April 29, 2009
-
WCFQ 45c: It’s a dirty bird
There are so many things I could choose for this question… DDT, the internal combustion engine, preservatives, hair spray, Styrofoam, organized religion, genetic manipulation… but I’ll go with the big one most people would choose… I wish Einstein had never invented the splitting of the atom in all its terrible permutations. No nuclear energy and no atom bomb.
Though some people might argue that nuclear fission has done a lot of great things for people, from preventing wars through the existence of the theory of mutual annihilation to nuclear power plants which provide energy as well as employment for thousands (millions?), it is only because most people think in the short term, rather than taking the long view of the ultimate ill that nuclear power does to the environment and mental health.
When I was small, I sincerely thought that the world would be blown up by Reagan… so why bother learning what they had to teach me in school? I haunted the libraries and collected books on plants and wilderness survival. You know… the important stuff. I became a preserver of lost lore before the lore could be lost. I filled my head and my shelves with books that might save lives if I was not one of the fortunate ones who died in the initial fiery holocaust of WWIII. Every president after Reagan (with the exception of Clinton), only served to cement my belief that the world would end, thanks to short sighted men and religious zealots. I still think if we and our world are doomed, it will be by our own hands, not some indifferent patriarchal deity of a faith I don’t follow. Oh yeah, republicans scare me.
Beyond my fear of imminent nuclear destruction, the slow poisoning of our environment through our dependence on nuclear energy is also an issue that weighs heavily on my mind. I’m not sure what the turn around rate is on nuclear waste, how often it is exchanged and the waste buried, but I do know that it takes thousands of years for the waste to be safe. Regardless, it is buried in inadequate storage around the country where it may leak into ground water due to the poor state of the concrete bunkers in which it is squirreled away like toxic acorns. And to think, there are people who want to build more nuclear power plants. We need more wind farms beside highways and solar panels on every new building, and I don’t know… mini hydro-electric dams in all the drains… not more toxins in our environment!All inventions which create waste should be designed in such a way as to have a use for the waste. Every lamp/light fixture should be equipped with a panel to absorb some of that radiance back as energy. Every washer/dryer should come equipped to reabsorb some of the kinetic/heat energy expended. I think you can see where I’m going here. Living in a “throw away” society is bad enough, but throwing away energy is just ignorant. And expecting Mother Nature to clean up all our messes is not only short sighted, it’s irresponsible.
It’s a dirty bird that fowls it’s own nest.
April 29th
This is the second day of Floralia.
On Pagan Tree Day, plant a tree dedicated to your favorite god/dess.
Comments (10)
I couldn’t agree more. Of everything humans have invented, weapons of mass destruction was definitely the dumbest–and there have been some inventions! I know the creators did it in order to save the world from Hitler and all that, but still. One would think someone would say, “Hey, is this really a good idea?”
And Albert Einstein would definitely agree with you, too. “The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking… the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”
Off-topic: I found this blog entry and thought parts of it might be of interest to you.
@heidenkind - Interesting article. When I read “you’re actually engaged in the most common (and possibly oldest) business there is” I thought er what, prostitution? lol
I couldn’t agree with the writer more on the subject of hardcover vs paperback print though. I do collect some authors in hardcover, but most of my books are paperback. Most people who come into a store are looking for paperback. A year (standard time it takes) is simply too long to wait for a book to go to paperback, and if it is immensely popular like Da Vinci Code was, it takes much longer. I think Da Vinci Code was five years. In other words, the publishers intentionally and blatantly gouged people who wanted to read the book but got sick of waiting. Cheating the customer is not a good business plan either. People aren’t stupid. Burn them often enough and they’ll find other forms of entertainment.
@harmony0stars - It
LOL Sorry, but
would be lovely if they actually started reversing the print order to
paperback and then hardback. I love books, and I know some
bibliophiles only consider “real” books to be hardcovers, but
paperbacks are cheaper and way more convenient. It’s a pain to lug a
hardback around. One time on a blog, I made some comment about how the
only way anyone would buy a hardback book is if they were independently
wealthy or they really, really couldn’t wait to read the book and
didn’t have a library card. Someone responded (I assume from the
publishing industry), “You are going to hell.”
by buying a hardback I’m paying out more money and getting less
convenience, so why would do that for anyone but authors I absolutely
love?
Great post. And, I absolutely agree with you on this. I still prefer to use my Amish, wooden laundry drying stand/hanger.
I’ve discovered that another tenant in this apartment building likes to do the same. Woohoo!
@heidenkind - That would be the best way to go. They could have double the sales in some cases. People would buy the paperback to see if it’s worthy of buying in hardback.
@Broom_Service - It really would, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. The publishing industry loves its hardback books.
I agree with you on how we’ve become a ‘throw away’ society but I respectively disagree with you on the nuclear aspect. For one, fossil fuels pollute much more than waste from nuclear power plants ever have. It is true that nuclear energy has the potential to pollute more but it is a proven technology. Navy ships and submarines have been using nuclear reactors to power their ships for 40-50 years with no major accidents. Another thing I would point out is nuclear energy, if used correctly, has the potential to affect the environment less in the long run with minimum waste disposal sites. Did you know that what is happening to a rod of uranium (or plutonium) when it is “burned” is that it’s mass is converting to energy. When a rod is replaced it is not because all the mass has been used up but rather that impurities have arisen. It is possible to reprocess spent fuel, take the impurities out, and use it again. Conservative estimates are that one fuel rod could, with today’s technology, burn longer than half a millennia. That would mean that we wouldn’t have to throw fuel away or make any new fuel, which means significantly less waste to store. It is not without its risks, but I think it is worth it.
@Altered_Sight - If you noticed, I also included the internal combustion engine on my list. I’m not overly fond of fossil fuel usage either. And it was not just nuclear energy I was against, but also the splitting of the atom for the purpose of war. As for nuclear waste, I don’t recall the name of the magazine (could have been National Geographic or Time), but there there are dozens of sites across the country where nuclear and other toxic wastes are being stored and they are not secure. Most of them are filled past capacity and leaking. Now I’m not against nuclear energy per se… all the sun is is one vast nuclear generator, but we have to protect ourselves from the sun’s energy or worry about skin cancer, and we have to consider how those in charge of getting rid of toxic wastes are going to try to cut corners and dump in a way that is convenient and cheap for them to do so so that they can make more money. In that light, nuclear energy is just not worth the risk.
@harmony0stars - You are absolutely right; with that I whole-heartedly agree. The reality of the state of nuclear energy and storage is not a flattering one; I was merely pointing out that it could be done in a way that would protect us and the environment from harm. Saddly politics and fear mongering have crippled scientists efforts to solve the problem. All of are nuclear power plants are several decades old and the commited focus to find some safe way of containing or disposing of the nuclear waste has been abandoned as a serious, well funded research area. Nuclear is a dirty, frightening word to most people. Imagine what would have happened had we not decided nuclear energy was too controversial to continue pursuing. Our nuclear energy infrastructure would be modern and well maintained, much research would have been done on safe operation and waste management, and we would be significantly less dependent on oil. Of course there are drawbacks, you have listed some of them. But each road we take is not without its risk.