In consideration of John McCain, ...for those yet unconvinced by Barack Obama Options

[Arneoker]

Taz I think you have a good point in asking Tomyhe just what his knowledge about nuclear power is based upon, but you could be a bit gentler in making it.

Personally I am a bit leery about nuclear power, see it as no quick fix, but think that it may be one of the better, though imperfect, options that we need to pursue. Dealing with the waste is a big challenge, but my hunch is that is doable in the end. And it does nothing to add to greenhouse gases.

Now I would much prefer renewable energy and conservation as solutions, but those will take some time, maybe a lot of time, to make a real difference. And bottom line, people may give up some in the interests of energy independence and the environment, but they are only likely to willingly give up so much.

[tomhye]

And how do you fuel the non-breeders?

You yourself said you use weapons grade fuel...are we going to share this with Iran to fuel their nuclear power plants?

Not weapons grade fuel, fuel made from weapons grade material from decommissioned devices. No reason not to share it, it's no easier to enrich than any other nuclear fuel.

[tazvil04]

Published on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 by Doug Ireland
John McCain, Hypocrite
by Doug Ireland

John McCain, the media's darling, has found a clever way around his own campaign finance reform law to take big corporate bucks in furtherance of his political ambitions while carrying water for the corporate mammoth providing the dough. But the national press is ignoring the story.

The Associated Press first ran the story of John McCain's odorous but lucrative Senatorial service to the communications giant Cablevision on the afternoon of March 7. But, while some local papers in McCain's home state (like the East Valley Tribune) have run the story, nothing has as yet made it into the print editions of the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, or any of the half-dozen other big city dailies I checked (although, if one searches the hundreds of AP stories available on the Post's website on its Politics page by clicking on "Latest Wire Reports," one can find it there--but how many readers would bother to do that?) One notable exception: the Kansas City Star.

Here's what the AP's investigation found:

McCain repeatedly intervened on behalf of a policy Cablevision favored -- one which "congressional and private studies conclude could make cable more expensive" -- while his chief political adviser, Rick Davis (who's masterminding McCain's probable '08 presidential rerun) solicited $200,000 in contributions from Cablevision to an institute that promotes McCain and pays Davis a $110,000 annual salary.

The Reform Institute was set up to promote McCain and his issues--especially campaign finance reform, embodied in the famous McCain-Feingold law. This Institute is "a tax-exempt group that touts McCain's views and has showcased him at events since his unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign," and it "often uses the senator's name in press releases and fund-raising letters and includes him at press conferences," the AP says. And, of course, it provides a cushy sinecure with no heavy lifting for McCain's main man, Davis, as he prepares the pontificating Senator's next presidential run. Cablevision's contributions account for a whopping 15% of the Institute's budget.

Now, let's be clear about the phony McCain-Feingold law, which I denounced as "campaign deform" before its passage. The myth is that McCain-Feingold abolished so-called soft money in politics. That's nonsense. It does forbid the national party committees (the RNC and the DNC) from taking soft money--but it leaves a loophole large enough to drive an invading army through, because soft money contributions to state parties are still legal. And, as anyone who closely followed the investigations of the 1996 campaign finance scandals knows, some of the most screamingly unethical influence peddling-and-buying then went on when, to conceal the contributions from a lazy national press corps, millions and millions of dollars in soft money were channeled to state parties by corporate fat-cats seeking to influence government policy and Congressional votes.

Moreover, McCain-Feingold put more corrupting hard money than ever before into the '04 presidential election by doubling the cap on hard money. This provision of McCain-Feingold motored the mushrooming of the practice known as "bundling," by which special interest influence-seekers -- like the lawyer-lobbyists of D.C.'s "Gucci Gulch" and their corporate clients -- get a large number of cronies to max out under the raised McCain-Feingold caps, the individual checks thus collected totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thanks in part to McCain-Feingold, then, the '04 presidential cycle was the most expensive ever in the nation's history. McCain-Feingold was, and is, a fraud.

Why did McCain, a standard-issue Republican conservative, lead the charge for the campaign "deform" law that bears his name? Why, because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. McCain was one of the infamous Keating 5, the band of Senators--greedy for campaign cash--who sold their favors to jailed Savings and Loan kingpin and junk-bond racketeer Charles Keating in the S&L scandals that rocked Congress in the early '90s. (The S&L scandals were the most expensive corporate fraud in history, costing citizens and taxpayers some $600 billion. There is a pile of good books on the S&L Scandals, especially those by Steve Pizzo--who helped break the story; Pete Brewton; and Martin Mayer.) McCain was whitewashed by a complicitous Senate "ethics" committee, after which the Arizona Senator decided to refurbish his image and become a so-called "reformer"--hence the fraudulent McCain-Feingold bill, which was designed to make people forget his boot-licking service to Keating.

Now, McCain is back at the same old game, this time on behalf of Cablevision and its campaign for an "a la carte" provision, which would allow cable customers to pick the channels they want rather than buy packages of channels. McCain has continued to campaign for this provision even after the independent General Accounting Office -- in a study requested by McCain himself -- concluded that the a la carte provision would considerably raise cable rates for consumers. This is a neat hat trick by McCain: he adds another "reformist" feather to his cap by promoting a populist-sounding measure which, in fact, benefits industry and costs the consumer a packet. And, at the same time he takes money from Cablevision in the form of contributions to a pet group of the Senator's which furthers McCain's presidential ambitions.

The AP investigation found that McCain's assiduous services to Cablevision included "letting its CEO testify before his Senate committee, writing a letter of support to the Federal Communication Commission, and asking other cable companies to support so-called a la carte pricing." Davis solicited the first of two $100,00 installments Cablevision paid to McCain's pet Institute just "one week after [the conglomerate's chief, Charles] Dolan testified before McCain's Senate Commerce Committee in May 2003 in favor of a la carte pricing. And it wasn't until after Cablevision paid up that McCain intervened on behalf of the policy the company sought with the FCC.

There's a lot more detail, but you get the picture. You can read the entire AP story about its investigation of McCain by clicking here.

Just as the media bought McCain's cosmetic makeover when he became a "reformer" -- while its kissy coverage of McCain in 2000 turned the Arizonan into a major national figure, thanks to a fit of collective amnesia -- our leading organs of information are now turning a blind eye to the AP's revelation that McCain is an unethical recidivist who is once again mired in a putrid conflict of interest scandal with a major corporate player. Most of the Inside-the-Beltway press corps seems not to care about this latest McCain chicanery--so you are kept in the dark about it. A free press is a great thing, isn't it?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0309-35.htm

[tazvil04]

Not weapons grade fuel, fuel made from weapons grade material from decommissioned devices. No reason not to share it, it's no easier to enrich than any other nuclear fuel.

Since you are reluctant to disclose what your expertise is based upon, perhaps you could refer me to some literature on the subject so that I could educate myself better...

[tazvil04]

Taz I think you have a good point in asking Tomyhe just what his knowledge about nuclear power is based upon, but you could be a bit gentler in making it.

Personally I am a bit leery about nuclear power, see it as no quick fix, but think that it may be one of the better, though imperfect, options that we need to pursue. Dealing with the waste is a big challenge, but my hunch is that is doable in the end. And it does nothing to add to greenhouse gases.

Now I would much prefer renewable energy and conservation as solutions, but those will take some time, maybe a lot of time, to make a real difference. And bottom line, people may give up some in the interests of energy independence and the environment, but they are only likely to willingly give up so much.

Arne, are you familiar with the acronym "ESADMF" --- well that was Tmohye's impolitic response to one of my posts...

So, I think I have been quite restrained in that regard, but if you think I need to be more restrained, I'll take it to heart.

[tomhye]

Since you are reluctant to disclose what your expertise is based upon, perhaps you could refer me to some literature on the subject so that I could educate myself better...

Just look up anything where you can find the definitions of weapons grade materials and fuel grade materials, with uranium the difference is always based on isotope ratios (hence fuel grade is always the same no matter if it was enriched to that point or diluted to that point from weapons grade), plutonium as fuel is more problematic in more ways than one.

To be blunt I don't understand the difficulty with the concept that 20%U235 80%U238= 20%U235 80%U238.

[Arneoker]

Arne, are you familiar with the acronym "ESADMF" --- well that was Tmohye's impolitic response to one of my posts...

So, I think I have been quite restrained in that regard, but if you think I need to be more restrained, I'll take it to heart.

All right, Tomyhe has been rather hot about this too. We don't have to make this personal, even if someone thinks they have spotted a really weak case and are aggressively attempting to demolish it.

[tazvil04]

I guess you have not been listening...

I did propose that we should work toward a ban on nuclear energy as a means of reducing the spread of nuclear waste.

Such a ban would not be limited to nations which do not possess nuclear energy, but the compact would feature those nations with nuclear energy capacity agreeing to ban it.

Instead of answering my questions I posed, you continued your angry rant against any of my suggestions ignoring the reality that in the US nuclear waste is not well secured. .

So, I think if you read my posts you could have saved your self the stress of your tantrum.

Have you read all of my posts before dismissing them?

Did you read the NRC post and the Pittsburgh Tribune post?

The Tribune notes that a dirty bomb could be fashioned relatively easily and safely by a terrorist.

Now, you purport to be an expert in this area. You offer no resume, but only your excited dismissals of my points.

Am I to trust your POV over that of the experts quoted in the article when you offer no point of reference...

Rather...

I have never been hot about any issue here. I will get sarcastic and tease now and then, but its all in good fun.

Just trying to lighten things up...

And was my post eliciting his invective so offensive?

I reveal my sources --- I was only requesting that he provide the basis for his expertise...if he was not going to similarly reveal his sources...

[tazvil04]

How did this guy with this background wrap up the Republican nomination?

July 11, 2002 1:45 p.m.
John McCain: Hypocrite
The unfettered truth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/print...levin071002.asp

John McCain fancies himself a reformer, a trustbuster, a progressive. But the truth is he's a hypocrite.

Putting aside his dealings with convicted felon Charles Keating (as the mainstream media does), he's now all over radio and television, and in the print media, demanding corporate accountability. In fact, on a radio program this morning, McCain decried "unfettered capitalism."

Now, anyone who has tried to start a small business, or has been in business for all of three minutes, knows that American capitalism is far too "fettered." You can't start a business in most places without securing and paying for a license. Most businesses are required to pay employees a minimum wage. All businesses are required to make payroll deductions for a host of programs, including Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workmen's compensation.

And then there are the other "fetters": affirmative action; unpaid family leave; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; local, state and federal taxes; and on and on and on. Indeed, I can think of few transactions that occur between individuals in this country that aren't in some way taxed or regulated.

In truth, McCain has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of "fettered capitalism." All kinds of corporations have found their way to his door with campaign cash in hand. And some of these corporations are the very corporations McCain is railing against.

For example, from 1997-2001, McCain received $31,000 from Global Crossing, which makes him the Senate's top recipient of contributions from that now bankrupt company.

From 1989-2002, McCain received $23,900 from WorldCom, making him the Senate's third top recipient of contributions from that soon-to-be bankrupt company.

From 1989-2001, McCain received $23,250 from Arthur Andersen, making him the Senate's tenth top recipient of contributions from that soon-to-be defunct company.

And from 1989-2001, McCain received $9,500 from Enron, making him the twelfth top recipient of contributions from that bankrupt company.

Of course, I don't believe the mere receipt of campaign contributions is corrupting. In fact, it's evidence of representative government at work. The public has every right to try to influence the direction of their government. But McCain believes this activity to be corrupt, yet he took the money anyway.

If American capitalism is truly "unfettered," and if business contributions are intended to influence their recipients, there would be no reason for businesses to try to influence politicians like McCain through campaign contributions.

What would be nice would be less bluster and more "unfettered" honesty from Arizona's senior senator.

[tazvil04]

John McCain On Healthcare: The Ultimate Hypocrite And Yes, Liar
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust Posted May 1, 2008 | 10:10 AM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schect...re_b_99594.html

Roger Hickey has a great post at ourfuture.org on the "dangerous fraud" that is John McCain's healthcare plan. As I point out ad nauseam in The Real McCain, McCain's positions are not simply fraudulent. The "straight-talker" rarely limits himself to simple dishonesty.

First, read the email The McCain Campaign sent out today on this issue:

My Friends,

Today, there are 47 million uninsured individuals in the U.S., and nearly a quarter of them are children. High costs and limited access are the underlying, fundamental problems in our healthcare system.

As you know, both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are touting outrageously expensive and unrealistic universal health care plans -- a government monopoly over health care.

Unlike my opponents, I do not believe that all of our nation's problems can be solved by turning control over to our government, with all the tax increases, new mandates and government regulation that come with that idea.

Today, our campaign began running a television ad focused on health care -- that you can view by following this link -- to ensure all Americans hear the truth about how I plan to tackle the challenges facing our nation's health care system. To ensure this important ad is aired in as many markets as possible, I'm asking for your immediate financial assistance.

I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves. Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage.

That's why, as president, I will seek to encourage and expand the benefits of Health Savings Accounts, tax-preferred accounts that are used to pay insurance premiums and other health costs. These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for.

In addition, I will reform the tax code to provide every family the option of receiving a direct, refundable tax deposit -- effectively $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 cash for families to offset the cost of insurance.

The reality is that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, in their haste to garner support for their so-called "solutions," are promising more than they can deliver. And, once again, they are simply out-of-touch with the real problems facing our health care system and how to solve them.

Here are the facts: Under the Democrats' plan, we will have all the problems, and more, of the current health care system -- rigid rules, long waits and lack of choices -- and we risk degrading the system's great strengths and advantages, including the innovation and life-saving technology that make American medicine the most advanced in the world.

My friends, this is not my definition of real reform. I hope you will join me in my fight to tackle the real problems facing our nation's health care system by making a contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or $2,300 to help fund this important ad.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

John McCain


A good rule of thumb: When John McCain says "my friends," start looking for a bomb shelter. Another good rule of thumb when McCain utters this trite phrase: Dishonesty is about to morph into full scale hypocrisy.

Here is a man who has been on government healthcare his entire life (daddy was an Admiral) -- all seven decades -- who dares deride it by saying, "Unlike my opponents, I do not believe that all of our nation's problems can be solved by turning control over to our government...."

No, only his own healthcare is worthy of that.

In case you missed McCain's position: Government healthcare is good enough to pay his hospital bills -- with your "taxes" to quote him -- but it is not good enough for the rest of us -- oh and by the way, can you spare $1000 "my friends?" That means a lot coming from a guy who enjoys lounging at 8 different houses on his wife's inherited dime, and laughably calls other candidates "elitist."

With straight talk like that, who needs mendacity?

Cliff Schecter is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn't. Every time you buy a copy (for only $10!), an angel gets their wings.

[tazvil04]

The McCain Health Plan: Millions Lose Coverage, Health Costs Worsen, and Insurance and Drug Industries Win

Voice
Honors (5)
CAF STAFFBy Roger Hickey

April 29th, 2008 - 9:24am ET
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccain...e-and-drug-indu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver what his handlers are hyping as a major address on health care. McCain’s plan is a dangerous fraud.

He wants voters to think he is going after health care cost inflation. In reality, he wants to dismantle the employer-provided system that now covers over 60 percent (or about 158 million) of non-elderly Americans, forcing millions of us who now get fairly decent health insurance on the job to instead buy whatever they can find on the individual market controlled by unregulated and predatory insurance companies. And he would drive health care costs upward, not downward.

This is truly amazing: McCain and his handlers knew they had to say something about health care. So they turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance – in their words, we don’t have enough “skin in the game” – and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.

So that’s the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result—in practice—is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of “skin in the game” has meant that millions of Americans don’t get health care they need—and that’s one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.

But McCain, like George Bush, pays more attention to ultra-conservative theory than he does to the facts. So McCain wants to tax workers’ health care premiums that are paid for by employers. Ask any expert, conservative or liberal, and they will tell you the result will be companies will stop providing health care as an employee benefit. Fortune Magazine quotes one of their experts on the impact of McCain's plan: “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.

Now keep this in mind: McCain and his corporate advisers don’t dispute this. The massive upheaval that would result – millions of families losing their health coverage on the job and then having to try to find an insurance company that would sell them a new policy that would cover their families—that’s not an unintended consequence of his proposal. That chaotic loss of health security is exactly what McCain intends to happen. He wants us all to buy insurance not as part of a group—like an employee group or a co-op—that can negotiate for better coverage at lower premiums, but as individuals, at the mercy of the private insurance companies.

And get this: McCain wants to abolish the regulations that currently exist in most states that require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, provide benefits that don’t exclude some medical conditions, and prevent them from charging huge premiums for crumby benefits. How would he do this? By “giving people the freedom” to buy insurance in other states with weaker regulations. You can bet that most of the big insurance companies are now shopping around for the state that wants to become the corporate headquarters state for the new deregulated health insurance industry – if President McCain wins. Delaware? Mississippi? Arizona?

But, but, but . . . I can hear some people saying, McCain does give people refundable tax credits to help pay for health insurance. And that is part of his package. But his whole philosophy is that too many millions of American’s are getting health care benefits that are too rich, and you certainly can’t say that about the level of tax subsidy he would provide—$2,500 per year for individuals and $5,000 for a family, according to the McCain for President website. Last year the average yearly cost of the most popular type of insurance plan offered by employers hit $11,765, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study. So the average person with a family would end up paying $11,765 minus the $5,000 tax credit, or $6,765—about double the $3,226 Kaiser tells us the average employee paid for his or her share of premiums.

Again, this is NOT unintentional. McCain and his corporate advisers think it is good for individuals and families to pay more because it makes them think twice before seeking health care, and—in theory—they will shop around for cheaper care. And if they can’t cover the costs of real health insurance with McCain’s tax credit, the insurance industry will sell you lower-cost plans with big holes in coverage or costly co-pays—that is, if you are not already sick and you aren’t too old for them to see you as profitable.

And McCain will be glad to help you invest your tax credit in a Health Savings Account —a savings account coupled with an insurance plan cooked up by his friends in the insurance industry with such high deductibles that it only applies for catastrophic health costs. For those normal trips to the doctor, you just take money out of the savings account until there is nothing left—and then you really reduce health care costs by forgoing the trip to the doctor altogether.

The ultra-conservatives have a name for this combination of tax credits and HSAs. They call it “consumer-directed health care.” A better name is “high-cost health care”—or “insurance company-directed health care.” And although they promote it as saving money for individuals, for our economy and our society, the available evidence shows that it does nothing to reduce health care costs—but it will leave millions of people with worse coverage, more chronic health problems, and higher levels of health cost-driven bankruptcies. And, perhaps most importantly for McCain’s financial backers, it would leave the insurance industry and the drug industry even more in control of America’s health care system than ever before.

The release of this McCain health care plan is an important test for the mainstream media. Health care experts who are “reality-based” will, if asked to comment, tell reporters that there is no evidence that McCain’s proposals will do anything to reduce health care costs, but will the media fall for the McCain spin?

Here’s the story they would like major media to report:

“While Democrats Obama and Clinton, stuck in an endless primary contest, fight with each other over who would cover more of the uninsured, John McCain has been using the luxury of uncontested time to develop a thoughtful plan for bringing down health care costs—the issue voters care most about when it comes to their own family budget worries. And McCain’s plan would attack the health cost spiral by unleashing the power of individual consumers and families in a more competitive health care marketplace, not by using the power of the federal government to either provide health care and not by dictating health insurance arrangements between workers and employers. Expanding consumer choice—and encouraging health care consumers to be wise purchasers of health care, said McCain, is the best way to force the health care system to become more efficient and reduce the burden of health care costs.”

Most honest reporters will note that the McCain will not improve the lot of America’s 47 million uninsured, but they may give McCain credit for focusing more on controlling prices than Obama and Clinton. That might sound “fair and balanced”—but it would be wrong.

The reality is, McCain’s proposals would greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans, while also doing nothing about health care costs except increasing the number of people who can’t afford good quality health care for themselves and their families. Let’s see if the media gets both parts of the story right.

[Indianhead]

Love the source citations.

You are what you eat.

[Livyjr]

"Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns"

By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press

Last updated: 12:52 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 2008

LAKE NORMAN, N.C. -- Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate.

"Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power.

"You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants."

He added: "This is becoming a crisis."

Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether.

Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant.

Most of the severely affected area would need more than a foot of rain in the next three months -- an unusually large amount -- to ease the drought and relieve pressure on the nuclear plants.

And the long-term forecast calls for more dry weather.

At a nuclear plant, water is also used to cool the reactor core and to create the steam that drives the electricity-generating turbines.

But those are comparatively small amounts of water, circulating in what are known as closed systems -- that is, the water is constantly reused.

Water for those two purposes is not threatened by the drought.

Instead, the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam.

At some plants -- those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers -- a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation.

At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam.

Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers.

Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 2 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source.

From an environmental standpoint, I have a very serious problem with McCain's stance on proliferating nuclear energy here in America ...

The adverse environmental impacts of nuclear power plants are not at all well publicized or understood by the general public in America, but they are quite serious in their ramifications, due to all the waste heat that nuclear plants produce which must then be transferred to the environment for "disposal" ...

And the NRC keeps this hidden from us by granting emergency changes to nuclear facilities with no public notice or review, to keep the plants operating so they can keep generating profits for their owners ...

So this problem keeps growing and we remain largely ignorant of it, to our detriment ...

And so ...

I don't have an "irrational" fear, myself ...

I have a scientific concern that is well founded in research and reality ...

And I was very specific in my post to mention adverse environmental impacts from WASTE HEAT ...

I'm not talking about radiation ...

I'm talking about the real danger from nuke plants being the overheating of OUR environment that they cause through dissipation of all of this waste heat ...

"A future of droughts, downpours for U.S. - Scientific report outlines regional extremes due to climate change"

By JULIET EILPERIN, Washington Post

First published: Friday, June 20, 2008

WASHINGTON -- As greenhouse gas emissions rise, North America is likely to experience more droughts and excessive heat in some regions even as intense downpours and hurricanes pound others more often, according to a report issued Thursday by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

The 162-page study, which was led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, provides the most comprehensive assessment yet of how global warming has helped to transform the climate of the United States and Canada over the past 50 years -- and how it may do so in the future.

Coming at a time when record flooding is ravaging the Midwest, the new report paints a grim scenario in which severe weather will exact a heavy toll.

While the Southwest is likely to face even more intense droughts, the scientists wrote, heavy downpours will become more frequent in some other parts of the country because of increased water vapor in the air.

"This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: What will happen to weather and climate extremes?" said one of the report's two co-chairs, Thomas Karl, who directs NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

He added that the report, which synthesizes the findings of more than 100 academic papers, "concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events."

The authors found that the last decade has seen fewer cold snaps than any other 10-year period in the historical record dating back to 1895.

Under a middle-range scenario of future greenhouse gas emissions, climate models indicate that by mid-century, extremely hot days that now occur only once every 20 years will occur every three years.

Richard Moss, vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said in an interview that the report was prepared by "an A-list of authors" and is "really frightening."

In a conference call with reporters, Karl and the other co-chair, Gerald Meehl, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said there is no doubt that human-generated heat-trapping gases have helped intensify both the Southwest's current drought and heavy downpours, which have been increasing at a rate three times that of average precipitation over the past century.

By the end of the century, Karl added, models predict that intense bouts of precipitation that might have occurred once every 20 years will take place every five years.

[Livyjr]

Average solar inundation is in the range of 600 btu/sqft/day, literally all human activity combined pales in comparison.

INSOLATION ...

I believe the term is INSOLATION ...

Solar INSOLATION ...

INSOLATION: the rate of delivery of all direct solar energy per unit of horizontal surface ...

[tomhye]

INSOLATION ...

I believe the term is INSOLATION ...

Solar INSOLATION ...

INSOLATION: the rate of delivery of all direct solar energy per unit of horizontal surface ...

I stand corrected. I often forget or temporarily can't remember words and try to make a close substitution.

[Livyjr]

Tom, for all we know you are the former head of the NRC, but when you offer us technical mumbo jumbo and none of us --- or at least not I --- have the backgorund to be able to sift through it - you don't mention your background --- whether you have a degree in nuclear or other engineering --- etc...

Well, I'm just a little skeptical because you come across like the nuclear power plant industry's number one guy...

In 1975, the USEPA provided me with a graduate fellowship to study environmental engineering at a well-known polytechnic institute in the north-east of the United States so that I could "rehabilitate" myself as a disabled combat veteran here in America ...

While obtaining a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering, my project work was on the fluid mechanics and thermodynamics of nuclear facility cooling tower plumes ...

We had an operating physical model and a computer model, and real-world data to calibrate and then verify the computer model ....

What we discovered and came to realize, and this is in 1975, was that prodigious volumes of liquid water were being entrained in the cooling tower plumes and that liquid water was being carried high up into the earth's atmosphere, in some cases being carried up into the next layer of the earth's atmosphere where the velocities are quite high ...

So this water vapor and liquid water were breaking into this upper layer where it would start whipping around the earth at high speed, and the plumes would keep feeding more and more vapor and water into this layer, where it would accumulate and become unstable and then would return to the earth's surface from 10 or so miles up ...

And this short discussion does not go into the heat transfer aspects of any of this ...

Just the mass balance portion ...

Water exists as one of three phases - solid, liquid or gas ....

And as it changes back and forth, energy must transfer with the "environment" ...

When you put tons of water into the upper atmosphere in its gaseous phase, at some point, it is going to convert back to being a liquid, and then a solid, and it is going to come back down ...

Hard and fast .....

SOMEWHERE ....

And nobody can predict where that might be ...

Just that it must and will be, since gravity still dominates here on earth ....

When we verified our findings and presented them to the "sponsor", which is a power pool up here in the north-east, the research was buried ....

All the records were "swept up" and so far as I know, they "disappeared" ....

Now, it is 2008 ....

And tons of liquid water are coming back down on our heads, wrecking havoc here in America ...

Well, okay, it's not coming down on everyone all at once ....

But then, it really doesn't have to, does it?

And so ...

To be a "successful" engineer here in America, you have to learn the lawyer's and politician's ART of telling lies, and hiding data, and fabricating data, to make the necessary "political point of the moment" depending on who is lining your pocket ...

If, on the other hand, you wish, like I did, to stand for and with the people, to protect and safeguard their lives, health and property, there is a good and high likelihood that you will be crushed ...

And silenced ...

But that isn't going to stop reality from happening ....

And now it is ...

Go tell Chicken Little the sky isn't falling ....

Just all the water that we have been sticking up there for these last 40 years or so ....

Tons and tons of it ...

And so ....

[Livyjr]

I stand corrected.

I often forget or temporarily can't remember words and try to make a close substitution.

Fair enough ...

And I know what you mean ....

In the heat of battle, what was that word I wanted ....

And inundation is certainly a good approximation of what is actually happening ...

And so ...

[Livyjr]

Dealing with the waste is a big challenge, but my hunch is that is doable in the end.

And it does nothing to add to greenhouse gases.

"Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns"

By MITCH WEISS, Associated Press

Last updated: 12:52 p.m., Wednesday, January 23, 2008

LAKE NORMAN, N.C. -- "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power.

"You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants."

He added: "This is becoming a crisis."

At some plants -- those with tall, Three Mile Island-style cooling towers -- a lot of the water travels up the tower and is lost to evaporation.

At other plants, almost all of the water is returned to the lake or river, though significantly hotter because of the heat absorbed from the steam.

Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers.

Duke's McGuire plant draws in more than 2 billion gallons a day, but most of it is pumped back to its source.

Nuclear plants are subject to restrictions on the temperature of the discharged coolant, because hot water can kill fish or plants or otherwise disrupt the environment.

AND FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF "YEAH, RIGHT, TELL US ANOTHER WHOPPER", WE HAVE ...

LET'S HEAT THAT LAKE ONTARIO UP UNTIL YOU CAN USE IT FOR TEA WATER ...

THERE WON'T BE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AFTERALL ...

AND HEY, THESE NUCLEAR BOYS GOT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT, TOO ...

AND THE U.S. NRC WILL LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT ...

WHILE FEEDING US A LINE OF BULL**** THAT THESE PLANTS ARE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE DISCHARGED COOLANT ...

And so ...

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Items of Interest - Week Ending August 19, 2005

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1) - Water Temperature Emergency Amendment

On August 12, 2005, the staff issued an emergency license amendment to Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (the licensee), which revised NMP1 Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.7, “Containment Spray System,” to increase the maximum allowable lake water temperature in TS 3.3.7.f. from 81°F to 83°F.

This change was requested under emergency circumstances to avoid a reactor shutdown due to a higher than anticipated water temperature rise in Lake Ontario and weather forecasts for higher temperatures over the next 10-day period.

TS 3.3.7.g. requires the plant to begin shutting down within 1 hour of reaching the TS 3.3.7.f. limit and be in hot shutdown conditions within 8 hours and in cold shutdown within 24 hours.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collecti...05-0155scy.html

WASTE HEAT, Arneoker ....

That threatens us much quicker than does nuclear waste, itself, in my estimation ...

Look at this sentence from my second post in the sequence above here, for example:

Progress spokeswoman Julie Hahn said the Harris reactor, for example, sucks up 33 million gallons a day, with 17 million gallons lost to evaporation via its big cooling towers.

17 MILLION GALLONS per day lost to evaporation ....

Water weighs what?

7.48 pounds per gallon?

And how many cubic feet is that?

There are 62.4 pounds of water/cubic foot ....

So just from this one facility alone, every day, there are tons and tons of water going up into the atmosphere, where that water is not stable ...

It can't stay there forever ....

So it is going to return to earth ...

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of gallons of it ....

HEY!

WOW!

Wouldn't that cause a flood now, if that were to ever happen?

And then there is Lake Ontario in New York State and the federal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) ....

As I recall, when the nuke plants at Nine Mile Point in New York State on Lake Ontario were first licensed, the maximum allowable water temperature was 75 degrees F. ....

The normal natural lake temperature would have been less than that ...

And now, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has it up to at least 83 degrees F., and that is by emergency license amendment, with absolutely no thought or review as to the environmental impacts of that increase in the temperature of that portion of Lake Ontario ....

Every pound of water that has been heated one degree F. has taken in one BTU of heat energy to cause that temperature rise ....

If a pound of water in Lake Ontario that was originally 60 degrees F. has been heated up to 83 degrees F. by the waste heat from the Nine Mile Point nuke plants, then that pound of water now has 23 BTU's of heat energy that it normally would not have had to transfer to the environment ...

Hot water heating is preferred for houses up here in the north, because a pound of water can heat up a lot of pounds of air ...

And then there is evaporation off of the lake surface, which is a function of surface area and water temperature ....

Heat up the water, and there is more evaporation, later into the season ...

Last year, there was one snow storm just to the east of Lake Ontario that dumped TEN FEET of snow on several communities up there ....

And then there are also the white-outs that caused the New York Thruway to be closed down out there because of the zero visibility ....

But hey ....

None of that probably has anything to do with turning Lake Ontario into a heated bath ...

Probably just some freak of nature ....

Or maybe an act of God ....

Couldn't have anything to do with the nuke plants ....

Because we need them to keep our economy going ....

Even when it can't keep going because New York State is buried under ten feet of snow, and you can't see to drive, so you can't ship out your products, and people can't get to work to make anything ...

And so ...

[cutecat]

[cutecat]