Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2434Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

Expand Messages
  • Jim & Janet
    Mar 14, 2004
      Most of the uproar over birds vs wind turbines is focused in California.
      Bergy Wind Power has a vested interest in keeping the rumors about bird
      kills to a minimum. I suspect that's why they posted this letter on their
      www site titled: Small Wind and Birds - Audubon California Letter. It's on
      their main page at http://www.bergey.com/
      Jim Duncan

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
      To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:42 PM
      Subject: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

      > the birds reportedly fly into an occasional turbine, but after casting
      > about the internet for gruesome details, it appears that it is more
      > frequent for humans to ride bicycles into cars. I believe the general
      > opinion is similar to the one i found at
      > once i filtered out the appearant silliness.
      > I was motivated to post by frustration over the political dig about
      > OPEC, but i feel better now and it is probably just as well that I
      > don't mention it anyway.
      > here's a question - why isn't the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste
      > forced upon those processing it, rather than forcing the earth in
      > general to absorb nuclear waste? I may have some things wrong here so
      > if anyone has a tiny bit of information (i can only retain so much) I
      > am supposing from my limited information "cache":
      > 1. nuclear energy generates waste that is indicated as a Blue 4 on the
      > Hazardous Material Information Symbol, which indicates a lethal and
      > chronic threat to living organisms.
      > 2. nuclear fuel is mined and processed, and when used/spent can be
      > reprocessed to the prior natural state (still radioactive, but not as
      > lethal.); BUT, it is not.
      > 3. it does not make sense to generate a commitment of real estate that
      > will be a legacy of liability, and arguably national stupidity and greed.
      > if nuclear waste had to be reprocessed to it's original state, which I
      > may be under the mistaken impression that it can/is not, that expense
      > would make other forms of power generation a great deal more
      > appealling and viable to business. in other words - if we (yes, us)
      > can't dump the expense in the Yucca mountains, AND it cost's more
      > because of that fact, maybe Renewable Energy can be more attractive.
      > and the reason i would like to see nuclear energy removed from the
      > equation of mass consumption is that there are people that make
      > decisions for this country that say "hydrogen fuel is clean and
      > environmentally sound". Then the gathering that worked on the
      > logistics of hydrogen fuel cell and submitted a report to the
      > taxpayers and gov't went on to say that nuclear power was a most
      > desirable method of production. or maybe even use oil systems already
      > in use. the logic may be somewhat abridged, but it seems to me that
      > generating clean fuel without expecting to change the manufacturing
      > process is short-sighted.
      > I sometimes wonder about these humans.
      > Terry.
      > Martian wanna-be.
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic