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 (103097)	3/26/2007 10:40:51 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361390

Report queries nuclear role in beating global warming Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:37 AM IST By Jeremy Lovell LONDON (Reuters) - The surge in political popularity of nuclear power as a quick-fix, zero-carbon solution to global warming is misguided and potentially highly dangerous, a group of academics and scientists said on Monday. In its report "Secure energy, civil nuclear power, security and global warming", the Oxford Research Group said there was not enough uranium available and nuclear nations would therefore tend to opt for reprocessing spent fuel to obtain plutonium. "A multiplication of reprocessing and the resulting international trade in weapons-useable materials would create more opportunities for states, criminal organisations or terrorists to acquire weapons-useable materials," it said. Juergen Trittin, former German environment and nuclear safety minister, writing a foreword to the report, said the spread of nuclear power technology would automatically lead to weapons proliferation, threatening global security. "One of the worst ideas, circulating in many corners of the global discussion, is the call for an expansion of nuclear power as a means of climate protection," he wrote. "The recommendation is a clear-cut case of fighting one risk with an even bigger one. The risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism by both state and non-state actors are simply uncontrollable," he added. Not only that but extraction and purification of uranium was carbon-intensive even if nuclear power plants themselves emit little, and thousands would need to be built to make a serious impact on the battle against climate change, the report said. With scientists predicting that average temperatures will rise by up to 4.0 degrees Celsius this century because of carbon gases from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, nations are anxiously casting around for quickly available alternatives. Nuclear provides 80 percent of electricity in France and 20 percent in Britain, and the governments in both have said the plants should be replaced with new ones when they are retired. Other nations are also looking favourably at nuclear power. Environmentalists say renewables like wind, waves, solar and hydro can do the job better and more cleanly, pointing to security and saying nuclear waste remains deadly for generations. The nuclear lobby has repeatedly rejected the arguments on the grounds that none of the renewable technologies offer guaranteed power supply. Nuclear proponents also say nuclear plants are secure from attacks -- even like those on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York and Washington. At present only a handful of countries carry out reprocessing, including Britain, France and Japan. But the boom in demand if nuclear power does take off could mean a rapid spread and therefore reduced control, the report said. At the same time, the warming of the climate bringing increased floods, famines and violent storms risked also raising political instability and insecurity in the worst hit regions just when they might be acquiring nuclear technology. "Nuclear power cannot make a major contribution to global reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, whereas its effect on global insecurity and the risks of catastrophic conflict or terrorism are there for all to see," the report concluded. © Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. in.today.reuters.com.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (103097)	3/26/2007 11:56:20 AM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361390

Et tu, Katie Couric? (Ya bitch) David Sirota 03.26.2007 I, like many people, find it nauseating that the professional political pontificators seem unable to contain their desire to apply horse-race analysis to Elizabeth Edwards' announcement that she has life-threatening cancer. From CNN, to Time Magazine to Rush Limbaugh, the national political chattering class has this week truly earned its well-deserved reputation as a group of people dominated by egomaniacal, self-absorbed freaks wholly and completely out of touch with even the most basic sense of decency. Perhaps the most disturbing display of all, however, was 60 Minutes' Katie Couric. She spent most of her interview with the Edwardses behaving like a prosecutor, cross-examining them about why they are going forward with the presidential campaign. And when I say "interrogate" I mean interrogate. This was no ordinary interview - this was a televised guilt trip. She stated as fact to John Edwards that he is supposedly "putting your work first, and your family second." She also pulled the "some say" technique, claiming that an unnamed "some" say that in making this decision, Edwards is displaying "a case of insatiable ambition." In pursuing this line of repeated questioning, of course, Couric ignored the pretty well-known psychological value of work during health care crises. She also ignored the fact that this is an immensely personal decision that does not require some multimillion-dollar journalist to perform a televised, Gitmo-style interrogation in order for viewers at home to glean the "news value." And most incredibly, she ignored her own behavior when her spouse was diagnosed with cancer. That's right, Katie Couric's husband was diagnosed with cancer in 1997. I did a quick check of the transcripts for that year - and it's pretty clear that she kept working as the anchor for NBC's Today Show, if not full time, then pretty close to it. I want to be extremely clear: That Couric continued to work while her husband was sick was entirely her and her family's personal decision. I'm not going to comment on the merits of that decision not because I think it was a bad one or a good one, but because it's AN ENTIRELY PERSONAL DECISION. Really, who the hell am I - and who the hell is anyone else - to question someone's decision to keep working during a family health crisis? It's not up to me, or you or anyone else to decide whether such a decision for Katie Couric and her husband or John and Elizabeth Edwards is a good or bad decision, because it is an entirely personal decision, whether you are a national television anchor, a presidential candidate or anything else. I don't care if you are running for Supreme Leader of the Galaxy, your choice about whether to continue working at a time of a family health crisis should be entirely your own, without fear of journalists trying to "get a good scoop." I wonder how Katie Couric would have reacted back in 1997 if people started interrogating her about why she was working during her husband's tragic illness? I'm guessing she wouldn't have reacted too kindly to it (which she shouldn't have - she would have every right to be pissed off). That's why I couldn't believe she of all people insisted on this line of interrogation. I was, frankly, amazed that the Edwardses didn't get up and walk out on the third or fourth question along these lines. Couric at one point stated that "politics is a cynical business" and the Edwardses laughed as if to say "duh." It is a cynical business - but it is cynical because people like Katie Couric are so utterly caustic and so utterly devoted to "the scoop" that they insist on exploiting even the most personal of personal issues, regardless of their own personal experiences. huffingtonpost.com