Dangerous fossil fuels poison Navajo miners, air, water, land and, oh yes...

the dangerous fossil fuel waste spewing plant - containing the highest structures in Arizona -depends wholly on water from our favorite Lake, Lake Powell.

The anti-nuke industry has been whining for 50 years about uranium mines on Navajo land. They have a big, big, big, big, big, big tale to tell all about uranium.

When you ask them how many Navajos died over a fifty year period they are explicitly indifferent, especially if you compare this number of miners to say, the number of coal miners who died in China in the last 6 months.

The anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about coal miners. It never has, it never will. In fact, this is why the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about the South African coal mines it funded using German Euros.

Another coal mining, coal poisoning situation about which the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less is the Kayenta mine on Navajo territory, which is served by its own dangerous fossil fuel powered railroad, and which releases millions of tons of dangerous fossil fuel into the atmosphere each year is described by Lake Powell advocates thusly:



http://www.lakepowell.org/page_two/information/no_one_knew/no_one_knew.html

Of course, the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less.

It's not like the anti-nuke industry is going to send out its selective attention squad to check on the health of Navajo coal miners. Tens of thousands of coal miners could die and the anti-nuke industry, which is owned by companies like Gazprom and Royal Dutch Shell, wouldn't care less.

How do we know?

Because tens of thousands of coal miners do die most years and the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less.

In fact, the anti-nuke industry had nothing to say in this space when this bit went down:



http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special26/articles/0910drought-power10.html

And of course, the anti-nuke industry has nothing whatsoever to say about the uranium, radon and uranium decay products released along with cadmium, lead and arsenic in an aerosol form by the Navajo Generating Station.

There's this note, about which the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less:



http://www.leftturn.org/?q=node/696

The anti-nuke industry, which insists that only nuclear energy needs to be perfect and that all of the dangerous fossil fuels (and for that matter pet renewable systems) can kill indiscriminately, knows nothing of the subject of external costs, and couldn't care less about external costs, mostly because knowing anything about external costs would involve something called numbers.

For anybody who hasn't shilled along with Amory Lovins and his Enron/Walmart/Rio Tinto/Royal Dutch Shell pals, or Gerhard Schroeder, the pet Shitzu that does tricks under Vlad Putin's dinner table ("Beg Gerhard, beg, and I'll give you a treat! A Gazprom Salary! Roll over Gerhard, roll over!") the numbers can be found here: www.externe.info.

Wikipedia has a gem of an a report on the Navajo Generating Station:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station

Here's an aerial view:

Out of the frying pan, into the fire. With all the sunny days Arizona has, solar should at least be PART of the energy plan.

There's nothing wrong with being against nuclear power, which has high risks. And before you claim that I, being anti-nuke, "don't care" about miners...I'm Irish, and my forebears WERE miners, so I know all about the risks.

BOTH these forms of energy are dangerous, and that's why this country needs to put more effort into developing energy sources that won't damage people or the environment.

The amount of area that would need to be covered by solar panels to supply enough energy for the United States is truly phenomenal--about 50,000 square miles. And the problem of production is even worse, particularly when you consider the fact that solar panels require the toxic chemical cadmium. Nobody's arguing against deploying solar power, but there's simply no way to deploy enough of it, or of wind power, to satisfy our energy demands. That being the case, it comes back to fossil fuels or nuclear. They're the only energy sources with enough density to sustain us. And the known short term and long term risks of continuing to use coal and oil vastly outweigh the theoretical risks of an accident with nuclear power. Civilian nuclear power has recorded not one fatality in its history in the US, while the toxins from fossil fuel use kill 40,000 to 70,000 people per year, in addition to fueling the greenhouse effect.

What a hoot!

In fact, it would be difficult to list all the things that the anti-nuke industry doesn't know.

What I know, however, is that the anti-nuke industry couldn't care less about anyone of any tribe, country of national origin, ethic identity, gender, sexual preference, age group who is killed by dangerous fossil fuels.

Millions of people could die each year from non-nuclear energy sources and the anti-nuke industry - which is spectacularly unable to come up with dead bodies to back its illiterate fear mongering and claims - wouldn't care less.

And how do we know the anti-nuke industry wouldn't care less if millions of people die each year from non-nuclear sources? Because millions of people do die each year from non-nuclear energy sources, and the highly paid (off) anti-nuke industry has not a fucking word beyond, maybe, some blathering insipid muttering about generalities.

We can find similar examples of specialized indifference all around the world. For instance, there is NOT ONE anti-nuke who gives a rats ass about coal deaths in Ukraine. NOT ONE.

give a "rats ass" about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x118480

prolly not

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2139482

and I'll not be shamed into believing anything you advocate, nothing at all. Your being so feverishly nuke is part of the problem not part of the solution. We've had this fight before, nuke and anti nuke, and aparently we will have to fight it again. tell me what do you propose to do with the waste of the nuke industry up to today not to even consider what about tomorrows waste or the next days, waste that has a half life measured in planets lifetimes more so than just a generation or two of humans btw. Oh and I don't want to hear anything about how you are going to recycle it either 'cause you and I know it ain't going to happen, if it was then there would not be any nuke waste today. maybe you propose to just use it for more nuke bombs, huh.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. What an ASS. its impossible to have any meaningful dialog about energy here due to your incessantly pro nuke stance. Go sleep with your nuke friends but leave us alone here so as we can have some meaningful discussion concerning energy use and its making.

Nuclear energy is not the worlds future

i 'bout forgot, have a great day tomorrow too, ok. I know I will

Hm.

Do you EVER post anything OTHER than this sort of commercial for nukes?? Just curious.

Haven't you ever heard that you'll catch far more flies with honey than vinegar????