2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Story Number: NNS071220-22

 I found this issue to be presented in a glossed over manor, almost every sentence has a point; "don't worry about it, it is handled, we go way out of our way to protect every thing. Move on."

“"We fund about 50 percent of marine mammal research worldwide," he said.

Statistically, the number of marine-mammal "strandings" -- beached whales, for example -- due to sonar is extremely low compared to those caused by nature and the commercial fishing industry. Sonar was implicated in 50 strandings over 10 years, Rice said.

This averages out at a rate of five sonar-related strandings per year, vs. an average of 3,600 standings per year due to natural causes and about 600,000 per year linked to the commercial fishing industry, he explained.

"The numbers are still single-digit numbers of marine mammals stranding per year attributed to sonar," he said.”

Is this double talk? Do all injured whales get stranded? I do not think “strandings are not the issue, but injury to marine life, in particular mammals such as whales.

Had there not been any public outcry, what would the navy's position been? Apparently the navy doesn't think for itself, doesn't know right from wrong? The position is that they care about whales, but I do not think they came to that conclusion form internal pressure only. Why does it care about whales now?

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I am more than wondering if the financial experts are bumbling around trying to control this "monster"; the world economy or if there are economists behind the scenes that have created this economic downturn on purpose for nefarious gain? I have heard lecturers call this downturn “man made”. I assumed they meant “done on purpose” as those that cite the 1910 meeting on jekyll island that formed the federal reserve which became an act in 1913, that was also done in reaction to an "economic down trun". Is dues ex machina going to come out of the woodwork and save everyone with a “new world order”

Either way, it is time to take our communities seriously, create complimentary local monetary system and become involved with community land trusts and community agriculture, good luck, perhaps I'll see you in the fields;-)

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

If it can be cleaned up afterward, lets do it now. For some reason the nuke on the columbia hasn't been cleaned up yet, do you have any idea why? I'll tell you, it is TOO EXPENSIVE. It may never get cleaned up, mean while how many people have gotten cancer from nuclear waste form that nuclear plant? If we can clean it up, lets do it first, before we make another colossal mess. It seems in almost every nuclear case, the mines haven't been cleaned up, the power plant hasn't been cleaned up and the waste hasn't been cleaned up, what's up with this?

Don't believe me? The nuclear power promoters should be happy to take you on a tour of their mines, their decommissioned nuclear plants and their storage facilities, correct? They may cite “security issues” hinting that you could be a terrorist that could use information from the tour to sabotage their system to bring death and destruction to millions of innocent people, and there is lies the truth of nuclear power. How convenient that you, a concerned citizen who just wished to investigate the best energy source for you community is banned from any real investigation because anyone could turn their “safe” energy source into a terrorist weapon.

Not only that, how many people have gotten cancer because of the radio active steam that was released from the plant when it was running? They do it all the time, there are so called "safe amounts" of this steam, give me a break. It is kind of hard find out, kind of hard to prove who has cancer from it, it doesn't mean that people do not have cancer from it, it doesn't mean that people haven't died from the cancer they got from the plant operations.

Lets go back to where the uranium came from, it was likely stolen from indigenous people, that for economic reasons (localized depression) worked in the mines, mines that have toxic tailings in ponds that spill like they did in Arizona into the colorado river contaminating it with radioactivity.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uip.html

Lets set things right with these projects and these people BEFORE we embark on more misconceptions and nefarious deeds, it is only right, it is only fair, it is only wise and if someone tells you otherwise, do you know what they are doing? Take a wild guess.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I am sorry about my misconceptions. Perhaps you or Gweyneth could explain the how the concerns in these articles will be addressed in the future?

http://www.wise-uranium.org/uip.html

http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm

I am in favor of the nuclear industry being welcomed by the people in the links above, once that is done, lets talk, in the mean time what could you possibly say?

Coal and nuclear ARE SUBSIDIESED by the government, lets stop propping up this industry that IS KILLING US and instead MASIVELY SUBSIDIES CLEAN renewable sustainable energy JUST LIKE NEW YORK STATE is doing:

http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2280

What about these other energy storage systems?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Because nuclear electrical generators are thermal nuclear systems, they are subject to over-heating in hot weather! Just when we have a peak in demand for AC equipment for cooling, that is when nuclear generators will have to power down??

We have wind, solar, wave and non dam hydro (propellers in the water, because the water behind the dam warms up, that is really bad for the salmon) and that is what we should build and build and build, now as long as the scientists recommend it.

Do you still think I have misconceptions? Perhaps it is you that has the misconceptions, did that ever cross your mind?

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Mt understanding is that uranium, when it is found it is taken from the owners of land at the best possible rate, preferably without compensation, the natives are given well paying jobs in the mines but in the case of the Navajo, it commonly lead to premature death. Radioactive dust and and the background radioactivity is deadly. Presumably mountain top removal or some other destructive system would be used that would produce toxic tailings that would be an environmental disaster like with coal or so called clean coal.

The spent fuel rods would be an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Perhaps they would be sold to the military for armor pricing rounds or to refine into nuclear weapons or sell to Iran in order to justify starting a war with them.

Nuclear plants routinely release radioactive steam as if it just fine to do so. This would cause many cases of cancer and there would be no way for the average person to reasonably avoid this fall out. Would the nuclear power companies pay for medical treatment and lost wages and all associated costs that they would be foisting on to the general public, and what about those that didn't want to get cancer to begin with? How much is that worth? 

Being thermal nuclear power plants, they will shut down in very hot weather, just when maximum demand for AC would be put on them. There will be very expensive service issues such as changing out the fuel rods and possible theft of generating units and material by terrorists.

All this simply to boil water? How about a parabolic trough solar water boiling electric generator?

I am contacting my state representatives to tell them my opinion; do not allow this in Oregon. It is about as smart as arming all teachers with firearms.

posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context

"Sure, the dams are low/zero carbon energy sources..." This statement is not entirely true.

Concrete or maybe Portland cement is energy intensive to produce therefore is considered to have high amounts of embedded energy. That energy releases something like 5% of the total amount of (man made, including cattle, I think) CO2 into the atmosphere. How many trees, that are carbon sequesters, are taken out of service when they are flooded and killed? Killing trees is not carbon neutral. I like using trees for building, but I do not call it carbon neutral.

I think it is pointless to consider something as being "green" when it is contributing to the destruction of the top river life forms. Coal isn't green energy and neither are dams. Lets remember that Germany, which is about the size of Oregon but farther north and cloudier than Oregon has been purchasing much of the world's supplies of solar PV panels for years because they are committed to getting off coal and oil are doing so under worse conditions than we have here. Also black silicon has been developed that absorbs photons, is it 100 to 500 times more efficiently that regular PV panels? Also carbon nanotubes can be used for very efficient solar PV panels as well as super capacitor/batteries, they require carbon and cellulose, both abundant, low toxicity, low cost, low negative impact environmentally, light weight, so it might be a good green energy substitute for dams and coal. Why don't we know the answer to this?

Anyone interested about reading up on dams might wish to read the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dam-Nation-Dispatches-Water-Underground/dp/1932360808/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226714570&sr=8-1

Linked to:

http://tinyurl.com/6agu3z

"Green" also implies low or no negative environmental impact, so lets try to keep in mind fish are part of what we are talking about helping, and fish, at least used to be part of the natural environment. Now that the fish populations have been devastated to the point that the commercial fishing season was canceled this year, perhaps taking the dams out starting 12 years in the future and likely taking years to complete is a fair and balanced approach. At that point in time I hope someone checks to see how the salmon and steelhead are doing because if they are extinct, perhaps leaving the dams in would be "greener" than removing them.

I am not sure how we would feel about denying most members of another species access to its spawning grounds and continuing this for 12 years until we *start* to take it down, I do not think this would be acceptable, nor would I call it fair and balanced. I know who should give the most the soonest and it isn't the fish.

I seem to recall dams have a life cycle that is something like 60 or 80 years because of silt build-up behind the dam. I wonder if the dams have reached the end of their life cycle, or will around 2020? The generosity of the power company is so wonderful!

I am trying to understand the logic, if power company management chooses an expensive generating system, the customers pay extra, but in the years when people forget about the cost, the share holders get the money. I didn't hear the whole show today, but I heard the power company spokes man say "the customers will pay" referring the removal of the dams ... If that is the case, shouldn't the customers have a say in what type of generating systems are built and other management decisions such as CEO pay? After all, if there is a chance customers will pay for management mistakes or poor judgment shouldn't the customer build up emergency money to handle it? If not, is it a form of taxation without representation? I hope the show touched on this today. Why should the CEO be paid millions when the generating system is so environmentally destructive and so costly to remove at the expense of the general public?

This country was pushed to declare independence because of being pushed around by an English corporation called the east india tea company incorporated many safeguards to insure that it would happen like this again.

As another post in this thread said; the power company is capitalizing positive cash flow and socializing negative cash flow. How is it possible
in this capitalistic government the utility company has no risk? Even when they were told not to build the dams in the first place, yet we pay.

Isn't there any government office that regulates this sort of thing? If there isn't, it is only because the deregulators striped out the relevant laws, which someone should investigate and put on this show so we can understand what is going on with this. Is the government working hand in hand with a predatory utility company.

Isn't it time the little guy stop paying for the mistakes of the big guys? I heard that when the dams went in the people didn't want them. So they were promised free electricity. I guess they forgot about that, so the customers paid the the rates for all these years and now they will be paying extra to remove the dams, great, give me a break! I wonder how much the CEOs have gotten through out the years, I bet if we took all of their assets and pooled them all together with other senior management compensation we might take a big bite out the $200,000,000. Isn't that what being responsible means?

Isn't that where we should be looking first? Isn't there a utility commission, Secretary of state or over-site committee that has a duty to act? I thought crime wasn't supposed to pay.

Shody Portland OR

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I agree with Jim Gilbert. It is so important, I would like to see a show on the way local government interacts with lobbyists, the way local government welcomes lobbyists and what government does for them and how government officials feel about their relationship with the lobbyists and what sort of things the officials
do as a quid pro quo (sp) and what influence lobbyists have, examples of government actions that were taken because of special interest influence that turned out not to be in the best interest of the general public. Is this system a good one, the best one we can come up with?

I would like to know the difference between lobbying and bribing and why it is a good idea to have big business choose our elected officials.

I wouldn't mind some shows about national issues. Voting machine fraud, the electoral college, instant run-off election, media's lack of investigative or critical reporting, the sort that would have landed law breakers working in the federal government in prison if the stories received more air time.

I am told by the government officials that I speak with lobbyists and special interest groups do not have a big influence on them. With out much knowledge on the subject I say "throw them out". It seems that special interest groups that are funded by big business to "gain access" to legislators to legislate on selfish interests of an industry could only distort the process in a way that would be detrimental to the general population. It has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why are lawyers so concerned with the appearance of a conflict of interest yet politicians and government officials, some of whom do similar types of legal work, some of which is much more important than private law suits, be exempt from the appearance of a conflict of interest? Can I supply examples? On a national level why did the US attack "the wrong" county; Iraq? Following the money, big oil is making record profits, so one might deduce big oil set US policy to attack Iraq. Do things like that happen at the oregon state level? Does oregon have big business that might be manipulated? If so, what is it and how is it being manipulated? I do not hear your show often so my apologies if you have already done this, but even so, I wouldn't mind this sort of topic being a daily theme.

I would like to know revenue pathways in Oregon, where taxes come from and how they are spent, including the gas tax. I would like to see irresponsible businesses pay in a way that makes worthwhile for big business to act in thoughtful ethical ways, and companies and individuals that act in a forward thinking manor be rewarded by government. Are there any examples of these?

I would like to hear a show about corporate personhood. I would like to hear an interview with the secretary of state, do they take corporate oversight seriously? Have they ever prosecuted a corporation that was doing something illegal? I would like to know about it in this new age of government transparency. Is the SOS so conscious of creating or destroying jobs that corporate oversight must be thrown out? If so, shouldn't the SOS be proactive, luring responsible business people and industries here, walking them through multiple tax breaks that they would be eligible for based on building energy efficient super insulated solar oriented (low thermal storage south facing glass walls) factories with worker housing near by to save energy on workers commuting, rain water collection and green industries? Shouldn't government regulations aggsivly target and *help* eco tourism and things that showcase Oregon as a wonderful place and just as aggressively target industry that destroys nature and quality of live in Oregon? If government offcials have done anything like this on any level, lets showcase them, if not we the people need to understand why and how the government works so we can try to bring oregon back to being a wonderful wild place of nature with old growth douglas fir, redwood and cedar, healthy wild animals and fish and clean air (not like my house that gets fumes from paint from a local manufacturer). Lets promote the ecological health of the shallow river areas; the fish nurseries. Any government officials or anyone that has been trying to care for the state should be interviewed to see what is wrong and what is helping.

I am so grateful for this show for its depth and giving everyone with internet access a voice on your show, this is wonderful, thank you.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I have no experience of change like you are requesting, but I wanted to participate a little.
I think Obama should go in blazing, restoring the constitution, habeas corpus, posse comitatus, reversing signing statements, instating campaign finance reform, instant run-off voting and end election fraud and caging, ending corporate personhood, requiring "the news" to avoid the conflict of interest and to tell the truth preserving the forth estate, ending big business's influence of foreign and domestic policy as Eisenhower warned about.

Lets get the money back that have been taken from the tax payers for things like the war in Iraq by taxing those that make money from the war like big oil who probably used their influence to make us attack Iraq, and make crime not pay, investigate 911 before we go after Bin Laden, get manufacturing carbon nanotube solar PV panels and carbon nanotube super capacitor batteries up and running.
Feel free to paraphrase any of this that is relevant.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

It needs to change. I agree with the first post by trutl9.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

I am not an expert on this subject. I have a layman's interest and read what I chance across on the subject.
The big oil companies do not want any competition or non petroleum alternatives so I assume they have launched a miss information campaign. It may be true that ethanol made from corn is not sustainable. I don't know if it is true that if all the available crop land were used to raised fuel, it would supply only 10% of what we used now.
I think all of these are true, yet I think big businesses are making money by manipulating and destabilizing commodities markets partly through circulating rumors. In the last month I have heard repeatedly that corn is not suitable for sustainable energy production, which is true, but why is the media circulating this information at this time?
Ethanol from sugar cane apparently is sustainable as far as a crop but could not supply more than about 10% of the demand world wide. I assume sugar cane will not grow in most of the US, but sugar beets grow in the same areas that corn grows in and might do better than corn for ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol might work out a lot better, and well as butanol from algae, which might be able to be grown at sea and not use crop land. Butanol is more energy dense than ethanol or petrol gasoline which makes it a lot more desirable than both of them.

I think Evs are a lot better than hybrids and we are wasting precious time fooling around with bio fuels for the general public to use to drive to the mall and to work. What we should be doing is mass producing carbon nano tube super capacitor batteries that would store electrical energy that would power Evs, not hybrids.
Then we should promote the use of decentralized residential renewable energy electrical generators such as PV panels and wind turbines that connect to the grid which should be nationalized to prevent price gouging.

The reason we don't approach the energy problem head on is 2 fold.
The public is ignorant because the media is owned by mega corporations that have infiltrated government regulators and now go as far as setting foreign and domestic policy, which is the effective loss of the 4th estate.
Both big business and government are getting money from the system the way it is and don't want it to change and will do anything not to allow it to change.

http://www.lionev.com/FAQ_s.html

A frequent topic to come up in EV chat rooms is why the big three automakers continue to produce ICE automobiles when they now have proven that EV's are viable and reliable vehicles. Of course there are as many conspiracy theories out there as there are used automobiles. The truth is easy enough to derive if you just follow the money.
The United States tax economy runs on oil. Simple as that.
The Federal government cannot allow for the introduction of Electric Vehicles on a large scale as it would undermine the tax structure that keeps the tax coffers full. This explains why such stringent rules are always set in place to prevent the vehicles from being mass produced.
On the average day the United States uses 400,000,000 gallons of gas. That is four hundred million gallons. The Federal tax on this is 18.4 cents per gallon.
If you take the daily use and multiply it by the number of days in a year you come up with 146 billion gallons of gas consumed per year. At 18.4 cents per gallon that is $27,000,000,000 (27 billion dollars) in Federal taxes yearly. That is a lot of tax revenue to try to replace!
The tax on gas at the state level varies a great deal, you can look up your state's fuel tax at http://www.virginiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
The average of 50 cents will be applied though, and that results in $73,000,000,000 (73 billion dollars) of state level taxes. That is a huge amount of tax revenue to have just go away. How would the government fund pet projects without that kind of money?
So in summary, to introduce a viable electric vehicle to the market would kill $100,000,000,000 in taxes. Plus it eliminates the easiest method the Federal government has for dipping in to your wallet.
On another note: Many people wonder why that 9/10 of a cent thing is on every gallon of gas price. There are many stories about this, one of them is probably true, but the fact of the matter is that that 9/10 extra on the price generates an additional $141,000,000 (141 million dollars) for the oil companies.
Now the answer to the question is fairly obvious. The United States government can't afford an electric vehicle industry.
By focusing on such a small subject area you seem to be highlighting the differences people have and creating a heated debate which must be good for ratings, like WWF pro wrestling, but I think the listeners deserve a real debate on real solutions, not this kind of sensational journalism. For those of you with kids and grand kids, what are you going to do if life becomes unsustainable, are you going to say to them ?at least we had good ratings??
By taking such a micro view of the problem and just looking at bio fuels instead of asking the correct question, ?what is the most energy efficient and environmentally responsible way to provide transportation to the masses? you are effectively by-passing the point.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context