Hi Jerry > Hi Pedro asnd All, >--- "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anyone know if there is any anti-nuclear or > > anti-petrol day ??. I think > > this is very necessary, because of the Bush > > Politics. > I think you'll find that many eco's on this list >like inheritly safe nukes.
What is an inherently safe nuke? >I'd love to get a couple of >the fuel balls from a gas reactor. All the energy I'd >need for 20 plus years with almost no pollution. ?? > While I'd go for an anti-fossil fuel day most of >us on this list want to make fuels like petro from >biomass without the problems with fossil petroleum. > > > > Now, we can see the anti-globalization movement. Are > I'm more of an anti greedy, non-caring >corporation person. As a general thing gobalization >will help people overcome poverty, have a freer, >better life No evidence of that. >if we can keep control of the >corporations, corrupt goverments. Very big if, no evidence of that either. The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress By Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen It is commonly accepted that the increased opening to international trade and financial flows that has occurred in the vast majority of countries in the world has been an overall success. Even critics of globalization have generally accepted that the reforms of the last two decades, in low to middle-income countries, have boosted economic growth rates. They have argued that this growth has left many people behind, and has often been at the expense of the natural environment. This paper looks at the major economic and social indicators for all countries for which data are available, and compares the last 20 years of globalization (1980-2000) with the previous 20 years (1960-1980). These indicators include: the growth of income per person, life expectancy, mortality among infants, children, and adults, literacy, and education. For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). [more] http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm The 2000 UN Human Development Report says the effects of globalisation and increasing economic integration have led to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in nearly every way. UN statistics provide evidence of the widening gap between rich and poor: In nine years, the income ratio between the top 20% and the bottom 20% has increased from 60:1 to 74:1. Eighty countries have less revenue than they did a decade ago. The assets of the 200 richest people exceed the combined income of 41% of the world's total population. Economic growth is projected as the road to overcome global poverty. With economic growth of $100 the rich 20% of the world population pocket $83 and the poorest 20% get $1.40. Global economic growth is therefore a highly inefficient way to help the global poor. > > they going to protest > > agains the http://www.iaea.int/ International > > Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) > Better to steer them to better nukes to burn up >the nasty stuff. Where exactly will they find a "better nuke"? From : Solving Energy Shortages without Nuclear Power: Three Easy Rules, 4/01 During each year of operation, a 1,000 megawatt (electrical) nuke-plant --- no matter how "advanced" its design --- produces as much long-lived radioactive poison as does the explosion of about 1,000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. The electricity is used immediately, but some of the poison remains radioactive for well over a thousand years --- more than 40 generations. Radioactive atoms emit ionizing radiation as they decay. Evidence from the past 30 years establishes (a) that exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation is considerably worse for health than we knew in 1970, and (b) that the danger is proportional to dose, right down to zero dose. Of course, neither radioactive nor non-radioactive poisons hurt anyone or anything if they are perfectly isolated (contained). Catastrophic radioactive releases from "advanced" nuke-plants, according to their advocates, are impossible. New designs surely have improvements over the old designs, but can any design defeat the actions of an insider terrorist? Claims, that "advanced" nuke-plants are inherently safe, merit no credence until their proponents show that they believe their own claims. If they do, they would openly beg Congress to exempt every "advanced" nuke-plant from the law (the Price-Anderson Act) which protects the nuke industry from full liability for catastrophic radioactive releases. In any case, sudden catastrophic releases are a threat limited to a few decades of operation. The real problem endures for over 1,000 years. About 400 nuke-plants now operate worldwide (100 in the USA). Permission to operate a few additional nuke-plants might appear like a minor issue. But if ten new nuke-plants each operate for at least 30 years, they would commit posterity to isolating (containing) additional radioactive poisons equivalent to the long-lived poisons produced by exploding 300,000 Hiroshima-bombs: 1,000 bombs/year per plant * 10 plants * 30 years. The poison generated by just ten plants would be about 20 times more than all the long-lived radioactive fallout from all the atmospheric nuclear bomb-tests conducted by the US, UK, and USSR combined (about 13,000 Hiroshima equivalents; based on Radioactive Heaven and Earth, 1991, ISBN 1-85649-021-1, p.35). Each additional nuke-plant of any design inevitably increases the legacy of radioactive poison --- to threaten posterity for at least 40 generations. This fact was and remains enough to make nuke-plants unacceptable --- the ultimate selfishness. Ethics aside, it is clear that nuke-plants were not necessary in the past, and will not be necessary in the future. Case closed. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/Energy-3rules.html Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ > > ; when you cannot see a similar UN agency for > > renowable energy. > I'd really love to see it. But since they are >not, we will. People all over the world read this list >and are starting biofuel plants bypassing the big >corporations. > > > > All the best. > Same to you, > jerry dycus Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
