily compatible. We have
the choice as a nation to be world leaders or followers on the energy
front.  Right now, we are followers behind China and India. It is they who
control the worlds destiny of CO2 emissions and not us.

I don't know what the answer to long term storage of spent nuclear material
is, nor the security of nuclear material.  Iran and North Korea sure as hell
doesn't have the answer and yet they press on while we watch.  As painful as
a trip to the airport can be dealing with TSA, life without them would be
worse.  Professional discretion advises me not to publicly recount the
history of AQ, bombs, and airplanes, but I can tell you the threat hasn't
gone away simply because they haven't succeeded in another 9/11 style
attack.  As the old expression goes, "better to be lucky than good".  We
have been very lucky. The nuclear "dirty bomb" threat will remain regardless
of our energy decisions and use of nuclear energy on our soil.

You gotta love this "religion of peace"!

Brad





On 6/21/07, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
>
> R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> > ...
> > Obtaining energy from many sources is a good solution including the
> > increasingly popular wind turbines. Vast arrays of solar panels can
> help. There  is
> > not a single source solution to the problem. It has many aspects that
> have to
> > be addressed.
> > Rummy
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with Rummy - in that no single answer is THE answer.
> Also, we cannot say that any particular answer will always
> be wrong.  Things change.
>
> Keeping all possible solutions in play, and letting each
> find its acceptance level de jour will ensure that we have
> options as prices, costs, availabilities, and consequences
> vary over time.
>
> As we consider the nuclear option, we would do well to
> think of the consequences of nuclear material getting into
> the hands of people with no desire to live and let live.
>
> The concentration of potentially harmful power in such
> portable form has to be tempting.  Imagine the result of
> a dirty bomb in Manhattan.
>
> Part of the cost of the existing worldwide push toward
> nuclear power generation is the requirement that Homeland
> Security concentrate on dealing with this mega threat,
> not the constant harassment of those who must travel by
> air.
>
> /Robert
> of an airliner.
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>