There is an internet rumor that the word originated from politicians sending assistants to taverns to sip drinks and learn the opinions of people. They were told, “You go sip here and you go sip there.” The instructions were merged to form the word “gossip.” According to the Snopes message board, the word actually came from the old English “godsibb” or “godparent” and refers especially to women invited to attend a birth and engage in casual conversation. It eventually transitioned to “anyone engaging in idle talk.” There are several references to that origin dating back to 1014.
Rocky Flats Lawsuit Settlement
A friend loaned me a pamphlet he received about the settlement, which had been sent from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The proposed $375 million dollar settlement involves people who owned property near the Rocky Flats Plant on June 7, 1989 or are heirs to someone who did. A rough area of the settlement area begins from the plant and extends to slightly below 120th on the north, a bit beyond Wadsworth but not to Highway 36 on the east, and more or less to 72nd on the south in a sort of circular outline. There is a website that allows you to enter an address to see whether it is included in the area.
The class action lawsuit was originally filed January 30, 1990 under the Price-Anderson Act and under the Colorado state nuisance and trespass law. The jury found for the plaintiffs, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment in 2010. “The Tenth Circuit held that the Price-Anderson Act required Plaintiffs to prove additional and more severe harm than would be required under Colorado state nuisance law.” My interpretation of the ruling was that Price-Anderson required actual damages to have occurred and that perceived damages were inadequate to justify an award. It was also ruled that jury instructions were correct for some aspects but incorrect in others.
The complicated legal tussles continued with the plaintiffs asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Tenth Circuit’s action. I thought the Court had decided not to hear the case, but the pamphlet states that the settlement was reached “…before the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the petitions… The plaintiffs asked the Tenth Circuit to consider an award under the Colorado nuisance law, and the Court agreed, ruling “…that Plaintiff’s nuisance claims were not preempted by the Price-Anderson Act.” Continue reading
Time Will Tell
I searched the internet for the origin of this expression and found nothing. The answer I selected comes from Quora.com. “Origin? No idea. But the meaning is that some outcome, some question, has no answer at present, but that in the fullness of time the outcome will occur and/or the question will have an answer.”
EPA Dodges Responsibility on Ethanol
The EPA is mandated by law to analyze the impacts of biofuels and report to Congress every three years, but its inspector general acknowledged that the agency has failed to complete such a report since 2011. A Denver Post editorial lists several negative impacts of using ethanol made from corn in fuel, which is the likely reason the required reports haven’t been filed. Mandating ethanol in fuel hasn’t reduced oil imports or improved air quality; two reasons given for imposing its use.
The list of negatives about ethanol is extensive. Farmers jumped on the corn for ethanol bandwagon by plowing up 6.5 million acres of conservation land in the process of planting an additional 19 million acres of corn. Massive amounts of water have been used to irrigate the larger fields of corn and more water is required to process the corn into ethanol. Fuel efficiency is less for gasoline mixed with ethanol. The higher prices for corn naturally resulted in higher prices for food. Top that off with the “…growing evidence that the mandate reduces greenhouse gas emissions much less than originally forecast, if indeed at all.”
Just guessing, but maybe the EPA doesn’t want to submit the required report because they can’t think of anything positive to say. Is it possible they’re working to protect a political agenda and not to protect the environment?
Go Berserk
Several sources including Phrase Finder explain a ‘Berserker’ was a Viking warrior who fought with wild ferocity. “The berserker fighting tradition, in which the warriors took on the spirit (or even in their belief, the shape) of bears whilst foaming at the mouth and gnawing at the edge of their shield, is the source of the Vikings’ fierce tradition.” It is believed the word is derived from “bear sark,” which means “bear coat.” The Vikings would show their bravery by going into battle with their bear sark jackets open. Sir Walter Scott wrote in 1822 that “The berserkers were so called from fighting without armour.”
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Activists have successfully fought nuclear power generation by preventing a national solution to disposing of the waste. A Denver Post article describes how federal officials worked to open a central disposal facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Nevada politicians opposed after the money was spent to prepare the site, and Obama declared Yucca Mountain as an “unworkable solution” early in his Presidency. The result was that about 70,000 tons of waste (increasing by about 2,000 tons per year) is now stored at 99 power plants and 14 closed plants around the country. Guarding the spent fuel is expensive and the waste will eventually have to be repackaged if a permanent solution can’t be developed. I’ve never heard that anyone claim that what we are doing now is safer than what could have been accomplished by opening Yucca Mountain.
There is a long list of positives about nuclear energy. Advocates of reducing carbon dioxide emission to combat climate change should be thrilled that nuclear plants don’t emit carbon dioxide. Nuclear power generates about a fifth of the electricity in America despite the fierce opposition that has successfully impeded its development. Wind power might catch up with that amount by 2020. I was surprised to read that John Kotek, acting assistant secretary for nuclear energy, also added, “We benefited from the nuclear deterrence.”
The federal government convened a meeting in Denver to discuss the problem of nuclear waste. Kotek said, “We’re not at all at the stage of looking at locations. We’re developing a process.” He also added, “…having a waste disposal path would make nuclear more acceptable.” In my opinion, he doesn’t get it. Opponents fully understand that solving the problem of waste disposal would make nuclear energy more acceptable. That’s exactly why they will never agree to any solution. Plans to drill an exploratory bore hole thee miles deep under North Dakota for nuclear weapon waste were scrapped in the face of objections from residents. The problem won’t be solved until we find some politicians with the courage to do the right thing. Considering our latest crop of politicians, I’d say we shouldn’t hold our breath.