2434Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
- Mar 14, 2004Most 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/
----- Original Message -----
From: "classified" <cowbux@...>
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.
> Martian wanna-be.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>