The ban on more nuclear power is surviving

NOTE: Parts of this post are lifted from an earlier Capitol City Musings post from February 26, 2008.

Both houses of our legislature are under the control of people calling themselves DFLers. But they seem to differ on the matter of whether we should continue our ban on additional radioactive power plants [generally referred to in the media as “nuclear” power plants.

So you can choose your house and take your chances.

I side with the House of Representatives which has voted to continue the ban.

As I noted last year, electrical energy serves selfish users and nuclear energy in particular encourages deferring the actual paying of the true costs to generations well into the future. This, with modest modification for typos and style, is what I wrote then. And the link above will let you see the original post if you wish to see it.

One of the dirty secrets of electrical energy is that it is produced some distance from where it is used and we users tend to forget that there are environmental costs involved with its usage. This partly explains the popularity of hybrid cars which emit less pollution on the road, but increase whatever is going out of a power plant. In either case, there is an environmental cost, but with electricity we pass the problem on to somebody else.

Nuclear power appeals to this same selfishness. It may seem cleaner at the moment, but instead of sending the problem to a rural or exurban area, it sends the problem to future generations.

The half lives of these products are calculated to be in thousands of years. [And that just means that half of the radioactivity is gone then; the other half will take longer.] We may develop adequate secure places to hide the stuff which may survive our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, but can we be sure that we can make places secure much longer than that?

We don’t know what cataclysms may come up. And, of course, we never know what some crazy person or persons will for terroristic or mental health purposes do what.

We really need to find better ways to handle our energy needs. I don’t know if the sun and wind can ever be harnessed to do it all, but it doesn’t seem that we are even trying too hard to find out. I admit that if the sun stops shining that we would have a problem, but how we get our electricity would seem to be a minor problem under those circumstance.

We need better ways to limit use. Letting NSP or Xcel or other providers raise rates to encourage less usage will only make the providers wealthier, but somehow we need to adjust our accounting systems so that we factor in all the costs.

Maintaining a moratorium on nuclear power plants seems to be a minimal first step toward doing that.

I really don’t want to come across as an environmentalist. There are a lot of matters that "environmentalists” are getting wrong. But I do think we need to look at some of the things they raise and at things they don’t raise too.

Word choice is powerful. Just another matter to wonder about: How popular would nuclear power ever have become, had the name “radioactive power” been established instead of “nuclear power.”

Radioactive Power for Minnesota?

An article by Dan Haugen in Minnesota Monitor suggests that some self-alleged environmentalists are suggesting revisiting nuclear power, that it might be a lesser evil as a means of electrical production than coal-powered plants.

Also, Pawlenty has suggesting lifting the state’s ban on building new nuclear plants.

One of the dirty secrets of electrical energy is that leads to selfish users. It is produced some distance from where it is used and we users tend to forget that there are environmental costs involved with its usage. This partly explains the popularity of hybrid cars which emit less pollution on the road, but increase whatever is going out of a power plant. In either case, there is an environmental cost, but with electricity we pass the problem on to somebody else.

Nuclear power appeals to this same selfishness. It may seem cleaner at the moment, but instead of sending the problem to a rural or exurban area, it sends the problem to future generations.

The half lives of these products are calculated to be in thousands of years. [And that just means that half of the radioactivity is gone then; the other half will take longer.] We may develop adequate secure places to hide the stuff which may survive our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, but can we be sure that we can make places secure much longer than that?

We don’t know what cataclysms may come up. And, of course, we never know what some crazy person or persons will for terroristic or mental health purposes do what.

We really need to find better ways to handle our energy needs. I don’t know if the sun and wind can ever be harnessed to do it all, but it doesn’t seem that we are even trying too hard to find out. I admit that if the sun stops shining that we would have a problem, but that would seem to be a minor problem under those circumstance.

We need better ways to limit use. Letting NSP or Excell or other providers raise rates to encourage less usage will only make the providers wealthier, but somehow we need to adjust our accounting systems so that we factor in all the costs.

Maintaining a moratorium on nuclear power plants seems to be a minimal first step toward doing that.

I really don’t want to come across as an environmentalist. That brings up a whole lot of other issues. But I do think we need to look at some of the things they raise and at things they don’t raise too.

Word choice is powerful. Just another matter to wonder about: How popular would nuclear power ever have become, had the name “radioactive power” been established in the first place.

Three ongoing peeves and a Monday morning to gripe about them.

Peeve One. Does anybody know what “Twin Cities” means? You won’t learn from listening to any radio station, watching any television service, or reading any major area newspaper.

Let’s look at the words a bit.

“Twin” means two. It can mean the other one of two, but every definition you look up stems from the number two.

Suburbs and cities are different things, even though Minnesota law was changed three decades ago to allow suburbs to dishonestly call themselves “cities.”

Minneapolis is a city. Saint Paul is a city. Falcon Heights is not a city; it is a suburb. Likewise North Oaks, Bloomington, Maplewood, New Hope, and a few hundred others. Even if they were cities, they are not two in number.

Historically the Twin Cities have been Saint Paul and Minneapolis. To add any of the two hundred or so other jurisdictions located within a local phone call’s distance is doubly incorrect, since it adds something that is not a city and changes the sum from two to another number.

I am getting very tired of media labeling somebody from St. Louis Park or Mendota Heights as being a Twin Cities driver or banker or janitor or whatever. It is wrong and it is misleading and it makes one wonder how accurate much the other stuff that source is reporting is.

Similarly, referring to Roseville, Falcon Height, Maplewood, Vadnais Heights, or other such place as a “Saint Paul suburb” demeans our city and defeats the purpose of the parasites who live there. They live there because they don’t want to be part of us. Of course they don’t mind sticking their noses into our business, but that is what parasites do. The tapeworm never intends to become a steer. It just wants to use the steer for its own subsistence.

Peeve Two. The second peeve is the recurring “x-hundred block” of whatever street for addresses in our city. Many cities are set up with numbering for which that phrase would be appropriate. Ours is not.

Where is the 1100 block of Payne Avenue? 1100 is a church between Magnolia and Jessamine. 1199 is a saloon at Payne. Jessamine, Geranium, and Rose all come in between. The 300 block of North Snelling? There is a whole freeway in the middle.

Let’s find better ways of getting the message out. If we need to say Payne between Rose and Maryland, let’s say so. If we need to write that something happened at 16xx Highland Parkway, let’s write it that way.

However, if you tell me the 600 block of Fountain Place, I’ll understand.

Peeve Three. The third peeve is referring to Minneapolis as being “across the river. [or to us as being “across the river” from them]. “Upstream” and “downstream” would be more accurate terms. By looking at the fire hydrants in front of KSTP one can easily tell that there are two cities next to each other and there surely is no river there.

Some Wednesday Hash

Dr. Robert Cade, the inventor of GatorAde, died of kidney failure. A coincidence?

When did “became missing” or “disappeared” become “went missing”? The use of such an active verb leaves a reader thinking that a person decided to become missing, but the stories this phrase gets used in, when examined, do not usually convey such an intent.

Governor Plenty names his attorney from his 2002 campaign to the Supreme Court. Have we all forgotten that his 2002 campaign was cited for improper collusion with the GOP and that it paid a substantial fine and had its spending limit decreased? That must be good qualification for the Supreme Court.

The December 25 holiday is approaching and all those who hope to make a buck off of unsuspecting saps who feel obligated to observe the birth of the Prince of Peace by targeting suckers are in their usual good form. One of the recurring scams is making its appearance again. You will also find this one for St. Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day, and other Hallmark Holidays. Did you know you can name a star after somebody?

I have a new scheme, a million dollar idea for somebody. For a modest amount you can name a street after somebody. And when the vendor has sold enough street names, he/she can publish a map, duly registered with the copyright office of some country [maybe even ours] and show people just where the street they have bought is. Of course if you actually drove or otherwise went to it, you wouldn’t see that name on the street sign. The jurisdiction entitled to put the name on signs would never have known to put that name on it and the people who had addresses on the street would have never known to put it on their return address spot of their outgoing mail.

That’s why stars are better. Nobody will be going to them to learn what name is used locally until well after the statute of limitations has taken effect.

One Word and LIberation

The word “bitch” is being thrown about a lot lately. It used to be an offensive term thrown at females. Primarily it still is, but I know of several recent episodes where it has been thrown at male persons also lately. I guess that is equal opportunity.

But it is still offensive. And because it is offensive and is still in disproportionate frequency toward women, its use needs to cease.

Leonard Pitts, jr. in a recent column notes a recent incident in Iowa where a woman asked the senior senator from Arizona a question about the junior senator from New York, using that word.

Pitts notes

Can you imagine if the Democratic front runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman and the woman said, ``So, how do we beat this Hebe?''

Can you imagine if it were Gov. Bill Richardson and the woman said, ``So, how do we beat this spic?''

Can you imagine if it were Sen. Barack Obama and the woman said, ``So, how do we beat this coon?''

I guarantee you, McCain would not have laughed and if he had, we would now be writing his political epitaph.

I think he has a good point. Senator McCain may well be taken to task for this.

Pitts goes on to note that women who have succeeded in politics and in business have taken on the traits traditionally associated with men.

We demand certain ''feminine'' traits from women -- nurturing, caring, submission -- and the woman in whom those traits are either not present or subordinated to her drive, ambition and competence will pay a social price

.

When I first began hearing of “women’s lib” about three and a half decades or so ago, I wondered if it might be an opportunity to liberate men also. I wondered if opening opportunities for women would create a world in which men did not always have to do the things which seemed to make them men. Ideally nurturing and caring would be gender-neutral qualities and not regarded in lower esteem than drive and ambition and would be manifested in persons of both genders.

It obviously has not happened. We have made more opportunities available to women, but only if they seem to be more like men. There are successful women in almost every area of life now, but they are still considered successes only if they do not seem what we have somehow behave in ways we think feminine.

And we still regard men in what were women’s professions and trades with a strange eye. Men who are nurses, flight attendants, or elementary school teachers are not seen as totally male.

It doesn’t mean that “women’s lib” is a failure. It has indeed been a success, even if only a partial one. But it still means that we are a long way from liberating everybody.

And “bitch” is still not a nice word, except perhaps in certain dog-owner groups.

Pitts on Political Correctness

I like syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, jr. and usually find his columns both interesting and edifying.

Sunday’s column published Sunday in papers around the country [including the DPP] did a splendid job demonstrating how we are allowing language to lose its precision and, therefore, losing its ability to decry what needs decrying.

I have posted an excerpt below and I commend the entire article to everybody’s attention.

[Political correctness] struck me as among the signature excesses of touchy-feely liberalism, this effort to purge the language of all terms that were, or could be perceived as, exclusionary, undignified or objectifying.

Over the years, I’ve made peace with much of it. I say “African-American” even though I find the term cumbersome and imprecise. I say “letter carrier” instead of “mailman” because yeah, not all postal workers are men. I say “person with AIDS” instead of “victim of AIDS” because no one wants to be defined as a victim. And so on.

But some of it I’ve never been able to buy. I dismissed admonitions to say “differently abled” in place of the perfectly adequate “disabled.” I laughed off a PC Bible that omitted all talk of sitting at the “right hand” of God out of deference to the tender feelings of the left handed.

Such excesses make me fear PC will fatally neuter the language, robbing it of clarity, vigor, frankness. So I’ve always had a tender spot for those outlaws unwilling to sacrifice directness for correctness.

To put it another way, if you say “black” instead of “African-American,” I ain’t mad at’cha.

The problem is that over the years, so-called political incorrectness has become less about restoring clarity to language than about providing cover for offensive words, ideas and actions. Language should let you say what you mean, but if what you mean is mean-spirited, we ought not diminish that by calling it simply “politically incorrect.”