Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SoCal Windspill Sparks Huge Solar Radiation Leaks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 09:50 PM
Original message
SoCal Windspill Sparks Huge Solar Radiation Leaks
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 09:56 PM by FourScore
Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 01:25 PM PDT
SoCal Windspill Sparks Huge Solar Radiation Leaks
by TroubadourFollow

SNIP

...Warning: The following images are of a graphic nature, and may be disturbing to young or sensitive viewers.

Here we see solar plant worker Rutiger Nunes helplessly looking on as solar radiation overflows the capacity of the plant and washes over him, illuminating the scene in horrific glare:



Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger toured scenes of devastation, bravely putting himself in the path of the solar radiation to show solidarity with the victims:



Solar radiation levels had spiked so massively at this solar thermal plant that this photograph could be taken without any kind of artificial lighting:



SNIP

...As I type this, the light is streaming in between the blinds of my windows, so brightly that I can clearly see things outside. I don't know how much longer it will be before the solar flux takes me - probably in this century, or maybe even within the next fifty years. But I will keep on reporting as long as I last. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who today was touched by the solar spill. When, oh when, will they ever learn?

MUCH MORE AT: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/20/958417/-SoCal-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. People threw themselves on chaise lounges in horror
Covering themselves with lotion and sipping iced tea in shock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. :)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here quaking in fear
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm sorry but those workers do not look as cool as the Tepco workers
in their neat windbreakers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I Love It!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Cute, but 90% of cancers come from exposure to the sun
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 10:11 PM by wtmusic
About 2 million a year in the US alone. About 50,000 cases of thyroid cancer related to nuclear fallout - total - over the last 50 years.

Perspective is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. You and I both know that those cancers do not come from solar energy.
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 10:17 PM by FourScore
They come from excessive solar exposure. Put on some sunscreen, a hat, some long sleeves and your well-protected. What kind of protection did those 50,000 have against the nuclear fallout?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classof56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
88. Great comment!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGB67deux Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I miss the ozone layer. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
77. +1000% ... another missing topic disappeared by the rightwing --!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #77
94. It's not leading, because it's not "bleeding" any more.
For several years now the ozone is coming back faster in the spring than it is being destroyed over winter. Barring a massive CFC leak from the secret stratigic reserve the ozone hole is going, going and it will soon be gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I had melanoma AND thyroid cancer. I'm one of the lucky ones I guess. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. And I am glad you are, gateley!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
47. ...
Thank you - really. :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
46. Aw, thank you FourScore!
:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Nasty combo. Glad you are lucky!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
48. Thank you tabatha --
that really means something. :pals:

(something in my eye) :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. Solar energy causes cancer??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. And the number one killer is heart disease...
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 11:08 PM by Lost-in-FL
while the second is Cancer, being Lung cancer #1. Non of these conditions have nothing to do with radiation or sun exposure.

I am a bit confused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
66. It was a pathetic attempt to derail the issue.
Nothing more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
67. Grammar police alert!
Non(e) of these conditions have nothing to do with radiation or sun exposure.


That means they all have something to do with sun exposure.

It's that double negative thing we have in English (but apparently in no other language)

Either:

ALL of these have nothing to do with....

or

None of these have ANYTHING to do with....



Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic about grammar. I make mistakes all the time. It's just in this case you said the exact opposite of what you meant....

You are right, BTW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. Thanks
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 05:07 PM by Lost-in-FL
I appreciate pointing my mistake in a civilized manner.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
99. Correct me if I'm not wrong...
I just had to say that.

It fucking drives me nuts and some people who should know better say it around me...

However, in a world where lots of thoughts are shared, I'll give the person a break, cause I think they're right, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Damn you, Sun!
Yes, we must avoid solar power at all costs, because the sun causes cancer!

Er... That's not even good bad logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Your ergo is not mine
Mine is this: you would save many more lives pushing sunscreen than radiation safety.

Perspective is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yes, it is. When's the last time the sun rendered hundreds of square miles uninhabitable?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. It hasn't, AFAIK.
Edited on Sun Mar-20-11 11:19 PM by wtmusic
Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl

Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal China 278
Coal USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. And how many of those solar energy deaths were kids who contracted leukemia?
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:14 AM by Warren DeMontague
Nuclear energy is "safe" until it isn't, and then it becomes a giant clusterfuck. I was open minded yet mildly skeptical (any energy source whose plan for 100,000 yr. waste is "we'll figure out what to do with it later" doesn't exactly have the bumps ironed out, yet) until last week. Now I'm 100% against.

So Sorry, I'm not playing. There is no comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Agree about the solar stat
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:43 AM by wtmusic
I don't even know if they figured in nuclear plant construction fatalities, it's likely there are more do-it-yourselfers falling off roofs, but it's a silly comparison anyway. The point is nuclear is extremely safe, and it puts out a shitload more power than solar ever will. Hard to say where Fukushima is pointed right now - although it's still very unlikely it will reach Chernobyl status there could be fatalities in the 100-200 range. This, when coal kills 25,000 Americans every year, and solar contributes 1/200 as much power to the grid (and none at all at night, which is a big deal).

Most important is the fact is that Fukushima performed 100% to spec when hit by an earthquake that released 50x the energy it was designed to withstand. If you want to fault the designers for not building in enough of a safety margin, you'd have a completely valid point. But there is nothing wrong with the tech - even 40-year-old tech.

Regarding "100,000-year waste", it is true that some isotopes stay radioactive that long. Even the ones that don't are harmful, and cause cancer. But that's not representing the true picture. Below is a graph of the radioactivity surrounding Chernobyl - 27 years later (blue line):



You can see in 27 years it's dropped to 1/100 of what it was after the accident, and will continue to fade into the background radiation which is around us all day long. That's not saying we can let those kind of accidents happen. Chernobyl was a horrendously unsafe design that we've never used - an accident that was waiting to happen, instead of a 1-in-1000-year anomaly.

If we base policy around 1-in-1000 year occurences we're reacting to fear, not logic. And if we don't adopt nuclear power (Fukushima notwithstanding) and do it as fast as possible global warming will almost certainly make the planet uninhabitable in under 1,000 years, much less 100,000.

A discussion with 12 experts talking rationally and logically about where we go from here:

International Energy Agency Chief Nobuo Tanaka:

While I understand the publics fear, I am concerned given the important role of nuclear power. I encourage patience until more information is gathered for a full review so we can learn the lessons, he added The cost of fighting against global warming will increase, that is sure, he told Reuters. I think it is very difficult (to fight global warming), even impossible, without using nuclear power.

http://theenergycollective.com/alextrembath/53785/nucle...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. Right, but figures like "1 in 1000 yr anomaly" are pure speculation.
As far as real-world data? We've had a few very serious accidents, under widely different circumstances, with different reactor designs, now. Saying Fukushima 'almost' survived a very serious event wouldn't really cut it if, say, most of Honshu was rendered uninhabitable.

Another interesting bit about the coverage was how the media kept saying that this 'couldn't be another Chernobyl because of the containment structures'; well, never mind the fact that as long as 39 years ago people were complaining that the Mark I containment wouldn't be adequate in a serious event (speaking of horrendously unsafe) 3 days into the crisis we find out that there is at least as much hazardous nuclear material at this complex in the cooling pools- outside containment (and now, with most of the tops of the buildings gone, just plain outside) ... so in a massive conflagration/accident, given the several hundred tons of high level waste in those pools, it's entirely possible this situation would be WORSE than Chernobyl. So the argument that Chernobyl was an outlier and a fluke doesn't exactly hold water (as it were) either.

By all means, let's learn the lessons. But one of those lessons needs to be that given the chance- EVERY SINGLE TIME- corners will be cut to save $. They have been before, they will be again. Every time. Horrendously unsafe? TEPCO could have cooled units 1-4 with sea water much sooner, but they knew they would be trashing their investment in the plant. The 40 year old plant, but whatever.

I'm not a neo-luddite. I'm certainly not anti-technology. The most wonderful thing I could imagine would be to wake up one morning to hear that some brilliant team of scientists has cracked the problem of fusion, for instance. But the reality with nuclear as it stands today is that the risks; even IF they can be reduced to 1 in 1000 year accidents instead of one every decade or so; are simply too great. Too grave.

Instead, really, let's look at what's happened in the past year or so. I don't believe in deities or even a mildly anthropomorphized "Earth Goddess". But I DO think that when an addiction becomes seriously deleterious, addicts usually get a series of 'wake up calls' in increasing severity; ones which, hopefully, lead to a moment of clarity.

I think humanity is that addict, and with the BP oil spill, with Fukushima, we are getting those wake up calls.

The moment of clarity needs to come with us committing, finally, once and for all, to throw the considerable weight and resources of a 6 billion plus intelligent, technological species behind solving our energy problems with clean, renewable sources of energy. I don't care if that means wind turbines on every street corner, solar panels on every rooftop, hell, solar panels on the moon... but we need to do it, and we need to do it NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. It seemed like all the people who were saying "this won't be another Chernobyl"
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:26 AM by wtmusic
were not experienced enough to know better. Robert Alvarez and most of the other talking heads are not nuclear engineers. I agree with you completely - from a theoretical standpoint, had TEPCO not done anything it's very likely it would have eclipsed the seriousness of Chernobyl many, many times over.

In my ideal scenario we'd convince everyone to use less power, a lot less, and we might be able to figure out a way to make renewables fill the bill. I've cut back on my personal power usage 50% in the last year (mostly from installing CFLs, believe it or not). I'm getting a Nissan Leaf electric car this week, which will kick the electricity back up but cut my gasoline usage by 90%. And I'll have solar panels of my own at some point. We've got a very hard sell with China and the rest of the developing world, though. Right now the US has 1/20 of the population of the world and we use 1/4 of the power. Developing countries want to know why the hell they can't have the luxuries which have been afforded Americans, which have been at the expense of their environment as well all of these years?

I've been over the numbers many times and I just don't see any way we're going to squeeze enough power out of the wind and sun to make a realistic dent in world demand. What's happening is it can make an appreciable difference in certain areas (like west Texas), but when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining natural gas burners get fired up and we're back where we started.

There is a huge amount of infrastructure that's necessary to produce just a little power from the wind. To match the 24/7 output of a typical nuke plant, you have to have 300 huge 3MW turbines putting out maximum output in a 40mph wind. When the wind drops, the number of turbines required increases logarithmically. It would require hundreds of miles of transmission lines, and the associated maintenance (utility solar is even less efficient).

We can fine tune the technology to a point, but after that it's trying to squeeze water out of a rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. China is pushing hard into solar panels, AFAIK.
I know, they're also using a lot of coal. I understand the numbers and I understand that to fully dive into renewables will take a massive investment and modifications to infrastructure. And no one wants to pay for anything, ever. Unfortunately it's this corporate, Reagan mentality that has told people they can cut, cut, cut, not spend on anything, and still demand more and more..

But yeah, it would be expensive, but the cleanup from these situations; even if they're rare- THAT is expensive, too. But the costs aren't up front, and no one has a choice in the matter. Not even taking into account the human cost. I just don't know if the risk, with this particular technology, is worth it. Certainly not as long as people, like I said, are cutting corners to save money- like they always seem to do.

Maybe they can design a reactor that truly can shut itself down, cool itself off, and barring that, seal itself up with no human intervention in the event of an emergency; the scary thing I think a lot of people didn't realize with Fukushima is, if one situation got badly out of control, it would compromise the ability of anyone to get close enough to keep the other situations under control. So you have one very bad problem suddenly multiplied by 4, or 6, or even 12, counting all the fuel in the spent fuel pools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #29
51. I was making that effort to be reasonable too. No more. & for the same reason: it's "cheaper" (sub..
subsidized), until it ISN'T and then it ISN'T CHEAPER on a HUGE scale, not to mention 10s of thousands of years of radioactive WASTE management.

I have decided that I am a single issue voter now re nuclear fueled electricity production: No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #51
68. Nuke energy is like air travel....
It's great, safe and convenient....

But when something does happen, it's a million times more unsafe. There's no inbetween.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
78. It's not "cheaper" from A to Z .... and we're using nuclear reactors to boil water for steam????
If Obama goes any further with nukes -- I want a RECALL!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
106. Your statement sounds rather logical to me.
I have never believed the science behind the "sun" alone causing the skin cancer deaths.

I think that it is a combination of our chemical consumption together with no sunscreen while sun bathing.

In other words, lace up your body with weird perfumes, shampoo, and other body ointment preparations, which contain formaldehyde (called Quaternium on the label,) benzene etc and combine that treated skin with too much solar radiation, and you get cancer.

In any event, people can avoid the sun if they want to.

But there isn't much people can do when the nuclear industry subverts the will of the people, forces the nuclear plants to be built, and then has shoddy back up plans.

When cesium 137 has a half life of 300 years, its devastating effects simply cannot justify the need for nuclear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. The numbers at that website are very unclear. Makes no sense to me.
Are they counting deaths of people who put the solar panels on roofs? They then would have to count the deaths of coal miners and people who built nuclear sites.

Deaths do occur on construction sites.

It makes no sense to attribute the deaths related to placing solar units on roofs to solar power. That is because if you didn't place the solar panels on the roofs, you would have to put on some other type of roof covering. The deaths related to mounting panels on the roof are not specific to the solar power. They are simply a part of putting on roof panels. Your chart is not persuasive to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #23
37. How to stop the deliberate spreading of false information
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 01:51 AM by kristopher
What false information?

1) Nuclear 0.69/TWh not 0.04/TWh

The 0.04/TWh number is only the occupational fatalities to which must also be added 0.65/TWh in public fatalities for the total 0.69 deaths/TWh


This is from a legit source, not a cherry picked distortion from a nuclear industry astroturf blog.
"The Meaning Of Results: Comparative Risk Assessments OF Energy Options"
http://www.informaworld.com/index/02X48X98DVPW7U96.pdf


2) Wind 0.07/TWh not 0.15/TWh

Take a moment to learn how most of the 0.07 occured from the beginning of the modern industry, before there were standardized safety regs. For their claim the nuclear pushers had to go back to 1996 and pretend that was the latest stat available.

It also includes people who got killed rubbernecking looking at the turbine and a suicide IIRC.
The source is the same but I'm not cherry picking.

Gipe, (2006, 2009) http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html


This post takes you to the same discussion in 2010 (they've been posting this since about 2006/7 IIRC) with the mosst recent data on Chernobyl fatalities from the Russian and New York Academies of Sciences:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'd urge readers to bookmark this thread and share it whenever an over-eager member of the nuclear fan club attempts to fool people.

A former NRC Commissioner (now on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists) has identified 6 "myths" promoted by the nuclear industry to woo the public, but since the industry itself knows these are false, PR constructs, I call them lies or propaganda.

6 "Myths" of the nuclear industry
1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if wed follow the lead of many other nations and recycle our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon baseload alternatives;
6. theres no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.



If you want some history on previous episodes where the same false comparison was presented (with full knowledge of the true stats) click a link below.

It is frustrating to have this kind of deliberate spreading of misinformation occur but the nature of free speech puts the burden on us to protect ourselves from it by being informed and helping others stay informed. Please, take a moment if you will to review some of the past discussions on the topic of nuclear energy vs renewables in order to get a sense of the strategy that nuclear supporters follow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard...

It is really endless so if you want more, just google "death per TWh"


The good guys need some help folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. Thanks for the links! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
84. I believe you're thinking about the Sahara, the Gobi, the Outback, the Mohave, etc.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fatbuckel Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #21
90. You mean,like a desert?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #90
103. ***
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 11:16 PM by Warren DeMontague
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
christx30 Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
98. People that used to live
in the Sahara desert might disagree with that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. Actually, it was plate tectonics that caused the Sahara.
The Indian Plate ramming into the Asian plate, causing the rapid formation of the Himalayas, and cutting off the flow of moisture to North Africa.

But, whatever. Congratulations, your cutesy little point about the sun has been made. Hyuk, Hyuk.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to Japanese news, to watch and see if giant fucking clouds of plutonium are going to start spewing out of reactor #3.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
64. That is your point?!?!?!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is some goofy shit in a thread about the positives of solar energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
28. What do cancers from excessive sun exposure have to do with
capturing solar energy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
65. Not a goddamn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
62. Then we should harvest as much as possible to keep it off our skin.
Or we could wear clothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
73. Adequate exposure to the sun prevents internal cancers like colon and breast. There is a direct
correlation to solar exposure and lower incidences of these cancers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fatbuckel Donating Member (518 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
89. Move off the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
91. Lighten up. Jesus fucking christ.
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 08:06 PM by cliffordu
:hurts:


Seriously??

If my solar panels take a crap they won't irradiate 50 thousand people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
11. And one had to put on masks to breathe the air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, that's good! We almost put solar on our roof, but the state ran out of rebate funds,
of course, and we didn't get our ap in in time. Maybe next year though. We're hoping! I also know a guy who just started a wind turbine business here. He manufactures small rooftop turbines and we hope to get one some day in the not-too-far-future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. Clever, but I had a new thought that my be an old thought for those who follow the solar
energy progress closely. What popped into my head is chemtrails - if we get an admission that it's being done - might one of the motivations for doing it - i.e., blocking out the sun - be for the purpose of manipulating solar systems to rack up low and erratic performance statistics? Is that already thoroughly discussed? Dismissed? I shouldn't be going here because I haven't been on top of this - so just a yes or no, no yelling, please. I've had too much of that today. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. First, they aren't being done...second, for them to be done, how many people are involved?
and would need to keep it a secret?

the conspiracy theories on this are so convoluted that they require people from multiple agencies, the military, non security clearance, plain old gov't workers, the airlines, etc. etc.

AND AND AND! They would be a horribly inefficient and incomplete way to distribute poisons, mind altering chemicals or whatever you folks have dreamed is being done...and the people most worried about poisons in their air? many of them live in areas heavily polluted by cars, trucks and industrial activities anyway.

this is the stupidest conspiracy theory ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
33. If you do some digging, it's not so stupid.
Also if you pay attention to the skies over your head....definitely hasn't always been like this.

And...even if all those crisscross trails are only contrails (water vapor) we are in big trouble if they can cover the sky with a grey haze. Big trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. there's no reasoning with people who talk of "chemtrails"
very few of them will have a rational conversation about them with me.

and i've had plenty --i've been on the receiving end of questions about them many, many times.

the convolutedness of the conspiracies, the seeming requirement that tons and tons of people that cannot keep secrets are actually doing so is obviously not realistic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. I've Seen Them Spraying
I was a non believer until I saw 30 jets do patterned flyovers and they were turning whatever they were spraying on and off.

the vapor they put out gradually formed into a huge row of clouds later that day

saw the whole thing from start to finish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. what was being sprayed, who was spraying?
and if it formed clouds, then it didn't land on you.

what is the accusation here? do you have ANY specifics that indicate something harmful and/or nefarious was being done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
104. No Specifics
Other than what I saw. Nothing "landed" on us as far as I know, it was about 6 years ago.

No accusation other than they were doing something that's not being exposed to the public

it was a very extensive and patterned spraying of some substance.

Secrecy is the first step on the road to tyranny and never any good in relation to democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
59. Oh good #$%$ing grief..
Are you SERIOUS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
87. Exactly, but few people look up or watch the skies these days -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
86. First, it's amazing how many people fail to look up at the sky --
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 07:06 PM by defendandprotect
If you did -- you would have to believe that dozens of passing planes -- the type that

write on the sky -- went nuts.

Why? Because if you watch a plane when a contrail is present, it travels with the plane

and it disappears within a minute or two. Nothing like these chemtrails which not only

don't disappear -- they enlarge/expand to cover the sky --

It's also interesting how "mocking" has worked for US/CIA and those who want to hide secrets!

See Operation Mockingbird.

Evidently, some members of the military are still involved in this spraying -- but whether

military or contractor -- certainly both offer ways to keep those involved from asking questions

and or from divulging what they are doing.


the conspiracy theories on this are so convoluted that they require people from multiple agencies, the military, non security clearance, plain old gov't workers, the airlines, etc. etc.

Really naive considering how many were involved in JFK assassination -- how many had to be

threatened, intimidated and even killed to keep the cover up going -- and it is still going on.

AND AND AND! They would be a horribly inefficient and incomplete way to distribute poisons, mind altering chemicals or whatever you folks have dreamed is being done...and the people most worried about poisons in their air? many of them live in areas heavily polluted by cars, trucks and industrial activities anyway.

this is the stupidest conspiracy theory ever.


Don't see anyone saying they are TRYING to distribute "poisons" -- what people have always been

concerned about is the effects on health as these chemicals fall to the ground -- and are later

picked up with moisture and returned to the earth as rain.

But do agree with you that worrying about what corporations are actually doing in polluting the

earth -- nuke reactors and radication, etal -- BP and the Gulf -- is also something very necessary

to pay attention to!






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
79. Government has confirmed "Chemtrails" as "weather modification" ....
thereis existing Senate legislation on it, but not facts or details on chemicals

being used --

Kucinich worked on this for like 15 years in the House trying to get them to divulge

the chemicals -- and it has always been an international operation.

Your idea is interesting -- but their labeling of this is "weather modification" --

though doesn't seem like the states are questioning it -- nor do they seem to be

permitted to question it!!

Some others suggest it has a military purpose -- something to do with our radar/

satellites.

It existed long before the wars -- so I'm going for weathe r-- but who knows? Not us --

we're only the citizens paying for it!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
18. Wind Farms are ugly, solar panels are expensive.. can't can't can't can't can't can't
Alternative energy is for enviro-wimps. Rinse. Repeat.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. I WISH
we had too much solar radiation up here in Seattle

check that, I with we had ANY solar radiation up here in Seattle

I will un-selfishly volunteer to get close to the solar radiation if any of it comes this way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. LOL. I hear ya!
I live in Ithaca NY, known for being the most overcast spot in the US. And get this, I came from Boulder CO, known for being the sunniest. That was a brutal move. Other than that though, I love Ithaca!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. Seattle has water. You could harness your rivers for power if you aren't already.
You don't need solar. Here in Southern California, we do need solar. We don't have rivers and waterfalls to harness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. I'm Just Funning Around
It's rained every day in March here in the PNW

we do harness the rivers, about 85% of our electric from there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
54. You are lucky. The investments in your water power were probably
made prior to this ridiculous "conservative" anti-government movement. We need someone to approach solar and wind energy the way that Hoover and FDR approached hydroelectric energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Confusious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
58. They did harness rivers, and destroyed the salmon in the process. nt
Edited on Mon Mar-21-11 02:41 PM by Confusious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-20-11 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
25. One of the victims (warning *GRAPHIC*)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Granted, it's a horrific image...But, once again, let me reiterate:
Let's not confuse solar energy with solar exposure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
92. "But, once again, let me reiterate:"
That is Industrial Strength classic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks so much for reminding us. This post says it all.
I want to see more, more, more, more solar energy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underseasurveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
32. This i love
Awesome :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denbot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
40. Umm.. FYI Today in So. Cal was very windy with heavy rains
I long for a little solar radiation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
70. That's what's so lovely about wind and solar.
Sometimes they work together, but when the sun isn't out and about, the wind usually is.

I spent 3 decades in an area of So Cal that not only had sunshine for all but a handful of days every year, but also had persistent strong winds, every day of the year. As far as I'm concerned, they should have covered the valley floor with wind and solar generating plants instead of cloned housing tracts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #70
81. I am there now and...
...I agree completely. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #81
95. I haven't been back since I left 6 years ago.
I've got a bunch of people to visit and catch up with, including my oldest son, whenever I can afford the trip.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Hope you get the chance soon. I would have a hard time...
...living away from my children. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #100
105. He has made regular trips to us, until this year,
when he ran out of resources to make the trip. We'll have to figure something out soon. I can't be apart from him too much longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #40
93. It snowed over 20 inches at my house! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
44. I love this post
Rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
49. One on every roof campaign!
K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
50. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
52. The HORROR, the HORROR...
Solar and wind energy is PURE EVIL

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cemaphonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
53. Yeah, yiou're laughing now...
But just wait until the sun expands into a red giant and devours the entire earth. Then who will be laughing? Nobody, because the Earth will have long since had it's atmosphere and oceans boiled off.

Sometimes you just can't win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
55. Bravo! Great satire. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orbitalman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
57. How 'bout that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
60. Give me the warm power of the sun
...Take all your atomic poison power away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Qn038jsjk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
61. Yes to solar! Yes to wind energy!
NO to nuclear energy! Shut them down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
63. Every possible means should be
directed toward these renewable resources as soon as possible. More nuclear energy would just give more big profits to our political enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
69. Lol.... and yet somebody tried to argue against this
lolololololololol....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
71. What about the bats and birds? Noise pollution?
What about the impaired view from Martha's Vineyard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swampguana Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
72. This is not a nation ready for
sustainable, renewable energy. Not as long as there's still oil around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
75. I think they got it fixed!
There are reports floating in the media that the solar radiation might be all but gone by nightfall. However, solar scientists are claiming there could be another spike as early as tomorrow morning! Oh god, will it ever stop? Some are claiming this could go on forever. I guess we're screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
76. Thank you -- and just APPLAUSE for it all --
:applause: :applause: :applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
80. Big big hilarious RECOMMEND.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. I agree. Well done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
think4yourself Donating Member (422 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
82. Thanks!
I needed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
85. You people and your Solar Power. Sure it sounds great now
First cloudy day and you'll be like, "Oh, if only we had nook-you-lur power or oil and gas generators."

What are you gonna do when the sun burns out? Hmmmmm????
Where will you be then?!

on note: Your post is very funny

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
96. Wouldn't it be great if that was our worst possible disaster???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
97. i developed a solar -wind powered clothes drier.....
a clothes line,two anchor points and clothes pins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-21-11 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
101. And another from a plant I used to work at. Geo Thermal
There is nothing like working on top of a steaming volcanic field!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-23-11 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
107. We must rise up against the Sun and join the Moon!
Mooninites unite!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 12th 2017, 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC