Living Car Free - Abandoning cars, "no pracical value"?

"...We can abandon cars completely ....., a suggestion that, at the moment, has no practical value in most Arizona communities."

A snipet from the Arizona Daily Star Newspaper.
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/185187.php

Bush's policy proposals are based on his percepion of national security interests. (And hasn't he always made sound decisions in those areas! :rolleyes:)

He couldn't care less about the climate crisis or making cities sustainable and livable. Bush and the oil companies tout ethanol because they know it will not reduce oil consumption or lessen the death grip that the energy companies have on our lives and our economy.

electric cars- nuclear power- nuclear waste storage in the middle east- problem solved.

electric cars- nuclear power- nuclear waste storage in the middle east- problem solved.

Keep all your trash in your own country dude. Don't spread it around...

wow - there's a whole mess of non-logic in there - I don't know where to start. Ah well, can't argue with Stupid. This is an example of why I generally avoid the major media, what they say makes my head hurt... oh the pain!

This one baked my noodle: "there seems to be no quick and easy transition to cleaner-burning fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles". Sure there is. Move close to work and walk or bike, dummy. It's not that hard.

The irrefutable, predictable law of Supply and Demand once again mystifies the cone-heads...

Cheers

Keep all your trash in your own country dude. Don't spread it around...
Says the p33p in Santa Clara to the p33p in Cincinnati. :p
Never mind that the coal used to make the electricity that's involved in powering most of our "own country" releases more radioactive waste into the environment than the fission doing the same thing does. :D


"...We can abandon cars completely ....., a suggestion that, at the moment, has no practical value in most Arizona communities."
I'm pretty sure the implication is that most Arizona communities have no viable long range mass transit. Of course, feel free to bike 50-200 miles at a time through the south western deserts if you feel it's practical. In fact, why not bike from Vegas to my place, through the Mojave, where we can discuss this over a couple nice cold glasses of water. :p

"...We can abandon cars completely ....., a suggestion that, at the moment, has no practical value in most Arizona communities."

A snipet from the Arizona Daily Star Newspaper.
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/185187.php

The comments were interesting too. The first comment from John G was especially unenlightened. I especially liked "Private cars cost other taxpayers very little" and "Sure, biking is fun, but not many can afford to take the time to bike and then take a shower at work. It's gonna be over 100 degrees in a few days."

I almost choked on the first comment and having lived in the Coachella Valley which is usually a degree or two hotter than Phoenix, I know that even when it's 100 degrees, it's not 100 degrees in the morning, when you are pedaling into work.

So, ehm, yeah... You just happen to know precisely when that poster. or others, go into work Artkansas? ;)

The comments were interesting too. The first comment from John G was especially unenlightened. I especially liked "Private cars cost other taxpayers very little"

GAR!

I hear the argument "hey I have more right to the road cause I'm in a car" all the time.

I respond with "I'm in a high tax bracket and likely paid more towards this road than you did, plus I'm taking up 2ft while you're taking up 6. Move the h*** over!"

And then I try to calm myself by humming :D

cheers

electric cars- nuclear power- nuclear waste storage in the middle east- problem solved.
Yes if we concentrate all the nuclear waste in Jerusalem the various religions would stop fighting over it wouldn't they? I keep reading that the Chernoybal area is now a wildlife haven since the radioactivity keeps people out.

electric cars- nuclear power- nuclear waste storage in the middle east- problem solved.

If you're scared of terrorists using non-powerplant-quality radioactive materials for dirty bombs, you're probably not in favor of sending vast quantities of the stuff to the middle east.

Just sayin'.

If you're scared of terrorists using non-powerplant-quality radioactive materials for dirty bombs, you're probably not in favor of sending vast quantities of the stuff to the middle east.

Just sayin'.

We can "recycle" it and drop it from 10,000 feet.

Aaron:)

"...We can abandon cars completely ....., a suggestion that, at the moment, has no practical value in most Arizona communities."

A snipet from the Arizona Daily Star Newspaper.
http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/185187.php

The article actually argues for mass transit, not against. In fact, the last sentence refers to internal-combustion engines as an anachronism. For an Arizona media outlet, this op-ed is remarkably far-sighted. What I found truly interesting, though, and discouraging, were the comments posted in response to this piece. Nearly all of them were very critical of the very idea of mass transit; some of them were positively enraged. It seems that most readers of the Arizona Daily Star want no part of mass transit in any form. They don't want to pay for it, and, if it is made available to them, they certainly won't use it. What they really want are more freeways. Apparently, they will not allow themselves to be separated from their SUVs for any reason, not the environment, not common sense, and not the economy. It's very sad, and possibly explains why Phoenix is the unliveable hellhole it is today.

If you're scared of terrorists using non-powerplant-quality radioactive materials for dirty bombs, you're probably not in favor of sending vast quantities of the stuff to the middle east.

Just sayin'.
I am assuming that we concntrate it enough that the area would be unlivable. Then there is always space. NASA serves no function whatsoever, maybe we could use the schoolbus to the stars (shuttle) to take it to space. Or do as WAHOONC says.

Keep all your trash in your own country dude. Don't spread it around...
Could say that same to you about Nancy Pelosi, everywhere she goes she spews toxic waste.

So, ehm, yeah... You just happen to know precisely when that poster. or others, go into work Artkansas? ;)

Obviously not. But with as broad a generalization as the person making the comment was making, it's a fair statistical assumption that he is one of the thousands of motorists plodding along Arizona streets in the morning. :D

I am assuming that we concntrate it enough that the area would be unlivable. Then there is always space. NASA serves no function whatsoever, maybe we could use the schoolbus to the stars (shuttle) to take it to space. Or do as WAHOONC says.


I'm assuming your being sarcastic? The vast majority of people in the middle east (yes, I've been), are good, nice, law abiding people. They just have a minority who insist on causing wanton destruction. It's a lot like the West in that respect.

... In fact, why not bike from Vegas to my place, through the Mojave, where we can discuss this over a couple nice cold glasses of water. :p
Except that you're running out of water even faster than you're running out of gasoline! :p

How many people could the state of Arizona sustain without cheap oil and cheap water? 150,000? 20,000?

So, ehm, yeah... You just happen to know precisely when that poster. or others, go into work Artkansas? ;)
Ya know, there is a reason they call it "morning drive time."

Yes if we concentrate all the nuclear waste in Jerusalem the various religions would stop fighting over it wouldn't they? I keep reading that the Chernoybal area is now a wildlife haven since the radioactivity keeps people out.
Three-eyed toads and two-headed squirrels?

Three-eyed toads and two-headed squirrels?
No. Apparently the mutants die or are eaten quickly so that the living
creatures appear normal. It makes me think that nuclear waste might
have a good use protecting wilderness areas.

Couple things-

"the coal used to make the electricity that's involved in powering most of our "own country" releases more radioactive waste into the environment than the fission doing the same thing does."

Got any sources for that? That seems very strange to me that coal, which isn't radioactive, would be responsible for radioactive waste.

"I keep reading that the Chernoybal area is now a wildlife haven since the radioactivity keeps people out."

Can you point to where? That sounds interesting.

"NASA serves no function whatsoever..."

Pot, kettle, black.

The article actually argues for mass transit, not against. In fact, the last sentence refers to internal-combustion engines as an anachronism. For an Arizona media outlet, this op-ed is remarkably far-sighted. What I found truly interesting, though, and discouraging, were the comments posted in response to this piece. Nearly all of them were very critical of the very idea of mass transit; some of them were positively enraged. It seems that most readers of the Arizona Daily Star want no part of mass transit in any form. They don't want to pay for it, and, if it is made available to them, they certainly won't use it. What they really want are more freeways. Apparently, they will not allow themselves to be separated from their SUVs for any reason, not the environment, not common sense, and not the economy. It's very sad, and possibly explains why Phoenix is the unliveable hellhole it is today.

No one anywhere wants to pay for or use mass transit. Where the hell is Seattle's monorail that was voted in like, 3 or 4 times (buried- I know that one), or the light rail that was voted in a decade ago? Everywhere you go, except... San Francisco maybe?, no one wants mass transit. That first comment on the article is typical of what you hear whenever the question of mass transit comes up. I love the way he spouts out all those nonsensical factoids as if they're commonly established, or something. Or the anti-logic in this comment: "City buses average about 20 MPG per passenger. Tucson's enormous buses might be even worse. Anybody know? A lot of our cars do better, and don't block lanes of traffic while doing it." Good lord, a 5 year old could tell you a bus carries 50 people at 20mpg while a car typically carries 1 for 30 mpg. What idiot can't figure that out?

You're right, for Arizona that article is like a Marx pamphlet. Unfortunately most suburban dwellers are just a wee bit right of Hitler when it comes to mass transit. Suburbs were a mistake this country should have never made.

Obviously not. But with as broad a generalization as the person making the comment was making, it's a fair statistical assumption that he is one of the thousands of motorists plodding along Arizona streets in the morning. :D
Fighting generalizations with generalizations. :eek: Course, it's silly for me to think those in the car free movement might want to lend credibility to their views by making rational statements.... Y'all are just people, like everyone else. :D


Except that you're running out of water even faster than you're running out of gasoline! :p

How many people could the state of Arizona sustain without cheap oil and cheap water? 150,000? 20,000?
Cheap water has to do w/ cheap electricity. ;) But neway, I don't think where I am will have water problems due to drought. Most of what we get is from storm systems in the gulf, so more powerful hurricanes implies we'll probably get more moisture. In fact, we had a nasty nasty wildfire after last year's record rainfall. I also think we get most of our water from big bear anyhoo, so we should be good. :p

Couple things-

"the coal used to make the electricity that's involved in powering most of our "own country" releases more radioactive waste into the environment than the fission doing the same thing does."

Got any sources for that? That seems very strange to me that coal, which isn't radioactive, would be responsible for radioactive waste.


Coal releases radioactivity because coal is never pure and contains trace amounts of radioactive elements. Wikipedia sites the coal releases more radioactive substances than nuclear idea and gives the following as a source. I'm not vouching for it's accuracy, but here is at least the article given there for proof.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Specifically it is discussed under the article's heading "Radioactivity from coal combustion"

Coal releases radioactivity because coal is never pure and contains trace amounts of radioactive elements. Wikipedia sites the coal releases more radioactive substances than nuclear idea and gives the following as a source. I'm not vouching for it's accuracy, but here is at least the article given there for proof.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Specifically it is discussed under the article's heading "Radioactivity from coal combustion"

That article's main target seems to be pointing out possible future problems considering radioactive materials are released when coal is burned. It's actually not really about "coal puts out more radioactive stuff". Looking around, the epa and usgs both conclude that the amount released in modern coal plants is less than the normal radiation found in a lot of soils and rocks. This actually jibes with that other article, but the other article is more about supposing what long term effects might be if...

Anyway, interesting and just goes to show you flat statements like 'coal releases more radioactivity' really don't have much meaning by themselves.

Anyway, interesting and just goes to show you flat statements like 'coal releases more radioactivity' really don't have much meaning by themselves.
Oh definitely. It's just to illustrate that in the vast majority of instances, radioactive exposure due to fission is minimal, far less than what's in the environment.

Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
Ideally, we would have the same strict pollution controls on coal that we have on fission, but that would render coal economically disadvantaged, to the point where it probably wouldn't be viable compared to fission. I'm pretty sure this just has to do with the energy density of a fuel source. Low grade (in terms of energy per unit mass) fuel sources will have lots of waste byproducts, which makes the waste stream very hard to deal with. Otoh, high grade fuel sources have a relatively small waste stream which is much easier to deal with. From a practical perspective, accounting for externalities and whatnot, I can't see why we're still using fossil fuels, but from a social perspective it's very clear. If we stop, those who benefit from their ownership won't, so they use their considerable clout to insure we continue to use their product.

I almost choked on the first comment and having lived in the Coachella Valley which is usually a degree or two hotter than Phoenix, I know that even when it's 100 degrees, it's not 100 degrees in the morning, when you are pedaling into work.
I remember 8 or so years ago the overnight low didn't get below 100F in parts of Phx-metro. By 7am when I went for my morning run it was already 104F.

Phx-metro has decent, but not good, bus service - I used to (before cycling) use the bus to commute to work. My wife commuted by bus to work downtown (~15mi each way) and it was faster than single driver car. Light rail is in full swing of being installed.

Things are behind, not as far behind as in some parts of the USA, and some progress is being made.

Al

That seems very strange to me that coal, which isn't radioactive, would be responsible for radioactive waste.


Yes, coal combustion does release radioactive materials into the environment, mainly uranium and thorium. Here's a link for you: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Yes, coal combustion does release radioactive materials into the environment, mainly uranium and thorium. Here's a link for you: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

You should get in the habit of not reaching for the post button until you at least scan all the way through the thread.

Sorry, I hadn't realised that that article had already been pointed out to you, even though I had read all of the posts. I posted the link to you with the best of intentions.

That article's main target seems to be pointing out possible future problems considering radioactive materials are released when coal is burned. It's actually not really about "coal puts out more radioactive stuff". Looking around, the epa and usgs both conclude that the amount released in modern coal plants is less than the normal radiation found in a lot of soils and rocks. This actually jibes with that other article, but the other article is more about supposing what long term effects might be if...

Anyway, interesting and just goes to show you flat statements like 'coal releases more radioactivity' really don't have much meaning by themselves.

One must ask the question though, how much radiation in soils and rocks is CAUSED by the fact that coal has been burned for hundreds of years, already.....

No one anywhere wants to pay for or use mass transit. Where the hell is Seattle's monorail that was voted in like, 3 or 4 times (buried- I know that one), or the light rail that was voted in a decade ago? Everywhere you go, except... San Francisco maybe?, no one wants mass transit. That first comment on the article is typical of what you hear whenever the question of mass transit comes up. I love the way he spouts out all those nonsensical factoids as if they're commonly established, or something. Or the anti-logic in this comment: "City buses average about 20 MPG per passenger. Tucson's enormous buses might be even worse. Anybody know? A lot of our cars do better, and don't block lanes of traffic while doing it." Good lord, a 5 year old could tell you a bus carries 50 people at 20mpg while a car typically carries 1 for 30 mpg. What idiot can't figure that out?

You're right, for Arizona that article is like a Marx pamphlet. Unfortunately most suburban dwellers are just a wee bit right of Hitler when it comes to mass transit. Suburbs were a mistake this country should have never made.

Don't get me started about Seattle's mass transit/demographic woes. Traffic here has become so horrendous that people would jump at the chance to take light rail if it existed, but the will to pay for it just isn't there. You're right about the suburban population; given the nature of suburbs, they have to use cars no matter what, so they have no incentive to contribute to a rail network or even a better bus system. My guess is that we'll continue to see more of what's been happening here: those who are wealthy enough choose to live close to downtown to avoid the commute, and those who actually do the dirty work in town have to slog through traffic hell from the 'burbs every day to serve their rich masters. The fact that these are the very people who can ill afford the expense of owning cars and buying lots of fuel is irrelevant...

Sure there is. Move close to work and walk or bike, dummy. It's not that hard.


Some might say it is. Like me.

-D