[Vision2020] Nuclear waste in Idaho is apparently less contentious than megaloads

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 8/5/2014 7:42 PM, Scott Dredge wrote:
> Megaloads are opposed by many as you might have seen here on the viz 
> (Linwood Laughy, tribes) along with several other comments criticizing 
> those who are doing their jobs of running Port Wilma.  If you want 
> specific links, I'll find them in the archives for you.
>
> I haven't seen any articles on anyone protesting nuclear waste in 
> Idaho except for this one from over 20 years ago:
> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911013&slug=1310794
>

Since there has been, and likely will continue to be for quite some 
time, nuclear waste in Idaho as a result of decisions made much longer 
ago than twenty years, and since there has not been a governor or 
legislature within Idaho inclined to listed to any anti-nuclear protests 
for two decades, potential protesters have understood that the 
likelihood of favorable results from protest effort are unlikely.

> It might be apples and oranges considering megaloads is a somewhat 
> local issue whereas nuclear waste is yonder across the state.

Have you considered the possibilities of building a leaking nuclear tank 
farm southwest of Idaho Falls that leaks its effluent into the Snake 
River drainage?  With all of those glow-in-the-dark goodies co-mingled 
with the agricultural additives in the same northwesterly flow stream, 
the local analytical chemists won't have to search very far for exotic 
samples for lab exercises, will they?

If Moscow and Pullman were of a mind to ask the Federal Congress for 
some financial assistance to build a shared pipeline and pumping 
facilities to enhance the local aquifer with Snake River water, the 
purification problem just got a whole lot more chemically complicated 
and financially fearsome.

> Of course the supposed 'ruining of the environment' in and around that 
> Alberta tar sands is even further away and in a different country but 
> that gets thrown in the mix due to the local megaload issue.

Short-sighted nonsense.  In the case of the Alberta tar sands, the 
relevant "local environment" is Planet Earth.  Global warming includes 
the entire biosphere, including all the Moscows everywhere.

The fact of the matter is that the solar energy incident on the state of 
Texas in one month exceeds the entire energy content of all the 
petroleum products ever produced in that state.  Solar energy 
development producing electrical power for many uses should be being 
more aggressively pursued, making fraking Alberta unnecessary.

> It's sort of like when a public defender throws everything against the 
> wall in hopes that one juror will see something that sticks (sorry I 
> couldn't resist).

This list generally dispenses with grammar grannies and apostrophe 
police, and, apparently, inanity nannies, too.


Ken

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140806/47b430e7/attachment.html>