One of the interesting things that you folks always do is limit liability. How much did my parents pay out of pocket for medical bills, therapy, lost accuity etc. for living around a severly impacted environmental site? Many people liked the fact that living on leased Indian land meant that they didn't pay taxes but of course, they paid high medical bills, their children had lead poisoning and as the completely ignored Teresa post from that area that I submitted last week made clear, their ability to function efficiently in the society meant that they not only cost money but they couldn't "make" money either due to their conditions.
The same is true from the disabilities that are so much a part of the patriots in our community who went to the Vietnam War when they were called by the fat cats. Their lives were effectively ruined not only for themselves but as far as being beneficial to the rest as well. The damage to their families was palpable and the alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome is genocidal. So it gets down to this Harry, Keith et. al. If the wealthy go through the same thing and come out all right, are they really? They can pay for their cancers and it doesn't matter much of they are senile in their venality since they can afford it but can we afford them? The Indian Health Service's response to such alcoholism and FAS on the reservations was to secretly sterilize as many as they could at any excuse. It was so bad that it took an act of Congress to forbid them in their Mengele like mirroring. Why are rich kids born of alcoholic smoking mamas OK while Indian Kids get Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? Why are the rich kids OK and functioning in the highest echelons of business. It was Diana Trilling who wrote about the Alcoholism in the intellectual climate and Columbia U during my parents generation. Are my "literally" little friends, as in short, the result of such things when their children are above six feet? Or is business really so simple that these short FAS folks can function there with little more than my level of IQ? Thank God my parents were teetotelers. Well, if you limit the way you look at the information you are doing the same thing that those fundamentalist folks did on that Donahue article that I posted a couple of days ago. If you are unwilling to consider the whole picture then you can arrive at any conclusion you bloody well wish. Maybe we should look at the whole history of Western Intellectual thought through a different set of glasses considering the rise of fundamentalism in their students. Cheers, REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Bruce Leier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] RE: The Solar Economy > Keith, > > When I was involved with nuclear I ran into an interesting comparison in > Chicago. They used coal, oil, and nuclear power plants. The engineer in > charge made the point that of the three nuclear provided the cheapest > power, and also had the least downtime. > > He did point out that had he been able to use local "dirty" coal, ten coal > would have been cheapest. Bringing "clean" coal in from the West pushed > coal power above nuclear. > > Two political problems have dogged nuclear. First, keeping a $5 billion > plant from operating while 2-3 years of court antics take place is no way > to run a business. The plant is already heavily in debt when it finally > starts operating. > > Secondly, if they had been able to drop their spent fuel rods in the ocean > trenches instead of keeping them on site - the present expensive and risky > situation would never have developed. > > Also, the new nukes are apparently efficient and very safe. You didn't > believe they could be run with the coolant off, but I've seen it happen. > They don't even need containment shelters. To me, they seem to be the key. > Environmentalists are perhaps in a state of shock - these horrible things > don't even emit that well-known plant food - CO2. > > Privatization in Britain demonstrated that the conservatives had no firm > philosophy. This included Thatcher, who did some good things but inevitably > began to guess at what to do in the absence of a solid understanding of the > free market. In any event, I suppose had she tried to do something > significant, she would have been stopped. Meantime, the idea of privatizing > monopolies is beyond belief. > > Harry > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- > > Keith wrote: > > >At 10:33 22/12/02 -0600, Bruce Leier wrote: > ><<<< > >Harry, > >I do not know of any energy technology that did not get its start and/or a > >big boost through subsidies of some kind. Oil certainly did. And nuclear > >really did, too. Do you say those subsidies were "bad"? Or is it only new > >subsidies that are "bad"? What has changed other than who are the > >economic royalists? WWHGsay? > > >>>> > > > >Oil certainly did not get a start through government subsidies. In the > >modern era, it began with a group of private investors in late 1854 who > >engaged a brilliant Yale chemist, Prof Silliman, to look into the > >properties of the black stuff which oozed out of the ground in many places. > >Once Silliman's report was written, the group raised the money and the > >first oil company was founded -- the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company. All > >without a cent of government subsidy. > > > >The nuclear industry has certainly required vast government subsidies > >because it has been a hopelessly uneconomic proposition from the start. In > >terms of ongoing costs it may, in fact, become economic in a decade or two > >for a brief period as oil and gas prices start to rise but it would still > >need vast government subsidies because private investors can never afford > >to cover the costs of cleaning up afterwards. The privatised nuclear > >industry in the UK, launched without having to pay a penny towards its > >original development costs, has recently gone bankrupt for the second time. > >And it will continue likewise as long as it operates. Only second and > >third-rate chemists and engineers commit themselves to a career in the > >nuclear energy industry. > > > >Keith Hudson > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
