It is high time that opposition leaders go to Supreme Court of India to re-instal the rights of democratic rights of opposition inside parliament as there are no fruitful functioning of Parliament in session and no discussions are allowing by the ruling party. Not only, these UPA Govt. is scuttiling any discussions for any bills to be discussed in detail and they are cleverly misusing the parliamentary democracy. We feel that UPA is not meant to respect democracy and they deliberately hindedring any discussions which BJP and NDA leaders wanted to as if they had all decided not allow any discussions with BJP members in Parliament as they are communal in their own version. After all, they are the elected members of the Parliament and if they are also representing millions of people of this country. Scutting and stamping as communal doesn't goes well and if UPA wants to attack NDA or BJP, do it in parliamentarial way. This type of well planned operation is not good for democracy. People are fed up of this UPA Govt. and its political leaders.
RE:OPPOSTION TO GO FOR SUPREME COURT TO RE-INSTAL DEMOCRATIC DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT!!!
by Vinay Gupta on Sep 06, 2007 02:23 PM Permalink
UPA consists of mainly Congress, Communists and Laloo. Congress is anti democracy becoz they imposed EMERGENCY and always depends on Nehru clan. So no point in expecting DEMOCRATIC behaviour from them
Commies are killer of their opponents. See how Lenin, Stalin, Mao behaved with their opponents.
Laloo is joker. He can propagate theory that people at Godhra put the fire from inside the train and crowd out side did nothing.
So from this combination donot expect anything. This combination is anti national, anti democratic , with full of criminals ( Minister absconder, murder etc etc)
RE:know more about economy of nuclear plants
by jagan on Sep 06, 2007 02:13 PM Permalink
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/nuclear/nuclear_economics_report.pdf
A JPC meeting or discussion at the parliament is not good enough because the representatives will tow only their party line. Not all citizens agree everything their representative is asking for. Since we feel so strong about the issue, go for a country wide refrundum on the issue. Before that, publish all the clauses in all print/visual media and arrange debates. We will get the pulse of the people.We want input of the younger generation who will be living for the next 30-50 years to make decisions because it is they who will be facing the results of the decisions we make now and not those who are sitting with their legs already in the coffin. They have nothing to lose because they will die soon. The future is not of the oldies who are screaming in the parliament.
Later this week the UN panel on climate change will tell the world what they think we should do to stop climate change.
Already this year the panel reported that climate change is happening faster than previously thought. They also said that the impacts of these changes will include decreasing animal and plant life, melting glaciers, increasing desertification, increasing crop pests and disease, and the changes will have a severe impact on people, particularly those with the least resources.
But that is where the science ends and politics take over. Delegates from 130 countries are meeting in Bangkok this week to talk about climate change mitigation, and already the nukes industry is spinning the yarn that the straightest, safest route to carbon reductions is to build more brand new shiny nuclear power stations.
Are we really ready to exchange one problem for another? Do we even have a choice?
Let's set aside the fact that nuclear power is not safe or green and that there is still no solution for dealing with the huge stockpiles of hazardous waste.
Will nuclear power deliver the emission cuts we need to make?
Nuclear power currently supplies about one fifth of our electricity in the UK. Since we don't get heat from nuclear power, that's only 3.6 per cent of our total energy needs. That's just a small part of a large and diverse energy network.
The government is planning to replace our aging nuclear reactors, but this will only reduce carbon dioxide em
RE:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-closer-look-at-the-real-costs-of-nukes
by george on Sep 06, 2007 02:08 PM Permalink
ermany has a "nuclear exit" law in place to phase out of nuclear power.
In 2003 Belgium's Government, then a coalition which included the Green party Groen!, passed legislation which stipulated that no new reactors would be built and that Belgium's seven reactors would close between 2015-2025
Dismantling of the plants in Germany is scheduled to begin this year.
The Slovenian nuclear plant (co-owned with Croatia) is scheduled to be closed by 2023, and there are no plans to build further nuclear plants.
In Spain a moratorium was enacted by the socialist government in 1983.The government has announced the country will phase out nuclear power in favour of renewables
Following the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, the Swedish Government decided, after a referendum, that no further nuclear power plants should be built and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010 In Switzerland, On 23 September 1990, passed a motion to halt the construction of nuclear power plants (for a moratorium period of ten years)
The future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom is currently under review.
New Zealand enacted the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act of 1987 which prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This Act of Parliament, however, does not prevent the construction of nuclear power plants.
RE:RE:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-closer-look-at-the-real-costs-of-nukes
by george on Sep 06, 2007 02:08 PM Permalink
A nuclear power station was built during the 1970s at Zwentendorf, Austria, but its start-up was prevented by a popular vote in 1978. On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy
Although Greece has established Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), a decision has been made not to implement a nuclear power programme to generate nuclear electricity. There is one operational nuclear research reactor and one sub-critical assembly . In 1994, the Netherland's parliament voted to phase out nuclear power after a discussion of nuclear waste management. In 1997 the power station at Dodewaard was shut down and the government decided it was planning to end Borssele's operating license in 2003. But in 2003, with a new government in power, the shut down was postponed to 2013
RE:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-closer-look-at-the-real-costs-of-nukes
by jagan on Sep 06, 2007 02:21 PM Permalink
yes thats the facts. but nobody is talking about these fundamental things. thats bad. if europeans, americans and rest of the world dont want nuclear plant then why our people are begging for that? crazy media hype.
RE:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-closer-look-at-the-real-costs-of-nukes
by Manish Kumar on Sep 06, 2007 02:34 PM Permalink
George- Jagan Let us look at the alternatives for nuclear power Thermal power station- More polluting in normal operation ,More green house gases in normal operation ,plus coal or gas which is used are limited and are also required for other uses like cooking ,running vehicles etc. (unless you are proposing that we should use coal for power station and nuclear energy for cooking ) Hydro-electric power stations - Large scale displacement of people (e.g.Tehri, Narmada etc.)and frequent political quarrels between states even leading to anti-national activities . Solar Energy -Not Practical at that level Wind Energy - Practical only in a limited scale Tidal Energy - Not Practical as of now . The best option would be to stop using power and go back to nomadic way of life .In fact i think this is what the actual intention of some people is - to make India go back to dark ages . If you need progress then we need all the above .When you reach the level of development of some of the countries mentioned by you (when there is excess power produced ) then we can stop to choose .Till then we need all forms of energy .
RE:http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/a-closer-look-at-the-real-costs-of-nukes
by george on Sep 06, 2007 03:25 PM Permalink
Its pathetic that we are not using tidal energy for producing power. we have such a massive coastline. We have more rainfall than most countries in the world. Our inefficiency and laziness that are only hurdle in attaining self sufficiency in power
