Disappointing arguments
Jeremias Andrade Carrera
19 March 2010
Dr. Edwin T. Farias:
Your arguments are very flimsy Doctor Edwin. Before it was noise and birds, now tortoise and weather conditions.
Obviously you do not read much or heard of engineers and scientists – the real doctors/PhDs. Have you ever heard of “offshore windfarms” and how they “engineer” the turbines to survive the worst weather? Log on to:http://www.reuk.co.uk/Worlds-Largest-Wind-Turbine-Generator.htm
Your fourth and fifth paragraphs of your 17 Mar posting is ridiculous (you favor all forms of energy), a big lie, and obviously you do not understand what you are talking about, Dr. Edwin. You say virtually no waste in reprocessing used nuclear fuel rods? Even a simple reuse of utensils (fork, spoon, knife) will generate waste, how much more with reprocessing used nuclear fuel rods. I ask you to read and understand the testimony of James D. Boyd, Vice Chairman of the California Energy Commission at the Senate Committee hearing last Dec. 10, 2007 especially page 2 and 3. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-999-2008-006/CEC-999-2008-006.PDF.
I am becoming disappointed that your arguments do not appear to be from someone with a title of a DOCTOR, the father of nuclear energy technology in the Philippines. I hope you thoroughly research what you say so that the reading public of Sunday Punch will not say that you are a “quack doctor” especially when you compare the risk in crossing the street and being nuked.
Incidentally, the group who filed a suit for those thousands of birds killed by the wind farm in your area did not prevail in court. You sound like you are one of them, yet prefer nuclear power and use solar power in your house. My friends’ joke about people who can not make up their mind is that they are AC-DC.
Have a nice day.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
