@o: "What Happens Once the Oil Runs Out?
By KENNETH S. DEFFEYES
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR,
The New York Times
March 25, 2005
<url>
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed 
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information for research and educational purposes.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S hopes for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge came one step 
closer to reality last week. While Congress must still pass a law to allow 
drilling in the refuge, the Senate voted to include oil revenues from such 
drilling in the budget, making eventual approval of the president's plan 
more likely.
Yet the debate over drilling in the Arctic refuge has been oddly beside the 
point. In fact, it may be distracting us from a far more important problem: 
a looming world oil shortage.
The environmental argument over drilling in the refuge has often been 
portrayed as "tree huggers" versus "dirty drillers" (although, as a matter 
of fact, the north coastal plain of Alaska happens to have no trees to hug). 
Even as we concede that this is an oversimplification, we should also ask 
how a successful drilling operation would affect American oil production.
The United States Geological Survey has estimated that the Arctic oil field 
is likely to be at least half the size of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, almost 
100 miles to the west. Opening that oil field was like hitting a grand slam: 
Prudhoe Bay, which has already produced more than 13 billion barrels, is the 
biggest American oil field. (I was once at a party with a bunch of 
geologists from Mobil Oil when an argument broke out: who discovered Prudhoe 
Bay? Everybody in the room except me claimed to have done so.)
Unfortunately, you don't hit a grand slam in every at-bat. The geological 
survey estimates that the Arctic refuge could produce at least half as much 
oil as Prudhoe Bay. It is also possible, however, that the refuge could 
produce no oil at all - it often happens in the oil industry. At the other 
extreme, the upper range of the geological survey's estimate soars to 16 
billion barrels. Although the geologists at the survey are widely respected, 
the upper ranges of their petroleum estimates for the refuge have drawn 
criticism, sometimes expressed as giggles, from other petroleum geologists.
Despite its size, Prudhoe Bay was not big enough to reverse the decline of 
American oil production. The greatest year of United States production was 
1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough to raise 
American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge will probably 
have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but even the most 
successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be only a little bit.
But if the question of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is the wrong one, what's the right one? In 1997 and 1998, a few 
petroleum geologists began examining world oil production using the methods 
that M. King Hubbert used in predicting in 1956 that United States oil 
production would peak during the early 1970's. These geologists indicated 
that world oil output would reach its apex in this decade - some 30 to 40 
years after the peak in American oil production. Almost no one paid 
attention.
I used to work with Mr. Hubbert at Shell Oil, and my own independent 
research places the peak of world oil production late this year or early in 
2006. Even a prompt and successful drilling operation in the Arctic refuge 
would not start pumping oil into the pipeline before 2008 or 2009.
A permanent drop in world oil production will have serious consequences. In 
addition to the economic blow, there will be the psychological effect of 
accepting that there are limits to an important energy resource. What can we 
do? More efficient diesel automobiles, and greater reliance on wind and 
nuclear power, are well-engineered solutions that are available right now. 
Conservation, although costly in most cases, will have the largest impact. 
The United States also has a 300-year supply of coal, and methods for using 
coal without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are being developed.
After world oil production starts to decline, a small group of geologists 
could gather in my living room and all claim to have discovered the peak. 
"We told you so," we could say. But that isn't the point. The controversy 
over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue. The problem we 
need to face is the impending world oil shortage.
Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor emeritus of geology at Princeton, is the 
author of Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak. 
<url>"
    @abelard2: "On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:45:10 +0100, "oO" <email_address>  
  typed:
<quote>
so, we have another korley....
22 freds killed...
web site at <url> - news and comment service, logic, 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,290,611 document calls in year past
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny  roger rabbit"
    @o: ""abelard" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Your news-reader/server doesn't seem to be working. Seems like you are 
missing significant chunks of the posts. Here my friend I will repaste it 
for you:
What Happens Once the Oil Runs Out?
By KENNETH S. DEFFEYES
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR,
The New York Times
March 25, 2005
<url>
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S hopes for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge came one step
closer to reality last week. While Congress must still pass a law to allow
drilling in the refuge, the Senate voted to include oil revenues from such
drilling in the budget, making eventual approval of the president's plan
more likely.
Yet the debate over drilling in the Arctic refuge has been oddly beside the
point. In fact, it may be distracting us from a far more important problem:
a looming world oil shortage.
The environmental argument over drilling in the refuge has often been
portrayed as "tree huggers" versus "dirty drillers" (although, as a matter
of fact, the north coastal plain of Alaska happens to have no trees to hug).
Even as we concede that this is an oversimplification, we should also ask
how a successful drilling operation would affect American oil production.
The United States Geological Survey has estimated that the Arctic oil field
is likely to be at least half the size of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, almost
100 miles to the west. Opening that oil field was like hitting a grand slam:
Prudhoe Bay, which has already produced more than 13 billion barrels, is the
biggest American oil field. (I was once at a party with a bunch of
geologists from Mobil Oil when an argument broke out: who discovered Prudhoe
Bay? Everybody in the room except me claimed to have done so.)
Unfortunately, you don't hit a grand slam in every at-bat. The geological
survey estimates that the Arctic refuge could produce at least half as much
oil as Prudhoe Bay. It is also possible, however, that the refuge could
produce no oil at all - it often happens in the oil industry. At the other
extreme, the upper range of the geological survey's estimate soars to 16
billion barrels. Although the geologists at the survey are widely respected,
the upper ranges of their petroleum estimates for the refuge have drawn
criticism, sometimes expressed as giggles, from other petroleum geologists.
Despite its size, Prudhoe Bay was not big enough to reverse the decline of
American oil production. The greatest year of United States production was
1970. Prudhoe Bay started producing oil in 1977, but never enough to raise
American production above the level of 1970. The Arctic refuge will probably
have an even smaller effect. Every little bit helps, but even the most
successful drilling project at the Arctic refuge would be only a little bit.
But if the question of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is the wrong one, what's the right one? In 1997 and 1998, a few
petroleum geologists began examining world oil production using the methods
that M. King Hubbert used in predicting in 1956 that United States oil
production would peak during the early 1970's. These geologists indicated
that world oil output would reach its apex in this decade - some 30 to 40
years after the peak in American oil production. Almost no one paid
attention.
I used to work with Mr. Hubbert at Shell Oil, and my own independent
research places the peak of world oil production late this year or early in
2006. Even a prompt and successful drilling operation in the Arctic refuge
would not start pumping oil into the pipeline before 2008 or 2009.
A permanent drop in world oil production will have serious consequences. In
addition to the economic blow, there will be the psychological effect of
accepting that there are limits to an important energy resource. What can we
do? More efficient diesel automobiles, and greater reliance on wind and
nuclear power, are well-engineered solutions that are available right now.
Conservation, although costly in most cases, will have the largest impact.
The United States also has a 300-year supply of coal, and methods for using
coal without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are being developed.
After world oil production starts to decline, a small group of geologists
could gather in my living room and all claim to have discovered the peak.
"We told you so," we could say. But that isn't the point. The controversy
over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a side issue. The problem we
need to face is the impending world oil shortage.
Kenneth S. Deffeyes, a professor emeritus of geology at Princeton, is the
author of Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak.
<url>"
    @gazter: ""oO" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address>
<quote>
The oil will never win out, the price at the moment is more to do with 
global insecurity in the oil producing middle east, and the mischief of 
opec. In an open market the price of oil would drop.
But, as the demand of oil increases the price, areas that are known to hold 
oil, but are at present to expensive to process will come into play, and as 
the price increases, over alternatives come into play.
To worry about it running out, is to worry about the earth not turning. The 
marketplace is strong enough to sustain alternatives.
As oil prices increase cars will switch to cheaper fuels, and oil burning 
power stations will close, enabling the remaining oil to be used for other 
petrochemical products.
Gaz "
    @Wotan: ""oO" <email_address> wrote in message news:<email_address>
| What Happens Once the Oil Runs Out?
Global war."
    @ask4myemail: ""Wotan" <email_address> schreef in bericht 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
with sticks and stones. The tanks won`t run, the airplanes won`t fly ;o) "
    @QLPRRFMZDVLP: "On 2 Apr 2005 19:11:05 -0600, "Toby" <email_address>
 mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
[snip]
<quote>
Just so. My view exactly ...and the plateau is bumpy.
"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory
 ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands
 more police officers on the beat in our local communities."
...Tony Blair in opposition 1995.
<url>"
    @jamesd: "On 3 Apr 2005 11:10:03 -0500, "Toby"
<quote>
Nuclear power is amply sufficient to reliably supply
current energy demand, and the future increases of
energy command.
If you look at the usage curves for energy, you will see
that natural gas is displacing oil, and nuclear energy
is displacing fossil fuel energy in the same slow and
gradual way that other changes of energy usage took
place
Oil is not going to suddenly run out like going over a
cliff.  Past energy sources were more obsoleted than
exhausted, and the same is happening with oil. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     q0/KRYHNePAmdbcJ7vhiHH8PQJJXnyDZ3EVuzTFr
     4ROUNh3DnUhjMyjWwSodi4Rgi3RAvcpJB7K7gjJWH
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Remember you guys were predicting an oil collapse with
widespread mass starvation and economic collapse in
1970.   You have been singing this story every year for
the past forty years, with the noise volume rising and
falling with oil prices.
All of the major energy users do have nuclear power.
Many of them have responded to the current high price of
oil with plans to moderately accelerate their nuclear
power programs.  By the time the oil runs out, in fifty
or sixty years or so, *then* nuclear power will be
widespread and routine.
We don't need a crash program - we just need steady and
substantial expansion of other power sources, which is
in fact under way.
But the expansion of nuclear power plus the expansion of
natural gas, does correspond to oil exhaustion.
There is no imminent crisis, and the long term crisis
that our children will face is being dealt with by
measures that will come to fruition in our children's
time.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     xY9ZdNlTVDUkdb6MlUB2E1dLYMtDfpgx/zfkmF0c
     4LJGECgoxqbKzH+ub2C03jAk+aLgzW97vi0V5Eu69
<url>"
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
"Toby"
As with any new technology, other than medical 
technologies, the cost of nuclear power has been 
falling.
These days, nuclear power is competitive - in part 
because of very substantial cost reductions, in part 
because of onerous restrictions made on coal, due to the 
massive pollution generated by coal plants.  See 
<url> Today, the main 
competitor is natural gas, with considerably lower 
capital costs than nuclear, but much higher ongoing 
costs.
The big increase in the use of nuclear power will be
china, where they have plenty of coal, but coal related
pollution has reached intolerable levels. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     BkQGPOafOJW9p7Vsw0wQ0PPf5nYIQyYZNJzFx964
     48ke7aokiUP8XmqAFqC9+XKwIzFK3BDoXWBtpT5Sb
<url>"
    @zdftokyo: ""James A. Donald" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
We are, of course, disregarding hidden costs such as those to safely dispose 
of nuclear wastea problem still in search of a solution, and the costs of 
securing the fissile material against those who would use it for something 
other than power generation. Indeed, coal has huge hidden costs as well, in 
terms of damage to the environment.
There is ongoing research on carbon scrubbers, but as yet that is far from 
commercially viable, nor is there a good solution as to how to sequester any 
carbon captured. One promising avenue of research has to do with gasifying 
coal so that it can be burned in gas-fired plants. Still, safe nuclear power 
would be the ideal way to go as a bridge until hydrogen is ready. Hydrogen 
has innumerable advantages over nuclear in that intermittent renewables such 
as wind and solar can be used to create hydrogen as a means of energy 
capacitance, and hydrogen ultimately can be used both for power generation 
and in transportationwith almost zero pollution and no ionizing 
radiation...
Toby
China would certainly not be deterred by public protest as we are in the 
west, and they are working on new nuclear plants, but that has not stopped 
them from forging ahead with shoddy new coal plants as well.
Toby "
    @jamesd: ""James A. Donald"
<quote>
"Toby"
When you include nuclear waste disposal costs with coal
pollution costs, nuclear comes considerably cheaper than
coal.
Coal is only competitive if you include nuclear waste
disposal costs, and fail to include coal pollution costs
- an approach that has recently become unacceptable in
China.
You do not need to count carbon dioxide pollution as a
cost.  Even without counting CO2 as pollution, nuclear
still comes in cheaper than coal. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     if0Lsdt5awhHdtN2SYWroLJ5uzNbYriYUJDTxNiK
     47ZcGXnAau5dZVq0KJGYFF/9HRAlMfWFUCJ2wgdt3
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Why do we need a one world policy?  Let each one do what
is good in their own eyes.  Nuclear waste does not grow
legs and travel on its own, unless of course you launch
it into the high atmosphere with an atom bomb or a
raging out of control fire.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     sgyo5PtiPlJbIdVRuWY5ez6EL6WWqCXuhWZPq/W3
     4gdqCdG4k/BTa0NqI9/nK2WYztPWf/j1V0C17s7aq
<url>"
    @ocean: "<quote>
If your going to that expense... Just jettison it into the Sun.
It won't even cause a ripple there."
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
"Toby"
The Soviet Union made no big effort to dispose of its 
nuclear waste, dumping it in surface drains, in tips in 
remote places, in rivers, in heavily used harbors, and 
so on and so forth, and no one suffered from it except 
russians. Hence no need for a global police.  You might 
need water catchment police.  When everyone has their
own nuclear reactor, you definitely will need water 
catchment police, but you already need a water catchment 
police. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     Q48dioTgqZ2KxQcVyNE4vd08EQP06Y0l+qlkk/AJ
     4Rk2yZIDD/64hONM0MiZ7PYSMo97ijxF5NZmrBurm
<url>"
    @jamesd: "On 7 Apr 2005 18:36:38 -0700, <email_address> 
wrote:
<quote>
And no disaster ensued.
Most of the liquid high level nuclear waste from the 
Soviet Union's weapons program was poured directly into 
surface drains, into rivers that wind up into the sea, 
and into in sea itself.  Russia still dumps used 
unprocessed fuel rods directly into the ocean, though it 
no longer dumps liquid high level nuclear waste from 
processing so cavalierly.
Nothing very terrible ensued.  It was quite dangerous to
live near the dump point, but no hazard some distance
away. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     Z10l9KBx3A0ibQbO0EU84R64vxCic7mWS8IN/fWh
     44Fg/fD3v3Tvx/jpaY32/8A7bfx/C15H4rynSPHCI
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Because Russians, not the globe, are responsible for 
giving a shit about Russians.
Actually it was totalitarian rule - fundamentally 
different from mere authoritarianism.
Are you advocating a global police force to invade 
places that suffer  totalitarian rule?
I am not, because such a police force would necessarily 
become totalitarian, and would do to the whole world 
what the communists did to half the world. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     EDa+Q8b6erF1pyI9l5SVrSu0LbnaoAG3IkXqVv5P
     4lDKLvEWiXvep7WWnTou6GPhD77uuLxxEKLdyQpwx
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
For much the same reason as it does not permit Israel.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     rQKqQii0A/BMCywKyCbNEanqqgk5APwf8LNBOX3C
     4NB6LFN82b1l7GXY8HRmkKjtUBR2ljbfZd6pwq/J8
<url>"
    @jamesd: "On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:34:47 GMT, Gabrielle Rapagnetta
<quote>
But if America is already a global police force, it is 
not using safety and environmental threat as a political 
issue to justify intervention, and is only using nuclear 
proliferation as a justification where the rulers are
genuinely insane - no threats, or even any strong
criticism, about India and Pakistan getting nukes.
So use of nuclear energy for energy purposes does not 
lead to global intervention, neither necessitates it, 
nor is used as an excuse to justify it. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     ZGXdTAu3IE6Hjb8NbVqmKzWpqpBjDRBL9T0i9n1n
     4qrbb4CAjbsRGZWDYDmXXilfuoPfuzVaqy8s6Pe4M
<url>"
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
"Toby"
But no disaster is happening, was happening.  The
effects of the Soviet Union dumping high level waste
into the oceans are today undetectable, unless you
dredge stuff near the dump points, though it is still
hazardous to live near the land tips.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     czVj8VncXEN4O30iimAj1VXr+5KBuB19w9oLcCZk
     4im0mVNqaflhQg/t5Ek7V2Gges+jQ9pZQQBjUw24H
<url>"
    @jamesd: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta
<quote>
[deranged comments by Gabrielle deleted without reply]
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
As I said, no threats.
Reagan supplied military aid to Pakistan, which then 
passed it on to various holy warriors, some of which 
were known at the time to be genuinely insane.   After 
the Soviet Union hit the skids, the aid was stopped - in 
large part because of the Pakistani tendency to pass 
military aid to dangerous nutcases.
The apparent reason for cutting off aid was the 
Pakistani tendency to support dangerous nutcases.
But even if your version that aid was cut off because of 
mere proliferation was true, cutting off aid is far from 
"threats" and "globocop"
You appear to have conceded my version of events is 
entirely accurate.
James A. Donald:
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
We have an empirical test.  Your theory predicts 
invasion, bombing, or at least threats thereof, of
Pakistan, India, etc.  Not happening. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     HOoOQ3UKha8V/V7psT52YarsoLKD5m6EHtMhu8S+
     4J3vaSf2G240hokT73kA+ZBn2n6d4cjERu+C7a+yK
<url>"
    @farookdas: "On 8 Apr 2005 19:46:04 -0500, "Toby" <email_address> typed
furiously:
<quote>
All of you seem to be forgetting the actual quantity of waste which,
compared to the waste from a coal fired power station, is minute.
Sealing in glass or dumping into the ocean, preferably far distant
from any shore, or sending it into the Sun are reasonable, in my
opinion, alternatives. Nuclear power is certainly far safer than
having to live with coal dust and the other wastes from burning fossil
fuels. 
The Greenies have done a vast disservice to humanity with their
scaremongering tactics about nuclear waste.
David
Remove "farook" to reply
At the bottom of the application where it says 
"sign here". I put "Sagittarius""
    @jamesd: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta
<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
So where is the strong criticism?  I cannot recall the 
US president getting on his pulpit and uttering scary 
words about the matter.   Maybe he deputised the 
secretary of state to deputize some gopher to say that 
the US is terribly concerned.   That is a long way from 
"globocop".
"Strong criticism" is an elastic concept, but in the 
context that you are arguing that nuclear power 
necessitates, or is apt to be used to justify, a global 
police force, it would have to be mighty strong - the 
president on his pulpit, not the secretary of some 
secretary.
"Strong criticism" in the context of "threats or strong 
criticism" implies the kind of criticism that might 
conceivably precede war or armed hostilities, the kind 
of criticism that might provide support for your claim 
that nuclear power necessitates or is apt to be used to 
justify a global police force.
So the LA times says no threats or even strong 
criticism.  Thanks for doing my research for me.
To cut the long story short.   You don't get threatened 
that you will be arrested by globocop for building 
nuclear power stations.  You don't get threatened that 
you will be arrested by globocop for dumping high level 
nuclear waste into the ocean.  You don't get threatened 
that you will be arrested by globocop for building 
nuclear weapons even if some of your nuclear people are 
dangerous criminals.  You only get threatened that you 
will be arrested by globocop for building nuclear 
weapons if *you* are a dangerous criminal.
So nuclear power makes an unpersuasive case for a global 
police force.
But we have these problems right now, and they are not 
being so used. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     C9exMZLYrBSnmimE6xZVXQyMHHTjFyy8ldPoLjjv
     4GxM+i/maKyoSxaXUO2+Lrtqwl3lPSYk2t78uIlCd
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
"Toby"
But the harm that was done was and is primarily local -
a classic point source local pollution problem. If you
walk around with a geiger counter, the radiation level
will vary from point to point because of the tendency of
natural radioactives to stay put for millions of years.
Point source local pollution is best dealt with by
private property rights, not by global bureaucracies.
Some radioactives do tend to spread, particularly
caesium which is highly water soluble and strontium
which is somewhat water soluble, but most of them stay
put, and tend to adhere firmly to any mud or clay.  So
the problem should be dealt with by the people on the
spot.  We don't need national regulation, let alone
global.  This kind of thing should be best handled by
local courts and municipal zoning.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     gwLA7MSejb47JAcufzy26YgMfRtHE950wAyxGQoV
     4tHcHgopgSYLXwRlvTmvwtwcT4Psf1HaxOQb3kYPh
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
 <email_address>
Determining the observable consequences of a theory, and
thus subjecting the theory to a valid test, is hard to
do well, even if one is trying.  If, instead, one tries
to issue windy obfuscation .... 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     eJD6uNgsSsPCFOzWANOwE6tImPcTjyGAh167SSMe
     4XX6Zvo5Of7r043PLBmgrGJWjTfTM8xtaQcXCqi4Y
<url>"
    @jamesd: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta
<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Well thanks for agreeing that I was right and you are
wrong.
No, some nutcases in congress were screaming bloody
murder, but no one listens to them, least of all foreign
tyrants.
Rather, my argument is that no sane people dreamt that
invading Pakistan was on the table, or of using force to
stop people dumping high level radioactive waste at sea
was on the table, therefore nuclear energy does not lead
to dreams of a global police force.
If Belgium were to dump high level radioactive waste at
sea, this would certainly affect politics in the sense
that there would be a diplomatic chill - but it would
not lead to globocop arresting the president of belgium.
If Luxembourg were to dump high level liquid radioactive
waste off the beach where the president of France has
his summer home, the French president would probably
respond by getting the King of Luxembourg uninvited from
the usual head-of-state junkets.  This is indeed
politics, but it is far cry from globocop.
These were not justified by the excuse of nuclear power,
or nuclear waste, or even nuclear weapons, but by the
excuse of madmen with nuclear weapons.
If Belgium develops nuclear weapons and dumps the
resulting nuclear waste off the coast of Norway, it will
get a stiff diplomatic note, and should it persist, this
will escalate to a chilly diplomatic note followed by
the absence of invitations to diplomatic junkets.
James A. Donald:
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
You get threatened by globocop not for building nuclear
power stations, not for dumping high level radioactive
waste at sea near someone else's coast, not for building
for building nuclear weapons, but for building nuclear
weapons IF AND ONLY IF your leadership is demonstrably
insane.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     2rmzZucn/ImKAoi4+1Yi/2+8manTTDKFWhXrAA/M
     4uAo4tOdmLni5OnbtWQSrkEH3z+8g4vt9K7TDI6ka
<url>"
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
On 11 Apr 2005 07:48:02 -0500, "Toby"
Minimata bay should have been dealt with by the port
authorities.  Love canal was fine until a municipality
*confiscated* a toxic waste dump,  *built* stuff
including schools on the toxic waste dump, and DUG UP
THE DUMP for building purposes.  You cannot expect toxic
waste dumps to be made safe against being dug up by
government morons.   The world necessarily has sharp
edges, so government officials will always cut off
people's fingers.
Locals know what is going on. People in Washington do
not know, and do not care.  Who then is more likely to
sacrifice local interests to powerful distant lobbyists? 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     zNCdvmHD3LeExA5EFulx77CY9tqkOn/Iy8Iyw+xR
     47DaaOAOL7DlnLJZoSfSnmEbEY2qR7Ant6x72UIpj
<url>"
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
"Toby"
Your history is fantasy.   The local government acted
properly, the central government improperly -
unconstitutionally, arrogantly, and incompetently.
Indeed, murderously.
The correct solution to the Minimata problem was the
program that Chisso proposed from the very beginning:
Chisso should have paid, wanted to pay, fishermen to
stop fishing.  As with the love canal, the deaths and
suffering were a crime by the state, not a crime by
Chisso.
The government however promised everyone something for
nothing, and when inevitably this led to deaths and
suffering, proceeded to whack a scapegoat.
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     AEvNJOlO4oWUp13QrFCsPHCXaoLVBN5z5YsiPuei
     4BgyxvTO3yTzLSi7nmSBpwuidMM0hF+gBL/4dgF+I
<url>"
    @jamesd: "James A. Donald:
<quote>
Toby:
Your sources lie.  They are part of a campaign to defend 
the criminals - kind of like the claim that the Ukraine 
famine was caused by the kulaks and demonstrates the 
dangers and failure of private ownership of agricultural 
land.
It did not "give approval".  It confiscated the land for 
that purpose.   Hooker Chemical did not want anything 
built on that land, ever, and was not willing to sell 
the land, ever.   Hooker Chemical was paid ONE DOLLAR 
for love canal, and added a disclaimer to the deed 
saying the land was dangerous for human habitation.
It was the federal government that protected the real 
criminals, the municipality, from the consequences of 
their crimes. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     nucA+NXydxByLkoZlyphq64Gjh5UvdoTVjUeGiF2
     47U4bURDx83TWcKRRNGGy1yFR4gLpUKSTY9toS5Au
<url>"
    @jamesd: "<quote>
"Toby"
Surely the problem with love canal was too much 
regulation, not too little.  Hooker Chemical was doing 
fine, but were forced by the municipal authority, whose 
ass was in turn covered by the feds when the shit hit 
the fan.   The people closest to the problem, most 
knowledgeable about it, were doing the right thing. 
(seal the mess with impermeable clay and stand back)
and then arrogant violent people from far away, who knew
nothing, intervened. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     SBWsUHHeBWG3sBlaOmb2fvCSGp8LPVey+ozb13+q
     4XoXHF5Y73O6/8RBv13xxNpu+d4dEBiaStg/0dQBz
<url>"
    @zdftokyo: ""James A. Donald" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Wrong. Both the prefectural and nation administrations acted improperly. 
I've starred sections of this quote to point that out. Clearly the national 
government was bad, but the local administration was no better:
"From December 1953, case after case began to be reported from Minamata 
City, the company town overlooking the Shiranui (also called Yatsushiro) 
Bay, of people complaining of sensory disorder, such as numbness or loss of 
feeling in the arms or legs, inability to coordinate fingers, legs, hands, 
narrowing of the visual field, and stabbing pains in various parts of their 
body. Symptoms were more pronounced in the case of those who had eaten lots 
of fish and shellfish.
In January 1957, Minamata fishermen, putting together the increasing numbers 
of deformed fish with the outbreak of the "strange disease," suspected the 
effluent and asked the company to stop its emissions. While the Minamata 
health department was investigating it as an unexplained illness, 17 of the 
54 sufferers had already died.
"In February, a Kumamoto University research team warned that fishing should 
be banned. *In March, the first report of Kumamoto prefecture's Liaison 
Committee on Measures to Address the Strange Illness, held that the illness 
should be treated as something "unconnected with the factory." At the end of 
March, the scientific report of the Ministry of Health and Welfare referred 
to the effluent from the plant as suspect, and in July Kumamoto prefecture 
decided to apply health regulations to local marine products, but it made no 
public announcement.*
More than a year passed before it took the step, in August 1958, of issuing 
a directive recommending that fishing be suspended in Minamata Bay. In 
September of the following year, Chisso altered its system so that it began 
discharging its effluent into the Minamata River. Mercury contamination 
thereafter spread from Minamata City to the whole of the Shiranui Sea, and 
casualties grew.
In July 1959, a research group at Kumamoto University announced its view 
that symptoms of Minamata disease were caused by mercury poisoning and 
attention focused on mercury contained in the effluent from the Chisso 
factory. When doctors at Chisso conducted the experiment of giving cats 
effluent to drink, the cats developed the same symptoms as sufferers from 
the "strange disease" and died. Chisso did not make this outcome public.
<snip>
An editorial in the Asahi shimbun ("The state found guilty of neglect of its 
duty," 16 October 2004) sums up the situation:
"The spread of Minamata disease was due to the authorities of the national 
and prefectural (Kumamoto) governments folding their arms and ignoring it. 
Such was the judgment of the Supreme Court, which ordered the two 
governments to pay compensation. By holding that it was 'official 
negligence' that had failed to put a stop to the release of effluent from 
Chisso chemical company's plant, the judgment brought legal closure to the 
debate over responsibility that had continued for almost half a century ...
"The Supreme Court criticized the response to the disease on the part of 
MITI, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of 
Fisheries, and Economic Planning Agency during the late 1950s when Minamata 
disease became a problem. It was especially severe in its denunciations of 
MITI. That ministry put pressure on the Ministry of Health and Welfare, 
saying 'You must not find Chisso effluent to be the cause of the disease,' 
and it was blind to the fact that the water treatment system belatedly and 
grudgingly installed by Chisso Corporation was a sham that did not eliminate 
mercury.
*"Although the Kumamoto prefectural government was supposed to be close to 
the local residents, the judgment was also critical of its passivity. As the 
people of Minamata see it, this has been a half-century of constantly 
appealing to and constantly being given the cold shoulder by national and 
local governments. If they appealed to the local health department or city 
hall, they were treated like carriers of an infectious disease and forced to 
live their lives cringing before public opinion. If they went in a group to 
protest against Chisso they were blocked by riot police and arrested.* If 
they went up to Tokyo to call on the various ministries, nobody would meet 
them. When we pay taxes, do we not think that it is because, when it comes 
down to it, public organs will protect our lives and health? We cannot help 
thinking that public officials who saw the suffering of people whose bodies 
were wracked by mercury but did nothing for them were lacking in any sense 
of responsibility.
Toby "
    @jamesd: "<quote>
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
Does not follow from what I said.
Dangerous lunatics are apt to get into trouble
irrespective of the existence of a globocop. 
    digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     60gJuy1B1J7krsY/n7FxOrtoCFDmJ+8zHZxjBWGw
     4CTi/eZcik9W2dLMZ4jBFa2mmhcf3KvJP9tP7DTUw
<url>"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 31, "forum_name": "alt.conspiracy.20140604.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.conspiracy.parquet'}