Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

AlterNet Readers' 10 Best Comments of the Week

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted August 4, 2007.


AlterNet's editors picked some of the best comments on our coverage this week.
Advertisement

As part of our ongoing efforts to give AlterNet readers a voice, we're introducing a new feature: your Comments of the Week.

This first collection was chosen by AlterNet's editors, but in the future, it'll be up to you to nominate the most insightful comments by your fellow readers every week. You can either send an e-mail to your friendly neighborhood AlterNet Community Moderator (moderator@alternet.org), or you can use the "report this comment" button featured on each reader's contributions. Yes, until now that's been for reporting bad behavior, but now you can use it to highlight your fellow readers' best contributions.

It's web 2.0, baby! And we've got a lot more of it in the pipeline.

And without further ado, here are this week's best comments …

On Monday, we ran a piece by Julie Johnson titled, "Californians Are Willing to Pay for Cleaner Air". Reader wonkywriter responded that "The solution is national":

Good for Californians for being the first to really see the need for drastic steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, buying a Prius or Civic hybrid is not the answer. People think Toyota and Honda are "green" companies. Have you noticed that both are offering larger and larger trucks to their customers? Why do you think this is, other than profits? It's because for every hybrid they sell, they can sell another gas-guzzling truck or SUV and still maintain their Corporate Average Fuel Economy numbers. The only way to realize a net savings on carbon emissions is to cut back on our driving, flying, and home energy consumption. If we don't do it voluntarily, the government will have to apportion energy credits per capita (rationing). There's no other fair way.

Paul Harris' piece asking, "Is the US Heading for 'Developing Nations' Inequality Levels?"drew lots of passionate comments, including this anecdote by ALANHESTER:

Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is to have to explain to people from Canada and Europe about the homeless people in the US? I met an immigrant who put the issue succinctly: "In the UK, there is debate on healthcare, public transportation, the war in Iraq, how to integrate Muslims into society, and other quality of life issues. In America, we dabate about abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research. In short, the British debate over issues that are important to the quality of their lives, while Americans rarely debate about ANYTHING that will improve the quality of life for the populace as a whole. Katrina is instructive on this issue. Most of the debate by Americans is centered on who to blame, rather than how to rebuild New Orleans or how to prevent a recurrence. Meanwhile, the refugees from Katrina sit in armed trailer camps on top of toxic dumps…………….

In response to Chalmers Johnson's article, "The True -- and Shocking -- History of the CIA", Hugh Scott, a former Air force pilot and Vietnam vet, wrote:

In the late 1950s, I served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Washington, DC. My job: collecting radar-targeting information for SAC bombers penetrating Russia at the outbreak of WWIII. The best data came from the CIA, before it moved to Virginia.

One Agency shop I visited contained all U.S. ground intelligence photography…. One day while searching for USSR data, I noticed a single filing cabinet labeled "USA." Mystified, wondering what kind of classified pictures the CIA had collected about America, I finger-walked through the drawers.

Several 5x7 cards showed a Soviet submarine surfaced near Catalina Island, photographed by an undoubtedly awestruck boater. Moments later, it was my turn to be astonished. Incredibly, I had stumbled across two B&W photographs of a UFO. Seriously.

I can still see the startling images in my brain now, 50 years later -- like stills from a Hollywood sci-fi flick. Stamped "Confidential NO FORN," both pictures were captioned "Unidentified flying object sighted over Kansas, circa 1952."

The photos showed a metallic disk hovering several hundred feet above a cornfield. From a telephone pole in the foreground of one pic, I estimated the saucer's diameter at 300 feet. It was flat on the bottom and had a curved upper surface with a small dome on top I figured was the cockpit.

Since this was before the advent of computer graphics and digital manipulations, I had no reason to believe the flying saucer pictures were fakes. Eventually, however, after months of off-duty UFO research, I decided the photos were indeed frauds. […]

Here's the point of my UFO story as it applies to Iraq and the excuses Bush used to start Gulf War 2. From my experiences working with CIA personnel I don't believe they would ever fabricate or distort critical intelligence data. That kind of dishonest behavior simply would not happen, no matter how much pressure came from the White House…

In sum, like all federal agencies, the CIA employs thousands of decent, patriotic Americans who are serving our country with honor. It‚s sad that they have been tarred by the reprehensible actions of a small minority of Agency loose cannons that don't understand what the U.S. Constitution is all about.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: comments of the week

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Love the idea
Posted by: lamar on Aug 4, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I absolutely love the idea of posting the top ten list of comments. While Alternet is clearly insane for not choosing any of Lamar's insightful posts, um....OK, I just wanted to say that. Seriously, this is a cool idea. I'll never score a top ten post, but that fact doesn't make it a great idea. Good job, Alternetters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Karl Rove is resigning Posted by: YogiBear
Not a bad idea
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 4, 2007 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the best comments get lost in the pile. Even if the best ones aren't picked, at least there's some acknowledgement that there's some good comments out there. As some have been saying, oftentimes the comments are better than the articles.

I hope y'all will choose the "best" comments based on quality, originality, interesting perspective, etc., and not just ones that are the most PC or agree with your politics, or even the politics of the majority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "most PC or agree with your politics" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Adding ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Adding ... Posted by: titosantana
» Child sexual abuse Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Child sexual abuse Posted by: titosantana
» "stop Republican pedophilia" Posted by: maxloen
» RE: "most PC or agree with your politics" Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Wait a minute Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Wait a minute Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» False logic Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Not a bad idea Posted by: SatanicJamboree
Great Idea
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Aug 4, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fully agree with the comments of the previous writers, and the Alternet idea. I would like to make one suggestion however, I feel it is in the best interest of us all if the editors, or chosen writers also choose entries they agree with. Too often a 'click' can devel0op between those with a similar belief or ideal, which can blind those persons to a very well and properly thought out reply.
Well done Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Idea Posted by: Joshua Holland
Great Idea
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Aug 4, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We'll see about this idea
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 4, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sophisticated Web software makes it easy to promote the "illusion of inclusion": Comment on this! Rate this comment! Was this comment useful to you! Your comments are important to us! Sometimes the solicitors of comments actually pay attention to the results. Sometimes they pay attention -- but only till the election's over. Often it's more like Amazon.com, or like my credit card company, which assures me at regular intervals for 30 minutes that my call is important to them then charges me a $39 fee because my payment (in full) was a day late. (Due date was the Fourth of July, btw.) So I finally sign up for online banking because I no longer care if Homeland Security and Spammers R Us have access to my credit card info as long as I don't have to listen to machines telling me how important my call, my comment, or my opinion is to them.

That said, I like the rating system AlterNet instituted a few weeks ago. I go around giving 5s to comments that add useful information and refreshing insights, provide thoughtful analysis (esp. the kind that might inspire individual or group action), and are written with a diverse audience in mind. A sense of humor never hurts. A few times I've hit "5" for a good post that wasn't quite "5" quality but had been saddled with a "1" by a reader who was either bilious or confused about the rating system.

What I'm curious about are these "Editor's Picks." On a scale of 1 to 5, they're sort of a 6. What criteria are the AlterNet editors using? From the placement of the apostrophe, I've inferred that individual editors do the picking -- is this so, or are two or more required?

I also wonder what it takes to get a "Pick" un-picked. I didn't know this could happen till it happened this past Thursday on the "Male Sportswriter Returns to Work as a Woman" board. A starred pick got de-starred. How come? Second thoughts? Editor overruled by boss or colleagues? Flak from those who disagreed with the choice? Cold feet? I could understand any/all of the above; what I can't understand is the silence and anonymity of it. The star left traces of its passing, though -- like the occasional posts that get deleted without warning or explanation -- because posters (including yours truly) responded to it and as of about an hour ago our posts were still there. As practitioners of revisionism, the AlterNetters are still rank amateurs. As connoisseurs of political commentary? The jury's still out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We'll see about this idea Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: We'll see about this idea Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Oh, not at all Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Oh, not at all Posted by: defiant
» RE: Oh, not at all Posted by: Joshua Holland
If ya got it, might as well use it
Posted by: Knowmad on Aug 4, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this will be useful, assuming everyone recognises the subjective nature of the picks - that they are not necessarily the 'best' or 'brightest', just those that appealed the most to the most.

Case in point: Unless my computer's really wonky, you've only got eight comments here. I simply can't believe you couldn't have found at least one or two from that wonderfully witty and insightful Knowmad character. He's amazing! ;~)

In a similar vein, how about being able to search all posts by an individual poster. Seems that capability has also become relatively easy, if the photography sites I frequent are any indication.

Cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If ya got it, might as well use it Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: If ya got it, might as well use it Posted by: Joshua Holland
» That's not fixable on our end ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
I'm a bit embittered. Who more than Yellow singlehandedly fights moronic fascist trolls on Alternet?
Posted by: yellow on Aug 4, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody nominated anything I said. I, the stalwart and heroic Yellow, have been left alone on the Alternet battlefield, like a kind of Marxist "Braveheart", to singlehandedly fend off obnoxious libertarians, Pat Buchananite nativists, White Supremicists and anti-semites, right wing populists, neo-conservatives, Bush lovers, and John Birch wingnuts and their obsession with "fiat money." I have steadily answered their drivel and have explicated and defended the true progressive line on any and all subjects historic and contemporary. I have never let "them" have the last word. I stayed and fought. Though weary, the ideological sword has never fallen from my hand. Here, as on the fields of Bannockburn (by the way the web cafe I typically write from is in a Chicago Suburb called Bannockburn, Il...How appropriate!!) I fight on like Robert the Bruce and William Wallace!! I do this for progressives everywhere!!

Is there no love for me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nope. Posted by: justaguy
» Projection. Posted by: justaguy
A good addition
Posted by: alternetrose on Aug 4, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like it. It's subjective, of course. That's understandable and acceptable. I can't imagine how comments could otherwise be chosen without signaling an agenda-freak control stick on your part. We'll be watching out for that! Mostly what impressed me is having these very insightful comments listed together, in one place, because I would have missed most of them without that. There are so many articles to read, so many comments made, getting to each one is too time consuming. A hit and a miss, most days. Thanks for making improvements to the site a never-ending endeavor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A good addition Posted by: drmagal53
Thumbs up!
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 4, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good idea... even though most of us will never make the cut, it has an inclusiveness about it that is appealing in these devisive times. Right on, Alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A nice surprise…with a caveat.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 4, 2007 1:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding my UFO story to AlterNet’s liking was a nice surprise. However, I didn’t particularly care for the “poor Hugh” characterization because of so-called “heat” generated by AlterNet readers who disagreed with my CIA defense.

The only heat I care about is the kind being experienced by our kids in Iraq. It's time for a full-court press on Congress to defund the troop surge and start bringing them home NOW, not later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 4, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like the comment rating system, this "editor's choice" crap is meaningless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not meaningless. Posted by: Aimleft
Miss the short on the point posts
Posted by: leerhok on Aug 5, 2007 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hitting the bulls' eye!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great for wasting more time
Posted by: scott balogh on Aug 5, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the hell are we going to unite in the physical sense and revolt against the power elite? The due process of law is stuck in the mud of pontification in this nations talk tank at the capital. No one is reading these pages but a few armchair rebels. Who is willing to do what is necessary to overthrow our masters? We pay our taxes, we cast our ballots then we complain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet's Restaurant
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 5, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Umm..Let's see..what have we here..the wait staff 'rates' the diners who in turn 'comment' on one another's choice of attire ,meal, etiquette and general comportment.."Oh,those dreadful swine over there ,imagine..Chablis with tenderloin au jus..what manner of beasts ARE they..indeed!!". Other than narcissistic, self congratulatory morons ; it is the readers who should be rating the quality of the articles and journalistic skills of their authors (NOT the other way around), and Alternet should be promoting the 'voices less (often) heard',rather than pandering to the lowest and most common expression(s) of PC 'agree to disagree BUT only so far as not to be offensive'. Moreover, not every potential Alternet reader commentator has a thick hide able to not be deterred ,even if only subconsciously,from posting because of fear of being rated poorly by the other readers. This type of 'thumbs up/down' Colosseum review en masse is more a mechanism of subtly manipulating conformity with the 'center', rather than providing a forum for calls to revolt against the madness from afar. One test of this type of 'Survivor/Dancing with the Stars/
American Idol' mindset driven faux community 'debate' on the
issues that characterize a world in crisis is how much does one
really learn from the exchange of 'ad hominems' (ratings)....?
...You see my point.......don't you?? No....?? ...Whatever :O)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's like Restaurant row Posted by: Joshua Holland
another popularity contest: where does it lead?
Posted by: defiant on Aug 5, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ratings were bad enough, causing a distorted ranking of comments which is much misused. Now we're forced to live with "subjective and arbitrary" picks, as one editor admits of these picks, above. Both do nothing but pit us against each other in an unhelpful way - what matters are the issues and arguments, not popularity.

AlterNet has been a great place to post short comments and call BS on elements of articles and other comments. Sadly, I see signs that well enough can't be left alone. Ratings get in the way, Editor's Picks really get in the way, and the next step you'll likely slip in is to "let" us filter comments by rating, which will help end the benefit of open posting (if I filter out all but 5-rated comments, what different POV am I really getting?). I've participated in many different kinds of forums, and the most successful ones have the least controls, and essentially put different voices on the same playing field.

AlterNet Editors, you're on a slippery slope toward authoritarian control - where does it end? Will you start deleting comments you don't like (since there are no criteria, and it's subjective and arbitrary)? Will you start labeling and ranking us? How much do the advertisers and owners have to do with the "picks"? Maybe these are ridiculous questions, but where is the assurance of that?

How can you assure me that open discussion will remain open, that I need not fear being deleted or banned for voicing an unpopular point of view???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you're being naive, at best Posted by: defiant
» RE: you're being naive, at best Posted by: Joshua Holland
» he keeps going! Posted by: defiant
» RE: you're being naive, at best Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: you're being naive, at best Posted by: Joshua Holland
» No, the real bottom line ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Log(light up) on..cue (toke) in..filter(exhale) out....may work for dope..people..not so good.....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 5, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
N/C

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a list of collaborators, teachers' pets, etc.
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Aug 5, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bwahahahahahahahahahaha...

:P

;)

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Need a better way to report
Posted by: jreal on Aug 5, 2007 4:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to think that "report this comment" meant to report a post full of slurs and derogatory comments. I don't think poeple are going to understand that if they want to make a comment a candidate for the best post they are supposed to click "report this comment". Or maybe I'm just the only person that thinks that way.
By the way, are we just supposed to say positive things about the post and say "I would like to see this in the top ten," to make the post a candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My response to wonkywriter, ALANHESTER, and Hugh
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 7, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(wonkywriter) You cannot have economic growth without increasing energy consumption. (Either through efficiency or raw usage.) To try and do otherwise now, is akin to suicide. The country cannot survive without econmic growth. If the economy collapses, gas chambers will probably follow. Remember, even the "good people" at the top of alternet are eugenecists in some form or another. It shows here by the #1 selection of wonkie's comment!

(ALANHESTER) It's called monkey-see monkey-do. The media does it, the tv does it, the radio does it, the comic book does it, etc. And we respond in kind.

(Hugh) "From my experiences working with CIA personnel I don't believe they would ever fabricate or distort critical intelligence data." lol then he goes on to say how the CIA employs thousands bla bla bla. Yeah well how many of them do you know? It is so pointless to think you know anything about the CIA, even if you work for them. The CIA was formed by wall street bankers, for wall street bankers. That much we know for a fact. What more do you need to know?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My response to jmontars & american
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 7, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(jmontars) Surely you can make an argument without invoking images of a nanny state? You'll never convince anyone like that! The constitution entitles us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not "entitle" us to a house, a car, a free lunch, or free health care. In order for every citizen to have that, you'd have to take too much away from others. You'd have to impinge on their liberties. You may not like to hear that but it is a question of belief. Do you believe in the greater good. Or do you believe in the principles upon which this country was founded? Amend the constitution. Or let states decide what they want to do. But on a federal level, national health care is a huge mistake. You think anyone really cares about the poor, the unhealthy, etc. If ANYONE did, how can you explain all the crap all around us? The fast food, the drug stores on every corner, thousands of cancerous compounds all around us, invading our bodies and forcing us to play a microscopic game of roulette every day. Do you really think national health care is going to solve any of that? You'll never EVER win this argument. You dont have the logic on your side. You will only win by brute force. If that happens, do not be surprised when it blows up in your faces.

(american) Capitalism? Do you think Capitalism has anything to do with Reagan/Bush borrowing trillions, and the Federal Reserve (a private bank with strong socialist ties to the government) printing and printing and printing our dollar into oblivion? Do you think Capitalism has anything to do with the dozens of huge corporations that are awarded contracts through lobbying and manipulation of the people through the media, which they just happen to own?! Good grief!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What utter bunk. Posted by: justaguy
My response to paul_revere & HeroesAll
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 7, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(paul_revere) How do you know your vote was counted? There are so many points along which the ballots cannot be tracked. What we need is not to vote by mail. It really is insulting to democracy to even think like that. It is like blasphemy! What we need is to take a day off, and make it a national day, make it something everyone participates in. TV stations should go off the air. It should be a "social holiday", and it should be held on a sunday or saturday. It should be about food, friends, family, community, and pollworking! What is wrong with that? Isn't that better than ... mailing a ballot? If people cannot agree on something as logical as this, then this country really is lost.

(HeroesAll) There may be a hidden hand of the market, but the real hands that are all over the market make the hidden ones very insignificant in comparison. When the market fails to provide a solution, it is most likely because the market is not free. We can see that with alternative energy (because of the oil companies), poor quality of computer operating systems (because of microsoft), poorly informed people caught up in unending wars (because the media is owned by the ones who make the guns). None of this means that the basic principles of the free market are incorrect. In fact, I believe it strengthens them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wonkywriter is just plain wrong
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 12, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I have told you before, the #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal
fired power plants. And, the emitters of the most toxins are: coal
fired power plants, leaf fires, roses, lilacs and other pollinators,
molds...........

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done.

The greatest amount of smoke in the US is from burning leaves.
Leaf smoke is just as good at causing cancer as tobacco smoke.
Leaf smoke is also the #1 allergen because it contains pyro-
proteins and formaldehyde. Partly burned proteins and
formaldehyde are very easy to become allergic to. It should be
very easy to put a stop to leaf burning because nobody has a real
need to burn leaves. The only thing that has to be changed is
attitude, tradition and local laws prohibiting people from putting
leaves in trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]