keep it up.

Actually, Chernobyl had NOTHING to do with commercial power generation in the West. NOT ONE THING

All western commercial power generation systems are pressurized water reactors (PWR). They use water as both a coolant and as a partial moderator (something to control the reaction speed).

Chernobyl (and many Russian reactors) was a carbon moderated reactor(CMR)… much like the very first one ever built under the squash court by Fermi & Co.

Now, the thing to realize is that, back in the 1950s (!) with the 1950s attitude towards radiation, the scientists of the West rejected the CMR design on the grounds that it was unsafe. Right.

By –50s– standards, it was unsafe.

The real answer lies in the moderator, and it showed with spectacular effectiveness its problem at Chernobyl.

The “carbon moderator” is in the form of charcoal.

Yes, charcoal.

Think about that. You’ve got a device you’re going to heat up considerably, and has at least a potential to heat up uncontrollably — and you’re going to surround it with Bar-B-Q Briquettes!!!

…And the picture now in your head is exactly what happened. The system overheated, the charcoal caught fire, burned ragingly out of control, and this broke containment AND the fire provided a spectacularly effective means of releasing radiation into the environment… think about the smoke prevalent after a series of brush fires, all contaminated with radioactive carbon as well as radioactive particulates from the melting reactor.

Now, what this decision says about the concern of the supreme Soviet government for the safety of its peoples (and thus about communism/socialism and its wonderful “compassion”) is left to the reader. Someone may attempt to argue with it being an isolated incidence of poor judgement, but, if you look for it, you will see such a systemic lack of concern for the environment and the people (Kishtym, Chechoslovakia!!) that the proper conclusion is undeniable.

Link Here

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

I think the PETAphiles are pretty close to the prime examples of hypocritical scum.

I think my favorite example was Charlotte Ross, an attractive actress from the TV Series NYPD Blue. She once did one of PETA’s “I’d rather be naked than wear fur” spots.

Some time later, she pops up on an SPCA/Humane Society TV spot, advising people to “Spay or neuter your pets”.

Why? Mainly for the convenience of pet owners…

Yeah, “The animal will feel better”.

I’m quite sure the members of PETA would do better, live longer, if they had their gonads removed (actually removed, not mentally)… strange they aren’t queueing up for the procedure.

Now, I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that the right to your reproductive organs is certainly one of the most basic.

I’m not saying there is something wrong with fixing your animals, but if they DO have rights, that would certainly be one of the most significant… There’s a serious disconnect going on, there.

Second, the anti-tax rhetoric on the right also leads to some major economic inefficiency. Case in point: regulating fuel efficiency on the auto industry as a whole, instead of directly taxing fuel consumption. We regulate the average fuel efficiency of a manufacturer’s entire fleet of vehicles, which forces them to limit consumer choice and subsidize the production of loss-leading vehicles to ensure that average fuel efficiency meets federal regulations. This somehow manages to be bad for the producer, bad for the consumer, and bad for the environment, all at the same time.

I wonder how many of those “no-nukers” have ever stopped to ask themselves how much of today’s greenhouse effect problem might have been avoided, or at least minimized, if they hadn’t stopped the development of nuclear energy. Do they ever stop blaming the “selfish greedy Republicans” for our environmental problems long long enough to glance into the mirror and think honestly, for just a moment, about their own responsibility?

Another usual difference is also based on perspective. Much of the environmentalist rhetoric is relataivly focused. Say, for instance, reducing car emiisions and greenhouse gasses. People who want this, and are passionate about it, are usually on the left. They gain quite a bit of national respect because of thier passion.

The main issue is that if those ideas are really effective. Note that in those goals “effective” and “Overall environment” are not an issue. There are two great examples.

First is electric cars – great on out of the tailpipe emissions. But, total cost of ownership is horrid in most areas. Most areas use coal for production, you loose energy each time it goes through a transformation, and you loose energy in transporting it over distance. End result is *more* pollution, just not from your tail pipe. It is arguable if they safe for other types (wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric)

Second is greenhouse emission. When I was in highschool (about 10 years ago), and I still see it sometimes, is a push for things like geothermal and wind. While these do produce less greenhouse gasses geothermal produces sulfuric gas (which produces rael acid rain – sulfuric acid to be exact) and enough wind turbines to power the country will sap too much energy out of the atmosphere causing quite a few weather related “incidinces” (such a droughts and such). While, yes, that reduces greenhouse gases you then get a great combination of the air either dropping sulfuric acid, no rain, and if you do both then no rain and air that forms sulfuric acid in your lungs when you breath. Personally I’ll choose what we have now. Plsu for large scale solar the waste products from producing the cells is some pretty nasty stuff. Many of these alternatives work great on a small scale (hydroelectric and wind are to really good examples), but fail when everyone does it.

Ironically, the cleanest today is nuclear. The problem with things like three mile island were inflated by the press who didn’t know what they were talking about, Chernobyl was gross negligence and an ovveride of multiple safetey systems (many of which can not be overrided in our plants – because we knew it would cause such a thing). The waste material can be safely stored now and the vast vast majority of it is reusable in either other reactors or in medical sciences. But out environmentalist see “nuclear” and go apeshit.

That analysis also tends to be the difference between left and right environmentalist. When I worked at Oak Ridge National Labs it was amusing hearing the two sides argue. The leftis never claimed the other side was wrong (that those issues were not present), never claimed that the greenhouse gasses were worse, just that they had to be reduced and were bad and that if you wanted to reduce them that was the only way (which is also true – and comes back to focus).

Slightly off-topic, but that’s the exact opposite of my vision of conservative environmentalism. You seem to be treating enironmentalism as a moral issue (that it should be ‘conserved’ in its native) rather than a resource management issue (evaluate the costs & benefits of various scenarios, and evaluate based on efficiency). It’s the difference between saying, “We must reduce emissions” and “We must optimize our emissions per unit of production.”

If that were all PETA were after, I’m sure most reasonable people would support them. Unfortunately, they go far, far beyond that. You are talking about animal welfare, while what PETA wants is animal rights — that is, no ownership of animals, no eating of animals, no use of animals in medical research (not just no cruel or painful use in research –no use at all. It’s better for people to die unnecessarily, PETA believes, than for an animal ever to be a research subject even under the most humane conditions.)

PETA’s positions are based on a profound ignorance of animals and an assumption that animals want all of the same things that people want. You won’t find many people who actually live and work with animals who believe that this is true — but then again, you won’t find many PETA members who have spent a lot of time living and working with animals other than a few pets, either.

Ironically, if the no-ownership idea were to succeed, the result would probably be the deaths and extinctions of most of the animals we know today. How many cows do you suppose would still be around 10 years after farmers stopped feeding, sheltering, and protecting them? How many horses? How many of the endangered animals that now mostly survive in zoos because their wild habitats are gone? Cats and dogs would survive and multiply on their own — but just think how many would die neglected, lonely, hungry deaths if they could no longer be “companion animals” to people — a ridiculous euphemism if I ever heard one! I have yet to hear any member of PETA address this issue.