Newsletter 55

Number 55

SAFE

Secure America's Future Economy

Fall 2009

The “March on Washington” took place on September 12, 2009. Themes included smaller government, personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility – NOW.

Safe directors Barry Dorsch, Steve McClain and bill Whipple made the trip, setting out from Delaware at 7:15 a.m. on a bus (one of five) with fellow conservatives from Delaware Tea Party, Founders Values, etc. Others went to Washington from all over the country, like us traveling on their own dime.

There have been conflicting accounts of the turnout, ranging from “tens of thousands” to about 2 million. Who knows, there was no way to count all those people, but from what we observed the revised Freedom Works estimate (between 600,000 and 700,000) seems about right.

Congress was not working on September 12^th (a Saturday), and the president left town about the time demonstrators began to assemble in Liberty Plaza near the White House. We would imagine, however, that the nation’s political leaders are well aware of what took place.

Here is one oft-repeated punch line from the speakers stand: Can you hear us now? Can you hear us now? CAN YOU HEAR US NOW? The responses from blocks and blocks of demonstrators were deafening.

Let’s hope that the disappointment with the way things have been going in Washington of late will be remembered during the rest of this session of Congress. And we are proud to have been there!

See the 9/21/09 blog entry on s-a-f-e.org for a detailed report, plus links to pictures, videos, etc. It’s a good antidote to pessimism about this country’s future.

Our annual meeting will take place on November 5^th, starting with lunch at 11:30, in the Winterthur cafeteria, near Wilmington, DE. The principal order of business will be the election of directors and officers for the coming year. Any SAFE members who would like to participate are welcome to attend. Contact us if you need directions.

Do deer eat your plantings?

A friend has found a solution. His urine in a can dribbled around his property really works. He has seen deer walk up to his property, stop, make a 90 degree turn, and walk around his property. However, he has to mark his property again after a significant rain.

We recently received a request from the National Taxpayers Union for videos on the president’s healthcare plan that could be burned on CDs and sent to relevant members of Congress. SAFE director Bill Whipple had no idea how to make a video, but if teenagers can do it, why not?

Whipple got some help with the I-Movie system on his computer from two tech savvy advisors, recorded a video, and posted it on YouTube. Hollywood is in no danger, but the message – hit the reset button on healthcare and address the government’s fiscal problem first – seems on target. The link was forwarded to NTU, and is also posted on our Website s-a-f-e.org/homepage

Several days later, SAFE founder Bill Morris visited Whipple’s studio and made a video on why “nature, not human activity, controls the climate.” Morris’s sincerity is obvious, and he makes some telling points about the manmade global warming theory. The link is posted on our Website s-a-f-e.org/energy

What’s next? Well, for one thing, check out those videos and pass on the links if you like them.

Also, Whipple’s studio is open for any members who might like to make a video on some aspect of the SAFE agenda. The investment of time is modest, the process is fun, and here is an opportunity for you to make a difference. Give Bill a call (302-464-2688) today to schedule your recording session!

The following letter is an attempt to use a little humor in the battle to upset the global warming bandwagon.

“Here is an interesting fact. If the anti-nuclear activists had not shut down the expansion of nuclear energy, we would have the energy we need with a huge decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. Climate alarmists could claim that anti-nuclear activists had harmed the Earth.

Wait a minute. Many of the climate alarmists are also anti-nuclear activists, to this day. They could decide whether to chastise themselves. Maybe Greenpeace and the Sierra Club could conduct joint proceedings to set up a fair way to assess reasonable penalties for inconsistency. I would be well qualified to assist in such an effort, because I am neither a climate alarmist nor an anti-nuclear activist. I just want to be helpful.”

Please feel free to use the above verbatim or otherwise, as you see fit, including internet and letters to the editor. It was sent Oct. 1^st to three newspapers within 40 miles of Wilmington, Delaware.

The U.S. once was the leader in nuclear energy, and we still have more than any other country. Anti-nuclear activists and their organizations have been very successful in stopping the expansion of nuclear power. The reason for this success was fear of nuclear radiation. This fear was and is unjustified. Opposition has probably decreased, but it is still strong.

In spite of the increase in cost, due to the opposition, nuclear power is economical. It is also dependable, and safer than other sources of energy. This safety was demonstrated very clearly in a 1976 book, “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear” by Peter Beckmann. The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was the beginning of the virtual shutdown of the nuclear industry in the U.S., even though nobody was killed. The problem was the way nuclear power plants were operated (see 2008 book, “Terrestrial Energy” by William Tucker). Since then, nuclear power plant operators have cooperated in changes that resulted in extremely safe operation.

Current opposition to significant energy sources, coupled with future demand fpr electricity puts us all in danger of electrical blackouts. Coal supplies about half of our electricity, but is opposed because of pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas, which supplies about 20% of our electricity could supply more, but also emits carbon dioxide. Nuclear power supplies about 20% and doesn’t emit carbon dioxide.

Global warming alarmists, who really believe that decreasing carbon dioxide emissions will help avert serious climate effects, should embrace nuclear power. Paradoxically, they don’t. Instead, they make unrealistic claims that “politically correct” forms of energy will carry the load.

What can be done to break this silly logjam? The first stage is to realize that there is a continuum of knowledge and a continuum of opinion about energy in general and nuclear power in particular. Forget the most rabid global warming alarmists and the most rabid nuclear opponents.

Here’s a plan. Push for acceptance of nuclear energy, but recognize that even with success there will be a long time lag in getting a significant amount of new nuclear energy online. For the intermediate term, push for acceptance of the fact that nature, not human activity, controls climate change. It may be that most Americans already accept this fact.

Regardless, we should be as convincing as required to stop the damaging push to limit carbon dioxide emissions. This will save a huge amount of money as well as make it easier to get approval of enough coal and natural gas plants to supply the electricity that we will need.

Just one simple convincing example. Evidence is clear that the medieval warm period was appreciably warmer than we are now. Humans were not using a significant amount of fossil fuels in comparison to what we use now. Also, there is no record of London being under water.

As for nuclear energy, the main argument against it seems to be the storage of nuclear waste. That argument was to be solved by the Yucca Mountain storage facility, but a decision was made to stop that process. Earlier, the U.S. was evaluating recycling nuclear fuel, to solve the storage problem, but President Carter cancelled that effort for fear of plutonium finding its way into the hands of rogue nations. However, this is not a real concern, because spent fuel includes four plutonium isotopes (“Terrestrial Energy”, p. 346). Only PU 239 works for a nuclear weapon. Separating it from the other isotopes would be extremely difficult.

Now, Canada, Britain, Russia and France recycle their nuclear fuel. Recently, the U.S. was reconsidering nuclear fuel recycling, but President Obama cancelled the project as of 6/29/09 (Nature 460, 7/9/09 p. 152).

So, there is a solution to the major argument against nuclear power, but the U.S. government is not taking advantage of it. This situation needs to be questioned vigorously and repeatedly.

Evidence of the beneficial effect of low level nuclear radiation (“hormesis”) should be publicized to eliminate requirements of ridiculously low radiation levels.

The bottom line: First, we need to stop the futile effort to control climate by limiting carbon dioxide. Second, we need to eliminate the roadblocks that are delaying expansion of nuclear energy. This will allow us to have the electricity we need, and save us a pile of money.

By dint of considerable persistence, SAFE got invited to a September 2^nd “listening session” on healthcare sponsored by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE). Director Jerry Martin and Bill Whipple did the honors.

The meeting began with some introductory comments by Senator Carper. Each of the guests (about 15) was given an opportunity to make their points, after which Senator Carper and members of his staff offered closing observations.

The SAFE representatives reminded Senator Carper of our 24-page plan for healthcare reform, which was sent to him in May of 2009 and is posted on our Website s-a-f-e.org/healthcare

In a nutshell, Medicare and Medicaid have artificially fueled demand for healthcare over the past 40+ years, while throttling price competition and fueling a developing fiscal crisis. It is high time that Congress focused on fixing these programs so they will be viable over the longer term – generally by dialing back government controls.

The alternative of implementing a costly new healthcare program for workers is not affordable. As aptly noted by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), the way to save taxpayers dollars is not to spend more as an “investment’ – it is to spend less.

In response, Senator Carper cited several instances of actual or potential cost savings in this session of Congress. He also pointed out the president’s commitment not to sign a healthcare bill that increases the deficit.

Not good enough, said the SAFE representative, because this criterion could be met by raising taxes (several tax increases have been suggested to pay for the healthcare plan). The cost of expanded healthcare coverage cannot be covered this way, because any revenues that might be raised are needed to reduce the deficits associated with existing government programs.

Two representatives of the Delaware Tea Party provided welcome support, but most of the invited guests seemed to view the desirability of the president’s healthcare plan as a given (and some of them urged additional benefits).

Although the effect of SAFE’s presentation remains to be seen, Martin and Whipple appreciated the opportunity to advise Senator Carper of our views on healthcare and believe he will remember what they said.

Hydrogen as an automobile fuel scares me, because of its wide combustibility range with air, from 4 to 75 vol. %. The range for normal hexane is much smaller, 1.2 to 7.4 vol. %. Furthermore, hydrogen is easily ignited. Its minimum ignition energy is only .017 millijoules, as compared to .29 millijoules for normal hexane.

For longer lasting cut flower bouquets, add a few drops of bleach to kill the bacteria.

SAFE participates in massive D.C. Rally	He wants to help
SAFE Annual Meeting	How to get Nuclear
Lights, Camera, Action	Safe Directors on Healthcare
	Safe Officers