An Important message from James Lovelock, founder of the "Gaia hypothesis"

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological theory that proposes that living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named after the Greek earth Goddess, this theory postulates that all living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that promotes life overall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far.

<snip>

What makes global warming so serious and so urgent is that the great Earth system, Gaia, is trapped in a vicious circle of positive feedback. Extra heat from any source, whether from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of Arctic ice or the Amazon forest, is amplified, and its effects are more than additive. It is almost as if we had lit a fire to keep warm, and failed to notice, as we piled on fuel, that the fire was out of control and the furniture had ignited. When that happens, little time is left to put out the fire before it consumes the house. Global warming, like a fire, is accelerating and almost no time is left to act.

<snip>

By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. True, burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide, but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas.

<snip>

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.

I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.

Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

"Transformers".
I have always believed in the Gaia theory that the earth is a living entity and we are all a part of it and we are headed for some very cataclymics events in the next few years
Mother Nature is PISSED

She's sick, she has been abused, too much toxins in her ,now she has the planetary equivalent of a fever.Hot and cold, And how does a fever go? It begins with getting chills while you feel hot, and sweating tossing , turning.Breaks with a sweat and finally, cooling.
(Floods, earthquakes, storms, Ice age)Just sayin'

pump out another level of propaganda?

pity


for others who do have it, and really care enough about this world:

http://www.helencaldicott.com /


peace

why WON'T you read Caldicott before you go on?
i went to the trouble of going through this with you last time you proselytized on DU, but you still haven't read her.

why?
the link i gave up-thread has her email link. i suggest you write her with your thoughts. she is incredibly brilliant and wonderful.

i'm off now. will check back when can. hope you've found the courage by then.

peace

Are you going to discuss Lovelock's credible views, or not? The issue here is global climate change. Not a book full of misinformation written by someone who has let her rightful views agaisnt nuclear weapons cloud her judgment on a subject she has no expertise whatsoever in. You would think a physician such as herself would be concerned about the millions of cancer deaths causes by toxins released in to the atmosphere by coal and natural gas burning power plants every year, but I guess they don't teach about those things in medical school.

Wrong on all counts, March 4, 2007
Reviewer: Environmental Realist - See all my reviews
Trading upon the simple confusion between physician and physicist, Dr. Caldicott continues to find publishers for her ideologically driven nonsense about peaceful nuclear power. This unique and remarkable source of clean energy already supplies one-sixth of the world's electricity:
-- with virtually no pollutants or greenhouse emissions
-- without consequential accidents for the last two decades
-- despite the large capital investments required, with ever decreasing costs that have now rendered it the most competitive source of electricity in most major economies.
For these reasons, governments of nations representing most of the world's population are putting nuclear power at the center of their long-term energy and environmental strategies. The nuclear renaissance is on, and misinformation such as this serves only to confuse public discussion on a subject critical to future human welfare.

A Physician is Not the Same as a Physicist, February 4, 2007
Reviewer: Tomthump "Tom" (Seattle WA USA) - See all my reviews
Dr. Caldicott's abysmal comprehension of energy production is demonstrated on page xii in the Introduction where she states that "hydropower converts the MOMENTUM of falling water into electricity".

100% biased and junk science, January 14, 2007
Reviewer: Stephen M. Packard Jr. "DrBuzz0" (New York Area) - See all my reviews
While nuclear weapons may be destructive and designed to kill, that does not necessarily extend to nuclear energy. It has its issues, with waste management and non-proliferation, but these issues all have two sides and are not insurmountable. This book, however, is one sided to the point of ridiculousness. Many of the claims are just plain unsubstantiated and some border on the ridiculous.
If you don't believe nuclear energy is the best means of making electricity, then fair enough; that's a valid opinion. But it doesn't help anyone to base your thoughts on slanted and inaccurate information.

Not Even Wrong, December 8, 2006
Reviewer: Kain Junot (Berkeley, CA) - See all my reviews
Meeting the energy demands of the 21st century is going to require both unprecedented innovations, which will always have unfortunate growing pains, and a diversity of energy sources. The author is able to conveniently ignore both of these issues.
Barely a page into the book, Helen Caldicott's first strike against nuclear power is the Chernobyl accident; needless to say Helen continues her arguments with the subtlety and grace of an Ogre and the insights of a first grader. Every minor detraction is vacuously expressed without any meaningful comparison. For example, Helen points out that fossil fuels are needed to transport uranium, but fails to address the transportation costs of conventional energy sources. Other absurdities include the analogy of how a nuclear plant produces electricity, "... cutting a pound of butter with a chainsaw...", once again implying the existence of a preferred conventional alternative where none exists. Finally, Helen deems all subsidies and investments in nuclear power as fraudulent wastes while the same for green power goes unquestioned. Non-answers for green power that Helen ignores are the large production of greenhouse gases from hydroelectric power (4 times that of an equivalent coal plant, see the Nature Journal, December 2006), and very optimistic views on both power generation and lifetime costs of wind and solar energy methods. Nuclear power might not be the answer, but neither is this pejorative diatribe.

Nuclear Power Is the Answer, November 14, 2006
Reviewer: Kevin Cahill (Albuquerque, NM) - See all my reviews
Helen Caldicott was right, if somewhat extreme, about nuclear weapons, but she is wrong about nuclear power. We have two choices: coal and nuclear. Clean coal is impossible with current technology. We can slow and perhaps reverse global warming by replacing all our coal-fired electric power plants with nuclear, solar, and wind power plants, and by using electric cars.

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Power-Answer-Helen-Caldicott/dp/1595580670/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5557848-2760069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174288642&sr=8-1

investment in being right. that is why i understand it will take courage for you to look further than what bolsters what you clearly feel a compelling need to believe.

i wish you that courage. we need to counter and stop this sellout to nuclearists. urgently!

Humans should exercise total and complete sovereignty over the earth. The environment should be protected only because it suits our wellbeing, not because "wilderness" should be protected for its own sake. Only for humankind's sake.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've had my fights with the right whether in front of abortion clinics or at a picket line. I'm a committed leftist. I happen to have a people-centered view of the world. I don't think that makes me reactionary or right-wing. I am in favor of defending the environment from capitalist abuse, but I favor this because it serves people's interests.

If that's not a Christian Dominionist way of thinking I don't know what is.

I'm not a theist in any sense. Nor do I worship gaia. My cause is people's well-being.

Just askin'.

Hekate

let me repeat this analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/nuclear-power-and-climate.html

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.

Safely and cleanly. We can too...the opposition is political, not scientific.

are these esteemed leaders of the environmental movement all being paid off by GE? . . . or do they see the situation as SO bad that we have no alternative but nuclear power if we are to have any hope of saving the planet? . . . not trying to be at all sarcastic -- I'd really like to know . . .

power plants than released by nuclear power plants....thousands of orders of magnituude more. We are spewing carcinogens such as mercury and sulfur into the atmosphere and it kills hundreds of thousands (at least) every year.

Global warming has the potential to cause a global catastrophe. Nuclear power has no greenhouse emissions and the newer technologies have been proven safe and effective in countries such as France, where 85% of the energy is generated by nuclear power.

Currently, the U.S. spews the most greenhouse gases and only gets 20% if it's power from nuclear plants. We need to maximize solar, wind, and nuclear energy in order to even slow down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. There is no way to seriously address emissions without nuclear energy at this time. We are running out of time, and the time to act is NOW.

NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER
by Dr Helen Caldicott
http://www.helencaldicott.com/books.htm#newbook

and this is her website:
http://www.helencaldicott.com /

and to you, OP, i tried, again. i wish you courage.

no more from me on this now.
g'night


peace all