Readers may recall our story from Dec 15th, 2013: Over half the USA covered in snow, the most in 11 years
Now, it’s even more. See the map and the 3D image:
February 7, 2014
| Area Covered By Snow: | 67.4% |
| Area Covered Last Month: | 48.1% |
The map is from NOAA’s National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center
The 3D image is from this KMZ file and Google Earth:
h/t to Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell
UPDATE: Values of snow cover for this date show this is the highest in a decade.
February 7, 2014
Area Covered By Snow: 67.4%
February 7, 2013
Area Covered By Snow: 34.8%
February 7, 2012
Area Covered By Snow: 25.5%
February 7, 2011
Area Covered By Snow: 48.9%
February 7, 2010
Area Covered By Snow: 60.8%
February 7, 2009
Area Covered By Snow: 33.2%
February 7, 2008
Area Covered By Snow: 51.1%
February 7, 2007
Area Covered By Snow: 38.9%
February 7, 2006
Area Covered By Snow: 26.6%
February 7, 2005
Area Covered By Snow: 26.4%
February 7, 2004
Area Covered By Snow: 53.4%
Linda Goodman says:
February 10, 2014 at 5:15 pm
Nature in the wild would kill you in minutes. (Well, if you could find water, maybe three days.) And the worms would eat your decaying remains over the next few days.
To live past the first 4 days, you would need to sell your body and muscles immediately: No work, no food. No 24 hours of grubbing and pulling food off of bushes and eating decaying fruit fallen on the dirt, you die. No protector or tribe, you die. No weapon, no fire, no fuel … you die. Should you succeed in finding a mate, in the wild, 3 out of 4 of your children would die before age 5, and (if you survived the four childbirths), you would die in agony before age 30.
Ain’t it great to be living with technology, capitalism, fossil fuels, and somebody else’s taxes.
>>>>>>>>>
richardscourtney says: February 10, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Linda Goodman:
I am grossly offended by your post at February 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm
How dare you!?
1. You made an assertion which made no sense to me rationally, logically, scientifically or theologically so I politely asked you to explain it.
2. You replied that you had made that statement by mistake and you added a question which you put to me.
3. I answered your question and put the same question back to you.
4. You have replied with the assertions I have quoted in this post.
I said NONE of those things and I have NOT made any “attacks” of you (gleeful or otherwise). You have raised no “issues” but have provided irrational rants and when queried on one of your assertions you replied you did not mean it.
I am willing to accept your apology.
Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard:
I’m sorry you thought I was referring to you, I was not. Your post was clearly not a ‘gleeful attack’. Snarky maybe, but not gleeful, nor an attack.
And I made no comments ‘by mistake’, nor said that I did.
I’m sorry my views don’t meet your standards. I often read WUWT so I’m better prepared to defend the truth, here in the heart of western Mass, with its creepity crawl towards CO2 strangulation. Much of the science flies over my head, some of it just as well, but the basics sink in. And I enjoy the banter when there’s a warblist in the cross hairs, as they’re so very deserving, whether through idiocy or deceit (are there any other reasons at this point?). I finally decided to jump in with my burning question (still burns) and for awhile it was good, but now, not so much.
Linda
Linda, if you think animals in the wild all have full bellies, you seriously need to get out into nature more! In the wild, it is survival of the fittest and the fittest get most of the food while the weaker ones die off. Nature, untouched by human interference is a cruel, cruel world.
It may be that this cruelty (weak members die while strong members get most of the food) is a required component of fit and healthy herds. Interference with this system may eventually cause its destruction. Since we are also of the animal kingdom, I wonder if we would set ourselves up for our own destruction if we endeavored to keep everybody’s belly full.
>>>>>>>>>>>
RACookPE1978 commented on Over two-thirds of the contiguous USA covered with snow.
OK. You have rejected several direct answers from myself, and from several other knowledeable people in the power, global climate, and local environment fields, and have responded with what you “feel” and what you “have decided” based (apparently) on these feelings. Now, pretend I am a nuclear physics major, a math major, electrci and mechanical and structural engineer, a power plant operator and maintainer who has stood under these things, touched them, felt them, worked and lived inside them and next to them for longer than you have lived. Pretend you “do have” some technical and nuclear physics and health physics knowledge and training. (Instead of just your nightmares based on your religious emotions of fear and desperation as you cling to your fear of the lightening and thunder in the heavens above.)
Now, tell me how much actual “energy” (you know, the E=mc^2 type of real energy) has been “lost” from these cold dead power plants since the earthquake. After you do that, tell me how much that energy could affect anything …. including even the local environment around the plants. Show me why you fear what cannot happen.
Remember now. Use math. Use real numbers. We do.
Oh, by the way. Do you accept your local and international democrat and liberal politicians views about global warming, CO2, and the predicted future?
>>>>>>>>>>>
I receive emails alerting me to any responses, and I haven’t seen one from you, I’m sorry.
I don’t doubt your expertise, but does that negate the profound risks of nuclear energy? I’m sorry if I offended you or anyone else with my opinions, but they’re not based on ‘feelings’, they’re based on my intelligent ability to discern the truth from half a century of learning, experience and common sense.
And no, I don’t support the Big Lie of global warming. Once I started paying attention I soon realized it’s a $ making racket and control method. Before Climategate I thought “Well, it doesn’t appear to be getting warmer, so no worries.” And I’m from MA, so I’d welcome a little warming anyway. I hadn’t seen An Inconvenient Truth, so I was not propagandized. Then I educated myself via Climategate and follow up info like WUWT, and I’ve been appalled ever since.
But I was appalled by nuclear power long before, and I’ve yet to learn anything that convinces me not to be, quite the contrary! I’d LOVE to be proven wrong, it beats fear and outrage, but I’m not the type to go into denial over painful realities, so I’m not easily placated. I’m sure I’d be much happier if I were.
So please, tell me something that makes sense, that proves that I should have no concerns over Fukushima, or the growing nuclear waste, or the ticking time bomb reactors sitting amidst millions of people depending on there NOT being an earthquake, or a tornado, or a malfunction, or human error, or any number of other OOPS that could go horribly wrong. I do not have FAITH in nuclear power or in its ‘impeccable safety record’, which is anything but. It’s not a religion, it’s a potentially devastating power unlike any other in the history of the world. Radiation is an invisible killer, you can’t see it, smell it, touch it, hear it, taste it (unless it’s real close, then it tastes metallic), meanwhile cancer rates keep climbing.
I’d love to be convinced that my concerns are unjustified, but attacking my intelligence rather than addressing my concerns has the opposite effect (not talking about you specifically). Any scientific concept can be explained in layman’s terms, and something as important as the debate over nuclear power should certainly be explained so that skeptics & opponents understand, assuming there really is no need to be deeply concerned.
It’s ironic to use the same methods to defend nuclear power – appeal to authority and attack the messenger – that AGW defenders use. (& they love to baffle with b.s. of course!) And the greater irony is that one is claiming it’s safe while the other is claiming it’s deadly, yet the overwhelming evidence in both cases indicates the opposite.
And I’m sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention! Foxes are very cool and bunnies are just not in their league :]
RACookPE1978 comment February 10, 2014 at 5:31 pm
“Nature in the wild would kill you in minutes. (Well, if you could find water, maybe three days.) And the worms would eat your decaying remains.
In the wild, 3 out of 4 of your children would die before age 5, and (if you survived the four childbirths), you would die in agony before age 30. Ain’t it great to be living with technology, capitalism, fossil fuels, and somebody else’s taxes.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree!
I think you misunderstood what I meant – I’m not a Luddite Marxist whacko. Everything is provided by nature, including technology of course, in the form of raw materials. I believe in the capitalist system, in human progress & creative spirit, absolutely. And in fossil fuels, until we develop something better, or get it out of hiding:) I don’t even like camping, thank you very much. And Julian Simon is my hero!
>>>>>>>>>
Pamela Gray commented
Linda, if you think animals in the wild all have full bellies, you seriously need to get out into nature more! In the wild, it is survival of the fittest and the fittest get most of the food while the weaker ones die off. Nature, untouched by human interference is a cruel, cruel world.
It may be that this cruelty (weak members die while strong members get most of the food) is a required component of fit and healthy herds. Interference with this system may eventually cause its destruction. Since we are also of the animal kingdom, I wonder if we would set ourselves up for our own destruction if we endeavored to keep everybody’s belly full.
>>>>>>>>
Hi Pamela, I see your point, though for what it’s worth I believe the human mind sets us apart. I hold Julian Simon’s view that the creative spirit of human ingenuity has the unique potential and duty to transform and uplift the world and as shepherds of the animal kingdom, though we’re not doing too well so far. Simon (‘The Doomslayer’) and AGW guru Paul Erlich deeply disagreed over the concept of overpopulation – he proved Erlich dead wrong about his fundamental premise and it was beautiful. Yet Erlich is still with us and Simon is now not, a stilled voice and great loss.
Sorry if I’m causing nausea, but it’s not pie in the sky – not at all. Simon’s work continues to shine, putting eugenicists to shame, if they were capable of shame. Simon’s detailed, statistical research proves there’s more than enough for all, and that the real danger is in squandering so many potentially brilliant and creative human minds through poverty and poor education, a great loss for what could be a shining future. I think parenting should be taught from an early age for that very reason, just for starters. But I’m not holding my breath, because now there’s Commie Core, aiming to rot our children’s minds. Sorry this is way off topic. Here’s an intriguing article if you’re interested, very uplifting :] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
Linda Goodman says:
February 10, 2014 at 7:27 pm
But I was appalled by nuclear power long before, and I’ve yet to learn anything that convinces me not to be, quite the contrary! I’d LOVE to be proven wrong
Radon, for example, can be beneficial to your health in small doses, eg 32 hours a year in a radon mine shaft. It is like the sun. Too much and you can get skin cancer or a sunburn, but in small amounts, you get vitamin D. See:
http://sunshinehealthmine.com/Radon_For_Health.html
Linda Goodman:
I read your early posts and thought you were uninformed and mistaken, so I attempted to help you to discover your irrationality for yourself.
I am now convinced that you are the latest in a recent series of trolls coming to WUWT to disrupt by pretending to be other than they are.
The reason for my present conviction is the following.
At February 10, 2014 at 1:47 pm I asked you to explain your ridiculous assertion (made at February 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm) that
.
You replied at February 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm saying
Note that: you admitted you “goofed” when you had claimed “Nature is perfect.
Later,I objected to your untrue and offensive post at February 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm and you replied – but did not apologise – at February 10, 2014 at 6:03 pm, Your reply begins saying
Emphasis added: RSC
YOU LIAR!
You DID admit you “goofed” when you made your laughably untrue assertion that “Nature is perfect”.
(Incidentally, I was not “snarky”.)
Of course, your lie could have been an indication of Alzheimer’s and not deliberate mendacity. However, at February 10, 2014 at 5:15 pm you had written of your desire to improve the world saying,
I can see why you would say that. Your virtual “life” on WUWT is a lie.
Richard
Linda Goodman says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
spider man: Nature is perfect, Man is reckless. Inhaling, absorbing and ingesting manufactured isotopes is harmful, cumulative and ultimately deadly. There are no ‘safe levels’, only degrees of harm determined by quality, quantity/rate of exposure and genetics.
This is helpful post since it clarifies the nature of your delusion. Nothing to be ashamed of, you are far from alone, it affects our generation as a whole.
Nature is ugly as well as beautiful, everything dies, death is a part of life. Were you expecting to live forever? Did your health insurance promise you this?
Every second that life passes carries a statistical risk of death. Even if we are naked in a vacuum not in contact with anything “natural” or human-made.
Your assertion that everything human-made is evil, dirty and deadly looks like the Gnostic religion of new testament times.
The best epidemiological study of risks of radiation was the shipyard workers study. Two similar shipyards were studies, tens of thousands of workers over a decade or two. Workforces with similar socio-economic status profiles. Only difference? One handled nuclear subs and ships, the other not. The result – no cancer risk except in the highest dose category, >50 mGy per year. The official response – concerted efforts to conceal and downplay the results. This is probably the first time most reading this have heard of this study.
In the list of things affecting lifespan, the massively largest factors are socio-economic status and social connectedness. Delete someone from your Christmas-card list? This will shorten their life more than any amount of radiation, tobacco or any deadly chemical-du-jour. (Don’t worry I’m not expecting one from you 🙂
Epidemiology is a rather sick science, its a lot of folks in a food fight fighting over the statistical “cake of death”. You see everyone dies, but what of? Epidemiologists spend their time horsetrading with eachother over how many get to die of their pet toxin and not their competitors’ toxin or radiation etc. From a distance its quite farsical. Sometimes they forget that a person can only die once, generally speaking.
Your fears are badly our of perspective. And fears are the ammunition of political power. Your fears are there for a reason – they play to the political advantage of a certain constituency who do not necessarily have your best interests at heart.
About France, last week French researchers reported that the incidence of cancer is expected to soar by 90% in developed nations by 2030 – yikes!
You’re flogging a dead horse trying to tie this to radiation. Radiation is not mysterious – it is very simple to measure. 99.999999% of French people have radiation dominated by radon, cosmic rays, brazil nuts and all the natural sources of radiation.
Think of that the next time you bite into a brazil nut – its the most radioactive food on the planet.
The cancers you refer to are the same in France as everywhere else, linked to obesity, alcohol, other lifestyle factors which in general dwarf environmental factors in the fight over the cake of death.
BTW daddylonglegs refers to the cranefly, not the arachnid.
richardscourtney commented On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:14 AM:
“Linda Goodman:
I read your early posts and thought you were uninformed and mistaken, so I attempted to help you to discover your irrationality for yourself. I am now convinced that you are the latest in a recent series of trolls coming to WUWT to disrupt by pretending to be other than they are.
++++++
Well, there’s a dwarf on my daddy’s side, but that’s the closest I get, sorry.
And what did I disrupt? Actually, I was encouraged to continue, for comic relief. Apparently I failed.
++++++
“I asked you to explain your ridiculous assertion (made at February 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm) that Nature is perfect”
++++++
Yes, a perfect system because it self-corrects, my opinion. And perfection is subjective, isn’t it? Isn’t everything subject to change and improvement?
++++++
“You replied at February 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm saying
Nature, the Galaxy, the Universe, is a perfect system that self corrects. Nature supplies everything we need.. and most adorably, WE evolved from its earthy womb. Okay, maybe it goofed a little there. Note that: you admitted you “goofed” when you had claimed “Nature is perfect.”
++++++
It was just humor, Richard Scourtney.
But I’ll clarify and expand.. humanity isn’t perfect, but nature self-corrects, so maybe we’ll get there someday, if we don’t go extinct with our dangerous toys in the process. And by ‘perfect’ I mean to reach our full human potential, before changing into something More..? As long as our brain capacity remains largely dormant collectively, we’ve got a really long way to go. We are our brothers’ keeper. My opinion.
++++++
“Later,I objected to your untrue and offensive post at February 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm and you replied – but did not apologise”
++++++
I won’t apologize for something I didn’t say. I am sorry you assumed wrongly and said so, because it triggered a firestorm.
I’m sorry if I upset or offended you. I assume my opinion on nuclear power was the trigger, but you know what they say about assumptions and opinions, so really, who cares?
++++++
Linda Goodman:
At February 11, 2014 at 12:14 pm you say
NO! That is more of your lies!
I objected in no uncertain terms to your lies.
I did not mention “nuclear power”
You are not in the least contrite because if you were then you would have apologised for your first offensive post when I asked you to apologise for that.
Your writing style and content have changed now you have been ‘outed’ as a troll pretending to be other than you are.
I suggest that nobody ‘feeds’ you any more because it is clear you are only here as a deceptive and disruptive troll.
Richard
daddylonglegs commented on On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:10 PM
“Nature is ugly as well as beautiful, everything dies, death is a part of life. ”
+++
I certainly agree.
+++
“Every second that life passes carries a statistical risk of death. Even if we are naked in a vacuum not in contact with anything “natural” or human-made.”
+++
I agree. But is the implication that since we all have to die sometime, why worry about manmade radiation?
+++
“Your assertion that everything human-made is evil, dirty and deadly looks like the Gnostic religion of new testament times.”
+++
i never asserted that. I think you’ve mistaken me for Ted Kazynski. And I’m not familiar with Gnosticism, though I was raised agnostic :O]
+++
“The best epidemiological study of risks of radiation was the shipyard workers study. Two similar shipyards were studies, tens of thousands of workers over a decade or two. Workforces with similar socio-economic status profiles. Only difference? One handled nuclear subs and ships, the other not. The result – no cancer risk except in the highest dose category, >50 mGy per year.”
+++
That study appears to address worker safety only, and the results aren’t surprising, as there would be rigid safety precautions for the workplace. My concern is the lethal, accumulating waste and the increasing risk of aging reactors, their vulnerability to changing earth, ocean and weather conditions and human error causing catastrophic accidents, with serious harm initially and far graver harm to many more people over time through cumulative damage.
Chernobyl’s stats are in and bare this out (the real stats, not the fairytale), And it’s commonly stated that Fukishima is the most serious accident since Chernobyl, but Fukushima is far more catastrophic, as a quick look at the facts make clear. So I worry.
And cancer rates are rising pretty much all over and notoriously higher near (some? most? all?) reactors, with the truth occasionally leaking out, so to speak. But there continues to be plausible deniability because radiation is invisible and kills slowly over time in small doses. So, move along, nothing to see and don’t forget to take your mother and her dog for their cancer therapy.
+++
“The official response – concerted efforts to conceal and downplay the results. This is probably the first time most reading this have heard of this study.”
+++
It doesn’t address the gravest risks, so there’s no reason for either side to conceal it.
+++
“In the list of things affecting lifespan, the massively largest factors are socio-economic status and social connectedness. Delete someone from your Christmas-card list? This will shorten their life more than any amount of radiation, tobacco or any deadly chemical-du-jour. (Don’t worry I’m not expecting one from you :-)”
+++
My Christmas card giving is sporadic – does that make me lethal?
So the studies show that it’s not big bad business (not saying i think all big business is bad!) polluting the environment in a toxic kaleidoscope of ways, it’s our own lack of self control and poor social habits, of course. Meanwhile back in reality the voices sounding the alarm of rising radiation get little to no coverage, kind of like AGW skeptics. And the cancer rates just keep climbing. Cancer causing radiation is the proverbial elephant in the livingroom.
And down the rabbit hole at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, radiation is used as a !!!treatment for cancer!!! because it kills Everything, eventually even the patient. The treatment is feared as much as the cancer, but what can you do? Radiation and mustard gas are the only stated options, and btw, you’ll have to pay through the nose for the privilege.
+++
“Epidemiology is a rather sick science, its a lot of folks in a food fight fighting over the statistical “cake of death”. You see everyone dies, but what of? Epidemiologists spend their time horsetrading with eachother over how many get to die of their pet toxin and not their competitors’ toxin or radiation etc. From a distance its quite farsical. Sometimes they forget that a person can only die once, generally speaking.”
+++
Gallows humor, sure. How/where can ‘civilians’ gain access to (tax funded) epidemiological statistics on cancer rates from all over the U.S., for starters, for the layperson? Though the accessible results could be susceptible to politic$, is there online access to all those stats?
+++
“Your fears are badly our of perspective. And fears are the ammunition of political power. Your fears are there for a reason – they play to the political advantage of a certain constituency who do not necessarily have your best interests at heart.”
+++
I don’t think so, four years ago, maybe. Happy tears streamed down my foolish face when Obama was sworn in – the first time. For one shining moment I thought everything would be Okay! Then came Climategate. Imagine my surprise to learn that communism is making a comeback. I’d thought ‘progressive’ meant…. progressive! That was a huge wake up call, and I haven’t been the same since. But my concern about nuclear power is part of my DNA.. um, that would be both figuratively & literally. In fact, The first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile and I were launched on the same day. So maybe I’m just jealous ICBM got more positive attention? While it blazed across the starry sky, all I did was poop and cry.
+++
“Radiation is not mysterious – it is very simple to measure. 99.999999% of French people have radiation dominated by radon, cosmic rays, brazil nuts and all the natural sources of radiation.”
+++
But there’s a profound difference between natural radiation and the lethal radiation being generated via nuclear reactors (time bombs vulnerable to shaky earth & shores, raging skies & human error), cumulatively released in the soil, water & air and discarded as hot waste all over the world. But I want to be wrong. And I’m sorry I’m repeating myself.
+++
“The cancers you refer to are the same in France as everywhere else, linked to obesity, alcohol, other lifestyle factors which in general dwarf environmental factors in the fight over the cake of death.”
+++
That’s what we’re told, alright. “It’s your own fault, people!”
+++
“BTW daddylonglegs refers to the cranefly, not the arachnid.”
+++
Oh, bat food :O] (sorry.. i just googled that:)
btw It was relayed to me that if I don’t respond to posts, I’ll appear rude or avoiding, but if you ignore me, I promise I’ll go away :]
+++
wbrozek says:February 10, 2014 at 9:53 pm
“Radon, for example, can be beneficial to your health in small doses, eg 32 hours a year in a radon mine shaft. It is like the sun. Too much and you can get skin cancer or a sunburn, but in small amounts, you get vitamin D. See: http://sunshinehealthmine.com/Radon_For_Health.html ”
Thank you for the link & info. Very cool!
Linda Goodman says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:26 pm
You are welcome! They are good for getting rid of arthritis pain and many other things, however radon is not good for everything. People are not stupid. If it did not help them, people would not be going back every year.
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly February 10, 2014 at 2:50 pm
….Assuming I had unlimited resources, I would use what nature has provided to build and to operate…
>>>>
And I would be right beside you helping in any way I could.
….
To Linda Goodman,
My husband is a physicist, I am a chemist. We have more than one friend who is a nuclear physicist and we live close enough to a nuclear power plant that I can see it out my window. The automobile you drive is a heck of a lot more deadly than a nuclear power plant. Governments are even more deadly DEMOCIDE: Death by Government
On Feb 11, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
Gail Combs commented On Feb 11, 2014, at 11:46 PM
To Linda Goodman,
My husband is a physicist, I am a chemist. We have more than one friend who is a nuclear physicist and we live close enough to a nuclear power plant that I can see it out my window. The automobile you drive is a heck of a lot more deadly than a nuclear power plant. Governments are even more deadly DEMOCIDE: Death by Government
>>>>>
Hi Gail,
Thank you for sharing the link. Very disturbing to see it all in one place. But the overpopulation crowd might not think so. When someone says there are too many people in the world, I say “Then why don’t you kill yourself and make it one less?” I used to just think it, but I just got my AARP card.
I assume you shared your profession and proximity to a reactor to make the point that you’re both knowledgeable about and supportive of nuclear power? So respectfully, four questions come to mind: What is the design & age of the reactor, how long have you lived there and are you privy to stats on local cancer rates, from ground zero on out? I asked myself those questions too, because I live in the Connecticut River Valley – can’t get the last one answered, though. That one’s a hottie, so to speak.
You mention the risk of driving, but there’s no better option, so it’s well worth it. And leaving the house in the morning poses a risk, but that’s no reason to dump, pour, leak, release or otherwise dispose of lethal isotopes into the ground, water and atmosphere.
it makes sense that if you work in the nuclear industry you’re biased in favor of nuclear power, just as pediatricians are biased in favor of childhood vaccinations. Yet the objections to both come from deep concern, and ‘non-professionals’ should not be treated like idiots for daring to question authority. And evidence of illness and death should not be met with condescending talking points. There’s something very wrong with that picture.
I assume that work in the nuclear field must be kind of sexy, all that power at your fingertips, all that danger kept in check, kind of like being a lion tamer or a fighter pilot, though there’s no risk of a plume of lions or fighter planes killing every living thing within miles and rendering the area uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years. How many areas are there in the world today that fit that description, as a result of the nuclear industry? And all in under 80 years. What will the next 80 bring?
Someone mentioned thorium reactors as the answer to nuclear waste, and maybe they are, I don’t know. But it would not remove the risk of a deadly reactor accident. No other technology poses such an enormous risk, with no way to guarantee safety. Every day waste is shipped and dumped, and every reactor is at the mercy of a major ‘act of God’ and human error. And as it ages the risk of malfunction grows more likely. I know there are no guarantees in life, but come on.
So the only humane answer imho, is to decommission every nuclear reactor in the world ASAP, and put our considerable resources into developing solar power, by far the greatest potential source of energy available. And with graphene in the picture, we may be on the verge. And even if that’s not the case for awhile, fossil fuels will keep us going until we do develop a source of energy that won’t poison us slowly but surely. The steadily-rising cancer rates are a glowing red flag and for the sake of humanity and the world we should consider a change for the better, imho. http://theenergycollective.com/tinacasey/323056/graphene-heats-race-cheap-organic-solar-cells
Then too, some suspect there’s cheap & clean energy technology, & possibly a long hidden Tesla invention, suppressed in favor of profits and control. To assume that’s not possible is to be wicked naive, as we say in MA. If Tesla had been allowed to continue on his course, rather than striking a devastating deal, nuclear power may have been nothing more than a scary glint in Enrico Fermi’s eye. http://www.trueactivist.com/the-10-inventions-of-nikola-tesla-that-changed-the-world/ Right, in a perfect world… (by perfect I mean…. oh never mind)
Porter Fox has his head so far up his ass, the lump in his throat is his nose. Nuff said!
“Linda Goodman says:
February 12, 2014 at 10:19 am
Someone mentioned thorium reactors as the answer to nuclear waste, and maybe they are, I don’t know. But it would not remove the risk of a deadly reactor accident. No other technology poses such an enormous risk, with no way to guarantee safety. Every day waste is shipped and dumped, and every reactor is at the mercy of a major ‘act of God’ and human error. And as it ages the risk of malfunction grows more likely. I know there are no guarantees in life, but come on.”
I was the one who mentioned Thorium reactors as a means of reducing/eliminating waste (other folks may have as well, didn’t see any on this thread, though). Linda, do you even understand how these devices work?
Do you understand what happened in Fukushima could have occurred to any other type of facility, e.g. chemical processing plant, ammonia/fertilizer factory, what-have-you, that uses or produces hazardous chemicals/compounds on the way to producing USEFUL PRODUCTS that are necessary for life as we know it? Are you willing to give up everything in order to have that safety bubble around you (precautionary principle) so that there is no risk at all? Are you also presumptious enough to make that decision for EVERYONE ELSE?
The reactor at Fukushima withstood a Tsunami that was outside the design boundaries of its construction, and would have had no problems whatsoever had the spent fuel rods been dealt with as they were before the, er, precautionists fiddled with the storage and disposal methods of said fuel rods. Bear in mind that the reactor facility was quite old and soon to be replaced….currect technology would survive an even stronger earthquake/Tsunami.
Ideologies such as yours are beginning to bankrupt Europe; in particular Germany, where I see
electric bills going up and up and up, with the environment being blighted by windmill bird-choppers and hazardous-chemical solar panels, not to mention the possibility of a “power street” running from north to south Germany costing Billions of Euros and, in the end, benefitting no one except the already rich. BASF have just announced that they are reducing or perhaps eliminating further investment in Germany due to the high energy prices (Energiewende, or moving away from nuclear), and other companies have indicated that are looking at doing the same.
You speak of problems, potential issues, etc., etc. WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? STATISTICS?
DOCUMENTED PROBLEMS (no, not from Jeff Rense, etc. [I’m not THAT Jeff…]) or the like…
There are a number of links noted above with a lot of technical detail about Fukushima and power
generation in general. There is also a site (I need to look it up…) that details the fatalities due to
Wind and Solar power – quite interesting, they are both dangerous…. You might also like to know that the rare-earth metals used in the generator portion of these monstrous windmills are also poisonous, illegal in some places, to boot, due to health issues, although they are mined in China without much fuss…another interesting story you might like to run down while you are complaining about risk and health problems. Subsonic waves and shadow patterns are also a problem, I’ve read….
Please, “feelings” are good….facts are better….I know that my family and I will FEEL a lot better
it we don’t go broke paying for “green” energy….you know, the kind that lines the wallets or
politicians and power brokers with “green” that the rest of us have earned….
Jeff commented On Feb 12, 2014, at 9:51 PM:
I was the one who mentioned Thorium reactors as a means of reducing/eliminating waste (other folks may have as well, didn’t see any on this thread, though). Linda, do you even understand how these devices work?
Do you understand what happened in Fukushima could have occurred to any other type of facility, e.g. chemical processing plant, ammonia/fertilizer factory, what-have-you, that uses or produces hazardous chemicals/compounds on the way to producing USEFUL PRODUCTS that are necessary for life as we know it? Are you willing to give up everything in order to have that safety bubble around you (precautionary principle) so that there is no risk at all? Are you also presumptious enough to make that decision for EVERYONE ELSE?
++++
Thanks Jeff, but I’m not a watermelon. I know the ‘precautionary principle’ is designed to cripple us economically, wind power is a cruel hoax and solar power is not yet a viable replacement. I agree that fossil fuels, gas & coal are our best sources for energy, so why then nuclear? All that waste and risk to BOIL WATER. And the chemical factories you mentioned aren’t sneakily lethal and are largely necessary, unlike nuclear power (apart from weapon making). What other toxins are as lethal and undetectable as radioactive isotopes? As far as I know, none. And no I don’t understand how the devices work, but I didn’t make any technical statements, just general observations and opinions.
And after reading up on thorium reactors, I thought these were a good representation of each side and worthy to share here – pro: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10255442/Thorium-put-to-the-test-as-policymakers-rethink-nuclear.html & anti: http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101 But even the ‘pro’ gives reason to doubt, especially in the comments section.
++++
The reactor at Fukushima withstood a Tsunami that was outside the design boundaries of its construction, and would have had no problems whatsoever had the spent fuel rods been dealt with as they were before the, er, precautionists fiddled with the storage and disposal methods of said fuel rods. Bear in mind that the reactor facility was quite old and soon to be replaced….currect technology would survive an even stronger earthquake/Tsunami.
++++
I read it was a GE design flaw, and there are others like it in the U.S. And I understand precautionists stand perfectly still as much as possible so as not to disturb anything, so fiddling with nuclear waste seems out of character. And I read that the reactors were considerably past their ‘use by’ date, so what were they waiting for to replace them? Seems reckless to me. And how were they intending to safely move 40 years of spent fuel rods from the rooftops? How will they do it now?
Someone posted this link the other day http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ … the nuclear physicist who wrote the article claims there was no radiation released at Fukushima, but the sick sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan and other mounting evidence expose that as a lie. There’s a lot of lying and denying going on, especially the lie by omission through a media near-blackout, so most people naturally assume there’s nothing to worry about or ‘they’ would surely tell us.
So what’s gained by either side lying? On one side there’s money & power, but on the other, what? People who fear their own shadows? Though I agree there’s an hysterical element and it’s tricky to find reasonable info. it tends to be either ‘don’t worry, be happy’ or ‘we’re all gonna die!’ The extremists turn most people off while the placaters placate and the result is generally the same. But here’s a good source, imo: http://www.fukuleaks.org/web
So, forty years worth of spent fuel rods in six pools ***atop the buildings*** must be kept submerged to avoid a massive disaster, and some of it is super-deadly plutonium based MOX fuel. By comparison, Chernobyl was just three years old, just three years of (plutonium-free) spent fuel from one reactor. And Chernobyl’s leak was (allegedly) stopped within weeks, yet traveled thousands of miles over time, while Fukushima is going on three years, with no end in sight as yet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/at-two-reactors-a-race-to-contain-meltdowns/2011/03/13/ABtdVDU_story.html http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/tag/masint/
So, if sailors are dying from just 1-2 months exposure after the accident, primarily through the desalinated water, what might the sea life be experiencing with the continual flow of radionuclides into the ocean? And how much of that is working its way up the food chain and for how long? And since the ocean influences our atmosphere, what might this unprecedented situation lead to? http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ocean-relationship-ocean-atmosphere.html “The atmosphere affects the oceans and is in turn influenced by them. The action of winds blowing over the ocean surface creates waves and the great current systems of the oceans. In turn, the oceans act upon the atmosphere—in ways not clearly understood—to influence and modify the world’s climate and weather systems.”
There are a lot of reports of marine devastation, including but not limited to the sudden sardine disappearance, dissolving starfish, ‘siamese twin’ whale babies, dead dolphins, strange behaviors, giant tumors, sick and balding polar bears, and on and on and on… And not a single MSM article about these crises mentions Fukushima as a possible cause. You’ll only – and always – see the word ‘fukushima’ in the comments section. I’ll post the MSM links if you want, though it’ll take some time to find them again.
++++
Ideologies such as yours are beginning to bankrupt Europe; in particular Germany, where I see
electric bills going up and up and up, with the environment being blighted by windmill bird-choppers and hazardous-chemical solar panels, not to mention the possibility of a “power street” running from north to south Germany costing Billions of Euros and, in the end, benefitting no one except the already rich. BASF have just announced that they are reducing or perhaps eliminating further investment in Germany due to the high energy prices (Energiewende, or moving away from nuclear), and other companies have indicated that are looking at doing the same.
++++
Jeez, I agree with you! Carbon taxes, supply cutbacks and high energy bills are causing people to be cold, broke and hungry all over Europe, and it’ll be here full bore if the epa and executive orders prevail. And what about the ‘smart meters’? I understand they introduced them to Denver and it was a disaster, high bills, malfunctions, fires, illness, so it’s pulled back for now, but we can’t have the ‘smart grid’ without the ‘smart meters’, can we? Controlling how much energy we can use in our own homes.. that’s some scary ship.
But it would be impossible to pull off this crazy con without the complicity of the media, including, and maybe *especially* the ‘liberal alternative’ media. Just one Time cover story about the Biggest Lie Ever Told, and it would collapse like a house of cards in a co2 exhale. The only media with honest coverage that I can see is conservative – both mainstream and alternative – which for most fuzzy liberals is reason to ignore it. So it remains a divisive issue when the whole WORLD should be aligned against it.
++++
You speak of problems, potential issues, etc., etc. WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS? STATISTICS?
DOCUMENTED PROBLEMS (no, not from Jeff Rense, etc. [I’m not THAT Jeff…]) or the like…
++++
Jeff Rense, really? I’m not sure what you’re asking for. You want stats & facts about.. what? They’re just my observations and opinions based on what I’ve learned, but I don’t have a collection of everything that helped me develop these views – there are thousands of sources. Do you want documented proof from me that nuclear waste is dumped, that reactors are aging and a growing risk, that some are poorly designed? But isn’t that common knowledge? I’ll post more links to my recent sources if you want, though there are a kazillion online, just Google and discern and you’re good to go, right?
I read all over and check in with Natural News, Climate Depot, James Delingpole, Dragon Slayers, Rosa Koire, WUWT (i may be in a rut), The Daily Bell, American Thinker and a host of others, even Drudge on occasion, though I always feel dirty afterwards. I used to read HuffPo and other ‘liberal’ sites, until the Climategate slap upside my head. Any source that supports AGW at this point is in cahoots, in denial or mentally challenged, imho.
++++
There are a number of links noted above with a lot of technical detail about Fukushima and power
generation in general. There is also a site (I need to look it up…) that details the fatalities due to
Wind and Solar power – quite interesting, they are both dangerous….You might also like to know that the rare-earth metals used in the generator portion of these monstrous windmills are also poisonous, illegal in some places, to boot, due to health issues, although they are mined in China without much fuss…
++++
I agree windmills are awful and absurd and it’s not toxins from most manufacturing that concern me so much, I know they’re largely a necessary ‘evil’ as we develop technologically. I don’t want to keep repeating myself, but it’s deadly isotopes in the service of boiling water that I object to. And fossil fuels, gas & coal are fine until we fully develop or uncover a better option, imho. If oil spills you know it, if a gas tank blows you know it, if coal spews smoke you know it, if a nuclear reactor leaks you don’t know it! And ‘Trust me” just doesn’t cut it. And the cancer rates just keep rising.
++++
another interesting story you might like to run down while you are complaining about risk and health problems. Subsonic waves and shadow patterns are also a problem, I’ve read….
++++
Yes, shadow puppets are disturbing, but I’m not familiar with subsonic waves… is that like an underwater fart?
++++
Please, “feelings” are good….facts are better….I know that my family and I will FEEL a lot better
++++
What’s with all the comments about my FEELINGS? Is this a Vulcan site? Okay, I admit I have them.
++++
it we don’t go broke paying for “green” energy….you know, the kind that lines the wallets or
politicians and power brokers with “green” that the rest of us have earned….
++++
I agree, but how can it be stopped? Thanks to the global media’s complicity, it’s being forced on us despite the obvious. Even after Climategate, even with nature mocking them at every turn, the bulldozer rolls on. They know we know they’re lying and they do not care! They aim to crush and control us by demonizing THIN AIR! I know I’m not saying anything everyone here doesn’t already know, just venting really. It helps. I usually say nothing here in the warbling valley.
It’s the 21st century and no one should be forced to use less energy, to shrink our lives, our every breath called a burden on our fellow man. Our shared dream is to expand human possibilities, not diminish them. But a kind of madness is taking hold and a dystopian nightmare looms if we don’t all wake up in time. Or maybe I’m just being dramatic.
Speaking of eugeninistas, why have citizens, customers, clients, patients, PEOPLE come to be called ‘consumers’? A slug is a consumer, a cockroach, a maggot, are all consumers. The lowest forms of life on this planet are consumers. When did this contemptuous word emerge as our defining essence? Time’s piece, worth passing on: http://business.time.com/2012/04/18/should-we-stop-referring-to-people-as-consumers/ The dream not forgotten: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html
Forget PhD’s we have all of the climate genuises we need right here. “It’s cold and snowing so climate change is a hoax!” I’m on the edge of my seat for what you’ll be saying this summer when we are in a draught and are setting record high temperatures. I’m guessing silence.
CATRE says:
“I’m guessing silence.”
You won’t get silence around here, when you spout nonsense. And what is your CV, anyway?
Global temperatures have not risen for seventeen years now, according to both satellite records. That is a LONG time to wait for your runaway globaloney.
Catastrophic AGW is a “hoax”. There is no better way to describe it. It is a money making scam, and I understand the desire of scientific reprobates to cash in on the “carbon” scare.
But what is YOUR excuse? Ignorance?
And a Marixt’s wet dream, I’d say. And not ignorance, but arrogance it seems. They own the mouthpiece and the rule book, so the naked emperor carries on. And they sure love to strut that pimpled arse here.
Are you smarter than a fourth grader?.. Carbon, the building blocks of life:
6 neutrons, 6 protons & 6 electrons.
“silence”
Must’ve missed you pronouncing stridently the record low temperatures:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/08/usa-cold-weather-records-outnumber-warm-records-6-to-1/
…. or were you hiding in the bathroom ?