Billionare spends millions in Campaign donations to poison the Ogallala Aquifer with nuclear waste

page: 4
72
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

You want to know what would happen if it were up to me?

I'd close ALL the nuke plants down. It's only a matter of time before we have a Chernobyl/Fukishima here. There is nowhere really safe to put nuclear waste, so we should stop producing it, period. That includes weapons. We already have a stockpile big enough to pave half the planet.

So put that it your blunt and smoke it, fools. You think you know me? You do not.


i dont know you much myself, but you do realize youre a liberal when it comes to nuclear energy/weapons.
im just giving you #.

look at how big the Ogallala Aquifier is. it runs from my state of iowa to your state of nm. why the hell even chance it. anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.




posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I'm a conservative, and I support the 2nd Amendment. That being said, if I were on a jury of someone putting a bullet into this guy's head, I'd vote "not guilty".


So you would be useless on a jury.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   
So the guy wants to expand the sort of toxic materials stored at his dump...... including "Depleted Uranium"?

Hang on a minute! Is that the same depleted Uranium we have been liberally spreading over half the planet in wars of conquest for the corporations and banks for many years? The same depleted Uranium that, according to the "experts" and politicians, is completely safe and no danger to anyone, including our own troops who are operating in areas where it has been used. Is this the same stuff they are talking about?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Now imagine how much radio active material has been dumped into the Pacific Ocean and atmosphere as a consequence of the Fukushima disaster. What are they not telling us ? Probably, a lot !



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
".....A bunch of kids who have no idea how things actually work......"

"I'd close ALL the nuke plants down. It's only a matter of time before we have a Chernobyl/Fukishima here. There is nowhere really safe to put nuclear waste, so we should stop producing it, period. That includes weapons. We already have a stockpile big enough to pave half the planet."


The worlds leading high pressure high temperature gas and condensate production platform has recently suffered a blowout. Those who imagine or claim they know how things actually work always make excuses when they lose control of the project they started. See the totalelgin youtube channel for a clear example of this behaviour. We're all kids with no idea how things actually work.

Decommissioning nuclear plants is going to be very much more expensive and difficult than supposedly knowledgable people have claimed. The New York Times report this....

"The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling. If it turns out that they must close, the owners intend to let them sit like industrial relics for 20 to 60 years or even longer while interest accrues in the reactors’ retirement accounts."

The effects of age make decommissioning much more complicated than the 'as new' conditions often used in the salesman's calculations. It's becoming increasingly obvious that steel and concrete don't work well together as building materials. Many concrete constructions are showing signs of dangerous weaknesses that weren't anticipated. This nuclear waste dump will suffer known and yet to be discovered ageing effects which will release waste into the aquifer. Gravity and rain cannot be stopped. The waste will be dangerous for an enormous span of time. Contamination would be a certainty if large scale dumping was allowed to happen.

There is a time for activism.........



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
What good is all that money and power if theres no more planet to live on?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PlausibleDeniability
 


I was gonna reply and say the same thing but you did it better


Star for you



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Can someone tell me why this video of Rachael Maddow and company has just a little bit about Harold Simmons and his dump site and all the rest is about campaign contributions and who is who and who is giving what??

Are some of you catching on yet or are you still stuck on the drama queen puppet strings??

I want to know exactly where this site is located...I dont see that on the map..only the drama of the water table.

Is it above ground...below ground...or what ..where are the details..like you get of the Yucca Mountain Site??

I get very wary of such drama queen articles which start out on such a drama queen premise but then switch to another topic line..in this case ..campaign contributions. I call this type of drama...bait and switch.

This article is to me pure politics...under the guise of emotional drama having to do with the water table.

I've seen to much of this type of bait and switch to get excited over this.

Rachel...you people need more practice.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by buster2010
There's billions to be made damn the environment and the people that need the water to survive. This is one of the reasons why Obama stopped the XL pipeline from going through the same Aquifer because there is too much of a risk of contaminating the water.


I highly doubt that any environmental concerns were the reason Obama stopped a pipeline.


Why do you say that? It is exactly the reason. The Administration allowed other parts of the pipeline which do not go over the aquifer area to proceed.

You can argue every valid point with him, but it won't do any good, his avatar (AwakeinNM) "says it all".
edit on 9-4-2012 by RoyalBlue because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
More corperate welfare from the govt. Businesses that can't survive without government money need a new business plan. Sooner or later this government welfare needs to stop, the money is running out.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


Nasty. Could he be making a gamble that fast breeders are going to be part of the future?

See :-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Limbo



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by buster2010
There's billions to be made damn the environment and the people that need the water to survive. This is one of the reasons why Obama stopped the XL pipeline from going through the same Aquifer because there is too much of a risk of contaminating the water.


I highly doubt that any environmental concerns were the reason Obama stopped a pipeline.

So let's have some evidence that existing nuclear waste disposal sites are contaminating aquifers, since that's what they do.


Actually...this is one of those rare cases where no proof of radioactive contamination is necessary to still illustrate what a horrible idea this is. Here is the reason why:

The probability that a given system of any kind will fail is 100%...the only question is "when will it fail"? That is, whether or not the system is biological, mechanical, behavioral, climatic...whatever...you name it...the system will at some point in time fail to perform. Cells reproduce all on their own...but they don't do so endlessly. The slow down over time...if they didn't we would all be immortal. No matter how good or expensive of a car you purchase...it is doomed to eventually break down. The quality of the vehicle, your maintenance habits, and usage will all factor into how long this process takes...but rest assured even a 2012 Rolls Royce will likely not be in operable condition in 100-200 years...much less 5-10,000.

Thus, since we absolutely, categorically, and positively know that ANY type of waste containment system we build will ultimately fail...we ought to be DAMN careful where we put them. Given the super-long timeframes of radioactive half-lives the probability that this containment system will fail while the waste is still dangerous is basically guaranteed. Therefore...if we cannot live with the effects of the failure...perhaps we shouldn't embark upon the endeavor.

Historically the counter-argument has always been "Well...they can just take care of it in a thousand years when the facility fails". This is fine and great...except for when it isn't. The harsh reality is that humanity simply cannot predict the future with any sort of regularity. If we could..sports gambling wouldn't exist because everybody would have the winner of the next Super Bowl picked already...even before this years NFL draft.

Like it or not...we just don't know what tomorrow will bring. Japan has had a hell of a lot of earthquakes since Fukashima originally went online...but it was that one last year that really caused all of the problems over there. We would like to think we live in a world where another 9-11 is impossible...but that's just plain naive.

What happens if we put all of this nuclear waste which could conceivably irradiate the underground water supply for SEVEN DIFFERENT STATES for the next 100,000 years and a couple of lunatics crash a plane into it? Are we TOTALLY sure it won't leak...even if it's underground? What if a couple of terrorists smuggle a small nuke in and detonate it right on top of the facility? They can make a pretty damn big crater from what I understand.

Granted...no matter WHERE it is an event like that would be an ecological disaster. But do we REALLY want to put on top of the only thing that makes agriculture possible along the entire Easter border of the Rockies?

...It really just seems like we ought to come up with some better solutions for this.

Better yet...we should just stop producing the damn stuff. Nuclear fission is an obsolete technology anyways.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Nobody cared to look into this further? I believe this is in the Permian Basin near Andrews, TX.

1. WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) Eddy County, NM. ~90 miles to Andrews, TX.

2. Urenco/ETUS (Enrichment Technologies U.S., formerly Louisiana Energy Services) in Eunice, NM. Already completing cascades of centrifuges. ~70 miles to Andrews, TX.

3. International Isotopes slated to begin construction of the deconversion facility in Hobbs, NM. Company recently purchased equipment from the now defunct Sequoyah Fuels Corp.

4. Fracking is routine in this area, which is completely dominated by the Oil and Gas industry. Brine well collapses are happening here, in towns such as Carlsbad, Loco Hills, etc.

5. Potash mines.

6. Don't forget to think of the geological formations that are being used for these purposes, i.e. Caverns, of the Carlsbad variety, in Whites City, NM.

Can you say, a dollar short and a day late?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Okay, not that I am for this nuclear waste dump, but let's be a little sane for a moment.

How will this place contaminate an entire aquifer, exactly? Someone please explain how a nuclear waste storage facility is designed so that it deliberately pollutes an aquifer, which is basically the assertion of the propaganda presented, and the OP, for that matter.

Please - I'm listening.



Propaganda??? :

A.
Nuclear byproducts are extremely potent, for example 1 molecule expelling gamma radiation
is enough to give you cancer, just 1, you are done. You immune system cannot detect it
to eliminate it, so it will sit there turn good cells into cancer, over and over.

B.
A baseball sized chunk of material can pollute a massive lake and turn the entire lake into
radioactive water, it is such a small amount it would blow your mind.

C.
Water seeks water, which is, many small streams create large rivers, it is the nature of
water.


A.
Which is why it is stored in an area that is designed to store nuclear byproducts.

B.
That's why we don't throw nuclear waste into lakes.

C.
You're suggesting that the nuclear waste would simply be dumped into some kind of unlined pit to leach into the ground water? Is that what you're selling here?

Again - propaganda. Making it sound like this guy is just bulldozing metal drums into an unlined pit or something. How about some truth here?? Anyone?



The biggest problem comes when we cant build a storage place to house the nuclear waste that will last longer than the waste will.

est. time of waste breakdown 15,000 - 25,000 yrs.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mossme89

Originally posted by jaynkeel
It has become a sick sick world. There isn't much more I can add to it, we as a species cannot last much longer on this path.

Sad but true. We absolutely cannot continue down this path. We have so much corruption and injustice, and money is at the center of it. Humans either need to grow up and be less greedy/power hungry, or we need a just system without the use of money.


simple solution...ONLY 1 real human person can donate ONLY UP TO 1 thousand dollars a year to a political person(s), all donations must have the persons signature, thumbprint, and date of donation. anyone found in violation of monetary restriction, and/or falsifying identification, shall serve minimum 5 years in prison, no exceptions.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Okay, not that I am for this nuclear waste dump, but let's be a little sane for a moment.

How will this place contaminate an entire aquifer, exactly? Someone please explain how a nuclear waste storage facility is designed so that it deliberately pollutes an aquifer, which is basically the assertion of the propaganda presented, and the OP, for that matter.

Please - I'm listening.



Because Sh*& happens.

We can't predict how or when, but let's not create a Nuclear dump site next to an Aquafier that supplies a third of the country with water.

Sh*& happens..

Radioactive-waste leak at Hanford worst in years
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Radioactive waste leaking into Champagne Water Supply
www.greenpeace.org...

Water leaking from mound of radioactive waste near Port Manatee
www.heraldtribune.com...

Radioactive waste leaks at S.C. plant
www.upi.com...

Radioactive Tritium Has Leaked From Three-Quarters Of U.S. Nuclear Plants: AP Investigation
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Wee wee zis es maginifique almost!
worth the read

Why The French Like Nuclear Energy | Nuclear Reaction ...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french... - Similarto Why The French Like Nuclear Energy | Nuclear Reaction ...

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, ...



If you read the article you will find the French do better with nuke power than the US.

Not perfect but way better.

cheers ljb



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Toxic waste just needs to stop. There is no good place to put it. What this guy is doing campaign wise is rather blatant. We have reached the point where pretending isn't even necessary.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Perhaps government goons should black-bag pieces of sh** like this instead of innocent grassroots protesters who already have the crap end of the stick in life...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Okay, not that I am for this nuclear waste dump, but let's be a little sane for a moment.

How will this place contaminate an entire aquifer, exactly? Someone please explain how a nuclear waste storage facility is designed so that it deliberately pollutes an aquifer, which is basically the assertion of the propaganda presented, and the OP, for that matter.

Please - I'm listening.



Who said that the facility will "deliberately" pollute the aquifer? It will just pollute the aquifer when it inevitably fails.

As for how it could pollute the entire aquifer...ummmm...water is a solvent.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join