The sunsets have been awesome- but also a warning. A few hours before the sun's scheduled departure, I'm pouring over charts & finding a safe place to stop before the beautiful sunset is replaced by total darkness. Some of the narrow canals that I've navigated have been long & there's not always time to exit before dark. I usually pay out a minimum chain length of 100ft. With wind & currents, means the boat needs the room to swing that entire radius. In a narrow channel that leaves the only option to anchor right smack in the middle. While this avoids the hazard of being swept onto the bank- it increases by an uncomfortable margin the hazard of being run down by a barge during the night.

Headed for a small horseshoe estuary I was told had deep water by a friend I'd met along the way- I had circled it on my charts. Four miles further & with darkness closing it was no longer an option. Once again luck comes up with plan-B. Just before St-M 330, and just beyond the fixed bridge, my charts showed a possible spot outside the channel with room & plenty of water. Turned out to be an old base for the Army Core of Engineers, and now a well maintained free city dock, with running water (no showers), and seemingly in the middle of nowhere! Just after tying up the sun disappeared, and with it all remaining light. If the moon's due to rise at 7:30- it offers no help when total darkness is scedualed by six. I looked down the canal and watched as the banks quickly & completly disappeared.

Great spot! No internet or phone coverage, but plenty of quiet & fish. Well only one fish, and not two fish or three fish. But we made it work. Mixed with orzo & vegetables, he gave his life to feed three.

Temperatures in the low 30s again & neither boat with heat! We gathered driftwood from the banks, even an old piece of cedar on which to cook the fish. What an incredible comfort when man learned to control fire. unfortunately unable to bring it onto to the boat with me.

We spent two nights docked here. The current being difficult to predict. The first day speeding west around three knots (extremely fast for a current) specially for a boat that struggles to make six. Not worth the extra fuel. The following day it slowed to a trickle, but eastbound. Time to move on

We motored the remaining canal & into lake Wimico. A beautifully pristine lake, not one structure or house erected on its banks. The lake is very shallow (4 to 5ft average). Without deep water for boat docks, developers most likely passed on it. Amazing wildlife being the result- with alligators & eagles taking up residence.

There's a narrow channel, well marked, that zig zags across the lake. Important to stay within. Also important to keep an eye on the marker behind you! I've discovered that were it possible to safely approach the next from any angle- there would be no need for a marker!

We exited the lake and into the Jackson river flowing from its east bank. We hadn't seen a soul or a sign of civilization all day. Found a small offshoot, again just before dark- anchor down by sunset. The following day we entered the Apalachicola river and followed it to its end. A sleepy fishing village with great people.

Found another free city dock. Talking with some old-timers getting locations on services in town & advice on the jump to Clearwater. One ask if I'd like to borrow a bike? Trick question old man!

We purchased 40lbs of oysters from a boat that had just docked. Rinsed the mud off with a net, then shucked & applied hot sauce right on the pier. My sprout harvest was ready, so I prepared some small side salads. I carry a lot of mung bean, green lentils, wheat berries, and others- usually harvest every couple days.

So this is the end of the line- beyond the bridge is open ocean. The ICW that I've followed to this point continues east to Carrabelle, then picks up again in Tampa. Though our route will take us south through Government cut & St George Island. Once reaching green marker #1, my charts show a bearing of 316 degrees magnetic- and if all goes well we should emerge from the ocean void some 140 miles later near Clearwater.

Besides my charts to guide me, I've several publications (waterway guides). One which I'll quote, offers this advice- "If eastbound from Apalachicola, you have an important decision to make about your route to the west coast of Florida. Most cruisers look at the charts and figure it is a quick easy deep water passage on a nearly straight shot across the Gulf of Mexico. Wrong!!" "The waters in the Gulf are relatively shallow and when the wind blows over 15 knots, which it often does in winter, the Gulf can serve up steep sided waves that some describe as like trying to sail over 18 wheelers". "For slower boats, those with inexperienced crews, and during winter months, think seriously about the decision". "Slow boats taking the direct route overnight should consider the following: If the weather turns nasty, you will have to ride it out. You will be to far from land to make safe harbor. You can't divert and make landfall in any of the protected harbors on the Big Bend, because these harbors are not recommended for nighttime navigation. During bad weather at night, visibility is poor and conditions frightening. You can't see most objects floating & greatly increase your chances of striking something. Your VHF has an effective range of only 25 miles, during most of the trip you will be out of radio communication range and unable to call for help even if you want to. Much to late to turn back

Nuclear Setback

With tragic events unfolding in Japan, and the slew of irresponsible journalism that's followed; to much, provided by those knowing too little. And in each case doing far more damage to earth's ecology than the worst nuclear accident. And, while this may sell newspapers & advertising spots, it, along with bad politics, has held our nuclear ambitions hostage for thirty years.

 Nuclear energy: not only one of the safest technologies, but also for now, our only viable means to rid the planet of the ravages of fossil fuels. When compared to these options: oil spills, refinery fires, coal in general, as there's little nice about it. From the time we strip the land to recover it, ship it, then burn it. With each step doing incalculable environmental damage. In fairness, uranium also must be mined- though a one square mile uranium mine will yield as much energy as twenty billion tons of coal - or seventy billion barrels of oil.

Coal generation plants = mountains of coal - fed by conveyor 24-7.  Constant ship traffic attempting to quell an insatiable appetite for filth. If you believe the myth of clean-coal, perhaps I've some dry water you could use? And although I've never personally tested the water around these plants - it's not a place you wanna plan a fishing trip!

The effects of "clean-coal" >
Release 20,000 tons of uranium annually
Releases 40 million tons of known chemical mutagens annually
Coal ashes are 180 times more radio active than that permissible by nuclear plants
300,000 coal miners have died of black-lung disease
90.000  coal miners  have died in mining accidents
Responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths annually

The effects of nuclear energy >
Prevented the release of 150 million tons of carbon
Prevented the release of 2.5 million tons of nitrogen oxide
Prevented the release of 5.3 million tons of sulfur dioxide
Responsible for 90% of all carbon reduction in this country
Not- responsible for a single death in this country (not even a rabbit)

And though certainly not against renewable sources- wind and sun. Japan agrees, there are massive wind turbines throughout the country. The problem being - it's not enough. Power from the sun sounds romantic. In fact I live on a boat & can power my entire home completely by it's generosity. Being said: I've also spent months in Misawa, Northern Japan, seeing very little of the sun. And the simple reality- it ain't gonna light-up Tokyo!!

For now the biggest drawback with nuclear energy in this country- what to do with spent-fuel? Or the seventy two thousand metric tons of highly radio-active waste produced annually. I say "in this country" because it's not a problem shared by othr nuclear programs around the world. Also - it's not one of technology- but simply of terrible, perpetual indecision

Important to backtrack a little: before uranium pellets are clad in zirconium rods in preparation to be placed in reactors they can be safely held in your hands. Reason too- they may be safely transported. After about two years inside the reactor, or, after the fuel's been irradiated, what emerges - perhaps the deadliest substance man may ever create. Even so, it requires only simple water to protect us from it.

Spent-fuel is moved from the reactor to the suppression pools. This process must take place entirely underwater, reason there are always divers on standby. And that's it! - it's now our responsibly to keep cool. For what might as well be eternity! So one of the main factors limiting the life-span of US plants is their ability to store this spent-fuel. Thereby most work performed by divers is a procedure known as a re-rack; where divers enter the suppression pools and assist in moving racks of spent-fuel closer together. In many cases the result- pools end up storing more fuel than designed for, as this was never intended to be a long term storage solution. Instead their design was assuming the government would eventually offer a central repository.

This brings us to Yucca Mountain and the common misconception that we burry this waste? President Obama being only the latest in a long line of predecessors to put the brakes on that! In fact - no radio active waste has ever left a US plant. Exception: low level waste provided by protective clothing, gloves, etc. So with most media attention given to the reactors, is easy to see the real danger sits in pools around the country. Simply - the reactor contains one unit of fuel, while the pools contain (in most cases) all fuel ever been produced there.

Don't be misinformed by reports claiming there are twenty or so US reactors of the same design as those at Fukushima. While this may be true, reactor design had ZERO to do with the unfolding tragedy (spreading unnecessary fear). What they irresponsibly fail to mention - the buildings containing them are not designed the same! US reactors as well their accompanying suppression pools are housed inside containment domes. These domes have been designed to withstand a direct impact from a 747- and certainly not accessible by helicopters laden with water! In other words- they've been designed for what is reasonable. Were a meteor to strike one, possible this protection would not prove adequate. But we can't design for that, because there go's your cheep electricity

Important to understand - this is what happened to Japan. Although not a meteor, but instead - it survived an earthquake far stronger than designed for, only to be followed by a thirty foot wall a water! But Japan will move-on, design safer plants. Unlike the US - which after Three Mile Island - we put our tail between our legs and haven't built a plant since! Despite - Three Mile Island resulted in no fatalities and no release to the environment! And all the while- the other hundred or so plants that continue to operate throughout the country, including Three Mile Island, exception, reactor two, which can never start again, have produced clean reliable energy, every single day, some for almost half a century. They've do so, without incident, and without releasing a drop of pollution to our air or water! Almost as if in the seventies we had deemed flying unsafe, thereby stopped building or designing aircraft, but choosing instead to just continuing to fly the ones we had?

Back to the issue of what to do with this spent-fuel? After about two years inside the reactor, the uranium is no longer able to produce enough heat for reliable electricity production. Though what remains still contains 90% of it's energy? with only 3 to 4% being actual waste. Energy the US has decided to bury? One nuclear expert (who's name escapes me) likened it to removing a log from a fire after it's bark has been burned away. The technology for recycling - or reprocessing this fuel was developed in the forties! - with the Manhattan project being the first time humans created the man-made element plutonium for use in nuclear weapons - produced from the reprocessing of irradiated uranium.

So why not just recycle? In 1976, then president Ford, issued a presidential directive indefinitely suspending the reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel- succeeded by president Carter- who banned the practice all together! Why? because of various nonproliferation treaties in place at the time & the small amount of plutonium (less than 1%) produced in the process; the fear being this could be diverted from civilian use. The US thinking this would be a bad example to set and encouraged other nations to follow. In 1981 President Reagan lifted the ban, but offered no subsidies to actually make it reality?

So - were other nations encouraged? Certainly not! Currently: Japan, Europe, Russia, India, and China all recycle fuel using new generation nonproliferation technology. Whereby - plutonium is never separated, but rather combined in mixed oxide, or (MOX) fuels and placed right back into reactors. France alone (deriving 80% of it's electricity from nuclear) having one of the smallest carbon footprints of any industrialized nation also excepts shipments of spent-fuel from Germany, Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy. It gets reprocessed and sent back. The then, much smaller amount of waste, when cool enough, is captured in glass and sent back as well, for long term storage by the country of origination. They've been doing this for thirty years! WITHOUT INCIDENT. Fear mongering proved baseless, spent-fuel was never stolen by the boogyman and made into dirty bombs. The simple fact it's so deadly, also renders it self-protecting.

Another huge mistake was not building breeder reactors from the onset. These reactors - capable of producing more fuel than used, while at the same time, generating a fraction of the waste. Why weren't they built? because their construction was considerably more expensive, and with the government promise to rid plants of their spent-fuel, it just wasn't cost effective (of course this never happened). These reactors - also capable of using plutonium, thereby ridding us of stockpiles from an ancient arms-race. When the media reports that Japan is using plutonium to fuel their reactors "it's more dangerous!" is the cry. Again, failing to mention - the only source of plutonium - comes from the reprocessing of irradiated uranium. Yes! that would be the crap we're stockpiling in pools! in preparation for future burial. And after thirty years, we can't even decide how best to do this? As said, President Obama decided no, sighting - we need more research, as if thirty years hasn't been enough? He however was wise enough to allocate two hundred million for fuel-cycle research, while providing zero! for facilities?

Meanwhile: plants around the US are quickly nearing capacity, with enough energy locked-up in suppression pools to power the entire US reactor fleet for thirty years! without mining another drop of uranium! Three recycling plants have already been built. The last plant being in South Carolina, but was abandoned after the 1977 change in policy. And while we sit undecided - other nations are developing 4th generation reactors, capable of expanding the energy derived by a hundred fold! reprocessing their fuel - and doing so with technologies pioneered in the United States?

Why recycle? Uranium mining is only viable in a few areas. Thereby - recycling offers a domestic source for nations reliant on imports. Example: Japan - who's scientists told me directly "Japan does not wish to be dependent on other nations for their energy" (imagine that logic!) Also, since reprocessing removes heavier elements - uranium, plutonium, what remains - not only far less waste, but also far safer & with a much shorter half-life. Meaning - it will become safer faster, five hundred years as opposed to millions! It allows us a means to safely close the fuel-cycle, rather than the inefficient, once threw cycle currently practiced. Whereby we extract only a small % of the available energy, and then bury the rest? We recycle paper and cans in this country, and it's not always cheeper, and there's not necessarily a shortage of these resources; we do so out of social responsibility, so as not to leave the mess for the next generation.

Japan now has reprocessing facilities of their own. Though I spent three months in Misawa because four of the pools containing spent fuel were leaking (laughing) it's not perfect, but repairs were successful, and they're now sound. Mentioned for several reasons: having worked in nuclear plants around the country, including Three Mile Island, plants in Japan and elsewhere; and having spent hundreds of hours in Japan alone, swimming in these pools, the intense purple glow of spent-fuel just meters away; and after countless blood tests and full body scans- never receiving more radiation than would be provided me a day at the beach. So - in a country as proud Japan, they choose almost exclusively to use American divers in their plants; they do so despite the language barrier, and because they feel we've more experience. But their nuclear program, as well the rest of the world, is now quickly surpassing ours!


To elaborate a little on the diving procedures: It's not as if we're doing the backstroke in these pools, and Japans security and safety is on par with the US. Under suits are worn monitors, on legs, arms, back and chest, monitored by as many men with lap-tops. Radiation alarms inside helmets, hand-held cameras, as well helmet mounted, in addition, remote operated cameras swimming along side, shadowing your every move. We spend weeks installing nets meant to prevent a diver from accidentally backing into an area where he shouldn't, possibly breaching the twelve meter safe zone, because the consequences of doing so are quite grave! After exiting the pool - scanned with radiation detectors, then directed to full body scanners, their technology second to none. Security: no exception, from hand scanners, secret codes? Terrorist occupy nuclear plants in HollyWood

 Another method for storing spent-fuel known as dry-cask storage; as said earlier - "most" spent-fuel remains in suppression-pools, actually about 80%. After five years of pool storage the spent-fuel is cool enough to be placed into steel and concrete containers, and although this transfer must take place underwater, the casks can then be placed elsewhere on site. Dry-cask being largely a passive system- no moving parts- and little attention required by man, thereby, far safer than overcrowded pool storage. In fact, casks stored at the Fukushima plant were unaffected by the catastrophic events- so seismicity not really an issue. Again - it's volatility also renders it self-protecting. Unless you convince Supper-Man to steal some for you, you won't make two steps!

Here's the insanity: these casks are very expensive, about a million dollars a piece! To my friends in Pittsburgh - Holtec International, located in Pittsburgh, produces about a hundred of these casks a year, bringing much needed money to the local economy. I promised insanity: in 1982 congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act - funds paid by utility companies and rate payers (that's you) were set aside to help pay for a permanent storage solution. Since these funds can only be used for this, and since dry cask storage is not a permanent solution, and without a change in the bill, after twenty-nine years, billions of dollars sit in a fund! Yet every time the bill comes up, it's not even addressed! It's not an issue that scores votes, most people don't even know about it? Our politicians - preferring instead to discuss gay-marriage and abortion! This in-turn forces utility companies to pay for these casks themselves - who then turn around and sue the Federal Government for failing on it's promise to rid them of their spent-fuel. With nearly a billion dollars paid out so far, and another two-hundred million spent just in defending these cases! I've read reports where this number could top sixteen billion!

Forty years ago - Patrick Moore helped found Greenpeace. Ten years ago - he left the organization after having a change of heart. He's now a paid ambassador for the nuclear industry. Even he realized the madness of our continuing dependency on fossil-fuels, and that nuclear energy was the only way to break this cycle, and that the safety of industry speaks for itself! I don't know that we produce potato-chips in this country without a single fatality?

A word about Chernobyl: being the worst nuclear accident - is now a tourist destination? the land surrounding one of the healthiest ecosystems on the planet - with animals such as red deer, existing there and nowhere else. Why? because man left and stopped burning fossil fuels!

So what now? do we continue to send money over seas ?  funding governments that don't like us? Continue to dream of powering our cities with wind-mills? Continue dumping oil in our Oceans, and toxic smoke into our air? Or try now- and catch-up with the rest of the world?