Why Not Bush

[shostakovich]

Hi Folks. It's August, and this is the first of 3 threads I will present on why I think Bush should be ousted. These are just my reasons. They will strike a responsive chord with some and nothing of the sort with others. These people have already decided. I hope to sway some undecideds.

Let's go back to campaign 2000. Bush promised tax reduction AND a prescription coverage plan. The Democratic prescription plan was more generous, but was to start in 2002. The Republican plan, more modest, was to start in 2001. I wondered how these incompatible promises would play out. We found out the next year. The tax cut was high priority, and took place early in 2001. On the other hand, there was NO MENTION of the prescription plan as of Sept 10. After 9/11 we older folk could no longer hope for one. Politicians lie often enough, but the prescription plan (apparently only proffered to gain votes, with no intent to follow through) was very important to my wife and me. I felt personally betrayed. Since that time I have found big differences between what Bush says and does.

On Earth Day this year, he said he had been doing a great job with the environment. I recall he opted out of the Kyoto agreements that were intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He wants drilling and logging in national wildlife preserves. He has changed personnel at the EPA in order to reduce emissions standards of all kinds. Environmentalists outside of the government have nothing good to say about his policies. The great job he's been doing on the environment is to put it at the mercy of the industries that abuse it.

Bush looks like an average guy, and says the right things to the average guy, but his actual policies are not for the benefit of the average guy. The tax cuts work for the rich much more than they help the average guy, even though he emphasizes that EVERYONE gets a tax break. He claims the tax cuts are making the economy strong. They also helped make a national surplus into a giant debt, one that will be paid for well after his term in office, if at all. If you maxed out all your credit cards, you could feel pretty rich for a while, too. I'm surprised the national debt is not more of a campaign issue so far.

Much as I dislike Bush and his administration, I would give oscars to his speech writers and acting coaches. He actually sounds decent and sincere, and believes what he's saying --- while he's saying it. Then he picks and chooses which claims will get action and which will be ignored. So I recommend we look at what he has done rather than listen to what he says. He has a presidential record to run on or against.

I'll take a break here, and be back for THE UNNECESSARY WAR and THE CATASTROPHIC MEDICARE PACKAGE.
Shos

<small>[ 08-02-2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:<<Let's go back to campaign 2000. Bush promised tax reduction AND a prescription coverage plan. The Democratic prescription plan was more generous, but was to start in 2002. The Republican plan, more modest, was to start in 2001. I wondered how these incompatible promises would play out. We found out the next year. The tax cut was high priority, and took place early in 2001. On the other hand, there was NO MENTION of the prescription plan as of Sept 10. After 9/11 we older folk could no longer hope for one. Politicians lie often enough, but the prescription plan, apparently only proffered to gain votes, with no intent to follow through, was very important to my wife and me. I felt personally betrayed. Since that time I have found big differences between what Bush says and does.


There is a drug plan. Whether you like it or not, the prescription drug cards, apparantly in small demand, are part of plan put in place and passed by Congress. Did you overlook it.

We will disagree on the environment. I think he is doing a great job. I support drilling in ANWAR, and I think Kyoto was a bad thing. Congress reected it long before President Bush was elected to office, if you will recall.

RE:<<even though he emphasizes that EVERYONE gets a tax break>>

I believe his exact words were: "Everyone who pays taxes gets a tax break." That's a big difference. Keep in mind that, as President, he can only offer to affect Federal taxes, so don't give me that "the poor pay sales tax and property tax, too" nonsense, those taxes are outside the Federal governments realm.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I don't know if you could tell from my earlier posts, but I'm no fan of Bush. However, blaming everything that doesn't go your way on him isn't quite kosher.

I have to agree with Shapley about the Kyoto agreements. As an affluent nation, we are taking notable steps in reducing emissions even without the Kyoto Protocols, which would cost us about 3% of our GDP to implement. That may not seem like all that much, but there is no real science that says the protocols would help alleviate global warming. So while the costs are known, the benefits are not, and are likely to be nonexistent.

And I also have to agree with Shap about oil drilling in the ANWR. ANWR is about the size of South Carolina. The oil drilling and processing would take up an area about the size of a good airport - about 25 square miles. America's dependency on foreign oil sources is, IMNSHO, one of our biggest weaknesses.

When it comes to spending programs, I feel his history is adequate to vote against him, but for the opposite reason Shos cited. I haven't seen anything from the past six months, but until then he had signed EVERY spending measure that came across his desk. He's giving away our children's America, with or without a tax cut. As someone who is generally proud of his "conservative" politics, I find it somewhat embarassing to note that the last few years the US had a balanced budget were in the administrations of Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson.

[shostakovich]

Hi Shap. I meant to say "Everybody who pays taxes" rather than "everybody". Sorry 'bout that.

As for the Medicare package that was passed, it does not resemble the one proposed in 2000, which was acceptable if flawed. The one that starts in 2006 is a nightmare primarily for the benefit of drug companies and HMOs. It's questionable how much help, if any, it will be to those who need it. The VERY neediest should be getting some true benefit (not clear how much). But I don't understand why they (or most of them) are not already getting at least that benefit from Medicaid. The miserable Medicare plan is my last rant for the boards tomorrow.

Shap and Barf, I don't even care to discuss the rape of the environment. There should be promotion of population control and great reduction of energy use --- a little sacrifice to our comfort, maybe. Reducing emissions and general pollution is caring for future generations. But when emissions get near a critical stage, the Bush administration solves the problem by disparaging the reports that call it critical, or simply loosening the standards in order to keep business and industry (and "jobs") humming.

Our planet is finite. The only thing we know that will last thousands of years is the goddam radiation from today's nuclear waste.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shos, I think the planet is infinite, however, it's ability to tolerate our abuse is finite. The Earth will go on after we have polluted it into uninhabitability. We're simply fools for allowing our leaders to rape the environment with apparent abandon.

You're absolutely right about nuclear waste. After having worked with nuclear power, I fully realize it will have a longer, vastly more lethal legacy than the human race.

[Shapley]

OT,

There are valuable products in nuclear waste that will have useful applications once the easier, cheaper, sources have been depleted. Nuclear waste can be broken down, and the valuable by-products recovered, but the cost of doing so now is prohibitive. It will not always be so.

It is a tragedy that the current methods of storage and disposal are so problematic, but much of that is due to the politics of the situation.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

Are there uses for Cs 137 and Co 60?

[Nicole Marie]

Question Shapely and OT, (you both seem to know) I caught part of a report. It said France found a way to recycle thier nuclear waste and use it for energy for the country. Can you re-use nuclear waste? And if so why will the US not do this instead of dumping them in a mountain?

[Nicole Marie]

<small>[ 08-09-2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[rwcrooks]

OT,

Why do you want to know? Have some laying around, trying to figure out what to do with it?

I'm pretty sure the Cs137 will make a watch face glow.

[Shapley]

OT,

From the EPA's website:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.htm

What is cesium-137 used for?
Cesium-137 is one of the most common radioisotopes used in industry. Thousands of devices use cesium-137:

moisture-density gauges, widely used in the construction industry

leveling gauges, used in industries to detect liquid flow in pipes and tanks

thickness gauges, for measuring thickness of sheet metal, paper, film and many other products

well-logging devices in the drilling industry to help characterize rock strata
Cesium-137 is also used in medical therapy to treat cancer.


What is cobalt-60 used for?
Cobalt-60 is used in many common industrial applications, such as in leveling devices and thickness gauges, and in radiotherapy in hospitals. Large sources of cobalt-60 are increasingly used for sterilization of spices and certain foods. The powerful gamma rays kill bacteria and other pathogens, without damaging the product. After the radiation ceases, the product is not left radioactive. This process is sometimes called "cold pasteurization."

Cobalt-60 is also used for industrial radiography, a process similar to an x-ray, to detect structural flaws in metal parts. Radionuclides, such as cobalt-60, that are used in industry or medical treatment are encased in shielded metal containers or housings, and are referred to as radiation ‘sources.' The shielding keeps operators from being exposed to the strong radiation.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Nicole,

It costs more to recycle the waste than to obtain new material from "virgin" sources.

As I stated to OT, once the cost of recycling is low enough, or the cost from virgin sources high enough, recycling will become more common. Currently the sources of mined radionuclides are plentiful and clean enough make obtaining them from "dirty" sources undesirable. Couple that with the lack of new nuclear power plants being constructed, and the resultant lack of demand for fuel, and there really isn't much demand for paying the price. Europe has a significantly greater number of nuclear plants, France being I think this is still true the largest consumer of nuclear power, and thus the demand for nuclear fuels is greater there. They also suffer from a lack of available wasteland to store theirs in, so there is a greater desire on their part to find a long-term solution to the storage problem.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 08-09-2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[analog]

Recycling reactor fuel is possible.
The first reactor to make electricity in the early fifties was a "breeder" which can actually grow its own recyclable fuel.
You can visit it. It's near Craters of the Moon in Idaho and they give a great tour for free.
The recycling process got scrubbed because, as i understand it, Carter administration was worried about proliferation. Perhaps he knew we weren't socially ready for it. Waste-wise it'll be messy.

IMHO nuclear power should be recognized as a necessary evil, necessary if civilization is to get past the CO2 crisis just ahead.
Isaac Asimov pointed this out in his 1953 essay "No More Ice Ages" which is in his 1960-ish book "Fact and Fancy".
Unless we get off carbon fuel, we must either get over our energy addiction or reduce our numbers.
But you all know that.

Mankind's guardian angels have looked out for us.
They placed coal near the earth's surface allowing us to mechanize with steam engines.
Then we found petroleum and moved the fire from the boiler into the cylinder, making personal transport practical.
By WW2 internal combustion had got as good as it can get, and we found fission. There's enough nuclear fuel in the crust of the earth for maybe five centuries(Glasstone-Sourcebook). By that time somebody should have fusion going.
It's about time for the next step that direction. Patent US3,386,883, which is for a tabletop Mr Fusion, might be a pointer.

I'm glad to see talk of restarting a US nuclear power program. It means my grandkids might live in an economy that has energy, like the French will.

analog

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by analog:
Recycling reactor fuel is possible.
The first reactor to make electricity in the early fifties was a "breeder" which can actually grow its own recyclable fuel.
You can visit it. It's near Craters of the Moon in Idaho and they give a great tour for free.
The recycling process got scrubbed because, as i understand it, Carter administration was worried about proliferation. Perhaps he knew we weren't socially ready for it. Waste-wise it'll be messy.

Yes, that breeder is out in the Idaho, in the Idaho National Engineering and Ecological Laboratory(when I worked there there was no "Ecological" in the name - methinks that addition was a reach for political correctness), ~840 square miles of desert, dotted with various experimental sites, primarily dealing with nuclear power.

Most of our reactors in the US are the pressurized-water type, and they do not produce their own fuel, they expend it.

Also posted by Analog:
Patent US3,386,883, which is for a tabletop Mr Fusion, might be a pointer.

Wait a minute....Wasn't "Mr. Fusion" the little gadget Christopher Lloyd had on the back of the Delorean in one of the Back to the Future movies?!!

[Shapley]

Nicole,

The big problem with recycling nuclear fuel is the Plutonium. Not much demand for it here. The Europeans and Russians use it for reactor fuel, we primarily use Uranium. U-238 produces Pu-239 in the reactor core, even in non-breeder reactors. We only use it for fission and fission/fusion bombs, and we're not producing many of them, either.

If we could find use for it, or sell it to those who use it (probably a violation of the non-profileration treaty - probably a very bad idea even if it isn't), it would increase the practicality of recycling the waste.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

Yes OT - Professor Brown tossing the banana peel into Mr Fusion is one of my favorite scenes in all moviedom, i split a side laughing. Imagine my surprise to stumble across that old patent. Great Scott!

No hijack intended - just wanted to answer NM's question. French call their design PHENIX, rises from its own ashes. But not to imply it's a simple task or a simple issue. IMHO we've not yet done right on the matter of radwaste. And you're right, there's a lot of that left over from the early experimental reactors.

[barfle]

Ahhh, a patent by Philo T. Farnsworth (who also was the inventor of electronic television (as compared to the mechanical scanning disks used earlier) for fusion. He also holds a patent on lumber drying.

Too bad it doesn't take a good idea to get a patent, just a new one!

[The Great Carouser]

Have we forgotten our civil liberties in this argument? More evidence of this administrations attack on individual rights;

Free speech or 'Security'?

[Serenity]

The guy pushes his religious values upon you.

[Serenity]

Ahh...the good old days...

"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people."
-- J. Danforth Quayle
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
-- J. Danforth Quayle
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
"Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 8/11/89
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/15/88
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 5/22/89
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 12/6/89