> A bump to replace the spam bs.

> Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

>.80 You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> but they are reading =)

> Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> (pun) sooner if not later

> On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> but they are reading =)

> Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> (pun) sooner if not later

> On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

> we need to stop sending hundreds of billions to terrorist countries
> who want to see us die and fall. solar is still not economically sound
> but things are changing. why nuclear is off the table is totally
> beyond me..

> On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > but they are reading =)

> > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > (pun) sooner if not later

> > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

> Cant wait for this sucker stock to hit 80 cents again... will scoop it
> up and ride the wild ride from Nov 1st to end of yr and do it all
> again in 2010!

> On Jul 7, 5:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> >.80 You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > but they are reading =)

> > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > (pun) sooner if not later

> > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> 80 cents again, I'll sell my house, my car, and maybe my wife to go
> all in... (OK, I'll sell my wife first, on a second thought..)

> On Jul 7, 6:53 pm, frank8 <happys...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Cant wait for this sucker stock to hit 80 cents again... will scoop it
> > up and ride the wild ride from Nov 1st to end of yr and do it all
> > again in 2010!

> > On Jul 7, 5:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >.80 You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > > but they are reading =)

> > > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > > (pun) sooner if not later

> > > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> we need to stop sending hundreds of billions to terrorist countries
> who want to see us die and fall. solar is still not economically sound
> but things are changing. why nuclear is off the table is totally
> beyond me..

> On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > but they are reading =)

> > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > (pun) sooner if not later

> > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

> Tarrah, I think you know why "niucliear" is of the table, but if you
> don't pay attention they almost make you believe they are going for
> it, they are not!

> The present administrations politicians are no different than past
> politicians, there is no transparency, there is no clear policy, they
> make it as they go, they won't go nuclear because is a sore issue when
> it should not be. The people has been indoctrinated into believing
> that nuclear is bad (China syndrome, Three mile Island, Chernobyl))
> Everyone wants clean power but they don't want any signs of a power
> generation facility next door. They don't want factories next door (to
> noisy, stinky, dirty and unsightly),

> They want progress without signs of progress, or do they?

> With this iPod generation something does not compute, they do not
> comprehend what it takes to produce crops, to transport goods, to
> produce the vast amounts of power that this nation requires to keep
> all the homes warm in winter, and cool in the summer, the energy
> needed to get everybody to work, leisure travel and groceries
> shopping, ...etc.

> This generation believes in magic, or hope for the impossible and
> think that just by wishing it will make it true, to many Harry Potter
> movies?

> Spark-maker

> On Jul 7, 4:54 pm, Tarrah Bowen <tbowe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > we need to stop sending hundreds of billions to terrorist countries
> > who want to see us die and fall. solar is still not economically sound
> > but things are changing. why nuclear is off the table is totally
> > beyond me..

> > On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > > but they are reading =)

> > > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > > (pun) sooner if not later

> > > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

> ...Torta, the fartmaker,  the perpetual imbecile...
> The real costs of nuclear energy (expensive and dirty mining
> operations and nuclear waste storage) make nuclear energy as expensive
> as coal fired plants.

> Read more... talk less!

> On Jul 8, 8:56 am, sparkmaker <torta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Tarrah, I think you know why "niucliear" is of the table, but if you
> > don't pay attention they almost make you believe they are going for
> > it, they are not!

> > The present administrations politicians are no different than past
> > politicians, there is no transparency, there is no clear policy, they
> > make it as they go, they won't go nuclear because is a sore issue when
> > it should not be. The people has been indoctrinated into believing
> > that nuclear is bad (China syndrome, Three mile Island, Chernobyl))
> > Everyone wants clean power but they don't want any signs of a power
> > generation facility next door. They don't want factories next door (to
> > noisy, stinky, dirty and unsightly),

> > They want progress without signs of progress, or do they?

> > With this iPod generation something does not compute, they do not
> > comprehend what it takes to produce crops, to transport goods, to
> > produce the vast amounts of power that this nation requires to keep
> > all the homes warm in winter, and cool in the summer, the energy
> > needed to get everybody to work, leisure travel and groceries
> > shopping, ...etc.

> > This generation believes in magic, or hope for the impossible and
> > think that just by wishing it will make it true, to many Harry Potter
> > movies?

> > Spark-maker

> > On Jul 7, 4:54 pm, Tarrah Bowen <tbowe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > we need to stop sending hundreds of billions to terrorist countries
> > > who want to see us die and fall. solar is still not economically sound
> > > but things are changing. why nuclear is off the table is totally
> > > beyond me..

> > > On Jul 7, 2:48 pm, Jason <jason.w....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > You are absolutely right :) But it's kinda laborious for me to hang
> > > > with your ingenuity and erudition XD

> > > > But I do enjoy your monologue, so don't stop. People might not react,
> > > > but they are reading =)

> > > > Sure I am not happy with the short-term trend, but... we'll be green
> > > > (pun) sooner if not later

> > > > On Jul 7, 11:50 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > Can nothing replace the spam? These freeloaders polluting space with
> > > > > their gimmicks are frustratingly omnipresent. Let's at least comment
> > > > > here intelligently to maintain some refuge.

> It is always so refreshing to see intelligent and pertinent comments
> here. I will try to add to this.

> Nuclear energy is the dirtiest and most dangerous form we are
> currently inflicting upon ourselves. It was an ill-conceived idea back
> in a period where certain planners put blind faith in the ability of
> the future to find a solution to decommissioning and radioactive waste
> storage. As with all such expressions of belief, it has proved
> unreliable. So, if and when humanity wakes up to the possibilities of
> alternatives that do not pollute the environment and exploit the
> population, nuclear energy will be put aside and considered in its
> true light; an idea whose time never came.

> It's good to read intelligent, rational comments like yours,
> moi_johndavid!

> On Jul 8, 11:06 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > It is always so refreshing to see intelligent and pertinent comments
> > here. I will try to add to this.

> > Nuclear energy is the dirtiest and most dangerous form we are
> > currently inflicting upon ourselves. It was an ill-conceived idea back
> > in a period where certain planners put blind faith in the ability of
> > the future to find a solution to decommissioning and radioactive waste
> > storage. As with all such expressions of belief, it has proved
> > unreliable. So, if and when humanity wakes up to the possibilities of
> > alternatives that do not pollute the environment and exploit the
> > population, nuclear energy will be put aside and considered in its
> > true light; an idea whose time never came.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Umm Let me see if i can try the intelligent route... Use baking soda
> on spent nuke rods it works on everything! I love nuke stocks the are
> pumpers and dumpers just like the green, and bio whatevers... ESLR is
> a penny stock that shouldn't even be up in the 2's... so, sell ur wife
> and trade-up for a hooker when this puppy runs back into the .80 cent
> area.. then jump back on the green bubble late Nov until it can be
> done over and over again. Green is a bubble... that's it! and you fake
> f-ers with your itelligent and insightful comments are part of the
> bubble machine! Wish u really did mean what you say... would be nice
> for our kids and grand kids. Liers!

> On Jul 8, 12:18 pm, Carona <joecar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's good to read intelligent, rational comments like yours,
> > moi_johndavid!

> > On Jul 8, 11:06 am, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > It is always so refreshing to see intelligent and pertinent comments
> > > here. I will try to add to this.

> > > Nuclear energy is the dirtiest and most dangerous form we are
> > > currently inflicting upon ourselves. It was an ill-conceived idea back
> > > in a period where certain planners put blind faith in the ability of
> > > the future to find a solution to decommissioning and radioactive waste
> > > storage. As with all such expressions of belief, it has proved
> > > unreliable. So, if and when humanity wakes up to the possibilities of
> > > alternatives that do not pollute the environment and exploit the
> > > population, nuclear energy will be put aside and considered in its
> > > true light; an idea whose time never came.- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Debunking The French - US Nuclear Power Comparisonhttp://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/debunking-french-us-nuclear-p...

> "The U.K. energy expert said that, not only is nuclear power in
> France, Finland, and Great Britain now plagued with problems, but
> almost nothing that is positive about the experiences in those nations
> would translate to the United States. Thomas is the author of "Areva
> and EDF: Business Prospects and Risks in Nuclear Energy" (March 2009)
> and the co-author of "The Financial Crisis and Nuclear
> Power" (February 2009)...

> "For example, the mistaken notion that the United States need only
> copy the 'French model' on nuclear power is particularly bizarre. The
> two main French entities in nuclear power - Areva and EDF - originally
> were and remain today largely branches of the French government. They
> are directed as a matter of state policy and have benefited from
> extremely favorable government financing and credit assurances. To
> duplicate this experience in the United States, you would essentially
> have to nationalize your electric utilities and have all new power
> plant siting decisions emanate from the White House."

> When you get tired of being insulted by some lunatic, intelligent
> discussion not longer works, since you believe that nuclear power is
> bad as well, then the French must be insane to!

> <cut>
> “Why the French like Nuclear Energy
> by FRONTLINE producer Jon Palfreman
> Civaux in southwestern France is a stereotypical rural French village
> with a square, a church and a small school. On a typical day, Monsieur
> Rambault, the baker, is up before dawn turning out baguettes and
> croissants. Shortly after, teacher Rene Barc opens the small school.
> There is a blacksmith, a hairdresser, a post office, a general store
> and a couple of bars. But overlooking the picturesque hamlet are two
> giant cooling towers from a nuclear plant, still under construction, a
> half-mile away. When the Civaux nuclear power plant comes on line
> sometime in the next 12 months, France will have 56 working nuclear
> plants, generating 76% of her electricity.
> In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even
> popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region
> was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the
> area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear. From the village
> school teacher, Rene Barc, to the patron of the Cafe de Sport bar,
> Valerie Turbeau, any traces of doubt they might have had have faded as
> they have come to know plant workers, visited the reactor site and
> thought about the benefits of being part of France's nuclear energy
> effort.
> France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973
> and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil
> shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed
> a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came
> from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural
> energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are
> very poor and virtually exhausted.
> French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy
> independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few
> pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city
> for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive
> national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years
> France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and
> even exporting electricity to other European countries.
> There were some protests in the early 70s, but since then (with one
> important exception discussed below), the nuclear program has been
> popular and remarkably non controversial. How was France able to get
> its people to accept nuclear power? What is about French culture and
> politics that allowed them to succeed where most other countries have
> failed?
> Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at
> the Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he
> says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being
> dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the
> Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted
> that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the
> question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas,
> no coal, no choice."
> Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of
> large, centrally managed technological projects. And, he says, they
> are popular. "French people like large projects. They like nuclear for
> the same reasons they like high speed trains and supersonic jets."
> Part of their popularity comes from the fact that scientists and
> engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many
> high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as
> scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United
> States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are
> often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many
> have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic.
> According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread.
> "For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become
> was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers
> and our scientists and we are confident in them."
> Thirdly, he says, the French authorities have worked hard to get
> people to think of the benefits of nuclear energy as well as the
> risks. Glossy television advertising campaigns reinforce the link
> between nuclear power and the electricity that makes modern life
> possible. Nuclear plants solicit people to take tours--an offer that
> six million French people have taken up. Today, nuclear energy is an
> everyday thing in France.
> Many polls have been taken of French public opinion and most find that
> about two-thirds of the population are strongly in favor of nuclear
> power. It's not that the French don't have a gut fear of nuclear
> power. Psychologist Paul Slovic and his colleagues at Decision
> Research in Eugene, Oregon, discovered in their surveys that many
> French people have similar negative imagery and fears of radiation and
> disaster as Americans. The difference is that cultural, economic and
> political forces in France act to counteract these fears.
> For example, while French citizens cannot control nuclear technology
> anymore than Americans, the fact that they trust the technocrats that
> do control it makes them feel more secure. Then there is need. Most
> French people know that life would be very difficult without nuclear
> energy. Because they need nuclear power more than us, they fear it
> less.
> Civaux baker Jacques Rambault, admits that this technology is
> potentially dangerous and needs skillful management. As Chernobyl
> showed, the Russians, he says, were not "up to the task. But the
> French scientists and engineers are." For other citizens, rubbing
> shoulders with workers at the plant has made this once exotic
> technology an everyday thing. Many other risks concern them more.
> Madame Schoumacher, who has lived in Civaux most of her life, says "I
> would be much more frightened living next to a dam [France has about
> 12% hydroelectric power] or getting into her car in the morning."
> Others like bar owner Alain Cauvin cite "mad cow disease as being much
> scarier than nuclear power.
> Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American
> technology. After experimenting with their own gas-cooled reactors in
> the 1960s, the French gave up and purchased American Pressurized Water
> Reactors designed by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant
> the 56 plants were much cheaper to build than in the US. Moreover,
> management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any
> incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the
> other 55 plants. The "return of experience" says Mandil is much
> greater in a standardized system than in a free for all, with many
> different designs managed by many different utilities as we have in
> America.
> Things were going very well until the late 80s when another nuclear
> issue surfaced that threatened to derail their very successful
> program: nuclear waste.
> French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be
> much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling
> their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and
> fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced
> the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. The volume of
> the ultimate high-level waste was indeed very small: the contribution
> of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder
> the size of a cigarette lighter. It was assumed that this high-level
> waste would be buried in underground geological storage and in the 80s
> French engineers began digging exploratory holes in France's rural
> regions.
> To the astonishment of France's technocrats, the populations in these
> regions were extremely unhappy. There were riots. The same rural
> regions that had actively lobbied to become nuclear power plant sites
> were openly hostile to the idea of being selected as France's nuclear
> waste dump. In retrospect, Mandil says, it's not surprising. It's not
> the risk of a waste site, so much as the lack of any perceived
> benefit. "People in France can be proud of their nuclear plants, but
> nobody wants to be proud of having a nuclear dustbin under its feet."
> In 1990, all activity was stopped and the matter was turned over to
> the French parliament, who appointed a politician, Monsieur Bataille,
> to look into the matter.
> Christian Bataille resembles the French comedian Jacques Tati. His
> face breaks into a broad grin when asked why he was appointed to this
> task. "They were desperate," he says. "In France, executive power
> dominates much more than in Anglo-Saxon countries. So that if the
> Executive asks parliament to do something it means they are really at
> the end of their ideas."
> Bataille went and spoke to the people who were protesting and soon
> realized that the engineers and bureaucrats had greatly

> Do we need to point out as well that no energy source is more limited
> than the reserves of uranium?

> Do we need to point out as well that no energy source is more limited
> than the reserves of uranium?

> As for France, yes, they have had a very successful program as a
> result of extremely high levels of technology and care. Unfortunately,
> this has engendered the idea that nukes can be safe. The bar has thus
> been lowered as regards the distribution of nuclear plants to
> countries that entirely lack the capacities of the French. Remember,
> it is not a question of whether or not there will be accidents with
> irrevocable consequences; it is really only a question of when and
> where.

> On Jul 8, 12:37 pm, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Do we need to point out as well that no energy source is more limited
> > than the reserves of uranium?

> And there is that little problem of extraction waist in the form of
> radio active tailings.  4+million tons sitting on the banks since WW2
> leaching into the Colorado river, Moab Ut.   Not a blade of grass has
> grown on or near it or in places down stream where it has settled from
> the river.

>  Oh ya... there is that little multiple x the national average of
> cancer in the area. - The Clean up was delayed until just this year do
> to Bush cutting the funding out ear marked back in 2002. (don't
> acknowledge it and it isn't there).

>   At least there is the benefit of weaponry as a by product or is it
> the other way around?  It is hard to follow the BS
> sometimes.............And just because S. Utah is a fragile
> environment uniquely beautiful to anywhere else in the world does not
> mean you can't destroy it in the name of keeping the profit stream
> going from through burining finite resources.
> Hey our Pro Jazz basket ball team plays in the Nuke center -
> Environmental Solutions arena (Nuke waist storage shipped in from
> every other state company)

> "We have a dandy place for your waist out by where we keep the
> Indians"   - and depending on the wind it's no big for the rest of the
> good folks.

> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2009/2009-05-06-094.asp

> On Jul 8, 12:37 pm, moi_johndavid <moi_johnda...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Do we need to point out as well that no energy source is more limited
> > than the reserves of uranium?

> > As for France, yes, they have had a very successful program as a
> > result of extremely high levels of technology and care. Unfortunately,
> > this has engendered the idea that nukes can be safe. The bar has thus
> > been lowered as regards the distribution of nuclear plants to
> > countries that entirely lack the capacities of the French. Remember,
> > it is not a question of whether or not there will be accidents with
> > irrevocable consequences; it is really only a question of when and
> > where.