Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Uranium Mining, Native Resistance, and the Greener Path
In a Dine Creation Story, the people were given a choice of two yellow powders. They chose the yellow dust of corn pollen, and were instructed to leave the other yellow powder-uranium-in the soil and never to dig it up. If it were taken from the ground, they were told, a great evil would come.
The evil came. Over one thousand uranium mines gouged the earth in the Dine Bikeyah, the land of the Navajo, during a thirty-year period beginning in the 1950s. It was the lethal nature of uranium mining that led the industry to the isolated lands of Native America. By the mid-1970s, there were 380 uranium leases on native land and only 4 on public or acquired lands. At that time, the industry and government were fully aware of the health impacts of uranium mining on workers, their families, and the land upon which their descendants would come to live. Unfortunately, few Navajo uranium miners were told of the risks. In the 1960s, the Department of Labor even provided the Kerr-McGee Corporation with support for hiring Navajo uranium miners, who were paid $1.62 an hour to work underground in the mine shafts with little or no ventilation.
All told, more than three thousand Navajos worked in uranium mines, often walking home in ore-covered clothes. The consequences were devastating. Thousands of uranium miners and their relatives lost their lives as a result of radioactive contamination. Many families are still seeking compensation. The Navajo Nation is still struggling to address the impact of abandoned uranium mines on the reservation, as well as the long-term health effects on both the miners and their communities, many of which suffer astronomical rates of cancer and birth defects.
As a college student, I worked for Navajo organizations, trying to inform their people about the uranium-mining industry and the large corporations-EXXON, Mobil, United Nuclear-that proposed to mine their lands. It was a humbling experience, seeing some of the richest corporations in the world faced by courageous peoples who fought for the two things that mattered to them more than money: their land and their identity. The Navajo people joined with many others across the country who felt that there was a much better way to make energy. In the end, the people did prevail-new mining proposals evaporated as tribal resistance and legal and administrative battles merged with economic forces. Eventually, contracts for uranium were canceled by utilities, which no longer sought to build unpopular nuclear power plants.
Now I feel like I am having very bad déjà vu-only this time nuclear power is seen as the answer to global climate destabilization. In 2005, the Navajo Nation passed a moratorium on uranium mining in its territory and traditional lands, which was followed by similar moratoria on Hopi and Havasupai lands, where mines are proposed adjacent to the Grand Canyon. "It is unconscionable to me that the federal government would consider allowing uranium mining to be restarted anywhere near the Navajo Nation when we are still suffering from previous mining activities," Joe Shirley Jr., Navajo Nation president, explained at a congressional hearing on opening uranium mines in the Grand Canyon area. To the north, the Lakota organization Owe Aku (Bring Back the Way) is an intervener in a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing to allow the Canadian corporation Cameco to expand its Crow Butte uranium mine, just over the Nebraska border from the reservation.
I recently traveled to Australia, the country with the largest known uranium reserves in the world. In my Sydney hotel room the television broadcaster summarized Australia's economic strategy: "We dig it up, and they buy it." The mining industry, in a world bent upon combusting and consumption, looks to be very healthy. Australia's uranium mines include the Beverley Mine, which is in the territory of the Kuyani and Adnyamathanha peoples. Olympic Dam (operated by BHP Billiton-the largest mining corporation in the world) is the country's second-largest uranium operation and is in the traditional territory of aboriginal people as well. In fact, most major mining operations in Australia are within aboriginal territory. These are some ancient civilizations-resilient in the face of a deep history of genocide and destruction, which continued well into the twentieth century. Aboriginal people did not even get the right to vote until 1967. Due to their relative isolation in the outback, many of these tribes have had few interactions with outsiders. That is, until recently.
Kakadu is the longtime home to the aboriginal Mirrar people, as well as a recent intruder: British-based Rio Tinto. In the 1970s, Kakadu's Alligator River System became the focal point of Europe's uranium demands. Built right in the center of the Mirrar homeland, the Ranger Uranium Mine is one of the largest uranium mines in the world. But the Ranger mine is also in the center of Kakadu National Park, one of just twenty-five UNESCO World Heritage sites in the world designated on the basis of both cultural and ecological significance. Kakadu includes over 190 major aboriginal rock-art and sacred sites.
The Ranger Uranium Mine opened in the early 1980s, after much protest from the Mirrar people, who made it clear that they opposed the mine. Rio Tinto has assured Australians, UNESCO, and the aboriginal owners that it is operating under "world's best practices" of uranium mining, a term some would argue is an oxymoron. Meanwhile, radioactive groundwater contamination is reported to be spreading through the park. A 2004 incident allowed a number of workers to drink, ingest, and shower in heavily contaminated water, with a large amount spilling out of the site itself. And in 2006, Cyclone Monica delivered extreme rainfall, causing the radioactive containment ponds to fill. The company responded by lifting tailings dams, redirecting runoff into streams, and using the contaminated water for irrigation.
In 1999, Jacqui Katona, a Djok aboriginal woman, and Yvonne Margarula, a Mirrar woman, won the Goldman Environmental Prize for their struggle to oppose development at Jabiluka, another mine proposed for Kakadu National Park. Yvonne explained that an agreement to open the mine "was arranged by pushing people, and does not accurately reflect the wishes of the aboriginal people who own that country." In 2005, after a long and heated battle, the Mirrar people fought off the proposal to open a uranium mine at Jabiluka. But now, with demand for uranium on the rise, the threat is once again looming on the horizon.
With some 16 percent of Australian land controlled by aboriginal people and with many of the mine sites in the aboriginal heartland, the upcoming pressure on communities to buckle to the largest mining companies in the world will be daunting. Coinciding with the proposed ramp-up of the nuclear industry is the negotiation of land settlements for a number of these aboriginal first nations. If history is any indicator, many of these land-rights settlements will mirror what happened in Alaska, where the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act-promoted by oil companies that deemed it necessary to negotiate some agreements between themselves and aboriginal people-established Alaskan Native corporations, which today create a complex set of divided loyalties and communities. This is perhaps best illustrated by the case of the Gwich'in people, who find themselves not only opposing oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but also Alaskan Native corporations, whose income has derived from the exploitation of the land and its resources.
There is another prophecy that is relevant to this story, though. Ojibwe legends speak of a time when our people will have a choice between two paths: one path is well worn and scorched, but the second path is not well traveled and it is green.
There is an alternate economic future for indigenous peoples, and it too is green. In order to stabilize carbon emissions in the United States, the country will need to produce around 185,000 megawatts of clean new power over the next decade, which could mean up to 400,000 domestic manufacturing jobs. The Intertribal Council on Utility Policy estimates that tribal wind resources alone represent 200,000 megawatts of power potential. In fact, Native American nations are some of the windiest places in the country.
The Rosebud Lakota put up the first large native-owned windmill in 2003, a 750-kilowatt turbine right in the middle of the reservation. The Turtle Mountain Ojibwe just erected a 660-kilowatt wind turbine; ten more megawatts are planned for Rosebud; and the White Earth Anishinaabeg have several projects under way in Minnesota. Proposals for up to 800 megawatts of power for northern Plains states are being put forth by the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy. There's also a 50-megawatt project on lands held by the Campos and Viejas bands of Kumeyaay people in Southern California, and a 500-megawatt project in which the Umatilla Tribe of Oregon is a partner. Boston-based Citizens Energy is working with a number of tribal communities in the U.S. and Canada to bring green power from the reserves to the grid.
In the U.S., native communities have an opportunity to lead the way to a green future. We have a chance to create a just energy economy in the most wasteful and most destructive country in the world. We need help, though. Insuring that climate-change legislation does not reboot the nuclear industry will be a critical part of supporting native struggles to choose the green path over the scorched one.
- Posted in

35 Comments so far
Show AllLaDuke speaks the Truth. In New Mexico there are two Green Power Transmission Lines in the works. People have been brainwashed into thinking the nation can not power itself on wind and solar. We have more than enough wind and solar energy and the technology is relatively simple.
Of course the world can be powered with wind and solar. The problem is these things can not be CONTROLLED by vested interests then sold to the people at profit.
pk
GW NORTH -------- 1:57 -------- actually BP and large corps sell panels and such. The immediate problem is the public thinks these tried and true simple technologies are science fantasies.
Nuclear, like coal and oil, is a filthy and dangerous energy source from start to finish. Extraction, processing, use, and disposal are all problematic for each one,creating enormous environmental damage in every step of the process.
They cannot be made clean, and they cannot be made safe. Who must die so that you can run your TV?
Smallbear
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
We need a discussion concerning nano-paint, hydrogen producing algae, and Integral Fast Reactors that use Boron as clean nuclear fuel.
I see very few alternative energy activists who are even aware of the existing technology that would provide free limitless power.
The nuclear power shills will be along any moment, to say how SAFE and CLEAN nuclear power is and how NOBODY has EVER died from it, except for of course those stupid people operation Soviet reactors...
By your reasoning, Winona LaDuke would be a shill for T. Boone Pickens.
Not really, considering he's also investing heavily in natural gas, isn't he?
Winona LaDuke could run for GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA as a Green Party candidate and probably even win. When Jesse Ventura could win, why not LaDuke? She'd make a great governor, no?
Random thoughts...
I wonder how much effect Native American folklore has on the activities and energy needs of the teeming masses of China and India...
author's quote..."more than three thousand Navajos worked in uranium mines... Thousands of uranium miners and their relatives lost their lives as a result of radioactive contamination." After you Google urban legends, and then register your vote for this year's Baron von Munchausen award, let's do the math...
The United States passed Germany to become the world's #1 in wind power installations, and China’s total capacity doubled for the fourth year in a row. It's a good thing, because while their per capita usage is far below the Western world, China has surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions and has 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world...
Greenpeace claims that wind energy could produce a third of the world's energy by 2050. They base this on figures produced by the International Energy Agency which strongly disagrees with their extrapolation. I don't know who's right, but I can translate it into the vernacular - The IEA believes that Greenpeace is pulling their case for wind energy output out of their ass...
With 86 percent of the world's energy consumption being in fossil fuels, without using dirty coal or clean nuclear energy we can't even produce and maintain the equipment necessary for harnessing renewable energy. So how do we do it without them? Green me up, Scotty....
It seems like nearly everyone is throwing around opinions and the occasional statistic to promote the theory that some combination of energy renewables can fuel the world within a generation or two, which everyone knows is not soon enough. Meanwhile, a pound of CO2 is equally harmful whether it originates from the USA, China or from someone's orifice...
A major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that it is intermittent and does not necessarily blow when electricity is needed. Wind cannot be stored (although some wind-generated electricity can be stored, if toxic deteriorating batteries produced with non renewable energy are used)...
Good wind sites are often located in remote locations far from areas of electric power demand (such as cities) and require a lot of energy to get it to where it's needed...
Even among insurers, who raced into the new market in the 1990s, wind power is now considered a risky sector. Industry giant Allianz is faced with more than a thousand damage claims every year...
Bird blood on wind turbine blades...
"A major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that it is intermittent and does not necessarily blow when electricity is needed. Wind cannot be stored (although some wind-generated electricity can be stored, if toxic deteriorating batteries produced with non renewable energy are used)..."
I'm sure it would be possible to use wind energy to produce heat, which CAN be stored and then released to produce electricity when needed.
"Good wind sites are often located in remote locations far from areas of electric power demand (such as cities) and require a lot of energy to get it to where it's needed..."
Just like all that oil in the Gulf is far away from the US's and Europe's cars eh? Yet it still manages to get there...
"Bird blood on wind turbine blades..."
I have asked about this myself to experts in clean energy...this is mostly from some prototype wind turbine in the 80s out in California. Modern wind turbines have devices which deter birds. I am sure some still die though...just as some die when, say, a jet turbine sucks one up and lands in a river...far more have died from the shrinking of wetlands used for breeding grounds in this country.
you write "I'm sure it would be possible to use wind energy to produce heat, which CAN be stored and then released to produce electricity when needed."
They are working on it, and hope to have it viable in ten years. See previous post.
Good wind sites are often located in remote locations far from areas of electric power demand (such as cities) and require a lot of energy to get it to where it's needed..."
you write: Just like all that oil in the Gulf is far away from the US's and Europe's cars eh? Yet it still manages to get there...
Very observant of you to notice that one of the very few qualities of fossil fuels is that they act as their own storage, allowing for easy transport.
"They are working on it, and hope to have it viable in ten years. See previous post."
There was an article on here some time ago I believe, that pointed to a school in England that perfected a way of storing heat for months, without loss, to be used later or turned into energy as needed. Not quite ten years into the future.
"Very observant of you to notice that one of the very few qualities of fossil fuels is that they act as their own storage, allowing for easy transport."
Uh, easy transport? The building of gigantic and complex pumping, storage, and harbor facilities, not to mention the many huge supertankers needed to move 24/7 to keep it flowing. Plus the equally huge and scattered refineries to turn the oil into useful fuels, further shipping or pumping from those, and finally to an uncountable fleet of trucks whose only purpose is to carry fuels to gas stations. Easy transport eh? It took most of a century to get it to this point.
Heat IS the transfer of energy. So, you store it in what and transfer it how? For all anyone can tell from your post, what you are talking about might very well not be ten years in the future. It might be 10 minutes or 10,000 years.
As for the storage and transport of fossils you are arguing with yourself. The issue is comparison.
Jesus ------ Jesus Christ --------- The whole world could be powered on your hot air. Not one of your agruements are valid. Before criticizing an energy source study it. Your just repeating ignorant talking points.
Let us see, we can build and maintain mammoth coal and nuclear plants but not Turbines and Panels?
Ever hear of electrolysis? It has been around for about one or two hundred years. You store the electricity in the form of hydrogen and oxygen. A researcher at MIT has recently developed a catylist that makes electrolysis less energy consuming.
One hundred square miles of panels in Nevada would power all of the USA. One Turbine every square mile in the USA would power the whole country.
A solar power system takes 5 years to recover its carbon footprint and there is no known expiration date on photovoltaic cells.
Glenn - Glenn Ford You're chasing your tail. What makes you think we can't build and maintain turbines and panels? We already are. Renewable sources must be developed as fast as humanly possible. In doing so, we probably should tether some of your airborne assertions to reality.
Your recycled talking point that 100 sq miles of Nevada desert, filled to the eyeballs with solar panels, could supply the annual electricity needs of the United States is just as fictional as when it was made by Nevada Scientis...errrr...Senator Harry Reid. Factoid... Enough solar energy FALLS on a 100-square mile area of the Nevada desert to power the country. Unfortunately, our ability to COLLECT that energy is another story.
One 190 watt solar panel costs about $850 and measures 14.4 square feet. There are 2.78 billion square feet in a 100 square mile area (which is a square 10 miles by 10 miles. It would take almost 194 million panels to cover that 100 square miles. On a good, sunny day, those panels would produce 36,800 megawatts of electricity in an hour. A megawatt is a million watts. So the panels would be pumping out 36.8 billion watts an hour.
36,800 megawatts an hour equals approximately 441,000 megawatts per 12 hour day. And that number times 300 (allowing for 65 cloudy days a year, or 17 percent, which seems reasonably conservative, considering the overall sunniness at our fantasy site somewhere in southern Nevada equals about 132,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity a year. Multiply 132 million watts by a million, and you get a production of 132 trillion watts of electricity a year.
Let’s trim 10 percent because nothing is ever going to work at 100 percent efficiency all the time. That leaves us with a solar farm that pumps out approximately 120 trillion watts of electricity a year. Not bad. That’s some serious power.
Unfortunately, it won’t come close to powering the country. According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. bumps along on a little over 4 billion megawatts a year, or 4 QUINTILLION watts of electricity. Which means, one hundred square miles of Southern Nevada desert isn’t gonna cut it. In fact, it would take something like 2,500 square miles of solar panels to feed the United States, not 100.
You briefly refer to Daniel Nocera's catalyst, and then scoot past it as if you actually said something of note. You didn't. It was developed last year, and used in conjunction with CHEAP photovoltaic solar panels, COULD SOMEDAY lead to inexpensive, simple systems that use water to store the energy from sunlight and thus SOMEDAY make solar economically viable. Whether or not Nocera's setup will prove cost-effective remains to be seen. It still uses a PLATINUM catalyst to produce hydrogen. Nocera says he has no idea what the costs might be. He hopes to have a module design within two years and have a system on the market within ten years. I hope he does too. Meanwhile, (despite the re-cycled joke at MIT that hydrogen is the energy of the future and always will be) other scientists are hard at work TRYING TO DISCOVER cheaper hydrogen producing catalysts to deliver on his big hopes.
How long a solar powered system takes to recover it's carbon footprint depends on many things, not the least of which is whatever solar powered system you are talking about. You say there is no expiration date on photo voltaic cells as if they are cartons of milk. When you place them outdoors to use, do UV rays destroy their surface coverings? Do they degrade with the rise and fall of temperature?
As to your reference to electrolysis, can we agree that it is a chemical decomposition reaction produced by passing an electric current through a solution containing ions? That at least in principle could give us a working picture of what happened to the two fused brain cells in your head when a thought tried to pass through them and used up all their energy.
>>Jesus Hussein Christ wrote: On a good, sunny day, those panels would produce 36,800 megawatts of electricity in an hour. A megawatt is a million watts. So the panels would be pumping out 36.8 billion watts an hour.
JHC, you are obviously passionate about such numbers. So, without meaning to offend you, let me a make a small, but important correction in the units that go with these numbers. Believe me, you are not alone - I have heard the same mistake made on TV several times: there is nothing like 'watts an hour', 'watts of electricity a year', etc., as you have written - they would be watt-hours and watt-years.
Watt, megawatt, etc. are units of power - that is, the rate at which energy is produced - in the case of solar panels (or consumed, in the case of an appliance or machine - motors, eletctric heaters, etc.)
One watt is equal to one Joule per second - where Joule is the unit of energy.
For those who can use an analogy, watt is like miles/hour (a unit of speed), and joule is like miles (unit of distance). Just as (speed x time) gives you distance (e.g., 60 mph x 4 hours = 240 miles), the total energy produced is expressed in terms of watt-hours or megawatt-hours. The household electricity meter is usually calibrated in kilowatt-hours (kWh, also commonly known as 'one unit' of electricity). So, if you use a 100W bulb for 12 hours, you would use up 1200 watt-hour or 1.2 kWh or electricity.
The reason I wanted to say this is because these numbers and units would become commonplace in the days and years to come (hopefully). Also, watt-year is not generally used, instead, 8760hours is used in place of a year.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Hi,
i've posted this a couple times at CD when someone repeats the MYTH that wind turbines are horrific for bird populations. Please scroll down this data, and forget the MYTH that keeps getting repeated about wind turbines and birds.
*****************************************************************
You give no citation for your "Bird blood on wind turbine blades" nonsense. Check this out:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
Here's a clip from this survey of scientific reports:
In December of 2002, the report "Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin" was released. The study was completed by Robert Howe and Amy Wolf of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, and William Evans. Their study covered a two-year period between 1999 and 2001, in the area surrounding the 31 turbines operating in Kewaunee County by Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E) and Wisconsin Public Service (WPS) Corporation.
The report found that over the study period, 25 bird carcasses were found at the sites. The report states that "the resulting mortality rate of 1.29 birds/tower/year is close to the nationwide estimate of 2.19 birds/tower.16- The report further states, "While bird collisions do occur (with commercial wind turbines) the impacts on global populations appear to be relatively minor, especially in comparison with other human-related causes of mortality such as communications towers, collisions with buildings, and vehicles collisions. This is especially true for small scale facilities like the MG&E and WPS wind farms in Kewaunee County."
The report goes on to say, "previous studies suggest that the frequency of avian
collisions with wind turbines is low, and the impact of wind power on bird populations today is negligible. Our study provides little evidence to refute this claim."
So, while wind farms are responsible for the deaths of some birds, when put into the
perspective of other causes of avian mortality, the impact is quite low. In other words, bird mortality at wind farms, compared to other human-related causes of bird mortality, is biologically and statistically insignificant. There is no evidence that birds are routinely being battered out of the air by rotating wind turbine blades as postulated by some in the popular press.
Here's another clip about other human-caused bird deaths:
Utility transmission and distribution lines, the backbone of our electrical power system, are responsible for 130 to 174 million bird deaths a year in the U.S...
Collisions with automobiles and trucks result in the deaths of between 60 and 80 million birds annually in the U.S...
Tall building and residential house windows also claim their share of birds... the best estimates put the toll due collisions with these structures at between 100 million and a staggering 1 billion deaths annually.
Lighted communication towers turn out to be one of the more serious problems for birds, especially for migratory species that fly at night... Current mortality estimates due to telecommunication towers are 40 to 50 million birds per year. The proliferation of these towers in the near future will only exacerbate this situation.
Agricultural pesticides are "conservatively estimated" to directly kill 67 million birds per year...
Cats, both feral and housecats, also take their toll on birds. A Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) report states that, "recent research suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year."
There are other studies on the impacts of jet engines, smoke stacks, bridges, and any number of other human structures and activities that threaten birds on a daily basis. Together, human infrastructure and industrial activities are responsible for one to four million bird deaths per day!
Thanks for this post, it's always good to have a source for backing up your arguments.
you're quite welcome
Your link to private wind energy corporate salesman, Mick Sagrillo, (who's points you dutifully re-post) makes a compelling argument for ignoring smashed bugs on the windsheilds of cars, but a less calloused approach might have more appeal to those who's decisions and actions actually move the environmental agenda forward. For instance, if the blood of endangered birds on wind turbine blades is nonsense or mythical , then you should take it up with the experts, the environmental organizations who have initiated lawsuits, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, all of whom take it more seriously than you do ....
USA Today: Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
Big California Wind Farm Wrestles with Bird Deaths_ Wind companies like FPL Energy, wildlife groups and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are trying to agree on ways to lower the risk for birds flying into big spinning turbine blades at the 584-megawatt Altamont Pass wind center in rolling hills about 50 miles east of San Francisco.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30802/story.htm
Fatal Attraction - Birds and Wind Turbines KQED
watch it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtgBWNKwBkE
I'm familiar with the "bats ain't birds" argument, but it seems to be a problem, too.
Science Daily: Why Wind Turbines Mean Death for Bats
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825132107.htm
Thanks for the links.
The two popular media pieces you link to are both about the specific problem with the old-school Altamont Pass wind farm harming raptors, and explain that current technology (fewer, larger, taller windmills) solves this specific problem, which is understood to be a problem in the first place due to ignorantly siting the farm directly in the migratory path of that group of birds. As the older turbines at Altamont are replaced by modern ones, the harm to these birds will be eliminated.
The Science Daily link relates to bats, and both the bat article and a companion piece on the same page state that harm to birds is understood to NOT be an issue. The bats are not killed by the blades themselves (no blood on blades) but by air pressure changes caused by the blades. It also states that no solution to the bat issue has been developed, but it is being worked on.
i have not viewed the YouTube link, i am on a break at work.
And you are free to dismiss the science that is cited in the link i posted, but the general consensus (supported by your own links) is that wind turbines are NOT a significant problem for bird populations.
After Obama, how fitting it would be if a smart native American woman like Winona occupied a high office like Nader wanted. Or at least to have an equal say in the nuclear debate.
Why does Obama refuse to name liberals and progressives to his cabinet?
Okay, now for something a little silly. Winona, with a great name like your's you need to be down in Nashville singing on the Grand Ol' Oprey. I don't want you to give up your activism, but, girl, you were named to take your place next to Loretta Lynn, Dolly Parton, and Reba McIntyre singing them country ballads for red neck America. At least think about it!
Poet
What an incredible fool you are, Poet. I am a poet and you disgrace the name.
Winona La Duke has a few years on Ms. Judd, so that brand came first. What a stupid comment.
Smallbear
I'm glad you are a bear, because it would take a very small man to take such large offense at such an insignificantly small joke.
There is nothing "small" about about Poet's comment. It is an insensitive and demeaning cheap shot.
Smallbear
Paul Siemering
I can't help thinking about the cultures of Native Americans before europeans came. the west brought "civilization", and industrial capitalism.
Native American cultures were totally sustainable, and had been for thousands of years. now look what industrial capitalism has done in just a few centuries- they have come dangerously close to killing the whole planet indigenous people had been so careful to take care of.
i do not understand how western civilization can continue to trumpet their "superiority" over indigenous peoples. all they seem able to do is bring death and destruction wherever they go.
They were sustainable only when they controlled their population growth by intertribal warfare, infanticide (re: Jared Diamond's "Collapse"} or through resource depletion, famine, and other nasty, natural ways.
We've achieved a high level of death control today and though we have humane ways of birth control, conservatives foster their religious dogma on the world, prevent family planning and force people to kill each other. It's nature's bestial way of checking population growth. Are conservatives the beast within?
I don't know about all conservatives, but the Neocon Zombies sure are.
ez 9:35 ------ Indigenous peoples used birth control.
Check out the following video series about four Native American cases where grass roots organizing succeeded in stopping the corporate land rape. http://www.katahdin.org/films/homeland/intro.html
I only wish they would produce more of these excellent shows! Please consider encouraging Katahdin to do so. Winona Laduke is present in each episode, and her words are very powerful, even in English!
Kudos to Winona LaDuke for bringing this important issue to national attention. The present proposed federal energy plan calls for more nuclear power, not less.
The root problem of resource extraction for nuclear power- mining uranium- is very significant. Male and female workers die from illnesses contracted from mining uranium, including breast cancer.
Nuclear is not green energy.
theinitiate
WoW!!!Thank you-Thank you for writing this I'm going to make copies and hand this out like I've done with other good articles. People need to know this and the average person does not get this info.
If we realize that we need to make LESS energy not more then we're getting somewhere.
Also, less debt, less consuming, less, less, less.