FreeWilly

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 509 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by FreeWilly

• 
  15

  Do you like the attention you get from fellow posters?

  by Joker10 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  attention can be good or bad.

  depends the way you look at it.

  how much attention do you get for being a member of this board?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Joker you hit the nail right on the head! I'm addicted to the attention I get here. It's my only solace for loving the world, materialism and beastly sex.
  I know God wants to kill me.
  I'm just hoping he'll let it slide cuz I buy his shampoo!
  
  
  
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Seymour,

  Whenever I see information intent on stoking fear about nuclear power I consistantly find absent comparisons to other forms of electrical generation. You post attempts to paint a very scarey picture that implies nuclear power has proven to be a very dangerous option. Has it? What has the past 50 years of comparative data shown? Is it really scarey when placed in the context of the modern world? Perhaps you can present your arguement with comparative data?

  For instance, you mention (somewhat emphatically) the TONS of Nuclear material that will be transported across America to facilitate waste storage and disposal.

  • We have been shipping Nuclear waste for the past 50 years. How many people have died or suffered from it compared with other hazards?
  • How does the tonnage figures you mention compare with other more hazardous material that is likewise shipped daily?
  • And lastly, how does Nuclear power compare to other forms of generation in terms of deaths and sickness - better or worse? Please supply data.

  Your arguement reminds me of Jr High School student who won first prize at the
  Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair on January 26. He asked 150 people if they supported a ban of the chemical Di hydrogen monoxide. 143 said YES!

  All of the following information is true and factual. Would you support a ban of this substance ?

  BAN DI-HYDROGEN MONOXIDE!

  The Invisible Killer

  Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is colourless, odourless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.

  Dihydrogen Monoxide:

  • is also known as Hydroxyl Acid or Hydrogen Hydroxide, and is the major component of acid rain.
  • contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
  • may cause severe burns which can be fatal, especially to children.
  • contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
  • accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
  • may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of motor vehicle brakes and other vital components.
  • has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

  Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

  Significant quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in Europe today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In England DHMO causes millions of pounds of damage to property each year, in virtually every part of the country. Remember - costly damage caused by DHMO could affect your house at any time without warning.
  Despite the danger, Dihydrogen Monoxide is often used:
  
  

  • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
  • in nuclear power stations. - GASP!!!
  • in the production of styrofoam and other poisonous chemicals.
  • to accelerate the growth of genetically modified crops.
  • as a fire retardant.
  • in many forms of cruel animal research.
  • in the distribution of pesticides. Even after prolonged washing, food and produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
  • as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other unhealthy food products.

  
  

  Companies - more concerned with profits than the environment - dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

  The Horror Must Be Stopped!

  The Blair government, under pressure from powerful industrial lobbies backed by faceless and unaccountable

  • BTW , Dihydrogen Monoxide (or H2O) is the chemical name for WATER! Scarey stuff indeed !!

  
  
  
• 
  21

  Householder asks JW how much they gave to the Katrina relief effort

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a friend recently commented to me, that a sister in her congregation had two encounters in field service that caused her embarrassment.

  first, the sister called on a man.

  she was offering the awake magazine on disasters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Joker,

  Individual witnesses are often generous and giving. The Society however doesn't seem to share their enthusiasm when it comes to non-witnesses. And yes I am "negative" after hearing of the shameful lack of response by the Society to the Asian Tsunami, even despite many donations and inquiries on the part of individual witnesses. Why didn't they mount a relief effort? They received money to do so. Was it becuase there were almost no witnesses harmed?

  -FW
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  I'm sorry talesin, I wasn't making a swipe at you. My only point was that because of the the increasingly relevant advantages of nuclear power, more environmentalists have publicly come out in favor of it. That's was meant to be a statement of fact, not gilding any lilies. More environmentalists are in fact speaking favorable about it. By saying so I hope I'm not presuming to know all there is to know about the environmental movement, because I don't. But that little snipit I do know.
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Environmentalists recommend reducing our consumption of energy, ridding the world of the use of fossil fuels, and putting the bux into renewable energy sources, rather than nuclear plants.

  
  Gilding the lily? Apparently you haven't looked into it. That's ok, most people don't.

  • Here's a recent article by James Lovelock, Great Britain’s premier environmental scientist who is actively advocating Nuclear Power. Note: “We cannot continue drawing from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the ‘renewables’ — wind, tide and water power — can provide enough energy and in time,” http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1065 PS... why would this prominent environmentalist say there's "no chance with renewables? odd huh?

  • Here's another news article which has French physicist Bruno Comby; former Clinton administration environmental advisor Jerry Mahlman; famed environmental leader James Lovelock; Senator John Kerry (D-Mass); and Clinton's former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt all favorable toward nuclear power. - Greens Going Nuclear, CNS news: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200109/POL20010906b.html

  • Stewart Brand an MIT technology writer sums up the range of opinions with Environmentalists (and how they've changed over time), both for and against in his article "Environmental Heresies" Notice he cites Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, Friend of the Earth Hugh Montefiore in favor of nuclear power - interesting huh? http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.1.asp
• 
  21

  Householder asks JW how much they gave to the Katrina relief effort

  by truthseeker in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a friend recently commented to me, that a sister in her congregation had two encounters in field service that caused her embarrassment.

  first, the sister called on a man.

  she was offering the awake magazine on disasters.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Yeah they are great about "taken care of their own". That's not necessarily Humanitarian tough. Their organization teaches them to care less about "worldly people" unless the show interest or become baptised.

  Joker. Do you know of any efforts by JW's to help the people affected by Katrina? Surely this would be a fine opportunity to demonstrate how the organization cares for people. Limiting you "good works" to only JW's is selfish and pathetic. Sadly though this is what the organization advised for the Tsunami disaster as well. Also, by funneling all "disaster relief" donations into the "Worldwide work" fund, the Society successfully limits help to those (non-JW's) in need. It's true, individual JW's sought to help people affected by the Tsumnami, but the Society only delivered funds needed to care for the very few witnesses in the area. I wonder where the rest went?
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  
  Big Dog : "But on the serious side, my understanding, limited that it is was that the waste was a real problem."

  It is true, Nuclear waste is a "problem" , however it's a problem best understood compared to the alternatives. Another posted advocated to " move the nation to cleaner, safer transitional energies like natural gas and cleaner coal, and ultimately to renewable energies such as solar and wind combined with a serious commitment to energy efficiency." While I enthusiastically agree with the last part of his statement, the first part almost made me fall on the floor! Natural Gas, Coal and (unmentioned) Oil can hardly be considered "cleaner" sources of energy.

  Lets compare wastes for each type of generation for every (1) Megawatt of electricity generated"

  Coal emits a combined waste total of 2268 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides) *additionally 10% of coal becomes ash causing each typical power plant to produce hundreds of thousands of tons of ash each year!!!

  Oil emits a combined waste total of 1688 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides) and generated hundreds of tons of Terrorists each year!

  Natural gas emits a combined waste total of 1136.8 lbs waste per Megawatt (Sulfer Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides)

  Nuclear Power emits none of these, instead it produces a meager 0.006 lbs of hi level waste per Megawatt. source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html

  So yes, waste remains a "real problem", but it's mainly an issue of handling and that's just not a big enough obstacle. On the plus side though, Nuclear plants do not discharge their wastes into the environment like other forms do. That's one reason nations are opting for it. That's why more and more Environmentalists are advocating Nuclear power in a warming world. It's environmental advantages (waste notwithstanding) seem to outweigh its drawbacks. Additionally, emerging technologies to 'treat' or 'nuetralize' nuclear waste are likely to diffuse the debate anyway.

  Renewable energy, unfortunately, just isn't capable of contributing very much to the energy mix. They should be developed further, but their severe limitations remain. Even the most optomistic future projections show renewable energy only contributing to only 20% of our energy needs. The reasons are it's low energy density (meaning you need alot of contraptions to produce small amounts of power), it's diffuse availability (it's not everywhere), and it's unreliability (the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine). Plus they are expensive as all hell (solar is approximately 47 times more expensive than conventional sources).

  I wish it weren't so, but when people in charge consider all things, the nuclear option looks better every day.

  -FW
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Gill,

  Both Wind and geothermal are different ways to make energy. They are both employed now. Wind is one of mankinds oldest and most developed source of energy. Both of the sources you mention require NO fuel costs. Yet they still rarely used to make electricity - why? There's no conspiracy, it's a matter of cost and effectiveness.

  How many hundreds of miles of hill-top country side are required for windmills to provide just half of your countrys' electrical needs? (hint: ALOT more than people will tolerate)

  How does wind energy compare cost wise ?

  How reliable is the wind ?

  How dependable are the contraptions themselves?

  One problem with wind energy is that it doesn't replace any other sources of electricity. Full capacity power plants are still needed as backup for slow or non windy days. So you just end up with redundant infastructure.

  A few years ago in California people had the opportunity to opt for "green" only sources of electricity. Of course their choices were reflected on their electrical bills. The program was grossly under utilized and ultimately abandoned primarily becuase, despite being heavily subsidized, was already 7 times more expensive than normal. Only rich environmental enthusiests participated.
• 
  50

  WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the united states is energy dependant.

  like a substance abuse addict, the u.s. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems.

  well, lets be more precise.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Hey, what a coincidence. As I write this post I'm working at a Nuclear Power Plant! (with the help of others of course). I've been in the nuclear field for the past 17 years so I'd like to add a few things’.
  
  Nuclear energy despite all of the drawbacks mentioned, is still one of the few workable solutions to current/future energy requirements. This becomes abundantly clear when you compare it with alternative methods of producing energy. That being said, I do not necessarily think this is a good thing.
  
  Nuclear Plants make LOTS of energy for the small area they occupy. A typical 2 reactor facility makes 2000-2500 Megawatts and occupies 10-50 acres of land. To make that same amount of energy using solar arrays you would need to deploy photovoltaic arrays over an area ~250-400 square miles! Even then you only have power when the sun is shining AND it cost approximately 40 times more.
  Waste is a challenge, especially since we do not recycle our nuclear waste like other do. But all things considered it's not a very big challenge and certainly not a big enough one to stop countries from developing nuclear energy. Only 5% of nuclear fuel is actually by product, the rest can be recycled and reused. At the facility I work at all of the hi level waste generated for the past 15 years occupies a space the size of a swimming pool. Again compare that to a comparable sized fossil fuel facility which exhausts 14000 TONS of greenhouse gasses every year into the atmosphere. Yuk! Sure a tribe of wandering nomads could dig up a waste site a thousand years from now and spread some on their baloney sandwhiches and die from it, but seriously, do you really think that's going to be a a big deal in the scheme of things? I don't think waste presents a big issue. It's primarily a philosophical one, not a practical one IMHO. Besides this will probably be a non issue anyway since it is currently possible to nuetralize waste in the laboratory and will likely emerge as a treatment process. (Transmutation via partical acceleration and critical x-rays)
  
  Renewable Energy is a popular buzzword these days, but when you break down the rhetoric and examine exactly what they are referring to, you see that renewable energy is grossly incapable of providing a real and substantial energy source any time soon, if ever. Windmills are expensive, unpredictable, kill endangered birds by the thousands, pollute miles of scenery just to produce a scant amount of electricity. The numbers necessary to make any sizable contribution to our energy needs is staggering especially when you calculate the number and area they must occupy. Even the people of 'green' Germany are resisting the installation of more windmills on their countryside. Solar energy is prohibitively expensive, area intensive, not very reliable and has environmental issues of its own. However I think it still has some promise especially for solar heating and photoe\voltaic building materials. Biomass might have a future, but is not practical now. Tidal energy may also show promise in the future, but not as of now. All of these methods of producing electricity are at least 10 times more expensive than the current methods. Not only does that add another zero to your electrical bill, but it exacerbates environmental problems in poor countries that already resort to extremely wasteful methods to make heat and light for themselves.
  

  THE REAL PROBLEM WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY
  
  The biggest problem with nuclear energy is the fact that it IS NOW being massively deployed Earth wide. It is an answer to global energy demands, dwindling resources and air pollution. It is comparatively clean, it is effective, it is not a greenhouse contributor, fuel is abundant and cheap and many countries around the world are in the process of building reactors right now. China is building 30 reactors in the next 15 years, India plans to build 20 or more in a similar time frame. The US, Russia, Brazil, Vietnam, France, Japan, South Africa and others are all making serious investments in more nuclear plants. In my opinion, with this massive deployment under way Humanity's biggest challenge will be the proliferation and control of weapons grade Nuclear Material. Nuclear power plants typically do not create easily available weapons grade materials, but the technology to do so runs hand in hand. Spent nuclear fuel does contain fissile material dispersed within the waste. It's difficult, but it can be extracted as North Korea constantly reminds us. Humans are opting for more nuclear energy whether we like it or not. Along with this, IMHO, is an increasing threat of nuclear material being used by those who seek to harm others. I think it's reasonable to assume that the proliferation of Nuclear power will also result in a greater availability of weapons grade nuclear material. Once you have weapons grade material, constructing a weapon is child's play, well within the reach of any idiot.
  
  If you ask me that's the major consideration with Nuclear energy. So we're left with a dilemma. Do we pollute ourselves to death and fight over dwindling resources, or do we roll the dice with nuclear power and hope no one blows up our cities? It looks like we are opting for the latter for lack of an alternative.
  
  PS Simon, your edit feature has bugs
• 
  42

  I received an E-mail from an old friend....how do I respond?

  by schne_belly in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  to my dear xxxxx hello there-how are things going with you?

  i've been thinking of you a lot, i've wanted to write you this for quite some time.

  i guess we both know that things aren't the way they used to be-between you and i; between you and jehovah's organization-and i just want you to know how much i miss you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  FreeWilly

  Hi Schne, Maybe you could take a higher road with this. In her letter she treats you like a poor soul who's lost her way. In reality she is the one who is being victimaized. Maybe you can write her back and point out some of that out. For instance, You still love her. You are happy. You've freed yourself from manmade obligations, manipulation, guilt and the depression it created. You'd like to share you're happiness with her, but she is trapped by the rules and restrictions put on her by old men she's probably never met. In the future she can look forward more pain and sorrow at the loss of more friends, children and others who wake up to the sham that's been sold to them all of these years. If there's any way you could help, you are there for her. You sympathise with her because you were once there yourself. You will not yeild to emotional blackmail, but you offer unconditional friendship and a safe haven if she ever needs it. Let's face it, she's a victim and you are free. Why not call a spade a spade? -FW