So who do we believe?
Posted by Heading Out on August 21, 2006 - 11:10pm
Q Thanks. Mr. President, what do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you're paying for that right now?The response seems to feed to the Saudi position that they have plenty of oil, if only we users would provide the refineries that could use it.THE PRESIDENT: I've been talking about gas prices ever since they got high, starting with this -- look, I understand gas prices are like a hidden tax. Not a hidden tax, it's a tax -- it's taking money out of people's pockets. I know that. All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil. That's not going to happen overnight. We passed law that encouraged consumption through different purchasing habits, like hybrid vehicles
-- you buy a hybrid, you get a tax credit. We've encouraged the spread of ethanol as an alternative to crude oil. We have asked for Congress to pass regulatory relief so we can build more refineries to increase the supply of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.
And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil is -- in a global market affects us economically here at home, and therefore, we need to diversify away as quickly as possible.
At the same time Darwinian and Totoneila draw attention to the strange case of the Shrinking Refinery. Apparently the BP Refinery at Texas City, which pre-hurricanes had a capacity of 460,000 bd, will no longer produce at more than 300,000 bd.
The article suggests that this might be a permanent downsizing. Given that one of the ways that the refineries have coped with increasing demand in the past has been to increase production at permitted refineries (as, for example we are seeing up in Canada, where the Syncrude Coker will come on line later this month, after being shut down, almost immediately after initial start because of a smell that it produced. With that re-start the production will increase, if my memory serves, by 100,000 bd. However, while similar expansion plans are in the offing for other companies in Alberta, here we see a refinery in Texas that is reducing the size of its operations.
There are obviously two different messages being given here, a public affirmation, and a less loudly stated lack of faith in the sustainability of oil supplies.
Unfortunately there is also a third, which confirms much of what has been said before about the difference between plans and reality. Both refinery stories show that the anticipated production dates slip, or can't be met, and that, as with the Thunder Horse platform, the production that could be anticipated, gets further delayed.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Bush said today that he would bring down gasoline prices by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude. "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply. Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot." Implicit in his comments was a criticism of the Clinton administration as failing to take advantage of the good will that the US built with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Also implicit was that as the son of the president who built the coalition that drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Mr. Bush would be able to establish ties on a personal level that would persuade oil-producing nations that they owed the US something in return.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/More_George_W__Bush_Budget_&_Economy.htm
The Saudi and Kuwaiti elite (Sunni) have large Shiite minorities---the Shia of Saudi Arabia all happen to be in oil producing areas---and really don't want Iran pressuring them and causing rebellious ideas among their disadvantaged minorities.
That's why they supported Saddam against Iran in the 1980s---that little invasion of Kuwait wasn't in the plan---and especially why they were against invading Iraq this time. Because they knew the Arab Shia would take over in Iraq and that would give other people "bad ideas".
:)
If it turns out, retrospectively, that Saudi Arabia still currently has excess capacity, and could open the spigot if they wanted (and who can say that they coudn't?)...
then this current "oil crisis" will be seen, by future historians, as due exclusively to the ineptitude and adventurism of the Bush administration.
For better or for worse!
Yet the President and many others believe the lie that they are deliberately cutting back on production because of lack of buyers. Hell, let them lob off about five bucks off the price and see how many buyers they have.
The Flip side of the coin says that the President is indeed well aware of PO and knows very well that KSA is "maxed out". After All Matt Simmons was apart of the President's energy counsel. Cheney was also in the loop. The President believes that any direct acknowledgement will trigger a panic. For one, such a speech would destablize the ME further, possiblity resulting in the overthrow of House of Saud that suddenly ends all KSA oil exports (eg 1979 Iranian revolution). That certainly would not be an improvement. The US now imports 60% of its oil from oversea. What do you think would happen if 10% to 25% of Oil imports disappear with in the next 30 days? Absolute chaos.
And so the strategy is to recognize that dependency upon crude oil is ....we need to diversify away [from crude oil] as quickly as possible.
All the more reason for us to diversify away from crude oil.
If refinery capacity is the real culprit, strong talk about diversification doesn't seem appropriate. In fact, he is a little tentative about the refineries.
we can build more refineries to increase the supply of gasoline, hopefully taking the pressure off of price.
Can we read this as simply saying: whatever the cause, there is no trusting oil-derived energy going forward?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51567
http://www.engineerlive.com/international-oil-and-gas-engineer/15986/saudi-arabia-signs-for-refinery .thtml
On the oil majors - here in the UK they are all closing down most of their gas stations. This means you have to drive miles to find an open gas station where now, owing to shortage (of gas stations), their are always queues. Supermarkets are now the main outlet for gas and the majors claim that it makes more commercial sense to sell gas station sites for real estate redevelopment. But you are left wondering if they don't know exactly what is going on - no gas to sell and drivers fighting at the pumps for supply?
Will Las Vegas' gas prices spiral out of control soon?
Nevada, which receives by pipeline all its FFs from California, will be capacity maxed in a year.
------------------------
The BP pipeline shutdown is "going to make a big difference in gas prices in Las Vegas over the next six months," Ortega said.
Southern Nevada's existing fuel pipelines from Colton are on pace to reach capacity within the next 12 months. Without new delivery methods, fuel shortages will soon follow as local jet and motor vehicle traffic grows an estimated 3 percent to 5 percent each year.
-----------------------
This article does a pretty good job outlining CA infrastructure problems.
-----------------
The report said four reasons caused California consumers to pay an extra $1.3 billion at the pumps from May through July:
- Refinery problems and unplanned outages lowered state gasoline production to the lowest levels in five years.
- California marine port congestion increased in late April, delaying the arrival of gasoline and diesel imports.
- Gasoline and diesel shipments to Nevada and Arizona were the highest in five years.
- Prices of materials used in gasoline refining increased.
It also said the number of unplanned refinery problems tripled to 175 for the first half of this year compared to 58 during the same time period last year. It said the refinery problems averaged 9.2 days this year compared to 5.3 in 2005. Also, it said dock congestion caused some tankers to take three to five days to unload compared to the usual one day.------------------------
from this CA Govt website
---------------
Crude oil production in California averaged 731,150 barrels per day in 2004, a decline of 4.7 percent from 2003. Statewide oil production has declined to levels not seen since 1943. In 2005, the total receipts to refineries of roughly 674 million barrels came from in-state oil production (39.4%), combined with oil from Alaska (20.1%), and foreign sources (40.4%).
---------------------------
Many pipelines in CA are fifty years old, much older than Prudhoe Bay. This article details the eroding public trust from corrosion.
------------------
The state, home to prolific oil fields that date as far back as 1899, has long been fertile ground for wells, refineries and gasoline-guzzling automobiles. That led to the construction of huge webs of pipelines to connect oil fields, refineries, storage tanks, ports, airports, military bases, offshore drilling rigs and more.
Today there are about 6,000 miles of active "hazardous liquids" pipelines in California, with most carrying crude oil or petroleum-based fuels like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, according to the state fire marshal's pipeline safety division, California's primary watchdog for that infrastructure.
Pipelines that carry natural gas are ubiquitous because they deliver the fuel to individual houses as well as power plants and other facilities.
California has more than 12,000 miles of the larger, long-haul transmission lines and 98,000 miles of distribution lines -- the smaller pipes that carry natural gas into neighborhoods -- according to the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department.
But many of California's pipelines are at least 50 years old, prone to corrosion and under threat from Mother Nature as well as backhoes and other kinds of human interference.
---------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Well the president's right. What would have happened if WE had started and stayed with it 3 decades ago? Would George W. Bush ever gotten even near the White House?
Soon, my precious, soon ....
So :
- There is a global shortage of refining capacity (or would be, in the hypothesis that world oil consumption is expanding / will continue to expand).
- The oil majors aren't building refineries. Yet they subscribe to the cornucopian thesis that there are at least thirty years of expanding oil production ahead of us.
- The Saudis are building refineries.
So, the oil majors, who are conservative investors, don't actually believe that there is 30 years' worth of oil production at rates exceeding the current production. They don't want to get stuck with plant that will run at capacity for 5 or 10 years, then get mothballed for lack of supply. The Saudis, on the other hand, need to sell their heavy, sour reserves, and are obliged to build their own refineries because nobody else is able to guarantee supply for long enough to recoup the investment.Is that about it?
Odd that the Saudis, who have such vast capacity, are looking at the Manifa crude and at bitumen deposits.
Iran 'fires on Romanian oil rig'
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/22/iran.romania.ap/index.html
What the h*ll is this all about?
19 August, AME Info - Romanian drilling company Grup Servicii Petroliere is threatening to take the Petro Iran Development Company to the International Court of Justice at The Hague in order to retrieve an oil rig which it claims has been seized in an act of piracy, reported Gulf News.
The Orizont rig has been in Iranian waters since the end of a contract in April. GSP says it has lost $70m due to the dispute.
Allow me to post a comment from a well used Ag board that was handed to me yesterday in a printout. This type of comment shows just about where most 'Merikans' are at here in the flyover and ,well most elsewhere in 'Merika' perhaps.
Thread was titled: "Does the average American understand this?"
********************
Dear Sir,
I think both you and MSB have good points. If I read correctly, you both are advocating conservation. MSB suggests governmental involvement to help push the idea. I do think the average American grasps the concept that placing lots of oil dollars in the hands of unstable foreigners isn't a smart thing. The thing with conservation is, who'll go first? As it stands now, the individual who continues to drive the machine that does a good job for him and provides safety on the road is behaving ratinally, even with today's fuel price. After all, if the SUV or 4WD dually is what you perceive as necessary, and you're paying the bills, then that's the end of the argument, isn't it? The alternative is to provide a bureacracy to determine your needs and you can't buy anything else. Ugh.
I would remind readers that our government's policies have already precluded the solution to much of what e81 has pointed out as the problem. We buy oil from others because we've prohibited production within our own nation. Is this smart?
We have the resources to supply nearly all our electricity with nuclear. We now get under 20% that way. Why? We've run about a hundred plants for over 30 years without mishap. (Oh yeah, Three Mile Island disaster--no one killed, no one injured, one very small release of steam that affected no one, and one big lesson: If the guys at the control panel, upon hearing the first alarm, had simply picked up their lunch boxes and departed the building, the damage would have been far less. (They actually turned off the main cooling pump, allowing the overheat.))
Having nearly destroyed the nuclear industry, we are now in the goofy position of building every new electrical generating plant using natural gas--essentially a bank of turboshaft jet engines driving generators. Why use our cleanest fuel to make something that can be made by either nuclear or our almost inexhaustible supply of coal? (Best estimates run around a two thousand year supply or so, right here in our own backyard.) If you prefer to worry about greenhouse gasses, then nuclear is your obvious solution. Either fits well for fixed-site electrical generation.
For travel and transportation, oil is ideal since it packs the most punch into a gallon and our infrastructure is already in place. But we're running out of oil, of course. Not so. World proven reserves in late 1990's was around 1.1 trillion bbls. Last year, world proven reserves was around....1.1 trillion bbls. Uh? Yep. Seems technology can recover stuff that used to be considered unrecoverable, plus there are new discoveries.
But that's world. How about within the US? Even better on the factual side. Not so good from the political side. We have oil right here in the US. We have even more offshore. However, our politicians have placed pretty much all new fields off limits. Why? Go ask them. Natural gas is even more plentiful. Enough for all the clean, efficient home heating you'd ever want for hundreds of years. But we don't drill for it and it's tough to build a pipeline anywhere to deliver it anymore. Why? I guess we'd rather give the money to someone else.
In addition, if you like oil, then consider the coal-to-oil conversion. The process has been around for over half a century, with Germany doing quite a lot of it as their natural oil reserves dried up. The leader today is...South Africa. They have plenty of coal and had an oil embargo for years, so they developed the largest industry for it. Looks pretty smart right now. Even easier is shale to oil. That's how Canada makes most of the oil they ship to the US for sale. Meanwhile, we let our coal and oil shale sit in the ground, off limits to development and give the money to somebody else.
I would suggest there is some merit to the tax subsidies for windmills. Having distributive power generating capability is of some strategic value and there is the feel good factor. I'd be nice if Ted Kennedy didn't throw a hissy fit when it's proposed in his favorite sailing area....
My point is, there is so much goofiness in our current policy that I just don't know where to begin. I've pointed out how we already have so much energy sources in so many forms that E81's problem can be solved quite easily. Politics seem to have interfered, so I'm not hopeful our government will undo the damage soon.
As to conservation, that already happens. Each individual makes decisions to conserve every time he adjusts the thermostat, turns a light switch on or off, buys a lightbulb, chooses a water heater, or chooses a vehicle. If you believe each person is acting rationally, then that person is choosing the level of conservation that fits that person's unique situation. One guy may have had some property stolen, and will choose to leave a 50,000 watt yard light on all night no matter what the cost. His neighbor, having experienced no theft, prefers darkness and rural solitude. If that's not the right answer for both, then who will be the bureacrat to say otherwise?
We already ration gasoline, and do it by the most efficient process ever devised--the market. The guy who thinks ahead, figures out how to combine two trips to town into one has just decided to allow supply to rise slightly. The next guy will stop at the pump and decide to pay the price for those gallons our thrifty dude didn't buy. Both are satisfied, having made a free choice. If we ask our government to "help" with the price, supply drops and we can once again enjoy those long afternoons getting acquainted with strangers while awaiting our turn in gas lines. Gas will be cheaper, it just won't be available.
Yep, I certainly agree with E81 that it's idiocy to import so much oil. It's doubly bad since we've done it to ourselves. I'm not sure how much more help we can stand from our government. I'll also admit I had hoped George would understand this threat and actually do something more about it. I understand there is some movement on the nuclear front, and Yucca Mt is continuing to be a viable long-term storage. Good grief, how long has that been going on? Not much else that I can see, but there's even more resistance from the Dems. Wish I had a better answer.
*******************
Please note that this is NOT my views.
It doesn't matter whether or not these are your views -- nobody is going to bite you.
Like many bore-of-the-year tracts of this kind ("I've got a pat solution to all your energy problems anf if people listened to me and had a bit of common sense then electricity would be too cheap to meter and the Murcan way of life could continue indefinitely honestly it's not as though you have to be a rocket scientist to understand all this it's blindingly obvious and a child of five could do it etc etc"), it combines a dollop of sense with a kilo of non-sense.
Actually the bit on nuclear power wasn't a no-brainer.
It's ironic that the Greens, thanks to their dogged and sometimes hysterical opposition to nuclear power, are at least partly responsible for skyrocketing fossil fuel consumption. Or to put it from a different angle: cheap fossil fuels allowed the general public to play the prissy princess in refusing to consider the only viable alternative, short-term, finite fuel with a slow depletion rate -- since AFAIK 'peak uranium' isn't scheduled for a couple of centuries in terms of both its economic and technical recovery potential.
But I'm going off-topic ... so finito for now
See The economics of oofle dust and more generally Why Nuclear Power Cannot be a Major Energy Source.
re Risk:
risk is relative -- the question is which energy source is safer. How many years of life lost per Gigawatt of energy generated? Something like that.
re quantity:
As in the case of oil, it's a question of the gap between the technically and the economically recoverable quantity that matters when it comes to estimating URR. Opinions differ. Here's an excerpt from a pro-nuclear fuel article (You'll find it here):
Though by the time of 'peak uranium', overshoot will probably have done away with most of us anyhow ...
Two plants are being built to carry out this process at existing enrichment sites at Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth Ohio. According to a recent report the Portsmouth plant is due for completion this year (Dec. 2006) and to start conversion in Nov. 2007
Obviously this idiot believes in abiotic coal to go along with abiotic oil.
With the gadzillions of BTU's that the sungod sends us every day this should be no problem for our solar powered mining equipment.
As one example, they have to add additional desulphurization capacity for over-the-road diesel (June 1, 2006, US market requires 0.015% sulpher for 80% of "road" diesel vs. 0.5% the day before). Even without changes in feedstock, additional space is required.
One solution, reduce capacity and take out oan lder distillation column that was near end-of-life anyway.
We are past Peak Light Sweet crude. If an oil company has a light sweet crude refinery with very limited space for expansion, the "obvious" choice is to reduce capacity rather than, say, build a parking garage and epxand onto part of the employee parking lot.
IMHO, the issue is more Peak Light Sweet crude (and OPEC expansion of heavy sour refineries) than a Global Peak Oil expectation.
Also, US refineries may be "de-emphasized" due to rising natural gas prices (today and expected future). Again, OPEC may expand heavy sour capacity as US shrinks light sweet capacity.
Watch that oil price.
Iran's formal position, that they merely want to control the entire nuclear cycle for electricity production, is both coherent and plausible on its face. They are conscious of the time limit on their oil reserves, and wish to be dependent on no-one in securing their energy future. Decades of pariah status do not incite them to confidence.
The nuclear-bomb subtext is also plausible and coherent. But nobody is claiming it's imminent (except perhaps Condoleeza "Mushroom cloud" Rice?). It strikes me that it's urgent to calm down and temporize some more.
It's unfortunate that both sides are presided by shiny-eyed brinksmen.
A PWR with high enrichment fuel were a quick to develop and good submarine reactor and then could the civilian industry use the basic design and research.
The power industry were comfortable with boiling water and handling high purity water. Handling salt melts is something completely new.
Its easy to service water based technolog. You can even etch and clean the internal surfaces of a BWR reactor vessel, use a simple radiation screen and then have people in anti-dust coveralls working with servicing the pipes in the bottom.
USA probably built an enrichmnet overcapacity during the early cold war.
Is this the Gordian knot of the affair? I hadn't thought that through before. Any country that has an autonomous civilian nuclear industry, automatically has a source of plutonium that can be converted (non trivially, but still) into weapons grade.
This is why the US et al want to control the Iranian nuclear fuel cycle (give them fuel rods then take them away when they are spent).
But this, whether or not they intend to make a bomb in 20 years' time, is unacceptable to the Iranians, because their supplies could get cut off at any time, for political reasons.
I expect that there are ways to control the neutrons to enhance the Pu 239 ratio. That would be a breeder reactor. But then it would seem this sort of reactor is not optimized for power production.
Anyway, I would love to get some more clarity on this. Is the plutonium in typical spent fuel actually usable as bomb material without isotopic separation?
Isn't it pretty nifty that the end product [Fluoride] of what they use {Fluorine} to enrich Uranium is dumped in our toothpaste and drinking water. It's also nifty how they hatched the idea during the Manhattan Project to protect the government from litigation because of the Sodium Fluoride that was released into the air and water and killed and crippled hundreds of people. You got to love a good PR campaign...
"The same potent chemical that is used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to prepare Sarin nerve gas, and wrestle molten steel and aluminum from the earth's ore is what we give to our children first thing in the morning and last thing at night, flavored with peppermint, strawberry, or bubble gum."
~Christopher Bryson, "The Fluoride Deception"
The majority of the "fluoride that is in your drinking water is Hydrofluorosilicic acid that is recovered from scrubbers at phosphate fertilizer plants. When the Hydrofluorosilicic acid is removed from the scrubbers it is considered Toxic waste by the EPA and would cost millions to dispose of. Instead they pump onto special rubber lined tankers and sell it to municipals to drip into your water supply
Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb
http://tinyurl.com/av3yj
This book will take you on quite a ride through the bowels of the Empire;
The Fluoride Deception
http://tinyurl.com/fobhg
Without the use of Fluorine, from Latin fluere (flow) or flux, and its inevitable fluoride compound byproducts modern industrial society couldn't exist.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry University of Toronto has also turned against Fluoridation:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."
~Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
==AC
High purity TiO2 is made from rutile ore by chlorination (produces TiCl4 or "tickle" as it's known in the industry) which eventually leads to TiO2. Can't do that with the ilmenite form, though.
Of all the deceptive, harmful, and dastardly things our government has done over the last half century, fluoridation is pretty near the bottom of my list. Mind you, I don't think fluoridation of potable water is a good idea; but at worst, I view it as no more than a misguided attempt to improve public health. It was not a Commie plot to destroy the health of American's :-)
I also think that some clarification regarding chemistry might be in order here. The risk posed by fluorine and its compounds greatly depends on what form we're talking about.
Elemental fluorine is a highly reactive and highly toxic gas. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is also pretty nasty stuff, as HF burns often result in tissue necrosis. The salts of fluorine, such as sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride are very stable chemically, though most exhibit various degrees of toxicity. Cryolite, a naturally occurring fluorine-containing mineral (Na3AlF6) is used as a flux in the electrolysis process of producing aluminum. It is only moderately toxic when in powered form.
In the uranium enrichment process, the uranium hexafluoride is spilt into an enriched (high U235 content) stream and a depleted (low U235 content) stream. However, chemically, they are almost identical.
The enriched stream is converted back to uranium metal by some sort of chemical reduction process and produces (I think) calcium fluoride as a byproduct waste. However, not all of the depleted fraction is converted back to uranium metal (probably due to cost considerations). As a result, there are (at least as of a number of years ago) large quantities of highly dangerous uranium hexafluoride still being stored in containers at various government facilities.
"I don't think fluoridation of potable water is a good idea; but at worst, I view it as no more than a misguided attempt to improve public health."
It doesn't take too long in researching Dr. Harole Hodge, Kettering Laboratory, and the Mellon institute to realize fluoridation had absolutely NOTHING to do with improving public health.
"It was not a Commie plot to destroy the health of American's :-)"
You're right Mr. Strangelove it was not a commie plot. ;-) It was a plot hatched by some very powerful institutions to protect their interests.
"Of all the deceptive, harmful, and dastardly things our government has done over the last half century, fluoridation is pretty near the bottom of my list."
Fluoride is a pharmaceutical and is found as part of the active ingredient in many of the fluoridated SSRI drugs that are SO popular today.
"Prozac is a fluorinated drug called "fluoxetine".
"Paxil is a fluorinated drug called "paroxetine" (also called Seroxat, Aropax). These drugs are designed to inhibit the reuptake of serotonin (serotonin reuptake inhibitors - SSRIs) and hence interfere with the biological actions of serotonin, a neurotransmitter.
Both drugs contain fluorine and chloride. Fluoride is present as a '4-fluorophenyl' compound, part of the 'active' ingredient.
Fluorophenyl compounds are found as major metabolites in the human organism from Paxil and Prozac, as well as from pesticides as Flusilazole (Anderson et al, 1999), Fluorbenside; FOE 5043 (Christenson et al, 1996), other drugs such as dexfenfluramine ("Redux"; "Fen-Phen" - now withdrawn) (Kalin et al, 2000); Fluvastatin (Top 200 drugs) (Dain et al, 1993); Flutrimazole (skin cream) (Conte et al, 1992); AD-5423 (an anti-psychotic) (Oka et al, 1993), Bay U 3405 (Braun et al, 1990); Cisapride (also now withdrawn from US market), Leflunamide (Arava) etc...
Fluorophenyl compounds have shown to disturb thyroid hormone activity in several ways, specifically in the liver and at the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis."
http://www.bruha.com/pfpc/html/prozac.html
Since they have been adding a pharmaceutical to our drinking water for the last half century maybe looking in hindsight that is exactly why the American people allow so blissfully what has been happening to them and what is about to happen...
==AC
I for one am not in favor of taking ANY prescription drugs unless it' a life and death emergency (such as taking antibiotics if flesh-eating bateria were in the process of dissolving my face).
Having said that, I don't think the harmful side effects of many of these drugs has much to do with the presence of fluorine or chlorine compounds per se (after all, table salt is a chlorine compound), but rather with the manner in which they interfere with the body's natural chemical balance. Isolated clinical tests don't really tell the whole story, and more and more 'effective' and 'safe' drugs are turning out to be not so effective and not so safe.
Hell, a while back I saw an ad on TV for a new prescription drug for toenail fungus. At the end of the nice commercial showing a woman with beautiful feet, the disclaimer (read off at triple speed) warned of stuff like nausea, blurred vision, confusion, sexual disfunction, etc. Hey, give me unsightly toenail fungus any day!
I personally don't think potable water supplies should be fluoridated. If some people think it's beneficial, they can always get fluoride treatments from their dentist.
==AC
Where do you get this stuff? Do you have a conspiracy of the day calendar, a random conspiracy generator, or does it come from a website? You can't be making it all up. Nobody is that creative.
~Jean de la Bruyère
Why is it a "conspiracy" Jack? Maybe it's just the way the world really is and the only "conspiracy" is why you know very little or nothing about it. We have all been basically living in a collective delusion, a Matrix.
"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. "
~Albert Einstein
With the control of our thoughts from the day we are born is it any surprise we are nothing more more than a tool of the Corporocracy??
==AC
You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?
-The Matrix?
The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
-What truth?
That you are a slave. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.
==AC
Beside The Matrix you probably have seen Dr. Strangelove, feeling like General Ripper may be?
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water? Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water? On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
(Look for this text in the linked page)
http://tinyurl.com/oajp5
"To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats- we know it not."
~Eric Hoffer
==AC
Oh, did I mention, they want me to read "the" book they are recommending. But I guess that qualifies as "a" book. You're no different. I wish you were. That's why I like Jack and Lou Grinzo. They never tell you to read anything. They understand that we've all already had the experience of a fourth grade teacher. All my teachers were the best. From "kindy"garten all the way up to my professors. All the way through. I never had I teacher I didn't like. If they didn't teach me something in particular, they at least tought me how to go about looking for it.
For God's sake, look up Arthur Miller.
I'll debunk any particular theory you have. But you have to lay out your "facts" in a concise manner. Yabbadabbado.
"Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age. Several recent epidemiological studies suggest that only a few years of fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water increases the risk for bone fracture. The relationship between the milder symptoms of bone fluorosis (joint pain and arthritic symptoms) and fluoride accumulation in humans has never been investigated. People unable to eliminate fluoride under normal conditions (kidney impairment) or people who ingest more than average amounts of water (athletes, diabetics) are more at risk to be affected by the toxic effects of fluoride accumulation."
Start by "dubunking" those two "facts"
==AC
Why not?
How does ingested fluoride accumulation correlate with life expectency increases in US over last 100 years? Is there a correlation?
Why Not? Of course, "Why not"? If the true intentions of fluoridation were publicly exposed it would bring the entire country down. How is that for why not? You think that the corporations poisoning us with fluoride are going to put up the money to fund research to destroy themselves?
"Why not" when they are making billions from the products discover during the Manhattan Project such as Fluorocarbons (they were discovered because of a need to stop the Fluorine from destroying the seals inside the enrichment equipment) better known to hapless consumers as Teflon.
DuPont Fails to Report Another Teflon Health Study
High Cholesterol Levels in Teflon Workers Kept from EPA
http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20041216/index.php
Or Food packaging:
Former DuPont Top Expert: Company Knew, Covered Up Pollution of Americans' Blood for 18 Years
Documents: Company Couldn't Find Safe Level of Exposure in 1973 to Chemical that Never Breaks Down, Clings to Human Blood
Study Results Show Company Found Safer Ways to Coat Food Packaging But Shelved Them to Save Money
http://tinyurl.com/kjtat
Oil CEO you are an intelligent individual. The question of "WHY" should be as obvious as the nose on your face.
As far as the "correlation" with the "increase" of life expectancy over the last 100 years; who said anything about death? It makes you SICK and lowers your standard of life. What do you do when you are sick? Prescription medication? How many BILLIONS of dollars is the pharmaceutical industry pulling in? Are you getting the picture yet Oil CEO or do I have to present the "facts" any clearer?
"Other revelations:
- Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.
- Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.
- The original secret version--obtained by these reporters--of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) --considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-- for reasons of national security.
- The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.
- The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" -- has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.
The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical.
The impact can be seen, literally, in the smiles of our children. Large numbers of U.S. young people--up to 80 percent in some cities--now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)
Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones --"The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride --linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930's-- may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."
Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."
http://tinyurl.com/av3yj
All the "facts" are documented in his book.
==AC
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."
~Theodore Roosevelt
Progressive Covenant with the People
Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great staffs, both of the old parties have ganged aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/collections/troosevelt_film/trfpcp.html
In your opinion since 1912 how much has the "corrupt interests which use them in martialling [sic] to serve their selfish purposes" consolidated their power. Or did it just go away. That would make everything so much easier if it just wasn't real. Just another "crazy conspiracy"...
==AC
You are hopelessly naïve.
Furthermore you are "wasting" the link to Progressive Covenant with the People here.
"Furthermore you are "wasting" the link"
LOL
Regardless of how "intelligent" Oil CEO sees himself he simply falls into the first group in propaganda principles...
==AC
"Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest- minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white. To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably. Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous. They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others. This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.
The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print. They hate every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods. These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they are lost for all positive, political work.
The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own. They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve.
For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon. Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number - a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous."
~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/videos/Fox25.mov
==AC
==AC
<<SNIP>>
August 16, 2006
FAN's Statement on Harvard Investigation
Yesterday, Harvard University released the results of its 13-month investigation into whether one of its Dental Professors (Dr. Chester Douglass) had suppressed evidence linking fluoride to osteosarcoma (a form of bone cancer) in children.
While it was widely suspected that Harvard would exonerate Douglas (a few months ago he was filmed holding a copy of the draft report claiming that he had been exonerated), it came as a disturbing surprise to see the extreme brevity of Harvard's statement. The full statement, which is just 4 paragraphs long, says that "Douglass did not intentionally omit, misrepresent, or suppress research findings." However, it provides no explanation to justify the basis of this conclusion.
Thus, after 13 months and an investigation by two committees, Harvard has yet to explain why Douglass first concealed, and then misrepresented, his doctoral student's thesis which found a "robust" association between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma in young males. In particular, Harvard has failed to explain why Douglass misrepresented this data in a submission made - in writing - to a National Academies of Science committee convened to study the toxicity of fluoride (see details below).
Based on communications with the Harvard Press Office, it appears that Harvard will be keeping its Final Report of the investigation "confidential." Thus, the only information that the public will have access to, is the information contained in the short 4-paragraph statement. While this may be legal, is it truly the best that Harvard can muster?
Does the public - which funded Chester Douglass' $1.3 million study - not have a right to know more about whether Douglass has been an honest steward on this matter? After all, we're not talking about a trivial academic issue. We're talking about an issue of life and death, about whether a chemical added to 170 million Americans' water supply is causing a fatal bone cancer in young children.
Particularly disturbing about this "investigation" is the failure of Harvard to actually contact the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which brought the ethics charge, to ask them to provide either their detailed evidence or their direct testimony on the matter.
So be it. It was worth it even if only one person begins to pry open their encrusted eyes that have been shut their entire life...
"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
~RFK
==AC
Please don't respond to your own comments in sequence. Just make multiple comments off the same original post. It will give you better column width and be doing a huge favor to everybody else who has to scroll through it.
I'm gonna go back and read now, but like I say, I'm probably not going to respond. It's too hard.I like to reference what I'm responding to and I can only view one level at a time... And then my reponses all appear at the end, in a completely unintelligible order.
I mean, I'm not trying to be a pain. I've said I will engage in a dialogue here. But cut me a firkin break.
People think they are adding continuity or something when they do this, but the effect is the exact opposite. If you have several things to say, for God's sake put them together in one post.
I don't care if you forgot something. That's your problem.
Planning.
The only person willing to talk to you here is a moron.
There's a bunch of other people here. Did you see anyone else even attempting to respond? Hello?
I guess your other option is to try carrying on a conversation with Kevembuangga.
Of course I knew you would see it Mr. CEO. I just thought I would return some of the sarcasm in kind;
And that is not the first time. But I admit I shouldn't have left you such an easy way out of having to do the dirty business of debunking a known crazed conspiracy nut:
My fault.
"One might equate growing up with a mistrust of words. A mature person trusts his eyes more than his ears. Irrationality often manifests itself in upholding the word against the evidence of the eyes. Children, savages and true believers remember far less what they have seen than what they have heard."
~Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
Please don't be angry CEO, it has been interesting. Maybe you (or others) took something away from this exchange, maybe not. If you did, good luck with your journey, if you didn't I apologize. You say you are interested and I hope you are sincere. Don't let the sarcasm make the decision for you and the people you love. Their long term health is a stake. Empowerment begins when you stop believing what you are told "is good for you" and start finding out for yourself...
==AC
"In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself most successfully on the people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding, they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just like a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."
~George Orwell
Look, if you need more time, just ask for it. But don't run.
Start following your own advice.
==AC
Am I really that talented that you would quote me at such length? Shit, I've got to start paying better attention. What if I had mispelled something? Yabbadabbado.
Don't take this the wrong way but I think I'm falling in love with you...
==AC
May I throw in my customary advice for dealing with deranged wingnuts?
Study Schopenhauer!
Upping the ante in TOD discussions, he! he!
You both are already quite reasonable performers.
And it may be the case. It may not be the case also.
Who should one believe? Why would the Bush crew be correct this time? Why should the CIA be believed this time?
The only 'answer' acceptible to the US leadership would be if the nuclear plants did not exist. (but then the claim would be some kind of secret program....) The only ways I see to get to a 'no nuke' position:
- Everyone else would have to stop splitting atoms for civilian power.
- Iran says 'we need our oil for ourselves'
- Help Iran obtain a different cheaper, way of obtaining electrical power.
#2 is a 'piss off the allies of Iran' move and doesn't help in the long run, and #3 would help everyone, as whatever method used (say nanosoloar panels at a projected $0.37 a watt) should be able to be applied everywhere.If that is the case why arn't they being subjected to the same level of rhetoric?
Iran has been trying to aquire FSU Nuclear weapons on the black market since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Based on who's claims?
Virtually every public speech by the Iranian gov't to the Iranian people either begins with or ends with "Death to Israel, Death to America".
So what, 1% doesn't? How do you come to the 'Virtually every' claim?
Iran now already has the capability to enrich uranium. All the West is asking Iran to do is mothball it and get their supply of fuel rods from Russia, China or other nations that supply fuel and in return Iran will get technical and financial assistance to help build its civilian nuclear plants.
Is not such refinement allowed under the 'peaceful atom' program and treaties of the last 1/2 of the 20th century?
Looks like yet another bit of fallout from "nuclear power is a good idea" type of thinking.
>If that is the case why arn't they being subjected to the same level of rhetoric?
Most of the nations developed this capability during the cold war. The only exceptions are S. Africa, India, Pakastan and North Korea. These four nations have been subject to sanations for years. It wasn't until late last year or early this year, that sanations on India were lifted, mostly because its now a democratic nation and has a proven need to development a civilian nuclear energy program.
>So what, 1% doesn't? How do you come to the 'Virtually every' claim?
Obviously I haven't read or heard all of them. I can't factually prove that they all do. The fact that even one speech delivered these statements is proof enough that they are a serious threat to peace and should not have an enrichment capability until they can prove themselves otherwise.
>>Iran has been trying to aquire FSU Nuclear weapons on the black market since the fall of the Soviet Union.
>Based on who's claims?
Russia, France, US, Germany, Pakistan to name a few.
>Is not such refinement allowed under the 'peaceful atom' program and treaties of the last 1/2 of the 20th century?
No. Iran has to sign the and abide by the nuclear non-preliferation treaty which they have repeately refused to sign. Uranium enrichment is also band from any nations supporting terriorist networks or those that make statements like "Death to America, Death to Israel".
Whats wrong with aquiring fuel from Russia or another fuel producer? If there intensions are of peace why can't they except this proposal. Second why spend tens of billions to develop enrichment, while exposing your citizens to hazardous materials and have to deal with clean up costs. Most of the world including France, Germany, and even the US, have relied on Russia for fuel rods and reprocessing.
VS all the other nations who have not signed said treaty.
Are you saying that not signing means you should be treated differently than others who have signed?
<BLOCKQUOTE> Iran has to sign the and abide by the nuclear non-preliferation treaty which they have repeately refused to sign.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran">Dead wrong</a>:
<i>Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment programme, for its civilian nuclear energy programme, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT.</i>
This is common knowledge.
Ignorance, Techie...
Dead wrong:
Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment programme, for its civilian nuclear energy programme, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT.
This is common knowledge.
In 2000 the United States and Russia agreed to reduce their arsenals to between 2,000 and 2,500 [from an estimated 20,000] by the year 2007. Tell me, how's that coming along?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/732790.stm
Iran may or may not want and may or may not be able to have a small number of nuclear bombs in some number of years -> crisis.
The United States and Russia have enough bombs to kill us all many times over -> nothing to worry about.
As for "Death to America" - that's hardly a credible threat compared to the President of a country which has thousands of nuclear weapons threatening to use them pre-emptively. It is obvious to anyone who is not indoctrinated just who the main terrorists are. ("Terrorism" = "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims").
I see I waste my time arguing with people that believe that Its OK for Iran to supply Hezbollah or one of its other terriorist networks with a Nuke. The only way you'll wake up is when they set one off outside your neighborhood. But that won't matter because you'll be dead, but you can disuss it with Allah when you meet him.
I happen to think keeping a nuclear weapons arsenal at the ready is a bad idea, and that we (all humans) should be working toward disarmament. That means all countries, including Iran. I am not the only person on the planet that has that viewpoint, and that is what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is all about. Getting to that point is obviously not easy, but it should be what we are working towards, not going the other direction with countries possibly feeling they must become nuclear weapons states to ward off pre-emptive attack from the United States, as is that government's current official policy. You'll note Iran and the United States are both signatories to the NPT. There is no proof that Iran has or will be breaking the treaty - they may or may not intend to. On the other hand the United States is not living up to its side of the bargain, in two ways: it is not disarming, and it is almost certainly breaking the spirit of the non-proliferation aspect as well by sharing weapons with other NATO countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
"Iran's intention to accept the Additional Protocol was stated at the IAEA in Vienna on 6 May 2003 by the Iranian Vice-President and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization H.E. Reza Aghazadeh.[13] He said that his "country has no difficulty accepting this protocol, as a matter of fact, it is approaching it positively." He added, however, that Iran "doesn't intend to ratify and enforce the provisions of this protocol without any condition" referring to restrictions on the supply of nuclear-related technologies and materials imposed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). This statement was repeated at the recent PrepCom meeting for the 2005 NPT Review Conference. "
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030618.htm
Iran has also violated the terms of the NPT failing to disclose its nuclear activities, ie. importing natural uranium and equipment to enrich uranium, technical and equipment transfer from banned countries such as Libya and North Korea.
There is no "Amendment to the Treaty". There is a process where signatories can negotiate an "Additional Protocol" with the IAEA, if it suits them.
Under US pressure, the IAEA cooked up a proposed protocol (PDF), much more restrictive than the treaty itself, that would ban a whole bunch of stuff that Iran is doing. Iran is entirely within its rights in not signing any such protocol.
My opinion is that, if the Iranians are indeed pursuing a nuclear bomb, they are at least a decade away from even having enough fissionable material (their centrifuge technology won't cut it, and they have no reactors to make plutonium). By that time, Iran's society and government will have progressed to a point where an Iranian bomb won't be much more problematic than, say, India's (i.e. MUCH less problematic than Pakistan's).
Unless of course the US continues to pile on the pressure, or (worse) tries some sort of military action, which will fail in its objectives but guarantee Iran's increased belligerence for at least a generation. Already, US pressure has produced a predictable nationalistic backlash that resulted in the election of Ahmadinnerjacket.
Pray, tell us, when was India not a democratic nation?
By the way, India has a well-developed civilian nuclear energy program, no thanks to "sanctions". And contrary to your assertion, the capability was developed during the Cold War period. The first nuclear test was conducted on May 18, 1974 - so military capability was also developed during the Cold War.
Why did you leave Israel out of the list?
Brazil has very successful uranium enrichment program but has no nuclear weapon ambition.
"Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability. By contrast, 56 operate civil research reactors, and 30 have some 440 commercial nuclear power reactors with a total installed capacity of over 360 000 MWe (see table)."
http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
In my eyes, Iran will build a nuclear reactor and control the fuel cycle (including enrichment) whether or not we like it... They have picked a time when in reality, the US is not capable of warring with another nation in a politically correct manner (we could always show them what a nuclear weapon does, but I don't think thats a good idea).
Technically, they are not breaking any treaties which everyone seems to forget.
We have three options:
1 - Deal with them, and have some abilities to oversee what they are actually doing
2 - Do what we are currently doing (stonewalling with rhetoric) and have no knowledge of whats actually occuring
3 - Begin carpet bombing
I like option 1 best...
What would you recommend? (all in good fun, I know your playing DA)
What do I think our Noble Fearless Leader will do? Well, he has all ready demonstrated his love for little red buttons...
Brazil had a covert nuclear weapons program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/brazil/nuke.htm
I will state it again. "Every country that has a Uranium enrichment faculity has or had Nuclear Weapons". Brazil and South Africa (and I think argentina) have disamantled them.
Regardless, its is trivial to build Weapons if weapons grade Uranium is on hand. The bottom line is that Iran does not need to enrich uranium when the can purchase it from existing suppliers and save themselves money that could be use to reduce poverty. To believe that Iran's only purpose is peace use of nuclear energy is a borderline insanity.
They are far-sighted enough to be preparing for a future of declining oil; the lead times on getting a decent number of reactors up and running are consistent with the projected decline in their production.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm trying to pull from various news articles I've read over the pass couple months but:
Iran has its own supply of radioactive material. In fact I think it was a month or two ago, an article stated their geologists found a suitable site to mine "yellowcake". Why would they import fuel if its there in their backyard?
Iran despite their theocracy is a fairly technological State, with advanced sciences in Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry and other schools. Coupled with their ability to engineer and reverse engineer technology in an embargoed state, they have gotten along quite far. Preventing them from cracking the secrets of the atom is not going to work.
Further, while I think Ahmadinejad(sp?) is a loon, his claims that Iran be allowed to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes are valid given the current framework of the treaties in place.
And lastly I think the enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty is a pipe dream. I'd just as soon repeal the treaty, let every nation pursue nuclear weapons if they feel it will buy them security and be done with it. The "but" I would interject into that situation would be that the first country who uses them aggressively would have their entire country turned to glass, down to the last man, woman, and child. Essentially MAD on a global scale except given that the big boys who are in the game, I doubt there will be much Mutual in MAD if a small fry decided to go thermonuclear.
I do have to refute one point though TechGuy, though its probably a technicality. Japan has and uses nuclear technology and does not possess nuclear weapons. Though some intelligence estimates figure that Japan could assemble a weapon within 48 hours if they were hard pressed. They have the know how and parts for a bomb if it came right down to it, but they technically don't have a "bomb" on hand.
To be honest, despite all the rhetoric against Isreal that Iran promotes, I'm not too concerned about Isreal from a singular standpoint. Isreal has enough nukes to reciprocate the gesture and I think the Mullahs of Iran would check their pitbull Ahmad before he got too far. Rather I think if Iran were smart, they'd use their nukes to Blackmail the US or any other Oil dependent countries out there, by threatening not to nuke Isreal, but to nuke Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait and any other oil producers in the region. Iran can't point the gun at us directly so they do the next best thing... point the gun at our economic lifesupport.
Would you trust a convicted Child molester to work at a daycare center? Lets use a little common sense here.
No one is denying Iran its civilian Nuclear program and it already as the capability to enrich uranium. All the US and IAEA want is for Iran to mothball it and use an existing fuel supplier to ensure no weapons grade material is produced. If Iran really has peaceful intensions it would agree to these terms, if the west no longer supplies the with fuel in the future that could alway reactivate the enrichment facility.
>have to refute one point though TechGuy, though its probably a technicality. Japan has and uses nuclear technology and does not possess nuclear weapons.
I stand corrected. Japan in the past was gettting its fuel from the US and Canada. I thought they just had a fuel reproccessing plant that didn't have a enrichment capacity, but it does.
</quote>
Unfortunately common sense has no bearing on the international laws governing the situation. There are laws barring Child Molesters from running daycares.
And to force a nation to rely on outside sources for its fuel can be viewed as an attack on its sovreignty. Which is precisely what Iran is claiming.
Like I said, I don't like the situation one bit, and ultimately I think its a loser for the US to pursue it in this manner unless we really want to get into forcibly toppling another government(a sentiment I think most would oppose right now). They will get the technology, and they will get the weapons. The check against Iran will eventually, simply have to be a new MAD policy with them.
Alistair, I presume you just switched briefly into troll mode. Bush is no 'oil' painting (geddit?) but he's hardly on the same scale as President Ah'm a dinner jacket.
And now allow me to return to prequel two of the 'Left Behind' series (the story of the rise of the Antichrist and the journey of the other main characters as, unknown to them, time hurtles toward the Rapture. Readers will want every possible soul saved to avoid the seven-year Tribulation, and they will see why characters such as Rayford, Chloe, and Buck fail to believe. Events in Israel will be heating up, and some main characters like Rayford and Buck will be thrust into the thick of the drama ...)
What matter all this peak oil and Iran stuff in the light of Armageddon anyhow?
In his own words...
During the era that nobility was a prestige and living in a city was perfection, I was born in a poor family in a remote village of Garmsar-approximately 90 kilometer east of Tehran. I was born fifteen years after Iran was invaded by foreign forces- in August of 1940- and the time that another puppet, named mohammad Reza - the son of Reza Mirpange- was set as a monarch in Iran.
But in practice... how many world-class wars has Honest Uncle Mahmoud unleashed?
Bush's optional wars tend to be not too firmly grounded in reality. There is a school of thought (and I have seen no evidence to disprove this) that the actions of the Bush administration in the middle east are intended to hasten the onset of the Rapture.
You might be interested in reading this article on the subject of Apocalypse predictors and the White House - it appears to be one of those myths that certainly has a grain of truth.
Just a technical question: how do you guys get your neat little pics published? What do I have to do to do it? Do I need some special software? I have some graphs I'd like to share, for example.
Thanks in advance,
Nezametnii Karl
<img src="http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/Themes/MainSkins/President/images/gallery/2.jpg">
Thanks for your speedy reply.
He never says much.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html
(add sarcasm if you wish)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704
I don't read that news release that way. I think what they are saying is that it is taking them longer than expected to get rates back up, and they will only be at 300,000 bpd by year end. On page 2, the article says:
"The new and revamped Texas City could be slightly smaller," one of the sources said.
A cut from 460,000 to 300,000 would not qualify as "slightly smaller."
Did you hear/read one utterence about Conservation?
Did you hear ONE comment about Cutting back on purchases, trips?
Did you hear any comments about outlawing incandesant bulbs?
How about removing tax breaks for Hummers?
Pure BS,
JC