Re: persistence of anti-nuclear activism

[NeilKeeney@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 11/6/01 3:37:17 PM Central Standard Time, 

mcaceci@radal.com writes:



<< In my opinion, it is irrelevant here to comment the latest idiocy from the

 latest anti-nuclear activist  (they are the illiberal ones, to be sure, by

 the way). Let us ask ourselves instead: who is really against nuclear

 energy - and what reasons move the media - and why? >>



Well put and on target of course.  Much as the news anchors are merely the 

"smiling heads" of the news telecast, those taking an organized position 

against commercial nuclear power could be considered to be simply the 

"concerned" individuals or groups   representing a group that could stand to 

lose should nuclear power prosper as an energy source.  The sad thing is that 

many "concerned" individuals aren't even aware they're being duped or they're 

being specifically targeted because their's is a "reactive platform" for 

issuing false data.



I recall working with graduate students in 1979 at the U of MD on an effort 

to transfer a gene from Blue-Green Algae to a corn embryo. We were attempting 

to isolate and transfer the gene that selects for fixing free nitrogen from 

the atmosphere from the algae to the corn embryo.  Can you imagine the 

ramifications of succeeding?  Potentially a corn plant that would thrive like 

a weed given a substrate and - water. 

Following the sequence from there it is a short step to abundant alcohol for 

clean fuel and reduced mechanical wear of internal combustion components, 

abundant food for third world countries, abundant animal feed... The list 

goes on and on... There would be other problems to overcome of course.  

Parasitism and diseases and so forth.



Now.  There is absolutely no question in my mind that this is not now 

technically possible.  If we can grow a fifteen pound salmon in one year when 

it's wild siblings grow two, we could probably now transfer the gene that 

selects for the free nitrogen trait.



So the answer to your question is the same as the answer to why we don't have 

a pesty corn weed taking over the planet now.  It would sort of turn 

civilization as we know it on it's head.  Abundant fuel, abundant food... 

What leverage could governments use on so-called third world countries that 

suddenly don't need "economic assistance"?  What would Wall Street do without 

fossil fuel futures? How would politicians get elected without PAC money from 

fossil? What would the auto parts industry do in the absence of current 

obsolescence schedules?  Just how cheap would a barrel of oil go for?  And 

gee.  Why would we need to interact with OPEC?



We so-called civilized beings spend the bulk of our time trying to survive by 

driving or riding great distances to a job that we work to pay for the 

production of goods and services that have their prices established by their 

production and profit margin costs.  What if that cost were reduced by 80 

percent due to reduced energy costs?



Jeez.  We'd be that much freer to CREATE along other survival routes for 

mankind and wouldn't that be something?



Neil Keeney

RRPT





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.