Who owns the uranium mines in Africa?

This may sound strange but anyone out there with some curiosity needs to place a canister of oxygen near a nuclear power plant. I understad it will prevent that oxygen from being able to ozonate. This is one of many reasons nuclear power is BAD news. I believe there are many as yet unknown more subtle consequences of nuclear power. Extracting radiation to the surface of the planet and fissioning it will be found to have been one of the greatest blunders of mankind in my opinion. Cold fusion should be researched further with some serious funding.

The outgoing Labour PM Tony Blair, I hear, now has a job with JP Morgan.

You'd think someone with an interest in Labour would teach labor history, sociology, etc. at a college after serving as PM. Curious.

But then I think it's fairly well understood that British Labour is co-opted by the nuclear industry (e.g. Fluor Corporation): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2179570,00.html.

It goes to show you how much people hate nuclear. It takes HUGE dollars and anti-democratic (if not criminal) lobbying in order to force down people's throats.

It's disgusting that the corporate giants seeking to profit with a dangerous, carcinogenic boon-doggle will use the global warming crisis to sell their product.

They have no shame and no regard for the earth and its inhabitants.

The price of uranium has more than doubled in the past few years. Lots of money there. __ Billions.

Nuclear Power Plants!
We all know that any country attempting to build nuclear power plants is actually constructing nuclear weapons. Maybe England should be sanctioned for it's clear threat to world peace...

Would the chap golfing be a member of the nuclear club?

The world would be a more peaceful place if we did not have to deal with the Middle Eastern countries for feeding our fossil fuel habit. You want to rid us of our dependence on foreign oil? Build nuclear power plants, solar power plants and wind-based power plants and use the electricity to power a new generation of electric zero-emissions vehicles. This technology is available now and could be used until cleaner safer alternatives are available.

He has a lot of balls Samski.

commentarian- this might be sort of related to what you said?
ozone is a strange thing and as you probably know, some electric air filters actually give off ozone in significant enough quantities that people in the same room (if it is a closed system) have negative experiences (intense headaches etc) as a result.

Beam me up, Scotty!

http://www.aecl.ca/Assets/Publications/Fact+Sheets/ACR-1000.pdf

Billy:

None of those countries is or even wants to be a nuclear weapons state. Its pretty much still the original Cold War club (US, UK, Russia, China)along with Israel, France, India and Pakistan. Maybe South Africa (ultimate honky equalizer)and someday(?)North Korea. (Kim Il wasshisface having the bomb is as scary as it gets!)

Even the former Soviet Republics are saying "Get these things(bombs)outta here!"

We do have to keep an eye on Iran. They could by a turn-key plant and uranium supply contract from several countries in a heartbeat. They don't need to be fooling around with centrifuges...

Duh! You were joking!

KEM,

Most of the uranium mines in Africa are located in Mali and owned by the French (state owned) corporation Areva (used to be Framantone).

Commentarian,

Oxygen does not want to become ozone (O3) under ordinary circumstances. It is stable and quite happy as O2. It is primarily created in the upper atmosphere as a result of cosmic radiation colliding with molecules of O2.
Cold fusion is a myth. Modern day snake-oil.

Ken

I see it was produced by the Australian Uranium Association, and the company/entity which conducted the British opinion polls was unnamed. It did mention the British Labour party. But as I indicated earlier, there have been reports of heavy lobbying (some of it possibly criminal, if I recall) between the nuclear lobby and British Labour.

"The "geological disposal" of nuclear waste was both "technically possible and the right approach," said Hutton."

"geological disposal" anywhere on planet earth guarantees its radioactive contamination, bioconcentration and the end of life on earth.

If investors put their money into nuclear power, you know there are big subsidies by the english taxpayer.

If there is not massive subsidy and liability protection the new plants will stay safely on the drawing board.

Why is nuclear waste a problem? There must be thousands of terrorists out there willing to purchase it. Think of it as a win/win situation.

I get the feeling that oil is foil against nuclear. Keep in mind that not even a century ago Kuwait and Iraq, etc. were British colonies. Saudi Arabia, as well, has only been independent from the UK for 80 years or so.

So when did these UK colonies go from despotically governed to uncontrollable bad guys? Now that the Anglo-American Empire controls Iraqi oil, why has gasoline become so expensive? Halliburton itself is now based in Dubai. If dependence on mideast oil is such a nasty thing, the West should probably quit electing henchmen for OPEC, etc. who then explain how nasty the mideast is, and argue for subsidizing nuclear. They nail us coming and going.

How will those new plants work when the roads are under 20 feet of ice. Downed power lines and frozen pipes. Nuclear is part of the problem, not a solution. Each plant is a bloom of heat that stokes global climate change. Look at the IPCC ice core chart to see what happens when the temperature trigger point is reached.
Go solar, wind and tides, with decentralized grid and power.

Hi BILLY. I wonder if you have heard of corporation named HYDRO VENTURI? They are based in London and now have an office in San Francisco. They are operating a pilot project in Great Britian, using tidal power to generate electrical power. They plan on building a system in San Francisco that will eventally develop twice the engry needs of that city and metro area.

PAUL MAGILL SMITH gave me the information on this project, which has been approved by the city council of San Fran.

It is very cost effiective, developing 2,000 megawats at an average cost of six cent per kilowatt hour, about one third the cost of nuclear energy and a renuable, emmission free energy for up to 16 hours a day. They will sell excess electricty and have their cake and eat it too. That type of system is viable up and down our coast lines. Combine that with solar, wind and geo-thermal and who loses? ___ Who wins, ___ is the real and most important question?

Hey Billy, Kem, ezyflyer, et.al,

Imagine if instead of investing $145 bn in nuclear over the past 50 years, and only $5 bn in renewables, the numbers had been reversed. Frankly, isn't it foolish to keep throwing good money after a failed idea, when there are better options?

Rather than argue the de-merits of nuclear I've been trying to make my time more productive by researching alternatives. After minimul research effort it is easy to conclude other options are much more acceptable WITH the proper funding. The project in San Francisco (San Francisco Tidal Power Project)has been held up since 2004 for lack of funding, although there is little argument it is completely doable. The politics are in the way and being swayed by the existing BIG Energy interests.

I'm certain, that with the Queen of England sitting on an estimated $8-10 billion in uranium assets, she is twisting quite a number of arms to favor her financial position. I thought it was an obligation of the monarchy to protect the commoner in return for their fealty. Well it sure doesn't appear she's holding up her end of the bargain. I mean, it's bad enough trying to sweep the massive amounts of radioactive waste under the rug in a country as expansive as ours, so doing it on a small island (comparitively) is surely worse, especially with a higher average population density there than here.

From the studying I've done I can say with much certainty we have all the energy resources we need right here, in renewables...especially tidal, geothermal, wind, & solar...to make hydrocarbons AND nuclear passe technologies. The entrenched energy interests are going to fight tooth & nail to maintain the status quo, but time is running out, so we must join together and FORCE change.

BTW, the tidal project for San Francisco I told Kem about had an estimated cost of $600 million to provide twice the needs of the entire Bay Area, virtually forever, with no down time, and without radioactive waste dispoSal problems. Doesn't this seem a better investment than paying for only PART of the construction costs of ONE nuclear power plant?

Here is a good good starting point for research on 'ocean power':

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/ocean_power/index.html

nuclear power has received 1 trillion dollars in tax dollars for research in the U.S. over the last 40 years (current $).

It's also received 1 trillion dollars in the UK in the last 40 years (current $).

Now, if alternatives had received anywhere NEAR that kind of money we'd all be generating power from solar, wind, salinity gradients, wave, hydro, etc. (OK, not really, some would still have to come from nuclear, which is a good alternative).

My point is this: the 'alternatives' presented to the people as 'viable' are 'viable' precisely because the gov't (controlled by very $$$$ interests) funded them with tax dollars. Alternatives have largely had to fund themselves over the last 40 years while nuclear got a free ride. And here we are, 40 years later, and alternatives are STILL there, and getting cheaper all the time. Shame on the gov't for misusing our tax dollars against us!!!

Kem, the tidal power project was a result of a competition in the '70s between universities in Britain to produce a viable alternative power generating system. A Scottish uni. invented the " nodding ducks " which do two jobs at the same time. They smooth the seas surface and produce power this means harbour walls are not required and land erosion is halted.

France have an enormous number of Nuclear power plants so it makes little difference to the British living on the south coast of England if the nuclear plants are in Scotland or northern England and it's the southerners who run the country.

Denmark are the leaders in the wind generating field and many wind turbines are being built around the coast of Britain.

My favorite part of these discussions is how little a Conservation Strategy is mentioned, and how a Low-use Electric or Non-Electric Future is NEVER brought up.

Electric Power Generation at Centralized Locations then Grid-Distribution is the problem short term.

And Technical not Biological Energy Reliance is the problem long term.

The focus seems stuck in the middle term.

-matti.

I marvel at the lack of knowlage about nuclear power out there. Educate yourselves without the bias.

ubrew12--
"Nuclear power has received 1 trillion dollars in tax dollars for research in the U.S. over the last 40 years."

About 20-25 years ago, George McGovern said that if we invested the cost of a single aircraft carrier in photovoltaics, we'd be able to produce solar generated electricity at a competitive price.

One more piece of advice from McGovern that we should have listened to.

RE: nukewasted January 11th, 2008 5:57 am

Your pseudonym seems quite appropriate, while your comment of assuming those who oppose proliferation of nuclear usage, as ignorant of well established proven facts, speaks of your own ill placed self-righteous worth & bias. The jury of public opinion & scientific fact has ruled in favor of alternative power generation methods, so get over it. Would you rather be part of mankind's solutions, or continue to propagate problems?

Nuclear power, and others such as coal fired power plants, are the patient going into the doctor's office proclaiming, "Doc, it hurts when I do this", to which the logical rational healer replies, "Well, just don't do that".

This nuclear Rolls Royce has taken us for a too expensive ride for too long now. It's time to get out & take an alternative form of transport. The majority of the world's population have, in aggregate, more right to 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness' than a few fat cats in a luxury vehicle.

PaulMagillSmith,

I haven't seen any evidence that you know the difference between a bagel and a bequerel.

Ken

I live between Limerick and Philly. So I guess my bequerels better go well with cream cheese. A little Sr-90 in the milk, and I guess they do!

KENDPOTTER

The only thing you ever see is the interior of your colon.

KEM

Once again, I see all kinds of proposals brezzely propoosed for alternate energy sources without any discussion of the technical issues.

What do you propose when the wind stops blowing, the sea is calm, the sky is cloudy, and the four times a day that the tide is slack. (these probelms could be largely addressed with a centrally adminnstered transcontinental power grid, but many here are against that too. So if you write, "we will have to learn to live with regular, but usually predictable power outages and/or rationing", I would respect your opinions more.

Please remember this history here, the only reason we have any nuclear power is that the subs needed to run silently and for long periods.

The idiot corpofascists just provided a slight face-lift to create the nuclear power industry (out of a mostly useless navy design), which has never been "profitable" other than from the perspective of the payoffs to construct the plants (and/or license the tech, or receive the bribes to sell the tech illegally - to wit, Sibel Edmond's case).

And as Jack Kennedy mentioned (roughly), these devils dance with death deviously (and propel further nuclear de-stabilization - to max out their creditability to make even more destructive, if not cataclysmic WAR)

I think the Brits can handle nukes if anyone can, and the new designs have better passive shutdown capability, making a meltdown much less likely. It is better than building more coal plants if you do it right. They did have a couple screw ups in the cold war era.

There was a "driveway moment" story on npr this morning. People living near landfills outside Naples, Italy are dropping like flies. Apparently organized crime has infiltrated the waste management industry there, and no one knows what kind of chemical or radiologic crap, or how much is in landfills designed only for municipal waste.

Nuclear energy is not compatible with a society that can let something like that happen. I'm not too sure about the US.

Kendpotter: remember you said that about cold fusion, say 20 years from now. I see you're a funny guy from your posts, but for the audience here, the higher atmospheric ozone is essential to our existence (it regulates how much UV light hits the surface of the planet), which is why O2 that will not ozonate would be a serious problem. Ren ren: the O3 on ground level is a pollution problem if over 0.04 ppm in concentration. Ozone filters should have a safety level of that so they do not exceed this level. Atmospheric science and Ozone reactions are very complex as any student of air pollution science knows.

PJD -- Give us a break, and "respect [our] opinions more."

The (damn) current grid losses generation capability every few days, and they respond by bringing 'on-line' capability up, or purchase externally.

¿ Why do progressive ideas and people have to re-invent the tech that is already present and working ?

Instead of throwing sand, either throw light or shut off your generators, please. Your comments do NOT have to come as attacks, or the promises of 'good boy' bones, if we just think like you do (or want us too).

PJD, the tide is as constant and pre-programmed, as the rotation of the planet and it's moon. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the waves. The tidal plant planned for San Francisco will have full power 16 hours a day, every day of every year. It will produce twice the ammount of power needed for the entire Bay area. In some areas of the country, the sun shines 350 days a year and in some areas near coast lines and mountain passes, the wind NEVER ceases. In addition, the Solar Power towers, a combination of solar/wind would be somewhat effecient even during some hours of darkness.

A combination of wind/solar/tidal and geo-thermal, would supply us with far more energy than we could EVER use, and we'd have enough left over to crack sea water at a very afforable cost to produce hydrogen fuel and purify sea water for home and industrial use in large metro areas.

As Paul M. Smith, a highly educated man, a geologist among other things, the very brilliant man KENDPTTER is always so critical of, stated it so well here. It's a lack of fair funding which prevents us from being able to shut down all coal and nuclear power plants.

BBR-001. You say, making a melt down, much LESS likely. How likely __ is acceptable? How much deadly waste do we have to SAFELY store, FOREVER, when we use totally clean energy, solar/wind/tidal/geothermal ?

Commentarian,

Point taken, about making absolute statements concerning 20 years down the road. I should know better.

I know of no fashion possible to make 02 unable to do any of the normal things 02 does chemically, like become ozone under certain circumstances. That includes irradiation. There is naturally occurring oxygen in various isotopes from 15 (atomic weight) the most common, all the way up to 18 which is only 2% of molecular oxygen. None of these are radioactive and the isotopic form doesn't change any of oxygen's chemical properties. You have to recall that nuclear properties and chemical properties are two completely separate issues. You can take heavy hydrogen like deuterium or tritium (nuclear changes in atomic weight) and when you combine them with oxygen (a chemical reaction) they still form water. The number of neutrons in the atom have no effect on the chemical reaction. Chemically, oxygen does not have a stable ionic form. It either wants to pair with itself in a covalent bond or make rust somewhere. Ozone is actually an ionic form but it is not stable and the molecules do not last long in a normal enviroment.

KEM,

I see you are up (down) to your usual standards. The scientific quality of your input is truly astounding. Why don't you tell us the joke about how the nano-particle is equal to ten thousand chest x-rays again? That was a good one.

Ken

RE: kendpotter January 11th, 2008 11:27 am

"PaulMagillSmith,
I haven't seen any evidence that you know the difference between a bagel and a bequerel.
Ken"

I know what a bagel is, but I admit I'm a bit out of the loop on a "bequerel". Are you speaking of "bequerelle", the name of a French family & also a church the Germans blew up during WWI, or are you referencing a "becquerel", a unit of the measure of radioactivity? Maybe I'm not a nuclear physicist (I'll leave that field to my two brothers who invented a little radiation detection device called the NukAlert), but at least I don't cause confusion with mis-spellings.

We've only manufactured & sold a bit over 50,000 NukAlerts (www.nukalert.com), so far, so I can appreciate your ignorance of them, but come on, Ken, if you want to try to insult me at least spell your slings properly. If a person can use a computer they ought to be able to turn pages of a dictionary, unless their nuckles are sore from dragging on the ground perhaps LOL.

If you are looking for university degree credentials, although I have several, they are in other sciences than nuclear physics. To comment on the subject at hand I must rely on good research capabilities, common sense, and the opinions of the friend of a friend, Dr. Leuren Moret...ever heard of her? I would rather take her words to heart (since her published works & Congressional testimony are known worldwide), my brothers' (since I've seen their capabilities & accomplishments over almost six decades) than an obscure blogger on CD.

Yes KENDPOTTER it was a good one, got it from Dr. Frederick O'Neill and Albert Einstien. __ Of course it wasn't a joke.

As I've said before, you are a true soplist, an intellect, who by use of clever wording and specious arguments, which may sound to be plausable, but are actually unsound and tend to mislead by the use of sophistry. You are quite good at it BTW. __ Not good enough, your love of nuclear energy is your bane.

I understand Benjamin Franklin learned quite a lot from flying a kite, why don't you give it a shot.

KEM -- Thanks for taking the time to look into the details.

SF tidal will almost certainly have even more water soon, so perhaps even more energy?

"The tidal plant planned for San Francisco will have full power 16 hours a day, every day of every year."

And the other eight hours?
Yes, I know tides don't have anythig to do with waves.
Quiz:
1. How many high tides occur in a day.
2. When does a spring tide occur?

And I know the wind is always blowing somewhere, but it duesn't always blow everywhere. Can you please provide me with a study showing it is feasable to constantly shuttle power around on continuous, hour by hour basis across the area of a continent, as the weather changes.

There are places where the wind blows in very reliable diurnal cycles, but even in these places, the wind is light or calm for at least a few hours at night. Places where the wind is as constant as a multi-unit power plant are extremely rare.

KEN POTTER -- You mistook my comment (elsewhere) … I see that you're one semi-log (plot) short of a logjam … as humorous.

It's similar to (someone) being a few frys short of a happy meal.

PJD, it is not my opinions you are arguing with, all I do is offer opinions already stated by the hundreds of scientists who have studied the subject for many years. If one were to believe you, they would have to believe, that the areas where wind/solar/geo-thermal and tidal power have already been well proven to be adequate, safe, clean and reliable __ are wrong. Don't you believe they are correct? If so why not? What sensible arguments do you have? All you do is make innacurate statements and repeat them over and over.

NSPIRE, don't worry about KENDPOTTERS words. He does not listen to anyone but himself and has NO sense of humor. It is quite apparant, he also has a reading disability, it's the same on every thread he ever posts on. He appears to be very intelligent. Well, Robert MacNammara was an intelligent, over educated idiot. ___ Ken makes a thread interesting anyway.

Hi NSPIRE. Actually the design of the tidal power station for San Francisco, will place the turbines at seabed level, they will not interfere with shipping. The tidal action will produce suction and that in turn will draw air through large pipes, that air is then used to spin generators as the piped air flows through divergent ducts. It's very effecient, no fuel reqired and little mainteance down time if any. It will be cost effective, far cheaper than fossil or atomic energy costs and of course it creates no pollution. It is not without some problems, it can harm fish unless effective netting or screens are used at the turbine intakes. It MAY cause some problems with the natural eco-system in that immediate area of the bay.

One must weigh those problems, against those of continuing to pollute our atmosphere, global warming and the acidity of the oceans, where we will eventually kill all of the life in our oceans and everything else on the planet.

PaulMagillSmith,

I have to admit to being shocked that someone who "manufactured & sold a bit over 50,000 NukAlerts", wouldn't know that the "bequerel" is the most current SI unit for radioactive source activity, indeed being derived from Henri Becquerel, the French scientist. Unfortunately, the original spelling went out at the same time they dropped the "Curie". At least you are somewhat familiar with the science.

As for you KEM,

Unless you can come up with a source for your statement "Dr. Frederick O'Neill and Albert Einstein" I will simply have to assume you are lying.

A nanoparticle of uranium contains approximately 20 to 24 atoms of U-238. The half-life of U-238 is 4.46 billion years. The definition of a half-life is, that half of the radioactive atoms present will undergo disintegration during that period of time. So, by the laws of physics in this universe, one U-238 atom (in your nanoparticle) will undergo disintegration approximately every 3.75 million years (while the curve isn't exactly linear, it is close enough), releasing an alpha particle having the energy of approximately 4.2 MeV (megaelectronvolts). That may sound like a lot of energy but electronvolts don't amount to much (4.6 megaelectronvolt = 7.370015579999999e-13 wattsecond). One forty watt light bulb uses 54,273,969,390,984 times as much energy in one second.

On the other hand a chest x-ray of Einstein's era could have been as much as 2.7 rem ESE (entrance skin exposure) and 1.17 rem to the lungs (Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 2003, Technical Information Bulletin: Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-ray Procedures). This exposure would have been given using a Westinghouse Fluorodex (photofluorographic) machine operating with a plate voltage of 60 - 120 thousand volts, 200 milliamps for seconds at a time. In order to be conservative let's assume 60kVp, 200 milliamps, and 1 sec. Convert to Watts using Ohms Law, W=EI where E is voltage and I is current, gives us 12,000 wattsecond to produce the x-ray. Assume whatever efficiency you want out of the process, but this simple exercise in science clearly demonstrates how ridiculous your statement is.

BTW, I am not a lover of nuclear energy. I think conservation is the first, most important step for us to take. I also think it is important to be educated in the sciences so that you will know when someone is trying to bullshit you.

Ken

You may assume about me whatever makes you happy KENDPOTTER. I am not always correct, I never lie. I have given you that link of where I derived my information and opinions from on several other threads in the past, and you refuse to acknowlege those very credible scientists are correct.

Here is one for any who wish to believe Kendpotter, but would like some other sources to check it out.

http://www.uraniumweaponsconfrence.de/background.htm

Here is another good one of thousands available for "free" on the web.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

And another excellent read about DU and the dangers of such.

http://www.gulfwarvets.comdu_blowinginthewind.htm

Well, I see the first link is not currently available and I mis-typed the third. IAMDUM.

There this one opens, and the second link I offered is 29 pages of good information, enough to give some decent opinions versis Kendpotter's blathering.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_blowinginthewind.htm

Done