The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion

Berkeley's Nuclear Free Public Library

by Francis_Burdett / January 28, 2009 9:44 AM PST

(has that phrase -ever- been uttered before)


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/27/BASK15HJ10.DTL

"01-26) 20:04 PST -- Berkeley's public library will face a showdown with the city's Peace and Justice Commission tonight over whether a service contract for the book check-out system violates the city's nuclear-free ordinance.

But 3M, a company with operations in 60 countries, refused to sign Berkeley's nuclear-free disclosure form as required by the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act passed by voters in 1986.

As a result, the library's self-checkout machines have not been serviced in about six months. Library officials say 3M is the only company authorized by the manufacturer to fix the machines, which were purchased in 2004.

The library asked the Peace and Justice Commission for a waiver, but at its Jan. 5 meeting the commission voted 7-1, with two abstentions, to reject the request. The library is now appealing the decision to the City Council."

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Berkeley's Nuclear Free Public Library
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Berkeley's Nuclear Free Public Library
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Serves em rifht
by Nicholas Buenk / January 29, 2009 8:19 AM PST

After all, if you're against nuclear, what you really are is for coal.
Although that article wasn't clear what this law was actually about, is 3M involved in nuclear weapons? Wink

Collapse -
So, I'm assuming there are no hospitals...
by tango_fox1 / January 29, 2009 11:50 PM PST
In reply to: Serves em rifht

where they have cancer patients or X-Ray machines or Radiotherapy machines.

Collapse -
Maybe a ittle black and white there!
by milkky / February 1, 2009 10:22 PM PST
In reply to: Serves em rifht

You could be against nuclear and be for solar, geothermal, wind, hydro-, tidal, etc., all the more-renewable stuff that doesn't result in such quantities of hazardous waste good for 1/2 gabillion years!

Collapse -
About that...
by Renegade Knight / February 2, 2009 3:20 AM PST

If nuclear waste created yet more nuclear waste this entire planet would be slag from the ripple effect from the natural radiation. It's not that simple.

Collapse -
I have never heard of that!
by milkky / February 2, 2009 5:37 AM PST
In reply to: About that...

If my message seemed to indicate that I beliveed that nuclear waste is somehow able to create more waste on its own and in some sort of sulf-sustaining process, then that was never my meaning. Of course it contaminates its surroundings, but that drops off with distance and in relation to the surrounding materials. That's why the mines are thought to be adequate by some--so far down that whatever local effects will not affect us on the surface.

Collapse -
Yeah
by Nicholas Buenk / February 2, 2009 1:29 PM PST

Most of those are not that suitable for the electric grid, output depends on weather and time of day....
Hydro is very limited, many places are already fully using their water supplies.
Of those geothermal is the best but has some technical issues with depth of drilling needed and have to pump water through kilometres of rock to get the steam to your generator.
Nuclear works today, is cheap and reliable. If it's not used most people will turn to coal.

Collapse -
LIttle steps add up to
by milkky / February 2, 2009 8:27 PM PST
In reply to: Yeah

"Most of those are not that suitable for the electric grid, output depends on weather and time of day...."

Or on adequate batteries. Creates some waste issues of its own for sure, when the batteries need replacing, but way less than nuclear. If, for a given stretch of awful weather, you need to pull from the grid, still you're ahead lots of other times.

"Of those geothermal is the best but has some technical issues with depth of drilling needed and have to pump water through kilometres of rock to get the steam to your generator."

You're thinking grid AND you're thinking major industrial. I have geothermal at home--added about $5000 to cost of house and, in the coldest months, I save at least $200 (conservatively) over my previous gas bills which were for a house that was well less than half the size and before gas prices went up so much. All this AND renewable! No big drilling issues, just have to get the tubing below the frost line, say 5 feet down in my area. But, you would get significant savings in use of non-renewables if enough homes were geothermal, without having to make any infrastructure changes to the general grid at all.

If solar and batteries were better and less costly I would get the rest of the way off the grid.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?