silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

You have got to be kidding me. Its nice that people go to visit Chernobyl but nobody can live in the surrounding areas, thats just great. Did you know that there are nuclear plants that have been build directly on the Madrigal earthquake fault in this country? Yes its unfortunate that accidents occur but what happens when the big "accident" happens? How many "accidents" does it take to make people realize how dangerous this activity is. Have you ever researched the 1812 earthquake that occurred in this country because of the Madrigal earthquake fault? This has nothing to do with being liberal, conservative or just an asshole. Enlighten yourself as to the dangers of nuclear energy. Also, to quote you "the russian government is recovering faster then anybody thought possible" let me ask you, would you live there? By the way, when you go to "visit" the area near chernobyl you have to pass through checkpoints and when you get into the area you must don protective clothing, some visit. In answer to your comment about the exclusion area for your information radiation from the chernobyl accident can be detected as far away as Canada. The exclusion zone is not that small and it doesnt take into account the amount of radioactive damage for hundreds of miles surrounding the area. You must be blind to not see this. Radioactivity does not go away, the half life of some of the by products stay in the environment for a very long time. There are nuclear "accidents" all the time and this will keep getting worse and worse. How can you in any way relate nuclear threat to birds? What is the matter with you. Tell me about the nuclear waste and how it is handled. Would you live near a nuclear waste dump? You must be crazy to insinuate that nuclear energy is safe. This is not a political issue, get that through your thick head. This is a human issue. Who cares what someones politics are, this issue will eventually effect every person on this planet. Every "accident " releases radioactive particles into our environment, what will it take to convince you that this waste does not go away? Some of these elements have a half life of 50,000 years. One last thing. There have been predictions that the Madrigal earthquake fault will again become very active and what will all of the people do when the nuclear plants that have been constructed on this fault fail? Where will they go? The answer to this is simple. Just look at Chernobyl and see what the results will be. Nobody lives near there, farms are contaminated, animals are contaminated and so are the people.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Blurryeyed the fact that the turbine companies are winning means that the oil companies in ND will win too.

You argument is as specious as the birther arguments.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

It is not handled and that is one legitimate and serious concern that you rightfully interject into the conversation. Why is it not handled? The democrats refuse to open the repository so now most nuclear waste is simply stored on site or shipped to other sites for storage, thank you President Obama, Not only did you make a $15 billion taxpayer investment completely worthless, I am sure that you have made us all safer.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Here is one of many articles about Chernobyl. Take a look around and read a little bit that is published regarding this issue. Chernobyl is much worse then you think.Please inform yourself.http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2067562,00.html As I understand the situation Chernobyl is only about 60 miles from Kiev, I do not think that I would live there, would you?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Would you please explain to me just what you are talking about??? The turbine companies are not winning in the courts, this is selective prosecution, the turbine companies are never bought to court no matter for each bird an oil company kills the turbines kill between 5,000 to 10,000. The same thing is happening in California where the Wind turbines are killing 1,000's of Golden Eagles. All I am saying is that the left never gave a damn about the birds they only care about their assault on oil, and they are hypocritical. Again the government does not care to educate people that it is indeed our government who profits the most when you fill your car with gas, but the president has time and time again eloquently assailed big oil as the destroyers of American lifestyle, environment, and the very fabric of our way of life... LOL it is all BS.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

I shall enjoy educating you. Examples of 'green' initiatives.

1. Exxon Mobile http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31906381/ns/business-us_business/t/exxon-makes-first-big-biofuel-investment/

2.Walmart http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815727/ns/us_news-environment/t/wal-mart-going-green/

3. Chevron http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11346689/ns/us_news-environment/t/postal-service-plugs-solar-hydrogen/

4. Conoco Phillips - maybe next time.

5. General Motors - Google Volt Automobile.

Next time do your own homework.

rrforster12 Loc: Leesburg Florida

Actually, a corporation IS considered a "person" legally speaking. That is the very essence of the concept, and the very reason one can sue a corporation. Corporations have "Rights" as well as "Responsibilities" and it is the responsibility of our legal system to enforce both of these. If there are corporations that are raping the environment it is only because they are being allowed to by those that are charged with writing and enforcing our laws. That being said it seems that there are nonsensical laws in so many instances that it tends to destroy the validity of ALL the environmental movement. ANWAR is a prime example of the overkill. There are thousands of other absolutely ludicrous examples of how self-important government officials have taken a ridiculous position and obstinately refuse to reconsider it regardless of common sense screaming against their position. This has evolved into a situation of two camps of near fanatics, neither willing to give an inch of their notions of what is "the right thing to do". The situation needs to change, but I for one doubt that it ever will.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Blurreyeyed:

The gas tax goes to the highway trust fund to maintain the roads you use.

Each state, county, city taxes gas. If you have a problem with this speak with your local officials.

Federal tax revenues

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993. An increase of 10¢/gal would bring approximately $20 billion of annual revenue into the Highway Trust Fund.
[edit]Public policy

Some policy experts believe that an increased tax is needed to fund and sustain the country's transportation infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued a detailed report[5] in February 2009.
An increased cost of fuel would also encourage less consumption. A growing fiscal and national security concern is America's dependence on foreign oil. Americans sent nearly $430 billion to other countries in 2008 for the cost of imported oil.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

I don't know if your figure can be verified, but would you please explain to me why Apple (a corporation) should behave any differently from its competitors? Do you think they could stay in business if they deliberately accepted handicaps that their competitors did not feel obliged to accept?

I'm not making excuses for Apple. Any more than I would make excuses for Shell, and I worked for them for 10 years.

Corporations need to be regulated because, unregulated, they will push money to the bottom line every time. In today's world, corporations have become both more mobile and less responsible than nation states. That's one reason why their influence has become so powerful, and so excessive.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I skimmed over your article and I will take the time to go back and read it, I would point out a few things to you that liberals do not take into account. One is that industrial occupational deaths exist in all industry. As far as exposure to the civilian population? Technologies have advanced a great deal since Chernobyl and that accident as well as the recent disaster in Japan does not in and of itself mean that nuclear energy can not be safely produced. It is an answer for every part of the country? No, indeed if I were living in So California I would be very concerned about the plant that was recently shut down there, but that does not mean that it can not be safely produced in Texas, Florida, or a large number of other states.

Lastly, I would venture that most conservatives are much like myself, we would welcome the advances in technologies that would usher in green energy, however we are not willing to do so at the cost of mandates and subsidies that rob our economy of productive resources. Liberals identify what they consider to be a worthy goal and then will force it upon us no matter the cost, no matter that they stackup failed program after failed program in the pursuit of said goal not willing to allow themselves to be held to account for the wasted resources that they have spent, and they fail to account for the hidden taxation in their policies, such as the current mandated green energy compliance in several of our communities that force utility companies to purchase mandated percentages of their power from green sources at rates much higher than their own cost of production. This results in higher energy bills to consumers and the citizens and businesses of those communities but is not recognized as a tax, when in fact it is little different than a tax on the community as the governmental agency that directed those mandates is forcing its citizens to spend their money on a program that is being forced upon them by the government.

When market conditions exist that will make green energy viable private enterprise will respond much quicker and more efficiently than our government ever could dream of doing and it will solve the problem, it is just that progressives and the government can not resist forcing their solutions upon the masses as you are always the enlightened class and therefore have the right. In the mean time the sky is falling all around us as government has promised so much and never gone about the business of insuring their ability to come through on those promises. The government does one thing well and better than the private sector and that is our armed services, other than that their ventures into the private sector, be it by subsidy or by mandate are always met with abject failure.

Why does the government not take a time out and go back and audit itself, clean its own house before trying to force me to clean mine? If the government were to set better examples of its ability to run efficiently and show them to be good stewards of the federal treasury then more would pay attention and buy into their efforts, as it is the federal government has little credibility and is deserving of even less.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Too late. You already did.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

[quote=ole sarg] Blurreyeyed:

The gas tax goes to the highway trust fund to maintain the roads you use.

Each state, county, city taxes gas. If you have a problem with this speak with your local officials.

Federal tax revenues

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.[4] The tax was last raised in 1993, and is not indexed to inflation. The federal gas tax has experienced a cumulative loss in purchasing power of 33 percent since 1993. An increase of 10¢/gal would bring approximately $20 billion of annual revenue into the Highway Trust Fund.
[edit]Public policy

Some policy experts believe that an increased tax is needed to fund and sustain the country's transportation infrastructure. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued a detailed report[5] in February 2009.
An increased cost of fuel would also encourage less consumption. A growing fiscal and national security concern is America's dependence on foreign oil. Americans sent nearly $430 billion to other countries in 2008 for the cost of imported oil.[/blockquote]

Is this an intentional deflection or are you only trying to illustrate my point. The fact remains that the government receives the lions share of the profit from each gallon of gasoline sold in this country. I don't care what they use the money for. Yes this country is in a fiscal mess, do you think that I created that or is it more likely the politicians in DC have created this. The richest country in the world with the largest public revenue stream in the world will soon collapse under the debt it has created because our politicians have an insatiable appetite for spending money on what are often meaningless programs.

Here we can't seem to fix our roads, we can't seem to repair our broken infrastructure, even though the president was given $800 billion to do so, and the only explanation offered was "Well those shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready after all." and now the dems once again are crying over broken roads and bridges, are we as a people really that stupid? Just last week the Obama administration committed $100 billion to the UN to compensate developing countries for our carbon emissions.... How does this make sense?, and how can you support more of the same from a government that will not in any fashion allow itself to be held accountable by the people of this country. Do you agree that we should just hand over $100 billion to the UN when we are facing the problems we face in this country, do you expect an explanation from this administration as to why the UN is more deserving of that money than are the people of this nation? Of course not! It is has become a normal course of business for your government that you have come to accept, well sorry I don't.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Blerryeyed what a bold statement without any supporting facts.

Lastly, I would venture that most conservatives are much like myself, we would welcome the advances in technologies that would usher in green energy, however we are not willing to do so at the cost of mandates and subsidies that rob our economy of productive resources. Liberals identify what they consider to be a worthy goal and then will force it upon us no matter the cost, no matter that they stackup failed program after failed program in the pursuit of said goal not willing to allow themselves to be held to account for the wasted resources that they have spent, and they fail to account for the hidden taxation in their policies, such as the current mandated green energy compliance in several of our communities that force utility companies to purchase mandated percentages of their power from green sources at rates much higher than their own cost of production. This results in higher energy bills to consumers and the citizens and businesses of those communities but is not recognized as a tax, when in fact it is little different than a tax on the community as the governmental agency that directed those mandates is forcing its citizens to spend their money on a program that is being forced upon them by the government.

I guess the Lewis and Clark Expedition or the building of a new class of ship which included old ironsides would be you first examples of governmental waste. How about the Space Program or the interstate system (no one wanted that or thought it was needed).

There are people with foresight and those who have their eyes on costs. Those who have their eyes on costs are called conservatives and those with vision are called liberals. At least in your world.

ted45 Loc: Delaware

I was quoting articles from the Huffington Post, ABC, and CBS news among others pertaining to the 25th anniversary of the disaster. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/04/chernobyl_disaster_25th_annive.html The all seem to think the exclusion zone is 19 miles.

As far as building on a fault line, I have already stated that people screw up. Some politician or engineer built those plants and the fact that the situation hasn't been corrected is one more example of how regualtion or at least ill conceived regulation, is not the ultimate answer.

Further more, I have not include profanity in any of my posts. That selection of language seems to always come from the liberal side of the arguement. Anything that humans attempt to build has a danger factor built into it. The problem with nuculear is that people like yourself lean too much on emotions and not enough on fact. Much of the "radiation" that is measued in the atmosphere is naturally there. Yes, you are bombarded daily with harmful radiation. Our planet is very efficient at cleaning and dealing with it. I heard a rant yesterda about the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere and how it is destroying us. I looked it up the atmosphere contains half of 1/10th of 1 percent of CO2. Perhaps you can look up what it is that plants breathe.

So, based on your attitude, I assume that when you tried to ride a bicycle and fell off you gave it up forever.

RTR Loc: West Central Alabama

Hahahaha. You support my point. It is going GREAT in WEST Alabama. Birmingham is a BLUE hole in a red state. Birmingham has been run by liberals all of my life. They are in bad shape. We CONSERVATIVES over here in West Alabama are celebrating Mercedes Benz' huge expansion of their auto assembly plant.

The water situation in red Alabama is fine too. Even after Halliburton and Schlumberger FRACKED THOUSANDS of wells in our area our drinking water is among the purest in the whole country.

And NO, I do NOT share the fruit from my garden with my neighbors. They are all physically and mentally able to provide for themselves. And being so, if they don't provide for themselves THEY CAN STARVE.

Poverty Not Too Bad Either :

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:
Durango: 30.7%

Whole state: 16.8%

Residents with income below 50% of the poverty level in 2009:
Durango:11.6%
Whole state:5.9%

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009:

Northport:20.2%
Whole state:23.0%
Residents with income below 50% of the poverty level in 2009:
Northport:7.6%
Whole state:7.5%


Better read some more before you make a fool of yourself again.