All out war on SUV owners

[sanosurfer]

TV ads equate owning an SUV with supporting terrorists

New York Times

Published Jan. 8, 2003 SUVS08


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Ratcheting up the debate over sport-utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy them are supporting terrorists. Some television stations are refusing to run the provocative ads.

Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that gas money spent on SUVs goes to terrorists.


full article at:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3578573.html
::)

[I-RIGHT-I]

That's that stupid twit Adriana Huffington, the Liberal's conservative. If I hadn't just bought a new company car I'd go back and get the biggest flipping Hummer they make. Never mind it won't fit in my garage. In fact if all goes well in 03 I'm selling my truck buying a lightly used Z-06 that gets 5 mpg. It's only fair that we buy all the Mid East oil they can ship us. They are going to need all the money they can get to defend themselves from the US army over the next several years. The plan calls for making Saudi Arabia a part of Texas and fooling the Mexicans into illegally immigrating there.

I just haven't figured out yet how I can leverage terrorism to my advantage to further MY agenda.

[lgllady]

Having babies and buying tupperware supports terrorism.

Babies use vaseline, a petroleum product. Tupperware is made from plastic, also a petroleum product.

I'll drive my SUV and Arianna Huffington can use her tupperware.

These liberals get more dictatorial and totalitarian every day. I recall right after 9/11 when everything was "if I don't do that, the terrorists have won". If I don't get my nails done, the terrorists have won, if I don't go to the movies the terrorists have won. That is until it got to be a joke. Now it's SUVs which they have been warring against for YEARS. Long before there were terrorists among us, the left has been trying to ban SUVs.

[Persephone]

For that matter, having any kind of car supports the petroleum industry. We should all be walking, riding bikes or taking public transportation. :)

[jeny]

For that matter, having any kind of car supports the petroleum industry. We should all be walking, riding bikes or taking public transportation. :)


Public transportation supports the petroleum industry. We should all just stay home and collect welfare. WAIT a second, maybe the democrats are making sense all these years after all! The welfare famalies really ARE saints.

[truelies]

They will get my wife's SUV when they pry her cold dead hands from the steering wheel.

[Meshuga Mikey]

The reports of gangs of PSUEDO enviro wack jobs trashing SUV EN MASSE at a Pisttsburgh SUV dealership do NOT sit well with me.

Oh that I had remembered to bookmark the spot where I read that report~!!

OH THAT CELL PHONES actually could reach LOCAL 911 numbers without being relayed through a live Stae cop Dispatch office and maybe we could catch some of these pukes and put a STOP to part of thier junior terrorist activities~!!

[JustPassinThru]

Notice that they're not talking about saving heating oil. Or driving less. Or shipping goods by rail instead of 3-MPG tractor-trailer.

No, they're worried about a family riding in a 20-mpg car, instead of in two 35-mpg cars.

It's not about the terrorism, or even about the oil. It's about envy and dominance

[Lance]

>:( What I want to know is WHY did we not learn our lesson in the 70s during the "oil crisis"? Right then and there, we should have realized that oil was a problem and that the camel jockeys would be able to hold us at ransom until we got off.

So why are we not doing something now? I realize a transisition off an "oil economy" will not come over night, but if Bush had a brain, we would tackle this like the space race and get off while we can.

[sanosurfer]

The reports of gangs of PSUEDO enviro wack jobs trashing SUV EN MASSE at a Pisttsburgh SUV dealership do NOT sit well with me.

Oh that I had remembered to bookmark the spot where I read that report~!!


Mikey, do you mean this report:


SUVs Torched in Penn. Eco-Terrorism Stunt Claimed by Radical Environmental Group

The Associated Press


PITTSBURGH Jan. 4 —
In the latest in a string of vandalism carried out in the name of the Earth Liberation Front, members of the radical environmental group are claiming responsibility for a fire at a Pennsylvania auto dealership.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030104_1022.html

God Bless my SUV!!!

[sanosurfer]

Notice that they're not talking about saving heating oil. Or driving less. Or shipping goods by rail instead of 3-MPG tractor-trailer.


Or talking about how nuclear power requires no oil and puts out zero polution.

[Lance]

Tell me. I started college as a nuke engineer and know more than a few "facts" about that industry. We really do need it to make the transistion off an oil economy. (That, or someone really getting fusion to work nicely tomorrow.)

[sanosurfer]

Tell me. I started college as a nuke engineer and know more than a few "facts" about that industry. We really do need it to make the transistion off an oil economy. (That, or someone really getting fusion to work nicely tomorrow.)

So as a nuke engineer, how comfortable are you with increasing our nuclear energy program? IMHO the worst aspect of it is what to do with the spent fuel and maintaining security at the sites.

[Lance]

sanosurfer: I am not a nuke engineer by profession. I was in the degree for about two years and had the basic stuff. I am a computer geek these days.

To answer your question, it needs to happen. Along with other alternative energy methods at the same time. The biggest issue is the spent fuel, which either has to be stored essentially forever (halflives in the 100K year range) OR disposed of. My personal favorite if we could build a totally reliable launch system would be to let the sun play incinerator. (The "tanks" it is currently carried in to sites today are literally indestructable by collision.)

I view fission as a short-term stopgap measure which if we had intelligent people running our government, should not require more than a 100 years.

By site security, are you meaning against sabatoge or just general containment? (Containment buildings are designed to withstand a steam explosion FWIW.)

[sanosurfer]

To answer your question, it needs to happen. Along with other alternative energy methods at the same time. The biggest issue is the spent fuel, which either has to be stored essentially forever (halflives in the 100K year range) OR disposed of. My personal favorite if we could build a totally reliable launch system would be to let the sun play incinerator. (The "tanks" it is currently carried in to sites today are literally indestructable by collision.)

I've often thought that launching the waste towards the sun would be the best way to get rid of it, but you have to consider a disaster at launch that could spread the waste over a large area.


By site security, are you meaning against sabatoge or just general containment? (Containment buildings are designed to withstand a steam explosion FWIW.)


In regards to security Im more concerned about protecting it from nutballs (muslims). I live 10 miles from the San Onofre reactor (I surf the beach in front of it every weekend, hence the name sanosurfer) and have wondered how the domes would hold up if an airliner were to be driven into them like what happened at the WTC.

Aside from these 2 issues, I'm all for using the power of the atom to cut back on our oil usage.

[Lance]

Let me put it this way, a containment building could probably take a direct hit from an airliner and not even flinch. They are multiple feet thick concrete and steel reinforced.

They have to be, because they are designed to "contain" (hence the name, containment building) a steam explosion. This is what you get should a core overheat (like TMI) and actually melt-down. The molten core would drop into what is left of the coolant in the bottom of the reactor, triggering a steam explosion, which while not a "nuclear" one, is certainly the equivalent of a large amount of TNT going off.

Personally, you would have a better shot at causing problems with a mole on the inside than crashing an airliner into it.

Back to the launch method. If you made the container holding the waste small and dense (like it is on the rail/tractor trailers today), it could withstand enormous forces without rupture. Now it may end up where you do not want it; say in the middle of someone's living room, but you should be able to retrieve it safely.

[truelies]

Why shoot the stuff into the sun? Just mix the waste into glass blocks and store those in salt domes and forget.

[Lance]

truelies: That will not work. Remember, you are dealing with substances that have half-lives in the neighborhood of 100,000 years.

Let me put that in english. It will take 100,000 years for the amount of radioactive material to decrease by half. It would need to be inside *something* that can shield radiation.

Our other alternative is to come up with a method to reprocess this fuel into something else with a far shorter half-live. Ideally you get it down to a non-radioactive element.

[truelies]

truelies: That will not work. Remember, you are dealing with substances that have half-lives in the neighborhood of 100,000 years.

Let me put that in english. It will take 100,000 years for the amount of radioactive material to decrease by half. It would need to be inside *something* that can shield radiation.

Our other alternative is to come up with a method to reprocess this fuel into something else with a far shorter half-live. Ideally you get it down to a non-radioactive element.


Reprocessing to recapture useable fuel is fine. Of what is left the longer the half-life the lower the radiactivity. Salt domes will work as a storage venue. They have been around undisturbed for a couple of hundred million years i.e. the last time the site of Kansas City was at the bottom of the ocean. Check out some of what Petr Beckmann has written on this. His knowledge of the risks associated with nuclear power is extensive.