I heard a discussion on TV relative to nuclear. The person speaking against nuclear was doing so because it could, again be used as a weapon. Any thing can be used as a weapon. The most signifficant weapon we possess is what I’m using now, that is my voice and written comments.

We need to use our intellect and not let fear rule us. Consider that fear and continue moving forward with verifiable safeguards to thwart the mis-use of technology.

Tom

I’m convinced that our representatives are not there for us, be they liberal or conservative. Their constituants are the lobyists and their next election. In your article, you used water as one of your examples. Water is the example that I used in a speech I’m preparing for my toastmaster club. I sent it out several weeks ago, I’m not sure if I sent it to you. The write-up for that talk follows. It’s a shame that we have to scare ourselves into action.

WATER, WATER HERE AND THERE
AND HARDLY A DROP TO WASTE

Modified from the rhyme of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge; and his lament of being in an ocean of water with not a drop to drink.

We need to use all the water we can and then use some more. The only way that we will have sufficient water for our children and their grandchildren is to USE, USE and USE and then, watch what will happen.

Our biological systems are not yet programmed to take in salt water. I use the qualifier “not yet” since I don’t know what science and biology might bring about in years to come. Certain crops have been shown to grow with salt water. As of now, we remain programmed to slake our thirst with fresh water only. So the Ancient Mariners rhyme stands today as it did in the late 18th century, during the time of Mr. Coleridge, that is to say we still can’t drink salt water.

. The “experts” tell us that we will experience water shortages, within this decade. Some areas already have water in short supply. For example Lima Peru and the adjacent Atacama desert receive zero rainfall in some years, however there are rivers flowing from the Andes Mountains. The Gobi and northern Africa are likewise dry as are the areas of the Middle East where our troops remain engaged. Today we’re asked to conserve water and as loyal and patriotic Americans and concerned members of our species we must and really must conserve. The terms “experts” and “shortages” are used in this article, who are the experts and what constitutes a shortage?

An expert might be a person with academic credentials, e.g. a hydrologist, a persons who has spent their lives engaged in observing or otherwise involved with the “water cycle”, an environmentalist, a farmer, rancher, ski resort operator. e.t.c. Last but not least the politicians and the lobbyists must be a part of the equation. These experts are usually very passionate about their point of view and feel that their point of view supercedes all others. Behind their passion might be financial gain, humanitarian needs, ecological considerations and we are asked to support one or more of these views. Can we look to the past and see how others might have found a solution. Take for example, the story of the biblical King Solomon and how he suggested finding the true mother of a child claimed by two women. He suggested cutting the child in half so that each woman would have at least half. The true mother refused that plan and offered the other woman the child. King Solomon choose wisely and granted the child to the true mother. Perhaps we could take the existing water and divide it equally among the competing forces. No one would have enough but all would share equally. How would Atilla the Hun have solved the dilemma? Most likely, he would lay siege to all the competing groups except his own; accordingly, the water needs would be greatly reduced and he would have sufficient water to continue his campaigns. A room full of “experts” all competing with different plans for the same resources can not solve much. With our current knowledge, we cannot create nor destroy water. What falls from the sky is evaporated back to the sky, that is the very simplistic water or hydrological cycle.

A water shortage occurs when someone says “there is a water shortage”. Will water prices rise? Will people, animals, or crops suffer? Will the “declaration” of a shortage create an opportunity for politicians and/or corporations to pressure for self-serving “actions”, including corporate take-over, international conflicts? Yes, yes and yes. Since we cannot now create water, what can we do?

We can use our intellect and support science and technology – with sufficient public oversight to prevent abuse of the technology – to make use of the oceans until such time that other technological advances eliminate or mitigate future shortages. For example:
 high efficiency, nano-technology filters to remove salt and others impurities,
 local, small and single purpose nuclear powered evaporators with highly controlled reprocessing of spent fuel to significantly reduce radioactive waste.

There will be abuse, no matter how tight we control the processes and technology. Most of us enjoy the comforts that we have grown used to. It is up to us and those who represent us to have systems in place that will note processes that, if abused could result in serous harm. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We cannot let science and technology be minimized just because, if abused, that technology could harm us.

To quantify this heading, conservation is good, is necessary and must be carried out in all our endeavors, because – to not conserve is to waste. Conservation is only a half measure. Creative thinking and action is the other half. If we rely on conservation only and find that we can “get-by”, we run the risk of accepting the half measure only. By accepting the half measure we are forestalling the time when half measures will no longer “cut-it” and time has run out. There is an old adage “if in ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Some things are not broken but we can find new things and ideas that will greatly improve the things that “ain’t” broken.

Perhaps we need to look at the situation in a slightly different light. If water shortages are a real problem and conservation along with “some” technological advances are not enough and/or are moving too slowly – guess what I’m proposing. Forget conservation, use our resources to their fullest and deplete our reserves to an alarming and visible state. At that time, we will be very aware of what we need to do and may be then, we will demand that our politicians do what we tell them to do. It’s a shame that, sometimes, progress only happens when we are justifiably scared into action.

For those who do not want nuclear plants to distill ocean water and those who do not believe that filters can be economically designed, manufactured, installed and function safely; I ask that they suggest a solution to eliminate our chronic need for more water. The alternative is to conduct our selves as Atilla might have recommended. These actions might also help solve our current economic dilemma and bring science and technology in our universities back into vogue. Ms., Mr. Elected representative, please start some action before we are forced to call upon Atilla.

Very truly yours,

Thomas J. Devine, (Tom)

WATER, WATER HERE AND THERE
AND HARDLY A DROP TO WASTE

Modified from the rhyme of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge; and his lament of being in an ocean of water with not a drop to drink.

We need to use all the water we can and then use some more. The only way that we will have sufficient water for our children and their grandchildren is to USE, USE and USE and then, watch what will happen; please read on.

Our biological systems are not yet programmed to take in salt water. I use the qualifier “not yet” since I don’t know what science and biology might bring about in years to come. Certain crops have been shown to grow with salt water. As of now, we remain programmed to slake our thirst with fresh water only. So the Ancient Mariners rhyme stands today as it did in the late 18th century, during the time of Mr. Coleridge, that is to say we still can’t drink salt water.

. The “experts” tell us that we will experience water shortages, within this decade. Some areas already have water in short supply. For example Lima Peru and the adjacent Atacama desert receive zero rainfall in some years, however there are rivers flowing from the Andes Mountains. The Gobi and northern Africa are likewise dry as are the areas of the Middle East where American troops remain engaged. Today we’re asked to conserve water and as loyal and patriotic Americans and concerned members of our species we must and really must conserve. The terms “experts” and “shortages” are used in this article, who are the experts and what constitutes a shortage?

An expert might be a person with academic credentials, e.g. a hydrologist, a persons who has spent their lives engaged in observing or otherwise involved with the “water cycle”, an environmentalist, a farmer, rancher, ski resort operator. e.t.c. Last but not least the politicians and the lobbyists must be a part of the equation. These experts are usually very passionate about their point of view and feel that their point of view supercedes all others. Behind their passion might be financial gain, humanitarian needs, ecological considerations and we are asked to support one or more of these views. Can we look to the past and see how others might have found a solution. Take for example, the story of the biblical King Solomon and how he suggested finding the true mother of a child claimed by two women. He suggested cutting the child in half so that each woman would have at least half. The true mother refused that plan and offered the other woman the child.. King Solomon choose wisely and granted the child to the true mother. Perhaps we could take the existing water and divide it equally among the competing forces. No one would have enough but all would share equally. How would Atilla the Hun have solved the dilemma? Most likely, he would lay siege to all the competing groups except his own; accordingly, the water needs would be greatly reduced and he would have sufficient water to continue his campaigns. A room full of “experts” all competing with different plans for the same resources can not solve much. With our current knowledge, we cannot create nor destroy water. What falls from the sky is evaporated back to the sky, that is the very simplistic water or hydrological cycle.

A water shortage occurs when someone says “there is a water shortage”. Will water prices rise? Will people, animals, or crops suffer? Will the “declaration” of a shortage create an opportunity for politicians and/or corporations to pressure for self-serving “actions”, including corporate take-over, international conflicts? Yes, yes and yes. Since we cannot now create water, what can we do?

We can use our intellect and support science and technology – with sufficient public oversight to prevent abuse of the technology – to make use of the oceans until such time that other technological advances eliminate or mitigate future shortages. For example:
 high efficiency/nano technology filters to remove salt and others impurities,
 local, small and single purpose nuclear powered evaporators with highly controlled reprocessing of spent fuel to significantly reduce radioactive waste.

There will be abuse, no matter how tight we control the processes and technology. Most of us enjoy the comforts that we have grown used to. It is up to us and those who represent us to have systems in place that will note processes that, if abused could result in serous harm. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We cannot let science and technology be minimized just because, if abused, that technology could harm us.

To quantify this heading, conservation is good, is necessary and must be carried out in all our endeavors, because – to not conserve is to waste. Conservation is only a half measure. Creative thinking and action is the other half. If we rely on conservation only and find that we can “get-by”, we run the risk of accepting the half measure only. By accepting the half measure we are forestalling the time when half measures will no longer “cut-it” and time has run out. There is an old adage “if in ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Some things are not broken but we can find new things and ideas that will greatly improve the things that “ain’t” broken.

Perhaps we need to look at the situation in a slightly different light. If water shortages are a real problem and conservation along with “some” technological advances are not enough and/or are moving too slowly – guess what I’m proposing. Forget conservation, use our resources to their fullest and deplete our reserves to an alarming and visible state. At that time, we will be very aware of what we need to do and may be then, we will demand that our politicians do what we tell them to do. It’s a shame that, sometimes, progress only happens when we are justifiably scared into action.

For those who do not want nuclear plants to distill ocean water and those who do not believe that filters can be economically designed, manufactured, installed and function safely; I ask that they suggest a solution to eliminate our chronic need for more water. The alternative is to conduct our selves as Atilla might have recommended. These actions might also help solve our current economic dilemma and bring science and technology in our universities back into vogue. Ms., Mr. Elected representative, please start some action before we are forced to call upon Atilla.

Very truly yours,

Thomas J. Devine, (Tom)