Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (73427)	7/17/2006 7:50:21 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 361090

teapee..online As Israeli warplanes were preparing an attack on Lebanon Thursday afternoon, and a Lebanese militia was aiming a rocket at the ancient Israeli city of Safed, America's Nut-Monkey was bantering with reporters in Germany about a pig. Bush kept bringing up the roast wild boar he was about eat at a banquet that night, even when asked about the swelling crisis in the Middle East, where pig meat is forbidden to religious Jews and Muslims. "Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed?" a reporter asked. "And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?" "I thought you were going to ask me about the pig," Bush replied blithely. Then he brought the pig up again -- for the fifth time -- before giving a long answer that ended with his saying Israel needed to protect itself. "He was asked a serious question," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert and his answer "epitomized his disengagement in the Middle East." Actually, he's too stupid to have an opinion. He can't look at a situation and use his brain to forn an opinion ir a reply. He has to wait until somebody can't write 2-3 very short sentences for him, something he can retain and remember, THEN he'll give you Cheney's opinion.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (73427)	7/18/2006 12:55:21 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361090

Not really. And not really; Doubts over 'clean' nuke power July 04, 2005 From: AAP NUCLEAR power generates more damaging greenhouse gas emissions than gas-fired power, an Australian scientist says. As federal and state politicians debate the merits of starting down the nuclear power path to help reduce Australia's contribution to global warming, scientists say it may not be so clean after all. University of NSW Institute of Environmental Studies senior lecturer Dr Mark Diesendorf says nuclear power stations do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2) themselves, but the processes involved in creating nuclear energy do. Mining, milling, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel production, power station construction and operation, storage and reprocessing of spent fuel, long-term management of radioactive waste and closing down old power stations all require the burning of fossil fuels, he says. "Most of the energy inputs to the full life cycle of nuclear fuel come from fossil fuels and are therefore responsible for CO2 emissions," Dr Diesendorf writes in this month's edition of the Australasian Science magazine. Nuclear power stations using high-grade uranium ores would have to run for seven to 10 years before they created enough power to cancel out the energy required to establish them. Wind power takes just three to six months to do the same. For lower grade uranium ores, greenhouse gas emissions outweighed those produced by an equivalent gas-fired power station, Dr Diesendorf said. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has argued nuclear energy could help tackle climate change, saying it saves about 30 per cent of CO2 emissions in the United States. NSW Premier Bob Carr has been running a campaign for months to get nuclear power onto the national political agenda and says it could provide a bridge between harmful fossil fuels like coal and renewable energy. Despite this, the NSW Labor Party voted to oppose the construction of nuclear power plants at a conference last month. But Prime Minister John Howard has welcomed the debate amid speculation over where a future nuclear waste dump would be located in Australia. No state or territory is keen to take on the burden. Meanwhile, The Nationals research arm, the Page Research Centre, has launched an inquiry into fuel and energy use in Australia. The group convened to conduct the research will be headed by Nationals MPs Bruce Scott and John Forrest and will look into the future of uranium, natural gas, LPG, coal and biofuels. "We are particularly keen to investigate possible strategies for nuclear energy," Mr Forrest said. The group is expected to report at The Nationals federal council meeting in September, but one of the party's members has already poured cold water on nuclear power. Outspoken Queensland Nationals senator-elect Barnaby Joyce has said there are too many arguments against nuclear power and Australia's coal resources remain strong. He says if nuclear power goes awry, it will be a multi-generational mistake and is also concerned about the implications for nuclear war. news.com.au And not almost eternal, unless we have breeders. And there is still waste. But desperate times call for desperate measures, as long as you are willing to be a PIMBY for 500 bucks. The one truly almost eternal nuke; why couldn't those prayers go "In the name of the Father, the Sun,..."? Namaste