Reply #134: Man, you ARE scarily propagandist, treepig

[seventhson]

what utter tripe.

ARGUING/Debating with you is useless because you are so obviously intentionally out of touch with reality and so aimed at disinformation that it is kind of like trying to ride a greased pig or climb a greased pole to get you to understand anything.

Such disinformation needs intelligent analysis and, BOY, are you a pain as intelligenct analysis of tripe is messy and has diminishing returns.

In any event - to respond to your tripe:

1. You embrace being CALLED a shill for the NUKE companies.

That's good. We are clearer on your aims and motivations.

2. Your analysis of solar power is so tunnelvisioned that it it is remarkable. The entire infrastructure of housing, transportation, communities, architecture, education, recycilng, energy and agriculture COULD be addressed in a massive jobs and economic package to rebuild America with a natural and solar infratstructure. We are NOT just talking about phot9ovoltaic cells. There is wind - YES. There is the design of houses and communities to take advantage of solar and natural , even passive, power and energy conservation techniques. There is methane from trash and hybrid vehicles. There is home energy productyion from wind and other means (the best one I have heard of is exercise bikes hooked up to generators and batteries and water pumps. You can bike/pedal and pump your water up to a passive solar heater/collector and generate power to run a cd player for music or a tv.

Your analysis is inane. While their may be some dangerous chemicals in manufacturing soalr cells, etc. - there is no reason (unlike in the production of nuclear waste) that we have to generate MORE toxic materials that must be stored for 250,000 years by armed guards costing multi-trillions of dollars. The chemicals and processes used can, I am sure -- unlike nulear energy -- be handled safely (as long as they are not d0one by incompetent criminals like Halliburton et al.

The REASON big energy does not want to go this way is that it is not a monopolistic moneymaker and will cut out the HUGE profits and power they make from producing weapons (Depleted uranium, for one thing and nuclear fuel as well)in the nuke energy process.


YES when they can get a monoply they will try if there is any profit to be made. But this effort for solar is not about profit. It is about saving money and reducing the dependence on monoplistic capitalistic fascists like the energy companies who have blocked such efforts for 50 years.

Your bullshit about banning solar power is too ridiculous for words. If a technology that can be performed without danger or risk (or minimal environmental risk) then let it be done. Mutating humanity forever cannot be compared to solar power energy == which CAN be entirely passive and practically risk free (Hey - going up on the roof can be dangerous to install a soalr unit -- but it will not mutate your genes or cause cancer two thousand years from now as nuke waste will do).

Entirely specious arguments and tiresome treepig.

I see where you get your name.