Saturday, December 11, 2010
CRABBY OLD MAN
Crabby Old Man -
What do you see nurses? . . . .. . What do you see?
What are you thinking . . . . . when you're looking at me?
A crabby old man . . . . . not very wise,
Uncertain of habit .. . . . . with faraway eyes?
Who dribbles his food . . . . . and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . . . . . 'I do wish you'd try!'
Who seems not to notice . .. . .. the things that you do.
And forever is losing . . . . . A sock or shoe?
Who, resisting or not . . . . . lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding . . . . . The long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking? . .. . . . Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse . . . . . you're not looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am. . . . .. . As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding, . . . . .. as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten . .. .. . . with a father and mother,
Brothers and sisters . . . . .. who love one another.
A young boy of Sixteen . . . . with wings on his feet.
Dreaming that soon now . . . . . a lover he'll meet.
A groom soon at Twenty . . . . . my heart gives a leap.
Remembering, the vows .. . . . .. that I promised to keep.
At Twenty-Five, now . .. . . . I have young of my own.
Who need me to guide . . . . . And a secure happy home.
A man of Thirty . . . . . My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . . .. . With ties that should last.
At Forty, my young sons . . . . . have grown and are gone,
But my woman's beside me . . . .. . to see I don't mourn.
At Fifty, once more, babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . . My loved one and me.
Dark days are upon me . .. . . . my wife is now dead.
I look at the future . . . . .. shudder with dread.
For my young are all rearing . .. . . . young of their own.
And I think of the years . . . . and the love that I've known
I'm now an old man . . . . . and nature is cruel.
Tis jest to make old age . . . .. . look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles . . . . grace and vigor, depart.
There is now a stone . . .. . where I once had a heart.
But inside this old carcass . . . . .. a young guy still dwells,
And now and again . . . . . my battered heart swells.
I remember the joys . . . . . I remember the pain.
And I'm loving and living . . . .. . life over again.
I think of the years, all too few . . . . . gone too fast.
And accept the stark fact . . . . that nothing can last..
So open your eyes, people . .. .. . . open and see.
Not a crabby old man .. .. . Look closer .. . . see ME!!
- anonymous
Thomas Jefferson - A Little History
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.t
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights
of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and
wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello .
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he-himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:” This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe , we shall become as corrupt as Europe.---Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work. and give to those who would not.----Thomas Jefferson*
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.----Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.----Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
----Thomas Jefferson*
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.----Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.----Thomas Jefferson*
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.---Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.----Thomas Jefferson**
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property--until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
* Unproven according to TruthorFiction.com however not disproven either.
** Misquoted according to TruthorFiction.com
At 5, began studying under his cousins tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.t
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights
of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia 's legal code and
wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello .
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he-himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:” This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe , we shall become as corrupt as Europe.---Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work. and give to those who would not.----Thomas Jefferson*
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.----Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.----Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
----Thomas Jefferson*
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.----Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.----Thomas Jefferson*
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.---Thomas Jefferson
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.----Thomas Jefferson**
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property--until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
* Unproven according to TruthorFiction.com however not disproven either.
** Misquoted according to TruthorFiction.com
Friday, December 10, 2010
*Saturday, December 4, 2010
Food Irradiation
Food irradiation would save more lives than the proposed Food Safety and Modernization Act, S.510, and food irradiation will not make government bigger, it will not increase the deficit, and it will not drive small farmers out of business while large corporate farm companies cope with the increased government regulation.
The irradiation of food has been proven to be a safe and effective method to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food supply. Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation, and it can be used to kill many food borne diseases while extending the shelf-life of many foods.
Irradiated food does not become radioactive and the food does not come into direct contact with a radioactive material. But in some cases there may be subtle chemical changes, ref. wikipedia. Food irradiation has been proposed as a means of making food safer to eat since the 1950s, however detractors of food irradiation have been effective in stalling it's widespread use by citing these subtle changes as posing undue health risks to the general public. These are the same people who manipulate so-called scientific data to support other alarmist claims like global warming. There has never been any correlation of their claims to any health effects.
Other food protection methods such as cooking, canning, and pasteurization also alter food chemistry subtly, but have been used routinely in modern times. If, for example, milk was irradiated it would retain many of the nutrients that are destroyed by pasteurization yet the milk's shelf-life would be extended significantly.
Several methods of food irradiation are available. They include irradiation using a gamma ray source such as Cobalt-60 (the radioactive source is sealed into a container that keeps it from contacting food), and X-ray devices (no radioactive material involved) similar to but more powerful than those used in diagnostic X-ray procedures.
The irradiation of food has been proven to be a safe and effective method to destroy microorganisms, bacteria, viruses, or insects that might be present in the food supply. Food irradiation is the process of exposing food to ionizing radiation, and it can be used to kill many food borne diseases while extending the shelf-life of many foods.
Irradiated food does not become radioactive and the food does not come into direct contact with a radioactive material. But in some cases there may be subtle chemical changes, ref. wikipedia. Food irradiation has been proposed as a means of making food safer to eat since the 1950s, however detractors of food irradiation have been effective in stalling it's widespread use by citing these subtle changes as posing undue health risks to the general public. These are the same people who manipulate so-called scientific data to support other alarmist claims like global warming. There has never been any correlation of their claims to any health effects.
Other food protection methods such as cooking, canning, and pasteurization also alter food chemistry subtly, but have been used routinely in modern times. If, for example, milk was irradiated it would retain many of the nutrients that are destroyed by pasteurization yet the milk's shelf-life would be extended significantly.
Several methods of food irradiation are available. They include irradiation using a gamma ray source such as Cobalt-60 (the radioactive source is sealed into a container that keeps it from contacting food), and X-ray devices (no radioactive material involved) similar to but more powerful than those used in diagnostic X-ray procedures.
Summary of "Roots of Obama's Rage" by Denish D'Souza
For those who were unable to see the September 29 and 30, 2010 episodes of the Glenn Beck show explaining why President Barack Hussein Obama would try to destroy United States capitalism, I have tried to summarize the main points below:
"Roots of Obama's Rage" by Denish D'Souza
Facts
Opinion
Returning the Winston Churchill bust
Lockerbie Bombing ltr from Obama to Scotland saying it ok to release the terrorist
Afghan War Iraq & Afghan R wars of imperilism & we have to get out
Nuclear Iran
US Energy Consumption
Tax the Rich - This is all stolen wealth; he thinks he's doing right; creating a better America
President Obama may or may not have been born in the United States, but it is certain that he was not raised in the United States. He doesn't share the values most Americans have who were raised here.
"Roots of Obama's Rage" by Denish D'Souza
Facts
Opinion
Returning the Winston Churchill bust
Lockerbie Bombing ltr from Obama to Scotland saying it ok to release the terrorist
Afghan War Iraq & Afghan R wars of imperilism & we have to get out
Nuclear Iran
US Energy Consumption
Tax the Rich - This is all stolen wealth; he thinks he's doing right; creating a better America
President Obama may or may not have been born in the United States, but it is certain that he was not raised in the United States. He doesn't share the values most Americans have who were raised here.
Letter from Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) re. Border Security
October 18, 2010
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the security of our borders. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.
The problem of illegal immigration is a threat to our nation's security and economy, and we must prioritize strengthening our borders. I believe law enforcement and border security agents need additional resources and support in order to perform their important duties and to ensure our laws are being enforced adequately and equally in all situations. Increased technology -- including security cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles, and electronic sensors -- as well as fences along the border where appropriate, are critical components of maintaining security along our southern border. With fair and equal enforcement of our laws, and enhanced border security, we can more effectively combat illegal immigration.
I strongly believe in the need for comprehensive immigration reform. I oppose amnesty, and believe we need to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices and crack down on entities that knowingly employ illegal workers. This is why I support the E-Verify program as a tool to help employers ensure they are hiring legal workers. I am committed to achieving practical, bipartisan, comprehensive reform that will protect taxpayers and address the problem of illegal immigration at its core. With our economy in peril, it is more important than ever to ensure that we are protecting the jobs, wages and working conditions of American workers.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
Newsletter: A Message from Senator Richard Burr
Senator Burr on The Food Safety Act, S.510
Home | Privacy Policy | Contact Me | Unsubscribe 
 | |||||||||
|
Email to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) re. S.510
Dear Senator Burr
Contrary to the statements in your newsletter, S.510, The Food Safety Act is punitive to small business and farmers, including produce stands. Below is a partial list of extracts from the bill that disputes your assertions. I will be posting this email and your newsletter on the Crystal Coast Tea Party web site. I will also continue to excerpt the bill where it shows how the bill is detrimental to small farmers in NC and throughout the US.
Page 4 [includes roadside stands by definition]
CON10
CERN.—If the Secretary believes that there is a rea11
sonable probability that the use of or exposure to an
12 article of food, and any other article of food that the
13 Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected
14 in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse
15 health consequences or death to humans or animals,
16 each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who
17 manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives,
18 holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of
19 an officer or employee duly designated by the Sec20
retary, permit such officer or employee, upon presen21
tation of appropriate credentials and a written notice
22 to such person, at reasonable times and within rea23
sonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have
24 access to and copy all records relating to such article
25 and to any other article of food that the Secretary
Page 10
[small entity compliance guide]
20 (2) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY
21 GUIDE.—Not later than 180 days after the issuance
22 of the regulations promulgated under section
23 415(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
24 Act (as added by this section), the Secretary shall
25 issue a small entity compliance policy guide
[includes roadside stands]
Page 11
(1) RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT.—The Sec11
retary shall amend the definition of the term ‘‘retail
12 food establishment’’ in section in 1.227(b)(11) of
13 title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that,
14 in determining the primary function of an establish15
ment or a retail food establishment under such sec16
tion, the sale of food products directly to consumers
17 by such establishment and the sale of food directly
18 to consumers by such retail food establishment in19
clude—
20 (A) the sale of such food products or food
21 directly to consumers by such establishment at
22 a roadside stand or farmers’ market where such
23 stand or market is located other than where the
24 food was manufactured or processed;
continued on Page 12
[NOTE: any other sale and distribution as determined by the Secretary]
1 (B) the sale and distribution of such food
2 through a community supported agriculture
3 program; and
4 (C) the sale and distribution of such food
5 at any other such direct sales platform as deter6
mined by the Secretary.
Page 25 & 26
[NOTE: The Secretary has authority to make the 'size' determination]
23 ‘‘(B) SIZE.—The results of the study con24
ducted under subparagraph (A) shall include
25 the information necessary to enable the Sec26
† S 510 ES
1 retary to define the terms ‘small business’ and
2 ‘very small business’, for purposes of promul3
gating the regulation under subsection (n). In
4 defining such terms, the Secretary shall include
5 consideration of harvestable acres, income, the
6 number of employees, and the volume of food
7 harvested.
Page 36 & 37
[NOTE: The Secretary determines]
19 (d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.—
20 Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regula21
tions promulgated under subsection (n) of section 418 of
22 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by
23 subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity
24 compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the
25 requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist
† S 510 ES
1 small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and
2 other activities required under such section 418 and this
3 section.
Page 42 & 44
[NOTE: during rule making The Secretary defines 'small and very small businesses]
22 ‘‘(F) define, for purposes of this section,
23 the terms ‘small business’ and ‘very small busi24
ness’
Page 46
[NOTE: This is not an exemption for small businesses & the flexibility is determined by The Secretary]
12 ‘‘(B) provide sufficient flexibility to be
13 practicable for all sizes and types of businesses,
14 including small businesses such as a small food
15 processing facility co-located on a farm;
Page 46
[NOTE: This does not exempt small businesses from any paperwork; it simply requires The Secretary to consider the impact]
16 ‘‘(C) comply with chapter 35 of title 44,
17 United States Code (commonly known as the
18 ‘Paperwork Reduction Act’), with special atten19
tion to minimizing the burden (as defined in
20 section 3502(2) of such Act) on the business,
21 and collection of information (as defined in sec22
tion 3502(3) of such Act), associated with such
23 regulations;
Page 47
[NOTE: Leaves open a requirement for any businesses to hire 3rd party consultants to resolve disputes. May be extremely expensive for small businesses]
3 ‘‘(E) not require a business to hire a con4
sultant or other third party to identify, imple5
ment, certify, compliance with these procedures,
6 processes, and practices, except in the case of
7 negotiated enforcement resolutions that may re8
quire such a consultant or third party;
[NOTE: grants usually come with strings attached]
Page 171
3 ‘‘(c) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this sec4
tion, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that tar5
get small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, so6
cially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, or small
7 fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers.
Contrary to the statements in your newsletter, S.510, The Food Safety Act is punitive to small business and farmers, including produce stands. Below is a partial list of extracts from the bill that disputes your assertions. I will be posting this email and your newsletter on the Crystal Coast Tea Party web site. I will also continue to excerpt the bill where it shows how the bill is detrimental to small farmers in NC and throughout the US.
Page 4 [includes roadside stands by definition]
CON10
CERN.—If the Secretary believes that there is a rea11
sonable probability that the use of or exposure to an
12 article of food, and any other article of food that the
13 Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected
14 in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse
15 health consequences or death to humans or animals,
16 each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who
17 manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives,
18 holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of
19 an officer or employee duly designated by the Sec20
retary, permit such officer or employee, upon presen21
tation of appropriate credentials and a written notice
22 to such person, at reasonable times and within rea23
sonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have
24 access to and copy all records relating to such article
25 and to any other article of food that the Secretary
Page 10
[small entity compliance guide]
20 (2) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY
21 GUIDE.—Not later than 180 days after the issuance
22 of the regulations promulgated under section
23 415(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
24 Act (as added by this section), the Secretary shall
25 issue a small entity compliance policy guide
[includes roadside stands]
Page 11
(1) RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT.—The Sec11
retary shall amend the definition of the term ‘‘retail
12 food establishment’’ in section in 1.227(b)(11) of
13 title 21, Code of Federal Regulations to clarify that,
14 in determining the primary function of an establish15
ment or a retail food establishment under such sec16
tion, the sale of food products directly to consumers
17 by such establishment and the sale of food directly
18 to consumers by such retail food establishment in19
clude—
20 (A) the sale of such food products or food
21 directly to consumers by such establishment at
22 a roadside stand or farmers’ market where such
23 stand or market is located other than where the
24 food was manufactured or processed;
continued on Page 12
[NOTE: any other sale and distribution as determined by the Secretary]
1 (B) the sale and distribution of such food
2 through a community supported agriculture
3 program; and
4 (C) the sale and distribution of such food
5 at any other such direct sales platform as deter6
mined by the Secretary.
Page 25 & 26
[NOTE: The Secretary has authority to make the 'size' determination]
23 ‘‘(B) SIZE.—The results of the study con24
ducted under subparagraph (A) shall include
25 the information necessary to enable the Sec26
† S 510 ES
1 retary to define the terms ‘small business’ and
2 ‘very small business’, for purposes of promul3
gating the regulation under subsection (n). In
4 defining such terms, the Secretary shall include
5 consideration of harvestable acres, income, the
6 number of employees, and the volume of food
7 harvested.
Page 36 & 37
[NOTE: The Secretary determines]
19 (d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.—
20 Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regula21
tions promulgated under subsection (n) of section 418 of
22 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by
23 subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity
24 compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the
25 requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist
† S 510 ES
1 small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and
2 other activities required under such section 418 and this
3 section.
Page 42 & 44
[NOTE: during rule making The Secretary defines 'small and very small businesses]
22 ‘‘(F) define, for purposes of this section,
23 the terms ‘small business’ and ‘very small busi24
ness’
Page 46
[NOTE: This is not an exemption for small businesses & the flexibility is determined by The Secretary]
12 ‘‘(B) provide sufficient flexibility to be
13 practicable for all sizes and types of businesses,
14 including small businesses such as a small food
15 processing facility co-located on a farm;
Page 46
[NOTE: This does not exempt small businesses from any paperwork; it simply requires The Secretary to consider the impact]
16 ‘‘(C) comply with chapter 35 of title 44,
17 United States Code (commonly known as the
18 ‘Paperwork Reduction Act’), with special atten19
tion to minimizing the burden (as defined in
20 section 3502(2) of such Act) on the business,
21 and collection of information (as defined in sec22
tion 3502(3) of such Act), associated with such
23 regulations;
Page 47
[NOTE: Leaves open a requirement for any businesses to hire 3rd party consultants to resolve disputes. May be extremely expensive for small businesses]
3 ‘‘(E) not require a business to hire a con4
sultant or other third party to identify, imple5
ment, certify, compliance with these procedures,
6 processes, and practices, except in the case of
7 negotiated enforcement resolutions that may re8
quire such a consultant or third party;
[NOTE: grants usually come with strings attached]
Page 171
3 ‘‘(c) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this sec4
tion, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that tar5
get small and medium-sized farms, beginning farmers, so6
cially disadvantaged farmers, small processors, or small
7 fresh fruit and vegetable merchant wholesalers.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Letter to Senators Burr & Hagan on Gasohol
The genesis of my concern with the addition of ethanol to gasoline began some years ago when you could still find gas without ethanol. My personal observations was that I got fewer miles per gallon with gasohol than with gasoline. Now that all gasoline in NC has ethanol, no one seems to know there is a difference between the mileage performance of gasohol and gasoline. So not only does gasohol cost more per gallon than gasoline, gasohol costs you more because you get fewer miles per gallon! What some might call a double-whammy.
Later, I discovered that even though car manufacturers have replaced many fuel components with those that are more resistant to gasohol, many other gas-powered engines on boats, lawn mowers, trimmers, etc. are not gasohol resistant. Within a couple of years these components degrade and have to be replaced at the owners expense. Yet another cost in addition to the higher cost of gasohol.
Now the EPA wants to boost the amount of ethanol in gasohol to 15%. That will further reduce fuel mileage, increase costs, and deteriorate fuel components faster. Then there's the concern of the use of corn to produce ethanol for the gasohol and the impact that may have on food prices.
The is yet another example of the government creating a program that has unintended consequences. This is yet another example of why big government is bad. This is another example of why big government fails and should fail.
Below is an email I sent to Senators Burr and Hagan of NC:
"Government interference always has unintended consequences. In the case of the federal government mandate to add biofuels to gasoline there are many negative consequences. In this article "AP sources: EPA expected to OK more ethanol in gas" (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=21&sid=377155) the out-of-control EPA may allow higher percentage of ethanol to gasoline. I already can't buy gas without ethanol. Why might I want to do that? Ethanol reduces miles per gallon, it costs more, and it damages fuel lines on boats and power equipment (the fuel lines actually begin to dissolve). We need to reel in the EPA and start to decrease federal regulation. Enough of this big government stuff!"
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Progress Report on Virginia's Healthcare Law Suit
Below is a progress report on Virginia's fight against the healthcare bill. Our favorite Attorney General, who spoke in Washington on 9/12, is making some progress on defeating the federal government forced healthcare program. Hopefully, North Carolina will follow suit once the republicans obtain with the majority on 11/2/10. In the meantime, you might want to donate to their legal defense fund. See article below.
September 27, 2010
Dear Friends,We are in the middle of the summary judgment phase of the health care case in the district court in Richmond, and I wanted to give you an update of where we stand at the moment and what's coming next.
So Far
I'm sure you all recall that on August 2nd the judge in our case rejected all four of the feds' arguments for why Virginia's case should be dismissed, and that as part of his ruling, the judge noted how extraordinarily far the federal government is reaching (in a constitutional sense) in the federal health care law.Interestingly, in the Florida case, they had their hearing on the feds' motion to dismiss on September 14th. This was the equivalent hearing to ours on July 1st.
The judge in the Florida case indicated from the bench on September 14th that he expected at least part of the states' case to go forward, i.e., survive the feds' motion to dismiss. He also said that he would issue a ruling on October 14th, so we're looking forward to seeing that, and we're hoping (and cautiously expecting) that our allies in Florida will be proceeding forward parallel to us here in Virginia. It will be interesting to see that ruling only four days before our summary judgment oral argument in Richmond (more on this later).
Where We Are In the Process Now
On September 3rd, both Virginia and the federal government filed their motions for summary judgment. As the name implies, these motions are requests by each side to the court to rule "summarily," i.e., without a trial, in our favor. In my opinion, these filings didn't hold much in the way of surprises.However, this past week both sides filed their opposition to the other parties' motion for summary judgment. Did you follow that? For example, on September 3rd, Virginia filed its motion for summary judgment and on September 23rd, the feds filed their opposition to Virginia's motion for summary judgment. And also on September 3rd, the feds filed their motion for summary judgment, and we filed our opposition on September 23rd.
One interesting note, we filed in the early afternoon on the 23rd, while the feds filed at 9:49 p.m. The deadline is midnight - yikes were they pushing it close to that line!
Some Eye Opening Items in the Feds' Opposition
Three things stood out most to me in the feds' opposition to our summary judgment. One appears generally in the brief, while the other two both relate specifically to the discussion regarding the appropriate remedy if the court rules in Virginia's favor by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.First, the general observation. Call it the "silver bullet(s)" of their brief. In several different locations, the feds cite cases never before appearing in this case for sweeping and powerful propositions. In other words, they keep using them like 'silver bullets.'
A reading of some of these cases certainly looks like some real strrrrrreeeetttttcccchhhhing on their part, but we'll have to deal with that in our reply. This observation may be nothing more than boring to non-lawyers (and to most lawyers...), but I'll leave that to y'all to decide.
The second and third observations are more interesting, and as I said, both relate to the potential remedy if the court declares the individual mandate to be unconstitutional.
The second observation is that the feds take a similar approach to determining what would be left of the law if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. I'm not used to them approaching much of anything in this case in a similar manner to us.
Here is one of their case quotes (i.e., where they quote a US Supreme Court case):
"After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?"
[Timely side note: the case quoted is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. This is the same Ayotte who is now running for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. She was on the right side of that case!]This quote is an interesting question that any of you can chew on... but don't chew on it just yet, until you read through my third observation. Then come back to the question and come to your own conclusions.
The third observation is perhaps the most stunning (even though it's actually quite logical...). The federal government has conceded that if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, then all of what they refer to as the "insurance industry reforms" must fall alongside the individual mandate.
Given that up to this point, they have conceded nothing, I am genuinely shocked at the sweeping nature of this concession. Now, mind you, as I mentioned above, this is a logical position. Why is it a logical position? Well, I'll tell you.
All along, the feds have said that their forced changes to the insurance industry's products REQUIRE that everyone must be in the insurance pool for their newly-redesigned (ruined?) insurance scheme to 'work.' [I just can't bring myself to type that word without quotes in this context.] So, logically, if we beat the individual mandate, everyone will NOT be in the insurance pool; therefore, their other changes to their newly-redesigned insurance scheme will not 'work.'
Thus, they have conceded that if the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, then their other insurance requirements must also be discarded by the court.
Here is the quote from their brief:
"Under these principles, some provisions of the Act plainly cannot survive. As defendants repeatedly have made clear ... insurance industry reforms in Section 1201 such as guaranteed-issue and community-rating will stand or fall with the minimum coverage provision.... As Virginia correctly recognizes, these regulations of the interstate insurance market must be coupled with the minimum coverage provision in order to be effective. Absent a minimum coverage provision [a.k.a.: "individual mandate"], the guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms in Section 1201 would cause many to drop coverage, leading to a spiral of increased premiums and a shrinking risk pool - the insurance market will 'implode.' Because Congress would not have intended this result, these reforms cannot be severed from the minimum coverage provision."
Food for Thought
Okay, now let's look at the quoted question from my second observation again:"After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?"
In fact, I was on Fox Business on September 14th - the day of the court hearing on the feds' motion to dismiss in the Florida case - and I was watching Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Far Left) on the show just before I went on. He was sweeping in his attacks on what he called our "profit based system." This system is also frequently referred to as "capitalism."
Historically of course, capitalism has provided the greatest opportunity to meet the needs and raise the standard of living of the most individuals of any economic system in the history of the world. But, no matter...
Umm, Congressman, did you not notice what happened in all those other systems around the world in the last 100 years that didn't exist in "profit making systems?" Perhaps we could sign him up for Cuban health care. They have achieved Cong. Kucinich's dream of mandated universal coverage, and gee, look how long Castro has lived! Surely it must be working well enough for the Congressman.
On the really expensive front, what they appear to be particularly targeting for saving is their massive (mandated) increase in Medicaid. In Virginia, using the feds' cost estimates (which I have discussed at other times as having been completely discredited), we are looking at an additional $1billion+ added to our already difficult healthcare budget by FY 2022. We will set aside where that money is supposed to come from for the moment... but would Congress have passed elements of the bill like the Medicaid increase without the individual mandate and the insurance elements?
What's Next?
On Monday, October 4th, each side will file its final brief (the reply brief), AND all of the amicus briefs will be filed that day as well. The amicus briefs will be very interesting and for those of you willing to dig into the details, you should take a look at those briefs. Just seeing who files will be interesting, even if you don't read the briefs!On October 18th, we will be back in court for the summary judgment hearing. This is where the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be openly debated in court.
At some point thereafter, perhaps around the end of November, the judge will likely issue an order with his ruling.
One other strategy of the feds' that became evident last week is their apparent intention to drag out the proceeding, at least for now. They have clearly indicated to the judge that if he finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, that they will want him to hold yet another hearing to focus on what is the appropriate remedy.
We shall see.
Collateral Impacts
Obviously, one other impact is on the November elections. I will leave to each of you to determine how the healthcare matter is effecting those elections.A little closer to home, we continue to take significant 'hits' from left-leaning media, including Olberman, Maddow and national outlets, alongside with the usuals: WaPo, Roanoke Times, and the Va. Pilot, so please keep up your support of our efforts, as much of what I am doing on the political side is simply educating folks up on all of this (see, e.g., the professional webcast on the healthcare case and first principles on my website at www.Cuccinelli.com). We need your help writing letters to the editor and donating to help us swim against the tide of media assaults (e.g., the webcast is a political expense), so please keep us in mind and donate today!
As things roll forward, I will keep you up to date as best I can!
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade, and Redistribution of Wealth
Yesterday, 9/22/2010, Hillary Clinton unveiled a $50 million transfer of your wealth to to purchase Cook Stoves for Africa (ref. Yahoo News). The unveiling by Ms Clinton notes that these stoves are needed to "save the lives of women and young children" who are dying in alarming numbers from inhaling toxic fumes from rudimentary stoves.
Well, like all the Progressive initiatives, this story is not really about the prevention of premature deaths among African women and young children, although that is a good cover story. But, as usual, they are lying! The real story as revealed by Glenn Beck today is about money, redistribution of wealth, and "trading air."
The carbon credits saved in Africa will be purchased by J. P Morgan Chase (Fortune Magazine) then resold at huge profits to industry in the USA, China, etc. who are generating "too much" CO2. Of course, industry will pass those costs on to the consumer (you). Thus, your money is "redistributed" to someone else for a fictional commodity that you pay for. Others who are involved with the scam: CitiGroup, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and Land Rover. They are going to buy clean air, and sell it to people who make dirty air! Hmmm, smoke and mirrors maybe?
Did you know that your government had approved the trading of CO2? You thought that was in Cap and Trade that hasn't been passed by Congress and signed by the President yet? Well, apparently you were wrong! You thought Climate Change had been set back; wrong again. You might want to read Global Government by 2025 published by Government Printing Office. You can download a PDF file of the document at the link provided.
It really is time for a change, but not the one the Progressive are trying to sneak by you.
Well, like all the Progressive initiatives, this story is not really about the prevention of premature deaths among African women and young children, although that is a good cover story. But, as usual, they are lying! The real story as revealed by Glenn Beck today is about money, redistribution of wealth, and "trading air."
The carbon credits saved in Africa will be purchased by J. P Morgan Chase (Fortune Magazine) then resold at huge profits to industry in the USA, China, etc. who are generating "too much" CO2. Of course, industry will pass those costs on to the consumer (you). Thus, your money is "redistributed" to someone else for a fictional commodity that you pay for. Others who are involved with the scam: CitiGroup, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and Land Rover. They are going to buy clean air, and sell it to people who make dirty air! Hmmm, smoke and mirrors maybe?
Did you know that your government had approved the trading of CO2? You thought that was in Cap and Trade that hasn't been passed by Congress and signed by the President yet? Well, apparently you were wrong! You thought Climate Change had been set back; wrong again. You might want to read Global Government by 2025 published by Government Printing Office. You can download a PDF file of the document at the link provided.
It really is time for a change, but not the one the Progressive are trying to sneak by you.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
A 'Psychoanalysis' of the Suceptability of Being Nudged
Glenn Beck's show tonight (9/22/2010) covered "The Most Dangerous Man in the USA," Cass Sunstein. Professor Sunstein is President Obama's Regulatory Czar, a position well suited for an academic whose goal in life is to conduct "Rat" experiments on the people of the United States of America. Professor Sunstein considers the average American to be 'Homer Simpson,' too dumb to make decisions on their own therefore in need of him to nudge us in the direction that he determines is best for us. Beck reviewed a host of areas that you and I are being nudged towards from controlling our diets, to our health care choices, to what we drive, and how much and the kind of energy we use. The purpose of this analysis is to delve into who the targets of this nudging are, and whom might be most susceptible to the nudging.
We will start with those who are in no need of nudging. Those are the Progressive elitest, like Professor Sunstein, President Obama, and most other Democrats. This group also includes union bosses, communist, marxist, socialist, and some others who were born genetically disposed to living off the labor of other people. These folks don't have to be nudged, and actually feel some self-aggrandizement from nudging other people. Sometimes, this group of people are referred to as BULLIES (which of course they enjoy calling other people).
The next group of people are called Independents. Independents like to think of themselves as being open-minded. This quality is what makes Independents so susceptible to nudging. Independents when presented with what on the surface seems to be a rationale idea usually go with the flow. Sometimes the flow moves left (in the political spectrum), and sometimes it moves right. This quality of the Independent is taken advantage of by the nudger by inundating the Independent with so much fallacious information it causes their brain to hurt from trying to be fair and balanced that they just give up and accept the nudgers premise. Independents are largely the reason the USA is in such a sorry state.
The next group of people are sometimes called conservatives, although many Progressives and others on the left call them morons, douche bags, f***ing idiots, and other pejoratives (due to their limited vocabulary). Conservatives are very resistant to nudging. In fact, conservatives have an irritating quality of asking questions like: "Did you read the bill?" "Why can't I eat a burger and fries if I want to?" "Is this law even Constitutional?" "Why does the government think they can spend my money better than I can?" "If I grow vegetables in my garden and want to give them away, what business is it of the governments?" You know stuff like that. Most conservatives don't like to be run through a maze, and usually like to decide things for themselves. Conservatives are candidates for Progressive reprogramming camps, and harsher treatment if they are uncooperative.
The last group are those in the Tea Party. These people are also called by other names by Progressives. Often they are called TeaBaggers, racist, homophobes, anti-abortionist, and even Christians! Tea Party people are extremely resistant to nudging. In fact, they are so resistant to nudging they sometimes carry signs and pray that Progressives will see the light and stop bullying everybody else.
We will start with those who are in no need of nudging. Those are the Progressive elitest, like Professor Sunstein, President Obama, and most other Democrats. This group also includes union bosses, communist, marxist, socialist, and some others who were born genetically disposed to living off the labor of other people. These folks don't have to be nudged, and actually feel some self-aggrandizement from nudging other people. Sometimes, this group of people are referred to as BULLIES (which of course they enjoy calling other people).
The next group of people are called Independents. Independents like to think of themselves as being open-minded. This quality is what makes Independents so susceptible to nudging. Independents when presented with what on the surface seems to be a rationale idea usually go with the flow. Sometimes the flow moves left (in the political spectrum), and sometimes it moves right. This quality of the Independent is taken advantage of by the nudger by inundating the Independent with so much fallacious information it causes their brain to hurt from trying to be fair and balanced that they just give up and accept the nudgers premise. Independents are largely the reason the USA is in such a sorry state.
The next group of people are sometimes called conservatives, although many Progressives and others on the left call them morons, douche bags, f***ing idiots, and other pejoratives (due to their limited vocabulary). Conservatives are very resistant to nudging. In fact, conservatives have an irritating quality of asking questions like: "Did you read the bill?" "Why can't I eat a burger and fries if I want to?" "Is this law even Constitutional?" "Why does the government think they can spend my money better than I can?" "If I grow vegetables in my garden and want to give them away, what business is it of the governments?" You know stuff like that. Most conservatives don't like to be run through a maze, and usually like to decide things for themselves. Conservatives are candidates for Progressive reprogramming camps, and harsher treatment if they are uncooperative.
The last group are those in the Tea Party. These people are also called by other names by Progressives. Often they are called TeaBaggers, racist, homophobes, anti-abortionist, and even Christians! Tea Party people are extremely resistant to nudging. In fact, they are so resistant to nudging they sometimes carry signs and pray that Progressives will see the light and stop bullying everybody else.
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Tea Party Goes International
It seems that the Tea Party is going international. I guess AstroTurf grows anywhere in the world, Nancy!
Fox News did a spot on Cavuto with Daniel Hannan, UK Parliment.
The Daily Caller writes "International Protest Groups Take Up the 'Tea Party' Flag in Moscow, Tel Aviv and the Hague.
Progressives should be worried, very worried. They're a pariah around the world. Everything they do fails, and people suffer. The Progressives think they are the elite, but they are failures.
The left may have thought they were the only ones with global vision but not so. Inspired by common sense Americans, T.E.A. parties have started in the UK and Australia and more.
From Australia.
Welcome to the Australian T.E.A. Party Movement
Who are we?
We are NOT a political party indeed we are Non Party Political choosing to support or oppose whoever best helps the ideas and beliefs of our movement regardless of their party affiliation.From the UK.
How do you know if you, like over 50 million people world wide are a natural Tea Party Movement supporter?
Can the Tea Party Movement be of benefit to you? It really is very simple.
We ask 2 basic questions.
What is, and what should be the role of government in the economy?
What is, and what should be the role of government in peoples lives?
If you think that the answers to what is vs what should be are very different-
Then you are a natural Tea Party Movement supporter.
Do you feel that you have lost your voice?
Has government and entrenched elites become the master and not the servant?
Do you feel that many of these elites are in both major political parties?
Do you think that real choices that would actually work - making life better are never presented?
Do you feel that every day, government gets bigger and your burden of paying for it - grows heavier?
Are you searching for something to do about it?
The Tea Party Movement can help you do something about it!
COME JOIN WITH US!
Since its launch its February, the TEA party movement of the UK have gone from strength to strength. Campaigning for libertarian principles of limited government and lower taxes, TEA party activists were initially critical of the Labour government, but now with tax increases in the budget, the current coalition government is also facing some backlash.
"Activists are hold a rally at next month's Conservative party conference in Birmingham at which criticism of Coalition policies will be aired.
A British division, launched last year by The Freedom Association, has held events including a "Boston tea party" in Boston, Lincs.
It has joined forces with the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group, which is being advised by Freedom Works, a large Washington-based political group that backs Tea Party candidates."There's more too.
The Dutch Tea Party (http://www.dutchteaparty.nl/)
The Italian Tea Party (http://www.teapartyitalia.it/)
Ronald Reagan Quotes
Something from my email inbox:
"Socialism works in only two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell, where they already have it"
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, They lose!"
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that is not so"
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong"
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had to run them through Congress"
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the Federal Government, but doesn't have to take the civil service examination"
"Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other"
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program"
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it has a striking resemblance to the first"
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, If it stops moving, subsidize it"
"Politics is not a bad profession: If you succeed, there are many rewards; If you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book"
"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women"
" If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under"
"Socialism works in only two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell, where they already have it"
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, They lose!"
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that is not so"
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong"
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had to run them through Congress"
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the Federal Government, but doesn't have to take the civil service examination"
"Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other"
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program"
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it has a striking resemblance to the first"
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, If it stops moving, subsidize it"
"Politics is not a bad profession: If you succeed, there are many rewards; If you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book"
"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women"
" If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under"
Mini-Nuclear Reactors
Below is an article published in the Washington Post by Brian Palmer on September 14, 2010. Palmer is a freelance writer, but Palmer's credentials are not specified in the article. The article is replete with inaccuracies, over simplifications, and contradictions. I reprinted the entire article for easy reference; then following his reprint I commented on some of the issues I have with his assertions.
You can also see what Knight Science Journal Tracker at MIT has to say about this article.
You can also see what Knight Science Journal Tracker at MIT has to say about this article.
Miniature nuclear reactors might be a safe, efficient source of power
By Brian Palmer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010; E01
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010; E01
Take a mental stroll through the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. City hall is on your left, the movie theater on your right. Smell the delights from the bakery. And in the distance, there's the gentle steam plume billowing from the cooling tower of the miniature nuclear reactor that powers the quaint little burg.
Not your idea of Americana? Wait a decade or two. The government and its private partners are developing reactors that one day might power your home town.
Not long ago, siting a nuclear reactor anywhere near a population center would have been unthinkable. While the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown didn't cause any deaths or injuries, it soured Americans on nuclear energy. Construction of new reactors came to an abrupt halt. The dramatic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, meanwhile, created widespread fear that another accident could be even more disastrous.
Then along came carbon dioxide. Writing in The Post in 2006, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html> Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who sailed on the group's first protest against nuclear weapons testing in 1971, noted: "More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power."
Greenpeace considers Moore a turncoat, and he's not the only one to be tossed out of the environmental establishment for pro-nuclear heresy. Hugh Montefiore, an Anglican cleric who was a stalwart in the movement, was forced to resign from the board of Friends of the Earth in 2004 for advocating nuclear power as a tool to combat global warming.
Back in the mainstream
Today, supporting nuclear power as a green alternative is quite mainstream. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama> advocated "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants." In February, the administration offered to guarantee a loan <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html> for construction of the first nuclear plant to be built in the United States since the 1970s. The same month, billionaire Bill Gates gave his backing to the nuclear power renaissance, investing $50 million in TerraPower, a nuclear power research company that is hoping to design a new generation of reactors.
The question for many has shifted from whether to build nuclear plants to where and how. And increasingly there's interest in the idea of mini reactors: power plants that provide energy for only a small area.
When nuclear scientists talk about the size of a reactor, they're talking about maximum electrical output, not square footage. The world's largest reactors generate 1,455 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1.5 million households. A program being run by the Department of Energy is focusing on models that would produce about 300 megawatts, enough for Knoxville, Tenn., according to Dan Ingersoll of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They may go even smaller, producing 50-megawatt reactors that could power small towns or even individual work sites, such as mines, that may be located far from the main energy grid.
Think locally
There are virtues to local reactors. If a reactor powers only one community, it can be built close to the end users. Between 4 and 10 percent of the electricity produced by U.S. power plants vanishes as it travels through power lines on its way to users. Building smaller plants and putting them closer to population centers could cut that figure significantly.
And doing so can save on construction costs as well. "It's getting very difficult and very expensive to lay new transmission lines," says Ingersoll. "This offers the possibility of providing isolated communities with power."
Believe it or not, living near a nuclear reactor may be safer than living near a coal-fired plant, which spews a host of dangerous chemicals into the air. The only visible emissions from a reactor is steam; the spent fuel is more of a byproduct. (More on that later.).
What about radiation, you ask? The ash coming from a typical coal plant carries plenty of radiation: According to some estimates, <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste>it carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding area than a nuclear reactor producing the same amount of energy.
Smaller reactors might also be cheaper than their bigger siblings, according to Ingersoll. It costs a lot of money to build a gigawatt reactor (i.e., one that produces 1,000 megawatts), in part because it has to be put together on-site, one piece at a time, by expert welding crews. In today's larger reactors, all of which are being built outside the United States, the reactor vessel -- that's the cylindrical vault in which the fission takes place -- is about 90 feet in diameter, much too large to be shipped overland in one piece. Reactor vessels for mini-plants would be as small as about 10 feet across and could be loaded onto a train or maybe even onto the bed of a trailer. Once the pieces get to the site, they can be bolted together with far less manpower and equipment.
Small reactors can also be daisy-chained together as a city grows. Consider this: Today's typical 1,000-megawatt reactor can power a city of about a million homes. What happens when the population grows by 20 percent? A second big reactor would be expensive and unnecessary. Smaller increments are more manageable.
A big 'but'
Not convinced? You're not alone. Opponents point out that small reactors don't begin to solve the most worrisome aspects of nuclear energy: dangerous waste and the potential that the fuel could be used to build a weapon.
When you remove used-up fuel from a reactor, it's incredibly hot and very radioactive. The spent rods are moved into a concrete-encased pool, where they spend years cooling off. Eventually, they should be moved to a long-term storage facility, but one doesn't exist yet. (No one wants nuclear waste stored in their state.) As a result, there are more than 50,000 tons of uranium soaking in pools next to U.S. reactors, waiting for a permanent home.
As for the risks of nuclear proliferation, it's hard to separate generating nuclear power from building nuclear weapons, because the first few steps of the process are nearly identical.
Uranium can take several forms, which differ based on the number of neutrons in the nucleus. When miners pull uranium from a mine, more than 99 percent of what they get is U-238, which isn't all that useful for either power or weapons.
Today's nuclear reactors want the slightly lighter U-235. So the uranium ore is hauled off to enrichment plants, which keep pulling U-238 out of the sample until 3 to 5 percent of what's left is U-235. At that point, the sample can power a reactor.
"But you can use the same enrichment plant and just keep putting the stuff through over and over again until you get into the 90 percent range," says nuclear scientist John Gilleland, who runs TerraPower. "At that level, you can pipe all that stuff together and make a bomb."
Since you use the same ingredients, equipment and processes to create reactor and bomb fuel, countries such as Iran, which is suspected of having nuclear-weapons ambitions, can plausibly tell the world they're enriching for power-generation purposes for a long time before their true intentions are undeniable.
Many also fear that a nuclear cooling tower might look like a bull's-eye to a terrorist. The towers on small reactors would be narrower and shorter than those at big plants, since most of the reactor can be buried. While there has never been an attack on a nuclear plant, it remains a concern.
If it works . . .
TerraPower, the venture that has received Gates's backing, is working to develop a system that will solve some of the problems with today's nuclear reactors. Its "traveling wave reactor" would be powered almost completely by fuel rods containing depleted uranium, the concentrated U-238 that enrichment plants throw away after extracting U-235. (TerraPower plans to start with a 500-megawatt reactor, but it could be scaled smaller or larger as needed.)
Here's how it would work: A tiny amount of U-235 is introduced and split open, releasing a whole bunch of neutrons. The depleted uranium in the fuel rod absorbs one of the neutrons. The resulting form of uranium soon decays into plutonium, a very potent fissile material. When more neutrons strike the plutonium, huge amounts of energy are released, as well as some more neutrons to keep the reaction going.
The "traveling wave" term is fitting because this process starts at one end of the fuel rod and creeps slowly forward, burning up the U-238 as it goes. The progression could take as many as 60 years, another major advantage of the new reactor. Traditional reactors have to be stopped, opened and refueled every 18 months or so.
If it works, a traveling wave reactor would probably be cheaper than a similarly sized plant running on enriched uranium, since its fuel would be so plentiful. The United States has about 775,000 tons of depleted uranium sitting in steel cylinders in Paducah, Ky., Portsmouth, N.H., and Oak Ridge, Tenn. In the long run, countries would no longer be able to disguise their bomb factories as power plants, because running a reactor with enriched uranium wouldn't make economic sense. And the world could stop mining uranium, a process fraught with political and environmental hazards. According to Gilleland, there's already enough depleted uranium to satisfy the power needs of 10 billion Americans for 100 millennia.
So what are the chances a nuclear reactor will soon join the skyline of New Orleans, a city that's about the right size for TerraPower's envisioned 500 megawatt plant? It will probably all come down to economics, says Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental think tank focused on the future of energy.
Lovins thinks that proponents of nuclear power are missing the bigger picture: The issue isn't whether nuclear energy can be made safely, it's whether it is the best option among the many sources of energy available.
According to Lovins, small modular reactors, whether based on traditional or traveling wave technology, are doomed to fail simply because the other options are cheaper. He notes that only one-third of the cost of nuclear power has anything to do with the reactor core. The majority of the cost is the steam-turbine machinery needed to convert the heat into electricity.
Even if small modular reactors are cheaper to assemble and the depleted uranium is free, he argues, nuclear will never be able to compete with wind and solar power, which also rely on free fuel but require far less capital investment.
The race for America's energy future is coming to a town near you. Will it be windmills or cooling towers? It all depends on the dollars and cents.
Hyperion, a New Mexico-based manufacturer, has said it plans to start delivering 25-megawatt reactors, which are about the size of a garden shed and cost around $25 million, in 2013. The first units will probably be installed in Eastern Europe. A few other companies, including Toshiba, are applying to the federal government for the right to build small reactors. And Oak Ridge's Ingersoll targets 2020 as the earliest date a U.S. city might come online.
Palmer is a freelance writer based in New York and a regular columnist for the Health and Science section's How and Why column.
As mentioned in the MIT article reference above, the vision of miniature nuclear reactors as presented by Palmer as Anytown, USA has been around for 50 years or more. I remember in Elementary School reading in the Weekly Reader about small power generators using nuclear materials being used to power shopping malls, small towns, and the like. To now say, 50 years later, that these mini-nuclear reactors are just decades away seems a bit pollyannaish. The problems with nuclear power in the USA are the Federal Government and radical environmentalism. Technology wise, the French, British, and Japan have and are showing that nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing are feasible. The only thing in the way of the USA for nuclear power is political will. With reasonable federal regulations, nuclear energy might be 'around the corner' in years, not decades.
Next, Palmer discusses in his article the Three Mile Island accident. He says that accident "soured Americans on nuclear energy." That is not exactly true in my opinion. Three Mile Island did scare lots of people, especially in the Dauphin County area near Harrisburg, PA; but what Three Mile Island really did was energize the environmental radicals within (mainly the Environmental Protection Agency) and outside (Palmer cites Greenpeace) of the federal government. The environmentalist pushed for and got oppressive environmental regulations, and then challenged every single Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit application throughout the regulatory process and in the courts. The cost to the Nuclear Power Industry was staggering. Add to that the cost of unionized construction contracts, and the cost of building a nuclear plant was simply no longer profitable. Quite simply, the federal government suffocated nuclear power construction in the USA.
Then a change of pace by Palmer to a reversal by some environmentalist who came to the revelation (some 30 years later) that fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide and nuclear power doesn't. No problem with that analysis, but then Palmer says that "carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change." Well, Mr. Palmer is wrong on two counts. First, as we are well aware of at this time, global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, or what ever else you want to call it is somewhat 'up in the air' right now with ClimateGate and some note scientist now saying they aren't so sure about global warming at this point. Also, carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is responsible for 36% to 70% of the greenhouse effect (ref. cause-and-effect-for-global-warming). Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. Controlling carbon dioxide emissions in reality would have limited impact on the greenhouse effect, and no one, not even the USA Federal Government can control water vapor emissions since most water vapor comes from the oceans, lakes and rivers the world over.
Palmer then touts President Obama's support of nuclear power in his 2010 State of the Union address. Palmer further cites Obama's offer of a government loan guarantee for the first nuclear plant to be built in the US. What Mr. Palmer doesn't say is not one meaningful thing has changed in the US regulatory system to expedite the approval and construction of nuclear power plants in the USA. Also, Mr. Palmer doesn't mention that there is a significant shortage of nuclear engineers and other professionals with nuclear experience. With the decline in nuclear plant construction, students transitioned to other fields. It will take years to train a US workforce capable of building and operating nuclear power plants (no matter what their size). Mr. Palmer's vision of a nuclear Anytown USA is simply a pipe-dream until the federal government makes some significant changes.
Mr. Palmer implies in his article that there is a link between Bill Gates invested $50 billion in a company named TerraPower and miniature nuclear reactors. But then later notes that TerraPower's initial plan is a 500 megawatt reactor. Then he surmises that the TerraPower reactor could easily be scaled up or down. At best this is a convoluted analysis of the future of miniature nuclear reactors. If it was only as easy as Palmer suggests, why hasn't someone already done it?
Palmer next goes off on another tangent writing about cooling towers at nuclear plants being a terrorist target. As the MIT article referenced above notes, whether the cooling towers are large or small makes no difference to potential terrorist. After all, it's all a matter of how accurate your aim is. But more to the point, blowing up a cooling tower would at worst shut down the nuclear plant from operating until they could rebuild the cooling tower. Safety systems would shut the reactors down, and release of nuclear material would be highly unlikely. Not much of an argument for building small reactors over mega-reactors.
Palmer notes that nuclear energy 'Opponents that small nuclear plants don't begin to solve the most worrisome aspects of nuclear energy: dangerous wastes and the potential for the use of the fuel could be used to produce weapons.' Palmer notes that radioactive wastes should be moved from their temporary storage location to a permanent waste disposal facility, but a permanent facility doesn't exist, because no one wants waste stored in their state. Well, Mr. Palmer is wrong on both counts, but for different reasons.
First, a permanent storage facility does exist. The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars (about $10 billion) constructing and attempting to permit a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. Much of the money was spent attempting to address unreasonable environmental requirement and challenges by opponents. One such unreasonable requirement was to prove that the waste would be stable for 10,000 years. Now think about that, and use a little common sense. President Bush was on track to open the Yucca Mountain facility, but Congress delayed approval until President Obama took office. President Obama at the urging of Senator Harry Reid cancelled the Yucca Mountain facility purely for political reasons.
Second, saying that 'no one wants waste stored in their state' is simply ridiculous or uninformed. Why? Because, as noted in Palmer's article, current practice is to move spent fuel rods from the reactor to temporary storage in cooling basins which are located at the power plant in the state where power plant is located. That means the waste is already being stored where no one wants it to be stored. And it is being stored in a less-safe condition than it would be in the permanent facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. In addition, energy consumers (you) have been paying a tax on your power bill for decades to pay for storing waste at Yucca Mountain. And even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, you are still paying the tax.
Third, It is my opinion that 'opposition's' mention of the fuel cycle enrichment and plutonium production might be used in weapons production is and always has been a 'red herring.' Any government intent on producing a nuclear weapon can do so given the proper equipment and qualified personnel. That was basically the conclusion of John Gilleland of TerraPower in Palmer's article. And if the 'opposition' was really as concerned as they seem about the US using reactor material for bombs, where are they on Iran building a nuke from their 'power plants?' Face it, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, as North Korea has demonstrated and Iran soon will demonstrate.
All in all, Palmer's article was on par with the one I read in Weekly Reader some 50 years ago. It seems not much has changed in nuclear energy in those 50 years mainly because the federal government has gotten in the way of progress of the nuclear industry, and many other things in our lives.
As mentioned in the MIT article reference above, the vision of miniature nuclear reactors as presented by Palmer as Anytown, USA has been around for 50 years or more. I remember in Elementary School reading in the Weekly Reader about small power generators using nuclear materials being used to power shopping malls, small towns, and the like. To now say, 50 years later, that these mini-nuclear reactors are just decades away seems a bit pollyannaish. The problems with nuclear power in the USA are the Federal Government and radical environmentalism. Technology wise, the French, British, and Japan have and are showing that nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing are feasible. The only thing in the way of the USA for nuclear power is political will. With reasonable federal regulations, nuclear energy might be 'around the corner' in years, not decades.
Next, Palmer discusses in his article the Three Mile Island accident. He says that accident "soured Americans on nuclear energy." That is not exactly true in my opinion. Three Mile Island did scare lots of people, especially in the Dauphin County area near Harrisburg, PA; but what Three Mile Island really did was energize the environmental radicals within (mainly the Environmental Protection Agency) and outside (Palmer cites Greenpeace) of the federal government. The environmentalist pushed for and got oppressive environmental regulations, and then challenged every single Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit application throughout the regulatory process and in the courts. The cost to the Nuclear Power Industry was staggering. Add to that the cost of unionized construction contracts, and the cost of building a nuclear plant was simply no longer profitable. Quite simply, the federal government suffocated nuclear power construction in the USA.
Then a change of pace by Palmer to a reversal by some environmentalist who came to the revelation (some 30 years later) that fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide and nuclear power doesn't. No problem with that analysis, but then Palmer says that "carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change." Well, Mr. Palmer is wrong on two counts. First, as we are well aware of at this time, global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, or what ever else you want to call it is somewhat 'up in the air' right now with ClimateGate and some note scientist now saying they aren't so sure about global warming at this point. Also, carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is responsible for 36% to 70% of the greenhouse effect (ref. cause-and-effect-for-global-warming). Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. Controlling carbon dioxide emissions in reality would have limited impact on the greenhouse effect, and no one, not even the USA Federal Government can control water vapor emissions since most water vapor comes from the oceans, lakes and rivers the world over.
Palmer then touts President Obama's support of nuclear power in his 2010 State of the Union address. Palmer further cites Obama's offer of a government loan guarantee for the first nuclear plant to be built in the US. What Mr. Palmer doesn't say is not one meaningful thing has changed in the US regulatory system to expedite the approval and construction of nuclear power plants in the USA. Also, Mr. Palmer doesn't mention that there is a significant shortage of nuclear engineers and other professionals with nuclear experience. With the decline in nuclear plant construction, students transitioned to other fields. It will take years to train a US workforce capable of building and operating nuclear power plants (no matter what their size). Mr. Palmer's vision of a nuclear Anytown USA is simply a pipe-dream until the federal government makes some significant changes.
Mr. Palmer implies in his article that there is a link between Bill Gates invested $50 billion in a company named TerraPower and miniature nuclear reactors. But then later notes that TerraPower's initial plan is a 500 megawatt reactor. Then he surmises that the TerraPower reactor could easily be scaled up or down. At best this is a convoluted analysis of the future of miniature nuclear reactors. If it was only as easy as Palmer suggests, why hasn't someone already done it?
Palmer next goes off on another tangent writing about cooling towers at nuclear plants being a terrorist target. As the MIT article referenced above notes, whether the cooling towers are large or small makes no difference to potential terrorist. After all, it's all a matter of how accurate your aim is. But more to the point, blowing up a cooling tower would at worst shut down the nuclear plant from operating until they could rebuild the cooling tower. Safety systems would shut the reactors down, and release of nuclear material would be highly unlikely. Not much of an argument for building small reactors over mega-reactors.
Palmer notes that nuclear energy 'Opponents that small nuclear plants don't begin to solve the most worrisome aspects of nuclear energy: dangerous wastes and the potential for the use of the fuel could be used to produce weapons.' Palmer notes that radioactive wastes should be moved from their temporary storage location to a permanent waste disposal facility, but a permanent facility doesn't exist, because no one wants waste stored in their state. Well, Mr. Palmer is wrong on both counts, but for different reasons.
First, a permanent storage facility does exist. The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars (about $10 billion) constructing and attempting to permit a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. Much of the money was spent attempting to address unreasonable environmental requirement and challenges by opponents. One such unreasonable requirement was to prove that the waste would be stable for 10,000 years. Now think about that, and use a little common sense. President Bush was on track to open the Yucca Mountain facility, but Congress delayed approval until President Obama took office. President Obama at the urging of Senator Harry Reid cancelled the Yucca Mountain facility purely for political reasons.
Second, saying that 'no one wants waste stored in their state' is simply ridiculous or uninformed. Why? Because, as noted in Palmer's article, current practice is to move spent fuel rods from the reactor to temporary storage in cooling basins which are located at the power plant in the state where power plant is located. That means the waste is already being stored where no one wants it to be stored. And it is being stored in a less-safe condition than it would be in the permanent facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. In addition, energy consumers (you) have been paying a tax on your power bill for decades to pay for storing waste at Yucca Mountain. And even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, you are still paying the tax.
Third, It is my opinion that 'opposition's' mention of the fuel cycle enrichment and plutonium production might be used in weapons production is and always has been a 'red herring.' Any government intent on producing a nuclear weapon can do so given the proper equipment and qualified personnel. That was basically the conclusion of John Gilleland of TerraPower in Palmer's article. And if the 'opposition' was really as concerned as they seem about the US using reactor material for bombs, where are they on Iran building a nuke from their 'power plants?' Face it, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, as North Korea has demonstrated and Iran soon will demonstrate.
All in all, Palmer's article was on par with the one I read in Weekly Reader some 50 years ago. It seems not much has changed in nuclear energy in those 50 years mainly because the federal government has gotten in the way of progress of the nuclear industry, and many other things in our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)