Friday, February 27, 2009
2 DIFFERENT NUCLEAR LETTERS - SCOTSMAN & HERALD
Letters today, to my considerable surprise since they were both fairly short attempts to get something off my chest, in both the Scotsman & Herald. I have marked [] the points edited.
Scotsman letter:
The assertion from Councillor McLeod (letter Thurs) that there is "a consensus" against nuclear in Scotland stands unsupported by any facts from him. "Consensus" does not mean 51%, though I don't think there is evidence even for that & the term should not be used lightly let alone as a club.
It may well be that there is a council organisation called Nuclear Free Local Authorities but if they were sincere they would refuse to use the 40% of Scotland's electricity which comes from nuclear. [Perhaps some reader can name some council run by honourable, if foolish "environmentalist" councillors whose main buildings had neither lighting or heating a few weeks ago when we had extreme cold & no wind. After all they want the rest of us to put up with fortnightly bin collection & thus more rats, smells & diseases.]
These are the people who want to end nuclear, not because it does not provide plentiful, inexpensive electricity [taking not a penny from the taxpayer] but because it does. These are the people who know perfectly well that the only way the taxpayer will continue, [or indeed increase,] the £1 billion Scotland subsidises windmills by annually will be if we are given no alternative.
I'm sorry they edited out the bit about council offices switching off the lights & heating when the wind isn't blowing since I liked the imagery.
Herald letter:
According too Barry Lees waste from nuclear reactors 'will still be dangerous in thousands of millions of years" (letter Thurs) whereas Professor Colin McInnes in another letter on the same day says reactors currently produce only "small volumes of short-lived waste products". This neatly encapsulates the difference between the 2 sides. In fact reactor waste, precisely because it is highly radioactive, has a short half life & in 50 years is safe & within a couple of hundred is less radioactive than the ground it was mined from. The opponents of nuclear & indeed virtually the entire "ecology" movement neither know their facts nor care in any way at all about getting them correct. So long as they can get a public audience for their,[ numerous, catastrophic scare stories (& that they are sure the media will be polite enough not to mention such things as the global cooling or acid rain scams when they are proven untrue) they are happy to wallow in their Luddite hysteria.]
last sentence rewritten
Again I would have liked the last sentence in full including the criticism of the media & the imagery of "wallowing in their Luddite hysteria" but I can well understand why that was a step too far. I suspect our media are not yet ready to publish terms like "eco-fascist" but I think the tide is turning.
Scotsman letter:
The assertion from Councillor McLeod (letter Thurs) that there is "a consensus" against nuclear in Scotland stands unsupported by any facts from him. "Consensus" does not mean 51%, though I don't think there is evidence even for that & the term should not be used lightly let alone as a club.
It may well be that there is a council organisation called Nuclear Free Local Authorities but if they were sincere they would refuse to use the 40% of Scotland's electricity which comes from nuclear. [Perhaps some reader can name some council run by honourable, if foolish "environmentalist" councillors whose main buildings had neither lighting or heating a few weeks ago when we had extreme cold & no wind. After all they want the rest of us to put up with fortnightly bin collection & thus more rats, smells & diseases.]
These are the people who want to end nuclear, not because it does not provide plentiful, inexpensive electricity [taking not a penny from the taxpayer] but because it does. These are the people who know perfectly well that the only way the taxpayer will continue, [or indeed increase,] the £1 billion Scotland subsidises windmills by annually will be if we are given no alternative.
I'm sorry they edited out the bit about council offices switching off the lights & heating when the wind isn't blowing since I liked the imagery.
Herald letter:
According too Barry Lees waste from nuclear reactors 'will still be dangerous in thousands of millions of years" (letter Thurs) whereas Professor Colin McInnes in another letter on the same day says reactors currently produce only "small volumes of short-lived waste products". This neatly encapsulates the difference between the 2 sides. In fact reactor waste, precisely because it is highly radioactive, has a short half life & in 50 years is safe & within a couple of hundred is less radioactive than the ground it was mined from. The opponents of nuclear & indeed virtually the entire "ecology" movement neither know their facts nor care in any way at all about getting them correct. So long as they can get a public audience for their,[ numerous, catastrophic scare stories (& that they are sure the media will be polite enough not to mention such things as the global cooling or acid rain scams when they are proven untrue) they are happy to wallow in their Luddite hysteria.]
last sentence rewritten
Again I would have liked the last sentence in full including the criticism of the media & the imagery of "wallowing in their Luddite hysteria" but I can well understand why that was a step too far. I suspect our media are not yet ready to publish terms like "eco-fascist" but I think the tide is turning.
Comments:
<< Home
The opponents of nuclear & indeed virtually the entire "ecology" movement neither know their facts nor care in any way at all about getting them correct.
The ecopagans can't even be called luddites because the do not favor going back to older methods or to even achieving anything at all. When these people advocate going back to an older method or block new technology they are just using it as an excuse to move us back to a New Dark Age, as a prelude to "massive population reduction". The Club of Rome has been wailing for years about a global resource shortage and yet there has been enough steel, food and fuel for everyone so far. The only way we will run short of these necessities is if the rules and restrictions pushed by the enviros have a real effect, at which time the enviros will claim they were right all along.
A good example of this scare mongering was the hysteria a few years ago over Peak Oil. The US hasn't produced enough oil for years to meet its needs, and this is considered proof that eventually the whole world will run out of oil.The enviros don't mention that the US has a lot of oil locked up offshore or on federal land. And most of the world's oil companies are inefficient state owned dinosaurs that can't do their job. Even if the US was running out of oil we could build nukes to make our electricity and then divert the coal we save to make gasoline. Therefore there would be no shortage and therefore no $600b oil deficit except for the enviros.
These people seek to elevate plants, rocks and animals above man, even if it means that man must starve or not have children. What they are doing is worshiping nature, or to put it another way they are engaging in paganism. The environmental movement is really the repaganization of Europe. Considering the results we can see it is appropriate that the Bible calls for death to pagans.
So long as they can get a public audience for their,[ numerous, catastrophic scare stories...
The global-warming scare film The Day After Tomorrow was modeled on an anti-defense film made in the early 1980's called The Day After that was made by a communist front group calling itself Praxis films. I think it was run on prime time television here in the US, as part of the effort to back Ted Kennedy in his effort to destroy the US military.
The ecopagans can't even be called luddites because the do not favor going back to older methods or to even achieving anything at all. When these people advocate going back to an older method or block new technology they are just using it as an excuse to move us back to a New Dark Age, as a prelude to "massive population reduction". The Club of Rome has been wailing for years about a global resource shortage and yet there has been enough steel, food and fuel for everyone so far. The only way we will run short of these necessities is if the rules and restrictions pushed by the enviros have a real effect, at which time the enviros will claim they were right all along.
A good example of this scare mongering was the hysteria a few years ago over Peak Oil. The US hasn't produced enough oil for years to meet its needs, and this is considered proof that eventually the whole world will run out of oil.The enviros don't mention that the US has a lot of oil locked up offshore or on federal land. And most of the world's oil companies are inefficient state owned dinosaurs that can't do their job. Even if the US was running out of oil we could build nukes to make our electricity and then divert the coal we save to make gasoline. Therefore there would be no shortage and therefore no $600b oil deficit except for the enviros.
These people seek to elevate plants, rocks and animals above man, even if it means that man must starve or not have children. What they are doing is worshiping nature, or to put it another way they are engaging in paganism. The environmental movement is really the repaganization of Europe. Considering the results we can see it is appropriate that the Bible calls for death to pagans.
So long as they can get a public audience for their,[ numerous, catastrophic scare stories...
The global-warming scare film The Day After Tomorrow was modeled on an anti-defense film made in the early 1980's called The Day After that was made by a communist front group calling itself Praxis films. I think it was run on prime time television here in the US, as part of the effort to back Ted Kennedy in his effort to destroy the US military.
# posted by 
: March 03, 2009
: March 03, 2009
" The only way we will run short of these necessities is if the rules and restrictions pushed by the enviros have a real effect, at which time the enviros will claim they were right all along."
Dead on. That is what they claimed when, after saying it would take 50 years of CFC bans for the Antarctic Ozone Hole to start closing they got the ban, the Antarctic volcano Mt Erebus stopped belching sulphur, & the hole started closing.
Dead on. That is what they claimed when, after saying it would take 50 years of CFC bans for the Antarctic Ozone Hole to start closing they got the ban, the Antarctic volcano Mt Erebus stopped belching sulphur, & the hole started closing.
" The only way we will run short of these necessities is if the rules and restrictions pushed by the enviros have a real effect, at which time the enviros will claim they were right all along."
Dead on. That is what they claimed when, after saying it would take 50 years of CFC bans for the Antarctic Ozone Hole to start closing they got the ban, the Antarctic volcano Mt Erebus stopped belching sulphur, & the hole started closing.
Post a Comment
Dead on. That is what they claimed when, after saying it would take 50 years of CFC bans for the Antarctic Ozone Hole to start closing they got the ban, the Antarctic volcano Mt Erebus stopped belching sulphur, & the hole started closing.
<< Home
