White Nuclear Snowflake is a privately conceived, totally unfunded volunteer effort undertaken to inform the public about certain issues in a deeper and more revealing way, exposing truths beyond the ordinary journalistic level. White Nuclear Snowflake has no corporate , governmental, or organizational affiliations whatsoever. White Nuclear Snowflake has never once been guided, influenced, steered, or remunerated in any way by anyone, except its own authors. White Nuclear Snowflake is 100% independent, a public service done in a spirit of freedom, truth, and common understanding. The individual words of the name have particular implications, and were chosen creatively , because of those implications. White means pure, 100% unsullied. Nuclear means graced with the unlimited power of the earth itself, and Snowflake means arising spontaneously, out of the surround, a crystal embodiment of reality....... White Nuclear Snowflake.
Our deepest hope, is to live up to all three of the themes, in each post written.
Our suspicion, is that the human race has only just begun to awaken.
Our mission, is to bring it a cup of coffee, once it wakes up, and decide where to go from here.
All sojourners are cordially invited along for the ride.
THE FUTURE WILL NOT BE ANNOUNCED
Socially, there will never be a perfected system. Therefore, any argument from a social ideal is an argument based on delusion.
The empirical, the factual, tell us that multiple modalities interact moment to moment, and their intent is as unknowable as the inner content of all humans, taken as a single data instance. It is orders of magnitude too large to compute. It cannot be summed up, shortened, or simplified, unless absolute freedom and absolute human rights are to be quashed. Therefore the greater good is to always have an imperfect, mixed system. In such a system family, tribe, ethnos, religion, philosophy, commerce and raw passion must all have a place, for it is to be a best fit for the human animal, who resonates to all these modes. As far as science, there can never be a social science, for the reasons exposed above. All social science is tyrrany.
All knowing implications that assign value to certain acts, certain interactions, and proscription to other acts, other interactions are pleadings to mold the innately paramount human spirit into an innately inferior single modality. This is cultural imprisonment, with a pseudo-science delusive theory as its nightstick.
Therefore the very stance of the left, that there is a form to human interaction, and that the form can be studied, improved, or perfected, is a defacto wish to truncate the human spirit, foisted as a projected curse outward on to the vibrant chaotic amalgam which is all human life. It is a cult of false knowingness. It is a church without a god. It is a studious delusion, and a neurotic avoidance of the basic human duty---full engagement with all humans, equally.
Were progress to be possible, it could not be planned. It must of needs be struggled for. The new model will emerge only from the full engagement of all, energized even through conspiracies, criminalities, fixes, arrangements, and all the multitude of steering techniques outside the dry planner's board room. The one proscription which is valid, stems not from social science, but from deep inner human craving-- there must be no hate. But in the imperfect, hate will exist, so we may say-- let many work to the elimination of hate at all times. Other than this, all must be tolerated. All must be glorified. Spirit in Man is Godhood emerging. For Godhood to manifest, the full complement of living humanity must be in the mix. Therefore, no classes, no aristocracy, no intelligentsia, no hubris-of-the-word, no ethnic cleansing, no mass eliminations, no great wars, no barriers, no boundaries, no limit on the meeting, spirit to spirit, human to human, all to all.
The man has not been born , who could understand this, and engineer its coming. But every mind alive can make it come.
If a step forward can be made, it will be accidental, or seem so. It will be over before it is known about. Omega will not be announced.
It's a funny thing about physics. There is basically one, single, unitary physics, that has been true from the first picosecond of existence, and will remain true until the end of time. Therefore, there is no such thing as "nineteenth century physics", or "twentieth century physics". What was true in 1837, is still true today, 100% unchanged.
Which brings up a further realization. Any knowlege unearthed by Bohr, Fermi, Einstein and others in the 1930's, was as true in the time of the pharaos as it will be in the year 9595. We just remained ignorant until WWII. It existed just the same, all along. Also, the process of U235 fission,the so-called nuclear process, is the process which heats the earth's core, and has continually heated the earth's core for 4.5 billion years. So we see that nuclear science is not "twentieth century science". It is the way nature itself is arranged, forever. There is no possibility of an alternative system. Physics is not swayed by politics. Whether it is the Iranians doing nuclear engineering, or the North Koreans, or the Chinese, or the South Africans, or the Israelis, or the Pakistani's, or the Indians, or the Brazilians, or the Russians, or the French, or even the Americans, the discovery of nature's eternal truths is not an evil plot hatched by Dr. Strangelove to provide Helen Caldicott with a lecture career, it is the inevitable compilation of knowlege upon former knowlege that has made man unique among the animals, the first animal destined, it would seem, to eventually penetrate every hidden secret the universe has embedded within it, for some grand racial or planetary destiny as yet unknown. ( For more on that note, read the works of Teilhard de Chardin, or the Koran.)
I myself truly hate fire.
I loath its destructive properties. I shudder at the thought of the WWII Tokyo firebombings, and the Hamburg & Dresden firestorms, literal maelstroms which killed far, far more than all the atomic explosions that have ever happened. I hate the witchburnings of Massachusetts, and the middle ages, I hate the christmas tree fires related to be by my fire-chief father, telling of entire families wiped out in a few minutes. I hate the branding of slaves by the Romans, I hate Nero's burning of Rome, I hate the crude witless fire religions of Baal and the wicker-man druids. I hate the fire that claims the lives of thousands of poor people each year in kerosene heater mishaps, eradicating entire families in horrific scenes of pain and loss. I hate the intentional east Indian kitchen fires, which horribly take the lives of lower caste brides once their dowrys have been paid. I hate the huge industrial fires which now choke our atmosphere, and kill 1,000,000 people per year, mainly the very young and the very old. I hate the cleverly constrained fire knowlegeably packed into each bullet, each artillery shell, each improvised explosive device, and maliciously packed within each rocket propelled grenade shot at our young people in harm's way, maiming, killing, reducing their humanity to cooked, torn, useless meat.
But fire, a natural reaction of heat, air, and fuel, does not care that I hate it.
As historical evidence will show us, fire has been here without man, before man, and not requiring man, to burn entire continents in repeat forest fires, and prairie fires whose imprint remains today in carbon layers unearthed by archaeologists.
So mankind, it seems, as mankind now exists, cannot be imagined in the absence of fire. Without cookfires and hearthfires, how can man inhabit anything but the fruit-laden tropics? Man without fire cannot live in Canada, Germany, Poland, Russia, Manchuria, Japan, most of North America, all of Scandinavia, and vast stretches of lower south America. Man cannot exist above 1000 feet elevation, without fire at his side, and so is further constrained to just the bottomland.
Since I loathe the destruction attached to fire,.... must I now condemn humanity to retreat from Europe and Asia, back into the tropical bottomland of Africa's rift valley, to cringe in fear without metal, without adequate tools or weaponry? Should I orchestrate a vast removal of all things human from the Americas, from all the mountain areas, a vast voyage of revulsion back to the paleolithic haunts of our distant forebears? Would all fire's evil be left behind by this tactic?
Could all future witch burnings, slave brandings, and bride burnings be prevented by making this move? Could all the evil done by steel weapons, swords, guns, hatchets, maces, lances & daggers be forever prevented because without fire, we have no means to smelt the evil equipment of death?
And without steel, and bronze, and fire, will the "New Humanity" become a sainted race, living in harmony by nurturing Christian Science principles and eating a vegan diet, somehow overcoming our defenselessness by close cooperation, perhaps selecting a few victims to throw to the hyenas , appeasing them each time they appear , rather than using the old, crude, failed and disproven masculine method, of fashioning weapons, and thus eating hyena, rather than the other way around?
And what about "The Next Fire"?
What about the next physical truth discovered that unleashes great energies into man's use? With 98% of all the academic study ever done in all of history being done today, and 98% of all scientists who ever lived being alive right now, and 98% of all high energy-producing equipment ever fashioned being built even as we speak, there is a very high likelihood that a new craft, a "Power-Beyond-Nuclear" is glimmering right now in the first data taken by CERN's new Atlas device, just constructed high in the frigid uplands at the French-Swiss border.
Should we "Take the Moral Course" , and immediately shut Atlas down , before something so problematical comes leaping out of its data streams, that all the innate competitiveness in the human race finds even more powerful ways to kill hyenas, and lower caste dowry brides? How many child care centers can be built within its 20 mile circular annulus? How many homeless shelters? How many refugee intake compounds, instead of a single megalomaniacal atom smasher, doomed to start a new round of proliferation, and a hateful arms race?
But thinking a bit more calmly, the question arises---- Yes, once we have shut Atlas down, and built all the nurture centers in its shell..... How do we heat the place? How do we feed the refugees? How do we transport them there? How do we enforce order, and prevent cliques turning into gangs? How do we weed out the malicious "Jihad Refugees" taking advantage just to kill kaffirs when the opportunity arises? How do we power simple waste removal? What about bears?
For that, we are going to need fire.(and thus all that comes with it).
So despite my noble hopes, and my millennial aspirations, ..... it seems we are doomed.
Doomed to a hostile world, where fire makes steel, which kills. Doomed to a world where men defend themselves, and think, and experiment, trying to approach heaven via knowlege, seeking always "The Next Fire".
And if we reject that fate, and seek to return to being hyena-bait, as of old... those proposing the move should remember full well, that giving up all fire's bad attachments means giving up all of fire's good attachments along with it, and choosing a child or old person each day, to throw to the hyenas, who were here before us, and who rightly view us , in full environmental justice, only as food.
If you are skilled in handling analogy as a learning tool, it might have occurred to you by now that each thing I write here about the phenomenon of fire, is also applicable to the equally neutral physical phenomenon of U235 fission.
Have a nice day.
Considering John Hall's Hydro Plan
Because I'm priced and taxed out of the Hudson Valley in considering housing for my retirement years, I've developed an affinity for Windows Live Local, which has a wonderful "Bird's Eye View" feature, letting you view major portions of the USA, from about 1000 feet up. It beats Terraserver's satellite views, and Google Earth's false perspective views, by letting you actually see that chicken farm right down the road from your Arkansas dream house, or that huge car body dump just behind that bargain priced Vermont farmhouse. I've noticed a lot of active sand & gravel quarries throughout western Massachusetts, in fairly close proximity to new upscale development, and it started me thinking about Saint Lawrence Cement, Scenic Hudson, and low-head hydropower.
I have duly sent in my contributions to Scenic Hudson every year for decades, and a "Stop the Plant" sign graced my front lawn until the rain turned it to paste on a stick. I considered an open-pit cement mine with a 500 foot stack to be an unneeded monstrosity on the Hudson, seeing as it would have only brought about 60 jobs to the region.
But low head hydropower, on a scale to meet the expected 5000 new megawatt demand, (or the shortfall from closing IPEC), would require concrete production on a scale to match the construction of the New York State Thruway 50 years ago, (the event that originally brought the St Lawrence cement plant to the area). The clearing of all the damsites, the terraforming, the actual construction, and the re-gridding of the area with hundreds of new transformer step-up stations, towers, high tension poles, and, ultimately, the new widely-dispersed electric power maintenance operation, one that will have the effect of taking the now-invisible prime mover generation assets sequestered in Indian Point, Bowline, & other brownfield campuses, and scattering them willy nilly in everybody's backyard, all this could very easily transform the region negatively, in ways not yet envisioned by those dreaming only of a forest paradise, and not realizing that a forest paradise generates no electricity.
For one thing, a multiplicity of generating stations, is a multiplicity of terrorist targets, or even just vandalism targets, and is also a multiplicity of workers' trucks, paved parking lots, trash collection, maintenance spills, stacking yards, restricted razor wired compounds, dangerous high voltage high energy-containing structures by their hundreds, or even thousands, of necessity respecting no neighborhood, no mountainside, no trout stream, and bringing opportunistic eminent domain landgrabs by the hundreds for sure, industrializing the very woods we love so much, because that's where the water flows.
So my pristine hike, with my springer spaniel Murphy, just might find us waving to those hydro guys in their truck, (as they toss their coffee cups by the road), smelling the waft from the maintanance crew's Port-O-San, just as we are blocked by that razor wire and its armed guard, right near that pile of pipes, under that transmission tower that didn't used to be there, before New York's 2800 new low head hydro generating stations were built.
Moreover the concrete for the dams has to come from somewhere. So if we blocked St Lawrence Cement at Greenport, and patted ourselves on the back for it, immediately prior to requiring twice the amount of cement the place would have produced, thus dooming some folks in Massachusetts to bear the dust, the smoke, the trucks, and the scarring above and beyond their existing ugly gravel quarries, wouldn't we then qualify in spades for the "Al-Gore-Two-Faces-NIMBY-Trickle-Down-Award-of-the-year", for screwing everybody in Pittsfield, to make Beacon's concrete for them?
I don't know. I can't say for sure. But it does give me pause.
In shaping a picture of the NRC for Congress, the General Accounting Office, in its 1997 report: GAO/RCED-97-145, May 30, 1997, stated: Determining the safety of plants is difficult because NRC does not precisely define it. Instead, NRC presumes that nuclear plants are safe if they operate within their approved designs (design basis) and meet NRC's regulations. However, NRC's regulations and other guidance do not provide either the licensees or the public with the specific definitions and conditions that define the safety of a plant. As a result, NRC does not have an effective way to quantify the safety of plants that deviate from their approved designs or violate regulations. Determining a plant's safety condition is, therefore, a subjective judgment.
The GAO's 1997 statement about NRC and the definition of safety is off the mark, because it ignores the very basis of safety in the nuclear industry.
Rather than embody safety in the agency, or in a single static model imposed upon 103 plants, the licensing system has imposed a vast creative task individually on each licensee, prior to the granting of each license. The task involves the writing of a detailed Safety Analysis Report. The definition of safety, for that plant, is embodied in the Safety Analysis Report, a huge document running to ten or more volumes, with internal references to thousands of calculations stored elsewhere, and hundreds (if not thousands) of detailed design drawings, also stored elsewhere.It is known as the SAR, or (final) FSAR. So, defacto, the engineering designers who wrote the FSARs and the technical specifications have also written the safety standards, 103 differing safety standards for 103 plants. Each standard is extremely concrete, there is no vagueness. However each standard is huge, and there are 103 separate versions.
This kind of a document cannot be inspected casually, or cursorily by GAO, nor can operator compliance with it be casually determined by observing the NRC. To wrongly imply that NRC methods were lax, or "subjective" is a misleading and self serving statement, designed to lift the onus of comprehending the FSAR system, off the shoulders of the GAO team, and deposit GAO's unreadiness to prepare its inspectors onto NRC's doorstep, as a vague accusation of "subjectivity". With 103 versions of law, residing in 103 FSARs at 103 Nuclear plants, the amount and difficulty of material is just too great for GAO to assess, much less sum up. GAO failed to adequately comprehend this system, and wrongly reported it to Congress as an NRC shortfall. It is in point of fact, the defacto status of present regulatory law. As law, as a sitting legal structure, it ought not be mischaracterized as an administrative shortfall.
Perhaps if it understood its intended mission more completely, GAO might have proposed a new legal structure, complete with a general unified FSAR, but of course, it lacked the technical competency to even determine the nature of what it was assessing, and so could not have successfully replaced it with a more comprehensive upgrade. As it is, GAO has shuffled its feet unknowingly, at the periphery, accusing NRC of not safeguarding the public, when in fact it was GAO failing its mission, the mission to understand just where the concrete jot and tittle of nuclear safety was embodied--- in the FSARs and the tech specs, and not within NRC. This kind of a safety standard demands the dedication of a qualified set of resident inspectors, tasked with climbing the extremely steep learning curve in each FSAR, as a preparation for understanding how each individual plant is fulfilling its specific commitments to each FSAR. Once the subject matter is mastered, then the individual inspector, be he an NRC resident inspector, or a GAO inspector, can be ready to realistically compare plant performance parameters to the mammonth compendium of promised performance parameters, that is the FASR and The Technical Specifications. With such knowlege in hand, the judgement is not subjective. It is extremely objective. Meet tech specs=pass. Not meet tech specs= fail.
This is the American system. If it is monumentally complex, and thus not amenable to easy GAO mastery, that fact just makes any casual GAO suggestions made after a cursory look-see a lot less than enlightening. Therefore must Congress remain in the dark, and simply trust NRC? Perhaps, but better that they understand their own inpectors' blind spots. Therefore allow me to analyze the GAO assertion,line by line, in the light of what I've revealed above.
Determining the safety of plants is difficult because NRC does not precisely define it.
This is not true. Determining plant safety is difficult, because it is precisely defined 103 separate ways in 103 FSARs, and because each FSAR , with its accompanying references may take a year or more for a talented individual to comprehend.
NRC presumes that nuclear plants are safe if they operate within their approved designs and meet NRC's regulations.
This is true, but is not a shortfall. The vast system of redundant safeguards embodied in each FSAR provides large margins of safety, and its initial approval came only after detailed critical evaluation to the best scientific/engineering standards. Such trust is not ill-founded trust.
However, NRC's regulations and other guidance do not provide either the licensees or the public with the specific definitions and conditions that define the safety of a plant.
This is not true. The Technical specifications provide an absolutely precise and objective standard to the licensees, and to NRC. Perhaps GAO is suggesting a tech spec primer series be prepared for public consumption along the lines of "A nuclear plant is safe, when its tech specs are met", with explanations. I doubt if the public would be interested. GAO, on a mission to find the tech specs, missed them entirely, and now it reports that NRC has none. Would the public do any better?
As a result, NRC does not have an effective way to quantify the safety of plants that deviate from their approved designs or violate regulations.
This might have been germaine in 1997. In 2007 it is not true. The Reactor Oversight Process is now in place, giving objective banded scoring to each plant, in all major areas. Note that this statement is not about safety per se, but rather it is about the reporting of safety conditions to the general public.
Determining a plant's safety condition is, therefore, a subjective judgment.
This was not true in 1997, and it is most certainly nonsense in 2007.
In missing the absolute inflexibility of the tech specs, and by looking in the wrong place for the exactitude (looking within NRC, rather than in the license), GAO overlooked the very concrete methodology for maintaining plant safety, as being non-existent. This failure has now propagated itself outward through the Congress, and the public, as a tribal myth, wrongly accusing NRC of laxity.
Posted by FEED BURNER at 7.3.07
The Moral Imperative of Nuclear
I always knew the earth's core was hot, but It was unclear to me exactly why. On some astronomical bodies, such as Jupiter's moon Io , it's flexing due to Jupiter's gravity that causes purely mechanical rubbing heat. In some white stars, it's nuclear fusion. Guess what the earth's internal heat comes from? Good old U235 decay. In the earth's core, the exact, self-same process that runs every nuclear reactor in the world, is the ancient historical process causing earth's volcanoes, and thus all the geothermal power anywhere on the planet. Thus, ...U235 CAUSES our environment. The scope of this news is staggering, in its philosophical implications for environmentalists. It makes environmentalist opposition to human use of U235 fission into a backward cult of avoidance, a kind of meaningless earth-hating tabu, pure superstition, not tied to science, or love of the planet.
It's implication for those who love the planet, and are truly willing to act on that love outside narrow energy politics, is that just as Watson & Crick outed the double helix of DNA as the essence of biological life, Earth-Philosophers must now accept that U235 fission is in point of fact, the white-hot beating heart of Gaia.
Where does that place the American Nuclear Industry, and all it's spokespeople? It places them firmly in the right. Overwhelmingly on the side of the planet. Undeniably historical. Absolutely ethical. Backed up in all their assertions by both of Stephen J. Gould's "Two Magisteria"-- Science, and Religion (both capitalized).
The powerful arguments deriving from nuclear power being what the planet itself does, easily smash all pseudoscience attacks on nuclear as sophistry,... at their widest scope,... nothing but quibbling over means and methods.
Any argument over merest means and methods can be countered by engineering. Engineering can always find new means, new methods. All that is required is optimism, expertise, and funding.
The knowledge that we are right to use U235 is founded on the broadest philosophical stepping stone, a tacit license to proceed, given by the planet itself. Any person arguing otherwise, is in the unenviable debating stance, of claiming that mankind as a race does not deserve to occupy the earth. That assertion is tantamount to a Lemming's call for mass suicide, and is evil nonsense, closely approaching Hitlerian angst in its self-hate, and its Faustian deathwish.
People at large emotionally recognize this Dr. Strangelove inversion displayed by the most virulent anti-nukes, but cannot easily pin it down. I hereby share it with the energy planning community, exposed in its magnificent simplicity.
Why nuclear? Because Gaia tells us so.
Posted by FEED BURNER at 5.2.07
Nuclear power is the gift of Gaia’s long past
The heat given in ancient times
By Gaia to her progeny
at Oklo then
At Peekskill now
One and the same
heart of matter
heart of gaia
warmth without fire
spontaneous living metals
warmed by history
to give us life
This planet, called Earth, or Terra, which has awakened as the living being known as Gaia has assembled itself over eons , eons in which examples were layed down for the wise to ponder and learn from. What better way to solve some modern day problem, than to observe what the planet or its life forms has done in the past, under similar circumstances.This outlook might be termed biomimetics, or Gaiamimetics, and its lessons ought to help avoid plans or agendae too uninformed, too unconnected to Gaian reality to succeed.
One incident that happened spontaneously 2 billion years ago, was the formation of the mats of Oklo. Bacterial beings, the earliest known life forms, have formed
mats or nodules around the globe, similar to coral reefs, as both their living homes, and as the historical record of their having existed. In Australia, the nodules of their habitations still exist,in coastal waters, and are known as stromatolites. At Oklo, in Gabon, Africa, similar creatures have left not only mats, but a mineralized historical record of the most surprising kind, a record only decipherable recently, using physical knowlege not available until late in the twentieth century. At Oklo, a deposit of heavy minerals existed in a wet environment, perhaps a stream. For 12 billion years or so, nothing notable occurred, until micro-organisms occupied the inner spaces between grains of this mineral deposit, using it as their home, but also inadvertently acting as a living moderator for certain chemical reactions now enabled to occur within the mineral itself.
On a steady basis, interludes of wetting, drying, growing, and changing occurred, completely altering the raw minerals, to suit the needs of the stromatolite population living within the grains, and leaving (as in Australia) , a permanent record of their having lived. Microbiotic symbiosis between bacteria and an inorganic chemical reaction had created the special conditions required to permanently alter the mineral, and thus write the record of the Oklo mats, in stone, or rather, in metal.The stone, a uraninite oxide, now contains an imbalance of its U238 and U235 metals which is easily recognizable to scientists, as the result of a biological nuclear reactor. The depletion in its 235 species of metal can’t be attributed to any other cause, and could not have happened any other way. The Oklo bacteria created their own living Indian Point. Without the bacteria –unmoderated– the reaction could not have occurred (and did not for 12 billion years before they arrived). Without the warmth of the reactor surrounding them, the bacteria could not have flourished as they did, for an estimated billion years, living high on the hog in their self-heating apartment house, their own self-warming coral reef in a river in Africa, a successful nuclearbiotic symbiosis of the first magnitude, teaching us how to use what Gaia provides– the spontaneous warmth of her own body, contained in her own mineral gift, used locally, in full biomimetic respectfulness,
and Gaiamimetic gratitude, only at the Indian Point Energy Center, our own biomimetic triumph on the Hudson. Far from being an interloper, invading a pristine shore, IPEC is seen in this light to be an environmental savior, using its biomimetics to gather Gaia’s gift, her self warming mineral deposits, cleanly, silently, and naturally, to warm & sustain us like the bacteria at Oklo, rather than burning up the dwindling atmosphere as other power plants, on coal, oil, or gas, will surely do.
You enjoy life.
We all, each & every one of us, sleep,
with a chunk of uranium beneath us.
That chunk is known as “Terra” or “Earth” Without the radiating core, Earth would be cold. Therefore we may look on Earth's uranium core as its heart, its "Life", or personalizing a bit, as Gaia herself. The heat of uranium makes the hot volcanic lava beneath us. Would you plunge your hand into the lava?…. Of course not.
All these powerful Gaian outpourings are GIFTS!!
Gaia gives, and we are allowed to accept, and use, or die out
and become mere food for whatever creature accepts the gifts.
(Gaia’s first Law).
Neither volcanoes nor uranium are evil,
they are both natural, even supernatural, gifts.
The greenest gifts ever given our humble monkeyrace.
We ought to use them.
Hope to meet you all someday,
and hoist a brandy (organic of course)
to our momma,
Now, to the Protection of Mother Earth’s Daughters!
6000 Chinese coal miners die on average each year, mining the coal used to create the permanent east Asian atmospheric disturbance which has been visible from outer space for the last decade, the brown death-smog which now grows increasingly worse each year. Not only do the massive mining operations mar the breast of mother earth, causing acid runoffs into streams, killing fish, deforesting entire provinces with irreparable open scars, but the impoverishment & lung disease following stunt the lives of millions, to place the sleeping giant, China, at the forefront of the fossil burning nations. The single technology most protective of mother earth, of the miners, of the atmosphere, of the steams, their fish, their trees, and all the poor people dependent on them, is the gift of the Earth itself, giving heat without burning anything, vastly reducing mining operations by a thousand, or ten thousand orders of magnitude for the same power (thus saving 6000 lives directly),
the minerals used by bacteria ages ago, and used today in the biomimetic triumph on the Hudson, Indian Point.
Closing Indian Point would necessitate the burning of oil, or coal in the USA, on the same scale as in China, shooting us backwards 200 years in one fell swoop, back to the age of “Black Birmingham”, when 100,000 people per year would die of lung disease in England, from the soot clouds of Birmingham’s factories. Mother Earth has given us a way out. Are we to deny its existence out of malicious self pride? Gaia’s self warming minerals are here whether we use them or not. You don’t burn them. You need not even mine any more of them (simply use what we already possess). Simply acknowlege the purity, the pristine invisibility of the Indian Point process, which makes no smoke, buries its own waste in its own casks, emits no greenhouse gas, and asks only to be allowed to continue to protect our mother earth with her own gift.
This is the moral fact of it.
This is the one ethical solution to it.
This is the scientific reality of it.
Any denial of this, is malicious self promotion,
based on malicious misinformation,
and is, in fact,
the knowing promotion of intentional death.
Posted by FEED BURNER at 2.2.07