Aussies

Naughty Friday funny - The therapy session

nobody@vox.com(petermcc) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:25:10 -0800

A psychiatrist was conducting a group therapy session with four young Mothers and their small children.

You all have obsessions,' he observed.

To the first mother, Mary, he said, 'You are obsessed with eating. You've even named your daughter Candy.'

He turned to the second Mom, Ann: 'Your obsession is with money. Again, it manifests itself in your child's name, Penny.'

He turned to the third Mom, Kathy: 'Your obsession is alcohol. This too shows itself in your child's name, Brandy.'

At this point, the fourth mother, Joyce, quietly got up, took her little boy by the hand and whispered, 'Come on Dick, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Lets pick Willy up from school and go home."

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I'm inclined to agree, but I still don't want one in my backyard.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:03:11 -0800

Clean future in nuclear power

Barry Brook and Martin Nicholson
From: The Australian
December 04, 2009 12:00AM

WE may not be getting an emissions trading scheme any time soon but the climate and energy crises still need fixing with real urgency.

For climate, the issue is excess greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. For energy, the crisis is dwindling supplies of those fuels and air pollution from coal combustion.

Replacement energy sources need to be reliable, plentiful and economic to deploy. They need to be low-carbon to minimise global warming. Business-as-usual or half measures risks saddling future generations with a climatically hostile planet and energy scarcity.

Nuclear power is one obvious replacement source, but typically raises five objections.

First, readily available uranium supplies are limited. If the world was wholly powered by present-style nuclear reactors there would be at most a few decades of energy before cheap uranium was exhausted.

Second, nuclear accidents have happened in the past, suggesting this technology is dangerous.

Third, expansion of nuclear power would risk the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Fourth, we would leave future generations with the legacy of long-lived nuclear waste.

Fifth, large amounts of energy (and possibly greenhouse gases) would be required to mine, mill and enrich uranium and to build and later decommission nuclear power stations.

All the above points have merit, although their relative importance comparedwith climate change and critical energy shortages is debatable. But there is little point in debating these objections because none will apply to future nuclear energy generation.

Almost all today's nuclear power stations are thermal reactors. These use water to slow the neutrons that cause uranium atoms to split (fission) and to carry the heat generated in this reaction to a steam turbine to generate electricity.

Because of the gradual build-up of fission products (neutron poisons) through time, we end up getting less than 1 per cent of the useable energy out of the uranium. The rest is thrown out as that long-lived waste.

In contrast, newer fast reactors are able to use almost all of the energy in uranium. There is enough energy in already mined uranium and stored plutonium from existing stockpiles to supply all the world's power needs for more than three centuries before we need to mine any more uranium.

Fast reactors can be used to burn all existing reserves of plutonium and the nuclear waste from the past and present generation of thermal reactors. With additional uranium mining, there is enough energy in proven deposits to supply the entire world for many thousands of years. This deals with the first objection.

As to the second objection, modern reactors use passive safety systems requiring no operator intervention to shut down the reaction. This makes them safe. So safe that a certification assessment for Westinghouse's AP-1000 reactor put the risk of a core meltdown such as the one that occurred at in the US in 1979 at Three Mile Island at once every 24 million reactor years.

Comparing the flawed Chernobyl design to today's reactors is like saying modern aviation is too dangerous because the Hindenburg airship exploded in 1937.

On the third objection, proliferation, the nuclear fuel used by fast reactors is initially very radioactive, making it impossible to divert to a nuclear weapons program without an expensive, heavily shielded, off-site reprocessing facility that would be readily detected.

In fact, the only nuclear waste materials that will ever leave an Integral Fast Reactor complex (which has on-site recycling) are fission products, which decay to background levels of radiation within a few hundred years.

Unlike conventional nuclear waste, which can last for hundreds of thousands of years (the fourth objection), the waste from IFRs can be more readily stored because of its small volume (150 times less than used nuclear fuel from thermal reactors) and short storage times.

The fifth objection, concerning greenhouse gases generated in building nuclear power plants, has never stood up to detailed life-cycle analysis.

Renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) use significantly more raw materials per unit of energy generated than even present-generation nuclear power stations and the full life-cycle emissions, including nuclear fuel production, are similar from both sources. When energy storage and fossil-fuel back-up are included, wind and solar emissions are much higher.

A possible sixth objection could be that we don't need nuclear power when we can use renewable energy. This is a valid objection for countries with abundant hydropower, conventional geothermal power or biomass, the only three renewable sources of proven reliable power that can deliver energy 24 hours a day at an acceptable cost. Solar and wind sources, however, still rely heavily on fossil fuels to deliver reliable, continuous energy.

At today's pace of commercial development we won't see many fast nuclear reactors delivering power to the grid before 2020. This will seem too late for some, but at the present pace, non-hydro renewables will only meet 2 per cent of global energy use.

Either option, therefore, requires radically accelerated research, development and deployment if it is to make a difference to climate change and energy supply. What's required is a project of Manhattan-style proportions or the audacity of the moon-shot vision.

Let's be clear. We have the means to fix the climate and energy crises, or at least avert the worst consequences. New generation nuclear power, supported by an expansion of the thermal reactor fleet, is one possible path to success and one that all nations should support. Rationally considering energy planning requires letting go of old-school thinking about exciting new technologies.

Martin Nicholson is the author of Energy in a Changing Climate. Barry Brook is professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The birds and the bees

nobody@vox.com(David Horton) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:31:48 -0800

Of the two kinds of people in the world, those who think the environment is an optional extra and they can take it or leave it, and those who know that the environment is just the world we live in that supplies all the essentials for life, and that as the environment goes, so go we, I am in the latter.

A few years ago the ABC radio program Late Night Live was recorded in Yass. I forget the topic now, but it was something environmental, probably forest related, and it was chaired by Phillip Adams and starred Wilson Tuckey. Mr Tuckey was, at the time, Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Now, as then, I find it impossible to write that sentence, as full of totally contradictory elements as it is, without trying to decide whether to laugh or cry.

Two memorable moments from Mr Tuckey came when he said there was no incompatibility between clearing the last few trees from the wheatbelt country of WA and conserving parrots because, if we really did want to conserve parrots, we could erect some steel poles in the barren landscape and stick nest boxes on them. No need for trees at all you see. The other memorable moment was when, in answer to a question about how you could reconcile land clearing with preserving elements of biodiversity such as butterflies he said that if you wanted to preserve butterflies, and the idea seemed to leave him bemused, well you could jolly well pay for it.

Now far be it for me to put words in Mr Tuckey's mouth, but I would make a wild guess that of those two kinds of people, he is in the former group. And so, as the recent leadership change showed, are most of his fellow Liberals and all of his fellow Nationals. Although, and I have got to say this is another of those kinds of sentences I never thought I would write ("I agree with John Howard" spurted, unbidden from my keyboard the other day, and I was horrified), I was not unimpressed with Ian MacFarlane, heading the absolutely thankless task of trying to conduct good faith negotiations on climate change while representing the Liberal-National coalition party room. Once a climate change skeptic he said, like so many of his fellow party members, he had now educated himself and understood both the science and the danger. A change of mind is the last thing you hear politicians admit to these days. About as likely as the captain of the Titanic changing mind and changing direction.

Enough about Mr Tuckey, I just used him as an example because of the birds and the butterflies which still stick in my mind all these years later. He certainly isn't Robinson Crusoe, in fact I would suggest that if you could find a single politician in the Liberal, National and Labor Parties who doesn't think the environment is an optional extra I think you would have found someone who had joined the wrong party by mistake. And, I suspect, for 99% of the public, "the environment" is something over there, out the back, down the road, and "saving the environment" is exactly like saving a heritage building, the central park in Yass, a vintage car, an art gallery. These are things you might, or might not, decide to do. Bit of a pity if the old car rusted away, the park has a high rise building built on it, but hey, gotta get on with real life, no good crying over spilt milk, history doesn't butter any parsnips. And, if we fail to save "the environment", oh well, never mind, bit of a hobby of those hippies, but maybe they will cut their hair and get real jobs now it's gone.

But in real life, away from shock jock land, the environment is everywhere, man. Much publicity last week about the Koala seemingly on the path to extinction. Much of the discussion centred on this being a bad thing for tourism, as indeed it would be. But while the "iconic" (as tv news insisted on calling it) species would be a disastrous loss, wiped out, in a few short years, with no more thought than tossing a used tissue in the bin, after taking more than 25 million years to evolve, it is what it symbolises that is even more important. It is going extinct because of loss of habitat, dogs, roads, and with it will go most of the other species that live in koala habitat. The birds, bees, butterflies, beetles (which I am inordinately fond of).

And so more ecology will begin to unravel, like another snagged stitch in my old jumper. Which eventually finished up unravellling all the way up the chest and both sleeves. And as the ecology of the planet unravels, so will the clean water, and fertile soils, and breathable air begin to change, and so will the pests and weeds and diseases and poisons begin to increase. America, as always, leads the way, a recent study, for example, showing that half of all the fish in American lakes are polluted with Mercury and other poisons. Half!

Peter Garrett, for once, made the right decision about Traveston Dam. He has saved a river, and in doing so saved the species that live in it, including one whose evolution is ten times older than the koala. And saved the trees and soil and grass that supported the farms of the Mary Valley.

Look after the butterflies I always say, and they will look after you. They'll even look after Mr Tuckey.

All David Horton's writing is on The Watermelon Blog.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Is Julie Bishop having 2nd thoughts?

nobody@vox.com(petermcc) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:45:07 -0800

Julie_bishop

On the first day of the Liberals latest, greatest hope coming to power it was interesting to see Julie Bishop's body language with Abbott.

Firstly when Tony was speaking about flirting with Julia Gillard you can see Julie actually shaking her head. Not happy Jan.

The other item that caught my eye was Abbott coming up behind her in a Press conference and grabbing her shoulders. To me it looked like she was momentarily annoyed by the physical contact but quickly recovered in front of the cameras.

If I was young Tony I'd give up on the physical contact. It just doesn't go down well with women Voters. I guess that's why he doesn't poll well with them.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

stick rampage alert

nobody@vox.com(Flamingo Dancer) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:56:28 -0800

Workplace bullying

Daughter1, the teacher, is being subjected to workplace bullying from her principal. It is a christian school and the principal does not like women in the workplace. In fact he is trying to negotiate employment contracts that exclude any rights to maternity leave. Daughter 1 is not only a member of the union but taking part in the negotiations and of course standing up for women's rights. This had meant that she, not the men who are fighting for the same things, but she as the lone woman has become his target.

Daughter1 is a little fragile, as she suffers from depression and so this is not an easy time for her. She has been called in to have a "meeting" with the little principal, but she is not going to any meeting without her union rep. I said that if she wants I will go to meetings with her - after my experiences in the Basement of Discontent last year, I know how to handle these damn bullies and liars.

I know we can't protect our children once they are grown and that they must fights their own figths, but public be warned, you take on any member of the Flamingo Dancer family and you get to fight all 5! Daughter2 has rallied with legal advice and support, Son is coming forth with HR advice and support, Mr FD is being the voice of reason and expereince, and I am just going to hone my stick to a point and go in for the kill. No on messes with us and can expect not to come out bloodied. We go into attack mode, not just defense mode. You often can't help what happens to you, but you do have control how it happens to you.

So, prepare for the storm... Flamingo Dancer is in battle mode. The stick shall reign!

Flamingo Dancer protecting her young

It is our expereince, that christian schools that profess love and christian values are most frequently the abuser of employee rights.

I am so angry and to make it worse, that far right climate change denier, women hating, indigenous hating bigot Tony Abbot has just been voted in as the leader of the oppostion Liberal Party. I hope that The Big Whatever smites him and smites him hard. What is wrong with the universe? How can a bully boy al la Dick Cheney rise to such a level in Australia? Thank God Kevin Rudd is still in power - he better make sure he stays in power or I may have to move to Provence sooner than I expected. Rupert Murdoch must be rubbing his hands together in glee - he loves Tony Abbot.

Enough said, as GOF suggested re my twitch, I should keep busy to avoid my thoughts and anger. I am going to get the stick out of storage and sharpen it to a fine point. I has me some huntin' to do. Stay indoors if you are squeamish.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Tony backed a loser. The ETS isn't the bogeyman he paints it as.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:06:59 -0800

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/hot-debate-demands-cool-heads-20091201-k3pp.html

Hot debate demands cool heads

December 2, 2009

Illustration: Kerrie Leishman.

The Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme, over which the Liberals have torn themselves apart, is very similar to the scheme John Howard, Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin took to the last election and would now be implementing had they won. It was fine then; it's anathema now.

It's pathetically easy to frighten people about the consequences of complicated economic changes. Labor did this to the Liberals over the introduction of the goods and services tax, now the Libs are returning the compliment with the trading scheme.

The main difference is that Howard worked tirelessly to explain and defend the GST against critics, whereas Kevin Rudd hasn't bothered to explain or defend his scheme, preferring to keep public attention on the brawling Libs.

If you recall, the opponents of the GST encouraged us to have a grossly exaggerated view of the extent to which it would raise the cost of living. There were people running round with ''modelling'' showing it would cause tens of thousands to lose their jobs.

If anything, the scaremongering is worse this time. Barnaby Joyce, Alan Jones and others have claimed the cost to households and the damage to the economy would have been horrendous. And a host of industry lobby groups sought to extract handouts from the Government by producing ''modelling'' showing the destruction of many jobs in their industry and putting the wind up their employees.

The scaremongers claimed the scheme would be a form of disguised taxation. That's true. It would force up the prices of electricity and gas (though not petrol for at least the first three years) because the use of fossil fuels causes large emissions of carbon dioxide. Making fossil fuels more expensive is intended to encourage us to use them less wastefully, insulate our homes, switch to solar power and so forth. It intended to encourage electricity generators and others to switch to low-emission sources of energy.

The increase in electricity prices would be large but, unlike with the GST, spread over many years (at the rate of about 5 per cent a year). Remember, however, that electricity and gas account for less than 5 per cent of household spending, so a big increase in a small component ends up being a small increase overall.

It's said the cost of electricity is built into the cost of everything we buy, so all prices would go up. That's true, but exaggerated. For most things, electricity is a small proportion of retail price, so this effect would be a lot smaller than the scaremongers lead you to believe.

Would a lot of jobs be lost and a big hole knocked in economic growth? No. The changes would be gradual and mainly take the form of some emissions-intensive industries growing weakly or stagnating while other, low-emissions industries expanded more strongly.

If implemented, the scheme could cause jobs to be lost in emissions-intensive export industries - such as coalmining, aluminium smelting, steel and cement production - if required to pay for emissions while competitors in other countries weren't. But the scheme was designed to protect them from this risk. Much of their scaremongering was aimed at extracting more protection from the Government and last week, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, they got more - more than many economists consider necessary.

Joyce keeps saying this new tax would do nothing to reduce climate change. That's a half-truth. It's true that, since only a reduction in global emissions will affect the climate, Australia's contribution to global emissions is too small to affect our climate or anyone else's.

But this is why our Government would reduce our emissions by only 5 per cent of their level in 2000 by 2020 in the absence of action by other countries. Such a modest target is hardly likely to wreak havoc in our economy. Only if a multilateral agreement emerges from Copenhagen or later meetings would we have lifted this to a 15 per cent reduction, and only if it was a really stringent agreement would we have upped the target to 25 per cent.

The scaremongers want you to believe foolhardy Australia was going first in cutting emissions, leaving us open to exploitation. It isn't true. The Europeans and some others have schemes running and in the past few weeks many developed countries have announced what they're prepared to do if an agreement is forthcoming.

The United States is coming to the party and the major developing countries - India, Brazil and China - have made quite encouraging offers.

But why was it so desirable to pass our scheme into law before we saw what, if anything, emerged from Copenhagen? I've no doubt Rudd wanted to be able to big-note himself, but there were other, worthier reasons.

Although what mid-size Australia does doesn't have a huge influence on proceedings, it was necessary for the rich countries to stump up before putting the hard word on the poor countries. And our long-standing refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol left us needing to prove our bona fides.

In any case, the plan was only ever to lock us into a 5 per cent reduction in the absence of an agreement.

Even so, what's the great hurry? It's clear the sooner we get started, the less the disruption to the economy in achieving any significant reduction in our emissions by 2020 or 2050.

The main way reductions will occur is by businesses and households opting for more energy-efficient or low-emission models when it comes time to buy a new car, electrical appliance or hot-water heater, build a new home or replace a worn-out power station.

So the earlier we get the scheme settled and started, and the more certainty we can give households and businesses about what will happen to prices, the more we can avoid the tragedy of people making new, long-term investments in polluting technology.

It has suited the interests of people on both sides of politics to cause us or allow us to be misinformed about the consequences of an emissions trading scheme. Don't be anyone's dupe.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

It ain't over till it's over

nobody@vox.com(petermcc) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:19:28 -0800

Senator Fielding

The complications from this mornings ballot just keep getting better as the day goes on. Firstly, I have to mention an item from this mornings ballot. There was one informal vote that simply had the word NO scrawled across it.

I can imagine the frustration behind that vote but I wonder if the person who did it realised they were giving Abbott a one point win? How cool would a drawn vote have been?

To make matters even more complicated, the unpredictable Senator Fielding (at left) wont vote for putting the ETS bill into a Senate enquiry. This stops Abbott putting the bill into limbo and likely will force a vote.

This vote could very easily see enough Senators cross the floor to vote with the Government and see the ETS Bill passed.

What a result that would make. The Libs voted in a less popular Leader only to see the bill passed anyway. The wannabe power brokers from the Independents and The Greens get left out of the process. And the farmers get to see how useless the Nats are to their cause for earning Carbon Credits.

Next time a negotiation comes around folk will have to consider if they are going to play themselves out of the game early or wait and see and moderate their behaviour.

Incidentally, I don't think Kevin 07 will call a double disolution any time soon. Why risk it when the Libs have plenty more punch ups to come?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Champagne corks are a popping - Abbott wins

nobody@vox.com(petermcc) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:17:22 -0800

The Mad Monk

Hockey out on the first vote which wasn't predicted by the pundits leaving Tony to win by 1 vote.

The celebrations have began but the loudest cheers are coming from Labor. Usually the leader starts out popular then gets dragged down by the poor policy. Tony is already "on the nose" so at least he can't fall as far. Of course trying to win an Election is going to be problematic.

Will the remaining small L Liberals get jack of trying to rebuild and think of starting a real Liberal party?

Joe probably make a serious error by offering a free vote but it's still better for him to not take the job just yet.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Our new Opposition Leader. God help us.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:09:44 -0800

http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote-20091201-k1uz.html

Tony-abbott

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Call to give Blair the boot

nobody@vox.com(petermcc) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:03:12 -0800

George Galloway

George Galloway is reknowned for dishing up serves to the folk who think it's their God given right to apply their military forces against weaker opponents.

Here is a recent example that was drawn to my attention by fellow Voxer koan911 and I'm very grateful for his scolarship. I have been meaning to comment on the ill fated attempt by Blair to be the first European Union President and this makes a nice introduction.

This link has George's speech to the War Crimes Conference & Exhibition that ocurred in the Putra World Trade Centre in KL Malaysia on 28th October 2009. It's broken up into 3 short parts and is an excellent reminder of the bad behaviour of the so called Leaders of the Free World.

Towards the end of the speech George encourages the throwing of shoes at Blair which I think is an excellent idea even though well short of what he really deserves.

Recently young Tony thought it might be fun to score the gig as the first European Union President and it actually tracked along for a short while until someone realised he would not be able to travel to all the countries under his presumed control should he be successful. A number of EU countries recognise the International Crime of Aggression and all it would take is one up and coming Prosecutor to want to make a name for himself and Tony would face the embaressment of defending his actions. Add to that the annoyance of the rest of Europe caused by Blair bouncing around George Bush's feet like an excitable puppy and I'm sure Tony would take years to get through the legal system.

Looks like Tony will have to stick with his current job of creating Peace in the Middle East.

Hmm.

I hope they don't do performance reviews on the Peace job. He might have to risk the EU job.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend