The true cost of war is what vets bring back with them. The money and diplomatic capital are comparatively light. We will all have to bear them, but not in a way that fundamentally changes how we experience life. But the burden vets carry changes them for the rest of their lives.
War should be all of our burden. But we as a society have been ineffective at helping our soldiers when they come home. I say I support the troops, but I can't honestly say I have adequately tried to share their burden. This realization came to me recently while watching a PBS documentary called Reserved to Fight. It follows several vets from one of the first companies to fight and return from Iraq.
If any of you vets have had similar experiences, or different ones, I would like to hear about them.
Whether someone agrees with the Iraq War doesn't matter. We all have opinions, but that doesn't mean we live with the reality of war. Vets do every day.
They've spent months or years in life or death struggle. They've had to reconcile killing other human beings. The reasons the war was started don't tell us why they fight. They've fought regardless of their political views because the most important things to them are the people they love at home and the friends fighting next to them. For most of them, I believe their motivation is to make the world a better place.
Then they come back to the land they fought for. There might be a parade at their homecoming, and after that it's back to living a “normal” life. But normal seems pointless. No one wants to talk about the war except on a political level. The America these soldiers have idealized now seems petty compared to what they used to worry about. Many of them long for battle because at least there they felt like they belonged.
PTSD afflicts many of our vets and they may not even know it. They might see corpses when they close their eyes, so they can't sleep. They tend to be nervous in large groups of people, so they withdraw. They often have trouble maintaining relationships. And they don't know how to talk about what they are going through. Many self medicate with drugs and alcohol. Many marriages fail. Many end up on the street or in jail.
I believe our soldiers, overwhelmingly, are honorable men and women who have sacrificed more than I can imagine, believing it was for something worth dying for. Many of those who didn't die will never completely leave that hell behind. I haven't yet figured out how to help ease the burden you carry. So, for now I will just say thank you.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Merit and Future Scope of Nuclear Energy
With the melodramatic history of nuclear energy in America, it's no wonder people look at it with skepticism. But while industry management was lacking, the technology has not disappointed. New concepts now in development will not only help us through the current energy/environmental crisis, they will answer long held concerns about nuclear energy.
Nuclear power is a highly efficient and dense source of energy with no green house emissions and an abundant supply of fuel. But the industry has been plagued by poor management and a communication strategy of tech-babble. There are some valid concerns about safety associated with nuclear energy, but many of the most popular ones are not justified.
Many people are concerned about the radiation risks of living near a nuclear reactor. Thankfully, these risks are overstated. The amount of radiation you get from walking past an X-ray room in a hospital would not be acceptable for workers at a nuclear plant.
What if someone crashes a plane into the reactor? That would be terrible, but not because of radiation leaks. All nuclear plants in America have been retrofitted with redundant safety systems, including ones that make them passively safe. This means even if everybody at the plant is asleep when something terrible happens, natural forces will cause the reaction to shut down.
What about the Three Mile Island accident in 1979? In the worse nuclear reactor “disaster” in our nation's history, the physical plant failure released no radiation thanks to redundant safety systems, but the communication failure was catastrophic. Authorities did little to explain to the public what had happened. And the resulting safety measures put in place in all reactors were largely ignored. This incident was the beginning of the end of open discussion about nuclear energy.
Periodic stupid decisions by plant operators about how to deal with low-level waste have also damaged the credibility of the entire nuclear industry.
The concerns about high-level waste in Yucca Mountain are valid. We can't say what is going to happen in a thousand years. And with current technology, all we can do is sit on it. But that's not to say we don't have a plan.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) comprises scientists from 10 nations cooperating on development of advanced nuclear reactors. These concept reactors were designed with several goals in mind including proliferation resistance, improved safety, elimination of high-level waste, and sustainability.
Several of the Gen IV concepts are called fast reactors. These reactors will eliminate the production of high-level waste by using it as fuel. Fast reactors, such as the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR), will be able to consume spent fuel from other reactors, and conceivably the waste now stored in Yucca Mountain. The resulting low-level waste will completely decay in much more manageable time frames.
Another Gen IV concept reactor is called the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). The high temperatures in this reactor will allow it to excel at applications other sources of energy would be ineffective at, such as high volume production of hydrogen to be used in vehicles and home heating, and manufacturing steel and aluminum.
These concepts include built-in redundant active and passive safety systems. The life cycle of nuclear fuel will ensure that weapons grade material will never be isolated to minimize proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Gen IV reactors could be ready for commercial use as early as 2030, depending on funding of research. Intermediate designs can be implemented before that. Fortunately, these concepts have received vigorous international support so far.
Nuclear energy will be most effective as part of a broad portfolio of energy sources. Wind and solar energy have the potential to be very affordable and portable solutions. Nuclear can meet needs other sources would be poorly suited to, such as efficiently producing hydrogen, metallurgy, and efficient production of electricity on large scales.
Nuclear power is a highly efficient and dense source of energy with no green house emissions and an abundant supply of fuel. But the industry has been plagued by poor management and a communication strategy of tech-babble. There are some valid concerns about safety associated with nuclear energy, but many of the most popular ones are not justified.
Many people are concerned about the radiation risks of living near a nuclear reactor. Thankfully, these risks are overstated. The amount of radiation you get from walking past an X-ray room in a hospital would not be acceptable for workers at a nuclear plant.
What if someone crashes a plane into the reactor? That would be terrible, but not because of radiation leaks. All nuclear plants in America have been retrofitted with redundant safety systems, including ones that make them passively safe. This means even if everybody at the plant is asleep when something terrible happens, natural forces will cause the reaction to shut down.
What about the Three Mile Island accident in 1979? In the worse nuclear reactor “disaster” in our nation's history, the physical plant failure released no radiation thanks to redundant safety systems, but the communication failure was catastrophic. Authorities did little to explain to the public what had happened. And the resulting safety measures put in place in all reactors were largely ignored. This incident was the beginning of the end of open discussion about nuclear energy.
Periodic stupid decisions by plant operators about how to deal with low-level waste have also damaged the credibility of the entire nuclear industry.
The concerns about high-level waste in Yucca Mountain are valid. We can't say what is going to happen in a thousand years. And with current technology, all we can do is sit on it. But that's not to say we don't have a plan.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) comprises scientists from 10 nations cooperating on development of advanced nuclear reactors. These concept reactors were designed with several goals in mind including proliferation resistance, improved safety, elimination of high-level waste, and sustainability.
Several of the Gen IV concepts are called fast reactors. These reactors will eliminate the production of high-level waste by using it as fuel. Fast reactors, such as the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR), will be able to consume spent fuel from other reactors, and conceivably the waste now stored in Yucca Mountain. The resulting low-level waste will completely decay in much more manageable time frames.
Another Gen IV concept reactor is called the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). The high temperatures in this reactor will allow it to excel at applications other sources of energy would be ineffective at, such as high volume production of hydrogen to be used in vehicles and home heating, and manufacturing steel and aluminum.
These concepts include built-in redundant active and passive safety systems. The life cycle of nuclear fuel will ensure that weapons grade material will never be isolated to minimize proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Gen IV reactors could be ready for commercial use as early as 2030, depending on funding of research. Intermediate designs can be implemented before that. Fortunately, these concepts have received vigorous international support so far.
Nuclear energy will be most effective as part of a broad portfolio of energy sources. Wind and solar energy have the potential to be very affordable and portable solutions. Nuclear can meet needs other sources would be poorly suited to, such as efficiently producing hydrogen, metallurgy, and efficient production of electricity on large scales.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Conservative Debaters are Missing the Boat on Climate Change
Climate change has become one of the most important issues of this decade. The Democrats have moved to deal with the problem while many Republicans have argued about whether we did it or not. To my fellow conservatives I would say this question misses the point. And while we've been debating, the Democrats have owned the issue.
Is global warming real? How much is human caused? For those of us who haven't been keeping a journal of the changes in the polar ice caps, “I don't know” is the correct answer. We can either trust the preponderance of the scientific community or we can become experts on climate change. If you feel you need to argue about the science go to realclimate.org and read what the scientists are finding in all its technical glory.
Still, I find arguing about the reality of climate change ridiculous because it doesn't matter for most purposes. There are plenty of reasons to change our energy structure: National security, pollution, economic volatility. I don't need Al Gore to tell me why I should care about the environment.
It's not realistic to change our entire energy infrastructure in a few years, but we've been unbearably shortsighted.
Detroit auto executives pumped money into huge gas guzzling SUVs even as fuel costs were sky rocketing and debate was raging about how to reduce carbon emissions. Now these SUVs are sitting on dealers' lots because no one will buy them, and these auto makers are in Washington looking for another bail-out.
John McCain, who has been one of the most forward thinkers on climate change, made his energy campaign slogan “drill baby, drill.” Domestic oil may solve some problems, but it sounds archaic as a battle cry. Why didn't he make nuclear energy the centerpiece of his energy policy? That is one area we are miles ahead of the Democrats on but we are afraid to talk about it. I don't understand why. Nuclear energy is an essential part of our energy portfolio for the future.
Clean energy technology is an area America should be leading in, but right now we are just trying to keep up. That's costing us dollars and respect all over the world.
It's irresponsible to ignore the possibility of hidden costs from our energy policy just to say “hell no!” to liberals. In 20 years if we find out humans don't have anything to do with global warming then were our efforts to change our energy policies wasted? Of course not. We've left a cleaner world and a more sustainable economy for our children. But in 20 years I don't want to see Al Gore looked back on as the savior of the environment because conservatives ignored the signs there might be a problem.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Prop 8 Passes ... Now What?
I'm glad the ban on gay marriage in California passed, but that doesn't end the debate. I don't believe this safe status will last long. Nor do I believe it is right to permanently close the door on gay marriage. We just need to make sure it's ripple effects don't steamroll religious liberties or the rights of parents to educate their children.
What we should be doing now is finding solutions to the dangers we saw in legalizing gay marriage. We should be coming up with legislation to ensure that ministers won't be forced to marry gay couples, that religious adoption agencies won't be compelled to send children home with gay families. We should be crafting alternatives to public school sex education curriculum which not only educates teens about sex, but trains them to do it. Most importantly, we need to become better educated about these issues so we can strengthen our positions on them.
There are models around the country for sex ed approaches that put these decisions into parents' hands instead of the public schools'. One in Massachusetts, called the Our Whole Lives (OWL) program, was created by two churches.
On the OWL website it states, "Our Whole Lives provides not only facts about anatomy and human development, but helps participants to clarify their values, build interpersonal skills, and understand the spiritual, emotional, and social aspects of sexuality. "
This isn't a perfect program from what I see, but there are some good ideas to be taken from it.
Even from religious perspectives that don't condone gay lifestyles, I don't think we can justify denying homosexuals the right to marry (or whatever you want to call it) indefinitely. We just need to make sure there are protections in place for the principles of a healthy society if and when gay marriage is legalized.
What we should be doing now is finding solutions to the dangers we saw in legalizing gay marriage. We should be coming up with legislation to ensure that ministers won't be forced to marry gay couples, that religious adoption agencies won't be compelled to send children home with gay families. We should be crafting alternatives to public school sex education curriculum which not only educates teens about sex, but trains them to do it. Most importantly, we need to become better educated about these issues so we can strengthen our positions on them.
There are models around the country for sex ed approaches that put these decisions into parents' hands instead of the public schools'. One in Massachusetts, called the Our Whole Lives (OWL) program, was created by two churches.
On the OWL website it states, "Our Whole Lives provides not only facts about anatomy and human development, but helps participants to clarify their values, build interpersonal skills, and understand the spiritual, emotional, and social aspects of sexuality. "
This isn't a perfect program from what I see, but there are some good ideas to be taken from it.
Even from religious perspectives that don't condone gay lifestyles, I don't think we can justify denying homosexuals the right to marry (or whatever you want to call it) indefinitely. We just need to make sure there are protections in place for the principles of a healthy society if and when gay marriage is legalized.
President Elect Obama
Until three days ago I was debating why McCain would be a better president. That argument is moot now. We have a new president. Congratulations to President Elect Obama.
I agree with those who want Obama to earn their respect, but I hope we don’t just sit back waiting for that to happen. Getting America back to better times isn’t just the president’s job. We should all want Obama to succeed in keeping his promise to be everyone's president. So we should all be working to see that happen, including bringing strong conservative perspectives to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)