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

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

Expand Messages
  • Andy
    In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats being hit by wind turbine blades.
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
      being hit by wind turbine blades.

      http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
      3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

      And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
      enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
      San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.

      http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
      628270c2.html

      Andy

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
      Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

      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
      >
      http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >






      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Andy
      Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn t like them that long. You will need to copy both lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and drag and
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long. You
        will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
        drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.

        Andy

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
        Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

        In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
        being hit by wind turbine blades.

        http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
        3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006

        And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
        enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
        San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.

        http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
        628270c2.html

        Andy

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
        Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

        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
        >
        http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >






        Yahoo! Groups Links








        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • C.C. Foster
        If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species. Birds
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
          birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
          Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

          <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
          Foster</FONT></div></html>




          >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
          >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
          >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
          >
          >Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long.
          >You
          >will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
          >drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.
          >
          >Andy
          >
          >-----Original Message-----
          >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
          >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
          >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
          >
          >In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
          >being hit by wind turbine blades.
          >
          >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
          >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
          >
          >And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
          >enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
          >San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.
          >
          >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
          >628270c2.html
          >
          >Andy
          >
          >-----Original Message-----
          >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
          >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
          >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
          >
          >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
          > >
          >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
          > > 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
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
          http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
        • Richard D. Kelley
          Only the dumb birds will die. ... From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM To: hreg@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE:
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Only the dumb birds will die.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: C.C. Foster [SMTP:c_c_foster@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:43 AM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming

            If allegators can adapt from prehistoric times to the space age, bats and
            birds should be able to adapt to windmills withour loosing too many species.
            Birds and bats flying into windmills seems to be an imaganary issue.

            <html><div><FONT face="Lucida Handwriting, Cursive">Claude
            Foster</FONT></div></html>




            >From: "Andy" <andy@...>
            >Reply-To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            >To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
            >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:38:56 -0600
            >
            >Opps, sorry about the links. Apparently it didn't like them that long.
            >You
            >will need to copy "both" lines on each link by pressing the Ctrl key and
            >drag and copy the link and then paste it into your browser.
            >
            >Andy
            >
            >-----Original Message-----
            >From: Andy [mailto:andy@...]
            >Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:34 AM
            >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: RE: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
            >
            >In the Feb. issue of Scientific American they had an article about bats
            >being hit by wind turbine blades.
            >
            >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?SID=mail&articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE8
            >3414B7F0000&chanID=sa006
            >
            >And then if that struggle to get alternative energy sources on line isn't
            >enough, you also have to fight city hall. I found this next story in the
            >San Antonio Express and News this weekend while visiting my parents.
            >
            >http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/stories/MYSA14.05B.solar_stymie_0314.
            >628270c2.html
            >
            >Andy
            >
            >-----Original Message-----
            >From: Jim & Janet [mailto:jhd1@...]
            >Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 3:07 PM
            >To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [hreg] Re: Fwd: [notinourname] FW: [tnet] Bad Times Coming
            >
            >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
            > >
            >http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/broadcasting_broadcast_meets_bufflehead/
            > > 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
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            _________________________________________________________________
            FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now!
            http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/




            Yahoo! Groups Links
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.