I could say, "Amen". My only question is, "we must put our own house in order,
how?"
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 8:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
During my first 30 years, living as a mostly sighted person, I was inundated by
the propaganda of the Corporate Media, radio, Television, Hollywood, and my
school mates who mostly came from up scale homes with parents of the Junior
Executive type. Sure, my dad was a Marxist, and a member of the Queen Anne
Communist Party back in the late 30's and early 40's. But as a child I was
quickly turned off by the bull sessions in which my dad and his buddies mostly
talked of the coming revolution. Of course, they missed which revolution was
coming, and all of them died still waiting for the People to rise up.
Instead it was a coup rather than a full revolution. The Pentagon became the
power behind the throne with hardly a single shot fired.
Anyway, I came to realize that my thinking and my opinions were being
subjugated by the constant haranguing of the Corporate Media, providing more
questions than answers.
For 8 years I worked in a drapery factory in the scuzzy part of down town
Seattle, just above the waterfront and slightly North of Skid row.A factory
that was a true throwback to the sweat shops of the late 1880's. Those Great
Days Donald Trump would have us return to. I stood by the windows in my work
area and saw the heavy black smoke belching out of the three high smoke stacks
at the Seattle Steam Plant. I ate my lunch along the shores of Puget Sound's
Elliot Bay, and saw the dead fish floating in the garbaage slop that passed for
water. I remember hearing the mayor on the radio, telling us that he hired a
consultant to determine if Seattle had a air pollution problem. He was paying
the fellow $65 thousand, a decent week's wage back in 1962. I looked out the
back window of my father-in-law's car and saw an ugly yellow brown sky. "I
could save the city of Seattle about $30 thousand if the mayor would hire me".
But the sludge keeps snaking toward the Columbia River, workers at Hanford keep
getting sick, down winders keep contacting cancer. And all the time we're told
by our corporate media that there is no real problem. Agent Orange was blown
out of proportion...how do the people know 40 years in the future that the
chemicals did or did not cause such a rise in cancer among former vets? My
brother-in-law, age 68, spent months in Vietnam under a sweltering sun and a
cloud of chemicals, including agent orange. He just was told that he has
cancer, a type of cancer connected to agent orange. So the government,
remember the government, the guys who are there to keep us safe? They rush
around gathering paid professionals to declare that there is no evidence of
such a connection. And what do we know.
We're just citizens who depend on this government to be straight with us. How
soon we forget! This is the same government that still allows tobacco products
to be sold across the counter. A deadly poison with no virtue, and the
government looks the other way. An addictive poison, Nicotine. And in it's
hay day, even Santa Clause smoked. All our heroes dragged on a cigarette.
Even when many of them began dying of lung cancer, we rationalized it. "I can
quit anytime I want to. I just enjoy smoking."
I remember pretty young women walking around down town Seattle, handing out
sample packs of cigarettes, five smokes in a pack, and if you begged...which I
did...they might give you two or three packs.
And we knew pulling raw smoke into our lungs was not good for our health. But
when the Corporate Media is blowing smoke up your nose, how does an addict say
No?
I walk along the sidewalks of Seattle's Skid Row and see the loggers and long
shoremen coming in from a long day's hard work. They drink a few beers...maybe
a pitcher...and ease into their cars believing that they have not impaired
their reflects. Out here in the deep forest, it's the Deer Killing Season.
Boy, the NRA's little heart would be all a flutter if they could see the pack
of, "Sportsmen" trouping out from town. They are ready with rifles, orange
jackets and cases of booze...everything from beer to white lightning.
These men have been conditioned to believe that they are having the time of
their lives. Sitting for hours in the dripping cold wind, waiting for some
defenseless Buck to wander by. Sportsmen! Did you ever wonder what the deer
call them? I mean, here you are, loaded down with guns and ammunition and all
the latest gadgets that are supposed to attract the game, and we call this,
Sport?
But that's what we've been taught. We close our eyes to the silliness of such
a lopsided mismatch being called a Sport, and off we go. And we close our eyes
to those people being driven out of their apartments and homes by fast rising
property costs, believing the Corporate Media's assurance that it is for the
good of America. And we believe that in order to prosper we must have
expansion. The planet supported
1 billion, so why not 10 billion? It's all good, we're told. And somehow we
believe that this government, the same one we just called worthless, will keep
us safe. The same scientists we now trash because they warn us about climate
change, they will solve any changes in temperature or tides.
Seems to me that it's time to unplug, turn off the radio and the TV and the
Internet, and go outside and take a stroll around town. Talk to those folks
living in their van. Listen to the fellows in the local cafe and bar. Hang
out in the checkout lines in the markets and hear what the house wives are
saying.
Donald Trump calls the news media the enemy of the people. Sorry to burst your
little bubble, Donald Trump, but that's old news. The Corporate Media has
never been the backer of the people. The Corporate Media is...well, it's the
property of Corporate America.
Just because Donald Trump is on the outs with a couple of outlets does not mean
that the Media has suddenly turned against America.
It's time we stopped looking for a Savior. Our salvation is inside each of us.
We have to stop letting others tell us what to think and how high to jump. We
alone can put our house in order.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/9/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is that what you think happened at Fukushima? See what I mean about a
different range of facts? I was listening to Democracy Now during that
whole thing and reading articles from alternative media. I can’t
remember all the details. These days, I can’t remember what day it is.
However, you and I are unable to communicate in a meaningful way about
this because we are starting from totally different places. If I
remember, there is a huge area where people had homes, communities,
and where they can no longer live. A lot of workers died, trying to
clean up the waste flowing out of the plant underwater, and they were
never able to completely clean it up or stop the leak. And one can’t
discount future illness and disability caused by radiation. There’s
evidence of that all over the world. I remember the concern of
adoptive parents who were thinking about adopting from Russia and
Ukraine about whether the children may have inherited issues because
of the Chernobyl accident. There are people in the US who have been
affected by radiation from nuclear testing sites. Come to think of it,
there are fire fighters in New York City who are dying now from
whatever they inhaled on
9/11 in 2001. I was thinking, the other day, about all the miners who
died that you mentioned, and I thought that back in the old days,
those mines were underground so the people who were affected, and the
ones who died, were limited to those poor men who worked underground.
And then came progress and along with progress, mountain top mining.
Not only did miners continue to die, but whole environments died,
communities were ruined, women and children have become sick and died
from the stuff that leaches into the ground and into the water.
Animals and vegetation dies. And now the advocates of nuclear power
are talking about what sounds to me, like a fairy tale, free lunch, a
clean environment now without considering the risk in the future.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 5:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Never heard of Don Moore.
Hmmm, a list where blind right wing people hang out. Too bad this list
cannot be combined with that one. Might create some stimulating discussion.
There are always risks in life. The risks of nuclear accidents, as the
evidence shows, are greatly overstated. As Fukushima shows, one
confirmed death by radiation cancer, a heck of a lot of deaths, from
the PANIC about the radiation. Chernobyl was not as bad as was made
out either. That does not preclude future accidents of course. The
point is to do one’s best to prevent them or mitigate their
consequences. The nuclear record over the past several decades is pretty good
on that score.
Every rational person knows about the possibility of accidents. And
there’s an issue of waste from making solar panels. We have to store
nuclear waste sensibly. But we do not have to figure out how to store
it sensibly for all eternity. If future generations do not know more
about how to deal with it, then they will likely either not be hear,
or will have bigger problems than nuclear waste to worry about.
There’s also the issue of the large amounts of land that need to be
given over to wind and solar farms. Environmentalists should be
talking about that as well.
I think perhaps the ultimate solution would be to send solar panels
into orbit and then beam down the energy. More efficient collection of
solar energy above the atmosphere, and much less land use down on the surface.
Don’t hear much talk about that lately though.
And then there’s nuclear fusion, which even Michio Kaku is a fan of,
but that keeps receding into the future.
Evan
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 4:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
There are people who are way right wing today, who used to be way left
wing in 1970. I’m not sure how that relates to the issue of the very
real danger of accidents occurring in nuclear plants or the problem of
disposing of nuclear waste. Do you know who Don Moore is? He now runs
a very right wing email list where blind right wing folks hang out. He
worked for Senator McGovern’s Presidential campaign back in the 70’s.
McGovern was left of center and the party was so upset about his
candidacy that they instituted the system of super delegates.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Behalf Of Evan
Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
In fact, he used to be an antinuclear activist. he changed his mind
based on the evidence.
If you had read the first article I sent by him, you would have known that.
Besides, what would you consider an objective source? Have you changed
your mind about anything recently based on an objective source
presenting you with evidence that caused you to reconsider a
longstanding view and modify it? If so, I haven’t seen it. I can’t
help but entertain the notion that it is quite possible that you would
define an “objective source” as one that agrees with what you already
believe. I hope I am wrong about that.
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Thank you for the article sent to you by a Nuclear energy advocate
who writes for a business oriented publication. Sounds like a truly
objective source!
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Behalf Of Evan
Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 1:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Hey Guys, thought I’d pass this along.
Not only is public support for nuclear power growing, but the Union of
Concerned Scientists is changing its tune as well.
Evan
From: Michael Shellenberger
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Evan Reese
Subject: Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of "Blatant
Anti-Nuclear Bias" In Latest IPCC Climate Report
Dear Evan,
Below is my latest column for Forbes on the rising pro-nuclear tide —
please share!
Michael
As Renewables Drive Up Energy Prices, Voters In U.S., Asia & Europe
Are Opting For Nuclear Power
Voters in the U.S., Asia, and Europe are increasingly opting for
nuclear power in
response to rising electricity prices from the deployment of
renewables like solar
panels and wind turbines.
By a more than
two-to-one margin
(70% to 30%), voters in Arizona on Tuesday rejected a ballot
initiative (proposition
127) that would have resulted in the
closure of that state’s nuclear power plant
and in the massive deployment of solar and wind.
In Taiwan, momentum is building for a repeal of that nation’s nuclear
energy phase-out.
Grassroots pro-nuclear advocacy inspired a former president to
help activists gather over 300,000 signatures
so voters could vote directly on the issue on November 24.
And after
a coalition of grassroots groups rallied in Munich, Germany
last month to protest the closure of nuclear plants, a wave of mostly
positive media
coverage spread across Europe, inspiring
a majority of Netherlands voters
, and the nation’s ruling political party, to declare support for
building new nuclear
reactors.
Now, in the wake of rising public support for nuclear energy, a
longstanding foe
of nuclear power, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, has
reversed its blanket opposition
to the technology and declared that existing U.S. nuclear plants must
stay open
to protect the climate.
These events have surprised mainstream journalists, politicians, and
energy analysts
who, over the last three years, have dismissed and derided the world’s
454 operating
nuclear reactors as antiquated given the declining cost of solar
panels and wind
turbines.
But the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines has not made
the technologies
more reliable, and the inherent unreliability of sunlight and wind —
along with their
huge material and land use requirements — have helped
drive up electricity prices
in places like California and Germany,
even at a time of lower natural gas prices
.
Notably, growing voter support for nuclear energy comes both from
progressives who
tend to be more concerned about climate change and from conservatives
who tend to
be more concerned about the cost of electricity.
In Netherlands, grassroots advocacy for nuclear energy, and favorable
coverage by
the mainstream media — including long segments (
in English
) by two of the nation’s most
influential TV journalists
— has shone a light on the inadequacy of solar and wind to address
climate change.
In Arizona, the campaign against proposition 127 focused heavily on
avoiding the
mistakes made by California, where
electricity rates rose five times faster than the rest of the country
thanks in large measure to the closure of nuclear plants and the rapid
deployment
of solar panels.
“Proposition 127 is a recycled version of California’s failed energy
initiatives
being exported to Arizona courtesy of Tom Steyer, California energy
hedge fund billionaire,”
wrote
an Arizona state Senator.
Steyer, who
made his money
building coal plants in Asia, and has heavily invested in natural gas
and renewables,
spent a record $18 million
of his own money in the doomed effort to pass 127.
In Taiwan, it appears that it is the combination of environmental,
economic, and
energy security concerns that has moved voters to overcome their fears
of nuclear
in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima accident and panic.
Taiwan imports 98% of its energy and, due to the nation’s nuclear
energy phase out,
suffered a devastating electricity shortage last year that
resulted in one death
,
threatened
the nation’s semiconductor industry, and contributed to the declining
approval of
the nation’s president.
Economics and environment are two sides of the same coin. Had
California and Germany
invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of
renewables like solar
and wind farms,
the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity
from clean
(low-emissions) energy sources.
These aren’t the first pro-nuclear victories in recent years. In 2016,
state governments
in
Illinois
and
New York
acted to prevent nuclear plants from closing. In 2017, a
South Korean
“citizens jury” went from 60% opposed to 60% in favor of nuclear. That
victory was
quickly followed actions in
Connecticut
and
New Jersey
to save their nuclear plants.
Increasingly pro-nuclear advocacy is grassroots. In places like South
Korea, Taiwan,
and Europe, where the electric utilities that own nuclear plants are
often government-owned,
and thus unable to engage in politics, it has been up to independent
environmental
groups — and
outspoken climate scientists
— to advocate for nuclear power.
The impacts of their work has stunned and thrilled pro-nuclear activists.
“We Dutch
have been anti-nuclear since the 1970s,” said Olguita Oudendijk,
co-founder of Ecomodernism
Netherlands. “What turned us around is the high cost of renewables,
the
Nuclear Pride Fest
, and serious media attention to the issue turned the public around.”
A poll of 18,000 Dutch voters released yesterday found that
54% favored the use of nuclear energy
while just 35% opposed it. “Achieving climate goals weighs heavier
than their objections
to nuclear energy for voters,” the pollster said.
In Taiwan — where pro-nuclear activists went on hunger strike, and to
court — to
overturn the government’s attempt to keep the referendum off the
ballot, a former
president
said
, "Opposing nuclear energy is now outdated. What has become a trend is
how to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle global warming."
In most places, activists have focused heavily on
debunking the many myths
about nuclear power promoted by organizations like Greenpeace,
including the notion
that cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will translate into lower
electricity
prices when
the opposite is usually the case
.
The inadequacy of solar panels and wind turbines was highlighted by
Arjan Lubach
— the John Oliver of Dutch TV — last Sunday, who in a 20-minute
segment educated
viewers on nuclear power’s necessity and safety while making sly,
sexual puns. (The
segment
was translated into English.)
A telling moment in the segment came when Lubach cut to a Greenpeace
spokesperson
who acknowledged that with nuclear energy “There are no carbon
emissions, that’s
true, so it doesn’t contribute to global warming, but there are other
disadvantages.”
“Whoa whoa, wait a minute,” Lubach interrupted. “It doesn’t contribute
to global
warming but there are
‘other’
disadvantages? You can’t state a huge advantage and then say, “It
becomes even worse.”
Asked about the difference in attitudes between the Dutch and the
nation’s famously
romantic, antinuclear German neighbors, Dutch ecomodernist Oudendijk
said, “We Dutch
are basically very rational people. We just want to solve the problem.”
Said TV comedian Lubach to an on-air correspondent, “I say we take
nuclear energy
out of the taboo-sphere.” The correspondent in the "taboo-sphere" is
dressed in protective
gear to protect himself, he explains, not from nuclear but rather from
STDs.
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time
Magazine "Hero of the Environment."
