====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I don't know all the statistics, and all that stuff. I don't spend my life studying them, or a lot of things, even though maybe I should. I knew and worked with Tony Mazzocchi briefly, but never really discussed the nuclear issue with him—and most of the former OCAW people I know, including Ray Stiever, the current president of the NJ Industrial Union Council, are from the pharmaceutical industry. What I know is this: my father-in-law, who smoked until his late 50s, lived to the age of 79. His co-workers that went to Oyster Creek died before they were 70. All of them. Not this one or that one. All of them. Of course, a good lawyer for the nuclear industry could knock down any allegation that nuclear power might be at fault. Mazzocchi had plenty of war stories about such cases. More importantly, for the people on this list: the people who actually are going to make a revolution aren't going to do it because of something we read in a book or something you quoted to us from whatever. It's going to be based on our own lives and our own experiences, and if we're going to get up off of our asses and fight, it will be for our families, friends, community. We'll fight against nuclear power if we think it's killing our friends that work in the plants. And if we see them dying before they should, that's generally enough proof for us. Tom On Feb 1, 2010, at 4:32 PM, nada wrote: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > Probably getting close to my limit on this issue here. Louis doesn't > "want" to debate it with me because I'm "obsessive"...this from a guy > who posts Harvey Wasserman's obsessive rants against nuclear? OK, sure > Louis. I am obsessive about climate change and what fossil is doing > and > you don't...care...really since you don't...want to debate the issue > because nuclear is "repugnant" to you. Ah...good. Then don't. More > seriously: > > David S: yes, what you bring up is very very important: transportation > fuels. Neither hydro, solar, wind or nuclear can address the liquid > fuel > issue. However, electrification of rail CAN address some of this. > So the > idea of any of these being 'on board' is certainly questionable, at > least I would. But using *any* of these methods. Every electric car > (EV) > in France are, in *effect* "nuclear EVs" because France gets 80% of > it's > power from nuclear. Same with rail and same with everything that uses > electricity. So the "electrification of things" is a goal that > decrease > our use of fossil fuels a lot or can depending on generation source. > High Speed Rail, 20% of which will be powered by atomic generated > power, > is important in this regard (all the other insane financing issues > around US HSR remains, of course, which I know David can spend > reams of > computer screens explaining to us :). There are however also possible > 'carbon neutral' forms of liquid fuel than can also be synthicized > from > high energy usage (and in theory, all the above forms of generation > 'could' work in creating it). > > Tom: this is the problem with having any discussion with people on > this > question. It's as if "I know a guy who worked in a shipyard and got > cancer. They say it was the rust building up on the hull. Must be that > rust kills." And...so it goes. What you stated, or rather observed, is > contradicted by the facts. Your position is *completely* > antidoctal. If > you look at actual statistics of nuclear power plant workers you find, > they are among the healthiest of all industrial workers. This is well > know among both OSHA reps and union safety reps in the industry. It's > also quite controversial since there is something called the "healthy > worker syndrome"...unionized workers with good health plans tend to > mitigate localized health problems. But it is also true that the > average > nuclear power plant outputs less radiation than, say, Grand Central > Station (granite contains a higher than usual uranium content so it's > tends to register higher in background radiation). Do you think there > might be other causes (like the damn tobacco he smoked???). > > Considering what the world is up against with climate change, fossil > fuel pollution, etc, I've concluded, as have many others, that we > needed > to seriously reexamine our previously held, often admittedly by > 'momentum', anti-nuclear positions. Barry Brooks, (who I believe is > not > this list's Barry Brooks) is one of Australia's leading > climatologists, > who like an ever increasing number of climatologists, are becoming > avid > pro-nuclear advocates. His very high level web site that discusses > climate change and energy is here: bravenewclimate.com . He invited > Australian anti-nuclear activist and frequent Green Left Weekly > contributor Dr. Jim Green to submit an essay for discussion. It's all > quite good, and revealing. Very serious, sometimes technical, > discussions. > > While Louis continues to act like Wasserman doing the whole ostrich > thing with his "only under socialism...." then no serious > discussion can > be had on this or many other energy related issues here. Or at > least by > him. BTW...I'll stand with Hugo Chavez and the PSUV on nuclear over > what > passes for "Marxism" by Louis on this question. > > > David > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/ > marxism/biastg%40embarqmail.com ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
