Tag Archives: Burlington Vermont

Speak Out Against Nuclear Weapons in Vermont

It’s time to go there again:  the F-35 fighter jet should not be based at Burlington airport.

There are so many reasons why not:  

.There is a statistically high crash potential for new aircraft, like the F-35, that have minimal flight hours logged…anywhere.  Crashes are more likely to occur right after takeoff than at any other point in a flight.  That would make the immediate Burlington area the most likely  location for a crash.

.Burlington’s urban population lives in close proximity to the airport.  All of the other locations considered for this siting were appropriately situated away from civilian populations.  Burlington should never even have been in the running.

.Lake Champlain has a sensitive ecosystem which may be negatively impacted by the daily activity of F-35’s departing and returning to Burlington Airport.  Sophisticated new radar systems may represent additional disruptions for wildlife.

.Despite promises to the contrary, there is every reason to expect that the sound of the F-35’s will be significantly more disturbing than that of F-16’s currently in use.

.Any advanced weapons system represents a potential target to enemies of the U.S.  Burlington will be at the center of that target once the F-35 is located there.

.As was long suspected, we are learning that the F-35 will be nuclear capable.  Despite assurances to the contrary,  if the F-35 is deployed to Burlington airport, sooner or later, nuclear weapons will be onboard.  Nevermind the moral implications of a nuclear Burlington; it’s not difficult to imagine the risk involved for all of Vermont.

We can no longer trust cooler heads to prevail.

HR 7 is a House Resolution to preemptively ban nuclear weapons in Vermont.  So far, the Resolution has not been voted out of the General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee.

It’s time for every concerned Vermonter to call the Sergeant at Arms at (802) 828-2228 and tell him to pass a message on your behalf to Rep. Tom Stevens, the Committee Chair, that you want him to bring HR 7 up for discussion, and to please vote for it.

If you’ve been feeling a little powerless lately, this is your chance to make a difference.  Your voice can still be heard in Montpelier; so sing out loud, before it’s too late.

Smart meter slowed by lawsuit

[Good info here, spent too long on the sidebar; belatedly promoted by NanuqFC]

My electric co-op meter reader had not heard of smart grid and the smart meters coming to Vermont. That he was amazed to hear about it may illustrate a point. As the electric system in Vermont quickly changes, are the utilities, the State and even the media doing enough to educate the public about what changes to expect?  A recent article in the Free Press titled ‘Listen up, bonehead:’ Smart grid prepares to talk back may be an indication of the quality of an education effort underway already.

California already is getting some experience with the smart grid and some of it isn’t going too well.  A class-action lawsuit  against PG&E  alleges that the utility falsely advertised its smart metering program and is benefiting from unfair competition (namely, that it has none, giving consumers no choice in the matter). An original plaintiff filed suit after his bill tripled from $200 to $600 a month  right after smart meter installation.

As a result of the suit PG&E has slowed distribution of smart meters in its system.

One energy technology reporter and expert suggests those promoting all this have their tasks cut out for them. Heavily regulated utilities with long histories of viewing their customers only as “rate payers” or “loads” will have to change attitudes and view consumers differently.

……The PG&E Bakersfield hullabaloo is just the beginning of the backlash against smart meters and smart grid technology, which will only grow as smart meters continue to be installed throughout the country. The public concern reminds me of when digital voting booths were introduced, or when consumers first started to online bank. There’s some real concerns about keeping digital information private and secure in these systems, but ultimately it’s the responsibility of the organization that’s leading the switch to the digital two-way system to keep the line of communication open

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

http://www.greentechmedia.com/…

http://green.venturebeat.com/2…

http://earth2tech.com/2009/11/…