Utah basketball arena renamed for nuclear-waste corporation

This Blurb Brought to You By "Your Company Name Here"

Here in Seattle, home of Qwest and Safeco fields, we know well how corporations have rushed the pro-sports playing field. But our McMonikers are nothing next to Utah's latest rechristening: The Salt Lake City stadium that's home to the Utah Jazz, formerly the Delta Center, is now known as EnergySolutions Arena. Sounds all green and forward-looking, doesn't it? But locals aren't stoked about the company's best-known business operation, a nuclear-waste facility in the Utah desert. Indignant fans are hollering nicknames like HazzMat Center, Half-Life Arena, Radium Stadium, and the Tox Box (there go all our headlines) and asking for a do-over. "Utah's always been the 'stick-it' state: whatever you don't want in your state, stick it here," said Jazz fan Tom Kessler. "We're not tree-huggers, but these guys lend credence to bringing all this stuff to Utah. It's bogus." The company and its supporters counter that, far from bogus, nuclear reprocessing is the future. Refs are reviewing the play.

straight to the source: The New York Times, Martin Stolz, 11 Dec 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (2 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

State in Denial

>> claims of Bush administration censorship of climate researchers. >>

This process of denial is very apparent on government controlled web sites. No not by direct censorship, but indirectly by censure of the poster (scientist).

And the little minions of their organisation make sure the politically correct propaganda drowns out dissenting voices, by a process of slander trolling stalking or flaming. By shooting the messenger, the sheep are happy to go back to sleep.

George Orwell's book 1984 was nowhere near accurate enough to fathom this day and age.

>>> the fear of being demoted to chief swab licker.>>>

LOL, yes it would really be the pits to have no money at the time of the end of the world.
I am trying for the biggest heap, just before the end, LOL.

Client science is practiced by people with a mortgage, people who want/NEED the world to remain the same, who actually are planning their future in minute detail. It is not useful to instill fear and panic in the population by telling the truth. Who has the real truth...it is not a good idea to actually find out in this case

Of course the world can not end, can it?

POLL
who thinks an end to LIFE on Earth can be brought about by humans not doing anything about the status quo?????

I will be very surprised if even one person thought this.

Y'all just think there will be some changes, even drastic changes, but........

by Zarkov at 1:59 PM on 11 Dec 2006

IPCC Fourth Assessment

The Telegraph is a climate change denier. They are playing with IPCC numbers. Don't fall for it.
The IPCC best prediction of 3oC increase for 2X CO2 has not changed since 1990. IPCC 1990 assessment had it as 1.5 to 4.5.
The new 'leaked' report narrows the range to 2 C to 4.5 and states the most likely figure is 3oC. The lower number has more confidence than the upper.
It has been around 3oC for over 15 years.
The lower level has greater confidence that the upper.
2XCo2 could be as early as 2005 as emissions are accelerating.
The Fourth Assessment has is it that sea levels will rise between 14 cm and 43 cm by 2100.
The 2001 Assessment projected a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m.
So nothing has changed since Arrhenius calculated that global temperature would increase by 5oC for a doubling
of CO2- without a computer! With carbon cycle feedback it
will I think be 5oC.
The real question should be- what are we risking for our children and grandchildren? There is a 10% risk that the increase could be over 6oC. That's a risk that no sane human being would take.
Peter Carter.

by peterdcarter at 2:00 PM on 11 Dec 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?