Utah Air “Catastrophe” Predicted by Doctors Group
Maybe our political leaders hope the new Japanese discovery that removes pollutants from our air will save the people of the Wasatch Front from doom. It’s a good thing Gov. Huntsman is listening to the new Utah Physicians For a Healthy Environment, a new group of doctors formed to address our air crisis. They all met Friday to discuss the dangerous and growing health problems caused by bad air due to fossil-fuel burning vehicles, power plants and other natural sources.
As I have done numerous times on this and my own blog, the physicians criticized our lawmakers for doing next to nothing in the last session- right in the middle of our worst inversion in recorded history- to improve the air in Utah. The docs pointed out to the governor, as I did months ago, the stupidity of giving big budget increases to other state agencies out of the $1.7 billion surplus while suggesting that the state’s air quality programs’ budgets be cut (that did not ultimately happen).
The stats cited by scientists from BYU and other studies bear out the terrible toll on public health air pollution has on all of us, especially children: a toll corporate media virtually ignore because air pollution does not scream, burn, explode or draw a crowd. Hopefully, Physicians For a Healthy Environment can convince our ignorant and bought-off legislators, as well as our environmentally-friendlier governor, that public health is the number one concern of voters as well as residents: not abortion, not teen tanning, not even major league soccer. If and when we get our legislators out of the way, maybe we can get some real action to prevent what the doctors group calls “catastrophe.”
March 31st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
After reading this story I would suspect that all earth loving people like yourselves will immediatly stop using the Internet for the sake of the planet. Cliff, I will miss this site and Daily Ko’s and all the other left wing blogs that will now have to shut down as to not look like hypocrites. According to this story, the Internet is consuming more and more power all the time, therefore requiring more to be generated from coal, nuclear, dams, and all the other evil ways of producing electricity. The Internet is contributing to global warming and the distruction of Earths delicate ecosystem. It’s been nice reading all the interesting posts on this site but I know you will all do the right thing and shut off your computers permanently, as to midigate the damage already caused by the Internet.
Read how the Internet is destroying the planet.
http://envirovaluation.org/index.php/2007/03/04/informationweek_www_informationweek_com
Algore will have to repudiate his own invention. At least he can afford to buy even more indulgences so he can claim to be “carbon neutral” while he flies around in his private jets, and consumes more electricity than is normally consumed by 100 households.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Ken Bingham:
definitely something to think about and remedy, but if it is ever thought about and remedied, it will be because of Al Gores “information super highway”, ( internet)!
Cheney’s personal energy bill was $186,000 and he didn’t even pay extra for “green” energy.
March 31st, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Ken,
Another of your comments worthy of the following response: “Huh??”
March 31st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Hey Ken,
Um, lets see if there might be a more creative solution instead of shutting down OneUtah.
Ooooh ooh, I know! Green energy! Yeah that’s it! We can use other forms of energy that are renewable and don’t pollute. Can you name one?
March 31st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Outraged Repug
Obviously you do not understand the subtle art of satire, and illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
Cliff, Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, and most reliable power source. Any problem with spent nuclear rods is mainly a case of NIMBYism, and unfounded fears.
NIMBYism is also keeping us from energy sources that you approve of such as wind farms. No one wants their view of the landscape obstructed by unsightly wind turbines, not to mention the fact that birds like to fly into them.
Maybe The Flintstones had the right idea. We could put hamster wheels in our computers to keep them powered up, and a parrot inside the monitor, chiseling out all the pixels. At least if we used birds this way they would be safe from the wind turbines. The Flintstones were very progressive, being the first TV show to advocate having a gay old time.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:03 am
I agree that nuclear energy must be part of the solution. It will also further benefit Utah as mining of uranium has already resumed in already unredeemable areas of the state. But before we start giving up federal land for new uranium mining, we must look at the environmental impacts, unlike the previous 70 years. As for the Internet, my computers are powered by my solar energy system. If you think I’m kidding, visit http://schreinervideo.blogspot.com
April 1st, 2007 at 8:35 am
Momentum and the ability of the industry to dump a large chunk of the real costs on to the public @ large (read: corporate welfare) is the only thing that makes nuclear power a mix-essential, inevitable or even an idea to be considered.
Ask the people around Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and any ‘Downwinders’ about how safe, reliable and clean this wonderful technology with a half-live of thousands of years and a certain contribution to bomb proliferation and death is.
April 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
I will venture a guess that more people’s health will be affected by bad air than radiation in their lifetimes- you know, like more people will be killed by traffic accidents than terrorists. If you’re saying nuclear is not a clean alternative, you’re wrong. If you’re saying it’s more dangerous than coal, you might also be wrong. If you have another realistic solution, I’d like to hear it. Just don’t waste your time telling it to Bush/Cheney ;-)
April 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
Interestingly many Americans look to France for their “progressive” morality and for their “progressive” legality. In reality, about the only thing France is doing right is providing an abundance of nuclear power. In (perhaps only) that they deserve to be emulated.
As other forms of energy become viable, I’m sure that we will increase our use of them. One of the things that has nearly death-knelled the US auto industry is that they haven’t thought it important to improve the energy efficiency of their autos. Our pocketbooks are telling them that they chose wrong. I hope it’s not too late for them.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Ken, I’m wrong in pointing to the half-life of the waste generated in nuclear power production? The costs in safely handling, transporting and storing such waste? Is ‘dirty bomb’ just a phrase? Just what to your way of thinking makes it a clean alternative? It may be true that more peeps’ll be affected by toxic air or car crashes but that doesn’t diminish risks from radiation or terrorizm. Your comment / response leads me to ask, just why are you invested in solar energy? I hope this isn’t taken as confrontatory, I just don’t get it.
April 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Unless I missed something, you did not answer my question: “If you have another realistic solution, I’d like to hear it.” It’s not good policy to criticize somebody’s else’s solution if you don’t have one yourself. Even Ken B. has offered alternatives. I agree with Frank, particularly his statement about France’s use of nuclear . Nuclear is “a devil we know” and a compromise but it is more viable than any other current mass produced energy source besides coal and hydro. More dams anyone? Nuclear is clean compared to what our major source is now: coal. As for solar, I invest in it because it doesn’t pollute the air and doesn’t involve a lot of moving parts. Any more questions? Now, could you please answer mine before getting any pricklier about nuclear. Or as we say in Crawford, “nookulur.” Thanks.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
The solution is conservation. We can start with luxury taxes that would make folks think twice about buying Hummers and the like. We can follow that up with higher taxes on gasoline, making people think twice about driving unreasonably fast or to places that we could car pool or walk.
April 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
That’s a solution. Too bad we might have to do it. It’s worked everywhere else. But our big-spending Republicans are going to leave it to the raise-taxes-to-pay-for-the-big-spending Republicans Democrats to deal with so the Republicans can slam them with something in 2008. Good system, huh?
April 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“Side with the devil you know”, works for the powers that be as well, just check thier profit picture and see if there’s not a most valuable impact for the owners of The Global War on Terror, Global Warming, Globalization, Global Corporations. There must be a trillion or so dollars yanked out of our hands as the New World Order gets shoved higher and higher. (Bless em…having to suffer all that wealth). So…I understand that Ken B. thinks that climate disruption is a sham, and that if we need to conserve, it’s because the internet is sucking the juice now where there used to be plenty. I’m sure nukes are O.K. w / him too because they have the byproduct of making us safe from terrorists. Far be it for me to suggest that either of you are wrong, I’m just a blog commenter. I would suggest that besides Solar (for which I comend your effort), and conservation (which can be taken a great deal further) there are many, many ways that energy can be produced or conserved besides swamping the economy and biosphere with that darling of capitalist energy production - Nuclear. I’m not going to go over it all again.
Just call me ‘prickly.’ I probably shouldn’t be on the net today, as it’s April Fools Day. Peace to you.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Sorry, Caveat. Sadly, “there are many, many ways that energy can be produced or conserved” does not work as an answer. Camp fires and cigarette lighters produce energy but they are not realistic solutions to providing growing, mass energy needs and competing economically on a global scale. Solving America’s and the world’s energy and environmental challenges will take a combination of solutions. Absolutism produces gridlock. Balance is crucial. “Details, Portnoy. Details.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
Regarding the ’safe nuclear bargain’, hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into the nuclear industry, much of it under the shroud of secrecy. These added monies, when compared to per barrel of oil cost equivalents, do not support the ‘cheap part of the nuke promotional. Neither do the calculations of nuclear cost include cancer, birth defects and the early deaths of millions from a variety of exposures during the fuel cycle or any damage to the gene pool in the long haul. When the ‘off the book’ charges are tallied, nuclear power not only costs more that all other forms of energy, it comes nowhere near producing as much energy as it consumes.
Given that the governments of the world have invested so much in such a short time into nuclear power, much of it in the form of weaponry, and given that there is an argument as to the propriety of that persuit, the lesson that I take from this is that when our government wishes to tackle sticky problems, or motivate vast sectors of the society, such as the moon mission and the quest for nuclear bombs in ww11, great accomplishments can be brought into being.
Were we to take that challenge energy and apply it to ‘NOT- the devil’ (aka renewables / altertative energy developement), surely we would have similar success. We are at that junction. So when I write “many, many” I am referring to all of the various twists, adaptations, further development, AND short comings of these technologies. Yes, Solar has costs and the performance is really no better than 30% or so, but I’d rather voluntarily simplify my lifestyle promote the same throughout society, develope and evolve REALLY safe technologies, even with their performance flaws, than lie to myself about how safe something was when it really was not. Nuclear ’safety’ is an industry lie, as automobile mileage goals are a subterfuge of the auto and oil industries.
This is very much the ‘centralized v decentralized debate. Included in it are the shortening of delivery routes, costs and systems. My power could come the short distance from my roof, and do I really need bananas all year round, when there’s spinach, chives and other foods in my garden this minute? Fleshing these notions out would take up a lot of space, and I think you have the picture, generally. Finally, in answer to your question I’ll add:
Change your ride,
shorten your ride,
share your ride,
grow your own,
use less of it
broaden your comfort zone,
keep working on renewables,
seal your house,
double or triple your glazing,
think different about economic exchange, and on and on hense the use of “many, many”. What are imaginations for?
April 4th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Too good to pass up. Most of todays truths are inconvenient.
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING
TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH
BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated
by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a
separate guest house all heated by gas.
In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy
than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR.
The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs
over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which
last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property
consumes more than 20 times the national average for
an American home. This house is not in a northern or
Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading
national university, this house incorporates every
“green” feature current home construction can provide.
The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms)
and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American
southwest. A central closet in the house holds
geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through
pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water
(usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and
cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels
such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the
electricity required for a conventional
heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is
collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks
and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The
collected water then irrigates the land surrounding
the
house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the
property into the surrounding rural landscape.
=====
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside
of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that
renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch
near
Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White
House,” it is the private residence of the President
of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet
another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC,
MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an
inconvenient truth.”
NO KIDDING
April 4th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Anonymous:
How come Bush doesn’t push to have everybody live in that type of house rather then totally ignore the problem. Why doesn’t he fight for subsidies of those types of houses. That is unless your post is complete crap. A lot of Republican posts are, so it’s hard to tell.
April 5th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Larry those are the two houses. I am not sure, but I believe he(bush) bought most of it the way it is. Just an accident maybe. However, gores’ house is no accident and is pretty common knowledge.
Better question, how does a man pollyanna all day about the “climate crisis” and the reasons for it, then live in a house like the one he does? And fly around in a jet with 25,000 gallons of kerosene on board?
We all assume bush is an idiot, just want algore to be mentioned in the same breath. What I would tell you is that rep or dem, they are all dry humping us, and laughing about it. One the good cop, one the bad, and the people just scared and confused.
Do your own research, though snopes.com confirms it.