Does Blinky the 3-Eyed Fish Exist?

"Seemingly perfect, Nuclear Energy uses the naturally radioactive Uranium and
merely exploits its energy to make harmless steam which powers a generator." That sounds pretty nice. It feels nice saying it. Doesn't it?

Unfortunately, "Seemingly" is the word that allows me to overlook two powerful words concerning this power source - "Nuclear Waste." While both presidential Candidates agree that the good achieved from Nuclear Fission outweighs the bad, environmental groups and many Americans do not agree. While Nuclear Power has been in use in America for decades, the constantly accumulated nuclear waste is constantly becoming an imminent issue. But what is nuclear waste and how bad is it?

Nuclear Waste is the term used to describe mops used to clean the floors in a Nuclear Power Plant to the spent rods of Uranium themselves. It takes upwards of hundreds of years for these materials to fully lose their radioactivity, depending on how radioactive they are. Earlier in the summer, the WDET radio program, "Detroit Today", looked at argument currently engaging Northern Michiganders and some Canadians about the storage of Nuclear waste for the duration of its decay. In this scenario, a Canadian Power Plant planned to drill around 2,000 feet down in the ground, at a location less than a mile north of one the Great Lakes, and store some moderate nuclear waste, like sanitation equipment. None the less, this proposition soon met opposition from Michiganders who feared the effect on the lake. However, while the nuclear waste might still be decaying when the power plant is gone, this waste is much less harmful (hence "moderate waste") than the actual Uranium and other actively used materials. Personally, it appears to me that the issue had already been carefully reviewed. Still, this argument illuminates the public concern for the proper disposal of actual highly radioactive materials and also the difficulty looming in convincing the public that highly radioactive waste can ever be deemed safe. Suggestions for the disposal of this decades old waste, like burying it under the Ocean, have been tossed around. Never the less, it's hard to believe that the disposal would ever be close to its portrayal on "The Simpsons", where Mr. Burns often tries to hide this radioactive material in city parks.

All in all, while the memory of Chernobyl may sting more than the slightly higher temperature of the world, people should put Nuclear Energy in perspective to Fossil Fuels. While the final destination of Nuclear Waste is contested, I find it hard to believe that Nuclear Energy's one fault can outweigh foreign oil dependence, high gas prices, pollution, global warming, and the environmental disturbances caused by offshore drilling and oil spills.

Offshore Drilling - Is It Worth It?

Off-Shore Drilling is the process of extracting petroleum from beneath the ocean's floor. Recently, President Bush removed the executive moratorium on this procedure in hopes that offshore drilling will expand. Currently, an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil, "enough to satisfy U.S. energy needs for two and half years" is located below America's East and West Coast, as stated by "The Week."* Bush wants offshore drilling to expand and to ease our dependance on foreign oil and ultimately lower gas prices. This premise is outlined in John McCain's Lexington plan and also receives some approval from Barack Obama.

The first concern of citizens is that the oil rigs are prone to spills. The Exxon-Valdez spill and others all make citizens wary. Oil companies argue that techniques in Offshore drilling have vastly improved and oil spills that hurt tourism and are detrimental to wildlife are far less likely. Nonetheless, environmentalists counter that these rigs also emit trace chemicals from the drilling process and that these chemicals have altered the surrounding environment. According to Mineral Management Services via Enviroment Oregon*, Offshore drilling causes "erosion of wetlands, air pollution, contamination by toxic chemicals, dumping of industrial waste and debris, and the decline of fish populations."* In addition, new drilling wouldn't begin today and could take several years (although the date that oil can be extracted from newly built rigs is highly contested). Conversely, proponents cite that it doesn't matter that oil isn't being pumped tomorrow, only that Oil Speculators know that it will be pumped in a few years. This is because the price of gasoline is set by Speculators based upon the amount of oil that will be available in the future. Therefore, it is widely accepted that offshore drilling would lower gas prices. In the end, the major issues are the neccesity of lower gas prices and the trade-offs of achieving it in addition to reducing foreign oil dependance.

I personally think that this is one of the most messed up and gray area issues currently in American Politics. While I may live in a more centralized area where everything I need is close-by, many Americans are forced to commute and gas prices are going to cost them. Not to mention, industries such as trucking and airplane-travel will suffer. Nonetheless, we need to keep focused on improving public transportation, emphasizing the development of more fuel efficient engines, and expanding our use of renewable and alternative fuel thus lowering our dependance on foreign oil while we resolve this issue. Who knows, maybe we won't need the fuel in the future.

* "Offshore Drilling and the Environment". "The Week". August 22, 2008. pg. 13
** "Stop Offshore Drilling". Environment Oregon http://environmentoregon.org/issues/ocean/stop-offshore-drilling

Putin the Puppeteer and Medvedev the Marionette

While the elections were a while ago, it doesn't mean that Russia's leaders still don't raise eyebrows. While Putin experienced very high approval ratings as Russia has advanced further in modernization, many Westerners have concern for the "democracy" in Russia. As Putin's term limit came in 2008, his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev was elected and soon made Putin the Prime Minister. After an election where accusations of voters being bribed and threatened to vote for Medvedev, many still question who's running the show. But if you like a good puppet show, maybe it isn't a bad thing.

Moreover, with the Forum's first cartoon, I would like to announce that a cartoonist has joined the staff (obviously) and cartoons will now be coming and going.

Happy One Year Anniversary

Technically it's tommorow, but I don't think the four people who read this blog really care. It's been fun for me and I feel it's a great way to stay invovled in what's going on and I hope to continue and really start posting more often to make this blog more of a weekly editorial and analyzation of what's going on. So, to anyone who reads this - I'm just getting started.

Guns and the Second Amendment

In my last article I discussed the root of Gun Violence, as opposed to constitutionality of a gun ban. However, I would like to explain why we shouldn't use the second amendment to argue that Americans can own handguns -

1. The Firearms that we have today are much more advanced than the muskets and other guns around during Washington's time. I doubt the phrase "concealed weapon" meant anything to a colonist. Handguns are smaller, more powerful, easier to reload, and more accurate than anything that was available back then. Simply put, it's wrong to use second amendment against anti-gun lobbyists when the definition of what a gun is and what capabilities it possesses have completely changed in the more than two centuries between the present day and the day the Bill of Rights was signed.
2. In addition, the Political situation following the Revolution and the one existing nowadays are completely different. The idea of everyone having a gun was found acceptable partly because the Government wanted the American people ready for a possible second war with the British, which did in fact happen. Moreover, the Revolution was fought mainly with ordinary militia men and therefore the government deemed it acceptable that regular folk keep their guns and not take away the nation's primary defense.

One cannot impose laws on a technology that has been constantly evolving since its invention several hundred years ago and expect that the current conditions existing in America would be similar to the conditions present more than 200 years ago. Nevertheless, I do not write this article to declare partiality in this gun rights battle, but to instead point out a fallacy in the arguments of our politicians. While Americans must remember to attack the cause of this gun problem(poverty and a lack of education), we must also keep these false arguments from appearing in our politics.