and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry. Nowhere along the way has indicated the President
And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies
Through the Recovery Act, my Administration committed over $100 billion to support groundbreaking innovation with investments in energy, basic research, education and training, advanced vehicle technology, health IT and health research
Of these funds, we made a $90 billion investment in clean energy that will produce as much as $150 billion in clean energy projects.
the Recovery Act made the largest single investment in clean energy in American history. And our investments in energy not only focus on research,
but on the deployment of these new technologies. We have invested highly in important research being done to improve the health
and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United states this century.
What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
renewable energy will lead the global economy in the 21st century. That s why I have made the largest investment in clean energy
and energy efficiency in American history and proposed an ambitious Clean Energy Standard to generate 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources like wind, solar, clean coal,
and natural gas by 2035. Since taking office, electricity production from wind and solar sources has doubled already more than in the United states. We are boosting our use of cleaner fuels,
including increasing the level of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline and implementing a new Renewable Fuel Standard that will save nearly 14 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline in 2022.
America has regained its position as the world s leading producer of natural gas. My administration is promoting the safe,
responsible development of America s near 100-year supply of natural gas that will help support more than 600,000 jobs.
Because of these actions, we are positioning ourselves to have cleaner and cheaper sources of fuel that make us more energy secure
and position the U s as a world leader in the clean energy economy. The goal of energy independence has long proved elusive,
but analysts across the spectrum energy experts, investment firms, even academics at Harvard university now recognize that surging U s. energy production,
combined with the resources of America s neighbors, can meet all of the continent s energy needs within a decade.
The key is to embrace these resources and open access to them. A successful national energy strategy will have a fundamental influence on the well-being of the nation.
An expansion in the affordable, reliable supply of domestically produced energy can bolster the competitiveness of virtually every industry within the country,
creating millions of new jobs from coast to coast. With fewer energy imports and more exports of manufactured goods
America s trade deficit will decline and the dollar will strengthen. The benefits even extend beyond immediate economic growth.
The lease payments, royalties, and taxes paid to the American people in return for the development of the nation s resources can yield literally trillions of dollars in new government revenue.
Lower energy prices can ease the burdens on household budgets. And all Americans can rest assured that the nation s security is no longer beholden to unstable but oil-rich regions half way around the world.
I have put forward a six-part plan for achieving these goals. First I will empower states to control onshore energy development,
including on federal lands within their borders. Second, I will open offshore areas to development.
Third, I will pursue a North american Energy Partnership so that America can benefit from the resources of its neighbors.
Fourth, I will ensure accurate assessment of the nation s energy resources by updating decades-old surveys that do not reflect modern technological capabilities.
I will facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies. Throughout this agenda, I remain committed to implementing
and enforcing strong environmental protections that ensure all energy development activity is conducted in a safe and responsible manner.
I will pursue a course that designs regulation not to stifle energy production but instead to facilitate responsible use of all energy sources from oil and coal and natural gas, to nuclear and hydropower and biofuels, to wind and Solar energy development, economic growth,
and environmental protection can go hand-in-hand if the government focuses on transparency and fairness instead of seeking to pick winners
A full white paper describing my plan for energy independence is available at Mittromney. com. Thanks to science and technology
Making the rule so expensive that it will bankrupt the coal industry, and then claiming that the elimination of that industry
Growth of ethanol fuel stalls in Brazil"A new moment for mankind. That was how Brazil s former president, Luiz In ¡
Back then, Brazil was the poster child of ethanol fuel, its output second only to that of the United states. Fermenting the sugars in the country s abundant sugar cane produced a motor fuel that lowered carbon dioxide emissions,
and many saw Brazil as a model for how the world could shed its addiction to oil,
The price of pure ethanol at the pump is so high that in most states it is cheaper to fill up flexible-fuel cars with petrol blends that contain about 20%ethanol.
The shift back to fossil fuels, combined with rapid growth in the number of cars on the roads (see Fuelling Brazil s transport boom),
we are buying more oil and spending more on pollution-related health care, jokes Ildo Sauer,
who studies energy policy at the University of S £o Paulo and is a former director of the state oil giant Petrobras.
when climate and energy planning clash with economic decision-making. It began with the 2008 economic crisis,
when the government decided to freeze the price of petrol and diesel to keep inflation under control,
of which promised to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies the government said it would be reducing a federal fuel tax to zero."
%says Andrã Ferreira, head of the Institute for Energy and the Environment, a think-tank in S £o Paulo.
It has promised the industry that petrol prices will go up next year, and that the blend of ethanol will rise from 20%to 25,
Chu (pictured) restructured research at the energy agency, garnering political support for the high-risk, high-reward Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy,
as well as for five Energy Innovation Hubs for integrated and applied research. The stimulus funding came under intense criticism from conservatives,
especially the $535 million that went to now-defunct solar-cell manufacturer Solyndra of Fremont, California.
Reicher, an attorney by training, previously headed Google s $1-billion initiative for investing in energy and climate, where he guided investments into solar technologies and electric transport.
He served as the energy agency s assistant secretary for efficiency and renewable energy under former president Bill clinton and was a staff member on then-president Jimmy carter s commission to investigate the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania.
Kevin Wolf/APENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYDEPARTING: Lisa Jackson On entering office in 2009, Jackson (pictured) laid the groundwork for climate regulations by formally declaring carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.
She has also been floated as a candidate to lead the Department of the interior and the energy department. Perciasepe, currently deputy administrator at the environment agency, developed a watershed-protection programme while previously at the agency under Bill clinton.
The decline is in part a result of the economic slowdown and a shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas,
and the introduction by more than half of the states of significant energy and climate initiatives that could deliver further reductions  perhaps even the 17%cut by 2020 that Obama promised at the United nations climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009.
effectively banning the construction of coal-fired plants that are equipped not to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.
Other rules could target the oil and gas industry by limiting emissions from refineries and drilling sites.
whether the president can build support for a broad programme of energy research and development that could drive down the cost of large-scale, low-carbon energy,
and ultimately make a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade agreement politically palatable. The President s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has recommended increasing spending on energy research and development from around US$4 billion per year to $16 billion,
and some organizations have advocated even more. Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task force in Boston, Massachusetts, argues that Obama could attract conservative support for a strategic research programme focused on large-scale energy technologies such as carbon capture and storage
methods and advanced nuclear reactors. Such a programme might look like the energy department s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
itself inspired by a similar defence-department programme, says Cohen. Once technologies are developed, government agencies could use their buying power to expand production
and reduce prices.""We don t want to see Obama walk in and just play small ball again, says Cohen."
19 25 april 2013us energy secretary In a vote on 18 april, the US Senate energy committee approved President Barack Obama s choice for energy secretary:
Moniz, who served as an undersecretary for energy under former president Bill clinton, has backed the use of a mixture of conventional and renewable energy sources to meet demand (see Nature 494,409-410;
2013). ) The full Senate is expected to confirm the nomination. Nobel laureate dies Fran §ois Jacob, a Nobel-prizewinning French biologist, died on 19 april aged 92.
Energy spending Investment in renewable energy technologies still falls short of the level needed to clean up the global energy system
says a report from the International Energy Agency in Paris. In 2012, global markets in solar photovoltaic technology and wind energy grew by 42%and 19%,respectively,
says the 17 april report. But the continued growth in energy produced by coal-fired power stations is offsetting progress,
it says. Venture declines US venture-capital investments shrank 12%to US$5. 9 billion in the first quarter of 2013, with the life sciences and clean technology particularly affected, according to a report by accountancy firm Pricewaterhousecoopers
This means that the market is unlikely to spur investment in low-carbon energy, one of the scheme s key goals when it was launched in 2005.
and developing new fossil-fuel reserves, according to Carbon Tracker, even though burning them would cause a catastrophic rise in global temperatures. 24-25 april On World Malaria Day (25 april),
dried grasses and other indigestible plant matter could greatly improve the efficiency of converting waste biomass to fuel.
Ethanol and other biofuels, including certain petrol and diesel substitutes, can be produced from simple sugars, usually by fermentation.
Producers of cellulosic ethanol currently spend 15-20%of their fuel costs on acids and enzymes to loosen
has worked with the liquid for years as a potential fuel in its own right, and a University of Wisconsin spin-off firm, Glucan Biorenewables, is already using GVL to make furans, a different kind of biofuel.
Claire Curry, a bioenergy analyst at the information firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance, expects that some 50 million to 60 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol could be produced commercially worldwide this year up from just a few
adds Thomas Foust, director of the National Bioenergy Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado.
probably have lots of energy as well. I'm 98%sure the moon landings were faked. They could not get there in the 60's
It ends with robots harvesting our bodies for energy. Google is still not saying much to reporters (including this one) about its plans
In Volvo's real-world platooning tests drafting resulted in average fuel savings of 10 to 15 percent
Wayne Gerdes the father of hypermiling can nearly double the rated efficiency of cars using fuel-sipping techniques that could be incorporated into auto-driving software.
This has been true for things like electric starters windshield wipers hydraulic brakes four wheel brakes disk brakes automatic gear boxes ABS power steering electronic fuel injection light alloy wheels and a long
and regain the energy typically lost from stopping. Hybrid systems are good for improving efficiency
Wheat stem rust has the ability to turn a healthy-looking crop only one week away from harvest into a tangle of black stems Liang Qu the director of the Joint FAO/IAEA Programme
It affects 37 percent of all the wheat grown in the world the International atomic energy agency estimates.
Liang's program a collaboration between the United nations'Food and agriculture organization and the International atomic energy agency supported the Kenyan researcher who developed the new wheats.
The International atomic energy agency may be known best for dealing with nuclear disasters such as the Fukushima reactor meltdown but it also works on crop science techniques that use radiation.
To make rust-resistant wheats Miriam Kinyua a researcher at Eldoret University in Kenya sent wheat seeds popular with Kenyan farmers to the FAO/IAEA joint laboratories There the seeds got blasted
but the FAO/IAEA Joint Programme doesn't use it because the IAEA focuses on radiation technologies.
We're not saying countries should not take advantage of GMO techniques also IAEA spokesman Greg Webb says.
Our job here is to help countries take advantage of nuclear techniques. Mutation breeding is quick easy and cheap to do Liang adds.
The FAO and the IAEA are excited pretty about these new wheats. They've put out press releases.
International atomic energy agency nuclear radiated biological mutant seed enhancement amplified evolutionary adapation production against wheat rust desease for Kenyan farmers.
It takes a lot of energy to cut down trees process them into pulp strain them press them heat them print them
Near-zero and not zero because operating the servers that wirelessly deliver the ebooks uses a little bit of energy.
because they do not get assembled they get stamped like information is stamped on mass produced DVD's. The only problem with this cheap technology is that is going to have the same issues as with free energy there will be no money in it
So can free energy but there are forces out there that won't allow that. So good luck with that.
Clearly we are not consuming the entire output of the planet-we are consuming previous output that has been stored (in the form of fossil fuels.
Saudi arabia is a net exporter of oil and other countries buy it. See how that works?
Food production technology continues to improve worldwide as does energy production. We feed more produce more energy
and use it more efficiently than at anytime in the history of humankind and the trend will continue toward more efficiency and thus sustainability.
But those people in the oil and coal industry they're the ones really benefiting humanity
and (b) fossil fuel speaks highly of this system's scope and its ability to regulate itself on a global scale.
what scientists and engineers can do to continue food and energy for a massive population.
an explosion at the last one sent shrapnel into the oil cooler of his plane.
and oil before a hungry audience then served it to two lucky volunteers: Austrian food futurist Hanni RÃ Â tzler and Josh Schonwald author of The Taste of Tomorrow.
and energy resources that is expected to continue to grow exponentially as the world's population reaches an estimated 11 billion people by 2050 leaves us with limited alternatives.
but a more attractive option might be nuclear-or geothermal-powered habitats. One good place to camp out:
The island nation already heats 87 percent of its homes using geothermal energy and says astronomy professor Eric Blackman of the University of Rochester people could continue harnessing volcanic heat for hundreds of years.
and fuel supply more would die from freezing to death than starvation at which point they would be eaten by people
which requires electricity and a reliable power grid which we will not have after a few months at best.
could we feed on them on a nuclear winter? Julian the most likely scenario I see (depending on the degree of organization present after everyone goes nuts
while ramping up major production of LFTR modular nuclear plants. Once you've got sufficient power online and enough resources to create a self-sustaining underground mining operation a civilization could theoretically thrive indefinitely underground without ever revisiting the surface again.
Michaud a 72-year-old grandfather and former Exxonmobil engineer has spent his golden years trying to manufacture tornadoes--tornadoes that he believes could eventually power the world.
what he says will be the most favorable energy source on the planet by his estimates generating as much as 3000 times the electricity generated worldwide today.
***Michaud has always been intrigued by alternative energy. Decades ago while he was still working for Exxonmobil he started thinking about the vast power potential of rising air.
He theoretically worked through the process of capturing energy via water vapor that would condensate as air rose
but calculated that too much energy would be lost in the process to make it worthwhile. It was then that he realized that building a controlled vortex
or tornado would be more effective because it would be easier to capture the energy of moving air via a turbine than to capture the energy involved in condensation.
He made his first prototype of the Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) a machine that produces mini tornadoes--in 2005
Higher up the wind speed of the tornado will spin the wheels of attached turbines generating energy.
In the models he's created so far he's used energy sources to heat up the air that is fed into the bottom of a vortex
either through electricity or by concentrating solar energy. But if he were to partner with power plants that initial energy investment wouldn't be necessary.
Power plants already generate waste energy via heat. An AVE would use the waste energy to begin
and maintain a vortex. Adding that capacity would increase output of the power plant by 10 to 20 percent without using any additional fuel Michaud theorizes.
And the vortexes that would result could rise a whopping 15 kilometers in the air (natural tornadoes have clocked in at almost 9 kilometers high.
The potential would be greater than that of either nuclear power or fossil fuels at less than half the price of the lowest traditional power source Michaud says.
By his reasoning the total energy potential of convection from the bottom of the atmosphere upward is 52000 terawatts.
He believes it's possible to collect 12 percent of that potential using his technology
Michaud argues that his method of energy generation is actually safer than most other electricity-generating methods like coal-fired power plants which are contributing to global warming
Michaud is grateful for the Breakout Labs funding though he says that in comparison to what power companies could give this is pretty small potatoes.
and hopes to just get enough to prove the technology's worth to larger companies in the energy sector.
Building AVES will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels he says and that will reduce emissions in turn.
Michaud answered that he would be able to increase the amount of energy available per person worldwide an accomplishment that could ultimately improve living standards and fight poverty.
No nuclear ballistics in orbitgo figure a shot brain adolphhitler! ON lyin jeb bush or cheney noradtag harrp remote control Utah rocket site roads to edwards rocket site road!
G. P. S. WORLD MAP MICROSOFT OR APPLE FORMATWITH REMOTE ROBO HANS BLIXMOUSE click g. e. TEPCO?
TAG ANY 9-11 FEDERALASTRONAUTAND RFEDERAL MAJOR NUCLEAR ATOM BUSTER HANS BLIX! AND ANY 9-11 FISSION SCIENTIST!
opec all bushes crone's! black waters john boehner! prince or saudi any drone withbrennan!
or federal halliburton! you halifax boner! on federal demolitions new yorkmayor every willie brown 9-11govenor!
that know's the term opec! like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq!
OPEC ONLY KNOW'SOR only every federal? for only from 2001 9-11! covert wars and for only willy brown got shellno pest strip's!@.
No nuclear ballistics in orbitgo figure a shot brain adolphhitler! ON lyin jeb bush or cheney noradtag harrp remote control Utah rocket site roads to edwards rocket site road!
G. P. S. WORLD MAP MICROSOFT OR APPLE FORMATWITH REMOTE ROBO HANS BLIXMOUSE click g. e. TEPCO?
TAG ANY 9-11 FEDERALASTRONAUTAND RFEDERAL MAJOR NUCLEAR ATOM BUSTER HANS BLIX! AND ANY 9-11 FISSION SCIENTIST!
opec all bushes crone's! black waters john boehner! prince or saudi any drone withbrennan!
or federal halliburton! you halifax boner! on federal demolitions new yorkmayor every willie brown 9-11govenor!
that know's the term opec! like a pig duck! hung a king in iraq!
Last summer you announced new regulations that would double the average fuel economy standard for cars sold in this country
This pipeline which would bring oil from Canada's tar sands to the Texas Gulf Coast needs a presidential permit to move forward.
Polls show that most people support it because of effective arguments from proponents that couch this pipeline in terms of energy security.
and it enables one of the filthiest forms of oil production there is. Energy security is important
but there are better ways to achieve it while safeguarding environmental resources as well as jobs. The New york times put it best:
Are you willing to pay 2x the cost for power transportation and fuel? I don't understand why reversing the effects of the azolla event is seen as such a negative thing.
We'll just linger at our present emissions rate forever rather than potentially surging (though we're already going down) followed by steady decline as we naturally switch to nuclear.
They should share in some of the economic misery they've been thrusting on the rest of America the rest of the world and particularly the starving energy-less third world.
The transition from fossil fuels will go much more smoothly if we allow the actual reserves
They use more energy to produce than they make! Get rid of coal plants? Where will you get your power?
Windmills? Sure lets destroy the ecosystems of ridges and mountain tops because we never see it anyway.
Oh wait that uses more energy than it takes to produce them still have to get power somewhere!
@mike13323 Solar panels pay back there energy usage in two years but last 40+years. About 85%of the oxygen comes from the oceans.
There is also the large energy debt they come with. As far as AGW proponents are concerned that means extra carbon burned
in order to produce this non-carbon energy source. After 30+years of this stuff the solar panels are just starting to break even on that front.
2) Land covered in oil is very sexy I love how it is slick and slimy yet tarry too!
I want the our energy to be cleaner and safer for the environment however until technology catches up with fossil fuels it's prudent to scale back slowly and responsibly.
We are not there yet and this rubbish that we are heading for a man made apocalypse in the near future has been a lie
id=science-behind-climate-changehttp://www. epa. gov/climatechange/science/overview. html#human-causeshttp://www. edf. org/climate/how-we-know-the-earth-is-warmingreally all it takes for
The petroleum folks were the last holdouts on that one. I wonder why...@Frosttty thanks for calling me arrogant.
#Over Time, Nuclear power Would Kill Fewer People Than Petroleumusing nuclear power for energy instead of coal has prevented almost 2 million pollution-related deaths around the world
The paper argues that policymakers should increase nuclear power rather than continuing dependence on fossil fuels. The 2011 disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power according to Hansen
and its lead author Pushker A. Kharecha of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
which fuel nuclear power will be replacing.)Nuclear power has prevented already 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions and would prevent the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons again depending on
which fuel it replaces. The paper does acknowledge the serious health and environmental concerns related to storage of nuclear waste.
But the main point is that nuclear power is cleaner and greener than sources that belch carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The study has some limitations stemming from assumptions about future coal use but the authors think they were actually being conservative:
The safety of nuclear energy is equal to flying an airplane. On a typical day life is good
The same is true of nuclear energy just ask Japan Russia etc..I am not drinking this cool-aid.@
The same holds for nuclear power vs. other energy sources. The*real*risk of a nuclear power disaster is far less than the*(mis) perceived*risk.
If nuclear power was safe we would not need the Priceã¢Â#Ânderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.@
--and that includes Anyclon who refuses to believe that nuclear power is less risky than most other sources of energy.
Fossil fuels are very dirty even if you ignore CO2 from combustion. I read somewhere that coal fire power plants release more radiation (in the form of radioactive impurities being vaporized) into the atmosphere every year than all nuclear power plants ever (including meltdowns.
but the impurities in fossil fuels are destroying our environment. We used to believe that dilution was the solution to pollution
and SOLAR ENERGY. 3. Hansen and Kharecha and everyone should watch the presentations at the Symposium on the Medical
and in our environment from nuclear meltdowns and nuclear power plants was discussed. The total amounts of deaths birth defects miscarriages heart attacks cancers etc. due to nuclear radiation is in the millions upon millions;
far surpassing any deaths that could be caused by any other energy. That is why nuclear energy is rightly known as the most dangerous energy in the world.
Here is the link to the Symposium: www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?/id=hcf@Listenup 1. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste http://www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm?
id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste2. I do agree we shall go for clean renewable energy
however their efficiency is not high enough yet. I think nuclear fission energy will be suitable as a transitional substitution mean
while. 3. Let's hope we can have feasible nuclear fusion energy soon. Why can't they take nuclear fuel rods into space
and drop them to burn up in reentry to atmosphere? Seems like a market for all the space pioneers.@
@Listenup The amount of ignorance and misinformation in your comment blows my mind. You've become trapped in a self-feeding bubble of (mis) information a phenomenon the internet makes possible.
So here's a tip-whatever you believe Google the exact opposite of it and consider what you find as seriously as you do your current beliefs.
You don't seem to realize that there are only TWO events in all of history that actually spread any significant amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere from nuclear reactors-Chernobyl
and Fukushima. 3 mile island caused less extra radiation than you'd get from a cross-country flight.
By contrast coal-fired power plants release higher quantities of radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere than even the oldest nuclear reactors ever did.
and Wind aren't preferable to Nuclear but I*am*saying Nuclear is by far preferable to filthy coal and oil.@
@coachlowe Throw a bunch of nuclear waste into the atmosphere? Do you think burn up in the atmosphere means it just vanishes?
These are basic atomic elements we're talking about not blocks of wood. They won't become any less radioactive just by getting a little hot.
The nuclear dream is fading fast. Solar and amazing energy storage technologies are advancing exponentially.
By the time one more nuclear plant is built the materials based energy revolution will change the face of energy production foreverchernobyl may have caused almost 1 million deaths according to a recent study.
Fukushima is expected by Dr. Helen Caldicott M d. to cause at least 1 million deaths by cancer due to radioactivity already released.
If a Magnitude 8 earthquake strikes Japan before a fuel pool dangling 100 feet in the air is secured the resulting radioactivity is expected to be at least 40 times that of Chernobyl causing untold millions of cancers across the Northern hemisphere.
Fossil fuels can be replaced much faster than might be imagined. See the same site to understand how and why.
and business was energy independent how much stronger free-er society would be in the USA
people what you need to take a look at is energy density. Yes you could replace every watt of energy production with wind and solar...
but you would destroy cover and disrupt 100's millions of acres of forest deserts plains lands mountains beachesetc.
Apparently I am allowed not a negative opinion again the dangers of nuclear energy and or the positive opinion towards solar power.
and about as mature as your avatar. 1. A quick trip to wikipedia shows many many nuclear meltdowns and accidents such as Santa Susana in California and the Urals in Russia which spewed tons of radiation
over unsuspecting populations. 2. Comparing radiation received from an airplane flight to exposure to nuclear radiation
These comparisons are made by pro-nuclear propagandists to try to minimize the dangers of nuclear radiation. 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous
and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation. Dr. Romeo F. Quijano said this about nuclear radiation:
The small amount of radiation claimed to be safe by authorities added to our increasingly fragile environment will cause serious harm to the health of human beings and other living organisms all over the world.
and will contaminate all regions on earth. www. abs-cbnnews. com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose4.
coast. 9. Dr. Gofman did studies on the increases of breast cancer due to nuclear radiation. 10.
Even the pro-nuclear World health organization says breast cancer and leukemia will increase after Fukushima and predicts a 70%increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed to Fukushima radiation as infants. 11.
It's not just cancers and death that nuclear radiation causes. Dr. Wertelecki found teratomos conjoined twins mocrophthalmia NTD microcephaly horrible birth defects and a decrease in cognitive skills due to Chernobyl.
and health effects caused by nuclear radiation. Again I highly recommend everyone watch the speakers at the Fukushima Symposium to learn more. www. totalwebcasting. com/view/?
/id=hcfthe doctors at the Symposium have spent decades studying the effects of nuclear radiation and their grim analysis is in their presentations.
And nuclear radiation is not just affecting humans. Animals are showing signs of radiation exposure.
Man-made nuclear radiation is wreaking havoc on human genetics human health and our environment. NEW Gallup Poll:
Americans Want More Energy From Wind Solar Gasno fewer than two in three Americans want the U s. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%)wind (71%)and natural gas (65%.
%Far fewer want to emphasize the production of oil (46%)and the use of nuclear power (37%.
%Least favored is coal with about one in three Americans wanting to prioritize its domestic production. www. gallup. com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas. aspxlistenup regardless of the tone
and warped view on nuclear radiation is balance and perspective. Onihikage was right to call you out on your radiation junk science.
Your claim 3. Nuclear radiation is highly dangerous and there is NO SAFE DOSE of nuclear radiation is also rubbish.
Nuclear radiation is used daily to irradiate foods to prevent spoilage with no adverse health effect whatsoever.
In fact it saves lives by preventing deadly bacteria from forming. Nuclear radiation is used safely countless times every day in numerous ways in medical and diagnostic procedures on humans;
all of which results in the prolonging of life and improving the quality of life for millions of people each year.
The effects of nuclear radiation have been studied carefully for over 60 years and extremely conservative dosage limits set in place to protect the safety of people who work in environments where radiation exposure is commonplace.
The U s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates public health data do not absolutely establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and dose rates âÂ#Âbelow about 10000 mrem (100 msv).
As for the Gallup poll Listenup it says nothing about what forms of energy Americans want to prioritize.
It simply shows that Americans want the country to produce more energy from all of the sources named.
Solar power: 88%Wind: 87%Natural gas: 89%Oil: 67%Nuclear power: 65%Coal: 56%In other words generally speaking Americans want to become energy independent through ALL THE resources at our disposal. http://www. gallup. com/file/poll/161525/Energy sources 130327. pdfthis is absolutely true
and it kills far less people anually then coal. If you leave your solar panel running in your garage no one will die.
Some benefits to health and the environment are just a better trade off. We need to do a lot more development towards solar power.
Besides another product produces on the side is JOBS. It takes more people to maintain solar panels associated power supply systems and power storage systems.
These type of jobs are technical in nature and pay better thereby giving more people a higher level of money and yes medical benefits.
renewable>nuclear>fossil fuel ORRENEWABLE>fossil fuel>nucleardisregarding all money related issues here. But if money were to be put into this equation then most people would support a different one depending on how much of they are of each an environmentalist economist or politician.
and economists would lean toward either fossil fuel or nuclear depending on their viewpoints and info. However a politician would rather go for fossil fuel
or better yet renewable resources as they would want to avoid the somewhat untrue public opinion (Fukushima) on nuclear energy.
My own opinion is that renewable resources trump all but that nuclear would be a little better than fossil fuels.
First of all I would like to point out that without fossil fuels I would think none of us would ever need to question energy production.
Second of all although most of the facts previously stated about radiation and nuclear energy are true you do realize that most of that info is talking about decades old nuclear technology?
Nuclear energy is similar fossil fuels in the way of both safety and efficiency. Fossil fuel usage at its infancy was both dangerous and extremely wasteful.
It is just like that with nuclear energy. Chernobyl and Fukushima were examples of plants built
when scientist didn't even know about all of the elements we have now on the periodic table.
When they were designed nuclear energy was at its infancy. They were practically the prototypes the testing stations for nuclear energy
and even most of those wasteful dangerous first generation nuclear facilities are somewhat better than the most high tech fossil fuels.
Putting plants into use is extensive. Nuclear plants were built with technology research and designed decades ago.
Chernobyl and Fukushima built in the sixties and finished in the seventies used technology invented in the fifties!
That's only a DECADE after the FIRST nuclear fission in human history! The nuclear plants finished recently (within the past decade) were built with technology developed in the seventies and eighties.
Also I believe that fossil fuel technology has been research to almost full potential. Nuclear fission and fusion and combination of the two have yet to reach the potentials
and can be so much better than fossil fuels in both safety and efficiency (with A LOT OF help).
On a side note China has been doing the reverse compared to most of the world building
and researching more into nuclear energy rather that quit because of two major accidents. Not saying that the Chinese are the smartest
if anything is to happen with nuclear stuff China might be in the news. People need to consider our world realities when thinking about alternate energies.
With nuclear some of you on here defending nuclear just want to act like Chernobyl and Fukushima are the whole of world nuclear contamination.
Whether it's the weapons and the nuke plants that create those isotopes or the ones that were built specifically for safer power generation
or the massive shame to humanity that storage is--it's the nuclear issue. No?
I don't know how disposal of nuclear waste is brought about but in one other story that was discussing future concepts of skyscrapers one was harnessing noise pollution to create energy another was using volcanos
I believe there are several more means that exist to create energy with relatively fewer adverse effects on the environment f
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011