[GJM] More Consequences - re: nuclear reactors

[marguerite hampton]

Thanks to Dr. Timothy Wilken for this message. 



I do know that nuclear reactors are both inefficient and do not make 

monetary sense.  I dont' have this info readily at hand now.  Anybody 

out there able to dig up this info and get it posted?. 



This push for nuclear reactor production is to enable the Saudi's to recoup 

the dollars invested in nuclear research.  They did this hoping to 

maintain their income stream after their oil wells ran dry.  This is also
why 

the U.S. did not go to "renewables" as within 20 years of the U.S. doing
this,

the oil -producing countries would have become "poor countries" without 

an income stream.  But, it would have put the U.S. in a very secure position


of energy independence. Now it may be way too late.   



Also, of interest, is as before mentioned, Dr. Vernon Woolf is involved with
the 

STEP program now being tested to determine the feasibility of reducing
nuclear 

waste through an extremely high heat process which would also  produce a

useable energy form.  This was mentioned in his Global Alliance program info


on which I recently sent out. Anyone willing to find out more about this and
do a 

report on it?   Call him and do an inteview.  There is a phone number & how
to 

contact him on his website at www.holodynamics.com  Just don't do it on the 

weekends as he is conducting Holodynamics Seminars Friday evening thru

Sunday in LasVegas, NV and Santa Barbara, Calif. .  



He informed me  the other day that he now has 31 different programs going 

with the Global Alliance Foundation -- all directed toward achieving world
peace

and constructing sustainable living communities and wellness networks
worldwide. 

How does he do it and what does he know that the rest of us don't?  You may
want

to take a Holodynamic course and check it out.  I'm glad I did.  Most
programs 

are developed under his guidance by those having completed Holodynamic 

courses.  I only took one and then went off ot write the "Hands Across the
Border:

Operation Lifesave proposal which had the potential to transform Mexico 
into

a model for sustainable development for the world, and which was reviewed
and 

considered by two Mexican presidents and endorsed by a U.S. Secretary of 

Agriculture in 1997.  We are still working on it.   



Oh well, Nero fiddled while Rome burned! And we seem to be following his
lead. 

If nothing changes, nothing changes.  



But, how about all of you "energy-focused" co-learner's  doing a "deep dig" 

and coming up with the "real dirt" on nuclear energy's realistic potential 

and feasibility. Knowledge is power -- let's make sure we have it and get it


disseminated so we can begin to make "intelligent decisons"  and not be led 

around by our noses with continued propaganda. .



eco    





*More Consequences <http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=157744>*



Michael T. Klare writes: With global demand for energy constantly rising and

supplies contracting (or at least failing to keep pace), the world is being

ever more sharply divided into two classes of nations: the energy haves and

have-nots. The haves are the nations with sufficient domestic reserves (some

combination of oil, gas, coal, hydro-power, uranium, and alternative sources

of energy) to satisfy their own requirements and be able to export to other

countries; the have-nots lack such reserves and must make up the deficit

with expensive imports or suffer the consequences. ... President Bush has

repeatedly spoken of his desire to foster greater reliance on nuclear power

and the administration-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005 already provides a

variety of incentives for electrical utilities to build new reactors in the

United States. Other countries including France, China, Japan, Russia, and

India also plan to up their reliance on nuclear power, greatly adding to the

global spread of nuclear reactors. Many problems stand in the way of this

so-called renaissance, not least the mammoth costs involved and the fact

that no safe system has yet been devised for the long-term storage of

nuclear wastes. Furthermore, despite many improvements in the safety of

nuclear power plants, worries persist about the risk of nuclear accidents

such as those that occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in

1986. But this is not the place to weigh these issues. Let me instead focus

on two especially worrisome aspects of the future growth of the nuclear

power industry: the possible federalization of nuclear reactor placement in

the U.S. and the repressive implications globally of the greater

availability of nuclear materials open to diversion to terrorists,

criminals, and "rogue" states. Currently, America's municipalities,

counties, and states still exercise considerable control over the issuance

of permits for the construction of new nuclear power plants, giving citizens

in these jurisdictions considerable opportunity to resist the placement of a

reactor "in their backyard." For decades, this has been one of the leading

obstacles to the construction of new reactors in the U.S., along with the

costly and time-consuming legal process involved in winning over state

legislatures, county boards, and environmental agencies. If this practice

prevails, we are never likely to see a true "renaissance" of nuclear power

here, even if a few new reactors are built in poor rural areas where citizen

resistance is minimal. The only way to increase reliance on nuclear power,

therefore, is to federalize the permit process by shunting local agencies

aside and giving federal bureaucrats the unfettered power to issue permits

for the construction of new reactors. ... Here's my worry: That some future

administration will push through an amendment to the Energy Policy Act

giving the federal government the same sort of placement authority for

nuclear reactors that it now has for regasification plants. The feds then

announce plans to build dozens or even hundreds of new reactors in or near

places like Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver,

and so on, claiming an urgent need for additional energy. People protest en

masse. Local officials, sympathetic to the protestors, refuse to arrest them

in droves. But now we're speaking of defiance of federal, not state or

municipal, ordinances. Ergo, the National Guard or the regular Army is

called up to quell the protests and protect the reactor sites --

Energo-fascism in action. Finally, there's another danger in the spread of

nuclear power: that it will require a systematic increase in state

surveillance of everyone even remotely connected with commercial nuclear

energy. After all, every uranium enrichment facility, nuclear reactor, and

waste storage site -- and any of the linkages between them -- is a potential

source of fissionable materials for terrorists, black-market traffickers, or

rogue states like Iran and North Korea. This means, of course, that all of

the personnel employed in these facilities, and all their contractors and

sub-contractors (and all their families and contacts) will have to be

constantly vetted for possible illicit ties and kept under strict, full-time

surveillance. The more reactors there are, the more facilities and

contractors who will have to be subjected to this sort of oversight -- and

the more the security staff itself will have to be subjected to ever higher

levels of surveillance by state security agencies. It's a formula for Big

Brother on a very large scale. (01/17/07)