I heard an interesting item on the news this morning. The Sierra Club is coming to my home town to protest a proposed coal fired power plant being built. They have apparently secured a permit to stage a protest march through the downtown area. As part of their prepared statement to the local media they have stated that the power plant must not be built, it is a criminal act, leads to global warming etc. I did a little looking around earlier today and found out the proposed emissions control will actually emit cleaner air than the area average in pollution content. I also found out the company wanting to build the plant plans to make the area into a wildlife sanctuary and will have a lot of work to do to clean up the proposed site, it has been used as an illegal dumping site for years. What really gripes me is:
1 the proposed site is over seventy miles away from here
2 it is two counties away and not governed by our local board or planning commission
3 they are going to prevent access to the local courthouse, which also houses the Sheriff's office for no reason
4 that the people that ultimately can sway the decision are in DC and Atlanta
5 They all had to fly here then have to drive to the protest march, hotels, restaurants etc
6 I'm stuck at work so I can't heckle them with water balloons filled with green dye
7 It just seems to being meaningless flaunting for publicity.

It just strikes me as another clueless, well intentioned but not thought out meaningless protest and they are preaching to the wrong choir to boot. It just seems to epitomize the environmental movement as a whole.

A founder of Greenpeace makes some interesting comments about why he left the group in the Great Global Warming Swindle.

As we're seeing more and more, the global warming gadflys are as much the problem....hypocrisy, hysteria, hype.

Instead of trying to block a coal powerplant, why aren't they trying to get a nuke power plant built? The same amount of effort could be a whole lot more productive. But that's not the way the conservation groups make their living.

The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and all the others make their money from alarmism. Not that everything they do is bad, but isn't it interesting that wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

Instead of trying to block a coal powerplant, why aren't they trying to get a nuke power plant built? The same amount of effort could be a whole lot more productive. But that's not the way the conservation groups make their living.

The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and all the others make their money from alarmism. Not that everything they do is bad, but isn't it interesting that wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

Nuke: I'm for nuclear power, but I really want them to come up with a more workable plan to dispose of spent fuel rods.

Your last point is pretty on target. We have a large concentration of plantations here. It is some of best wildlife habitat you'll find in the US. Unlike the state and national parks these places are set up to encourage wildlife. I use to be a farrier (horseshoer for the uninformed) and retired due to a pretty severe injury. I use to count some of the largest plantations among my clients and a buddy of mine did almost all the rest. I apprenticed under him and would still go with him to help him finish one up in a hurry. Fact is if the envronmental concerns of these people where on target then I promise you that these issues would be quashed. The people that own these places tend to be the very wealthiest of our citizens and they have clout, and I promise you they use it when they need to protect their investments.

wildlife conservation comes more from hunters than it does from the WWF???

Ah yes, the "worldwide wrestling federation" and conservation :). No wonders the hunters do a better job.

I'm also a big fan of nuke power. Much cleaner. The waste issue needs to be dealt with. But as long as it's dealt with scientifically rather than NIMBY (not in my back yard) then it can be solved.

As a side note, and anti nuke folks all talk about reactor accidents and safety (China syndrome and jane fonda back whan she was young and good looking... she was really at her best in Barbarella though... physically and intellectually well matched for the roll). There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US or commersial use in over 30 years and those that were buildt back then were made from designs already 10 years old (by the time they had passed all the safety reviews). We have come a long way in safety since then.

They have managed to badger the local commissioners into meeting with them today. Even the local news media, which is a pretty tow the line group, is asking why. Our commissioners have absolutely nothing to do with nor influence on the commissioners two counties away. Anyone that reads this that is part of the Sierra Club, call up and ask them why they are throwing away your donation dollars in a fashion guaranteed to get no results.

....There has not been a new nuke plant built in the US or commersial use in over 30 years and those that were buildt back then were made from designs already 10 years old (by the time they had passed all the safety reviews). We have come a long way in safety since then.

Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years?

Not that it makes a damned bit of difference: Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry and Chernobyl were all triggered by sheer stupidity and a failure to follow correct procedures.

I think stupidity is something that has remained more or less constant.

Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years?


By looking at some of the newer designes the Israelis, French and others have come up with and judging their safety. Additionally there have been a lot of new, experimental, non-comercial reactors. Brookhaven National Labs, etc, MIT in cambridge Massachusetts actually has their own tiny reactor. I should probably have qualified that by saying no new plants in the US. I also doesn't mean that academics haven't been researching plant safety and new designes.

And, yes, stupidty of the operators is a very large issue in all the accidents you mentioned (and all to date to my knowlege).

By looking at some of the newer designes the Israelis, French and others have come up with and judging their safety....

The US would permit a "Foreign Designed Reactor"?????? Horrors.:D

On a pragmatic level (I am serious sometimes :) ) the biggest problem to building new reactors anywhere in Canada or the US could be finding the skilled labor. I think it was an article in The Economist pointing this out; because no construction has been done for longer than a human generation people who were young and who could have been entering the field 20 years ago didn't.

Realistically if we want to carry on with our energy intensive society there is little choice, the only longish term solution is nuclear fission. Fusion might work but given the track record to date I think it is still 'ten years away' and this will be true for the next 50 years.

I think the problem is that it will take one or two decades to get a significant number of nuclear plants built so the short term answer has to be coal; which is not a bad answer if the correct technology is used coal can be quite clean. This does bump the cost up but that maybe is not a bad thing because real economy of use only occurs due to price pressure.

But even new coal plants are still the better part of a decade away so unfortunately natural gas will continue to be wasted for generating electricity.

And none of this does anything about reducing CO2 emissions in the short term and considering the IPCC is adamant we will reach a tipping point for the end of the world in ten years if we don't do something I guess we are all doomed.

Maybe a long way in safety, maybe not. How can you come a long way in safety if no new nuke plants have been built in 30 years?

Not that it makes a damned bit of difference: Three Mile Island, Browns Ferry and Chernobyl were all triggered by sheer stupidity and a failure to follow correct procedures.

I think stupidity is something that has remained more or less constant.

Was is so much stupidity or was it a situational awareness deficit? It was my understanding that operators in at least two of those situations could have averted disaster if they would have had real time info to get in front of the problem rather than trying to chase it. IF that was the case modern electronics would certianly be the answer for that. Also let us not forget the US Navy has an impecable record in designing and running reactors, their training program and designs are top notch. Certianly that know how could be brought to bear on the problem of new reactors. With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

Geof,

Your right about coal in the short term. No I didn't mean to imply the US would use a foreign reactor design. But realistically, I my small cut throat world of detector design in Mass spectrometry I know pretty much what my competition is doing the day it hits the street, often before. I assume the top nuclear engineering schools in the US know exactly what the french designers have been doing over the last few years. In fact if the world on nuke reactors is anything like the rest of the physics and engineering world we probably colaborated with them somewhere down the line.

Also let us not forget the US Navy has an impecable record in designing and running reactors, their training program and designs are top notch. Certianly that know how could be brought to bear on the problem of new reactors. With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

Should have read this before I even bothered to use up the bandwith with me post :)

...With all the RIFed nuke sailors out their on the job market I wouldn't see there being a shortage of experianced, dedicated and qualified personel to staff these theoretical plants.

This is a good point. The question is how many are there 15 to 20 years from being released from the Navy. Because this really is when they will be needed, actually the earliest they will be needed, because the Greenies will delay things until the absolute last minute which could mean years.

And if I give the impression I am being too critical that is unfortunate. I guess it is the way I approach things; I always look for reasons why something might not work or for the difficulties in making it work rather than going on optimistically why everything is such a wonderful idea.

As I mentioned earlier I think the only solution long term is nuclear; unless we want our descendants to go back to horse and buggy. But you probably have read Skullworks thread about the State of the Machinist Trade...; particularly his comments about how businesses take such a short term view of things these days. Right now I don't think there are any companies with the combination of capabilities and long term vision to start embarking on nuclear. How many investors are going to put money into something with the image nuclear has; investments that will not pay off for decades.

Which leaves the image of government doing it? Remember the US Navy Nuclear program was run by a very competent and dedicated guy who steamrollered over everyone to gets things done his way...which was the correct way. He was also a man dedicated to serving his country and public and political support was behind a strong armed forces back then so money was no object.

The public and political situation is different these days. I don't think senior career armed forces personnel have changed but the politicians who can make their life difficult or impossible certainly have.

I am pessimistic I don't see the kind of sensible, forward thinking attitude that is needed as existing these days.

Your point on timing is a good one. I'd think since the carriers and the remaining subs are still nuke powered knowledgeable people should be steadily rotating out for approximately 30 years after the last graduating class from the Naval Academy. The problem will be that the greenies are trying to make that sooner rather than later.

I didn't think you where being too critical, I took it as devil's advocate which is why I read these types of forums. It expands my perceptions after all :) I apologize if my language seemed otherwise.

What you said about the long term view is an excellent point.

I honestly don't believe that the US gov't could get it's act together enough to be effective in spurring on the effort required to get things rolling until things get truly desperate and then it will be playing catch up rather than a progressive move to ensure our future. And as you said it won't be private industry alone doing so. I don't know enough about Canada's political situation but I'd imagine it is a similar problem there.

Soon or later it will catch up with us. The problem is getting the green faction to see this, something I'm not to optimistic about. If it wasn't for their posturing on the issue then there would be no real bar to the issue. Most people would accept the idea if they could be educated properly on the issue without the emotional and often inaccurate posturing of the green movement. You'd still have the not in my back yard problem, but it wouldn't be the impossibility it is now. I mean lets get real, many of the more over the top groups say that humans are a parasite and should be exterminated, with there selves excluded of course since they are "proper stewards of the environment". No wonder people are confused on the issues and can't reach a consensus.

This is a... <SNIP>

...I honestly don't believe that the US gov't could get it's act together enough to be effective....

Soon or later it will catch up with us...

...The problem is getting the green faction to see this, something I'm not to optimistic about...



As one parasite to another :D

Neither will the Canadian Govt.

Yes things will catch up but I think things will have got very desperate before then.

'not to optimistic' Is this a euphemism for "I don' think there is a chance in hell".

Here are a couple of books to read:

"Collapse: Or Why Societies Choose To Fail" by Jared Diamond.

"Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World" by David Keys.

Not directly applicable but they give an insight into how humans both individually and as societies don't take corrective action until it is too late, if ever. In particular note Diamond's comments about Australia and compare them with some recent reports about changing water use allocations there.

"'not to optimistic' Is this a euphemism for "I don' think there is a chance in hell". "

Pretty much :)

"Here are a couple of books to read:

"Collapse: Or Why Societies Choose To Fail" by Jared Diamond.

"Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World" by David Keys."

I'll check them out. I find it very frustrating to try and understand people and even my old shrink clients when I was shoeing couldn't make me understand why people simply accept changable conditions etc, sort of like the US political system. the first one ecspecially sounds like it would be up my alley, since I often say something of the like very often. Needless to say I often find life very frustrating ;) maybe why I've always worked with animals up until I couldn't.

...I find it very frustrating to try and understand people....

Take my approach. Anticipate that 90% of the time people will do the stupid thing and you will find you are wrong only 10% of the time. You do not need to understand behaviour if you can predict it correctly most of the time.

It is kind of like Quantum Mechanics. Few, if any, Phycisists truly understand it but because it can be used to predict behaviour it doesn't need to be understood; it just works.

Now I will duck to avoid the Phycisists.

Take my approach. Anticipate that 90% of the time people will do the stupid thing and you will find you are wrong only 10% of the time. You do not need to understand behaviour if you can predict it correctly most of the time.

It is kind of like Quantum Mechanics. Few, if any, Phycisists truly understand it but because it can be used to predict behaviour it doesn't need to be understood; it just works.

Now I will duck to avoid the Phycisists.

Probably good advice. Oh God, horror of horrors, that means Hillary will be our next president!

It is kind of like Quantum Mechanics. Few, if any, Phycisists truly understand it but because it can be used to predict behaviour it doesn't need to be understood; it just works.

Now I will duck to avoid the Phycisists.

No reason to duck there :)

Probably good advice. Oh God, horror of horrors, that means Hillary will be our next president!

could be worse, we could get B Hussein Obama. But I thing were dealing with the 8th and 9th levels of hell respectively.

You familiar with the writings of HP Lovecraft? "Vote for Cuthulu, why settle for the lesser of two evils".

could be worse, we could get B Hussein Obama. But I thing were dealing with the 8th and 9th levels of hell respectively.

You familiar with the writings of HP Lovecraft? "Vote for Cuthulu, why settle for the lesser of two evils".

Talk about a flashback!!!!!!

I predict things will just keep on, going on. Gas will keep going up, people in the south won't be able to afford to run their airconditioners. People in the north will struggle to pay their heating bill. But, the first time the lights go out, the unwashed masses will demand action (ref: California Rolling Blackouts). And, people will become more creative. Amazing what people can do, when their faced with a problem.

They'll talk about CO2 emission reductions, and they'll talk about renewables, but when it comes right down to it, even under the worst dooms day scenerio, most of use are too old to worry about it effecting us very much. If your really worried about it, get a head start, move to upper Alaska. Personally, I find it hard to understand what's so bad about Global Warming.

As for the expertise to build a Nuke plant. When money is on the line, we will find a way to get it done. Remember the first Nuke boom, and then the pipeline boom, people who didn't have a clue what a Nuke Plant ran on where building parts for them.

Heard another good one last night on the news as well as a somewhat dire prediction.

The prediction:

Within the year China will eclipse the US and the largest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world of any industrialized country. The pressure is off of us, now lets see if the Sierra Club and Greenpeace let up on the US and start going after China.

The good one:

Remember the cows and their little methane factories. Well, the largest producer of methane in aisa is... you guessed it, rotting vegitation in rice paddies.


But the hunt continues for even bigger sources of flatulence (Washington maybe?, oh wait, that's just hot air).

The greenies already have an answer to china being the largest greenhouse gas producer. They switched to tons of carbondioxide per person a while back. Since their population is 4 times as big as ours, their 1/4 as polluting as the US is. Just be prepared to be the worst country in the world, no matter what we do.

The greenies already have an answer to china being the largest greenhouse gas producer. They switched to tons of carbondioxide per person a while back. Since their population is 4 times as big as ours, their 1/4 as polluting as the US is. Just be prepared to be the worst country in the world, no matter what we do.

Ah, that would explaine the origins of the "carbon footprint" campaigne. Fiendishly clever these greenies.

Ah, that would explaine the origins of the "carbon footprint" campaigne. Fiendishly clever these greenies.

What is really sad about the whole thing is the whole lack of recycling. Co2 emmissions aren't nearly as scary to me as the fact that tons of perferectly good raw materials are ending up in our local landfills. When I lived in FL it was required, the cartage company provided color coded bins for recycling and you did it, even in rural areas, or paid a hefty fine. That is a movement we could all get behind and I honestly believe it would have a more positive envronmental impact that all the alarmist suggestions by the greens concerning global warming.

And if we can use guns to force people to recycle, how about just going all the way?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspx

--97T--

And more of the latest research from the Wacky British. This one was published and hit the news channels Friday.

One child is great, two children is OK, having 3 or more children contributes excessively to global warming. This is one place the Chinese are actually ahead of us.

Opps, just read NinerSevenTango's links, he beat me to it.

And if we can use guns to force people to recycle, how about just going all the way?
--97T--

..And only those people who can make their own guns may have them? ......

:D

And more of the latest research from the Wacky British....

I take deep and serious offense at this, or I would if I still admitted to being a Brit. It is a case of Wacky Academic and they know no boundaries.

Neither do Kooky Eco Freaks who sale rusty ships and have to be rescued by the very people they harass.

I take deep and serious offense at this, or I would if I still admitted to being a Brit. It is a case of Wacky Academic and they know no boundaries.

Neither do Kooky Eco Freaks who sale rusty ships and have to be rescued by the very people they harass.

Quite true, it is the wacky academics (and that crosses all political, racial and national boundries). I apologize for the Brit comment (but I do remind you the Brit academics were the ones who also brought us global warning through cow flatulence, so they seem to be charting a special course for themselves through this discussion). I thought you were Canadian (a fine, strong people of noble heritage I might add)?

Quite true, it is the wacky academics (and that crosses all political, racial and national boundries)....

Liberal academics might be much more accurate....

Amongst faculty the common ratio of liberal:conservative is around 5:1, 8:1 not being uncommon, with ratios as high as 30:1 in some universities.

Amongst students....well, see what it is at Stanford....
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/News/news1.shtml

So when you use the word "wacky", be careful....you're talking about liberals. Even though you're probably correct.

Amongst faculty the common ratio of liberal:conservative is around 5:1, 8:1 not being uncommon, with ratios as high as 30:1 in some universities.


Scary, isn't it. And these are the folks shaping our young and impressionable minds. Good thing many of the students grow out of it after graduating and seeing the real world.

Interestingly enough those facalty and their students are also often apathetic when it comes to voting. I don't have exact numbers on the facalty, but students (18 to 25 year old demographic) in "bad turnout years" have a voteing rate of about 17% of registered voters actually going to the polls. During the last few elections with with Gore and Kerry flooding MTV with "rock the vote" ads and projecting the highest turnout in history for the youth vote, the actual turnout rate was... you guessed it... 17%

Churchill once said "if your not a liberal when your in your twenties you have no heart, if you not a conservative by the time your in your 40's then you have no brains".

..... I thought you were Canadian (a fine, strong people of noble heritage I might add)?

What!!!!
Canadians, a fine group of wimpy minded liberal do-gooders who have refined the art of the Nanny State almost to its ultimate. This of course excepts all Canadians on CNCzone, especially dertsap because he is probably close enough to throw something at me. :D

Yes, I am Canadian by choice having been born in England.

What!!!!
Canadians, a fine group of wimpy minded liberal do-gooders who have refined the art of the Nanny State almost to its ultimate. This of course excepts all Canadians on CNCzone, especially dertsap because he is probably close enough to throw something at me. :D

WOW, I'm not even going to touch that one. I know better than to go there.

They do grow good spruce and maple though. Nice cold climate, slow growth, close annular rings (well, good for my purposes anyway).

WOW, I'm not even going to touch that one. I know better than to go there.

They do grow good spruce and maple though. Nice cold climate, slow growth, close annular rings (well, good for my purposes anyway).

WIMP!!!!!:D

The wood is good. That is the stuff that hasn't been chomped on by the Pine Beetle

WIMP!!!!!:D


It's a survival skill :)

They do grow good spruce and maple though.

Maple?? Don't they use that stuff to make banjo necks?

Maple?? Don't they use that stuff to make banjo necks?

Yup, and electric guitar necks, and violin backs, sides and necks, and a whole host of other instrument parts. It's a very popular wood amongst musical instrument makers.

WOW, I'm not even going to touch that one. I know better than to go there.

They do grow good spruce and maple though. Nice cold climate, slow growth, close annular rings (well, good for my purposes anyway).


SHRIEK!! TREE MURDER!!!!!!!!! Hang him from the tallest smokestack with eco friendly hemp rope, then use him for natural eco friendly fertilizer for some kind, loving tree!

:stickpoke sdantonio

SHRIEK!! TREE MURDER!!!!!!!!! Hang him from the tallest smokestack with eco friendly hemp rope, then use him for natural eco friendly fertilizer for some kind, loving tree!

:stickpoke sdantonio

And don't you have to kill little friendly hemp plants to make the hemp rope? Oh listen to those pot plants scream.

And don't you have to kill little friendly hemp plants to make the hemp rope? Oh listen to those pot plants scream.

It has been my impression that the eco-nuts are all smoking dope, and they do have to do something with the leftovers

Bill did NOT inhale. But I think Al made up for it....

.... By not exhaling?

...Made up for it by inhaling and then eating everything in sight.

...Made up for it by inhaling and then eating everything in sight.

Al is selflessly storing carbon to help save the planet.

Nuke: I'm for nuclear power, but I really want them to come up with a more workable plan to dispose of spent fuel rods.

Your last point is pretty on target. We have a large concentration of plantations here. It is some of best wildlife habitat you'll find in the US. Unlike the state and national parks these places are set up to encourage wildlife. I use to be a farrier (horseshoer for the uninformed) and retired due to a pretty severe injury. I use to count some of the largest plantations among my clients and a buddy of mine did almost all the rest. I apprenticed under him and would still go with him to help him finish one up in a hurry. Fact is if the envronmental concerns of these people where on target then I promise you that these issues would be quashed. The people that own these places tend to be the very wealthiest of our citizens and they have clout, and I promise you they use it when they need to protect their investments.

Its kinda funny how the most evil is always made to look as something good. And the good is made into a villan.
If you do the study, you will find that since inception of the nuk industry cancer rates sky rocketed. The good old mineral oil is like candy compaired to that evil industry. If you desire a form of atomic power look into magnetizim, it cleaner and way safer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGiWiXMHn0

Bill,
Look at the video real close, a guy's feet appear out of no where. EDITED film. You don't get something for nothing. Unless your a greenie.

Cancer rates go up in the last 50 years, and you blame Nuclear Power????? How many other things were invented, mass produced, and emitted into the air, water, and food source, in the last 50 years. Talk about reaching...... Show some direct data to back that up. France is like 70% nuclear, do they have a 5X cancer rate as compared to the United States? You might blame above ground nuclear testing on down winder cancer rates, but that is not nuclear power.

Back to the subject of the Sierra Club, take a look at their financial sheet: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/194
Now try and tell me it's not all about the money.

As for recycling, all that material were dumping into land fills, most of the good stuff isn't going anywhere, we'll just mine landfills some day. Invest in a landfill.

Gotta love that free thermonuclear energy. I was soaking some of it up yesterday afternoon (while working, of course).

As far as magnet power goes, the guy has a website: http://www.perendev-power.com/

Gotta love that, too. Why, just look at how it will transform the world. I bet the energy companies are formulating a conspiracy to repress the information right now as you are reading this!

Edit: Send money! Looks like the guy takes deposits for your next free energy generator.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perendev:300kW_Magnet_Motor_for_Sale

--97T--

Re: The Sierra Club....

They even got $9Grand from the Guacamole Fund!!! (really)

I think the key element here is to note that the money comes to them to solve a "problem", whatever it is. Again, No Problem-No Money.

Fascinating too was the mention of the Cuba trip, and how wonderful it was to see people raising their own food, and living off the land.....under Castro.

They were forced to live that way, they didn't chose to. A communist dictator was their leader, and instead of leading the country into prosperity, they had to fend for themselves. The Sierra Club doesn't mention cause-effect, does it?

Gotta love that free thermonuclear energy. I was soaking some of it up yesterday afternoon (while working, of course).

As far as magnet power goes, the guy has a website: http://www.perendev-power.com/

Gotta love that, too. Why, just look at how it will transform the world. I bet the energy companies are formulating a conspiracy to repress the information right now as you are reading this!

Edit: Send money! Looks like the guy takes deposits for your next free energy generator.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perendev:300kW_Magnet_Motor_for_Sale

--97T--

If it is what they say it is, as far as thermonuclear goes, just don't forget how far away from it you are. Meaning it isn't in your back yard. That whole industry is the most insidious there is on this planet. If there was a million gallons of crude oil in a huge pond in your back yard, and only 2 gallons of nuke waste, which one would you jump into?
One of them you get kinda dirty in, the other your skin rots off the bone.

Yesterday I used the glow from thermonuclear radiation to read the newspaper. The waste from it gets shot into space, so it isn't much of a problem, for me anyway.

Yesterday I used the glow from thermonuclear radiation to read the newspaper. The waste from it gets shot into space, so it isn't much of a problem, for me anyway.

The waste doesn't get shot for a few more years but we are very fortunate other thermonuclear reactors have shot out their waste otherwise we wouldn't be here to argue.

You do realize there is a radioactive device in your home don't you? Hint: fire detector. No more xrays for me either, no matter how sick I am. And, no more high altitude flights, too much radiation. Don't forget radon gas, in your home. Then there's the pesky carbon14 atom, it's inside you. Don't even get me started on Kemotherapy Cancer treatments.

Anyway, oil is a carcinogen.

I'm staying away from dyhrogenmonoxide also, it's used in nuclear power plants.

Don't forget to avoid brazil nuts.

Just enjoy your cancer when it arrives.