awcsb
By AWCSB
The Association for Women in Communications Santa Barbara Chapter (AWC-SB) recognized the outstanding contributions of two climate champions, Hillary Hauser and Dr. Leah Stokes, at the 15th Annual AWC-SB Women of Achievement Awards luncheon on April 27, presented by Women Connect4Good.
More than 140 guests, including AWC-SB members, public officials, and sponsors, filled the historic Cabrillo Pavilion to recognize the exemplary work of the honorees and their leadership as they change the way we view and respond to the climate crisis. Emcee Beth Farnsworth, television journalist and a past AWC-SB Women of Achievement award recipient, engaged Hauser and Dr. Stokes with intriguing questions, leading to an upbeat and lively discussion. Chaucer’s Books was on site, selling books by the two honorees.
“It was exciting to celebrate these two courageous women who step forward, speak up, and use their talents to inspire people to take action toward a sustainable future,” said Lisa Osborn, AWC-SB board president and KCSB-FM news & public affairs director. “It was fitting that the event took place a few days before our community’s Earth Day celebration. The honorees drove home the importance of remaining hopeful and dedicated as our community works to address the climate crisis now, not in a few years or decades.”
While the two climate champions have different professional backgrounds, they clearly have in common an unflagging optimism, determination, and a belief in the power of effective communication. Dr. Stokes shared that much of her success comes from holding fast to a positive vision for the future, and her response to naysayers telling her something cannot be done is “Just watch me!” When Hauser was asked what her motto might be, she said, “There’s no such thing as impossibility!”
For those interested in getting more involved in climate action, Hauser recommended reading as much as possible and championed the power of writing to express one’s views. Dr. Stokes suggested joining local organizations that are successfully working on solutions, including the Community Environmental Council, Heal the Ocean, and the Environmental Defense Center. She also encouraged everyone to “electrify” by shifting to electricity and renewables to power their vehicles and homes.
The 2023 Women of Achievement Luncheon is also supported by the Santa Barbara Independent, SBCC Foundation, Fielding Graduate University, Natalie Orfalea Foundation, SoCal Edison, Oshay Family Foundation, CommUnify, Farmers Insurance Robert Bianchi, Stacy Miller Public Affairs, California State Senator Monique Limón, WEV, County of Santa Barbara Office of Das Williams, Community Environmental Council, and Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura.
Dr. Leah Stokes and Hillary Hauser
Start up the reactors at Diablo…
Don’t forget the RuSSian soldiers who entrenched themselves in the “Red Forest” radioactivity exclusion zone of Chornobyl who are still in the process of dying. Nope, that stuff’s not hazardous at all.
No safe storage in the long term, and adding more won’t help:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/
@12:40, it is slow to come online which is why we should have started a decade or two ago. Your are incorrect about it being expensive, per unit of energy produced it is one of the cheapest forms of electricity while at the same time taking up a small fraction of land area compared to other sources of similar generating capacity. You have been duped about it’s hazards though, the NY Time article I linked is a good start.
VOICE – mining aside, the Chernobyl disaster killed and will kill far more than the 167 who died during turbine construction/maintenance. We can go back and forth all day, but you’re just wrong. The TOTAL deaths from nuke accidents is/will be far greater than the per year deaths from wind turbines.
“among humans several thousand radiation-induced illnesses and cancer deaths were expected in the long term.” – https://www.britannica.com/event/Chernobyl-disaster
“My best approximation is that the true death toll is in the range of 300 to 500 based on the available evidence.15” – https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
Final tally – 167 is still < than at least 300 (not including the mining accidents and possible thousands of future Chernobyl/Fukushima deaths caused by exposure)
“No safe storage” then proceeds to link an article that shows Sweden, Finland, France, Canada and Switzerland currently have a method of safe storage or are implementing it.
From your artilce: “Nations that followed this blueprint are now addressing their nuclear waste problem. Sweden’s SKB nonprofit announced last year that it will build a deep geologic repository at Östhammar for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from its commercial nuclear reactors. In Finland, construction of a geologic repository began in May 2021, with plans to accept spent nuclear fuel by the mid-2020s. The Nordic countries are not the only ones making progress: France, Canada and Switzerland are all pushing toward license applications to begin construction.
A U.S. waste management organization must be a trusted and capable agency that is well-funded and staffed. Sweden’s SKB sustained decades of effort on both public engagement and technical analysis around siting and now is reaping the benefits. The U.S. Department of Energy, the designated repository implementer established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, instead suffers from leadership and priorities that change with each administration, as well as a history of broken promises that have led to little public confidence that it is up to the job.
The overwhelming majority of successful repository programs overseas are run by independent corporations established by the nuclear industry—outside government. The industry is best positioned to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, from discharge of spent fuel from the reactor, through storage, shipment and final geologic disposal.”
Dude, you quoted like half an article, but didn’t even read it.
VOICE: “article that shows Sweden, Finland, France, Canada and Switzerland currently have a method” (Present Tense)
The article: “Sweden’s SKB nonprofit announced last year that it WILL BUILD…..” (Future Tense)
In Finland….. with PLANS to accept spent nuclear fuel BY the mid-2020s.” (Future Tense)
“France, Canada and Switzerland are all PUSHING TOWARD license applications to begin construction.” (Future Tense)
Facts suck, I get it. But, in order to be taken seriously, we can’t intentionally misrepresent them.
Not really. How do we know how effective something is if it hasn’t even been built and tested yet?
Okay, but at least we’ve but the false statement that there’s no way to safely store it to bed.
“addressing” doesn’t mean “implemented” or even “implementing.” Come on, you know better, right?
” are now addressing their nuclear waste problem” sounds like a ‘current’ thing they’re doing not something they will be doing in the future.
I read YOUR quote used to support YOUR claim that “Sweden, Finland, France, Canada and Switzerland currently have a method of safe storage or are implementing it.”
your words, kid, not mine.
Clearly you didn’t read the article, either the NY Times or the Scientific American one. Regardless, if I said the sky was blue you’d be there two minutes later to argue why I’m wrong.
But NONE have “implemented,” ie, “currently have a method.” Your words, not mine.
I think you’ve hit your limit, pal.
“or are implementing it.” Words have meaning and matter. The solution was in the article you didn’t bother reading.
VOR’s acute case of confirmation bias means he sees only what he wants to see, even if it’s a mirage and he has to ignore the actual meaning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/28/opinion/climate-change-nuclear-waste.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Nuclear waste has never hurt anyone, likely never will, there isn’t much of it, and it’s easy to manage.
Yeah! We want our power supply to be expensive and dangerous! Nothing like nuclear fission to give you that warm glow.
“Nuclear waste has never hurt anyone” – Not only is that an ABSOLUTE LIE, it’s extremely disingenuous. Waste isn’t the only dangerous part of nuclear power. Why do you insist on ignoring the 1,595 uranium miners who have died from exposure?
Again, 167 (average deaths per year from wind turbine construction) is LESS than over 1.595 (total deaths from nuclear production), which doesn’t include the deaths from Chernobyl, et al.
“Kyshtym disaster, explosion of buried nuclear waste from a plutonium-processing plant near Kyshtym, Chelyabinsk oblast, Russia (then in the U.S.S.R.), on September 29, 1957. Until 1989 the Soviet government refused to acknowledge that the event had occurred, even though about 9,000 square miles (23,000 square km) of land were contaminated, more than 10,000 people were evacuated, and probably hundreds died from the effects of radioactivity. ” — https://www.britannica.com/event/Kyshtym-disaster
Your problem is you keep making grand, absolute proclamations of fact without doing the simple 2 second Google search to make sure you’re correct. Ergo, I call it a “lie.”
Now show us how the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong about the “hundreds” of deaths.
Do you understand the difference between nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons? That example you site was a nuclear weapons plant, not a nuclear power station (not to mention built in the 1940’s by the Soviets). It still stands that more people are killed each year in accidents related to wind turbines than have been ever killed from nuclear power accidents. Your claim otherwise, which includes nuclear weapons facility accidents and mining, is the disingenuous claim.
“”more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.” — yes, that is correct. ” – No, it’s not correct. Look at your own source. Do you not know how numbers work? 167 < at least 1, 595. Numerical fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining-china-social-environmental-costs
“Nuclear WASTE” was YOUR term. You never said “waste from power generation.” You said “Nuclear waste has never hurt anyone.” I proved that statement wrong.
“It still stands that more people are killed each year in accidents related to wind turbines than have been ever killed from nuclear power accidents.” – No, it does not. Chernobyl was a commercial nuclear power plant. The uranium miners who died were killed while mining uranium for nuclear power, not weapons. It was in YOUR source that you attempted to use but forgot to read the whole article. https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/
Claim: “more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.”
Facts: 167 per year from wind turbine construction. Over 1,595 deaths from uranium mining. Source: https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/
167 < at least 1,595 + all deaths from Chernobyl, 3 Mile, Fukushima
You can keep doubling down and lying or you can man up and admit you were wrong. Heck, I did it the other day about Round Up. I bet you can too.
Oh would you look at that. Our World Data shows nuclear power is safer than wind per unit of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Let’s include mining: https://www.dw.com/en/toxic-and-radioactive-the-damage-from-mining-rare-elements/a-57148185
“more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.” — yes, that is correct. Your next sentence is not what I said but for some reason you keep arguing it.
VOICE – are you telling me that mining deaths aren’t accidental? Dude you’re flailing. Mining is part of production. All the turbine deaths are just that….. PART OF PRODUCTION. Same thing. You’re wrong.
Next time, avoid all the absolutes and arrogance.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-forests-myanmar-75df22e8d7431a6757ea4a426fbde94c
Chernobyl, built in the 1970’s by the Soviets, was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. A grand total of 31 people died in that accident. Comparing modern nuclear power plants to that Chernobyl is like comparing Russian WWI-era airplane crashes to today’s commercial jets.
You continue to include mining. The fact remains, wind turbine accidents kill more people each year than have ever been killed by a nuclear power accidents. Please read more carefully before knee jerking into an argument.
Nuclear fission as a power source is slow to come on line, monstrously expensive, and produces waste that is hazardous for millennia and difficult to store. That’s why the petro-pushers are currently touting it. They know it will only prolong the use of fossil fuels and the concomitant profits. Their social media dupes will be pushing it vociferously as an alternative to any of the many sane non-carbon alternatives for energy generation.
Dude just stop with your backpeddaling. YOUR source showed 1,595 mining deaths alone. YOUR claim was not that wind is more deadly than nuclear in terms of accidents, it was: “more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.”
The words that you typed in that order mean you think ALL deaths from nuclear power are less than the PER YEAR deaths of wind turbine accidents. YOUR WORDS. YOU’RE WRONG.
Congratulations!
Yes, this is great. But when Dr. Stokes said people should join groups that advocate for climate change she did not mention your local Sierra Club which not only provides free hikes for everybody every week of the year, it is also a mighty activist group.
It’s ridiculous that it only costs $15 to join the https://www.sierraclub.org/santa-barbara-ventura
But there you have it. It has about 6,000 members for the local chapter which is run primarily by dedicated volunteers, with the backing of Sierra Club California (Sacramento lobby group) and the national club.
The Condor Call, which is the bi-monthly newsletter (I’m the editor) goes out to 20,000 people and has been offering practical tips on how citizens can help. Check it out, we are close to the three organizations mentioned, just wish we were in the mix too.