''I should have brought a Geiger counter,''

[donsu]

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411416



The remnants of the Midnite Mine on the Spokane Indian Reservation in northeast Washington state are these: mountains of orange rock abandoned by miners because their concentrations of uranium were small and unprofitable; a pit filled with unnaturally blue water; and designation as a government-monitored Superfund site.

''I should have brought a Geiger counter,'' Spokane tribal elder Clyde Lynn said as we stepped out of my Chevy Blazer. Lynn is a prostate cancer survivor, a disease he believes stems from the three years in which he worked at another uranium mine on the reservation.

-snip-


The Dene community became known as the ''village of widows,'' signaling the high death rates from cancer among the First Nations miners who carried bags of Geiger-rocking ore in bare hands, inhaled the yellow dust into their lungs and slept atop piles of bagged uranium on barges carrying the stuff to the U.S. government.

''When we go back to the 1940s and 1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense said uranium was safe,'' said Bob Shimek, Ojibwe and mining coordinator for the nonprofit Indigenous Environmental Network.

-snip-

Miners carried the contamination home to their wives, who would shake the yellow dust off their husband's work clothes and unwittingly douse themselves in radioactivity.

-snip-

But what worries Abrahamson the most is the prospect that the mines on her reservation and others could reopen.

-snip-
--------------------------------------


I think more people in america and the world should get Geiger counters. you can't see, hear, feel, or smell radiation; you need a Geiger counter. (yes you can see the yellow dust and the yellow cake)

if I was an SO of a returning from Iraq military person, I for sure would want a Geiger counter and a request that the military person be tested for DU poisoning.

[MadHound]

1. Another reason why we shouldn't rembrace nuclear power

Re-opening these mines, and digging new ones will only contaminate the countryside even further.

[NNadir]

3. So your opinion is that coal mines are pollution free?

[rkc3]

6. They must be. Bush has been entertaining the idea of reducing

restrictions on the amount of coal dust in mines.

If we've learned nothing over the past five years, it's that environmental regulations are barriers to economic growth.

How can we compete against third world countries who have no environmental regulations and poor working standards? The simple answer is that we work hard to emulate those nations. So what if a few people die in the process - there's ten more to take their place and each company will make a few extra bucks each quarter.

[MadHound]

8. Uh, gee Wally, that's a might big jump you made!

How did you get from my being against revitalizing the nuclear industry to being in favor of coal mines? I said nothing about coal, gas, nor anything else for that matter, other than expressing my opinion that we shouldn't go back in for nuclear power, and that the mining process is simply one more reason we shouldn't.

But then you have to go and make this stunning leap of logic. . .right off a cliff, thinking that somehow I am for coal power.:wtf:

If you must know, I'm not for goal, gas, nor nuclear power. Quite frankly I think we should go for completely renewable, clean, alternative energy sources, and this country has the means and methods to fill our energy needs using only renewable resources. Just one example is wind power. Do you realize that there is enough harvestable wind resources in just three states, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas to meet all of the US's electrical needs through the year 2030? Just three states will fulfill all of our electrical needs. No need for coal, oil, gas or nuke electrical plants, what a novel concept. Combine this with things like solar, biodiesel, ethanol, etc and damn, the US has an enviromentally friendly, sane and safe energy plan. What a novel concept.

Now do you get where I'm coming from?

[NNadir]

9. Um gee Beaver, renewable energy provides less than 1% of the world's

energy. It's too expensive for anybody but rich kids.

It's not a big jump at all Beaver. You're either for nuclear power or you're for fossil fuels.

If all this blah, blah, blah about the wind and such really worked, people would have done it, wouldn't they?

By the way Beave, the reason that global climate change is a crisis is that nobody seems to learn the second law of thermodynamics these days. Nor do they seem to get Ohm's law very well.

They keep telling us that the only time we'll need energy in New Jersey is when the wind is blowing in Texas.

I'll tell you what Beave, I know where you're coming from, and it's easy to be coming from there if you haven't been to high school.

[MadHound]

10. LOL friend, do you really have such a dichotomous outlook?

Then quite frankly, you are lacking in imagination and vision, even less than I originally thought. You also aren't keeping up on the issue very well either. Let me fill you in.

Right now, traditional electric is costing 12 cents per kilowatt hour. New solar tech has lowered the cost to 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Wind turbines are cranking out electricity at between 9 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour. Thus retail price of biodiesel is running at between .70 cents and $1.40, depending on you vegetable oil source. All of this looks pretty competetive to me, especially considering that the more we switch to renewable resources, the cheaper they will get.

The reason more renewables haven't become more widespread is because the oil industry hasn't wanted to make the switch. Thus, while the oil industry is subsidized by the government, renewables have had to struggle on, battling the entrenched corporate powers to a standstill. Thus we see wind farms springing up despite the odds and solar panels going up on family homes, despite the lack of government incintives in some locals. And gee, there is even a biodiesel refinery opening up in two years just fifteen miles away from me.

If you honestly think that renewables have had a level playing field to compete on the past twenty five years, you are blind. Traditional energy companies have battled renewables every step of the way, and are succeeding in winning ordinary Americans over. The cost is now low enough to be competitive, and the publics' demand for renewables is growing, despite the oil indutry's favorite son being in office.

And you bring up the already solved problem of what happens when wind isn't blowing locally. Gee, that is why we have a national electric grid for, to transport electricity from one place to another. This is what is done already, thus, simply hook up the renewable electrical generators onto the grid, and hey, we have power, no matter how far away one is from the source.

Your lack of knowledge in this area shows, badly. Your bias in favor of traditional sources of energy is showing. What, you want this country to be a polluted, radioactive wasteland? Certainly sounds like it to me. Luckily, despite your feeble suggestions, people with vision are slowly but surely realizing the fact that renewables are the solution to our energy woes. Perhaps you should put away your biases, do some research on your own, rather than parroting out of date talking points from the nuclear lobby, and realize also that if we're going to survive as a society, renewables are the only way to go.

[NNadir]

12. Gee Beave, didn't they tell you in elementary school about electrical

resistance or that a grid is not a battery? Quick Beave, what is the farthest distance electricity can be shipped before 90% is lost?

Beave, I think you'd better inform the folks at the solar promoting web site about your pricing:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm

No prices there at 0.15 per kilowatt-hour. Best price? $21.34. Best grid price with (gasp) radiation. $4.15. Now I do know, Beave that rich kids with fantasies think everyone can quadruple their electricity bill and pay for huge toxic batteries at additional cost for those days when there's snow cover or the sun doesn't shine.

This is why the fraction of people who use solar power, even though its been mindlessly hyped for decade after decade after decade, is around 1%.

People who understand poverty, the need for energy to reverse poverty and the crisis of global climate change can't afford to live in day dream lah-lah land. They support the immediate emergency expansion on nuclear power.

[MadHound]

14. Somehow I think I'll skip on taking the word of somebody

Who is so muddled and confused that they can't even read their source correctly. Go back and read your source again friend, the unit detailed at the top of the table is in cents, ie 21.50 CENTS, not dollar as in your post. You are also being rather disengeous in stating a price that is five years old, ie the price you are stating in your post is from 2000, not 2005. I'll let you scroll down the table for yourself and find out what the current price is. Confused and disengenous is not a good way to go through life friend.

And a couple of things that you're convienently forgetting about new technologies. One is that technological innovations bring down prices. A current innovation in solar energy, the Sunflower, offers prices as low as 6-8 cents per kilowatt hour<http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=12464&hed=Energy+Innovations+Gets+Cash>
Then there is a new innovation in solar power called Thin Film Photovoltaics which is looking to provide energy for as low as 1 cent per kilowatt hour.<http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/23700.pdf#search='thin%20film%20pv%20price%20per%20kilowatt%20hour'>

I also noticed that you didn't even touch the issue of wind energy in your reply. Why is that? Does the notion of 4 cents per kilowatt hour negate your arguement that alternative energy is only for the rich?<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternative_energy_2.html> Because that is what it does. And like I said previously, the DOE has done a study on the United States energy resources, and they found that there is enough harvestable wind resources in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to fulfill the entire American electrical needs through 2030. Oh, and that DOE study was done in 1991. Wind tech has advanced a great deal since then.

And you are also ignoring a fundemental economic law, that of supply and demand. As more and more people start buying PV and wind energy, the price will continue to shrink. Meanwhile, as limited supplies of non-renewable energy sources continue to run out, including uranium, the prices for those sources of energy will continue to skyrocket. Hmmm. And the current best estimates of how long the world supply of low cost uranium will last is only twenty years<http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/3_2_12.asp> Granted, technological innovations such as breeder reactors will mitigate the extra cost, but large scale breeders are still having technical problems and at this point are unreliable as energy sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor> In addition, the US only holds three percent of the world's supply of uranium. And once that is used up, we will again be over an energy barrel, forced to rely on other countrys for our energy needs, rather than our own domestic sources. Gee, haven't you learned anything from our oil troubles?

Then we run into the two HUUUUGE problems with nuclear energy, human error and what to do with the waste. Human error is the most common cause of mistakes, both inside and outside of the nuclear industry. It has been proven time and again that despite how technically sophisticated a system is, human error will sooner or later strike, causing major problems. Now then, with conventional electric generators, the problems caused by human error, while serious, certainly don't have the long term ramifications that human error at a nuclear plant does. While human error at a hydro electric plant has the potential to put acres of land under water temporarily, and possibly even kill people, human error at a nuclear plant no only kills people in the short run, it also can continue to kill for generations and lay vast swathes of land to waste. For further reference, just look at Chernobyl, both then and now. For something as dangerous and critical as nuclear power, you cannot afford to have one single error. But human nature dictates that you will have many more errors than just one. Thus the inherent lack of safety at a nuclear plant, and the great danger of them as well.

Then there is also the issue of waste. Until a safe, permanent way of dealing with nuclear waste is developed, we cannot afford to create anymore. Yucca Mt. is a joke, as dye studies on the groundwater suggests that once nuclear wastes leak out of their containers(and they will, remember, we're talking of a span of tens of thousands of years or longer), Las Vegas drinking water will be contaminated in as short a time as two weeks. Nor can we continue to store nuclear waste on site at reactors. Not only is it a security risk, but again the problems of leakage and the water supply are in play. Until we solve the problem of nuclear waste we need to stop making it.

Oh, another thing that you didn't mention is biodiesel. An off the shelf technology that requires minimal, if any modifications to normal diesal vehicle, is a cheap fuel, a boon to our farmers, and provides reliable energy that benefits the pocketbook, our nations' farmers, and the enviroment also. Start making hybrid diesel vehicles, and we have a solution to the daily commute.

As far as the grid goes, your failure to grasp the concept of the grid is obvious. Do you remember Enron, and how they made a killing by rerouting electricity over the national grid? Gee, did they lose ninety percent of their power shooting that electricity from Texas to California? Funny how that works, you know, inverters, step up and step down transformers, etc. Technology is amazing now isn't it. Look how far we've come from those DC days of Edison, when we DID lose ninety percent of the power due to resistance. But hey, we're now a technologicall advance nation, with AC power and everything.:eyes:

And it is funny that you mention poor people. Funny because in developing Third World countries the energy model being developed for those populations isn't nuclear, or fossil fuels. Nope, it is renewable energy, solar, wind, biomass, etc. Think that they know something you don't? I do.

Sorry friend, but if we're to have a sane, sensible energy future, we're going to have to go with renewables. They're cost effective, low pollution, safe, and allows us to energy self sufficient. Your little diatribe sounds like a script out of the late '70s. Well, it is time that you stepped into the twenty first century friend, and realize that nuclear is an obsolete and dangerous technology, while renewables are safe, reliable, cost effective, and well, last forever.

[ToeBot]

11. File it under interesting facts, but...

coal fired power plants produce enough uranium as a byproduct to power a nuclear reactor. But instead of extracting the uranium they package it off in cinder blocks. Yes, those cinder blocks, the ones that are used in building just about everything. Where does radon gas come from anyway? But hey! it's all good!

an interesting .pdf www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~aubrecht/proliferationAAPTSu03.pdf

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Agreed. We should be helping every American put up solar panels

and wind turbines instead.

[spuddonna]

2. After growing up near Three Mile Island...

I've had quite enough of nuclear anything, thanks...

Yeah, they should be checking the returning GIs for depleted uranium, but they won't, because that would mean there was something to worry about and that they cared about the soldiers.

We'll soon see a second round of Gulf War Syndrome soldiers, and the military will again turn its back on them...

[Massacure]

13. Why? Three Mile Island did as it was supposed to do.

It contained the radiation, and no one died.

The new reactors that have been built in the last 10 years or so are of a new generation that are cheaper, simpler, and safer. We would all be better off if the second generation of reactors that we currently have were replaced by the third generation.

[spuddonna]

16. You wouldn't be so cavalier if you'd lived through it...

I kid you not, my brother and I were looking at maps to determine how far away we'd have to drive to escape the 2nd ring of fallout that would slowly kill us... and mind you, we were miles away...

And your comment about 'no radioactivity' being released is wrong. They were forced to release radioactive gas straight into the air, not to mention the cleanup was around a billion dollars...

Look, I'm all for alternative fuels, but fission technology creates so much hazardous waste... There's got to be a better way...

[Ripley]

4. We bought a geiger counter a few years ago.

At a Tampa Bay Art museum showing a retrospective of JFK, of all places! It was in the gift shop. I think it was about $50.

Hope I don't have to use it for my own safety.

[donsu]

15. Well, have you used it on your property and neighborhood?

if you haven't - don't you want to know?

[titoresque]

5. Sodium Iodite

more people should be stocking up on Sodium Iodite too.
You can get it or order from most health food stores.
google.