How big is your ecological footprint?
Subscribe to onearth
How to use this site
Daily Greens - 2006
« Air America Radio Affiliates Airing EcoTalk |
| It's the environment, stupid »
August 08, 2004 in Contact | Permalink
Thank you for finally speaking out about the environment! As a recently hired television production's assistant I, too, have noticed that the environment is highly under-reported. With the emergence of eco-radio programs, I am glad that the environment is finally being represented. My only question is...why is environmental news so hard to cover on television? For the past year I have been pondering this question, but it wasn't until I listened to your show that I was prompted to ask another media professional about this reality.
Thank you for your time Betsy and keep up your wonderful eco-friendly activities!
Anne K. Freda
Anne K Freda |
July 20, 2005 at 01:55 AM
Hi Betsy, I provide talks on radio all over the country on uplifting yourself and the planet through consciousness. People do not realize that what is effecting Mother Earth the most is the negative consciousness. AS more people have hatred this creates a consciousness grid around the planet and drops the planets vibration level, which indirectly effects all beings on the planet.
I would love an opportunity to talk about this on your show.
Ray Solanki |
July 21, 2005 at 09:27 AM
Betsy, Amaizing Amaizablaze Corn Stoves are improving the environment cost effectively in East Tennessee by heating homes with local grown renewable whole kernel shelled corn heating fuel. Powell Foster, Local Sierra Club President, heated his home for about $200 of local grown corn fuel last season. The 100 watts electricity for the corn stove is powered by an auto battery.
Keep up the good work protecting the environment. Please inform people about protecting the environment and reducing the heating bill with local corn fuel. For detailed cost savings and net positive environmental improvement please see http://webpages.charter.net/clift
Harry Clift |
August 15, 2005 at 06:57 PM
We are having trouble connecting to listen to the webcast show. We also cannot connect to ecotalk.net without being kicked over to ecotalkblog.com. We are on a Mac and have tried Netscape and Explorer both with no luck. Are there currently and tech issues causing this? Thanks.
August 17, 2005 at 06:40 AM
Sorry about the slight delay and detour in getting to our current site - we had a website designed a few months ago that we were not happy with so we redirected the url to go to our blogsite until we can remedy this. Hope it's not too much of a problem in the interim.
Thanks for listening to EcoTalk- please tell your family and friends about our show!
Betsy Rosenberg |
August 21, 2005 at 05:10 AM
Betsy Rosenberg |
August 21, 2005 at 05:11 AM
Is there an audio rss feed to deliver podcasts of your audio program content?
Brian Bystrek |
August 21, 2005 at 08:53 AM
Here's a resounding 'thumbs-up' from across the water in the UK and Europe!
I am always thrilled to find a kindred spirit flying the green flag and this is one packed resource.
Your approach encourages folks to make more informed choices, it doesn't bully them (like some I care to mention) and this is, by far, the best way to help people get on a new track.
I look forward to reading more!
Creator of National Downshifting Week - UK
Tracey Smith |
September 07, 2005 at 11:52 AM
Nice to hear about so many eco friendly and organic activities going on.
I am a homestay operator and recently introduced these things..
September 28, 2005 at 09:19 AM
This seems like a good show... I've just heard a little and what I've heard sounds good! One suggestion, if you are looking for people to financially support EcoTalk, please have a link right at the top of the website with something like "Support EcoTalk" so that people, like me, can easily send in a donation (check or by credit card) to help keep you on the air. Thanks.
Melanie Phipps-Morgan |
November 14, 2005 at 11:01 AM
Letter to the Editor,
The late Dr. Roy foresaw the MOX or 'reprocessing' problem when the Three Mile Island partial meltdown occured. He then developed photon transmutation, The Roy Process. But since there is far more money in not solving problems, it was killed by the government. It is still available to a company capable of realization who contracts with us.
Dennis F. Nester
Nuclear Waste - The Roy Process Blog URL
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
Sunday, November 4, 1979
Process may kill radiation threat
By CLARENCE W. BAILEY
Copyright, 1979. The Arizona Republic
TEMPE -- An internationally recognized Arizona State University physicist disclosed Saturday that he has discovered a method for treating nuclear reactor and other highly dangerous radioactive wastes so they will be harmless.
The procedure was conceived by Dr. Radha R. Roy professor of nuclear physics who is the designer and former director of nuclear-physics research facilities at the University of Brussels In Belgium. and at Pennsylvania State University.
Roy said the process “very roughly can be described in part as a reversal of phenomena that occur during a nuclear fission chain reactions.
The scientist said the process is the culmination of many years research
“Theoretical analysis and mathematical calculations confirm the process is highly effective and that any level of radio activity, from weak to strong. Can be reduced to harmless state in a short period of time,” Roy said.
The thing that is so encouraging is that the method can cancel radioactivity rapidly enough for it to be of r real practical value in disposing of dangerous wastes in storage and as they are being produced, Roy said.
One treatment-plant design which Roy has devised could reduce the radioactivity of even the most dangerous wastes with half-lives or 15,000 to 40,000 years to a level where they would be essentially harmless in about 20 days.
A half-life is the time required for a quantity of radioactive material to lose one half of its radioactive strength.
Roy, who left his native Calcutta, India. to do advanced nuclear- physics research at the University of London during World War II, said all the necessary theoretical and quantum electrodynamical work on the process has been completed.
“There remains perhaps as much as a years work in calculating parameters and preparing data that will he needed for the engineering design of a pilot radioactive waste-treatment plant’ he said.
Roy is known internationally among scientists for his many advanced research contributions in the field of nuclear fission fragments and as the author of definitive graduate and post-doctoral textbooks used in universities all over the world. “During the 37 years since the first fission chain reaction there has been no progress whatever toward the development of a method of deactivating radioactive waste or even for storing it safely,” he said.
“The collections of dangerous nuclear wastes in this country alone have now reached a total of at least 75 million gallons, and it is growing daily.”
He estimated an operational nuclear waste-treatment plant could cost $40 million or more. By contrast, he noted, Congress last summer appropriated $80 million just to build more concrete storage bunkers to hold only a part of the growing accumulation of nuclear wastes.
“Since it is so very dangerous to ship strongly radioactive materials it would certainly be sensible to build a treatment plant for each reactor so radioactivity could be killed out before the waste is transported anywhere" the scientist said.
Roy said that the national danger from nuclear waste is "extremely serious" and urged the federal government to build treatment plants near established nuclear waste storage areas. Other treatment plants should be constructed to kill out the radioactivity in the wastes from the nation's weapons programs and from its educational, industrial, medical and experimental research facilities he said.
Roy warned that waste containing plutonium 239 is "critically dangerous" because of its extremely high radioactivity and also because it is the essential ingredient in an atomic bomb.
The treatment process not only will render plutonium 239 harmless in a remarkably short time, he said, but also will keep deactivated plutonium from ever being reprocessed to make an illegal atomic weapon.
Roy further warned that the United States not only is exporting nuclear energy when it sells reactor technology to foreign nations, but also is sending overseas the potential for making illegal bombs out of plutonium from reprocessed nuclear wastes.
The treatment method will guarantee to foreign countries that use nuclear fission energy that they can maintain an environment free from radioactivity, and it also could guarantee to the world that there will be no reuse of plutonium in an unauthorized weapon, he said. Careful theoretical and mathematical analysis have assured him that the nuclear waste- treatment process will function reliably and with rapidity and high efficiency, he said.
"But the existence of this promising nuclear waste-treatment procedure should not be construed in any sense to mean that nuclear fission power reactors are safe" Roy said. The contractor who built Three Mile Island's reactor-like those who built the other 71 reactors now operational in the United States -- expected that plant to function normally for 30 years in total safety without event .But the fact is that it went out of control and nearly created a meltdown which could have destroyed a large part of the human habitat of east-central Pennsylvania,'' Roy said.
Neutralize & Eliminate Nuclear Waste For Good
The Roy Process Brief Description
from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
Is there a safe process to get rid of nuclear waste? One possible solution is a process invented by Dr. Radha R. Roy, former professor of Physics at Arizona State University, and designer and former director of the nuclear physics research facilities at the University of Brussels in Belgium and at Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Roy is an internationally known nuclear physicist, consultant, and the author of over 60 articles and several books. He is also a contributing author of many invited articles in a prestigious encyclopedia. He is cited in American Men and Women of Science, Who`s Who in America, Who`s Who in the World and the International Biographical Centre, England. He has spent 52 years in European and American universities researching and writing recognized books on nuclear physics. He has supervised many doctoral students.
Roy invented a process for transmuting radioactive nuclear isotopes to harmless, stable isotopes. This process is viable not only for nuclear waste from reactors but also for low-level radioactive waste products.
In 1979, Roy announced his transmutation process and received international attention. The Roy process does not require storage of radioactive materials. No new equipment is required. In fact, all of the equipment and the chemical separation processes needed are well known.
What`s the basis for the Roy Process? If you examine radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium 239, you will see that they all have too many neutrons. To put it very simply, the Roy process transmutes these unstable isotopes to stable ones by knocking out the extra neutrons. When a neutron is removed, the resulting isotope has a considerably shorter half-life which then decays to a stable form in a reasonable amount of time.
How do we knock out neutrons? By bombarding them with photons (produced as x-rays) in a high- powered electron linear accelerator. Before this process, the isotopes must be separated by a well-known chemical process.
It is feasible that portable units could be built and transported to hazardous sites for on-site transmutation of nuclear wastes and radioactive wastes.
To give an example, cesium 137 with a half-life of 30.17 years is transformed into cesium 136 with a half-life of 13 days. Plutonium 239 with a half-life of 24,300 years is transformed into plutonium 237 with a half-life of 45.6 days. Subsequent radioactive elements which will be produced from the decay of plutonium 237 can be treated in the same way as above until the stable element is formed.
From the Patent application claim: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html
Dr. Roy released his Roy Process to the press in 1979.
Scientists of a large company saw the Patent application under non-
disclosure agreements and said the Roy Process was "entirely feasible".
Dr. Roy was offered millions of dollars for the patent rights.
NOT to develop it...but to shelve it. Dr. Roy refused. Then Ronald Reagan signed
the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which made "geologic isolation" (burial)
of nuclear waste, federal policy, putting viable alternatives in scientific limbo.
Now after wasting hundreds of billions of tax payers money on junk science,
nuclear waste has leaked into our precious ground water.
Dr. Roy was right. There IS only one way to totally eliminate high level
nuclear waste and that is to transmute and denature it for good.
Dennis F. Nester
Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste
As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in 1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen all the time.
As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.
(excerpt by Russell Hoffman)
At each step, an "inconsequential" (so they say) loss occurs, which ends up in our air and water, and then in our lungs and in our guts and brains. You are a filter for your environment. If your environment is polluted, YOU will be polluted. Do you feel clean? You aren't.
Your body is already poisoned with billions of radioactive atoms, courtesy of a corrupt and arrogant government and industry. Each individual atomic decay event is always much, much stronger than your own body's chemical and molecular bonds. Each radioactive decay can lead to cancer, leukemia, heart disease, deformities in your children, and a thousand other ailments. Do you feel victimized, or has the odorless, colorless, tasteless, microscopic (and, often, delayed) nature of the assault fooled you? If so, you are not alone.
POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States:
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here (written with Pamela
WHAT TO DO IN CASE OF NUCLEAR ATTACK!
PDF VERSION FOR BEST PRINTED COPY -
E-MAIL THIS LINK TO YOUR LISTS -
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).
Dennis F. Nester |
December 31, 2005 at 07:32 AM
In a recent “Keepin’ it Real with Will and Willie” broadcast where you were the guest, an excellent point was made that President Bush ought to see An Inconvenient Truth.
I’ve taken action by starting a petition entitled “Please see An Inconvenient Truth, Mr. President,” and have collected 1,000 signatures so far.
The petition can be signed on-line at http://bambi.net/petition.html .
In addition, if there is anything you might be able to do to spread the word, it could have a significant impact on our chances of success.
Bob Lash, M.D.
Redwood City, CA
Petition homepage: http://bambi.net/petition.html
Personal homepage: http//bambi.net/bob.html
Bob Lash, M.D. |
July 08, 2006 at 10:11 PM
Just saw you on Hannity and Colmes. Just wanted to say maybe it would be a good thing for you to do your research before you go onto a major cable network. Being uneducated may work on a site like this but not in the real world! How can you argue for a report when you haven't even read it. The gentlemen you were debating against obviously didnt agree with what the report stated but he at least read it!
Thanks for the laugh,
February 07, 2007 at 09:46 PM
I recently saw the new lineup for AAR and was very disappointed to realize EcoTalk will no longer be a part of Air America.
Please let us know where we can find EcoTalk on the radio! Hopefully some smart radio syndicator like Jones or Nova M will pick up the show.
April 28, 2007 at 02:16 PM
Betsy- Sad to see you go off AirAmerica. I am a struggling aerospace engineer but I will send whatever I can to help see you back on the air. Keep up the good work- You are deep and spiritual. You are in touch with Mother Nature !
kryz hooper |
May 19, 2007 at 11:16 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address
Visit the new blog On The Green Frontwith Betsy Rosenbergthegreenfront.com
Change is good