[ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Hi Mike,

> I
> believe that in the intermediate-range timeframe, nuclear fission has
> the greatest potential to provide the energy needed to be able to stop
> using coal and oil, at least at the level we currently do.       

I agree with your conclusion, although you are clearly greener than me.  I see a future where 
we drive non-combustion cars that are more safe, powerful, and long range.  Eventually they 
could be capable of computer controlled flight,  reducing or eliminating the need for airlines.

The problem for both of us is that idealogical zealots are running the show in most countries.  
I hear a lot of noise about carbon footprints and climate justice, but that is as helpful as an 
international séance would be.  All this time and money wasted on bogus climate research 
should have been spent on nuclear technology development.  Copenhagen should have 
been about meeting the growing energy needs of the world with clean reliable nuclear, 
instead of the cash give away circus that our leaders let it become.

Unless we want to go back to living in huts we need more energy, not less.  All those 
developing countries need lots and lots more energy.  You can cap and trade all day long, but 
its not going to make a dent in the real problem.

The whole thing with wind and solar is also dumb (sub-optimal in your words).  Why would 
you drive a tricycle or a skateboard when you could have a Rolls, or whatever fine car floats 
your boat?  Wind and solar are only popular because they reek of green.  How much wind 
power does France need?  Not much, I betcha.

-Gary Isenhower



On 23 Dec 2009 at 15:24, Brennan, Mike  (DOH) wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [ RadSafe ] Maine --- cancer and cell phones
Date sent:      	Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:24:12 -0800
From:           	"Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To:             	<radsafe at radlab.nl>

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 

It is not hard to believe that individuals would interpret, fudge, and
even fabricate information to support their belief that man's activities
are contributing to climate change.  It should be equally easy to
believe that individuals would interpret, fudge, and even fabricate
information to support their beliefs that man's activities ARE NOT
contributing to climate change.  Whichever side you personally are on,
it is important, vital if you like to think of yourself as a scientist,
to remember that another person's credibility is not enhanced simply
because they agree with you.  

There are several points on which it should be easy to agree, because
the evidence speaks for itself:

Making electricity by burning coal is sub-optimal.  If you release
enough of the waste products into the air they cause a wide range of
clearly demonstrated problems, such as turning cities black, dissolving
some building materials, killing fish in lakes, and killing up to
thousands of people in single events of temperature inversions.  If you
don't release the waste products into the air you reduce the efficiency
of the process, and collect large amounts of ash, much more than can be
used productively, and that, when it gets out of control can create
non-trivial problems.  The easy, cheap coal has mostly been mined, and
progressively getting coal for the boilers involves greater destruction
of the land, as in West Virginia, or greater risk, as in China.  In the
long run, it is not sustainable.

Burning oil and natural gas to make electricity and to move people and
things from one place to another is sub-optimal.  All the cheap and easy
oil and gas has been tapped and used: each "new" pool is harder to get
at, has a lower energy return on investment, and likely will have
greater environmental costs.  

Deforestation, whether for low efficiency farming, mining, wood and pulp
production, or bio-fuel plantations, is sub-optimal.  The environment of
the region deteriorates, water resources are harmed, and the quality of
life for the people who lived in the area goes down (though the wealth
of some people who do not live in the area, or do so temporarily, often
goes up).  In the long run, it is not sustainable.  

It really doesn't matter if these activities are changing the climate
globally or not.  Without argument they change the local environment,
almost never for the better.  Without argument the trends are that using
the same techniques produce lower return on investment, and newer
techniques have higher up-front costs and shorter timeframes before
they, too will have lower return on investment.  It is time and past
time that the collective "we" start moving in a direction that makes
more economic sense, which when viewed in the long term includes
preventing ecological degradation.  The easiest steps are to improve
efficiencies in how we use the resources we currently are exploiting,
while the long term answers involve developing techniques that exploit
different resources, including the waste from earlier processes.  I
believe that in the intermediate-range timeframe, nuclear fission has
the greatest potential to provide the energy needed to be able to stop
using coal and oil, at least at the level we currently do.