I don't know what it is going to take, or how long it will take, before we can have intelligent conversation and debate on the environment. Poor forest management, including the use of herbicides and pesticides before replanting is a large contributor to wildfires. It has been documented that glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup) use in forestry has dangerously dried out the soil, and kills the natural underbrush that can actually help mitigate the threat of wildfires. I know that Roundup is heavily used in B.C. forests and likely everywhere is North America. Nobody seems to want to talk about this. It's too inconvenient and expensive for timber companies when replanting not to do the expedient thing which is spray toxic chemicals. It's always about the money not what's the right thing to do.
RFK Jr really cares about the environment and I believe will make changes for the better.
Even if we were to correct ALL these multiple problems but failed to rein in greenhouse gas increases, we would lose the game. More slowly perhaps, but surely. Once again, A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen.
C'mon people, you can get a used copy on Amazon for a paltry $5 including shipping.
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth-forever corporations?
BEFORE you BELIEVE some alternative climate view, or quote some scientist who says CO2 is plant food, the more the better, do some online searching to see who he is funded by. I discovered BigOil, Koch Brothers, Heartland Institute, et al., behind many of the climate deniers and websites.
It's all about BigBucks. As the COVID abomination has shown, "Science" can be bought just like any other product.
I'm skeptical about everything especially if stated in mainstream media. It's crucial to do our own research and use critical thinking and common sense to find the truth about anything. I had experiences 40 years ago that started my distrust in Pharma and western medicine. Don't blindly trust any authority, always question.
Stop drinking bottled water, that's a good one. People like to hear about simple things that they can do. Also, if people really cared about carbon, they would demand that we stop the wars and decrease global shipping.
Anything that is totally new since the fifties is suspect. Bottled water is an absurdity. The ignorance and hypocrisy of millenials (let alone the totally hopeless Gen Z morons) is beyond belief. "Don't eat meat. Drink bottled water."
Aug 25, 2023·edited Aug 25, 2023Liked by The Kennedy Beacon
Land management and habitat preservation are important issues. There is no climate emergency, we live in a time of very benign global climate that is naturally slightly warming ever since the beginning of the end of the last ice age, which we are still in. Statements by climatist influence peddlers, and climate alarmist beneficiaries, to the contrary, there has not been an increase historically over the past 150 years in severe storms or forest fires. There may be a negligible influence on climate by human activity but there is no scientific evidence or study that proves that, or can possibly estimate the degree of influence. Modelling is not scientific evidence, it is assumptions, often biased towards the goals of the grant providers, input into an algorithm often designed, with key omissions such as solar and cloud influence, to produce a preferred outcome. So far no models showing increased warming and other climate changes have passed the test of inputting historical data post models. CO2 is not a pollutant, not a toxic gas, it is the essence of life on this planet without which there would be none. Reducing CO2 below current levels is antithetical to real evidential science, and would be very detrimental to natural habitats and food production. It does not cause global warming; increases in CO2 over the past few decades occurred after warming not before and have been very beneficial adding 14 % to global greening and aiding the preservation of habitats. Water vapour, clouds, is the driving source of green house gases, not CO2. Solar energy and activity, and effects on the earth’s atmosphere and oceans drives climate, not humans. Carbon reduction policies and programs are anti science, anti human, anti environmental protection. They are a means of mass global control and enrichment of a few. Plastic itself is not a detrimental environmental habitat causative problem, human behaviour is, especially the monumental failure of recycling programs by western nations shipping plastics to third world nations with non existent quality control programs and no motivation for caring for the environment. Many people worldwide rely on water in plastic containers as most do no have safe tap water or expensive filtering systems.
One could include in this category untold numbers in the US wishing to avoid ingesting the fluoride added to municipal water supplies to supposedly prevent dental caries, when in fact it has been shown (F.A.N.) this makes little to no difference, that the "fluoride" itself comes from the toxic waste of the phosphate fertiliser and aluminum industries, that it reduces IQ, causes some cancers and that over 40% of US kids aged between 12-15 have some degree of dental fluorosis.
Good summary, but it could use some paragraphing for ease of reading.
My take is simple: to assume puny little man could have any appreciable effect on the two billion cubic kilometers comprising the atmosphere is the height of arrogance. Sorry, pseudo-environmentalists, but we are not the center of the universe.
All food will be grown in giant vats. This vat-grown food will be supplemented with insects (grown to order, all organic). We will wash this swill down with bottled water. We'll top it off by vaping marijuana (it's an herb, remember?)
Twice a year, we will line up for our RNA vaccines.
Carbon Dioxide: A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen. No, CO2 increase is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR probem. You will surely modify some of your current beliefs on MANY aspects of climate change by reading the facts in the book. As for who to trust:
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth forever corporations?
Nuclear energy: again, read Hansen, who tells an interesting story of why we don't have fast-neutron breeder reactors - which have great advantages over thermal (slow neutron) reactors.
By the way - please let everyone* know that "nuclear" is pronounced new-clear, NOT newkular, a pronounciation made famous by Bush the younger.
We DO have an environmental crisis, but not a CO2 crisis. Going from 350 to 425 PPM CO2 is an increase of only .0075%--tiny. That is the diversion from geo-engineering, industrial pollution, sabotage of the delicate interrelationships of ecology, the rain forest devastation, radioactivity, whale killing sonar,and so on THESE are things that need to be contains, not CO2, which helps plants thrive.
As for nuclear, unless it can be done absent of radioactivity, it should also be shunned. Recalling the two worst examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the entire process of obtaining uranium. I say emphatically, the ONLY safe nuclear power plant is 93 million miles away!
Talk to most people and they think geo engineering is a huge conspiracy theory but anyone who simply looks up at the sky regularly will find cloud formations at right angles to each other and very strange cloud structures.
Nuclear is the only reasonable option, it is safe, the radioactive material is being dealt with safely today. Chernobyl was not an accident it was a stupid experiment to determine if the safety systems could be powered by the residual energy generated by the turbine rotating, to test it they turned off the safety systems.
Fukushima is now effectively safe and was an extreme tsunami.
The air is cleaner today because we burn less coal and more gas but the climate hysteria is trying to stop that and forcing wind and solar.
Wind turbines take 25 years to pay back their build costs operating at 95% efficiency, most operate at around 15% so one could argue that they use more energy than they will ever produce.
Solar is a reasonable option but the pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries needed is appalling particularly when mining cobalt which also uses child labour in Africa which none of the so called environmental activists seem to care about.
What happens when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine? We will need a backup system that is reliable, how reliable, effectively 100% reliable.
We can't trust the nuclear industry any more than we can the Medical Industrial Complex! You want a steady reliable source of energy? The ocean tides--capture the flow in and the flow out with appropriate slow turning turbines. Here in Maine the tide shifts 10-12 feet daily with total regularity. Let's see what else can be found as well, e.g. more geothermal. No nukes is good nukes.
See Thorium Molten Salt reactors. A very safe technology to provide the world with energy. It is still framed by the military industrial banking complex as to expensive. Research by yourself and be able to falsify the fraudulent narrative of the MIBC.
Carbon Dioxide: A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen. No, CO2 increase is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR probem. You will surely modify some of your current beliefs on MANY aspects of climate change by reading the facts in the book. As for who to trust:
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth forever corporations?
Nuclear energy: again, read Hansen, who tells an interesting story of why we don't have fast-neutron breeder reactors - which have great advantages over thermal (slow neutron) reactors.
By the way - please let everyone* know that "nuclear" is pronounced new-clear, NOT newkular, a pronounciation made famous by Bush the younger.
Peter, As a long time environmental activist, I certainly am not under the influence of Big Oi, and only recently,after listening to some alternative view scientists (as I did with the covid narrative) come to the conclusion that it is industrial pollution, including of course the soot--unburned residue from oil and coal, that is a problem not the molecule CO2. So, yes, let us continue to reduce our reliance on coal and oil and especially their influence in political choices.
Thank you Peter. I appreciate this info. I concur that humanity (but mostly corporate gluttony) is a significant factor in climate change. Central causes are the deliberate geo-engineering, rain forest devastation, and an assortment of other nefarious practices. Only very recently have I become convinced that CO2 is not the real issue, but industrial pollution IS a major factor. We need to stop mono-crop agriculture on a mass scale, reforest heavily irrigate where needed, use regenerative agriculture, and above all REIN IN THE DAMN MILITARY DEVASTATION EVERYWHERE. They take pristine world class sites and bulldoze them--great example is the island of Jeju off the coast of South Korea. See the film "The Ghosts of Jeju to learn more. FYI the closest thing I've had to a career was marketing solar water heating systems--most of 20 years.
Still recommending Hansen, "Storms of my Grandchildren" - used copies for $5 including shipping on Amazon or elsewhere. I can guarantee it will enlarge anyone's comprehension of all the factors in climate change, both natural and forced varieties.
Nothing is 100% safe. Far more have died in the production of coal than nuclear. The least safe is unreliable energy, which could cause the demise of Western Civilization.
Keep in mind, too, Chernobyl was a classic in the annals of socialist construction, the incompetence of which was breathtaking, and Fukushima was simply built in the wrong place and I think a much older version; newer models are, I think, much safer.
The fact that the author of this article would choose to like a comment that displays an utter and appalling ignorance of CO2 chemistry says it all and invalidates most everything else he has to offer the reader
My father was a uranium miner in the 60's when we immigrated to Canada. Horrible conditions to work in. He died of multiple myeloma, a blood cancer. I can't support nuclear power.
Very sorry to hear about your father. Clearly, working conditions that lead to illness are not the solution. If he were working in the same position today, would he be facing the same risk? Or has the industry improved working conditions?
That is truly a tragedy; your refusal is understandable. I wonder if mining is done differently today, if it is safer for those involved? That would be a must, in my view.
We have to re-gain control of our elections so we can ELECT adults once again as leaders and managers. We currently have, instead, an out of control bureaucratic swamp SELECTING mental and emotional adolescents to enforce their will upon the American people and frankly the world.
I think most Americans, of all stripes, would find themselves comfortably on the same page with these above mentioned assertions about environmental issues. I am a dyed in the wool MAGA Conservative, and I think every one of these points (except maybe land management - the government has seized WAY too much land already) is not only agreeable to my tribe, but we've been hammering these points for years.
Nice article, and things that I've seen repeatedly proven around the world over the last 60 years. But it's really difficult for me to believe that nuclear is a real solution, though it "could be". There are many pros and cons, not arguable in simple terms here. It's a huge conversation I first had in high school in my home town with a nuclear physicist mayor, when a new nuke was proposed to be built outside the town.
60 years later, a number of those adolescent fears are coming to be true, and in a moment of something simple, that plant could poison all life for hundreds of miles along the Mississippi, for generations. This while regulartory authorities lie about the condition of the plant, its safety and fuel issues, cask storage in a flood zone, etc, etc. New nuclear tech may be groovy and better, but many age old issues remain and we are already a nation living on the edge of environmental collapse. To those who favor any tech that proposes to solve power issues, I just suggest that fusion not be ignored, fission be sidelined due to it's inherent and historical dangers, and human sanity be restored across the globe by cooperation and discussion with honesty and lack of animus.
Conceivably fusion might be safe, but the matter of TRUST looms large, as we have see corporate criminality in so many dozens of cases. Need to pay attention to "when, after a long train of abuses, it becomes necessary . . . . ."
Thank you for this brilliant disposition on the FACTS surrounding the climate hoax. When will Americans take their head out of the sand and stop accepting the climate elites' orthodoxy.
Aug 25, 2023·edited Aug 25, 2023Liked by The Kennedy Beacon
Good points. ‘Worry about pollution not climate change’ is my personal motto. Each country should make their own decision on power supply/energy sources. Here in New Zealand we have plenty of rivers for a start, that could & some are, be utilised to produce more electricity and we have many other energy resources too.. Each country is different and may have untapped energy resources they can utilise, before relying on nuclear fusion. Thank you again, that was an excellent article. Here is mine if you are interested✨🌏🌞✨🕊 https://louise0465.wixsite.com/take-action-now/post/should-we-care-about-a-cashless-society-digital-id-digital-currency-a-social-credit-system
Yes, the climate change activists are getting it wrong - intentionally so. Those in a position to control the narrative don't really care about the planet, the carbon footprint cry is one more excuse to control the masses.
😁 Ok, so I believe you. And I believe that u are a real person, though honestly these days it’s so hard to tell. But either way, don’t hold it against Kennedy is by far away the best option.!
I don't create much carbon because I like to walk and ride my bike but whatever the truth of the matter is I'll philosophically against cutting my carbon until the Davos crowd do..
I don't know what it is going to take, or how long it will take, before we can have intelligent conversation and debate on the environment. Poor forest management, including the use of herbicides and pesticides before replanting is a large contributor to wildfires. It has been documented that glyphosate (active ingredient in Roundup) use in forestry has dangerously dried out the soil, and kills the natural underbrush that can actually help mitigate the threat of wildfires. I know that Roundup is heavily used in B.C. forests and likely everywhere is North America. Nobody seems to want to talk about this. It's too inconvenient and expensive for timber companies when replanting not to do the expedient thing which is spray toxic chemicals. It's always about the money not what's the right thing to do.
RFK Jr really cares about the environment and I believe will make changes for the better.
Well said, Kyra. Thank you.
It baffles me that no one is talking about this. Including this article.
Even if we were to correct ALL these multiple problems but failed to rein in greenhouse gas increases, we would lose the game. More slowly perhaps, but surely. Once again, A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen.
C'mon people, you can get a used copy on Amazon for a paltry $5 including shipping.
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth-forever corporations?
BEFORE you BELIEVE some alternative climate view, or quote some scientist who says CO2 is plant food, the more the better, do some online searching to see who he is funded by. I discovered BigOil, Koch Brothers, Heartland Institute, et al., behind many of the climate deniers and websites.
It's all about BigBucks. As the COVID abomination has shown, "Science" can be bought just like any other product.
I'm skeptical about everything especially if stated in mainstream media. It's crucial to do our own research and use critical thinking and common sense to find the truth about anything. I had experiences 40 years ago that started my distrust in Pharma and western medicine. Don't blindly trust any authority, always question.
Stop drinking bottled water, that's a good one. People like to hear about simple things that they can do. Also, if people really cared about carbon, they would demand that we stop the wars and decrease global shipping.
Not to mention the fact that bottled water ain't quite as clean as their bottlers would have you believe!
Anything that is totally new since the fifties is suspect. Bottled water is an absurdity. The ignorance and hypocrisy of millenials (let alone the totally hopeless Gen Z morons) is beyond belief. "Don't eat meat. Drink bottled water."
VN - Talk about absolute NO BRAINERS, that are HUGE, and would go a looooonnnnnngggg way in making things better!
Good points, John Leake. I agree with you.
Land management and habitat preservation are important issues. There is no climate emergency, we live in a time of very benign global climate that is naturally slightly warming ever since the beginning of the end of the last ice age, which we are still in. Statements by climatist influence peddlers, and climate alarmist beneficiaries, to the contrary, there has not been an increase historically over the past 150 years in severe storms or forest fires. There may be a negligible influence on climate by human activity but there is no scientific evidence or study that proves that, or can possibly estimate the degree of influence. Modelling is not scientific evidence, it is assumptions, often biased towards the goals of the grant providers, input into an algorithm often designed, with key omissions such as solar and cloud influence, to produce a preferred outcome. So far no models showing increased warming and other climate changes have passed the test of inputting historical data post models. CO2 is not a pollutant, not a toxic gas, it is the essence of life on this planet without which there would be none. Reducing CO2 below current levels is antithetical to real evidential science, and would be very detrimental to natural habitats and food production. It does not cause global warming; increases in CO2 over the past few decades occurred after warming not before and have been very beneficial adding 14 % to global greening and aiding the preservation of habitats. Water vapour, clouds, is the driving source of green house gases, not CO2. Solar energy and activity, and effects on the earth’s atmosphere and oceans drives climate, not humans. Carbon reduction policies and programs are anti science, anti human, anti environmental protection. They are a means of mass global control and enrichment of a few. Plastic itself is not a detrimental environmental habitat causative problem, human behaviour is, especially the monumental failure of recycling programs by western nations shipping plastics to third world nations with non existent quality control programs and no motivation for caring for the environment. Many people worldwide rely on water in plastic containers as most do no have safe tap water or expensive filtering systems.
"safe tap water"
One could include in this category untold numbers in the US wishing to avoid ingesting the fluoride added to municipal water supplies to supposedly prevent dental caries, when in fact it has been shown (F.A.N.) this makes little to no difference, that the "fluoride" itself comes from the toxic waste of the phosphate fertiliser and aluminum industries, that it reduces IQ, causes some cancers and that over 40% of US kids aged between 12-15 have some degree of dental fluorosis.
Good summary, but it could use some paragraphing for ease of reading.
My take is simple: to assume puny little man could have any appreciable effect on the two billion cubic kilometers comprising the atmosphere is the height of arrogance. Sorry, pseudo-environmentalists, but we are not the center of the universe.
Food production? Who cares...
All food will be grown in giant vats. This vat-grown food will be supplemented with insects (grown to order, all organic). We will wash this swill down with bottled water. We'll top it off by vaping marijuana (it's an herb, remember?)
Twice a year, we will line up for our RNA vaccines.
What's not to love?
Yum! Think I will hard pass!
You are entirely and gravely in error on the subject of CO2.
Once again, A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen.
You can get a used copy on Amazon for a paltry $5 including shipping.
Carbon Dioxide: A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen. No, CO2 increase is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR probem. You will surely modify some of your current beliefs on MANY aspects of climate change by reading the facts in the book. As for who to trust:
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth forever corporations?
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/its-been-twenty-years
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/wind-up-the-spring
Nuclear energy: again, read Hansen, who tells an interesting story of why we don't have fast-neutron breeder reactors - which have great advantages over thermal (slow neutron) reactors.
By the way - please let everyone* know that "nuclear" is pronounced new-clear, NOT newkular, a pronounciation made famous by Bush the younger.
Mr. John Leake, as always, well reasoned and well written.
We all benefit from his intelligence and open mind!
We DO have an environmental crisis, but not a CO2 crisis. Going from 350 to 425 PPM CO2 is an increase of only .0075%--tiny. That is the diversion from geo-engineering, industrial pollution, sabotage of the delicate interrelationships of ecology, the rain forest devastation, radioactivity, whale killing sonar,and so on THESE are things that need to be contains, not CO2, which helps plants thrive.
As for nuclear, unless it can be done absent of radioactivity, it should also be shunned. Recalling the two worst examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the entire process of obtaining uranium. I say emphatically, the ONLY safe nuclear power plant is 93 million miles away!
Absolutely. Geoengineering is one of the topics that remains very relevant, yet has failed to enter the mainstream discussion in the way it needs to.
Talk to most people and they think geo engineering is a huge conspiracy theory but anyone who simply looks up at the sky regularly will find cloud formations at right angles to each other and very strange cloud structures.
Nuclear is the only reasonable option, it is safe, the radioactive material is being dealt with safely today. Chernobyl was not an accident it was a stupid experiment to determine if the safety systems could be powered by the residual energy generated by the turbine rotating, to test it they turned off the safety systems.
Fukushima is now effectively safe and was an extreme tsunami.
The air is cleaner today because we burn less coal and more gas but the climate hysteria is trying to stop that and forcing wind and solar.
Wind turbines take 25 years to pay back their build costs operating at 95% efficiency, most operate at around 15% so one could argue that they use more energy than they will ever produce.
Solar is a reasonable option but the pollution from the manufacturing of the batteries needed is appalling particularly when mining cobalt which also uses child labour in Africa which none of the so called environmental activists seem to care about.
What happens when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine? We will need a backup system that is reliable, how reliable, effectively 100% reliable.
Very interesting points to consider. Thank you.
We can't trust the nuclear industry any more than we can the Medical Industrial Complex! You want a steady reliable source of energy? The ocean tides--capture the flow in and the flow out with appropriate slow turning turbines. Here in Maine the tide shifts 10-12 feet daily with total regularity. Let's see what else can be found as well, e.g. more geothermal. No nukes is good nukes.
See Thorium Molten Salt reactors. A very safe technology to provide the world with energy. It is still framed by the military industrial banking complex as to expensive. Research by yourself and be able to falsify the fraudulent narrative of the MIBC.
You may be right about the industrial complex, any top down authoritarian system is by its nature suboptimal.
The tidal forces are also potentially beneficial for energy, however they do have a detrimental effect on the sea life, particularly in estuaries.
Yes, HOW ocean tidal power is harnessed needs to be done with ecological care.
Please read Hansen, if you do you will be embarrassed to have said such erroneous things.
Once again, A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen.
C'mon people, you can get a used copy on Amazon for a paltry $5 including shipping.
Carbon Dioxide: A must read, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen. No, CO2 increase is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR probem. You will surely modify some of your current beliefs on MANY aspects of climate change by reading the facts in the book. As for who to trust:
We have just learned the hard way, over a period of three years, that it is not wise to trust medical experts who are funded by BigPharma.
Now, are we to trust climate experts who are funded by BigOil and other over-consumption-oriented, growth forever corporations?
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/its-been-twenty-years
https://peterwebster.substack.com/p/wind-up-the-spring
Nuclear energy: again, read Hansen, who tells an interesting story of why we don't have fast-neutron breeder reactors - which have great advantages over thermal (slow neutron) reactors.
By the way - please let everyone* know that "nuclear" is pronounced new-clear, NOT newkular, a pronounciation made famous by Bush the younger.
Peter, As a long time environmental activist, I certainly am not under the influence of Big Oi, and only recently,after listening to some alternative view scientists (as I did with the covid narrative) come to the conclusion that it is industrial pollution, including of course the soot--unburned residue from oil and coal, that is a problem not the molecule CO2. So, yes, let us continue to reduce our reliance on coal and oil and especially their influence in political choices.
At least read his latest paper:
https://newmatilda.com/2023/08/05/the-climate-dice-are-loaded-now-a-new-frontier/
Thank you Peter. I appreciate this info. I concur that humanity (but mostly corporate gluttony) is a significant factor in climate change. Central causes are the deliberate geo-engineering, rain forest devastation, and an assortment of other nefarious practices. Only very recently have I become convinced that CO2 is not the real issue, but industrial pollution IS a major factor. We need to stop mono-crop agriculture on a mass scale, reforest heavily irrigate where needed, use regenerative agriculture, and above all REIN IN THE DAMN MILITARY DEVASTATION EVERYWHERE. They take pristine world class sites and bulldoze them--great example is the island of Jeju off the coast of South Korea. See the film "The Ghosts of Jeju to learn more. FYI the closest thing I've had to a career was marketing solar water heating systems--most of 20 years.
Here's a good one on the military contribution:
Is Climate the Worst Casualty of War?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/31/climate-worst-casualty-war
Still recommending Hansen, "Storms of my Grandchildren" - used copies for $5 including shipping on Amazon or elsewhere. I can guarantee it will enlarge anyone's comprehension of all the factors in climate change, both natural and forced varieties.
i discovered long ago that neither my capacity nor my time is infinite. Need to focus on the present.
Nothing is 100% safe. Far more have died in the production of coal than nuclear. The least safe is unreliable energy, which could cause the demise of Western Civilization.
Keep in mind, too, Chernobyl was a classic in the annals of socialist construction, the incompetence of which was breathtaking, and Fukushima was simply built in the wrong place and I think a much older version; newer models are, I think, much safer.
The fact that the author of this article would choose to like a comment that displays an utter and appalling ignorance of CO2 chemistry says it all and invalidates most everything else he has to offer the reader
Great piece!
Thanks for reading, Malinda.
My father was a uranium miner in the 60's when we immigrated to Canada. Horrible conditions to work in. He died of multiple myeloma, a blood cancer. I can't support nuclear power.
Very sorry to hear about your father. Clearly, working conditions that lead to illness are not the solution. If he were working in the same position today, would he be facing the same risk? Or has the industry improved working conditions?
Thank you. I don't know whether working conditions are better. Is it ever not risky to work with uranium?
Kyra - I am so sorry.
That is truly a tragedy; your refusal is understandable. I wonder if mining is done differently today, if it is safer for those involved? That would be a must, in my view.
This is true of many people in northern New Mexico, as well. Absolute insanity.
We have to re-gain control of our elections so we can ELECT adults once again as leaders and managers. We currently have, instead, an out of control bureaucratic swamp SELECTING mental and emotional adolescents to enforce their will upon the American people and frankly the world.
I think most Americans, of all stripes, would find themselves comfortably on the same page with these above mentioned assertions about environmental issues. I am a dyed in the wool MAGA Conservative, and I think every one of these points (except maybe land management - the government has seized WAY too much land already) is not only agreeable to my tribe, but we've been hammering these points for years.
Nice article, and things that I've seen repeatedly proven around the world over the last 60 years. But it's really difficult for me to believe that nuclear is a real solution, though it "could be". There are many pros and cons, not arguable in simple terms here. It's a huge conversation I first had in high school in my home town with a nuclear physicist mayor, when a new nuke was proposed to be built outside the town.
60 years later, a number of those adolescent fears are coming to be true, and in a moment of something simple, that plant could poison all life for hundreds of miles along the Mississippi, for generations. This while regulartory authorities lie about the condition of the plant, its safety and fuel issues, cask storage in a flood zone, etc, etc. New nuclear tech may be groovy and better, but many age old issues remain and we are already a nation living on the edge of environmental collapse. To those who favor any tech that proposes to solve power issues, I just suggest that fusion not be ignored, fission be sidelined due to it's inherent and historical dangers, and human sanity be restored across the globe by cooperation and discussion with honesty and lack of animus.
It’s too bad Dr. Helen Caldecott and Arnie Gunderson, among other critics of nuclear power, seem to be taken in by the medical establishment.
Money talks, sadly.
Conceivably fusion might be safe, but the matter of TRUST looms large, as we have see corporate criminality in so many dozens of cases. Need to pay attention to "when, after a long train of abuses, it becomes necessary . . . . ."
Thank you for this brilliant disposition on the FACTS surrounding the climate hoax. When will Americans take their head out of the sand and stop accepting the climate elites' orthodoxy.
Very rational and well thought out.
Good points. ‘Worry about pollution not climate change’ is my personal motto. Each country should make their own decision on power supply/energy sources. Here in New Zealand we have plenty of rivers for a start, that could & some are, be utilised to produce more electricity and we have many other energy resources too.. Each country is different and may have untapped energy resources they can utilise, before relying on nuclear fusion. Thank you again, that was an excellent article. Here is mine if you are interested✨🌏🌞✨🕊 https://louise0465.wixsite.com/take-action-now/post/should-we-care-about-a-cashless-society-digital-id-digital-currency-a-social-credit-system
Sweet, thanks for sharing!
Yes, the climate change activists are getting it wrong - intentionally so. Those in a position to control the narrative don't really care about the planet, the carbon footprint cry is one more excuse to control the masses.
Pffff - come on, you never had that shirt to begin with, and I bet that you drink bottled water. 😁
😁 Ok, so I believe you. And I believe that u are a real person, though honestly these days it’s so hard to tell. But either way, don’t hold it against Kennedy is by far away the best option.!
With a caveat. If it can be proven to be safe he would support it.
I don't create much carbon because I like to walk and ride my bike but whatever the truth of the matter is I'll philosophically against cutting my carbon until the Davos crowd do..