======
Green Technology is the Way to Go
by Jim McCue appropriatebiotech@yahoo.com
http://bioeverything.blogspot.com
For me the March 14th general meeting of the Hazelwood Initiative highlighted the difficulty a really democratic organization has in finding enough agreement to get the most important things done. Due to time constraints and the great number of important subjects, things were brought up and decided upon without sufficient discussion as far as I was concerned. One topic so treated which really stuck in my craw was the description by Dennis M. Davin, Director of the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development, of the strategic place Pittsburgh has in regard to information and nuclear technology developments. I balked silently as he praised the current federal administration's interest in selling nuclear energy technology overseas and the consequent new hires and money being made because of Washington's decision to ease regulatory hurdles related to a new progression in design and manufacture of nuclear power plants. To me, regardless of the money to be made, the nuclear industry's development, reasoning, safety, and subsidization has never been given anywhere near sufficient media discussion for the public to make good decisions about it.
The fact that the nuclear industry is subsidized is unknown by most Americans. It is becoming generally known that the oil industry has an undue influence over public policy; it should also be known how our electric bills are partly to cover the lack of profitability of the nuclear utilities. Why should we pay for their failure to make money? Research the history of the Price Anderson Act to see the wool has been put over our eyes in a big way. Sure, that's wonderful that hundreds of engineers have just been hired on at Westinghouse, but it would be more constructive in the long run to first put people to work getting a perspective on the amount of pollution that comes from the routine operation of a present-day nuclear power plant design, then compare that to the estimated amount of pollution from the more modern "safe" designs, then compare the projected amount of pollution and degree of safety of these modern designs with those having to do with other directional options such as increased investment in wind and other renewable energy technologies such as the many ways in which energy can be made from various wastes.
My heart is full from reading stories, data interpretations, and claims having to do, for instance, with increased levels of cancer in various parts of the world and their correlation with occurrences of radioactive pollution from nuclear accidents, nuclear waste, and routine operation of plants. When you say you haven't been hurt by Chernobyl's explosion, you ignore the long-term transport of those pollutants, and the indirect effects of ecosystem destruction on the rest of the world. Increasing parts of the surface of the earth no longer provide oxygen, clean air, clean food, or other ecosystem services. The price of our addiction to dirty energy sources continues to rise, at the fuel pump, at the checkout counter, and everywhere else.
The still disputed elections of 2000 and 2004 put in Mr. Cheney as vice president. Few know that he has a past in the nuclear industry. When he referred to nuclear energy as clean his bias was showing. As difficult as it is to deal with the subject matter, I ask my readers to look into: the continuing effects of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents; the safety of the new nuclear power plant designs; effects of the radioactive materials such as strontium-90 that are now in all human beings; statistical correlations between leukemia and other cancers and those cancers' victims' proximity to nuclear power plants; problems with waste from nuclear power plants; and the "beneficial re-use" of depleted uranium as a military material.
Hazelwood Initiative board member Matt Smuts brought up "green technology" at the meeting. This is what we should be talking about. This is where the future action is. This is where sustainable economic development is. This is what we should be welcoming into the community as part of our strategic economic development plan. Increasing use of nuclear energy to withdraw from our addiction to fossil fuels would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Green Technology is the Way to Go
by Jim McCue appropriatebiotech@yahoo.com
http://bioeverything.blogspot.com
For me the March 14th general meeting of the Hazelwood Initiative highlighted the difficulty a really democratic organization has in finding enough agreement to get the most important things done. Due to time constraints and the great number of important subjects, things were brought up and decided upon without sufficient discussion as far as I was concerned. One topic so treated which really stuck in my craw was the description by Dennis M. Davin, Director of the Allegheny County Department of Economic Development, of the strategic place Pittsburgh has in regard to information and nuclear technology developments. I balked silently as he praised the current federal administration's interest in selling nuclear energy technology overseas and the consequent new hires and money being made because of Washington's decision to ease regulatory hurdles related to a new progression in design and manufacture of nuclear power plants. To me, regardless of the money to be made, the nuclear industry's development, reasoning, safety, and subsidization has never been given anywhere near sufficient media discussion for the public to make good decisions about it.
The fact that the nuclear industry is subsidized is unknown by most Americans. It is becoming generally known that the oil industry has an undue influence over public policy; it should also be known how our electric bills are partly to cover the lack of profitability of the nuclear utilities. Why should we pay for their failure to make money? Research the history of the Price Anderson Act to see the wool has been put over our eyes in a big way. Sure, that's wonderful that hundreds of engineers have just been hired on at Westinghouse, but it would be more constructive in the long run to first put people to work getting a perspective on the amount of pollution that comes from the routine operation of a present-day nuclear power plant design, then compare that to the estimated amount of pollution from the more modern "safe" designs, then compare the projected amount of pollution and degree of safety of these modern designs with those having to do with other directional options such as increased investment in wind and other renewable energy technologies such as the many ways in which energy can be made from various wastes.
My heart is full from reading stories, data interpretations, and claims having to do, for instance, with increased levels of cancer in various parts of the world and their correlation with occurrences of radioactive pollution from nuclear accidents, nuclear waste, and routine operation of plants. When you say you haven't been hurt by Chernobyl's explosion, you ignore the long-term transport of those pollutants, and the indirect effects of ecosystem destruction on the rest of the world. Increasing parts of the surface of the earth no longer provide oxygen, clean air, clean food, or other ecosystem services. The price of our addiction to dirty energy sources continues to rise, at the fuel pump, at the checkout counter, and everywhere else.
The still disputed elections of 2000 and 2004 put in Mr. Cheney as vice president. Few know that he has a past in the nuclear industry. When he referred to nuclear energy as clean his bias was showing. As difficult as it is to deal with the subject matter, I ask my readers to look into: the continuing effects of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents; the safety of the new nuclear power plant designs; effects of the radioactive materials such as strontium-90 that are now in all human beings; statistical correlations between leukemia and other cancers and those cancers' victims' proximity to nuclear power plants; problems with waste from nuclear power plants; and the "beneficial re-use" of depleted uranium as a military material.
Hazelwood Initiative board member Matt Smuts brought up "green technology" at the meeting. This is what we should be talking about. This is where the future action is. This is where sustainable economic development is. This is what we should be welcoming into the community as part of our strategic economic development plan. Increasing use of nuclear energy to withdraw from our addiction to fossil fuels would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
posted by St. Jim the Composter at 10:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home