Rule One: Don't Hit the Immigrants, or No One Will Cut Your Grass, Serve Your Hamburger, or Make Your Hotel Room Bed

Marco,

 

I always try to show greatest respect to those who stop here and present their point of view in a reasonable way, and have been treated to some of the most wonderful viewpoints presented in the most intelligent ways -- and they have become, I think, a stopping place for intelligent discussion for some intellectually-starved photographers (and maybe others) on Photo.net.

 

I don't like it when other, highly-skilled photographers won't talk about their images or their work.

 

On the other hand, Henri Cartier-Bresson who wouldn't talk about his 'surreal' images (he wanted to call himself a 'surrealist-photographer' and Capa talked him out of it), took the famous photograph in Valencia of the boy looking upward, next to an old wall and it turns out, that the ethereal and surreal photo of the boy, eyes mysteriously cast upward, was just the boy following his tossed ball.

 

Some stories are not worth telling, and Cartier-Bresson preferred to let his viewers tell themselves the stories to themselves.

 

Please keep coming back; you're always welcome.

 

John (Crosley)

Knicki

 

Look what I found, an original capture of this sign with the 'undocumented immigrants running' THREE MERCEDES (per your original request, you snoot you), AND San Onofre (I suppose -- is it, it looks like it, or am I wrong?)

 

Well, this is to keep you satisfied; now aren't you sorry you mentioned it? I CAN be surprising.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Ever so happy to please)

I looked it up -- that IS San Onofre nuclear generating plant, next to Camp Pendleton and the San Onofre State Park beach (where you were camping, no doubt, since I doubt you were camping at a military base and thus not a 'camp follower').

 

It supplies 20% of the power to 15 million people of Southern California -- Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties for Southern California Edison.

 

John (Crosley)

 

;-)

 

 

Caution, run away from the nuclear reactor!

 

The second image is a fantastic juxtaposition in light of your explanation.

In fact, despite the famous movie starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon -- 'The China Syndrome' -- which I saw and was heavily influenced by, I have come to the conclusion that, what I knew since I was in second grade -- that the world will run out of petroleum sooner or later (and sooner appears on the horizon now, despite new discoveries), is something I always was prepared to come to grips with, and it's only been delayed.

 

With the advent of industrialization and globalization with new wealth for India and China -- the world's two largest nations, petroleum is sure to become even more hard to get in the future.

 

Hybrid cars, which I am committed to buying next time I can afford a new car (having rented three times a Toyota Prius and now that Toyota produces a hybrid Camry and Highlander that are now on sales floors), will slow the demand for oil but not stanch it.

 

There will be stopgaps and crackpot solutions. For instance, the crackpots will argue because diesels can run on french fryer grease, we all should be converting. Or that electric cars don't produce pollution (from the car) that we should drive them, but they don't consider where the electricity comes from to put into the batteries of those cars -- from plants like those in the background of the second photo, of course, or petroleum, gas or coal-fired plants.

 

And there isn't enough french fry grease in all of America to send America's fleet of trucks across just one state for one day, and we wouldn't have our fries (chips) to eat after that.

 

People argue for diesel 'biomass' vehicles, but scientists have made the calculations, and there is not enough 'biomass' to ferment or otherwise convert into combustible material to meet even a small fraction of even present-day needs.

 

America has much coal, but here's the rub: Coal is loaded with radioactive material -- thorium, radioactive isotope of uranium, and other radioactive elements and isotopes, and burning them and sending them with tall smokestacks high into the atmosphere sends them to coat the world over -- coal is about the dirtiest thing in the world to burn and worse; and (here's the rub) coal is highly radioactive. It's not obvious, is it, but burning coal sends hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive material into the atmosphere (or more) yearly.

 

Worse, you say?

 

Yes, worse. Coal is made primarily of Carbon and Oxygen. Burning anything, coal included, produces carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide contributing mightily to global pollution -- and on a one-on-one basis, plus or minus a small fraction. No one in their right mind who thinks it through would want the world combusting if they really think that global warming is a true environmental threat -- at least not combusting at present and predicted future rates.

 

So, until somebody perfects contained 'fusion' power, which is not foreseeable for 20 or more years, nuclear power is it -- like it or leave it.

 

France produces, I understand, 85 per cent of its power using nuclear power, and they have had no problems.

 

And despite 'Three Mile Island' there have been no nuclear fatalities.

 

Chernobyl used a non-contained nuclear reactor, of Soviet design produced by Soviets, in a land where being drunk was no reason to get fired and the design was not vetted for safety and was ancient and not comparable to present-day designs.

 

Americans design, but do not build, the world's finest nuclear reactors and are at the forefront of reactor design, all contained with incredible safeguards -- even enough to withstand the direct impact of (I recall) a 757 Boeing airliner, and no doubt are being upgraded for a 747 impact, these post 911 days.

 

It's probably safer for me to drive by San Onofre reactor with its safeguards, even in a major earthquake, than to drive on I-5 where I took this photo.

 

I am worried about getting radiated, and lived a mile or so from the first place in America a while ago that the Soviets were bound the hit with multiple missiles in a first strike -- the 'Blue Cube' in Sunnyvale-Mtn. View, CA., which housed the US military satellite telecommunications together with their giant 'dishes' which were located (get this) next to a major freeway where one van with a well-placed bazooka or rocket launcher could have wiped them out together with all of America's military communications by satellite. Gads!

 

There is no guarantee of a disaster-free existence, and yes, I have viewed the horrible photos of the victims of Chernobyl and the villages around there and read the survivors' accounts. But I have been to Ukraine and Russia and I know the people and how they got and kept jobs then -- being drunk was common then, producing output was paramount under Soviet 5-year plans, and safety be damned.

 

Chernobyl changed all that, and Communism has fallen throughout Eastern Europe (with one or two exceptions). The world's a different place. I used to worry about missiles coming down overhead with MIRVs (Multiple Re-entry vehicles -- many hydrogen bombs in common parlance) and knew I would be wiped out first thing.

 

Nuclear power has gained by leaps and bounds since 'Three-Mile Island's' small but well-publicized problem but still nobody was killed at all, and it has paralyzed nuclear reactor building in America, but not in France or India or other modern and modernizing countries.

 

If America is fighting war over oil, having built enough reactors (safely) might have obviated that war and the need for such a war, I think. (you can argue with the premise the war was for oil, and argue that it was for those 14 military bases they built that they claim are not 'permanent' but which no one in the administration ever says they will abandon, and which were called for under the 'Project for a New American Century' written by Administration officials before they were brought into power, and those bases were a cental goal of US world dominance and imperialism. (the Neocon thesis, not mine)

 

Google it and read it, don't trust me; no one has denied its existence or that the prime movers in the Adminstration authored it and promoted PNAC, although I understand they may recently have removed their own edition from the Internet, but it's still there, all 100+ pages.

 

If there had been enough reactors, perhaps we'd not be at war with Iraq -- now there's a thought.

 

It's an anti-war thought.

 

At least it's food for thought.

 

And reactor energy does not produce CO-2 as does all combustion energy, and CO-2 is the prime mover in global warming if I have my theory straight. Imagine that!

 

Is it time to reconsider, 'China Syndrome' or not?

 

John (Crosley)

John you seriously need a column. I guess you already have one. I'll be sending my payment for subscription shortly. Nice trick with the image upon request. Do you have one with real Immigrants running between San Onofre and the first Mercedes?

Kent, if I did have such an image, I would be submitting it for publication -- it would be a true 'find' especially if it were a family.

 

It would be a personal tragedy to find such people, and I might be moved to try to rescue them first, but it's a photo that would be a surefire winner anywhere for almost any publication, especially with recent events. I often think of such things and it helps drive what I do take -- and events often follow my imagination. After all, I was hired as a news photographer by AP

(although I rarely did it) and was a newsman, editor and later a world service photo editor at their world headquarters, so I know and can anticipate generally what is and/or will be newsworthy (with lacunae, sometimes).

 

As to the image on demand, it was lucky to find one as Knicki!?! had requested, with a fancy car (three Mercedes), but San Onofre is in Southern California and in those parts they value their Mercedes -- true status symbols, though Lexus outscores them, but without the status. A drive through Beverly Hills bears that analysis out or even Sherman Oaks or anywhere else with 'status'.

 

A Lexus is sold in Europe as a Toyota Lexus, not a 'Lexus' as a separate brand. (at least that's the way it was last I noticed a Lexus in Europe).

 

And, I guess I do have a column, and somehow, some way, I'll find a way to morph it, and my photos into something that is more than a PN blog, but I like PN very much, and value the loyal contributors very much.

 

It's a great big community full of people, many of whom are very thoughtful and those who stop by my photos and comment are among the most thoughtful and articulate. I just try to treat everyone as a guest. That doesn't mean, though, that I pull my opinions -- I just try to make sure my opinions are based on some sort of reason, and I don't shoot from the hip.

 

I think that's why people bear with me and read these things.

 

I'm glad that you stopped by. (And Alexander, former PNer in Germany, if you are reading, I hope you are still reading these discussions though you seldom stop by PN these days.)

 

John (Crosley)

Hey John, Sorry, but I couldn't resist a bit of 'Crossley Baiting', hence my reactor comment.

I took the bait, but it was a good opportunity for a good workout. The information I posted was important, and serious.

 

Few people have thought through those issues so thoroughly as I -- though I'm no hero -- I just have access, through popular means -- to some very bright minds who care very much about the problem.

 

I think some people may be surprised at finding out a few of the 'facts' if they read that compendium of facts. Who knew that coal is Carbon and Oxygen and if you burn it you get Carbon Dioxide and it creates greenhouse gas and hence affects global warming as a great consequence? I think most would be very surprised.

 

And California, being very 'green' won't allow new refineries or new nuclear power plants, so they are promoting other states' building coal fired electrical plants elsewhere -- effectively exporting the pollution problem farther east, but the pollution returns globally. China's pollution someday is going to affect the West Coast, I think, and that will be a crisis. Already the Chinese citizens are sometimes demonstrating against extreme city pollution from a coal-fired economy.

 

It's funny, what thoughts a small photo can 'provoke'.

 

Don't worry about provoking me.

 

John (Crosley)

Over here we're keenly aware of the scale and scope of coal burning pollution, the EU blamed us for producing most of the acid rain which decimated the Black Forest in the 70's/80's - British coal had a high sulphur content.

 

Regarding radioactive isotopes, as living organisms, we tend to collect and concentrate heavy metals and 'other nasties' from our environment, since coal is pretty much the residue of biomass (trees, dinosaurs, fish, whatever), heavily compacted, it's no surprise to me that it contains things which are bad for our health. Burning it is a sure fire (pardon the pun) way of releasing some of it into the atmosphere - much will be incinerated, and much scrubbed (one would hope) from the exhaust gases of any coal powered power plant.

 

However, I'm not sure that we could compare what is released through combustion to the ammount, toxicity, and sheer devastating effect of a thermonuclear meltdown such as Chernobyl. Most of europe (and further afield) was irraditated by Chernobyl to some extent, there were sheep kulls in Scotland to prevent fallout entering the human food chain, background radiation levels are probably higher (although I've not researched this it seems reasonable to expect), and undoubtedly a great deal of misery has ensued in the region of the reactor. I think the modern estimate is around 100,000 direct deaths/cancers/illnesses - and that is EXTREMELY lucky compared to what could have happened.

 

Some background reading on Chernobyl suggests that the attempt to quell the fire with water very nearly lead to a hydrogen bomb type explosion, one which would have made virtually all of Northern Europe inhabitable. Now there's a thought.

 

Safeguards do not prevent disaster, they merely mitigate risk, wherever people are in an equation, we must expect a level of risk, and one significantly higher than where they are not.

 

But, by and large, I think Nuclear power is our most effective means of power generation at present.

 

This is all layman science, I'm not extolling hard facts here, so I'd suggest background reading around the subject.

I appreciate your analysis and your history, especially of 'sheep kills' (as I read it for the typogoophical).

 

However, to even regard Chernobyl as an an example, when there are modern, contained reactors only available anywhere in the world and the Chernobyl always was a known hazard and not producable anywhere is a 'red herring' argument. Chernobyl type reactors were almost certain to produce a disaster at sometime, whereas modern reactors are almost certain not to produce any disaster at all, and plans are to design AND bury new smaller scale reactors so they are forever self-contained.

 

I agree, nuclear is the only viable solution, but I know that Chernobyl did not cause 100,000 deaths, although it may have affected 100,000 people and caused disruptions to that many people, and even temporary sickness to that many, but to lump that together with deaths, is misleading in the extreme. You cannot lump deaths with illnesses because many survivors are illness free (and a large number of those who worked at the scene have some illness, and some have severe illness, but they are older now and most would have illness anyway and many have outlived their life expectancy in a land where an average male lives to age 55 because of liver disease, heart disease, suicide, etc.

 

Chernobyl, or a reactor like it, was bound to cause a disaster, but a modern reactor is almost certain not to produce anything other than a minor radiation release, and a meltdown is practically unthinkable if it's constructed according to spec and inspected properly.

 

Nobody outside of Chernobyl of the former Soviet Union with its unsafe reactors has lost their life in a reactor disaster, but I daresay that this stretch of Interstate 5 next to San Onofre nuclear reactor has seen numerous highway deaths. Of course nuclear disaster would be large scale and there is reason to isolate nuclear reactors -- but the US has plenty of isolated land suitable for that, and it's not too hard to construct long-distance transmission lines, if isolation is an issue.

 

I'm not accusing you of intellectual dishonesty; in fact you seem to be very open-minded, only that you seem to have a mix-up in the logic to your argument and it 'buys into' the emotional resistance to those who on a 'gut level' oppose anything 'nuclear' and who are afraid of their microwave ovens because they are said to 'nuke' their television dinners.

 

All told, even cosmic rays which bombard your body are irradiation, as are many other sources, including background radiation from uranium 238 which is present in uranium, which is found throughout most of the world including almost always in food we eat. In fact, a spouse may irradiate you more than you can ever guess, to everyone's surprise, but to no real effect.

 

And you are even irradiating yourself.

 

A geiger counter always clicks, and moreso in Denver, the mile-high city. They don't click more around reactors. A runaway reactor would be disaster, and nobody wants a runaway reactor any less than the companies that would build them or the scientists who would design them.

 

That's what I'm telling people, and I'm sticking to it.

 

John (Crosley)

Will somebody tap Knicki on the shoulder and tell her to look above at the inserted in-line photo of the three Mercedes, the running illegals AND San Onofre . . . I think she missed it.

 

John (Crosley)

I let her know about it!

 

Very interesting reading here.

John, I'm not suggesting that Chernobyl compares to a modern western reactor, I'm simply comparing the magnitude of a nuclear disastor to the emissions produced by coal burning and stating that the former is significantly more hazardous than the latter - naturally I concede that casualties relating to a reactor leak are far simpler to discern and measure than those caused by coal burning polution - which would be hard to isolate from background hazards. (except perhaps in extremis for a local population)

 

The figure I quoted above was not meant to mislead but I can see how it could, you are correct that Chernobyl has not caused 100000 deaths. The figure I mention is a group figure for deaths and 'casualties' ie sickness related to radiation poisoning/genetic mutation, many see this as a 'lowball' figure too. There's plenty of literature out there on the web, probably at both poles and betwixt numerically.

 

PS Kull was a brainogoophical of cull.

Very Briefly:

 

The hazards of coal burning and all the 100s of thousands of tons of radiation they throw high into the atmosphere and spread worldwide, together with the mercury (which I previously didn't mention, and other heavy metals as well), are almost impossible to calculate, but they are knowable by scientists and estimtes are that they are slowly carpeting the earth with a thin patina of radioactive 'stuff', some of which is washed away by precipitation, absorbed into groundwater, and otherwise goes back into the earth and oceans and other of which stays to present a hazard, and also presents that same increased background level of radiation and maybe today is raising the death/mutation level/cancer level of individuals.

 

Your magnanimity in keeping intellectual argument is very admirable; few on this emotional subject can keep their facts together with their cool, and missteps are far too common.

 

My hat's off to you. You and I can 'discuss' this or anything anytime.

 

John (Crosley)

Sorry I kind of hi-jacked the thread a little ;)

Knicki started it with talk of San Onofre, which is just down the way, and my photo showed the twin reactors there (contained of course), and one thing follows another.

 

If you actually attempt to 'hi-jack' a thread in a photo of mine and it's objectionable, I'll set you straight rather quickly -- free-form discussion has its attractions. People actually read these things, I have just found out, and some of the brightest on Photo.net stop and peruse them for education, erudition and amusement.

 

Just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

John (Crosley)

In future I'll gabble on until admonished.

 

Whilst reading around the subject I discovered that Krypton was emitted from 3 Mile Island reactor in 1980 - and there was I thinking that Krypton was Supermans home planet. For a reasonably educated guy I can be as thick as 2 short planks.

It was Kryptonite that disabled Superman, not Krypton (Named for the comic).

 

Apologies accepted.

 

Scientists are not totally divorced from the world of pop culture.

 

(as I recall -- correct me if you have proof I'm wrong)

 

Even the 'thick' are welcome here, too.

 

John (Crosley)

If there is any, is that a simple thorough washing and complete disposal of clothes (say in buried plastic bags awaiting more thorough disposal), will get rid of almost all harmful radiation. If you just have good soap and shampoo and scrub and shampoo the hell out of yourself, (if the water if running, or if your hot water tank is full if the water is not -- and in California where we have earthquakes, we're told to have a week's supply of drinking water on hand at all times which could be used for washing).

 

It's the particles that would be harmful, some of which would be breathed in, but after that, canned goods could be eaten. The biggest problem would be logistics, which would completely break down as all truck drivers would simply flee, as well as all public transportation employees and roads would be almost fatally clogged with those fleeing and the nation's economy would be folding (same or worse if there were a low-grade terrorist nuke, which appears certain to happen sometime, sooner OR later).

 

But scrubbing and shampooing is the firt line of defense, and it's a good one.

 

Chernobyl workers complained of lack of good soap and shampoo, if if they couldn't scrub well, they had worse symptoms and illness.

 

If pays to have good knowledge of such things; knowledge is power.

 

John (Crosley)

Yes John Kryptonite did disabled superman, but Krypton was his home planet IIRC. Perhaps I'm not so thick afterall.

But you said it emitted Krypton, not Kryptonite -- there's a huge difference. ;-))

 

John (Crosley)

I see in between debating comic book details you happened to find me a mercedes or two or three. How is that for my esp? I must have subconsciously known you had the shot therefor asked for it. And I amaze myself yet again.

 

 

This one rocks! I wonder who came up with this desperate, furtive and even suicidal dashing silhouettes. Thanks for sharing!

 

This same image showed up in the normally well-illustrated USA Today, today, world edition, which I saw in Kyiv, but it was nowhere as good as this, and showed this same sign surrounded by road and desert-like terrain.

 

I feel this photo does it more justice than that one (I'd have saved and scanned the other, if I had it still available and you could see that they are two completely different photographs).

 

Of course, I'm not the first one to 'discover' that sign -- I just tried to photograph it well, probably for 'stock photographs', and the result ended up in my portfolio.

 

John (Crosley)