I Am Not Making This Up

And the moronic activist, as they all are, ran to his best friend forever, tada, the reporter in the media, someone equally as moronic, and the rest is history. Just imagine if environMENTALists had been around in the 1800 hundreds, they would have provided target practice/or we would have no modern ammenities. These demented losers need to be ignored, not given a podium.

I'm told that you don't need to turn the lights on in Northern Saskatchewan when you take a showere, everything pretty much glows in the dark there on account of the uranium mining. Is this true, or am I just trollin trollin trollin? Sure is an awful lotta fresh water up there, it would be a shame if it were contaminated.

They're talking about uranium mining north of Kingston Ont., but last I heard the Indian terrorists have it shut down at the moment with specific threats of violence to advance their political agenda.

"A dispute over a potential uranium mining site in eastern Ontario could "spiral out of control" if the province doesn't reach an agreement with a First Nation by month-end, the spokesman for a group of aboriginal protesters warned Friday.

The Ardoch Algonquin First Nation suspended their occupation of the site near Sharbot Lake in October 2007 after reaching an agreement with the provincial government to begin mediation talks. The Algonquins say the site, about 60 kilometres north of Kingston, is on their land and they fear that uranium drilling could lead to environmental contamination."

Might be the case lads, but we bought that land from the Missisaugas in the 1820s fair and square in the Rideau Purchase, as per 1763 Royal Proclamation; your claim is bogus and in any case it's not your call to make.

It's never made sense to me as to why one of (if not the) top uranium producer's in the world doesn't utilize it's own resources.

There was a breach in a tailings pond at one of the mines a few years ago - water spilled into a creek.

The net result was a dilution of the natural radioactivity in the creek water.

I sure would like to know what that parachute was!!! His barf bag he just filled up? Since when do life preservers count as parachutes?
Oh yes. And "consider" the motion.More bureacrese BS for "spend more money on a report that can collect dust forever".

Kate:

Economically it is more sensible to build the power plant close to where the demand is and transport the fuel to it. This is especially the case with uranium where very little material provides lots of energy.

So unless you are advocating the 'conservative' policies of Danny Williams be adopted in SK., - ie. forcing the companies to build reactors rather than ship raw product (a la voisey's bay), nuclear power generation - save for local demand which already being well-served by even cheaper coal fuel, SK's policy should be dig it and ship it.

The inanity of the Activist's argument above is clear - he pushes the logic too far. But there is some strength to it when one is referring to older style reactors that rely on mechanical intervention - some one or some machine has to detect a problem and then act on it - as a way of stopping a runaway reactor. New designs such as Westinghouse's and the ground-breaking pebble-bed type do not and thus truly are fail-safe from a meltdown.

"The net result was a dilution of the natural radioactivity in the creek water."

LOL, I see what you did there. Fortunately I've read Captain Franklin's account of his overland expeditions and the Big Headism among some tribes he encountered in some places out thattaway, and tend to believe this; the Stone Indians did in fact attribute it to the water.

Let's face it: reputable scientists make poor debaters, or arguers, because their scrupulosity gets in the way.

I wonder if that "vested interest" mantra of the lefties is tactical. It seems a good way of euchring out anyone who can hold his/her own in a debate. It might well be the time for this riposte: "everyone has a vested interest: why don't we bring up yours?"

@ the bear (9:23 AM)

"Saskatchewan gov't unanimously passes motion supporting nuclear development"

Yep, the NDP MLAs voted for it too.

Mature people don't demand 100% safety. If so, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

The activist's arguements are without basis and irrelevant...it's all about shutting the lights out.
Modern day luddites......

to bad he didnt try to use that "parachute"

Won't nuclear power plants be able to sell carbon credits as well.

The funny thing is, this moron still got on that airplane. That moron still drives a car, and I'll bet you would get on a nuclear powered cruise ship if there were such a thing. There are very few 100% facts in our everyday lives. This person should never eat chicken then, since (I'm guessing) she might get salmonella. Never eat beef because of mad cow/hoof and mouth disease, never eat any bird because of avian flu, and don't get me started on all the possibilities with vegetables. So if this jerk were to follow her own stupid rules, everyone would starve.

Moron.

Is the article at CBC a news item or an opinion?
If it is news item, then
“Saskatchewan Party MLAs have been trying to drive a wedge between NDP ranks…..” does not belong, the CBC is doing alert propaganda on behalf of socialists.

At the CBC site Poisonivy wrote: Posted 2009/04/03 at 12:50 AM ET :
“Money, jobs, and the economy should not be the deciding factors in the consideration of nuclear energy production in this province.”

This is typical environ-mentalist and socialist thinking, if you can call it thinking, it is hard, near impossible to understand this kind of argument.
The three variables always have been, are and will remain essential in the course of human existence with the exception totalitarian diktat such as socialists, fascist, communist .

It's distressing to see that so many people spout the "solar and wind power" mantra. The technology just doesn't provide enough power to enough people, but the environmental activists cling to this belief like half-mad religious zealots.

Don't they ever read?

Gord Tulk,That is the same kind of reasoning that kept eastern Canada supplied with cheap western grain for years.It ended with the end of cheap freight rates.If cheap,reliable prodigious amounts of power can be generated,then it can be sent over long distance power lines to anywhere.The transmission line loss problem will be solved or negated by excess generating capacity.Anything to remove the blight of wind generators from the landscape.

I remember in the late '70s when the hippies in the BC Kootenays were demonstrating against a proposed uranium venture - the prospectors tested the "pristine" mountain streams where we got our water and found that they all have very high levels of radon. Their suggestion was that we'd all have a reduced risk of radiation-induced cancers if they were allowed to mine the uranium and cart it away. Reason wasn't permitted to sway the discussion then, either.

Perfect timing! (From politicians?! Say it ain't so...)
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09012934-nuclear-fusion-fission-hybrid-could-contribute-carbon-free-energy-future

"a nuclear powered cruise ship"

We should build nuclear generators and contract the US Navy to operate them. The USN has a good record with nuclear power, we'd get that power and a few heads would explode. Win, win, win.

A Japanese company is now making a barg mounted nuclear reactor for remote towns. Its core is the size of a softball and has to be replaced every 15 years.

That's called inteligence and forward thinking RD, people that make things happen and invent because of a monetary and societial gain for mankind, something the Sierra club/WWF?Greenpeace/Pembina etc. have no clue about because all they know is hate. Hate those that create, they are the enemy of progress and prosperity and should be ignored or at least egged.

bob said:

"Won't nuclear power plants be able to sell carbon credits as well."

No the only thing that comes out of the cooling tower is water vapor H2O.

And won't that just scupper the 'cap n trade' Enron wannabees like the Goracle? Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of BS artists.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Leftist morons only want 100% guarantees for causes they won't support, but they're rather insouciant about guarantees for causes they do get behind. Gun registry? Well, even if billions were spent in a faulty registry it still "sends the right message". Needles to drug users? That's undebatable, or if it has less than 100% "guaranteed" results it's still the right thing to do. Spending $billions on the "war on poverty" and welfare that's destroyed the black family? That needs no standard or burden of proof of its efficacy.

Hypocrites, all of them. And on the MSM for supporting the deception.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

There may have been a time when the activist could rely upom an inflatable life vest being under his seat, but those days are over (http://tiny.cc/Auq4j). Air Canada removed them to save weight.

As for a parachute. Clearly the activist has never seen a packed parachute.

I was just down at the home styles show a few weeks ago, this company, Solar Outpost had a $60,000 wind turbine in display there. The guy said pay back if you installed it at your house would be on the order of 2 to 3 decades. He also told me about a smaller one, that he said would save me about $400 per year on my power bill, which seems to be about 2 or 3 months worth of power. I was asking, because in order to get a grant for geothermal heat, you need to install some generation capacity.

So, if you want a wind turbine, by all means, take out your own wallet and go get one for yourself.

It is interesting that activists work hard to make sure no one else is.

herringchoker:

My maternal grandfather didn't get a parachute either in 1916 and he was being shot at while flying.

Fortunately, Divine Providence provided a haystack in the fall of 1916, and instead of "terminal velocity" becoming fatal, he walked away with broken thumb.

Hey, ...on a wing and prayer!

Trusting activists...not so much, they seem to like railroading the populace though,
somewhat like the video above.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

If nuclear waste was leaked from the Saskatchewan facility, ask yourself "Would I ever know about it?". Consider how they have the behaved around the Chalk River leak. It took 1000 people to clean up their meltdown in 1958!
I want a nuke for the work it provides, but what do you do with it when it gets old? We have two or three coal plants that should be decommisioned, then rebuilt. Maybe a ski hill?
I'm from Sask, but internet allows for East'r bunnies to hide in wolf's clothing contaminating a provincial issue.
Personally I say build another nuke in the Ottawa Valley.

or Shawinigan.

Just re. the nuclear containment vessels during transport part of the interview, on Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV series he aired a clip of buried hazardous waste containment vessels that enviros demanded be dug up because of fears that after e.g. 20 years buried, they must be disintegrating but not even the painted lettering and logos on the vessels' sides had been damaged.

Gord @ 9:31: The province is interested in two aspects, power generation, perhaps, but particularly so in fuel production. At this time, Saskatchewan only produces uranium in U3O8 form. There are a number of industry steps in producing nuclear fuel, refining, conversion, and for offshore reactors, enrichment. These are where most of the jobs and the value-added is in the uranium industry, and none of it is done in Saskatchewan. With several hundred reactors on the drawing boards around the world, there will have to be a large expansion of fuel services over the next 20 years. That's why even the Calvert government had some cautious interest in this before it went out of office.

A bigger problem is the size of Saskatchewan. It has demand too low to easily accommodate a nuclear power station. However, it could be easily accommodated in a joint venture and power sharing arrangement with Alberta.

Spike @10:34: Such transmission already exists. It's DC transmission, and it's in use in Manitoba and Quebec. The advantage is that it eliminates line loss. The disadvantage is that it can't be transformed, so at both ends of the line you have to have an AD/DC converter station.

Kate: the video was done by the CEGB in Britain in the mid 1980s. It was a test crash of a locomotive into a waste transport cask. The CEGB was increasingly irritated by the British press harping on about how everyone was endangered by shipping fuel and fuel waste by rail, so they set up the test. Result, one locomotive in tiny pieces and some paint burnt off the transport cask.

Hans @11:13: Not quite. Nuclear won't be able to sell credits just as no zero emitter such as hydro or renewables will sell credits. Credits are only given under cap and trade programs to emitting facilities, not non-emitting ones.

"It took 1000 people to clean up their meltdown in 1958!"

So, even it it does fail, 1000 instant jobs! Isn't this the 'economic stimulus' all you lefties are all giddy for?

In 2008, 82 people died in wind turbine accidents, almost all in western Europe and the U.S. where turbines are most common.

This is not too surprizing. Wind turbines are huge, powerful devices which deal with extreme mechanical forces, some of them outside our control.

This record is vastly worse than that of nuclear power in the western world. The infamous Three-Mile Island "disaster", for instance, resulted in no injuries or deaths.

Abundant clean energy: the perfect thing for "Big Fear" to go after. It's so inherently sensible that it will eventually win out and grow. And Big Fear will be able to grow along with it. Those activists no more want an end to nuclear power than they want an end to the seal hunt. These are their major fund raisers.

Yes, indeed, do build a nuke plant in the Ottawa valley. And three or four more down in the TO corridor. A couple in Quebec, another in NB, one each for Man, Northern Ont and Sask. And two each for AB and BC.

Add in the hydro power we generate and you can pretty much turn off every coal and oil fired genny in the country.

Der, happy now eco-nuts?

I don't hear eco-freaks freaking out about the led in their beloved energy-efficient lightbulbs. They pick and choose their poisons, I guess.

AtlanticJim: "Yes, indeed, do build a nuke plant in the Ottawa valley. And three or four more down in the TO corridor."

Oh, so Mr. Cod Stocks wants to nuke up Central Canada, eh? Which particular unstable tectonic plates did you want to place these plants upon, sir?

Don't think we aren't keeping score here, brother.

(kidding, just trying to mainstream a meme and stir up regional discontent, carry on)

Envirowacks and others of that ilk are as DrD said @ 12:05, about funding and very little else.
Does anyone really believe that if the Cancer Industry found a cure, they would disclose it to the public. A multibillion dollar a year tax free funded industry would dry up virtually overnight.
And while I'm on this one, what kind of a real return are people seeing for the countless $$ already poured into this endless trough?
No don't expect too much cooperation from the eco-panhandlers...they like their gravy wet, not dried up.

Holy cow!
How long ago did this guy fly into Sask on that Tiger Moth?
heh

BTW one of pro-nuke arguments that keeps getting missed is the volume of product that has to transported for use.

It takes a very small amount of uranium to generate make more power than trainloads and trainloads of coal.

I think Saskatchewan would do well to get into the nuclear industry beyond mining uranium. Refine it for the growing global market and build a nuclear generating plant up north. getting the power to the main grid isn't all that tough (hey it's flat out there) and a major consumer is just across the Alt-Sask border in Fort Mac. come to think of it, Saskatchewan's own tar sands could be developed easier with an abundant power source. Makes more sense than trying to re-open a pulp mill in PA for the hundredth time (and hoping it will not lose money, again).

Next the activists will be complaining about all those unsightly hydro towers carrying the electricity from the remote nuclear stations (but a gazillion bird bashing wind turbines would be OK...)

Posted by: rockyt at April 3, 2009 12:58 PM

Parachutes in a Moth were on yer back, not under the seat.

:)

The anti-nuclear environmentalists are badly named. They aren't anti-nuclear; they're anti-energy. Or anti-human.

It’s not as though Washington hasn’t already tried to go the “green power” route. The generation-long attempt to replace conventional power generation with alternative energy sources in America’s electrical generation profile has failed utterly. The reactor accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania in March of 1979 provided hitherto unheard-of political impetus to the already strong anti-nuclear faction within the environmental movement. Regulatory changes in the wake of the accident made it extremely difficult to obtain approval to open, certify and operate new nuclear power stations. Anti-nuclear activists pushed the US government to move away from both nuclear power and fossil fuels, and towards “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar power generation. The immediate result was heavy government subsidization of “renewables”.

The long-term result was rather different. In the thirty years that have passed since the accident at Three Mile Island, US energy consumption has increased by roughly 25%, from about 80 quadrillion BTUs (or “quads”) per year, to more than 100. At the same time, the population of the United States has increased by roughly 35%. Given the vast array of new, power-intensive technologies – especially computers – that have propagated throughout US society during the period in question, it seems clear that the US has become significantly more efficient, on a per capita basis, in using energy. Its total consumption, however, has nonetheless increased significantly.

What is more interesting is how the impact of Three Mile Island changed where America obtains its energy from. The net impact of America’s deliberate, sustained, highly-subsidized drive to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear power and towards “renewables”, was this: thirty years after Thee-Mile Island, the representation in the national energy budget of hydroelectricity had fallen slightly, while other renewables made almost no progress: the use of biomass (largely the on-site burning of waste for power generation by the forest industry) increased by 7%; wind power, by 2%; and geothermal powe (which is really the use of solar heat stored in the earth), by 1%. The use of solar thermal generation and solar photovoltaic generation together increased by less than one-half of 1%.

By contrast, during that thirty-year period, America’s consumption of crude oil had increased by 13%; natural gas, by 14%; nuclear power, by 27%; and coal, by 37%.

That is a fact - look it up, if you like. The environmentalists, by blocking nuclear plant developments, force America to burn 400,000,000 tons more coal every year.

Well done. (clap...clap...clap...)

I'm not making this up, BTW; these are figures from the US Energy Information Administration. If all the ecomorons who are bleating about carbon right now hadn't spent the last 30 years bleating about uranium, we would today all be basking in the clean, efficient electrical power of a vast array of nuclear plants, instead of the CO2 emissions of coal- and gas-fired generating stations.

If there was a Yosemite Sam award for shooting yourself in the foot, the environmentalists would win it every time. The trouble is that they always manage to wing the rest of us too.

I once jumped out of an Air Canada Super Constellation using the parachute under the seat. It wouldn't inflate. Fortunately I landed on a haystack.
Seriously, though, I don't think that the outside doors on commercial aircraft will open when the plane is in flight, so even if they did have a parachute under the seat (assuming that it would fit there), you couldn't leave the aircraft to use it.

[quote]If there was a Yosemite Sam award for shooting yourself in the foot, the environmentalists would win it every time. The trouble is that they always manage to wing the rest of us too. [/quote]

Hey!don't educate them. The Electric Cars they plan to drive have to deal with "High Energy DC Pulses" This may be the last generation of those stuck on stupid people.

teh One has proclaimed that he will "change the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology." ...

"As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

The safely harnessed nuclear power already exists, and Obama no doubt knows this. But he is counting on the ignorance of many Americans, such as the reporter you mentioned, to keep that option off the menu. He's only "science friendly" where it suits his social agenda.

I share the frustration, they shouldn't provide a guy like that a parachute.

How about a 100% guarantee on this man-made global warming thing?

IIRC - a couple of years ago they decided to remove the "parachutes" unless they were going over water.