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

Re: [hreg] America Under Attack

Expand Messages
  • mike
    Thanks Ryan, I fully agree with you. Let s keep the personal attacks off the list. Mike ... From: Ryan McMullan To:
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Ryan, I fully agree with you.
      Let's keep the personal attacks off the list.

      Mike

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ryan McMullan" <mcmullan@...>
      To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 1:01 PM
      Subject: RE: [hreg] America Under Attack


      > I was a bit taken back by Claude Foster's comments to Diane's
      > post. Perhaps I am misreading his intent, but it sounded hostile and full
      > of personal attacks--something which I am not accustomed to hearing from
      > this group. [more below]
      >
      > At 09:11 AM 9/18/01 -0500, you wrote:
      > >Several questions came to mind after reading your memo.
      > >
      > >Are you promoting a direct attack on our energy supply or you following
      > >someone else?
      >
      > I'm not sure exactly what they question is. He seems to be asking if
      Diane
      > is a terrorist.
      >
      > >Oh, by the way, what is the process that produces the heat and light of
      the
      > >sun?
      >
      > Nuclear fusion, something which does not produce radioactive byproduct and
      > something which we are so far unable to harness for constructive energy
      > production (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd love to be wrong on this
      > one). Fission, the process we use to produce electricity, is a different
      > process with the nasty long-lived radioactive byproducts many folks have
      > objections to.
      >
      > >How do you rely on or use sustainable design or renewable energy in your
      > >lifestyle?
      > >
      > >How did you qualify to give testimony as an expert on industrial
      processes
      > >involving nuclear devices? I don't see a Ph.D., PE, CP, HSDO MANW, etc.
      > >attached to your memo.
      > >
      > >Please tell us about the research or engineering projects have you
      completed
      > >for constructive, sustainable use of our resources (atomic, wood,
      > >geothermal, wind, solar) ?
      > >
      > >In what ways do you think that you support or dampen our society.
      >
      > This string of questions seems to be attacking the credibility of Diane,
      > rather than addressing issues raised.
      >
      > Again, perhaps I'm reading this all wrong, but I was first attracted to
      > HREG by the cooperative, supportive atmosphere of the group. I'd hate to
      > see that degenerate, and I'd hate it even more if I had been silent and
      let
      > it happen.
      >
      > Ryan
      >
      >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: jclem412@... [SMTP:jclem412@...]
      > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:16 AM
      > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
      > > >
      > > > Hi. this is Diane.
      > > >
      > > > A couple of months ago, Jonathan and I traveled to downtown Seattle to
      > > > testify at a DOE hearing on energy. Seattle was one of (6, i think?)
      a
      > > > couple of cities chosen for these sites on public hearings. There was
      a
      > > > court reporter typing our comments and it was formal, although at 8
      PM, a
      > > > little thin. I guess they'd been busy all day, however. My part of
      the
      > > > testimony dealt w/ nuclear energy and how there is no safe way to
      dispose
      > > > of
      > > > nuclear waste at this time. Safe disposal is an oxymoron with an
      emphasis
      > > > on
      > > > moron. No amount of wishing can make it so and nature cannot be
      changed.
      > > >
      > > > All we can do is make our views on energy known to elected officials
      so
      > > > they
      > > > know how we feel and what we think.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • mike
      Diane, I appreciate all the hard work you and Jonathan have put into promoting clean renewable energy. I think you should be commended for you efforts! I
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 20, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Diane,

        I appreciate all the hard work you and Jonathan have put into promoting
        clean renewable energy.
        I think you should be commended for you efforts!
        I certainly wouldn't want to live near a nuclear plant or dump.

        I hope Claude will keep his personal attacks to himself in the future.

        mike

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <jclem412@...>
        To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:15 PM
        Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack


        > ;-) Diane again here. One of my qualifications is that my maiden
        name
        > is Forsmark, the name of the town and the nuclear power plant in Sweden
        that
        > got blasted so hard by Chernobyl that they thought it was their own plant
        > (per their readings).
        >
        > I lived near the nuclear release of Three Mile Island. In a later year, I
        > was on vacation in Colorado and heard on the radio that we'd just
        experienced
        > a nuclear release from, and while I was driving right by, Rocky Mt. Flats.
        >
        > I am a dental hygienist, B.S., and graduate school dropout in History of
        > Science and Technology and a singer/songwriter/guitar blues & bluegrass
        > player, and proud of it.
        >
        > :-) peace to the world.
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Robert Johnston
        I fully agree with the idea of keeping personal attacks of this list. At the same time, let me say that I ve appreciated Claude s past efforts to inject a
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 20, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I fully agree with the idea of keeping personal attacks of this list.
          At the same time, let me say that I've appreciated Claude's past efforts
          to inject a little science into the discussions, and while there are
          certainly disagreements in our society, and even among scientists and
          engineers, about the safety and usefulness of nuclear energy and its place
          in our energy future, I hope that this discussion group doesn't adopt a
          "group think" mentality that rejects opinions and arguments that differ
          from some group orthodoxy.

          The arguments against nuclear power are in many cases arguments against
          forms of nuclear power that would no longer be practiced had the technology
          been pursued/developed more vigorously over the past couple decades instead
          of attacked. I think Claude was trying to make the point--albeit not as
          tactfully as he might have, especially considering all the Diane and
          Jonathan
          have contributed to HREG and this discussion group--that we do in fact live
          off nuclear power (from the sun) and that there is no such thing as complete
          recycling or sustainability in our entropically increasing universe. There
          certainly is no such thing as conservation of atoms, if one accounts for
          fusion processes occuring in the sun and other stars. Fission processes
          occur as well, Jonathan, over time, and these are in fact used for
          radiometric
          dating.

          Attacks against nuclear power may have been well-founded, but at the same
          time
          now we have global warming. Which is worse? Manage nuclear waste over the
          next 1000 years or so, or destroy the climate that sustains life? I'm not
          arguing for one solution or the other, but if one is not willing to shut
          down the economy and lifestyles to reduce carbon fuels drastically (as
          America
          obviously is not--I'm talking about the public here, not HREG), then a
          stop-gap
          technology is needed to sustain us until we have an efficient and viable
          solar-
          based energy supply (PV, thermal, biomass, wind, etc.). I think Claude is
          not being unfair to argue that nuclear can serve as part of that stop-gap
          just
          as well as coal or gas, and in some ways better (and other ways worse).

          For those who are interested in solar and other renewable technologies per
          se,
          and not necessarily all the environmentalist, anti-nuclear, etc. baggage
          that
          goes with it, some e-mails of a propaganda nature that have been forwarded
          via
          this listserv get a bit tiresome, and I suspect Claude was reacting to that,
          since several were posted over the past weeks. Maybe I'm not reading this
          right, but that's my take on it.

          Peace to all,

          Robert Johnston


          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: mike [mailto:mlandrus@...]
          > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:13 AM
          > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
          >
          >
          > Thanks Ryan, I fully agree with you.
          > Let's keep the personal attacks off the list.
          >
          > Mike
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Ryan McMullan" <mcmullan@...>
          > To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 1:01 PM
          > Subject: RE: [hreg] America Under Attack
          >
          >
          > > I was a bit taken back by Claude Foster's comments
          > to Diane's
          > > post. Perhaps I am misreading his intent, but it sounded
          > hostile and full
          > > of personal attacks--something which I am not accustomed to
          > hearing from
          > > this group. [more below]
          > >
          > > At 09:11 AM 9/18/01 -0500, you wrote:
          > > >Several questions came to mind after reading your memo.
          > > >
          > > >Are you promoting a direct attack on our energy supply or
          > you following
          > > >someone else?
          > >
          > > I'm not sure exactly what they question is. He seems to be
          > asking if
          > Diane
          > > is a terrorist.
          > >
          > > >Oh, by the way, what is the process that produces the heat
          > and light of
          > the
          > > >sun?
          > >
          > > Nuclear fusion, something which does not produce
          > radioactive byproduct and
          > > something which we are so far unable to harness for
          > constructive energy
          > > production (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd love to
          > be wrong on this
          > > one). Fission, the process we use to produce electricity,
          > is a different
          > > process with the nasty long-lived radioactive byproducts
          > many folks have
          > > objections to.
          > >
          > > >How do you rely on or use sustainable design or renewable
          > energy in your
          > > >lifestyle?
          > > >
          > > >How did you qualify to give testimony as an expert on industrial
          > processes
          > > >involving nuclear devices? I don't see a Ph.D., PE, CP,
          > HSDO MANW, etc.
          > > >attached to your memo.
          > > >
          > > >Please tell us about the research or engineering projects have you
          > completed
          > > >for constructive, sustainable use of our resources (atomic, wood,
          > > >geothermal, wind, solar) ?
          > > >
          > > >In what ways do you think that you support or dampen our society.
          > >
          > > This string of questions seems to be attacking the
          > credibility of Diane,
          > > rather than addressing issues raised.
          > >
          > > Again, perhaps I'm reading this all wrong, but I was first
          > attracted to
          > > HREG by the cooperative, supportive atmosphere of the
          > group. I'd hate to
          > > see that degenerate, and I'd hate it even more if I had
          > been silent and
          > let
          > > it happen.
          > >
          > > Ryan
          > >
          > >
          > > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > > From: jclem412@... [SMTP:jclem412@...]
          > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:16 AM
          > > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          > > > > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
          > > > >
          > > > > Hi. this is Diane.
          > > > >
          > > > > A couple of months ago, Jonathan and I traveled to
          > downtown Seattle to
          > > > > testify at a DOE hearing on energy. Seattle was one of
          > (6, i think?)
          > a
          > > > > couple of cities chosen for these sites on public
          > hearings. There was
          > a
          > > > > court reporter typing our comments and it was formal,
          > although at 8
          > PM, a
          > > > > little thin. I guess they'd been busy all day,
          > however. My part of
          > the
          > > > > testimony dealt w/ nuclear energy and how there is no
          > safe way to
          > dispose
          > > > > of
          > > > > nuclear waste at this time. Safe disposal is an oxymoron with an
          > emphasis
          > > > > on
          > > > > moron. No amount of wishing can make it so and nature cannot be
          > changed.
          > > > >
          > > > > All we can do is make our views on energy known to
          > elected officials
          > so
          > > > > they
          > > > > know how we feel and what we think.
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • ChasMauch@aol.com
          I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered for years about a
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered for years about a nuclear power plant's exposure to terrorism. They don't need to smuggle in nuclear bombs -- we have obligingly scattered dozens of them all around the country. There are at least two in Texas that I know of -- South Texas and Comanche Peak. This always seemed like a remote and unlikely worry in the past but suddenly it seems much more real.

            How hard would it be for a terrorist to enter (or even strike from an airplane a la the WTC disaster) and create a really horrendous event? All they need to do is disable or destroy the cooling water pumps, let the reactor core overheat and melt down and -- instant Chernobyl. I don't know much about the detailed operation but most of it is readily available in the public literature and would be much easier to learn than flying an airliner.

            Charlie
          • Claude Foster
            Charlie, The nuclear cycle in the power plants that I worked in were designed to withstand a direct impact of a high speed bomb carrier (kamikaze) or
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Charlie,

              The nuclear cycle in the power plants that I worked in were designed to
              withstand a direct impact of a high speed bomb carrier (kamikaze) or
              commercial airliner without disrupting the system.

              Claude

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: ChasMauch@... [SMTP:ChasMauch@...]
              > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:32 AM
              > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
              >
              > I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always
              > heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered for
              > years about a nuclear power plant's exposure to terrorism. They don't need
              > to smuggle in nuclear bombs -- we have obligingly scattered dozens of them
              > all around the country. There are at least two in Texas that I know of --
              > South Texas and Comanche Peak. This always seemed like a remote and
              > unlikely worry in the past but suddenly it seems much more real.
              >
              > How hard would it be for a terrorist to enter (or even strike from an
              > airplane a la the WTC disaster) and create a really horrendous event? All
              > they need to do is disable or destroy the cooling water pumps, let the
              > reactor core overheat and melt down and -- instant Chernobyl. I don't know
              > much about the detailed operation but most of it is readily available in
              > the public literature and would be much easier to learn than flying an
              > airliner.
              >
              > Charlie
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              >
              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
              > 4177:HM/A=799560/R=2/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
              > +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
              > M/A=799560/R=3/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
              > .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
              > 4177:HM/A=799560/R=4/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
              > +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
              > M/A=799560/R=5/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
              > .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
              >
              >
              > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupm
              > ail/S=1705064177:HM/A=799560/rand=319989582>
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
            • ChasMauch@aol.com
              Claude, They might withstand an explosion but I assume that somewhere there is a switch that turns off the pumps. Most safety controls are capable of being
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Claude,

                They might withstand an explosion but I assume that somewhere there is a switch that turns off the pumps. Most safety controls are capable of being overridden. Are you saying that the plants are terrorist proof and that a knowledgeable person could not deliberately bring on a disaster? If so this is one of the few industrial operations that is 100% fail safe. I have worked in refineries and I guarantee I could cause a disaster there in a number of very simple ways. Hopefully the nukes are safer but somehow I doubt it.

                Charlie
              • Foster, Robert
                The WTC was also designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet (and indeed it did). However, just like the WTC, I think the potential for the ensuing fire
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  The WTC was also designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet (and
                  indeed it did). However, just like the WTC, I think the potential
                  for the ensuing fire in a nuclear power plant from thousands of
                  gallons of jet fuel could very likely disrupt the system and be
                  devastating. Likewise, there's always potential for a terrorist
                  attack from the inside as well that deliberately overrides safety
                  systems. There are no absolutes or ironclad guarantees.

                  Robert


                  >Charlie,
                  >
                  >The nuclear cycle in the power plants that I worked in were designed to
                  >withstand a direct impact of a high speed bomb carrier (kamikaze) or
                  >commercial airliner without disrupting the system.
                  >
                  >Claude
                  >
                  >> -----Original Message-----
                  >> From: ChasMauch@... [SMTP:ChasMauch@...]
                  >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:32 AM
                  >> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
                  >>
                  >> I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always
                  >> heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered for
                  >> years about a nuclear power plant's exposure to terrorism. They don't need
                  >> to smuggle in nuclear bombs -- we have obligingly scattered dozens of them
                  >> all around the country. There are at least two in Texas that I know of --
                  >> South Texas and Comanche Peak. This always seemed like a remote and
                  >> unlikely worry in the past but suddenly it seems much more real.
                  >>
                  >> How hard would it be for a terrorist to enter (or even strike from an
                  >> airplane a la the WTC disaster) and create a really horrendous event? All
                  >> they need to do is disable or destroy the cooling water pumps, let the
                  >> reactor core overheat and melt down and -- instant Chernobyl. I don't know
                  >> much about the detailed operation but most of it is readily available in
                  >> the public literature and would be much easier to learn than flying an
                  >> airliner.
                  >>
                  >> Charlie
                  >>
                  >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >> ADVERTISEMENT
                  >>
                  >> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                  >> 4177:HM/A=799560/R=2/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                  >> +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                  >> M/A=799560/R=3/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                  >> .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                  >> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                  >> 4177:HM/A=799560/R=4/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                  >> +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                  >> M/A=799560/R=5/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                  >> .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupm
                  >> ail/S=1705064177:HM/A=799560/rand=319989582>
                  >>
                  >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                  >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • Charles L. Seaman
                  Are you promoting a direct attack on our energy supply or you following someone else? I m not sure exactly what they question is. He seems to be asking if
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Are you promoting a direct attack on our energy supply or you following
                    someone else?
                    I'm not sure exactly what they question is. He seems to be asking if
                    Diane
                    Oh, by the way, what is the process that produces the heat and light of
                    the sun?

                    Nuclear fusion, something which does not produce radioactive byproduct and
                    something which we are so far unable to harness for constructive energy
                    production (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd love to be wrong on this
                    one). Fission, the process we use to produce electricity, is a different
                    process with the nasty long-lived radioactive byproducts many folks have
                    objections to.
                    How do you rely on or use sustainable design or renewable energy in your
                    lifestyle?
                    How did you qualify to give testimony as an expert on industrial
                    processes involving nuclear devices? I don't see a Ph.D., PE, CP, HSDO MANW,
                    etc. attached to your memo.
                    Please tell us about the research or engineering projects have you
                    completed for constructive, sustainable use of our resources (atomic, wood,
                    geothermal, wind, solar) ?
                    In what ways do you think that you support or dampen our society.



                    ----------
                    >From: Claude Foster <ccfoster@...>
                    >To: "'hreg@yahoogroups.com'" <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Subject: RE: [hreg] America Under Attack
                    >Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2001, 7:34 AM
                    >

                    > Charlie,
                    >
                    > The nuclear cycle in the power plants that I worked in were designed to
                    > withstand a direct impact of a high speed bomb carrier (kamikaze) or
                    > commercial airliner without disrupting the system.
                    >
                    > Claude
                    >
                    >> -----Original Message-----
                    >> From: ChasMauch@... [SMTP:ChasMauch@...]
                    >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:32 AM
                    >> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    >> Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
                    >>
                    >> I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always
                    >> heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered for
                    >> years about a nuclear power plant's exposure to terrorism. They don't need
                    >> to smuggle in nuclear bombs -- we have obligingly scattered dozens of them
                    >> all around the country. There are at least two in Texas that I know of --
                    >> South Texas and Comanche Peak. This always seemed like a remote and
                    >> unlikely worry in the past but suddenly it seems much more real.
                    >>
                    >> How hard would it be for a terrorist to enter (or even strike from an
                    >> airplane a la the WTC disaster) and create a really horrendous event? All
                    >> they need to do is disable or destroy the cooling water pumps, let the
                    >> reactor core overheat and melt down and -- instant Chernobyl. I don't know
                    >> much about the detailed operation but most of it is readily available in
                    >> the public literature and would be much easier to learn than flying an
                    >> airliner.
                    >>
                    >> Charlie
                    >>
                    >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >> ADVERTISEMENT
                    >>
                    >> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                    >> 4177:HM/A=799560/R=2/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                    >> +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                    >> M/A=799560/R=3/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                    >> .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                    >> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                    >> 4177:HM/A=799560/R=4/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                    >> +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                    >> M/A=799560/R=5/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                    >> .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupm
                    >> ail/S=1705064177:HM/A=799560/rand=319989582>
                    >>
                    >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                    >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                  • dans1
                    I think I would be more concerend about a grrop of terrorist s ruthlessly murdering the security personal and then taking over the plant and then causing it to
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 21, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I think I would be more concerend about a grrop of terrorist's ruthlessly
                      murdering the security personal and then taking over the plant and then
                      causing it to malfunction from the inside, than from an air attack. The
                      military is now aware of thier tactics and have all military jets now have
                      standing orders to shoot down any airliner that deviates from it's flight
                      plan. And I can tell you from personal knowledge that no airline flight
                      plan take it over a Nuclear plant.

                      So internal sabotage is a more likely possibility and as we have seen that
                      these people have no regard for human life, so they could easily just drive
                      up to the security guards and the blow them away without any thought to it.
                      Once they do that, then they could take over the plant anf do thier worst.
                      Remember these security guards are not trained to think that everyone that
                      comes up to the gates is a potential terrorist. I would feel much safer to
                      have Marines guarding them, as they would shoot first and then ask questions
                      later.

                      Maybe it's time to try to get one or several congressmen to sponser a bill
                      that mandates that all new home construction must use CF lighting and some
                      sort of grant would be provided for installing a solar (PV) system as it
                      house was being built.

                      Personally I would love to see all new city, state and federal government
                      building construction have a requirement that it must be operated via (PV)
                      systems. Talk about the amount of Fossil fuels that would be saved by not
                      having to generate electricty for all those buildings.

                      Just adding my 2 cents to the conversation.

                      Dan
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Foster, Robert" <rfoster@...>
                      To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 10:56 AM
                      Subject: RE: [hreg] America Under Attack


                      >
                      > The WTC was also designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet (and
                      > indeed it did). However, just like the WTC, I think the potential
                      > for the ensuing fire in a nuclear power plant from thousands of
                      > gallons of jet fuel could very likely disrupt the system and be
                      > devastating. Likewise, there's always potential for a terrorist
                      > attack from the inside as well that deliberately overrides safety
                      > systems. There are no absolutes or ironclad guarantees.
                      >
                      > Robert
                      >
                      >
                      > >Charlie,
                      > >
                      > >The nuclear cycle in the power plants that I worked in were designed to
                      > >withstand a direct impact of a high speed bomb carrier (kamikaze) or
                      > >commercial airliner without disrupting the system.
                      > >
                      > >Claude
                      > >
                      > >> -----Original Message-----
                      > >> From: ChasMauch@... [SMTP:ChasMauch@...]
                      > >> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 7:32 AM
                      > >> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      > >> Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
                      > >>
                      > >> I am basically anti-nuke for all the usual reasons, but we have always
                      > >> heard very little about the really scary aspect of it. I have wondered
                      for
                      > >> years about a nuclear power plant's exposure to terrorism. They don't
                      need
                      > >> to smuggle in nuclear bombs -- we have obligingly scattered dozens of
                      them
                      > >> all around the country. There are at least two in Texas that I know
                      of --
                      > >> South Texas and Comanche Peak. This always seemed like a remote and
                      > >> unlikely worry in the past but suddenly it seems much more real.
                      > >>
                      > >> How hard would it be for a terrorist to enter (or even strike from an
                      > >> airplane a la the WTC disaster) and create a really horrendous event?
                      All
                      > >> they need to do is disable or destroy the cooling water pumps, let the
                      > >> reactor core overheat and melt down and -- instant Chernobyl. I don't
                      know
                      > >> much about the detailed operation but most of it is readily available
                      in
                      > >> the public literature and would be much easier to learn than flying an
                      > >> airliner.
                      > >>
                      > >> Charlie
                      > >>
                      > >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > >> ADVERTISEMENT
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                      > >>
                      4177:HM/A=799560/R=2/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                      > >>
                      +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                      > >>
                      M/A=799560/R=3/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                      > >>
                      .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                      > >>
                      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=170506
                      > >>
                      4177:HM/A=799560/R=4/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3
                      > >>
                      +shopping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705064177:H
                      > >>
                      M/A=799560/R=5/1001075505+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock
                      > >>
                      .com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupm
                      > >> ail/S=1705064177:HM/A=799560/rand=319989582>
                      > >>
                      > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                      > >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • mike
                      FYI: I copied this from grist. ****************************************************** OF FUEL RODS AND LIGHTNING RODS Even before the terrorist attacks on the
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 25, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        FYI:
                        I copied this from grist.
                        ******************************************************
                        OF FUEL RODS AND LIGHTNING RODS
                        Even before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and
                        Pentagon, government inspectors had found security to be inadequate
                        at the U.S.'s 103 nuclear plants. From 1991 to 2000, nearly half of
                        the 68 plants tested showed "a potential vulnerability" to
                        terrorists. Now, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reversed
                        claims it made right after the attacks that the plants would be
                        capable of withstanding the impact of commercial airplane crashes.
                        Enviros are criticizing the NRC for continuing to back a
                        self-policing security program by plant operators, rather than
                        imposing a stricter security regime.

                        straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Deborah Schoch, 22 Sep 2001
                        <http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000075976sep22.
                        story?coll=la%2Dnews%Da%5Fs>

                        straight to the source: Chicago Tribune, Jeff Long, 23 Sep 2001
                        <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0109230042sep23.story>

                        ******************************************************


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Foster, Robert" <rfoster@...>
                        To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:06 PM
                        Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack


                        >
                        > Jonathan/Diane,
                        >
                        > One last thing, perhaps the greatest issue of all, is not being
                        > considered here. How do you protect a nuclear power plant from a
                        > terrorist attack like last week? Or worse. Even if it was possible
                        > to solve all of the nuclear waste and operational safety issues to
                        > everyone's delight, I don't think it will ever be possible to solve
                        > the danger of a nuclear power plant being hit by a terrorist attack
                        > and severe potential consequences. The WTC disaster pales in
                        > comparison with what could have happened if a nuclear power plant had
                        > been similarly hit. Imagine the STNP getting hit and how that could
                        > impact Texas for centuries to come.
                        >
                        > As an engineer myself, I also agree with Jonathan that one does not
                        > need to be an engineer to intelligently discuss these topics. Thank
                        > God we are all not engineers!! Diversity is great. So Diane, please
                        > don't be put off by Claude's holier than thou attitude and continue
                        > to let us hear your valued thoughts.
                        >
                        > Robert Foster (no relation to Claude)
                        >
                        >
                        > >This is Jonathan Clemens.
                        > >
                        > >I wish to thank Diane for keeping the spirit of RE alive. Despite her
                        lack
                        > >of an engineering background, she sure can talk, discuss, and grasp the
                        > >essential elements of science and technology and understand the deep
                        > >ecological and social aspects, as well. AND, keep her support of
                        technology
                        > >going. I am glad that she is not a technocrat (or one who would advocate
                        > >technology for technology's sake).
                        > >
                        > >I recall how my freshman college Sociology professor had said, first off,
                        how
                        > >sociology would be the most important class one would take. I sensed he
                        was
                        > >right then (over twenty years ago) and I know he was right, now. I have
                        a
                        > >bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics and a
                        masters
                        > >degree in Electrical Engineering. Enjoying physics over the years has
                        been
                        > >kind of nice. But an understanding that I have about the universe says
                        that
                        > >one should not have to destroy natural capital (ie, atoms) to subsist, to
                        > >live. The idea of splitting atoms is, quite frankly, absurd to me. The
                        > >concepts of sustainability say that we use the eternally regenerative
                        > >processes of the universe to survive. So, tapping into the natural
                        cycles on
                        > >our planet's surface makes the most sense to me.
                        > >
                        > >I am going to take the liberty of answering Claude's questions. I see
                        his
                        > >questions as fair, but perhaps out of place for this hreg site. The
                        > >questions were untimely, coming on the heels of asserting that Diane's
                        > >commentary was not suitable for hreg.
                        > >
                        > >I saw 9 questions.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 1) [Promoting an attack or following someone else?] Diane
                        > >understands the transition we must go through weening ourselves from
                        Non-RE.
                        > >She is not a member of some NO NUKES organization. In fact, we live
                        about
                        > >200 miles from the worst Superfund site in the US, the Hanford Nuclear
                        > >Reservation. What a timebomb!! I do not believe that technology should
                        have
                        > >to race ahead of the known decaying tankfuls of nuclear crap buried just
                        feet
                        > >below the surface.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 2) [Processes of the sun?] We all sort of know that the sun
                        does
                        > >not spew out materials harmful to life. The earth has a known protective
                        > >shield against solar particles and radiation. We all should seek to
                        protect
                        > >our naturally endowed protections, including the lower atmosphere and the
                        > >ozone layer. Nuclear activity in the sun is not the same as the nuclear
                        > >activity in power plants. If it was the same, then we would have to
                        build
                        > >the plants 93 million miles away. I would support that idea.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 3) [Know of plans to recycle nuclear byproducts?] I have heard
                        > >that we can bury the wastes, vitrify the wastes, do low level recycling.
                        > >Heard from the Viridians of how nuclear fall out has contaminated iron
                        and
                        > >steel production since World War 2. I know of activities by the DOE, in
                        the
                        > >form of contracts and such. It just does not seem right to keeping
                        running
                        > >on the treadmill of technology, and spending vast amounts of public money
                        to
                        > >do it.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 4) [Differences between nuclear waste, resources, and
                        > >transportation byproducts?] Mmm. Well, we know that byproducts of
                        nuclear
                        > >fuel and power plants were not there before the 20th century. That
                        > >transportation byproducts of say the 1890's consisted mainly of mountains
                        of
                        > >horse manure. Why? Because that was the chosen mode of transportation
                        then.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 5) [How do you rely on or use sustainable design?] We have a
                        house
                        > >less than 1000 square feet. Jonathan commutes with an electric bicycle,
                        > >which is solar energized. We use less, buy less. We talk to others.
                        Diane
                        > >is forming a Voluntary Simplicity circle locally. We are hooking up with
                        eco
                        > >builders in the area.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 6) [Qualify as an expert on industrial processes?] In June,
                        the
                        > >DOE was NOT seeking expert testimony. Diane only wanted to inform this
                        group
                        > >that we had made comments. I know enough about expert tesimony to know
                        to
                        > >look to the interests as stake. Our interest here is to stay alive and
                        stay
                        > >healthy. Such an interest says that we should all be experts.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 7) [Elaborate on the differences between byproducts of
                        destructive
                        > >nuclear devices and constructive nuclear devices?] Sure. There are
                        > >essentially none. Both types destroy natural capital (atoms) and imperil
                        > >life in the biosphere. Both rely on processing plants that ruin the
                        planet.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 8) [What research and engineering projects have you completed
                        for
                        > >constructive, sustainable use of resources?] Well, I can show you
                        pictures
                        > >of clear cut forest lands. Articles on Hanford. I can show you our
                        grocery
                        > >bills and how we shop at the local food co-op buying organic and locally
                        > >produced food as much as possible. I can show you our wood burning
                        stove,
                        > >which we will have to use when the electricity rates climb through the
                        roof.
                        > >I can show you the business plan for Olympic Energy Systems. Our
                        contacts
                        > >with the city about going to renewable energy. As for engineering
                        projects,
                        > >Diane is not an engineer. As for research, well, we all can do that. I
                        > >would not suggest using the common media sources like the NY Times, ABC,
                        NBC,
                        > >or CBS. Those sources do show some interesting engineering projects
                        (like
                        > >Three Mile Island), but fail to mention the growing damming of China, who
                        is
                        > >planning on tapping into huge hydroelectric plants (as the US is
                        discouraging
                        > >big hydro and razing dams) to power their growth in the 21st century.
                        > >
                        > >Answer to 9} [In what ways that you support or dampen our society?] Oh,
                        a
                        > >society question. The more appropriate question would be how the media
                        and
                        > >corporations have supported or dampened our society. Who ever said that
                        > >society should move about not in common mass transit systems, but noisy,
                        > >stinky, polluting, damaging automobiles? Who ever decided that huge
                        power
                        > >lines, towering in backyards, along streets, and in communities, should
                        be
                        > >the prevailing means of power distribution? And what about the power
                        plants?
                        > > Who ever said that visitors to the Lake Erie islands should have to
                        look to
                        > >the southwest and see the ugly cooling towers of the Davis Besse Nuclear
                        > >Power Plant? I can say this, it wasn't me!
                        > >
                        > >I noticed you have P.E. after your name. In what field of engineering
                        are
                        > >you trained and/or licensed? Might you share some of your background, it
                        > >could help us all. Thank you.
                        > >
                        > >Jonathan
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Claude Foster
                        What is the name of this site? What is the purpose of this forum? Administrator: please help us focus on development of renewable energy in the Houston area.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 25, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What is the name of this site? What is the purpose of this forum?

                          Administrator: please help us focus on development of renewable energy in
                          the Houston area.

                          It seems to me that tirades on preservation of whales, zebras, locusts, etc.
                          are some items of personal interest that should be addressed in another
                          forum. Anti nuclear bombast are also misdirected, imho, to this site.

                          This is not to mean that we do not agree on some subjects such as the
                          security and safety of our nation. This is just not the correct place to
                          discuss them.

                          Claude
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: mike [SMTP:mlandrus@...]
                          > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:40 AM
                          > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
                          >
                          > FYI:
                          > I copied this from grist.
                          > ******************************************************
                          > OF FUEL RODS AND LIGHTNING RODS
                          > Even before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and
                          > Pentagon, government inspectors had found security to be inadequate
                          > at the U.S.'s 103 nuclear plants. From 1991 to 2000, nearly half of
                          > the 68 plants tested showed "a potential vulnerability" to
                          > terrorists. Now, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reversed
                          > claims it made right after the attacks that the plants would be
                          > capable of withstanding the impact of commercial airplane crashes.
                          > Enviros are criticizing the NRC for continuing to back a
                          > self-policing security program by plant operators, rather than
                          > imposing a stricter security regime.
                          >
                          > straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Deborah Schoch, 22 Sep 2001
                          > <http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-000075976sep22.
                          > story?coll=la%2Dnews%Da%5Fs>
                          >
                          > straight to the source: Chicago Tribune, Jeff Long, 23 Sep 2001
                          > <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0109230042sep23.story>
                          >
                          > ******************************************************
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: "Foster, Robert" <rfoster@...>
                          > To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:06 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Jonathan/Diane,
                          > >
                          > > One last thing, perhaps the greatest issue of all, is not being
                          > > considered here. How do you protect a nuclear power plant from a
                          > > terrorist attack like last week? Or worse. Even if it was possible
                          > > to solve all of the nuclear waste and operational safety issues to
                          > > everyone's delight, I don't think it will ever be possible to solve
                          > > the danger of a nuclear power plant being hit by a terrorist attack
                          > > and severe potential consequences. The WTC disaster pales in
                          > > comparison with what could have happened if a nuclear power plant had
                          > > been similarly hit. Imagine the STNP getting hit and how that could
                          > > impact Texas for centuries to come.
                          > >
                          > > As an engineer myself, I also agree with Jonathan that one does not
                          > > need to be an engineer to intelligently discuss these topics. Thank
                          > > God we are all not engineers!! Diversity is great. So Diane, please
                          > > don't be put off by Claude's holier than thou attitude and continue
                          > > to let us hear your valued thoughts.
                          > >
                          > > Robert Foster (no relation to Claude)
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > >This is Jonathan Clemens.
                          > > >
                          > > >I wish to thank Diane for keeping the spirit of RE alive. Despite her
                          > lack
                          > > >of an engineering background, she sure can talk, discuss, and grasp the
                          > > >essential elements of science and technology and understand the deep
                          > > >ecological and social aspects, as well. AND, keep her support of
                          > technology
                          > > >going. I am glad that she is not a technocrat (or one who would
                          > advocate
                          > > >technology for technology's sake).
                          > > >
                          > > >I recall how my freshman college Sociology professor had said, first
                          > off,
                          > how
                          > > >sociology would be the most important class one would take. I sensed
                          > he
                          > was
                          > > >right then (over twenty years ago) and I know he was right, now. I
                          > have
                          > a
                          > > >bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics and a
                          > masters
                          > > >degree in Electrical Engineering. Enjoying physics over the years has
                          > been
                          > > >kind of nice. But an understanding that I have about the universe says
                          > that
                          > > >one should not have to destroy natural capital (ie, atoms) to subsist,
                          > to
                          > > >live. The idea of splitting atoms is, quite frankly, absurd to me.
                          > The
                          > > >concepts of sustainability say that we use the eternally regenerative
                          > > >processes of the universe to survive. So, tapping into the natural
                          > cycles on
                          > > >our planet's surface makes the most sense to me.
                          > > >
                          > > >I am going to take the liberty of answering Claude's questions. I see
                          > his
                          > > >questions as fair, but perhaps out of place for this hreg site. The
                          > > >questions were untimely, coming on the heels of asserting that Diane's
                          > > >commentary was not suitable for hreg.
                          > > >
                          > > >I saw 9 questions.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 1) [Promoting an attack or following someone else?] Diane
                          > > >understands the transition we must go through weening ourselves from
                          > Non-RE.
                          > > >She is not a member of some NO NUKES organization. In fact, we live
                          > about
                          > > >200 miles from the worst Superfund site in the US, the Hanford Nuclear
                          > > >Reservation. What a timebomb!! I do not believe that technology
                          > should
                          > have
                          > > >to race ahead of the known decaying tankfuls of nuclear crap buried
                          > just
                          > feet
                          > > >below the surface.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 2) [Processes of the sun?] We all sort of know that the sun
                          > does
                          > > >not spew out materials harmful to life. The earth has a known
                          > protective
                          > > >shield against solar particles and radiation. We all should seek to
                          > protect
                          > > >our naturally endowed protections, including the lower atmosphere and
                          > the
                          > > >ozone layer. Nuclear activity in the sun is not the same as the
                          > nuclear
                          > > >activity in power plants. If it was the same, then we would have to
                          > build
                          > > >the plants 93 million miles away. I would support that idea.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 3) [Know of plans to recycle nuclear byproducts?] I have
                          > heard
                          > > >that we can bury the wastes, vitrify the wastes, do low level
                          > recycling.
                          > > >Heard from the Viridians of how nuclear fall out has contaminated iron
                          > and
                          > > >steel production since World War 2. I know of activities by the DOE,
                          > in
                          > the
                          > > >form of contracts and such. It just does not seem right to keeping
                          > running
                          > > >on the treadmill of technology, and spending vast amounts of public
                          > money
                          > to
                          > > >do it.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 4) [Differences between nuclear waste, resources, and
                          > > >transportation byproducts?] Mmm. Well, we know that byproducts of
                          > nuclear
                          > > >fuel and power plants were not there before the 20th century. That
                          > > >transportation byproducts of say the 1890's consisted mainly of
                          > mountains
                          > of
                          > > >horse manure. Why? Because that was the chosen mode of transportation
                          > then.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 5) [How do you rely on or use sustainable design?] We have a
                          > house
                          > > >less than 1000 square feet. Jonathan commutes with an electric
                          > bicycle,
                          > > >which is solar energized. We use less, buy less. We talk to others.
                          > Diane
                          > > >is forming a Voluntary Simplicity circle locally. We are hooking up
                          > with
                          > eco
                          > > >builders in the area.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 6) [Qualify as an expert on industrial processes?] In June,
                          > the
                          > > >DOE was NOT seeking expert testimony. Diane only wanted to inform this
                          > group
                          > > >that we had made comments. I know enough about expert tesimony to know
                          > to
                          > > >look to the interests as stake. Our interest here is to stay alive and
                          > stay
                          > > >healthy. Such an interest says that we should all be experts.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 7) [Elaborate on the differences between byproducts of
                          > destructive
                          > > >nuclear devices and constructive nuclear devices?] Sure. There are
                          > > >essentially none. Both types destroy natural capital (atoms) and
                          > imperil
                          > > >life in the biosphere. Both rely on processing plants that ruin the
                          > planet.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 8) [What research and engineering projects have you completed
                          > for
                          > > >constructive, sustainable use of resources?] Well, I can show you
                          > pictures
                          > > >of clear cut forest lands. Articles on Hanford. I can show you our
                          > grocery
                          > > >bills and how we shop at the local food co-op buying organic and
                          > locally
                          > > >produced food as much as possible. I can show you our wood burning
                          > stove,
                          > > >which we will have to use when the electricity rates climb through the
                          > roof.
                          > > >I can show you the business plan for Olympic Energy Systems. Our
                          > contacts
                          > > >with the city about going to renewable energy. As for engineering
                          > projects,
                          > > >Diane is not an engineer. As for research, well, we all can do that.
                          > I
                          > > >would not suggest using the common media sources like the NY Times,
                          > ABC,
                          > NBC,
                          > > >or CBS. Those sources do show some interesting engineering projects
                          > (like
                          > > >Three Mile Island), but fail to mention the growing damming of China,
                          > who
                          > is
                          > > >planning on tapping into huge hydroelectric plants (as the US is
                          > discouraging
                          > > >big hydro and razing dams) to power their growth in the 21st century.
                          > > >
                          > > >Answer to 9} [In what ways that you support or dampen our society?]
                          > Oh,
                          > a
                          > > >society question. The more appropriate question would be how the media
                          > and
                          > > >corporations have supported or dampened our society. Who ever said
                          > that
                          > > >society should move about not in common mass transit systems, but
                          > noisy,
                          > > >stinky, polluting, damaging automobiles? Who ever decided that huge
                          > power
                          > > >lines, towering in backyards, along streets, and in communities, should
                          > be
                          > > >the prevailing means of power distribution? And what about the power
                          > plants?
                          > > > Who ever said that visitors to the Lake Erie islands should have to
                          > look to
                          > > >the southwest and see the ugly cooling towers of the Davis Besse
                          > Nuclear
                          > > >Power Plant? I can say this, it wasn't me!
                          > > >
                          > > >I noticed you have P.E. after your name. In what field of engineering
                          > are
                          > > >you trained and/or licensed? Might you share some of your background,
                          > it
                          > > >could help us all. Thank you.
                          > > >
                          > > >Jonathan
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                        • jclem412@aol.com
                          Message 12 of 27 , Sep 26, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                          • jclem412@aol.com
                            In response to Claude s fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about renewable energy
                            Message 13 of 27 , Sep 26, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In response to Claude's fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding
                              objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about renewable
                              energy is absolutely proper in discussing the costs of existing forms of
                              energy production. And the direct and indirect costs of nuclear energy,
                              including from waste products or terrorists attacks, fall under the scrutiny
                              of this group.

                              Subsidies of conventional energy sources have been a formidable barrier to
                              incorporation of RE and alternative energy technologies. If we can not talk
                              about the unfair practices (of
                              lobbied-for-special-interest-gained-tax-breaks-and-direct-government-spending-

                              on-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-energy), then we have, in effect, sold out to the
                              conservative right wing corporate types who already (literally) own the media
                              - TV, newspapers, and magazines. Please note how the Bush/Cheney Energy Plan
                              supports advancing nuclear energy storage capability. Mmmm, that means
                              subsidization, and that means RE is treated unfairly.

                              I can not help but think that so many tragic and pitiful events are allowed
                              to occur in this world because not enough voices are heard from the
                              tax-paying-and-ruled-to-death citizens. There will be NO restriction to what
                              is discussed on this list, as long as discussion is not vulgar, personally
                              attacking, or intended merely to inflame.

                              Jonathan

                              (NOTE, the last transmission was inadvertently sent without my comments. We
                              have had problems with the use of the mouse and the Reply button in our
                              e-mail.)
                            • William M. Bell, Jr.
                              Jonathan: It is comments like yours that alienate many who support solar, wind and renewable energy, but who are conservative politically and morally. By doing
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 27, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jonathan:

                                It is comments like yours that alienate many who support solar, wind and
                                renewable energy, but who are conservative politically and morally. By doing
                                so, you are limiting the base of support for renewables to only those
                                persons who support renewables for the same reason that you do. Your
                                reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
                                (literally) own the media - TV, newspapers, and magazines." is out of line.
                                I believe that it is also naive to believe that conservatives do not love
                                the environment and that they control the media.

                                As I have said before, I will say again: Keep your political jabs to
                                yourself. Keep this discussion group on the issues.

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: <jclem412@...>
                                To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:19 AM
                                Subject: Re: [hreg] America Under Attack


                                >
                                > In response to Claude's fostering of his interest in Nuclear by excluding
                                > objections from the HREG list, I say that a discussion group about
                                renewable
                                > energy is absolutely proper in discussing the costs of existing forms of
                                > energy production. And the direct and indirect costs of nuclear energy,
                                > including from waste products or terrorists attacks, fall under the
                                scrutiny
                                > of this group.
                                >
                                > Subsidies of conventional energy sources have been a formidable barrier to
                                > incorporation of RE and alternative energy technologies. If we can not
                                talk
                                > about the unfair practices (of
                                >
                                lobbied-for-special-interest-gained-tax-breaks-and-direct-government-spendin
                                g-
                                >
                                > on-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-energy), then we have, in effect, sold out to
                                the
                                > conservative right wing corporate types who already (literally) own the
                                media
                                > - TV, newspapers, and magazines. Please note how the Bush/Cheney Energy
                                Plan
                                > supports advancing nuclear energy storage capability. Mmmm, that means
                                > subsidization, and that means RE is treated unfairly.
                                >
                                > I can not help but think that so many tragic and pitiful events are
                                allowed
                                > to occur in this world because not enough voices are heard from the
                                > tax-paying-and-ruled-to-death citizens. There will be NO restriction to
                                what
                                > is discussed on this list, as long as discussion is not vulgar, personally
                                > attacking, or intended merely to inflame.
                                >
                                > Jonathan
                                >
                                > (NOTE, the last transmission was inadvertently sent without my comments.
                                We
                                > have had problems with the use of the mouse and the Reply button in our
                                > e-mail.)
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >
                              • jclem412@aol.com
                                Mr. Bell, I am puzzled as to why anyone would be alienated (as you say) by my comments. My commentary is in response to someone (Mr. Foster) wishing to
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 30, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mr. Bell,

                                  I am puzzled as to why anyone would be alienated (as you say) by my comments.
                                  My commentary is in response to someone (Mr. Foster) wishing to unilaterally
                                  restrict commentary on this HREG list. I have insisted that no such
                                  objections and limitations should apply to this list.

                                  You have presumed quite a bit in your latest comments. You have
                                  re-interpretted and ascribed my commentary as "political jabs". Do you
                                  really think that my comments were political jabs?

                                  My reference to "conservative right wing corporate types who already
                                  (literally) own the media" was part of a conditional if-then clause. If you
                                  prefer to take such a comment out of context (a context relating to unfair
                                  restrictions on the list), too bad, for it would be you who might be
                                  alienating the conservatives on this list.

                                  You presume that I am attacking ("jab"ing) conservatives (who also love the
                                  environment). I have been on this list for over two years and have never
                                  been accused of mistreating or dishonoring those with conservative
                                  viewpoints. There are conservatives who own media publications and there are
                                  those who do not. Correct me if I am wrong - Westinghouse, General Electric,
                                  and Disney own the three major TV networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC. Murdoch owns
                                  Fox TV. Time Warner owns CNN. These owners are corporations. Their sole
                                  purpose is to make profits for the shareholders. They all do a lot of
                                  advertising for other corporations. I personally believe that large
                                  corporations are typically conservative, since liberal or opposing
                                  philosophies usually mean cuts into their profits. I also know Westinghouse
                                  and GE have long time vested interests in the nuclear and electricity
                                  generating business.

                                  A fair question might be - have these corporations controlled or filtered, or
                                  attempted to control or filter the content of their programs on the networks?
                                  Mmm. I would wonder why Public TV exists, if not for the concern that the
                                  public may not be afforded their just due (programs covering the interests of
                                  the public realm) by Private TV. The fact is, these corporations CAN, by
                                  virtue of their board or directors and self-appointed management, dictate any
                                  viewpoints they want. I would not wish to get into all that on this list.
                                  Suffice it to say, we have guidelines and common decency for all to follow
                                  here, but do not have overriding power to bias the conversations in favor of
                                  one viewpoint over another.

                                  Thank you for expressing your opinions. I have faith that your intentions
                                  are good and that you have a certain understanding of what I said or what I
                                  meant to say. I only ask (of everyone on the list) that everyone be allowed
                                  to clarify their positions, as I have done here, if viewpoints seen
                                  contentious or improper.

                                  Jonathan Clemens
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.