John Edwards Rejects Nuclear Power

[jpak]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/john-edwards-re.html

John Edwards said he does not favor nuclear energy during Monday night's debate, citing cost, time, and waste management concerns. His answer seemed eerily similar to the Bush administration, where policies were formed around pre-conceived opinions instead of letting science lead the way.

Edwards proposed wind, solar, and cellulose-based biofuels as alternatives that we should focus on -- which may well be the current scientific consensus -- but rejecting nuclear energy outright seems premature. Nuclear fusion, for instance, is a promising future alternative.

Of the three Senators who were allowed to respond, Barack Obama gave what may have been the most pro-science answer by saying "we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix." While he doesn't outright say he would fund nuclear research, his answer appears to say "let science decide."

Hillary Clinton's response was mixed. She began by claiming agnosticism on nuclear energy, but never really answered the question. Instead of saying she opposes or supports research into nuclear power, she said "if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution," then let's figure out what to do about nuclear waste first.

<more>

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Well there goes one more choice....

:(

[wtmusic]

2. One thing you have to admit about JE

is he doesn't mince words. Although I disagree on this issue, at least he came up with an answer.

[philb]

52. RATES of leukemia are higher in children and young people living near nuclear plants

RATES of leukemia are higher in children and young people living near
nuclear plants, a review of several studies has
concluded.
Death rates for children aged nine and under were up to 24 %
higher, depending on how near they lived to nuclear facilities, the
report said.
Researchers reviewed 17 different studies, including seven from the
UK, carried out between 1984 and 1999, to compile the statistics.

The other studies came from Canada, France, Germany, the United
States, Japan and Spain.

The late medical researcher, Dr. Hans Nieper, of Germany, pointed
this out in the 1970s. He called it Electronic Resonance.

E, Sternglass and J. Gould, PhD, in a Townsend Letter for
Doctors article, documented a strong connection between recorded releases of emissions from nuclear power plants and breast cancer mortality.

Dr. John Diamond confirmed the presence of this negative energy
many times at seminars of The International Academy of Preventive Medicine
with Kinesiologic testing

[Dogmudgeon]

56. Phil ... with all due respect ... these guys are quacks

Some of those cites are from mystics who got into alternative medicine. Their work has no way of being checked out. Diamond's method is to test for undefinable "energy" by quasi-mystical methods that can't be double-checked. There may be value to these methods, but there is no way of knowing -- and they could also be inventing their results. Nieper claimed thousands of cures over 30 years' work, but presented no reserach or evidence. Both have run afoul of the FDA. Google searches on Hans Nieper and John Diamond will confirm this.

Gould and Sternglass' work has been widely criticized for many reasons. It "proves" that people who live near or in cities get more illnesses, but the conclusion that radiation is the cause, is unfounded. There is much better evidence to say that electromagnetic fields and plain-old air pollution produce the effects they write about. It's likely that they are the cause of the illnesses, especially since the radionuclide releases from these reactors are negligible compared to what a coal plant puts out.

Here is a link to other problems with Gould and Sternglass` work.

This "new" report has been posted about here several times in the last few weeks. I have been unable to locate the scientific work it is based on. If you can, please post a link.

--p!

[LSK]

3. and Al Gore doesnt think Nuclear will play a big part in the future

As he said so when he testified before the Senate this spring.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. "I do not oppose nuclear power" -- Al Gore to Senate

--p!

[RestoreGore]

13. yes, that's why he said after that that it would play a "small" part

and that is where it belongs.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. "Small"? No, not "small". What Al Gore REALLY said.

Did Al Gore say "small"? I don't think so. "Modest increased use" isn't exactly "small".

I looked up Al Gore's address at New York University School of Law, September 18, 2006. It's the definitive statement, and it was the template for his address to the Senate recently. In it, Gore makes a number of complex but important points about world politics, in which nuclear energy is only one element. It is not a ringing endorsement, but neither is it the dismissal that the antis spin it to be.

Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity.

Not small. Mr. Gore said "modest increased use". But not "small".

"Not thin" does not necessarily mean morbidly obese. "Not illegal" does not always mean "virtuous". In irony-soaked TV shows and teen slang, that may be the case, but not when discussing serious matters like climate change. This was an address to NYU Law School, not The Ren and Stimpy Shaven Yak Special.

So, what's Al's reason for limiting his one-time enthusiasm to "modest increased use"?

The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size - extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand - and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors.

But Gore is factually incorrect about the reactor-scale issue. Nuclear reactors are economically viable in sizes as small as 50 MWe. But I can cut Al some slack on the issue. After all, he's talking climate, not energy.

So Gore's main concern appears to be nuclear weapons proliferation. That's a problem which already exists, anyway, and needs to be addressed better than the Boy-King has addressed it. Now we are back to square one.

As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role.

Still no "small".

Unlike ALL of the anti-nuclearists who quote this address, I have taken pains to keep it in its original form, using highlighting instead of editing it down -- OR CHANGING IT.

"I don't want to live in a nuclear world!"

If you truly want to restore Al Gore, it looks like you'll have to. In either case, quote him accurately.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

39. You can quibble about semantics alll you like

But as the poster above stated, he claimed be believed it would not play a big role. He has also stated he believed it would only play a small role in other interviews I have seen on video. So please, spare me your admonishments. The bottomline is that he does not believe it will be the solution to this crisis that you and others obviously believe it will be in your agreement with the Republican leadership in this country only using it as an excuse to keep us in the past.

[Dogmudgeon]

45. You're taking this personally again

There was no admonishment. Nor am I a Republican or in cahoots with them.

Do I call you a Fundamentalist because you rely on feelings and belief rather than evidence? No. You are a Democrat like I am.

I have the same rights that you have, and I will comment on Al Gore's statements just like you do. If you go back and read what I wrote, you will see that it is about more than nuclear energy and whose "side" Gore is on.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

50. Then keep your snarky comments about my name here out of your responses...

If you then wish to claim nothing personal was meant by them. And I never stated you were "in cohoots" with Republicans, I stated your position on this agrees with theirs. Can you refute it? And I already know whose side Mr. Gore is on... Earth's, just like me and millions of others who see nuclear energy as no panacea to solving this crisis.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. Did I violate your service mark?

You haven't noticed what anti-nuclearists do with MY name, have you? But if you thought I made a snark on your nickname, I apologize.

In case you think that was one of my devilish tricks of semantics and big words, I'll say it again on its own, and I'll format it in bold so that no one will think I'm trying to "get off the hook":

If you thought I made a snark on your nickname, I apologize.

I will also note from now on that it is your privileged property.

"The bottomline is that he does not believe it will be the solution to this crisis that you and others obviously believe it will be in your agreement with the Republican leadership in this country only using it as an excuse to keep us in the past."

That's the full and original quote, highlighted only to show the exact phrase. But there is no agreement, obvious belief, or anything like it AT ALL. I am not a Republican. Which means that you lied about me. Or, if you thought you were reading my mind, you failed.

You have also repeatedly claimed that I advocate nuclear energy as a panacea, even in your last post. Again, not true. I have made several posts about the enormity of the problems we face. When you make stuff up about me (and other pro-nuclearists), is it out of error, or an intentional lie?

Now, if you call me Pig Widgeon, or Piggy, or even The Pig, I tend to smile. I can even deal with "Hey, Asshole!" But if you lie about me, I will get angry.

I'm funny that way.

And I already know whose side Mr. Gore is on ...

I have read hundreds of pages (probably over 1500 by now) of Mr. Gore's writings and transcriptions of his recorded remarks. I even went so far as to transcribe parts of his address to the Senate in March in order to better follow his arguments. I am also familiar with his criticisms of nuclear energy, his earlier enthusiasm for it, and the problems he sees with it. But I don't know what Al Gore thinks. I don't speak for him, and I have no privileged connection to him. I merely quote him as accurately as I can, discuss his ideas -- and get jumped on by those who claim to know his mind.

Gore has said, time and time again, that he does not oppose nuclear energy -- period. He speaks of a number of problems with it that will make it difficult to implement -- and his opinion is that these problems will prevail. These are not simple "Us vs Them" sound bites. They are political insights that demand thought and discussion.

How do I know this? Because it is what Al Gore has written and said.

That is the truth -- even if you find it inconvenient.

... Earth's, just like me and millions of others who see nuclear energy as no panacea to solving this crisis.

It sounds like you are saying that you and Al Gore are part of the "Silent Majority" (in Spiro Agnew's words) -- and that I am an enemy of the Earth. (I'm sure you will let me know if I am wrong about that.)

You, Al Gore and millions of others. Against me. I lose, right? Popularity is proof. It makes you right.

Does Al know about this?

How do you know you're right?

--p!

[razzleberry]

11. why speak in riddles?

(Al Gore) Why does an intelligent and knowledgeable man ...

waffle and mince words ...

on an extremely important issue?

perhaps he thinks he will sell more carbon offsets.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Triangulation, maybe?

He doesn't want to alienate anyone, no matter what his position is. It would seriously detract from his central work, which is to make people aware of climate change.

I prefer not to speak for Gore, but it's possible he's trying to put this into some kind of context for people. In his explanation, he has repeatedly said that he thinks nuclear energy is safe enough for use, but his main objection is nuclear proliferation.

Could you imagine if he came out for nuclear energy? He'd be eaten alive. Opposing it would be safer, but he doesn't really oppose it, either. He has a non-simple position on an issue in a world that demands simple, declarative statements for its sound bites.

It's an odd thing that the anti-nuclearists don't much speak of the issue of proliferation. They have their 747 disaster fantasy, but they are uncomfortable with international cooperative organizations like the IAEA.

I, personally, would prefer that people be able to accept and hold complex points of view. But that's just me.

--p!

[jpak]

5. John Edwards is a Greenpeace twit

*He* cannot add

*He* cannot subtract

or multiply

or divide

*He* cannot read

or write

*He* is a scientific illiterate

and *he* does not give a flying fuck about the rat's ass...

:nuke: :evilgrin: :nuke:

[NNadir]

6. Apparently he cannot add or subtract.

Numbers are numbers. They don't change because of what John Edwards says or doesn't say.

2 + 10 + 30 will not equal 12 because John Edwards says so.

He is either pandering to an illiterate subset of people who cannot add and subtract units of energy, (like the exajoule) or he couldn't care less about climate change for real.

The largest single source of climate change gas free energy is nuclear energy, with nearly 30 exajoules. The next largest is hydroelectric at 10 exajoules. If John Edwards declares that the 2 exajoules provided by the various renewable fantasies is 3, it will not become 3.

Of course, we may wish to note that Abraham Lincoln came to office after promising not to interfere with slavery where he existed.

Any President who comes to office making noises about caring about climate change while opposing nuclear energy will fail.

We have lots of choices for who to vote for in the primaries, by the way.

Michael Dukakis refused to meet with the famous Nobel Laureate (and Democrat) Glenn Seaborg during his campaign. Why, because Glenn Seaborg - who personally knew every man who had been President from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton - and who served as a cabinet level position in two Democratic administrations - was a important pronuclear scientist.

Seaborg, who played an important role in the Limited Test Ban treaty, and who had warm personal relationships not only with John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, but with Nikita Khrushchev as well, covers the subject in his book "A Chemist in the White House:"

http://www.amazon.com/Chemist-White-House-Manhattan-Project/dp/0841233470

Seaborg doesn't hold Dukakis in the same level of contempt as say, Nixon, who he personally knew, but it's pretty clear that he regarded Dukakis as an ignorant failure.

Dukakis, by virtue of his antinuclear position would have been a failure at any energy program he had undertaken.

In fact the existence of Dukakis is proof that all of this "renewables will save us" talk dates at least to 1988. Actually the "renewables will save us" failure goes back to way before 1988. It's been a fantasy unbacked by reality since at least 1976.

That we are still having the same conversation 30 years later tells us everything we need to know.

One cannot say that Dukakis would have been the same level disaster as the man who defeated him, but one can say that the Democratic Party would have been far more successful if it had chosen a better man. Instead it chose a failure, the anti-nuke candidate.

Energy is the most important subject facing humanity, easily. Even the horrid war in Iraq pales by comparison.

As we move through the primary process, we need to keep that in the back of our minds. On the other hand, one should understand that the things a President says as a candidate has little relationship to what he does. Clinton came to office promising to act on health care. He was in office 8 years and there is still no single payer health care system. We should be immediately suspicious of any candidate who only tells us what we want to hear. I would include Barack Obama in this discussion, he of the Fischer-Tropsch coal approach to energy.

[RestoreGore]

14. Well, nuclear lovers can always vote for a Republican, they LOVE it

And they know nothing about MORALITY, nevermind "exajoules." And not all people against nuclear are ignorant about it just because you say so.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pawel K]

27. Offtopic but thanks for all your posts.

Always educational and dead on.

I can't believe so many on this board that are supposed to oppose climate change have that big of a problem with nuclear energy.

[jpak]

20. They hate NJ Dem Gov. Corzine (opposes relicensing of Oyster Creek) but *Luv* Christie Todd Whitman

(CTW: nuclear shill, failed EPA administrator, repug).

and they loves them some Dick Cheney (savior of US nuclear power).

[phantom power]

22. Ummmm.... no I don't.

[NNadir]

30. Oyster Creek will be replaced by fossil fuels if it is shut much like Maine Yankee

was replaced by fossil fuels.

You couldn't care less.

You were very, very, very, very loud about Corzine's (silly) blabbering about how things might be when he is 102 years old in 2050. You have, of course, a Greepeace mentality which substitutes blather about 2 generations from now for what is happening now.

Oyster Creek produced 5,256,321 MW-hrs of energy in 2003.

If you're here to announce that there is that much solar energy in the entire United States about we give you some more numbers to fail to interpret:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1_a.html

Now big boy, I realize that you couldn't care less what my children breathe, but how about confronting the fact that this small nuclear reactor produced as much energy as all the solar electricity systems in the entire United States.

Of course you want to issue blather about how Oyster Creek will be replaced with wind mills and your other fantasies, but that is only because you are clueless about energy.

We will fight the closure of Oyster Creek here. It's our flesh and our shore that is at stake.

I intend to fight the closure of Oyster Creek, because I do not support fossil fuels in my state.

You will, by contrast, issue some mindless soothsaying making some unsupportable promise about some far off date to vitiate what you want to do to my children.

If you are here to claim that New Jersey is producing 5,256,321 MW-hrs of renewable energy, you are free to produce it.

Even though you are in the business of number denial, here are the numbers:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04nj.xls

I note that you have been all over this place talking up New Jersey renewables even though they have failed to do very much about dangerous fossil fuels and dangerous fossil fuel waste.

[jpak]

31. Oyster Creek is a creeking dinosaur - is back on line at full power yet???

UPDATE 3-Exelon's N.J. Oyster Creek reactor shut Tuesday

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2007-07-17T195428Z_01_N17177426_RTRIDST_0_UTILITIES-OPERATIONS-EXELON-OYSTERCREEK-UPDATE-3.XML

NEW YORK, July 17 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile , Research) 619-megawatt Oyster Creek nuclear power station in New Jersey automatically shut from full power early Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the company said.

In a release, the company said the unit shut due to a low water level in the reactor from an apparent electrical fault and resulting failure of a feedwater pump.

The feedwater pump is one of three pumps that supply water to the reactor.
Reuters Pictures

The spokeswoman could not say when the unit would return to service due to competitive reasons.

<more>

Oyster Creek emits radiation, feds say

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/07/oyster_creek_emits_radiation_f.html

A day after an electrical problem caused a shutdown of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey, its operators acknowledged that a small amount of radiation was released into the atmosphere.

About 1 curie of tritium was released during the shutdown, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"That's equal to about half the dose you would receive from living with one smoke detector in your house for one year," he said.

Tritium is a weak radioisotope found naturally in the environment and also produced in commercial reactors.

<more>

edit: NJ folks don't like the OC too much...

Oyster Creek's time is up, residents tell board

http://examiner.gmnews.com/news/2007/0628/Front_Page/016.html

TOMS RIVER - Should the nearly 40-year-old Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Lacey Township be allowed to operate for another 20 years?

No.

That was the overwhelming response of many of the several hundred Ocean County residents who attended either the afternoon or night session of the May 31 Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing in the county administration building.

Almost to a person, they had the same message. The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station must close when its license expires in April 2009.

<more>

[NNadir]

32. How does this compare to the fossil fuel fatalities about which you couldn't care less?

Are we supposed to be terrified in New Jersey by your arbitrary evocations of indifference.

I told you that the nuclear power plant will be replaced by dangerous fossil fuels and will generate dangerous fossil fuel waste and thus fatalities.

Instead you come here with some irrelevant information about an automatic shut down.

You have no evidence that anyone has ever been injured by this plant, and even if someone were injured by the plant, it would in no way approximate the number of people - about whom you couldn't care less - who will be killed by dangerous fossil fuel waste.

Here is one account of deaths from dangerous fossil fuel waste - about which you couldn't care less - giving the number of deaths from diesel alone as 400.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/stopthesoot/dieselhealthconcerns.htm

It notes the coal that you are trying to add to my state because you insist that only nuclear energy must be perfect and the alternatives are free to kill at will.

Note big boy: You still haven't shown a single number to suggest that Oyster Creek will be replaced by anything but fossil fuels.

But you will come here, again and again and again and again to show that you couldn't care less about fossil fuels.

We will try to save lives in this state by getting Oyster Creek relicensed. You, on the other hand, will try to raise the fossil fuel profile of this state, much as you cheered such ignorance in Maine.

Once again, Maine's energy profile:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04me.xls

Having not satisfied yourself with the damage you did in Maine, now you come to try to hurt my family.

Excuse me if I express untrammeled disgust.

I will fight for my children's health and to do so, I will need to fight ignorance.

[jpak]

33. "now you come to try to hurt my family"

Put down the bong and step away from the keyboard...

[NNadir]

34. I am reporting EXACTLY what you are trying to do.

You are coming here and trying to replace a clean energy plant with dangerous fossil fuels.

I will not ask you to stop hallucinating about an exajoule of solar energy because you will not stop hallucinating.

OYSTER CREEK, IF IT IS SHUT, WILL BE REPLACED BY DANGEROUS FOSSIL FUELS.

Go ahead, deny it. You're always willing to come here and deny reality.

I live in New Jersey; I am raising two sons here, and I am perfectly aware of the conditions under which my children live.

You are calling for more fossil fuels in New Jersey and you couldn't care less what they do to my family and the millions of other families in this state.

[jpak]

35. Oyster Creek will be replaced with *renewable* energy systems (NJ RPS now 20%)

New Jersey Dramatically Increases Renewable Portfolio Standard

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU) has approved modifications to the existing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) rules at its Wednesday, September 14th meeting.

The proposed amendments will increase the state's RPS percentage of Class 1 (solar, wind, sustainable biomass) to 20 percent by 2020 from the current requirement of 4 percent by 2008.

The proposal would further require that 2 percent of this amount come from solar electric systems.

The economic impact of this increase was evaluated by the Center for Energy, Economic and Environmental Policy at Rutgers' Bloustein School who determined it would have "a negligible impact on the growth of our economy and will result in a less than 2 percent increase in electric rates over 20 years."

<more>

Oyster Creek comprises 15% of NJ generating capacity - renewables in NJ's RPS will more than compensate for its closure...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNadir]

47. Yeah 2020 is the same as 2009.

The RPS is meaningless, and in any case, our task here in New Jersey is to eliminate fossil fuels.

New Jersey will only produce 20% renewables if it burns more garbage. But it won't do that in 13 years, and even if it did replacing nuclear power with dirtier "renewables" will impact our health of me and my family.

You couldn't care less.

Clearly you couldn't care less about fossil fuel burning in New Jersey and so you rail against our cleanest and safest form of energy.

[RestoreGore]

49. I'm from NJ and I hope it closes too

Just like Indian Point in NY. Thanks for these links.

[RestoreGore]

24. Nuclear Power Can't Stop Climate Change

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/climatenukes.pdf

[RestoreGore]

25. Nuclear Power No Climate Cure -all

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/18/161052/155

The world needs 8 to 10 wedges, starting now, to avoid catastrophic global warming. Interestingly, the report makes clear that:

For nuclear power to be even one wedge we would need 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste.

We would have all of the proliferation risks associated with spreading nuclear power across the planet.

And the power isn't cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilo-watt hour.

So nuclear is not a climate cure-all. Even climate advocates like John McCain get this wrong. In a March 2006 interview, he stated he would demand legislation to expand U.S. nuclear power as part of his efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: "It's the only technology presently available to quickly step up to meet our energy needs."

Incorrect. As the Keystone report makes clear -- and as former Vice President Al Gore told Congress earlier this year -- nuclear may be a part of the solution, but probably only a very limited part.

end of excerpt

[RestoreGore]

26. Nuclear Power Kills Fish

http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indianpoint_risks/the_facts/1263

http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/biodiversity/the_facts/178

[NNadir]

38. Fossil fuels kill people.

You couldn't care less.

This may come as a surprise to you - I'm very sure it does - but dangerous fossil fuels kill fish as well as people too.

In fact - and you would have to know something about energy and science to know this - most thermal power plants are located at the edge of bodies of water and have intakes and thermal discharges.

Of course, you couldn't care less that this happens in coal plants and natural gas plants.

You are now and always have been disinterested in what happened at the Big Sandy River, 75 miles of which were destroyed by a dangerous coal waste leak.

http://www.geotimes.org/dec01/NNcoal.html

You couldn't care less about the fish killed in the Big Sandy River, just as you couldn't care less about the acidified lakes in the Adironacks, or the acidification of rivers from coal mine leaching and coal ash dumps.

You know nothing about the Hughes Borehole situtation for instance.

We've got to find some way to treat some of these big ones," said Jackie Ritko, Little Conemaugh Watershed Association secretary. But so far, river advocates such as Ritko have found no real answers. She said early attempts to snare state "Growing Greener" money were unsuccessful. "Basically, we were told, 'If you can't show marked water quality improvement downstream, they're not interested in funding something.' And you can understand that," Ritko said. "They don't want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a treatment system that might clean up less than a tenth of a mile of stream." Ritko said some trout live in the Little Conemaugh above Hughes Borehole, but she says the river is "completely dead" between Beaverdale and South Fork. And clear water is not always a good sign. "Down around Beaverdale, we have a couple of discharges where the pH is 2 (high acidity)," Ritko said. "The water is crystal clear because it is so bad none of the metals is precipitating out." Foremost among the river's major pollution points is the infamous "Topper Run" discharge near St. Michael, which spews a whopping 29 percent of the waterway's pollution load.

Although you couldn't care less, here is the link: http://www.tribune-democrat.com/feeds/archives/tribunedemocrat/articles/2005/08/29/news/apstorysection/news01.txt/resources_apstoryview

[RestoreGore]

40. yes, they do just like nuclear waste and leaks kill and pollute

And I have condemned both, but at this point I doubt you even know who you are responding to anymore. It's just the same broken record.

[RestoreGore]

42. Nuclear power kills rivers

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0813-05.htm

Published on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
France Faces Nuclear Power Crisis
Ecologists Warn of Threat to River Life as Nuclear Stations Get Right to Discharge Warmer Water

by Amelia Gentleman in Paris

Ecologists warned yesterday that the ecosystems in France's rivers were at grave risk after the government's decision to relax environmental regulations governing the operation of nuclear stations in an attempt to avert power cuts caused by the heatwave.

Nuclear plants were granted permission late on Monday to pump their cooling water into nearby rivers at a higher temperature than usual to allow them to continue generating electricity, as temperatures across France continued to hit 40C (104F) for a second week.

The political fallout from the extreme weather continued to rage yesterday, with opposition politicians and health workers joining environmentalists to accuse the government of complacency.

"Deaths, pollution, forest-fires, electricity shortages, agricultural damage ... The government is under the grill," the front page of the leftwing daily Libération declared.

snip

In some regions, river water levels have dropped so low that the vital cooling process has become impossible, while elsewhere the water temperatures after the cooling process have exceeded environmental safety levels.

snip

Philippe Brousse, a spokesman for the Get out of Nuclear pressure group, said France was suffering from its over reliance on nuclear energy. "This is a scandalous dispensation, which has the sole aim of protecting the nuclear industry, and will cause grave damage to the environment." Further popular alarm about the safety of France's nuclear reactors was triggered last week when Electricité de France began experimenting with a new sprinkler system to cool the concrete walls of a power station which was nearing danger levels.

end of excerpt.

[NNadir]

44. If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

You repeat yourself endlessly, but of course you object if I repeat myself responding to your repetition.

Tough.

First of all, being against that works is rather disingenous. Coal produces 120 exajoules of energy worldwide. You couldn't care less how many people it kills, but the number is in the millions.

Nuclear power produces 30 exajoules of energy. You cannot produce a single case of a death from so called "nuclear waste." Not one in this country.

Yet you sit here and say, "it kills!" Bullshit.

If you could find one person who was killed by so called "nuclear waste," you still could not produce a single form of energy on an exajoule scale that is perfect.

Not one.

You seem to think that making a list of negative statements about forms of energy is the same as having a solution besides trucking some trees in an SUV and planting them somewhere.

You are completely unfamiliar with the largest energy disaster in history, about which you couldn't care less, the Banqiao dam disaster a renewable energy disaster.

If you have called for banning dams along with all fossil fuels and all nuclear energy, that would be interesting. Of course, the minute they turned off your computer to ban all the things you say you want to ban, you would cry to heaven and hell, it wouldn't matter which.

Here's a clue for you about what would need to be turned off in this country, not that you have a single positive thing to say about it:



Instead of telling us about all the things you are against, how about telling us what you are for?

You aren't for anything?

What a surprise!!!!

As for whether I respond to all anti-nuclear posters with the same "you couldn't care less," it is appropriate. In fact, you couldn't care less.

I have really latched on to this appropriate phrase, and you know, on reflection, I think I'll repeat whenever it is appropriate.

All anti-nuclear posters get pissed off when the same criteria they apply only to nuclear energy gets applied to the alternatives to nuclear energy. By the way, there is only one alternative to nuclear energy really, and that's burning stuff, mostly coal and other extremely dangerous fossil fuels, but in a few cases wood and other biomass.

And now, how about another reference to Figure 9, about which you couldn't care less: http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

[RestoreGore]

48. Seems all you care about is pushing nuclear energy REALLY HARD here

And ANY articles I or anyone else post here are just as valid as your links and piecharts. And your hard sell of nuclear and blatant BADGERING of those who disagree with you is very suspect to me at this point. And I do care about the environmental damage of dams and their destruction of the sacred land of indigenous peoples and their traditions as well and have written as much on my own blog (as I have also vehemently criticized the tarsands project in Alberta and projects in other places because I have other places to post besides just here) regarding water issues, which is actually where my greatest concern is environmentally, and that then includes a concern about nuclear power regarding the pollution of rivers and use and waste of water.

I care about keeping waterways CLEAN, SAFE and USABLE for humans and other species, and I DON'T approve of nuclear waste being dumped in them anymore than I approve of oil spills or other waste being dumped in them. You obviously think it is OK however, as you defend nuclear energy to the hilt regardless and keep repeating that same BS line about it having not killed anyone. You don't think species of fish matter? You don't think those killed in mining the uranium that goes into your precious nuclear process matters? You don't think the toxic fossil fuels used to build your temples of worship matter? You then sound to me like nothing more than a salesman.

The fact that you think you can simply dismiss anyone's opinion by saying they don't care about anything simply because they don't agree with you is a sign of someone not really dedicated to a cause but someone only trying for some reason to SELL IT. And your obsession with branding everyone as SUV drivers is BS. I don't even own one and I DO NOT drive unless it is absolutely necessary because my individual carbon foorprint is something I care about as well.

So since you seem to think no one else cares because they don't bow before the idols of nuclear energy perhaps instead of piecharts you can then tell us all what your personal carbon footprint on this planet is... or does everything in your home including your own mode of transportation run on the sacred nuclear energy you try so hard to pawn off here? Instead of links and terms spewed out aimed to make people think you are better than they are, how about you put your money where your mouth is?

[NNadir]

41. The Pacala and Socolow paper is now three years old. Six percent of the "next 50 years" have passed

What is your claim about the status of the "wedges?"

Which of them is 6% of the way to full realization?

Which among the 8 or 10 wedges involves as much energy as nuclear energy involves now, 30 exajoules?

It is easy to show by direct calculation that since 1980, nuclear energy has prevented 5 ppm of carbon dioxide additions to the atmosphere. In that period we have needed zero Yucca mountains, not ten and the loss of life from having zero Yucca Mountains has been zero.

In fact we don't "need" Yucca mountain and we have never "needed" Yucca Mountain. Since you - and Grist - know zero about the subject, of course, you will continue to focus on Yucca Mountain.

In the meantime, you have no plan and no idea about how to store dangerous fossil fuel wastes which do kill people.

You couldn't care less.

[RestoreGore]

43. Oh yes, I do have a plan

But you couldn't care less about that, so you can now be ignored because it is obvious you are only here to belittle people. Both coal and nuclear are relics of the past that pollute, and their time has come to go. Nothing you can say will change my mind about that.

[Tom Joad]

19. go kiss Edward Teller.

[Tom Joad]

18. i am glad that Edwards is thinking about something other than a rat's ass.

but about saving ours.

[jpak]

21. I hope you understand that post was *major* sarcasm

It was a parody of way nuclear power critics are treated around here...

:hi:

[Tom Joad]

23. oooops. sorry.

[depakid]

7. "pre-conceived opinions instead of letting science lead the way."

Sounds a lot like the health care plan that he's endorsed.

Odd, considering that there are 5 licensed commercial nuclear reactors in North Carolina that account for about 1/3 of the state's electricity generation.

I wonder if he thinks he can power "the house" on 1/3 less energy AND cut down of the 60% that comes from coal. :o

see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesnc.html

[Dogmudgeon]

8. The Republicans in his state are using it as a wedge issue

It looks like they succeeded.

And yet, it's the pro-nuclear Democrats who are accused of being in the GOP's pocket.

Hipster irony, or Gingrichian name-calling? More options exist -- unlike with power generation.

I'm sure there is a very reasonable explanation. But I no longer consider "The pro-nukers are the tools of Satan" to be a reasonable explanation.

--p!

[Digit]

9. So...how DO we dispose of the waste safely?

I have a nuclear plant about 20 miles from me and it does NOT give me comfort being this close.

Oh, and I am SURCHARGED on my electric bill for the privilege of being so close.

[razzleberry]

10. recycle the fuel

the world, except the US, does exactly that

[Tom Joad]

17. most of it cannot be recycled.

[razzleberry]

46. because of a stupid law

that could be changed

[amandabeech]

53. Do you have a cite for that?

Seriously, I'm interested in reading it .

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Presidential Directive/NSC-8: March 24, 1977 (Jimmy Carter)

Here's the text of it: http://www.nci.org/new/pu-repro/carter77/index.htm

You might find the the wikipedia entry on reprocessing useful, as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

[amandabeech]

55. Thanks!

n/t

[Tom Joad]

16. Good for edwards.

[jsamuel]

29. Gore more recently than the posts above... he doesn't like nuclear

But Mr Gore said nuclear power was not the panacea for global warming and was unlikely to play a significantly bigger role in the climate change battle. "Even if you set aside the problem of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult," he said.

The first problem was one of economics. "Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size - extra large." The second was nuclear weapons proliferation. "For eight years when I was in the White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program," he said, implying that "reactor program" meant something to do with the civil nuclear power he was busy opposing. (The Age 17/11)

http://world-nuclear.blogspot.com/2006/11/blair-and-gore-on-nuclear-power.html

[RestoreGore]

37. And on that I agree with him wholeheartedly

it is definitely not the solution.

[losthills]

57. John Edwards

is the best candidate regardless of his stand on nuclear energy. This just makes him that much better...