A Joneser's rants and riffs, ideas and trends, musings and innovations - all for your perusal and reuse. Steal it. Use it. Tell others.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Nuclear power, and the lies the media wants us to believe

In an editorial published in today's Rochester (MN) Post Bulletin, op ed contributor Karl Grossman wrote about the dangers posed by nuclear energy. In response I submitted the following letter to the editor.

Sir - Mr. Grossman asserts that today's efforts to revive nuclear power are based on false premises. Unfortunately the premises he bases his argument on are themselves false. His first point is that building and operating nuclear power plants generates harmful greenhouse gases. He does not cite a source for his data, nor does he provide any indication of quantity. Would the quantity be more than, say, the amount of greenhouse gases generated by manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining an equivalent generation capacity in windfarms, for instance?

Secondly, referencing Chernobyl to support his assertion that nuclear power is inherently dangerous is nonsense that the popular media has used to mislead the public for long enough. For one thing modern reactor designs include passive safety features designed to shut down the reactor should things go wrong. More important, though, is the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was housed in what amounts to a backyard polebarn, with no containment building at all. All the existing reactors in the US are housed in massive steel-reinforced concrete containment buildings, many of which are designed to withstand a direct impact from a jumbo jet. Had the Chernobyl reactor been built to the US standards in place at the time the loss of life would have been limited to those inside the plant (possibly none), and the subsequent radiation release would likely have been eliminated.

Mr. Grossman and much of the print media seem to be disinterested in reporting this factoid when referencing Chernobyl. Isn't about time the whole story was told?

regards,

Friday, October 19, 2007

2nd Amendment - so you can protect yourself from your government

At least, I think that's the gist of what Republican candidate Mike Huckabee bases his support for it on. He says this on his website:

"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope."
Wow. That may have been a realistic approach to the problem of fending off oppression by the incumbent government of the day, what with muzzle loaders being what they were. By ensuring the populace was allowed to be armed as equally as the government's soldiers, the balance of power between the Fed's forces and the farmers was roughly equal.

Sometime over the last 200 years or so this parity has eroded a bit. Yeah, Mac-10s, M-16s and AK-47s converted to full auto can certainly raise hell in urban gangland ruckuses. But does anyone really believe that if our government decided to mobilize the US military against its own people in order to...what? Fend off a coup? Overturn an oppressive president? Well - nevermind that. Like I was saying - if for some odd reason the US populace decided it was necessary to wage a war against our own military, does anyone actually think the commoners would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

Just watch one of those military marvels tv shows one night and take a look at the toys our military has at their disposal. And the training they receive on applying those toys to maximum effect. Now with all due respect to rednecks, gangsters, law enforcement types, and anyone else who feels they are pretty handy with a 9mm or .30-06, you'd have to agree that if it came down to y'all and the US Marines, for instance, you really wouldn't have much of a chance.

Meanwhile another 30,000 or so people will die this year from guns, including a large number of children.

If you want to argue that you have a right to own a gun because you believe you might need it to fight your government some day, well, as of late I can't say I blame you. I think you'd lose, badly, but I feel your pain. Maybe things will get better after the Shrub is booted out of the whitehouse, and someone with some sense is in charge.