The new "energy security" measure going through congress this week is seen as a "big oil" scam, but also includes the almost open cheque for new NUCLEAR power stations that was defeated when attached to the USA nuke industrys tame congressperson last attempt, quite recently. . . .
(News breaking- Colombia Free Press)
(News breaking- Colombia Free Press)
Seeing as the last time this was tried it was blocked, its quite possible that reminders to senators, congressional reps etc could prevent it this time too.
(All fission "nuclear power" is a LOCAL issue across the entire world. There are farms in wales where the sheep aint seen as safe after the - mainly prevented - accident in the Ukraine in 1986. The X,000 year waste problem ISNT solved yet either )
There are loads of ways to SERIOUSLY address the current energy crisis:
A less wasteful way to get electricity from place to place - different wiring - more sensible ways to save the AMAZING waste of energy - in industries, sea traffic, etc (all the things that pay "PR types" to keep their bits of society out of the news about this - so that when people hear the phrase "save energy" they imagine some irritating git shouting at them - ""the" consumer" - to "PUT THAT LIGHT OUT!" - more to turn THEM off the track of straightforward SENSE. )
. . . . but most of all - sort the speculators out. Who gets cash from this sort of rollercoaster. The ACTUAL cost or scarcity of oil hasnt undergone alteration by a factor of ten in the last few years - but the price has. If you aint suspicious, you aint paying attention. The "blasphemy" of a challenge to the "holy golden cows" of that "rule" that puts "transnational" corporations as of more legal weight in comparison to the societies/global society they "serve" isnt about what side of the political spectrum you are on, but of how much you have woken up to reality.
But it is less of a surprise that old gravy trains keep trying to influence opinion in favour of the old, "comforting" flat-earthist positions, or that they had a lot of cash to do so in subtle or unsubtle ways.
Fission, off-world. "On-world", fusion, later perhaps. When ONE accident causes such possibly terminal, global damage, you have to admit that saying "ah, but, look, loads of days it DIDNT blow-up/ leak / etc" is MUCH less reassuring.
Minimise risk means minimise nukes.
PS If there WAS popular support for it in the USA, DESPITE all the opinion influencers efforts, theyd not have to try to slip it through the back door again.
(Of course, you could say the USA political phrase "porkbarrel" - adding things to a bit of legislation to get it passed at the same time - could refer, in a British situation, to the "party programme", or "(Yes,) prime ministers programme" in these post-voting days(?). We dont need them either unless we all need extra holes in our heads. But for a few people the attraction of private armies, total secrecy, commercial confidentiality PLUS "nuclear" secrecy, the skirts of "defence of the realm" to hide under, but your own "black budget laboratory" . . . .for a "James Bond" baddy, yes - but its neither economical or safe in the long mid or short term*. Keep the scientists, but dump the power station programmes.Trying to say this was a solution to the environmental mess of Climate Chaos etc was also one of the stupidest ploys possible, says our "mallets for headache cures" expert.
* SHORT TERM GAIN :a few people define attaining the power of flight as getting thrown out of the window of a skyscraper . . . . that is TOO MUCH of a "short-term" attitude for me, at least, to define it as rational. Ditto the "economics" arguments put forward by certain, should we say, "vested" interests.
Less "bullet-proof" these days, those vests, it seems
despite the emperors tailors recommendations.
if you could, a little action or extra thought?
cheers - see you later
(All fission "nuclear power" is a LOCAL issue across the entire world. There are farms in wales where the sheep aint seen as safe after the - mainly prevented - accident in the Ukraine in 1986. The X,000 year waste problem ISNT solved yet either )
There are loads of ways to SERIOUSLY address the current energy crisis:
A less wasteful way to get electricity from place to place - different wiring - more sensible ways to save the AMAZING waste of energy - in industries, sea traffic, etc (all the things that pay "PR types" to keep their bits of society out of the news about this - so that when people hear the phrase "save energy" they imagine some irritating git shouting at them - ""the" consumer" - to "PUT THAT LIGHT OUT!" - more to turn THEM off the track of straightforward SENSE. )
. . . . but most of all - sort the speculators out. Who gets cash from this sort of rollercoaster. The ACTUAL cost or scarcity of oil hasnt undergone alteration by a factor of ten in the last few years - but the price has. If you aint suspicious, you aint paying attention. The "blasphemy" of a challenge to the "holy golden cows" of that "rule" that puts "transnational" corporations as of more legal weight in comparison to the societies/global society they "serve" isnt about what side of the political spectrum you are on, but of how much you have woken up to reality.
But it is less of a surprise that old gravy trains keep trying to influence opinion in favour of the old, "comforting" flat-earthist positions, or that they had a lot of cash to do so in subtle or unsubtle ways.
Fission, off-world. "On-world", fusion, later perhaps. When ONE accident causes such possibly terminal, global damage, you have to admit that saying "ah, but, look, loads of days it DIDNT blow-up/ leak / etc" is MUCH less reassuring.
Minimise risk means minimise nukes.
PS If there WAS popular support for it in the USA, DESPITE all the opinion influencers efforts, theyd not have to try to slip it through the back door again.
(Of course, you could say the USA political phrase "porkbarrel" - adding things to a bit of legislation to get it passed at the same time - could refer, in a British situation, to the "party programme", or "(Yes,) prime ministers programme" in these post-voting days(?). We dont need them either unless we all need extra holes in our heads. But for a few people the attraction of private armies, total secrecy, commercial confidentiality PLUS "nuclear" secrecy, the skirts of "defence of the realm" to hide under, but your own "black budget laboratory" . . . .for a "James Bond" baddy, yes - but its neither economical or safe in the long mid or short term*. Keep the scientists, but dump the power station programmes.Trying to say this was a solution to the environmental mess of Climate Chaos etc was also one of the stupidest ploys possible, says our "mallets for headache cures" expert.
* SHORT TERM GAIN :a few people define attaining the power of flight as getting thrown out of the window of a skyscraper . . . . that is TOO MUCH of a "short-term" attitude for me, at least, to define it as rational. Ditto the "economics" arguments put forward by certain, should we say, "vested" interests.
Less "bullet-proof" these days, those vests, it seems
despite the emperors tailors recommendations.
if you could, a little action or extra thought?
cheers - see you later
