From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Atheist "philosophy"
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Distribution: world, public
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:02:48 CST

[lots of crap on enviornmentalism]

Some people who seem so intelligent in most ways, accept blindly what
a small number of people who frequently are not accepted as reputable
claim.  First of all, yes, CO_2 is a pollutant that traps heat, and
yes CFC chains do have the property of breaking down O_3 (ozone) which
also happens to be a pollutant.  Did ya know that?  A few interesting
facts that enviornmentalists frequently don't tell you.

Using the breeder reactor design, nuclear power is the most efficient, and
least dangerous source of energy per kilowatt hour.  Instead of dumping
on nuclear, look at an oldie that everyone knows is really bad, coal.
Coal produces many more tons of various pollutants, including Sulferic
compounds, CO_2, etc.  It causes numerous job related injuries and deaths
in the mining of the coal, and diseases related to it.  It is also not
a highly efficient method of getting energy, though it is far better
than Solar.  Solar is the least efficient method of gathering energy
known.  There is a method of determining the _optimum_ amount of
energy available from a source of power.  The optimum (which we are nowhere
near) is less than the efficiency we have on most power sources.
Solar is a way over estimated source of power simply because it doesn't
produce enough power to do anything large scale.  Old stat (about 10
years old): It takes about 2.5 square miles of solar cells generating
electricity to produce sufficient electricity to power the average home
in America.  Nice stat huh?  (Can't remember the title, it was a book
I read in prepping for a debate in middle school on sources of power.)
Another note of interest: many people point to Chernoble as an example
as to why nuclear power should not be used anywhere in the world.
However, the reactor design used on the Chernoble reactor used graphite
shielding, an outdated design.  What happened there is that the
graphite became radioactive and caught fire, the US reactors use heavy
water as a shielding and a coolant.  So, if the coolant leaks, the
reaction stops as their is no moderator to facilitate the reaction.
The biggest problem with nuclear reactors is not the technology for
safety.  The technology exists, I have seen many a report on it, the
problem is that the Atomic Energy Commision doesn't approve most improvements
on waste storage, etc.  Another fact, more radiation is absorbed by a person
watching two hours of TV each day, than is absorbed by living 1 mile from
a modern reactor.  BTW any of you students from big colleges glow yet?
Just curious.  If you don't know what that is referring to, try asking
around about your schools test reactor.  Many schools have one.  Michigan
however had its reactor shut down for 10 years.

Wind:  Nowhere near as bad as solar, but similar problem remains, you need
a large open space and it is not very reliable.  Well, if you place it
in Madison, that isn't very true but... :)  I approve of it for small
uses, just like solar is great for small uses.  Solar for heat storage
is a more sensible idea than electricity.  Never try to use solar for
something much more powerful than your calculator.  

Geothermal, Suppossed to create much noise pollution, ask around for
someone from Iceland about that.

New Idea: Tidal generators.  Work on tidal action, fairly new idea, haven't
heard of an operational one yet, but is regular as clockwork.  Doesn't
stop up a river like a dam does.  Maybe not as effective as a dam, but it
is much less enviornmentally impacting.

Non power: Ozone.  How long has the ozone hole existed?  Noone can answer
because noone knows!  It could have existed for centuries.  How do you
create ozone?  Shine UV light on O_2.  What does ozone shield against?
UV light!  Nice isn't it?  Yea, CFCs need to be more controlled, but
the enviornmentalists aren't telling us everything.  Am I suppossed
to reject religion and then turn around and accept everything the
enviornmentalist claims without question?  Sounds like I am to reject
one religion for another.

That covers most of the biggies.  The enviornment is a touchy issue because
the opposing side has been so effectively oppressed.  I heard of one
show that presented the opposite side.  Everyone who saw the show agreed
that they did a very good job of refuting the basic tenants of the
enviornmental panic claims.
:)M^2

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic