The No Nukes theme song
Nooo nukes, were kooks who don`t like nukes..
A bunch of pukes who don`t like nukes...
We like the way it makes us look, when we sing nooo nukes..
Posted on 01/31/2006 8:47:06 PM PST by quantim
NUCLEAR power must be part of attempts to address global warming, according to a government-sponsored study of climate change.
In an apocalyptic assessment endorsed by Tony Blair, an international group of scientists warned in the study published yesterday that increasing temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect pose a pressing threat to humanity.
"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," the Prime Minister said of the study, which forecasts the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and a resultant rise in sea-levels of up to 16 feet over the next millennium. In response, the scientists argue, governments must use a wide range of tools, nuclear power included.
The document, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, brings together evidence presented at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office at Exeter last February. In it, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Chris Rapley, says the huge West Antarctic Ice Sheet may also be starting to disintegrate. He writes: "The last report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I'd say it is now an awakened giant."
The report comes as ministers consider authorising the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors in Britain. Adding urgency to that review, the most recent official figures show that the UK's carbon emissions are rising again.
Many environmental groups and some Labour MPs are opposed to new atomic power stations, although the Prime Minister is understood to be leaning towards the nuclear option.
Unlike coal-power and gas-power plants, nuclear stations do not produce . "There are no magic bullets; a portfolio of options is needed and excluding any options will increase costs," the scientists conclude.
Governments should use a variety of means to cut emissions in "wedges", including increasing energy efficiency, nuclear energy, low-emission transport fuels and fossil-fuel power plants with carbon-capture technology, they said.
The scientists also recommend that poorer nations consider investing in nuclear power plants. "Efficiency improvements and alternative energy supply such as nuclear and renewables are of priority for developing countries to contribute [to attempts to cut emissions]," they conclude.
Nuclear energy is likely to prove the most contentious aspect of the Prime Minister's attempts to meet his targets to reduce Britain's carbon emissions. One criticism raised of nuclear power is that the relative scarcity of the uranium it relies on means it is not a long-term option.
But in another study published yesterday, Bert Metz and Detlef van Vuuren of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, dismiss those suggestions. "New discoveries of uranium resources, use of thorium [an alternative nuclear fuel], more efficient technologies and production of uranium from seawater could, at least in theory, imply that this option is almost without technical limits," the researchers write.
Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, has expressed doubts about the value of nuclear power, but yesterday insisted it has to be an option for Britain. "Once you have put in all the energy required to construct the nuclear power stations, it is actually a low-carbon form of energy," she said, although she conceded that nuclear has "other problems", especially how to dispose of waste.
Liberals wasted many a beautiful day in the 1970s and 80s, protesting and getting arrested to stop nuclear plants.
They waste every day somehow, but that's how they did it back then.
Well, I welcome them aboard.
If global warming really does destroy the world, the blame will rest on Jane Fonda.
Well said.
Necrotizing fasciitis
I thought that was Nazis turning into zombies.
Shout out to all you nukes out there!
Cavernous Sinus Syndrome = An Expanding Eating Hole
As scientists, they should know that the earth's climate has never been static. It has always been changing - repeated oscillations between ice age and temperate.
What would be the perfect climate for them? What year would these "scientists" like to go back to?
They save the most controversial aspect of nuclear energy for the very last sentence, without elaborating at all? Then what's the point of the article?
Scientists will ignore the carefully reasoned statements of science when they talk politics. It's really an interesting phenomena. The very smart become very stupid when they talk politics. Instead of classifying the world by observations and well thought out theories, the scientists instead talk about hopes and dreams without any justification. It's stunning because it is so much opposed to how they normally operate.
lol! Remeber that? No Nukes! The No Nukes concert featuring Bruce Springsteen, Jackson Browne...Now of course they will probably have the "No carbon emissions concert" while they travel to the concert site in their 20 foot limos and gulfstream jet planes...Well I think they did already with the "No war for oil" slogan. Maybe they can go even further out into left field with a "No wood for steam engines concert" or "Protect the metal deposits of mother earth, no spring wound power for toys and watches concert"
The No Nukes theme song
Nooo nukes, were kooks who don`t like nukes..
A bunch of pukes who don`t like nukes...
We like the way it makes us look, when we sing nooo nukes..
Next up...environmentalist scientists criticize Bush for NOT BRINGING BACK DDT.
About time.
You can set one up literally in my back yard right now. All I ask is some small financial consideration, and free electricity for life. I'll even fill in as a security guard part time (real short commute, a few hundred yards out the back door!)
Unfortunately here in NY the last time we tried to build a nuke plant, the government caved to the Long Island NIMBYs:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093096/95d38.htm
Having killed Shoreham, the NIMBYs are trying to get Indian Point shut down as well:
http://www.ipsecinfo.org/
More people die every day from health problems related to fossil fuels than have ever died from nuclear power accidents, even counting Chernobyl. That was a "worst case scenario" and the total toll was 30 dead and 1800 cancer cases (most of which might have been prevented by prompt treatment with Potassium Iodide.) The environment began to recover within three years, and some people have returned to their homes.
http://www.iaea.or.at/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml
Compare this to London's "killer smog" caused by coal pollution:
http://www.wfiu.indiana.edu/amos/library/scripts/smog.html
I'll take my chances with ionizing radiation, thanks.
16 feet in a thousand years? I think we can cope with that.
"16 feet in a thousand years? I think we can cope with that."
You're right...the land will have risen much more owing to all the BS that is being dumped.
Yes, and water runs downhill, too. This is such an obvious statement, anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't have a firm grip on reality. I don't happen to believe much of the hype about human caused global warming. Nonetheless, if you believe that CO2 causes global warming, the only known short term technical solution for producing large quantities of energy without producing CO2 is nuclear. To not acknowledge this is less than sane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.