A Self-Created Problem

People amaze me by how stupid they can be about obvious things (I use the term "stupid" advisedly. (Ignorance is lack of knowledge. Stupid is refusing to recognize knowledge when presented to you.). People are very concerned about "the oil crisis" where we keep sending about $500 million (a half BILLION) a DAY to foreign sources for oil while there are sources for more than that right here in U. S. territory.

Three things we can do

There are three things we can do to completely solve our problem with our dependence on foreign oil, forever.

1. Start building refineries: Did you know that we haven't built a single refinery in the United States in more than THIRTY YEARS? That is, except for the hundreds of refineries that have been built in the last few years to refine alcohol-based (corn) gasoline. It seems the environmentalist crazies have not only the power to stop us from building refineries for oil-based gasoline, but to cause us to build many refineries for corn-based gasoline, therefore TRIPLING the cost of corn -- which is used in almost everything. This to "solve" an imaginary "problem" with emissions supposedly causing an imaginary problem called "global warming." The fact that this will unnecessarily increase your costs for EVERYTHING, right across the board, isn't important to the environmentalist extremists, most of whom are rich "coupon-clippers," anyway.

2. Allow drilling for oil within the United States: The same environmentalist idiots who have completely stopped refining of oil in the United States have also stopped us almost completely from drilling for oil there, too. There are many reasons they advance for this, including the "fact" that oil derricks are "unsightly" and that people (mostly the "filthy rich" coupon-clippers such as Teddy Kennedy) should not have to glimpse a derrick within fifty miles of their "pristine shores." They fight "tooth-and-nail" against drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska because it might "destroy" a "pristine wilderness" that nobody ever sees (except for moose and elk). Forget that drilling there will give us as much oil as we get from our enemies in the Middle East, and we own it! They publish pretty pictures that they SAY is ANWR, but isn't. ANWR is a "deserted territory" where nobody (except a few moose and elk) lives. It is like a cold desert that drilling would make warmer. The Alaska Pipeline, which environmentalists said would "hurt wildlife" in the area, has actually HELPED wildlife. Wildlife flock to the area of the pipeline to get warm! "The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies. The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference." So the House has yet to vote and they haven't voted the money, so the measure still waits for congressional action.

3. Pursue nuclear power: Contrary to the claims of environmentalist extremists, nuclear power is just about the cleanest way to make electricity, ONE disaster in Russia, where they don't care as much about their people as we do, notwithstanding. There are still problems, but problems also remain with other methods, as well: "Washington, D.C. � A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls 'the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy.' The report maintains that 'The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power.' 'Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020,' said Deutch. 'In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. [Emphasis mine. -RT] Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions.' "

"The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. But it brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety. The sequence of certain events -- equipment malfunctions, design related problems and worker errors -- led to a partial meltdown of the TMI-2 reactor core but only very small off-site releases of radioactivity." [Emphasis mine. -RT] The environmental extremists have successfully "demonized" nuclear power without sufficient reason. Other methods have had more deaths and injuries, but nothing is said about that.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) says: "Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction delays as a result of public opposition. Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. [Emphasis mine. -RT]

The amount of uranium-235 dispersed by coal combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings. [Emphasis mine. -RT] They don't talk about this. They want you to think that exposure to radiation is a problem that is alone caused by nuclear plants. This is misleading. But that's what they do.

The point of this article is simple: we are exposed to radiation whichever method we use, but we are actually exposed to LESS radiation by nuclear power production. Which do you want? Do you want to believe what the nuclear-power-haters want you to believe? Or do you want to investigate and make up your own mind?