Category: Science

Family Planning Reduces Abortion Rate | The Lancet

The most comprehensive study carried out to date demonstrates that education and easy access to contraception reduce the number of abortions. Hence, if the Bush Administration, the Vatican, and virtually every “pro-life” organization that exists are to be believed when they equate abortion with murder, then every one of them is committing mass murder–by their own reasoning–when they deny funding for sex education and contraception. By denying people sex education and contraception, they are increasing the number of abortions. Thus, they are contributing to mass murder, it would seem. 

Of course, those who do not subscribe to these extreme notions of “life” and the protections that it requires do not see a crime for which these “perpetrators” should be punished. Curiosity does drive me to ask, however, what punishment these groups prescribe for contributing to mass murder. 🙂 After all, many American pro-life groups equate the number of abortions to the Holocaust, and, if this Lancet study is to be believed, these “pro-life” groups are now faced with the reality that they are complicit in this embryo “holocaust”.

Then again, denial and double standards are the hallmarks of extremism. 

Renewable energy could ‘rape’ nature – earth – 25 July 2007 – New Scientist Environment

The quest for a viable solution to the coming energy crisis takes countless unpredictable turns. Enter environmentalists for nuclear energy.

Yes, that most favorite of our energy sources received support, again, from purported environmentalists. The argument is entirely logical, too. It is the primary argument against the use of bio-ethanol as a source of fuel. Corn prices are already soaring as a result of the demand for ethanol made through corn fermentation, and there is already ample warning that the earth’s arable land area may not be sufficient to feed cars economically.

So, do we cover the entire land mass of the earth with solar cells and fuel crops, or do we use less space for nuclear power plants and risk periodic radioactive contamination? This is quite a dilemma.

For certain, we must abandon the fuel reprocessing plan that is currently being advocated by the US Department of Energy under the acronym GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It is not much of a partnership, and the only aspect of the program that is global in scope is its potential for global disaster.

Chemical & Engineering News: Government & Policy – Reprocessing Key To Nuclear Plan (html, requires American Chemical Society membership)

Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 85, No. 25, June 8, 2007 (pdf, no membership required)

What is GNEP? It stands for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Should you care about it? You bet! GNEP is perhaps the most ill-advised of the many pathetically formulated energy policies put forth by the current White House. It is undoubtedly the most dangerous energy policy put forth by the White House.

GNEP is a program for the reprocessing of nuclear waste. This is a regime that Bush appointees of the Department of Energy are pushing adamantly. It is also a program that is staunchly opposed by proponents of nuclear energy from Jimmy Carter to the current leading government advisers.

It would be foolish to attempt to summarize or otherwise plagiarize this fine article by Jeff Johnson of Chemical & Engineering News, but it is worthwhile to whet the reader’s appetite to read to the article. This article is a must read. Here are a few highlights.

The DoE undersecretary pushing GNEP is named Clay Sell. Sell advocates “we do not need six new nuclear power plants in this country. We need 60, and the world needs 600. And, we need them all in a fairly short period of time.” It is difficult to tell whether Sell is doing what his name implies, or whether he is sounding a legitimate alarm. After all, 600 power plants will produce a huge amount of nuclear waste, and the US currently lacks sufficient storage for all this waste.

That is why Sell is advocating GNEP, a global regime for reprocessing spent fuel into more energetic, more radioactive, more dangerous and more toxic plutonium for future “breeder” plants. Thus, the program will (theoretically) reduce the amount of (more toxic) waste by using existing nuclear waste further for energy. This proposal sounds nice, until one reads the article further to realize that there are more than a few holes in this proposal.

First, the Yucca Mountain facility has sufficient capacity to store the nuclear waste being generated for years to come.

 …a study by the nuclear industry’s research arm, the Electric Power Research Institute… estimated [that] the area that includes Yucca Mountain is sufficient to store 260,000 to 570,000 tons of spent fuel–far more than the 63,000 metric-ton legal cap for commercial reactors and two to five times the amount that will be generated by the current operating U.S. power reactors.

Hence, the first premise is patently false. The other premises in Sell’s argument are also false.Breeder plants are not worthwhile or economical:

 As it turns out, breeder reactors could, by tapping the energy in U-238 [Uranium 238], produce more plutonium than was used to fuel the initial reactions. Now, fewer than a half-dozen reprocessing and demonstration breeder reactor facilities operate worldwide.

Reprocessing poses a huge national security risk. That’s why Jimmy Carter stopped it.

Carter’s concern was heightened following India’s detonation of a nuclear bomb in 1974. That bomb was made from plutonium that was reprocessed from an Indian civilian reactor provided by Canada with U.S. technical support.

Reprocessing is environmentally unsafe. (This point is perhaps obvious, but still worth making.)

 The countries [that have already reprocessed nuclear waste] have stockpiled the plutonium but are not close to building a system of reactors to recycle the plutonium or a permanent waste repository. Reprocessing for some of these countries, particularly the U.K., has also resulted in extensive radioactivity pollution problems.

And, the following are choice words from nuclear energy advocates.

 “GNEP is a waste of money,” said Richard Garwin, a nuclear physicist and frequent government adviser on nuclear issues…He urged the U.S. to continue on its current path of storing the waste on-site while developing a geological repository. This strategy is far cheaper as well as more proliferation-resistant than reprocessing, he added.

Garwin is joined by Ernest Moniz and John Deutch,Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors, nuclear power advocates, and authors of an influential report on nuclear power. They, too, oppose GNEP’s size and scope. Moniz warned that the U.S. has done far too little reprocessing research over the past 20-plus years to lay the groundwork for a commercial-scale facility. He noted as well that there is no uranium shortage to justify reprocessing and reusing spent fuel in the first place.

 …

Frank von Hippel, a physicist, former White ouse official, and international affairs professor at Princeton University…[says] “We need to focus on what we are doing now and do it better,” …”I’ve got no problem with nuclear power. The problem is a group of people have been bitten by the plutonium breeder reactor bug and want to keep the R&D money flowing. This is a wasteful program and a dangerous one with regard to weapons material proliferation.”

Suffice it to say that the above quotes represent a very small fraction of the shocking revelations in this article. So, please, read it!

The scientific, engineering and energy policy communities are in general agreement. The short term imperative is efficient use of fossil fuels with the gradual mixing in of electricity generated by solar, wind and other alternative sources. The long term imperative is an electric economy powered by a large variety of renewable sources.

One must wonder, therefore, why the current White House and Department of Energy insist on funding projects that are known to be energetic and economic duds, like fuel cells and nuclear reprocessing. It seems as if money is being wasted on useless research in order to keep oil scarce and valuable.

hmmmm…..

Temperature rises ‘not caused by sun’ | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Anyone who has viewed and/or forwarded links to this controversial “documentary”, The Great Global Warming Swindle, must read the above Guardian article and forward it to all the people to whom they forwarded the original misleading documentary. Yet again, another argument against global warming force-fed to the public by biased sources has been proven wrong by raw data–not models, not hypotheses, and not theories. By raw data, which is to say, by reality.

The latest line of sophistry from the oil industry that was disseminated by the fraudulent British documentary went as follows: global warming is not caused by human activity, but by changes in solar activity. The sun is putting out more rays, the shysters claim, and that is why the earth is getting warmer. The shysters theorized this claim with the awareness that the general public lacks the technical wisdom and resourcefulness to know that this appealing theory can be tested with real data. The scientific community is not as naive.

Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK and Claus Frohlich of the World Radiation Centre in Davos, Switzerland, compared temperature and solar data for the past 100 years. Lockwood concluded

It is absolutely clear that the sun is nothing to do with the recent warming.This doesn’t rely on models, it uses real data and it shows that all the solar trends have been going in the opposite direction [toward less radiation and, hence, global cooling] for the last 20 years. 

The two scientists conclude their upcoming communication (to be published by the Royal Society)

Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever mechanism is invoked. 

Carl Wunsch, a professor at MIT, was duped into giving an interview to the makers of  Swindle, and he later called the movie propaganda. The film’s claims have been meticulously documented as false by many sites, including this one and this one. UK Channel 4, which aired the documentary, decided to distance itself from the production after discovering that the primary graph used by the program was fabricated by the right-wing agencies that funded the production. And now, we even know that the phenomenon proposed by the program never happened in reality. In fact, we now know that reality is diametrically opposed to the claims of the program. Will this be enough to kill this piece of propaganda?