Pronuke or No Nuke? Obama must decide. What do you say? $50 Billion for nukes? Yes or no?

[Liberation Angel]

Obama is said to be considering a compromise which gives $50 Billion in the energy bill for loan guarantees to the nuke industry. i say that it is a dangerous outdated and too expensive technology and that this money is a waste. With the new unrec function it is hard to gauge the support for renewables as opposed to nuclear energy here at DU.

So I want to see if what some pronukers here at DU claim is true: that the majority of dems and DUers SUPPORT nuclear energy.

Can that even possibly be correct?

Tell me why you voted as you did when you vote and REC this thread if you want this issue to be discussed and if you think we should lobby Obama to NOT support the Nuke money.

My position is that we need to aim straight at 100% renewables and that that is an achievable goal within a matter of decades if we focus on that. Wasting money on a deadly and doomed technology is just pissing money away for huge energy's benefit which will do nothing for us but fleece us.

[masuki bance]

1. Welcome to General Discussion: Nukes. nt

[Liberation Angel]

58. Obama has to make a decision on this soon so GD: Presidential is where this belongs

I am asking people to lobby on this

lobby the white house

no $50 Billion for new nuke money.

I am for ANY investment in renewables and solar.

We can be there in our lifetimes!

But NOT if we waste our money on sh*t like Nuclear "energy"

[Liberation Angel]

233. NO NUKES: Bruce Springsteen, Gil Scott Heron, Crosby Still and Nash (Link)

http://www.amazon.com/No-Nukes-VHS-Bruce-Springsteen/dp/B0000A430W

[Liberation Angel]

240. NO NUKES WIKIPEDIA Page (link to No Nukes Concert by MUSE)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_United_for_Safe_Energy

[Liberation Angel]

251. www.nonukes.org another informational site

www.nonukes.org is a good source of info on all NO NUKES matters

[Liberation Angel]

2. Please state your reasons

for the record and on the record

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Liberation Angel]

227. thanks for the delete!

it helps

[scheming daemons]

4. You'll be surprised to know that I rec'd this thread

Because I want you to see and understand that the majority of DUers support nuclear energy.

[Liberation Angel]

7. Fair enough

but my guess is that, as I said earlier, polls can be gamed too.

And unless this gets a high enough profile (makes it to the greatest page, or front page) then not enough people will vote on it.

because I posted it so late it wil have already sliped off the first page of latest so it may be a bad experiment since the unrec function would keep it potentially off the greatest page if what you claim is true.

But I do not have any problem with you recc'ing it just to get the issue better clarified (as unlikely as this is under the circumstances)

[RC]

5. What Nukes are you talking about?

When the word 'Nuke' is used, it is usually in conjunction with missiles, by the 'we'd better get them before they get us' mentality of the war monger crowd.

When power generation is used in conjunction with 'nukes' it is usually spelled out and pronounced 'Nuclear' because the audience is better educated, more civilized and less satisfied of the concept that MAD is a winning strategy.

[Liberation Angel]

8. Nuclear power, where I lived (i.e. near a nuke plant) is how I mean it

No Nukes was a huge concert (or group of concerts) and LP when I was a kid protesting against nuclear power.

Where I am from we call these deadly behemoths "nukes".

Of course nukes is ALSO used for the missiles and bombs, but colloquially when we use it where I live we mean the leaky disgusting power plants.

[grantcart]

113. and I lived up the highway from Hanford and 'nukes' always meant bombs

'reactors' always meant the nuclear reactors.



In earlier threads poster after poster told you that they found your use confusing but you have stubbornly continued a useage that is only known to your neighborhood.


The allegation that people in your area use the same word for two wildly different uses of nuclear power is not universally held in communities near nuclear facilities and defies common sense. If people use the same word for two completely different things then how can anyone be sure of what they are talking about. Your explanations are not convincing, they defie the laws of language and your stubborn refusal to use terms that the entire community can understand without explanations of your neighborhood only makes your arguments more difficult to understand.

[Liberation Angel]

232. The "No Nukes" Concerts were emblematic anti nuke power events in NYC and were HUGE

That is what I grew up with.

*poster after poster have also reported that to them it means nuclear power as well as the missiles etc.

A No Nukes bumper sticker has always meant no nuclear power in my book.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Nuclear Power is the height of human arrogance

Humans have been over estimating the safety of nuclear technology ever since we were painting radium on watch dials. Later we were x-raying childrens feet to see if shoes fit well. We keep "solving the problem" only to later admit that we did not "solve the problem" but "this time you can trust us we really solved the problem." Except when we get it really wrong with nukes the damage is, from a human evolutionary perspective, permanent and irreversible. Nuclear power represents the heavily centralized concentration of power; economic and political power, not just energy. And that always becomes a magnet for corruption and that is why there are no adaquate "safeguards" to protect against the nightmare of full power plant failures. The economic forces backing Nukes are why we don't have widespread safe solar power today, and backing nukes now means the same for tommorrow.

The problems with nuclear power will not be solved as long as humans are subject to human error and as long as money can buy corruption. There is no system that is fail safe when people who are capable of doing stupid things remain in the loop. People have off days. in fact they have really really off days when their minds are simply someplace else for all kinds of human reasons. And there is no automated system that is fail safe when people are involved in writing the programs. We lost some pretty complex and expensive space craft that smashed into Mars because of some really stupid programming errors that weren't caught during quality control. And that doesn't even begin to factor in what can happen if a key technician mentally snaps the way it more typically happens with guns today and individuals seeking to kill as many people as possible on their way out of this existance.

Then of course there is greed. Sub contractors have sold below quality steel bars and bolts to nuclear plants during construction - they just paid off some people and falsified the records. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 30 to 40 years. The NRC gets bought off at a whole other level - through the political appointee pay off process when friends of the nuclear industry are in power. Suddenly certain major problems aren't critical enough to fix to require shutting down plants on an emergency basis - they can wait until the next scheduled maintance to be taken care of instead. Suddenly common sense requrements for the abiltiy to evacuate the public in case of an emergency no longer are common sense. Suddenly it is assumed that all those low paid school bus drivers will stick around to shuttle people away from a disaster zone rather than go home to evacuate their own families.

The problem with nuclear power is that the after effects of an "unthinkable accident" occurring frankly are near unthinkable. Radioactive clouds released from one cite can circle the globe, areas that include thousands of square miles can instantly be converted into permanent kill zones. Unthinkable accidents are only unthinkable until they happen. After they happen panels are convened to discuss how that ever was possible in the first place and what can be done to make sure "that it never happens again", until the next unthinkable accident happens again.

And before we get the matter of nuclear waste there is the matter of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism. I don't know if you have ever studied the NRC requirements for the level of security that nuclear plants and related nuclear fuel storgage areas are suppoesed to maintain. They are a joke. They assume that an attack on a nuclear plant would not be much more sophisticated than a major bank robbery, and that the weapons used during such an attack would be garden variety. They are a joke because of greed. The industry does not want to have to pay for the level of security actually needed. The government doesn't want to pick up the tab for the nuclear industry to provide adaquate security either because they are trying to down play risks and underplay the true costs on nuclear power.

[Liberation Angel]

9. You make some very compelling points: MOST people know little about this

which is why I am so vocal about it.

I worked in the industry.

I worked with whistleblowers and scientists testifying in Congress and at NRC hearings (and with the lawyers).

The more I learned the more it scared and bothered me.

Because the nuke industry is so powerful it can manipulate the media relentlessly as well as the science info.

All these bastards are in bed with each other.

I understand that those who have fallen for the disinformation or who do not have enough info would be fooled by the nuke industry propaganda.

And I understand the problems with big coal (which, unless they can implement clean coal technology, I oppose).

But my biggest issue with it on TOP of al you state, is the fact that every day these plants operate they create and emit deadly man made radioactive elements which are not otherwise found in nature.

These are the deadliest long term problmes because they get absorbed into the body permanently and cause mutations and cancer and tissue/organ damage and failure.

It is slow acting murder.

And accident would be fast acting murder.
But the daily releases into the atmosphere and water (not even counting leeching from nuke waste storage) can kill infants in utero as well as cause sufficient damage to the immune system and organs to cause deadly conditions before you even GET cancers from it.

Thanks for the support.

[wroberts189]

121. My problem with nukes is not only the danger of meltdown.

Its the damn waste that has to be kept in cooling pools (as I understand it) and its possible use in weapons.

[wroberts189]

123. woops..meant to reply to main thread sorry. nt

[Liberation Angel]

237. no probs - good points

nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Here is an example of how oversight of the nuclear power industry works

Secrecy at Nuclear Agency Is Criticized by Lawmakers
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 5 — A factory that makes uranium fuel for nuclear reactors had a spill so bad it kept the plant closed for seven months last year and became one of only three events in all of 2006 serious enough for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in an annual report to Congress.

After an investigation, the commission changed the terms of the factory’s license and said the public had 20 days to request a hearing on the changes.

But no member of the public ever did. In fact, no member of the public could find out about the changes. The document describing them, including the notice of hearing rights for anyone who felt adversely affected, was stamped “official use only,” meaning that it was not publicly accessible...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06nuke.html?_r=4&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Here is another...

Video of Sleeping Guards Shakes Nuclear Industry
Sight of Guards Asleep Shakes Industry

By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 4, 2008; Page A01

Kerry Beal was taken aback when he discovered last March that many of his fellow security guards at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania were taking regular naps in what they called "the ready room."

When he spoke to supervisors at his company, Wackenhut Corp., they told Beal to be a team player. When he alerted the regional office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, regulators let the matter drop after the plant's owner, Exelon, said it found no evidence of guards asleep on the job.

So Beal videotaped the sleeping guards. The tape, eventually given to WCBS, a CBS television affiliate in New York City, showed the armed workers snoozing against walls, slumped on tabletops or with eyes closed and heads bobbing...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304442.html

[Occam Bandage]

22. Isn't that a bit like saying, "the TSA sucks, so we shouldn't use airplanes?" nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. No, not at all

It is more like saying that if the potential negative consequences of an activity are disproportionally severe that it is irresponsible to attempt to avoid them via regulatory oversight. A plane crash kills up to a few hundred people. The site of the actual crash, a few acres, might then be set aside as a memorial. Furthermore there is no deadly aftermath to contain for hundreds of thousands of years. The water table is not threatened for one example, nor is the gene pool.

Here is a link to a Discovery channel documentary about Chernobyl:
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/zerohour/series1/chernobyl/index.shtml

A snippet from that site:
"A combination of procedure violation, design faults, breakdown in communications and a lack of adequate safety procedures led to the worst nuclear accident in history. It took place during a safety test to see if the reactor’s turbines could produce sufficient energy to keep the coolant pumps running, in the event of a loss of power. But when the emergency shutdown failed, the reactor went out of control, like a giant kettle boiling dry, resulting in a violent explosion that could be seen for miles around...

...A cloud of potentially lethal material was blown over Scandinavia and Europe, as far away as Scotland.

31 Chernobyl staff and fire fighters were killed either immediately, or shortly after, the explosion. It is estimated that over 2,500 people in the surrounding area have died since 1986 and thousands more are experiencing health problems due to high levels of radiation produced by the accident.

Three and a half million people were evacuated from the Ukraine but over five million still live in contaminated areas."

P.S. And Chernobyl was far from a worst case scenario. The meltdown was arrested there. I predict that the first total nuclear disaster will not be caused by technological design flaws or by insufficient back up safety systems being mandated. It will be caused by some combination of human error, criminal insanity, terrorism, and/or corrupt greed that no technological design can guard against or overcome.

[Occam Bandage]

38. "There is insufficient oversight" is not the same statement as "oversight doesn't work."

I fail to see how security guards sleeping on the job is evidence that nuclear plants cannot be secured.

[Liberation Angel]

230. pretty much defines itself

bs

sleeping security is lack of security

[Liberation Angel]

235. Sleeping armed guards in the "ready room"....

Yeah - the industry is ready alright!

[Sugarcoated]

44. Great post

The cons far, far outweigh the pros.

No, NO NO!

My dad worked in the nuclear industry as well. When I was a kid I asked him if he would move us near one and he said no. I asked again when I was older, same answer.

[wroberts189]

124. I wonder how many pro-nuke people here would live close to one. nt

[Liberation Angel]

190. No kidding (or swim in water downstream)

My kids got sick because they were dumping waste legally (sometimes by accident but uually just business as usual) into the waters near the public beach where i would take them every summer for days on end (not any more after our doctor said it made us all sick)

[wroberts189]

120. Wow ..excellent post. nt

[Liberation Angel]

261. everyone who supports nukes should read this

those who are undecided too

[Occam Bandage]

10. I support safe, clean nuclear energy as a necessary transition from coal to renewables. nt

[Liberation Angel]

14. There is no safe, clean nuclear energy, that is a myth...and as for transtion

I do not support coal either. Unless it can be made clean (and that seems to be prohibitively expensive right now altho arguably the alternatives are more expensive)

Conversion of nukes to natural gas power is the best interim alternative, according to my sources.

100% renewable/solar is possible within our lifetimes.

Any other alternative will continue one disaster after another.

[Occam Bandage]

15. It's funny that you think "clean coal" exists, and then babble about myths. nt

[Liberation Angel]

17. I did NOT say clean coal exists so stop saying that. I oppose coal too.

IF it can be implemented I would support it as an interim option over nuclear. But even that support is weak on my part due to other environmental considerations.

But I do not see any clean coal happening yet.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Okay, so we'll strike that "unless it can be made clean." It can't, that's coal propaganda.

Natural gas pollutes as well (and the pollution figures for natural gas are understated, since drilling/refining releases tons of CO2 for every ton of methane, and that isn't counted), and there simply isn't enough natural gas production to support American energy needs; right now it's kind of pricey worldwide, and we're using all we can produce. Natural gas is a good supplemental power source for the transition, but can't handle everything.

For the majority of American power production for the next generation, it's either the certain environmental destruction of coal or it's the one-in-a-billion risk of disaster with nukes.

[Liberation Angel]

24. I believe it COULD be but agree that is probably not a good alternative

But my objection to nukes is NOT the "one in a billion" risk of a meltdown (although that is a huge concern).

It is the daily emissions of deadly cancercausing and mutagenic radioisotopes.

As for gas. it is less harmful and more easily adaptable, I am told by experts, for conversion of nuke plants.

But there IS certain environmental destruction from nuclear radiation emissions.

Once again see www.radiation.org for more info

[Sugarcoated]

49. My neighbor has a dental practice in a town right next to Limerick

in PA, and he told me the Government (I forget which agency, I'll ask him when I see him) asked him for samples of, I believe, removed fillings to test for radiation levels. They were higher than the norm. I'll follow this post up with more details after I touch base with him.

Buy you're right, radiation leaks into the surrounding areas. That's not acceptable.

[Liberation Angel]

57. Check out the teeth studies at ww.radiation.org

I have seen the actual studies and they are staggeringly scary

[Sugarcoated]

62. We live about 30 miles from the Limerick plant

I hope that's far enough away to not be affected.

[Liberation Angel]

81. I'm afraid not but the further the better, but it is complicated by other factors

2 things: eating calcium and foods high in iodine will protect you (provided they are not from sources tainted by nuclear emissions) to a large extent from two of the worst soruces of nuke rdiation" strontium 90 and radio-iodine

Cows who eat grass with strontium 90 or radioiodine will produce milk with it and when you drink it it gets abosrobed by the thyroid and bones and then gets into the blood as the elements decay.

But iF you are already saturated with safe calcium and iodine then you will not retain as much or none at all.

[Liberation Angel]

83. Here's one on the amount of radiation (Strontium 90) in baby teeth

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-49FXHJC-3&_coverDate=12/30/2003&_alid=129201815&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5836&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c37a8e55235069bcb5d1f1715036557

[Sugarcoated]

87. How in the world can anyone thinks that this is okay?

[Liberation Angel]

90. Malthusians, First Worlders, America Firsters, Population alarmists

Keeping the population low while lining their pockets with filthy lucre is their raison d'etre.

Instead of providing food, housing, health care (including safe birth control), through sane manageent of resoruces GREED makes them think this is a-okay.

[Sugarcoated]

98. So, in other words, selfish greedy heartless mofos

But Democrats? My Democratic brothers and sisters blowing off the health hazards of nuclear power plants? It's shocking to me.

[Liberation Angel]

102. Don't be surprised if it is only a small minority

there is no real way to know if the polls and th recs/unrecs get gamed or if there is corporate organized disruption.

But many union folks like nukes (they pay a lot and they get heavy propaganda on the job) AND lots of environmental folks get fooled by the propganda onslaught and believe that it is somehow "green".

This is the result of major corporate media manipulation by the nuke industry (GE, WESTINGHOUSE, CHASE, MORGAN, HALLIBURTON, ETC) for 60+ years AND due to control of the court litigation and appeals (Burger was appointed to the supreme court to protect the industry - he had heard all the AEC litigation on "safety" , deaths, and created the cost/benefit judicial analysis which allowed these things to proliferate and keep killing us for many years.

As I sai earlier i worked on the Hill and because I was from a nuclear community I used my time there with a congressman on an environmental subcommittee with oversight of nuke plants to learn all I could.

Most dems and most people will never have that opportunity.

So i try to share

But I sure could use more help.

[and-justice-for-all]

127. I am as well, it is the waste I have an issue with...

shoving into a mountain is not a solution to me.

[Zynx]

11. Compared to the constant damage inflicted by most other sources of power, nukes are a small

risk.

[Liberation Angel]

12. You are not well informed

or have een misinformed.

I recommend you take a look at www.rdiation.org with the latest studies which show how deadly the nuclear pollution is and how much these plants spew out causing cancer and mass injury daily.

Am I an alarmist?

Yes. Because the stats and dangers are alarming

and horribly tragic.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Is there anything on that site but

"scientists hope to find a link between cancer and nuclear power plants in location X, but haven't yet done so?"

[Liberation Angel]

16. Sure there is. Read the studies (peer reviewed)

Read the links.

In fact that doesn't appear anywhere on the site (what you said)

They hae affirmatively established the link of exposure, cancer, and proximity to the plants.

Especially Indian Point outside NYC.

Turkey Point near Miami

Millstone and Haddam Neck (now closed but leeching into the groundwater) in Connecticut

[Occam Bandage]

18. I don't see any studies on that site. Could you link them?

All I can see is press releases related to ongoing studies hoping to find links.

[Liberation Angel]

26. Here's one link on childhood leukemia near plants

http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/ecc_948.pdf

[Occam Bandage]

35. That's a letter to the editor saying,

"Although a consistent dose– response association was not found, results suggest more detailed investigation is in order." A scientist saying "we need more research" is not proof of anything other than that more research should be done.

[Liberation Angel]

28. One study on cancer rates near NYC at Indian Point

http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/071112_IndianPoint.html#incidence

[high density]

32. How is that proving a link between the nuclear plant and cancer?

There is no proof of a cause and effect going on here. The inferred link between the nuclear plant and the child cancer rates is especially unconvincing given the number of counties away from the plant that also have higher cancer rates.

[Liberation Angel]

41. The epidemiological studies are overwhelming in establishing a correlation an

And doctors used to think it was safe to give xrays to pregnant women.

It took years before they realized that there was a correlation and the studies ultimately proved the damage to infants in utero.

(google "Dr. Alice Stewart"" who was demonized by the industry but her research led to global policy changes when she proved the correlation and danger of eposure of infants in utero to radiation.

You can be unconvinced but it is really a no-brainer.

EVERY CHILD STUDIED had man made radiation in their teeth!

and the correlation is THERE.

The nuke industry's main defense is "so what you got cancer PROVE it was the radiation that did it!" The epidemiological studies PROVE a correlation of exposure to cancer rates AND this is eactly what Alice Stewart proved with her studies which stopped the routine medical practice of giving xrays to pregnant women.

If you don't see it is because you don't WANT to see it.

[Occam Bandage]

43. If they're overwhelming, why don't you have published studies demonstrating the correlation? nt

[Liberation Angel]

79. Okay here's another studyWHY CANCER RATES IN THE HAMPTONS ARE SO HIG

http://www.radiation.org/journal/nuclink_sept14.html

[Occam Bandage]

36. That's a report saying that there seems to be more cancer at one particular location.

They offer no evidence of correlation, since there could be any number of factors; they don't compare to other communities near nuclear plants, nor do they make any effort to demonstrate that there are no other risk factors for cancer anywhere in New York State, which is kind of silly given that plenty of other counties in New York have high cancer rates.

[Liberation Angel]

45. Actually that is exactly what these studies are working on and establishing

Of course one must look at all the data being developed and at the epidemiological studies.

I have read the studies and they are not all linked here.

I have interviewed the scientists involved.

You assertion that they are not doing comparative studies is inaccurate.

BUT is it even WORTH THE RISK to our children to expose them to this cancer causing and mutagenic source of death?

We KNOW raditaion causes cancer and death and mutations.

WHY subject or children (and ourselves) to it when it is totally unnecessary and deadly?

[Occam Bandage]

46. Yes. Working on and establishing. "Scientists hope to find" is not "scientists have found."

I didn't say they aren't doing comparative studies; I said they haven't done them. Scientists hoping to find a link between X and cancer is not sufficient cause to ban X.

[Liberation Angel]

52. They HAVE done the studies and they HAVE found the correlation.

But they are doing more studies all the time.

Hoping to find MORE evidence because some people are so hardheaded they will still let their children and communities be exposed and remain nconvinced until THEY get cancer or their kids get sick from it.

[Occam Bandage]

64. So give us the studies in which they demonstrate any causality. nt

[Liberation Angel]

82. If you read their journal the studies are there

I posted one already but there are many there.

Click on their journal link.

[Liberation Angel]

262. The journal links have the studies on how we are ALL irradiated from nuke reactors and tests

please check them out

[Honeycombe8]

23. Pro nukes. Hey, dude...that IS renewable energy, if done the way the French do it.

It is clean and has the capability of producing lots and lots of energy...the amounts needed for the largest country in the world. I don't see that there is any other way for a large country to produce the amount of energy needed to sustain our way of life, w/o nuclear power being involved.

It's not the only answer. But it's part of the answer. The French have used nuclear energy for a long time. Unlike America, the French recycle the toxic waste, rather than dig a hole and try to bury it.

If America doesn't recycle the waste, I am against it, though.

[Liberation Angel]

25. It is NOT clean: That is the big lie. and the French are having major problems with theirs

The French are having major problems and are actually importing energy because of problems with their reactors right now.

[Occam Bandage]

42. Does "exporting 18% of their energy production" constitute a major problem in your book?

That's a major problem I think we should have, doubly so if it's zero-carbon.

[Liberation Angel]

59. You are wrong on that right now. See post 51 below

and the idea that it is zero carbon is a HUGE myth.

The amount of energy and resoruces ($$$) it takes just to GUARD and transport the waste is immense and will be for 250,000 years.

[Occam Bandage]

68. The carbon used for transporting waste is negligible.

That's like saying wind power isn't zero carbon, because people need to drive to and from the plants to perform regular upkeep/repairs.

[Liberation Angel]

91. Not really negligible and no comparison at all to wind power: ridiculous

But I did post in this thread the peer reviewed study on the carbon use in nukes and the myth that it is negligible or "clean"

[Honeycombe8]

116. So they import some energy. Like we don't? We import MOST of ours.

The French have been using nuclear energy for decades, I think. I don't believe it's a big problem, but I'll read up on it (like it's totally my decision, right? Ha.)

It is the only clean energy solution that produces massive amounts of energy. Solar? Talk about expensive, if you compare energy output to cost. And it's not the sort of system that can produce massive amounts of energy across the country. Wind? It's off-an-on energy that is not totally reliable, and doesn't have great output compared with the equipment and space required. It also kills birds.

There is no perfect solution. None. I heard someone on TV say that he thought the solution would be a combination of types of alternative energies. That makes sense to me. And that would include nuclear.

[Liberation Angel]

29. Another study on infant mortality (deaths) after nuclear plant startups

http://www.radiation.org/reading/08spring_ijhs_mississippi.html

[uponit7771]

30. That's in America not the rest of the planet, the French do it the safe way

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Perhaps well intentioned sane French do so better than well intentioned sane Americans

All bets are off if criminal behavior becomes involved; either through cost cutting graft, criminal insanity, or terrorism. And many serious design flaws are never sufficiently studied or understood except in hind sight, when the chickens finally come home to roost. I once had a copy of N.A.S.A. risk factor calculations for shuttle launches that was done pre Challanger. It was a hundred fold different post Challanger.

It was once standard procedure for shoe stores to x-ray children's feet to get a proper fit. It was considered good medicine at the time to prevent problems young growing feet might otherwise experience. It was a positive technological breakthrough until well after the fact the overall increase in cancers was finally compiled and tabulated.

[Liberation Angel]

37. The French are IMPORTING energy right now due to failures in their nuke systems

The idea that the french have done it right is industry propaganda:

read this report:http:

//www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/frenchnf2008.pdf

[Occam Bandage]

39. France is currently the world's largest net exporter of electricity.

Yes, they import some electricity. And they export far more than they import.

[Liberation Angel]

55. See my post below # 51, Right now you are wrong

nt

and the problem will only get worse

ALSO I did find report on greenhouse gases from the nuclear industry saying they are far higher than the propaganda would have you believe.

All in all they are the worst technology for energy imaginable. (except maybe soylent energy, which is a good comparison)

[Occam Bandage]

66. Last week, sure. It's hot. Given that the heatwave is over, I'm sure EDF will remain positive

for the month, to say nothing of the year. Given that France is still the world's biggest exporter of energy, and given that there's never been any French safety or health concerns, don't you think that's a pretty strong argument?

[Liberation Angel]

70. Once again your claim that all is well with France's nukes is wrong

and once gain I refer folks to the www.NIRS.org website that has pdf studies on France's nuclear problems

I realize that these post back and forths are a war of attrition and I can't really win them without help.

But i am trying.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Why? Your claim that they were importing turned out to be insignificant.

The claim that "they've been having problems" turned out to be nothing more than a regular safety shutdown of non-coastal plants during a heatwave. Given that our coal plants are belching waste of all sorts into the skies every day, it certainly seems like all is well by comparison.

[Milspec]

117. Given that our coal plants are belching waste of all sorts....

I agree, and that waste includes Radon in massive (relatively) quantity's.

[Sugarcoated]

76. It's become the usual DU bickerfest

It's more obvious than you think that several people here just don't want to "lose" the argument. You're backing up your points very well.

My father was in the nuclear industry, and he told me he would never live near one.

[Occam Bandage]

78. Posting that in a subthread where

both of his claims turned out to be absolutely false is amusing. But even outside this subthread, I have no idea how you can say that he's "backed them up very well." He said scientists had found a link between nuclear plants and cancer; it turns out they haven't (he gave a link to an LTTE calling for more research and a preliminary study suggesting mildly high rates of one type of cancer in one county that happens to have a nuke plant). He said France was having problems with their reactors; it turned out they weren't. He said France was importing energy; it turns out they're the largest net exporter of energy in the world and there doesn't seem to be a month in at least a decade where that hasn't been the case. He said Greenpeace had demonstrated problems in the French nuclear industry; they hadn't provided any evidence for any claim but if a plant were to fail then unspecified problems would occur. At this point in the discussion, he's doing nothing but posting a link to a Greenpeace site and saying "well there's information here."

Grading arguments in which one is a member is obviously impossible to do objectively, but I can say that I can't recall an argument recently in which my counterpart posted more frequently yet provided so little factual resistance to anything I've posted.

[Liberation Angel]

93. You claim my data is absolutely false? And where's data saying radiation is SAFE for children

and other living things?

Or

That the amounts leaked and emitted are SAFE?

That the poison in our children's baby teeth is safe?

Or the strontium 90 in all of OUR tissues?

You want me to prove it is dangerous when YOU cannot prove it is safe.

My position is that it CAN NOT BE PROVEN EVER TO BE CLEAN OR SAFE!!!

Would you allow your loved ones to consume radioactive materials in their food and water?

Would you want it in YOUR food and water and air?

Isn't it well KNOWN that radiation causes cancer?

PROVE that the radiation emitted is NOT causing cancer and birth defects before you thrust it on all of us.

[boppers]

115. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

All living things absorb, consume, and emit radiation.

We already consume radioactive materials in our food and water.

The question is *not* whether or not we have radiation, the question are *how much*, and *what kinds*, and *what effects* happen.

Have a detailed article, covering types, dosages, health effects, etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

[Liberation Angel]

138. which word?

Nukes kill.

[boppers]

157. Radiation.

You don't seem to understand it.

[uponit7771]

31. The science for safe nuke energy exist and has been proven. To ignore it is to be anti science...

...the French have been doing it NEAR perfect for decades there's no reason why the left in America should act like the right when it comes to stem cells on the subject of nuke power

[Liberation Angel]

34. That is patently false, as for the French --- read this report

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/frenchnf2008.pdf


And, oh, if you think Greenpeace does not use sound science, then don't bother.

This report is awesome on the failures of the French nuclear industry

and be advised that right now the French have to import energy due to nuke system failures.

"Near perfect..."

baloney

[Occam Bandage]

40. The French are a net energy EXPORTER, which your report happens to ignore. Ditch the propaganda. nt

[Liberation Angel]

47. Not right now. 1/3 of their plants are closed and they are IMPORTING

The French Nuclear Medusa

A Third of French Reactors out of Action as Heat Wave Persists

One third of France's 58 reactors are out of action because of a prolonged heat wave that has forced the country to import electricity from Britain. A similar problem occurred during prior heat waves, exposing the vulnerability of such a heavy reliance on one technology to deliver electricity. Water is used to cool reactors but when water temperatures rise too high, reactors must shut down in the interest of safety. In addition, reactor discharge water temperatures must remain below 24C (75.2F) to avoid harm to aquatic wildlife and habitats.

http://www.beyondnuclear.org /

[Occam Bandage]

48. Right now France exports 7GWh/mo and imports 2.5. (May 2009 figures)

That makes them the biggest net energy exporter in the world.
http://www.rte-france.com/htm/an/mediatheque/vie_publi_mensu_2009_05.jsp

[scheming daemons]

50. The OP will just claim that report is cooked... you can't win with a zealot who ignores facts

[Liberation Angel]

53. See the Facts in my post # 51 FRANCE IMPORTING ENERGY/PLANTS SHUTDOWN

nt

[Occam Bandage]

67. The facts related to one week of energy import? Compare that to the facts of

years and years of consistent energy export. Look up any month and any year you choose; France always exports more than they import. Nuclear power is cheap, safe, and clean. http://www.rte-france.com/htm/an/mediatheque/vie_publi_mensu_2009_05.jsp

[Liberation Angel]

72. www.nirs.org has the real deal on France's "safe.cheap" nukes (not)

www.nirs.org

[Liberation Angel]

51. The London Times 7/4/2009 France Importing Energy as 1/3 of nuke plants shut down

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.ece


France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

[Occam Bandage]

63. Yes, France imports energy. And it exports more than it imports yearly.

Given that EDF is still a major net energy exporter on the year (the biggest in the world), one month of importing a bit more during a heatwave doesn't really mean much. Moreover, your earlier claims that France was "having problems with its nuke plants" is proven absolutely false by the article; they're working as intended, and they always shut down when river water becomes too hot to use.

[Liberation Angel]

69. If you think shutting down due to overheating is not a "problem"

or that these shutdowns will not continue to occur and affect the net import/export ratio, then so be it.

The fact is that once these shutdowns occur (and they have been occurring year after year) the costs will outweigh the benefits IMHO.

And with the emissions dangers the health costs too are obviously not worth it.

[Occam Bandage]

71. The plants weren't overheating.

They shut them down to prevent them from overheating, because their water source was abnormally hot, because it was a heatwave. These shutdowns will continue to occasionally happen, every once in a while, but I can't find a month in which France has imported more energy than it's exported, even looking at the summer months over each of the last six years. Try it yourself. Forget finding a year in which France imported more than it exported. Can you find a month?

http://www.rte-france.com/htm/an/mediatheque/vie_publi_mensu_2009_05.jsp

I have no idea how you can say "the costs will outweigh the benefits" when even in months when shutdowns are most likely to occur France exports more energy than it imports.

[Liberation Angel]

100. They shut them down to prevent them from overheating

Okay - my point exactly.

The nukes were NOT working "perfectly" AND France did have to import power.

The REASON that they usually maintain a small balance of exporting power is that they get huge amounts of power using renewables and fossile fuels (mostly renewables). (which represents about 1/4 to 1/3 the energy produced by the nuclear plants)

If they did not have the renewables and fossile fuel plants (especially now) it looks like they they would NEVER produce enough with nuclear to get a positive balance of outflow vs inflow of energy produced.

It is disinegenuous to claim this is because of nukes. it is BECAUSE they have alternatives to nukes which do not overheat.

The renewable energy is what keeps them in the plus column


and BESIDES

I am not arguing that nukes don't produce energy and lots of it.

I am saying the systems are far from perfect and are in fact too expensive, unreliable and deadly .

as for cost/benefit I am talking both the wretched economics of nuclear energy and the the death tolls of thse exposed to the radioactive effluents and emissions.

[uponit7771]

182. We dont' need "perfect" when it comes to nuke power just when it comes to thier safety and that done

[Oregone]

54. Just put them places we dont care about

Like Branson, Miss.

[Liberation Angel]

56. Like NYC or Miami

or Long Island Sound

[RC]

60. After reading all the posts here, I now understand why the OP said 'nukes'

instead of the correct term 'nuclear'. He is trying to tie 'nukes' as in nuclear missiles (Bad) with 'nuclear' power plants (Not so bad) by calling the power plants 'nukes'. Confusing the terminology, confusing and muddy the discussion is a propaganda technique.

Nuclear power plants do not emit radiation any more than the brick schools you attended for the first 18 years of your life.
The French recycle their spent fuel, we do not. That is why we have so much more spent fuel to deal with.

I don't know what the answer to our energy problem will be, but I do know solar and wind are stop gaps until we figure something else out.
Burning coal, oil or natural gas is not the answer either because there is only so much hydrocarbons in the ground.
Solar and wind are too unreliable; clouds, night and fickle winds.
Growing stuff for fuel? Look at ethanol for your answer to that question. Ethanol is not working out so well. It takes too much land, too much energy to produce. Until we can produce ethanol without using hydrocarbons as an energy source anywhere in the process, it is a losing proposition.

That doesn't leave a whole lot for a solid, dependable long term energy source now does it?

[Liberation Angel]

65. Because I grew up in a community full of "nukes" which referred to the power plants

and I was alive when the "no nukes" concerts were held opposing nuclear power.

This is such a silly critique and wrong.

The idea that nuclear power is "not so bad" is exactly the point: people are confused and misinformed on this.

Bg lies are repeated over and over and people fall for them.

But new studies show that we can go 100% renewable/solar by 2050!

THAT is what we should be sending our money on.

NOT nukes.

Anyone who thinks letting their children (or their loved ones) eat, breathe, and drink and swim in deadly, mutagenc, and carcinogenic radioeffluents and emissions is really beyond my reaching or beyond hope.

THAT is what nuclear power is.

Renewables, conservation and solar is where we need to be spending our tax dollars and accruing debt if we have to.

[Sugarcoated]

89. ...

". . . Anyone who thinks letting their children (or their loved ones) eat, breathe, and drink and swim in deadly, mutagenc, and carcinogenic radioeffluents and emissions is really beyond my reaching or beyond hope."

Agreed. It's beyond understanding how one could justify using nuclear energy if it does this to human beings.

[Liberation Angel]

96. It is absolutely disgraceful and 1 scientist called for nuremburg type trials

of nuclear industry execs.

That is how bad that scientist believed it was after doing his research.

MILLIONS and MILLIONS ar dying from cancers caused by these things AND many infant deaths and birth defects.

[SidDithers]

85. Subtle as a brick, eh?...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

61. The BIG LIE that nukes are "Green" or zero carbon emission: report

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf


Because it is a pdf I can't figure out how to cut and paste the conclusions but my recomendation is that you read the abstract and then scroll down to the conclusion.

The conclusion is that nukes are by no means clean or carbon emission free and that renewables are the best in terms of carbon emissions.

[Liberation Angel]

73. France's Reactor problems: greenpeace study

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/eprbriefingfinal1108.pdf

[Occam Bandage]

75. That's a laughable attempt at propaganda.

All bombastic generalities, and nothing resembling data. "If this part were to break, it could be very bad" is not informative, and that's the closest it ever comes to explaining what is wrong with that particular reactor. No shit, and if all my car's wheels were to fall off while I was driving that would be very bad as well, but that isn't a strong argument against the existence of cars.

[Liberation Angel]

94. Greenpeace is a reliable source and has world class scientists who care about humanity

unlike the nuke industry which has NO interest in anything but power and money

[Sugarcoated]

77. Angel

It's become the usual DU bickerfest

It's more obvious than you think that several people here just don't want to "lose" the argument. You're backing up your points very well.

My father was in the nuclear industry, and he told me he would never live near one.

[Liberation Angel]

80. Why Cancer Rates in the Hamptons are So High: report

yWHY CANCER RATES IN THE HAMPTONS ARE SO HIGH


http://www.radiation.org/journal/nuclink_sept14.htmlVolume 1, Number 1
September 14, 1998
Published by RPHP
PO Box 60 Unionville, NY 10988
Editor: W.L. McDonnell
http://www.radiation.org

WHY CANCER RATES IN THE HAMPTONS ARE SO HIGH
By Jay M. Gould, Director,
Radiation and Public Health Project

Residents of the affluent East End of Long Island, including the Hamptons---the summertime watering hole of the rich and famous--were recently shocked when informed by the New York Cancer Registry that they were now experiencing extremely high age-adjusted incidence rates for cancer of the female breast and male prostate. The rates were in fact about 20 percent above the Suffolk county average.

Why were these rates so high? One very logical explanation is that Long Island had nearly a half-century of exposure to both toxic pesticides and documented emissions of strontium-90 from reactors at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Suffolk county and from three troubled Millstone reactors located on the Connecticut shore across the Long Island Sound 11 miles north of the town of Orient on the eastern tip of Suffolk County.

Back in 1990, the New York State Cancer Registry was pressed by Suffolk county legislators Michael Tully and Thomas DiNapoli to publish age-adjusted breast cancer incidence rates for the years 1978-87 for every one of 62 communities which make up the county. These figures revealed that there was a cancer cluster just south of the BNL reactors made up by the five adjoining towns of Brookhaven, Bellport, Shirley, Medford and Yaphank.

The combined cancer rate for these towns was 30 percent higher than the county average, and could not be dismissed as a chance result. In fact its significance was heightened by another statistic: Age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rates in the files of the National Cancer Institute for Suffolk county had registered an extraordinary increase of 40 percent since 1950, when the BNL reactors began operating. The corresponding national increase was only one percent. Residents of these above-mentioned five towns are now suing BNL for one billion dollars, following an admission in 1995 that groundwater flows from the Lab had contaminated private water wells in these towns. Subsequent revelations of high levels of strontium-90 found within the 25 square mile area occupied by the Lab led to denunciation of the BNL managers by Senator D'Amato. The managers were dismissed early in 1998, amid widespread fears that Long Island drinking water may have been contaminated.


----

In the Fall of 1998, the Cancer Registry announced that their analysis of the updated age-adjusted cancer incidence for all small areas for this six year period found no cancer cluster near BNL but that the East End, more than 70 miles east of BNL, was now the only significant cancer cluster in the county.
But again, no data were provided for the various towns in the county to check this surprising finding.

It is at this point that, with a small grant of $5000 from the STAR board, I found that there was indeed an alternative source of information on current cancer rates for each of the more than 100 Zip code areas in Suffolk county. My analysis of these rates, adjusted for differences in age, for each Zip code area in the North and South Forks--making up the East End and along the north shore of the county--did confirm that there was indeed a malignant force affecting these areas, but that it was clearly directly correlated with distance from the troubled Millstone reactors on the Connecticut side of the Long Island Sound.

[Sugarcoated]

86. This is so fucking wrong.

[Liberation Angel]

95. If you read the studies and reports at the "Journal" link at www.radiation.org

You will find many more like this which are well researched and really really scary.

Most people are not familiar with this which is why I am fighting so hard to get it on the radar here.

But the pronukers have the unrec button and the chutzpah to say it is really good for us and to keep this issue marginalized.

If enough people act up then maybe we can change this.

But the unrec issue makes it damn near impossible

so tell your friends to join this poll and help out.

[Sugarcoated]

97. Thanks for devoting time to this

It's a big environmental issue for me because I care about the health and well being of not just my family, but others, so I'll do what I can.

WTF is the unrec feature devised for? And what kind of selfish uncaring DU'ers would marginalize an issue that would educate people on radiation exposure in their fellow human beings? Fellow Democrats yet? It's disturbing.

[Liberation Angel]

103. This is a very important issue to me: my two children were diagnosed with radiation related illness

by an MD who specialized in thyroid problems.

he concluded that it was because we swam at a public beach near a nuclear reactor which was emitting radionucleides that damage the thyroid and the immune system causing metaoblic syndrome and immunodeficiencies.

Joe Mangano at www.radiation.org has the same metabolic syndrome or condition caused, he believes, by radiation. So he got together with scientists to try to determine whether that can be proven. It can.

But in my case my wife and kids were diagnosed with the condition and the MD determined that radiation as the probably cause.

I started researching nukes in the 70's after a report said it was affecting sperm counts in local men. That made me pay attention.

And in the late '70's there was a massive leak in my hometown and my girlfriend got sick and had a miscarriage.

So these bastards may well have killed one of my own babies.

another friend who lived right next to the plant and grew up there delivered to bouncing deformed babies (only one recovered with surgery - the other remains to this day unable to speak or walk and is a paraplegic due to birth defects. They could see the nuke plant from their private community beach on long island sound.

My experience may be anecdotal but I have read the research.
Anyone who says radiation emissions and effluents are safe r that nukes are "green" is either really ignorant, invested in it, or they work for the industry.

It may not be their fault. But it may be wilful deceit and/or ignorance.

Peace

[Sugarcoated]

161. Seems no pro nuclear posters want to deal with those facts

and the data that back them up. Higher cancer rates okay? Only if it's not your family, right?

Sorry to hear about your experiences. Nuclear power plants are major fail.

[Liberation Angel]

168. Thanks - that's for sure based on this survey

The fact that so many Duers are unaware of these facts or simply don't care when people are hurt by this industry is really horrible.

[SidDithers]

84. I support nuclear energy...

but you should feel free to start another 10 or 15 anti-nuke threads.

Sid

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. Strong supporter here. n/t

[Liberation Angel]

92. C'mon prosolar anti-nuclear green folks. PLEASE vote PRONUKES WINNING!

and I simply do not believe that this could be the case at DU.

Of course this is an excellent case study in how the unrec feature might operate.

Right now there are more pro recs than unrecs!

even though the vote tally says there is a two to one support for nukes.

Curious except that I guess people can rec or unrec without voting OR rec because they think pronukes will win or because they WANT NO NOKUKES to win.

BTW can one change their vote from rec to unrec?

[Sugarcoated]

99. More importantly

is what President Obama does. He and his energy people, I'm sure, will look at the facts, look at not just monetary cost but the cost to human health. One of the reasons I'm a Dem is because I believe we put people over $$$, and I can't imagine Obama, et al, will not do the same. They seem to me to be looking at Nuclear with reservations.

[Liberation Angel]

101. As I said in the OP, the pronuke republicans and dems are holding the energy bill hostage

they want $50 BILLION for this inane and deadly technology.
Getting folks here to get it on the greatest page and the front page MIGHT have gotten some dems and activists to learn something and fight this thing.

But as I suspected the unrec button is keeping this from getting any real exposure except on this one forum

(and only if pro-renewable antinuke folks keep it kicked)

so a little help is always welcome

I feel a little like s voice crying in the wilderness here

so you support is appreciated very much sugarcoated!

So is your OUTRAGE!

which I share

[slipslidingaway]

126. Gave a rec for more exposure and because the thread was

stuck in a loop...and could still be if you get another unrec.


Do not want to distract from the topic, but I agree about less exposure across forums.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6041515&mesg_id=6041515

"...it just gets stuck in a loop on the same forum.

Posted this a few times, this is how I used the GP and I would start a new post about it, but it would get rec'ed and unrec'ed and most likely never make it to the left side of the GP, where people from different forums might see it and comment..."

In edit - now back down to 4 recs - the thread had a couple of minutes at the top of the latest/greatest page and now it is gone.

[NeedleCast]

211. Awww, taking your ball and going home now that your team is losing?

[Liberation Angel]

254. not just yet --- ninth inning and maybe overtime

we are not doing so bad given the pro corporate contingent here

[PolNewf]

104. Nuclear power > Coal power

100% renewables would be great but it is going to take a long time with major infrastructure needs which will require many incremental steps (if it ever happens).

Waste is an issue with nuclear but it is also an issue with coal plus all the crap that coal throws into the atmosphere.

My pie in the sky preference would be wind\solar\hydro\geothermal. My realistic preference is nuclear.

[Liberation Angel]

221. Neither is necessary but coal is safer than mutagenic and carcinogenic nukes

Renewables and solar are NOT pi in the sky. They are achievable 100% in our lifetimes.

But people have to work w=towards that.
as long as we support the trillions of dollars for nuclear we can NEVER invest what we need to in renewables and solar to make it happen before we totally destroy the planet.

[Liberation Angel]

105. Out of 100,000+ Duers only 36 oppose nuclear subsidies and power?

Pitiful

[spoony]

106. If you only wanted one side

You probably shouldn't have started a poll.

[Fearless]

107. This isn't some Side X or Side Y issue. It's much more complicated...

First, if you are "pro-nuke"... You could still be for or against this funding loan. You might be for the loan because you know that a large percentage of this nation's power comes from nuclear power and that if funding were to disappear, we would have a power shortage crisis in the short term as well as a price explosion in the short and mid-long term.

If you're against the loan but "pro-nuke", it is likely because you reason that nuclear plants are not cost effective currently and you want to effect change in that fashion. Streamlining processes, etc.

Then if you're "anti-nuke" and anti loan you might be that because you are against nuclear in all its sources and don't want to endanger the environment or the world either through melt downs or the proliferation of nuclear materials, nuclear weapons, and / or the disposal of nuclear waste.

And finally if you're "anti-nuke" but pro-loan money, it is because while you may be anti-nuke you realize that stopping funding will actually create a bigger danger regarding loose nuclear materials and meltdowns, etc. aforementioned.


---

SO needless to say, it isn't so clean cut.

[Liberation Angel]

135. well thanks for weighing in

at his hour i think there are too many double negatives for me to respond intelligently to that post.

But I am not sure it is as complicated as it is presented;


Nuclear plants release deadly radiation

The more plants that are online will mean more dead civilians

I propose DUers oppose deadly nuclear energy technologies when renewables can be brought on line.

[Fearless]

160. My statement was that there should be more than two options

because there are more than two points of view. I described four typical points of view regarding nuclear technology. I actually didn't even weigh in myself.

[Liberation Angel]

197. t I wanted to see whether people supported the $50 BILLION for Nukes Obama my support

And so an up or down vote or don't know enough seemed the best way.

This is in the energy bill debate right now

[boppers]

108. K&R. Science should be common knowledge in our society,

Knee-jerk anti-science viewpoints should be met with tolerance, and education. As long as we still have people running around screaming that atoms are fundamentally more, or less, evil depending on their particular isotopes, we need to keep talking about the topic.

[mvd]

109. Hi, Liberation Angel

In concept it is good, but I feel we need to eliminate the risk of meltdown and radiation leakage. Plus, the reactors aren't exactly visually appealing.

[boppers]

110. Pebble beds seem to be much better than rods...

As far as visually appealing, are you referring to the cooling towers? The ponds? Some other architectural element?

edit: missed a word

[mvd]

111. Cooling towers

There's a plant a few miles from me.

[boppers]

112. One idea I saw floated a bit back was building *inside* of mountains.

Bore the cooling shafts up from inside, a mountain winds up being "off limits" for logging/mining (etc.), there's massive amounts of protection from explosion, and a great deal more of natural containment... however, I think costs might have been a problem.

[mvd]

114. Hope that can be explored further

It would be great if we could perfect this technology.

[Liberation Angel]

139. Why?

Why support technology that irradiates children and pregnant women?

[mvd]

144. I said in my first post that I don't think it's safe enough

But if true advancements come with safety in mind, that would be a positive. Trouble is, I don't think enough focus will be on safety.

[eqfan592]

206. LOL! Gotta love THAT loaded question...

...See, this is where some "progressives" turn into the same freepers they love to hate.

Anyway, I think global warming is such a large issue that we can't afford to set aside ANY possible way of curbing our CO2 emissions. More research needs to be made when it comes to "nuke" power and making it cleaner/safer, but I'm far from totally opposed to it. The question you posted above shows that you have become unreasonable when it comes to this subject. Your emotions have taken over, and you have no ability to see any other point of view other than your own.

[Liberation Angel]

220. How does being opposed to nuclear subsidies and new plants make me a FREEPER?

Jeez, talk about ridiculous.

Unreasonabale?

I have spent many many years studying this issue:

I worked in the industry

I worked on NRC hearings

I worked on Congressional staff doing environmental safety hearings on nukes

I worked in environmental medicine reviewing the evidence with experts

i worked with some of the top scientists in the country on this subject

Hardly am i unreasonable nor have my emotions "taken over".

When you or your children are seriously damaged by nuclear emissions and effluents and yu have radiation from this industry in your bones and organs which are killing you or your loved ones (and have kiled MANY friends and family and loved ones in my community) then you might understand how "Reasonable" I am actually being.

[boppers]

118. 62% for isotopes, 36% against isotopes.

Kicking for more voices, and more perspectives.

[Liberation Angel]

146. really sad about this

i am quite disappointed

[wroberts189]

119. Recd ..invest in solar and cold fusion... and batteries. nt

[DRoseDARs]

122. Im generally opposed, but I like Pebble bed reactors. Radioactivity is contained in a graphite shell

and if it weren't for the heat, you could hold them in your hand safely. Like any nuke technology, there are risks, but in my view this is the safest with regards to the radioactivity. Living in Nevada, we care about such things considering the rest of y'all want to dump your radioactive shit in our state for the next few millennium...

Nuke reactors aren't going away. 100% renewable/clean energies would be nice, but aren't going to happen this century, probably not next century either. Coal/oil will be around for a long time yet, as will the "dirtier" forms of nuke tech. On the bright side, fusion tech is already in the proof-of-concept phase as a number of small-scale reactors are being planned or currently built. Commercialized fusion could happen in the next 15-25 years but won't provided sizable fraction of our energy needs for decades because of the cost.

[MrSlayer]

125. Yes. Lots of jobs are created building and running nuke plants.

And they are a lot safer and cleaner than people think.

[avaistheone1]

130. That's a bunch of baloney.

[DRoseDARs]

131. You'd be correct if it weren't for the fact that you're wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020111927AA32Ufm

"A new nuclear power plant on average employs 1,400 to 1,800 people during construction (with peak employment as high as 2,400) and employs 400 to 700 people long-term, at salaries typically substantially higher than the average salaries in the local area."

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/economicbenefitsofnewnuclearplants/

[MrSlayer]

164. No, it isn't.

[Liberation Angel]

174. These jobs are deadly and dangerous, when the plants are online

If you think radiation is "clean" you have a lot to learn.

Many many of my friends worked in the industry growing up, as I did. I worked with the environmental medicine folks when i worked there.

There is nothing clean or safe about these plants when they are operating. If you are building or working on a site which is operational then you get much more potential exposure to radiation, (Federal regulations permit on site workers to get between 5-10 Xs the amount of radiation as those outside the fence.

[and-justice-for-all]

128. Clean and safe nuclear power yes, warheads...NO..nt

[avaistheone1]

129. There is no such thing as clean and safe nuclear power.

People put on your thinking caps.

[and-justice-for-all]

132. Sorry, but there can be safe and clean nuclear power...

The plants of today are nothing like Chernobyl or Long Island plants.

Even with a "meltdown" there is not fear of an explosion.

[Liberation Angel]

133. +the emissions do not make us sick?

Wow,what imaginary world is that?

[and-justice-for-all]

143. Uh, those are cooling towers...not toxic gases

I understand your concerns, mine is with the waste.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power3.htm

[Liberation Angel]

152. Why are radiation emissions from nuke plants NOT toxic gases?

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A25691

They ARE toxic emissions. Not from the cooling towers necessarily (the plants where I grew up had no cooling towers - only stacks for emissions and pipes into long island sound for effluents.

I have no idea what leads you to believe radioactive emissions are not toxic gases and particulates.

[and-justice-for-all]

162. Buh bye...nt

[Liberation Angel]

193. vaya con dios

[Sugarcoated]

153. Higher cancer rates around nuclear plants

you can look the other way, but the stats are there.

[Liberation Angel]

134. People put on your thinking caps. $$$ for NUKES or $$$ for solar

wtf?

are folks here at du THAT stupid?

[wroberts189]

140. No they just do not understand the dangers involved. nt

[Liberation Angel]

150. so its ignorance?

i agree to some extent.

but the nuke industry has HUGE propaganda responsibility for mis- and disinformation.

[wroberts189]

156. There was an article in Science magazine I believe...

or some other publication and the topic is what would happen if every human suddenly disappeared.

One of the first things was the meltdown of every nuke on the planet. People do not realize the power rods have to be power cooled .. even the waste.

That's why they put them near bodies of water.

That in itself freaks me out .. no power or backup ...meltdown.

Most people I talk too have no idea about this.

[Liberation Angel]

172. Yeah its scary. One good natural disaster or terrorists could make a hell on earth

People have no idea how insanely dangerous this technology is..

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

136. I'm ambivalent. I think that nuclear energy is viable and the challenges could be met.

It's just that I don't think they will be. My father was a nuclear engineer in the navy, one of the first. He worked under Rickover and was a member of the first crew of the Enterprise. We talked about the civilian program quite a bit and he thought that the whole thing was a wasted opportunity. He felt that there are two major problems. The first is that there isn't a standard reactor/plant design. This means that every plant has a different design and thus when you find and fix a problem in one plant it doesn't improve the whole system of plants. Standardization is one of the reason that the French system of reactors seems to work better. Second, he thought there wasn't enough regulation of how the plants operated. Of course we've seen the results of that.

In the end it could have/may work, but I doubt that DC will have to balls to do it right. Of course the whole waste disposal problem is still there since Yucca is a big failure. So, meh...

[Liberation Angel]

137. Exactly! Meh!

Meh to nuclear power.

It kills.

and there is NO doubt about that

[wroberts189]

141. How about we all listen to Al Gore..

NO NUKES

[Liberation Angel]

149. absolutemente!

gore rocks!

[kristopher]

142. Here is some valuable information - nuclear is 3rd tier technology for carbon

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Liberation Angel]

147. good analysis except...

to say that nuke are good with respect to health is a blatant fallacy.

When you factor in the health risks and other dangers nukes are the worst.

But with respect ONLY to CO2 emissions this study is excellent.

They haven't factored in the noncarbon radiation spewing from these plants into our air, water and soil (where it gets in our lungs, pores, food, bones, blood and soft tissues killing us.

It is kinda like saying cyanide is safe and healthy because it has no CO2.

Otherwise a ood analysis IMO.

[Greyhound]

145. No. Too expensive too inefficient keeps control of our power supply in too few hands

and still no solution for the waste products.

Bad business all around.

[Liberation Angel]

148. thanks greyhound

i keep hoping folks get this

[Greyhound]

158. You're welcome,

Here's another :kick:.

[Liberation Angel]

188. cool and thanks

nt

[Sugarcoated]

151. What about higher cancer rates in the surrounding areas of

the plants, higher radiation findings in babies teeth, removed fillings in adults? Who here will be okay with the waste near their home?

[Liberation Angel]

154. MIT study on Radioactive emissions from nuke plants (Proof positive)

This study is an in depth analysis of what is emitted and how much (at the time of the study). Since most of this data is from plants then operatind (and no new plants have come online since Three Mile Island) then you can rely on this data for evidence of what is STILL being emitted from commercial nuke plants.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/32995/MIT-EL-79-014-06523632.pdf?sequence=1

For those who are not aware of the fact that nukes emit toxic and man made radiation regularly and as a part of the nuclear fuel cycle (in the course of business as usual) here is some hard data.

[boppers]

159. Measuring in Curies, not differentiating between harmful and harmless...

It's a very 70's paper, kind of outdated, but still interesting reading, in that the researches took a holistic view of total amounts of radiation involved in the life cycle.

That being said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when "radiation" is something feared, rather than examined.

[Liberation Angel]

155. Pronukes are still winning but still no greatest page/unrec wins

the unrec button wins again to marginalize this issue

[Sugarcoated]

163. A kick

to make people aware that cancer rates are higher around nuclear power plants. That's FAIL

[Sunnyshine]

165. No - to the ultimate gamble. In Waste we trust? That might be a more fitting motto for humanity.

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of nature already. It rules, with all its essential qualities and insurmountable powers.
Hedging against these unstoppable forces- along with known/unknown risks, and accepting them in spite of having factual/historical knowledge against its use. The avoidable scenarios alone- are enough to make me shiver, much less if the unavoidable happens.

We are obligated to protect, isolate, shield, refrigerate, monitor, study, and baby sit that shit for like the next millennia...or so.

Be one thing to be wiped away by the occurring and destructive energies that we can not control.
We'd be pissed if we shut down the planet from producing and controlling said destructive energies.

[Liberation Angel]

175. The wastes are dangerous for 250,000 years. All recorded History is only 5000 years

The insanity and cost of having to protect the waste for such periods is obvious.

This technology is pathologically insane when one sees the consequences.

Not to mention the deaths and cancers and miscarriages caused now.

[Sunnyshine]

184. Yup. It is crazy. Nuclear and Fossil fuels are both unacceptable risks. They are killing us .

Between the two- we won't stand a chance in the long run because humans capabilities are so very limited in comparison to nature.

[ZombieHorde]

166. Nuclear power plants attract giant monsters.

Everyone knows this, but people rarely mention it. I wonder why.

[Liberation Angel]

170. Terrorists, corporofascists, mad scientists, baby mutations

yessir they sure do

[RBitt]

167. James Lovelock on the subject

The author of Gaia and other pearls of wisdom...
found here:

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovebioen.htm

Sometimes what we want and what we need are two different things. Also see
Lester Brown's ( The Whole Earth Catalog founder) site:

http://www.earth-policy.org/

both offer a sober and chilling view of the choices we face. Go with an open mind.
Don't get angry, get busy...

[Liberation Angel]

169. Lester Brown (from your link) on "The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power"

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update78.htm

[Liberation Angel]

171. Lovelock also says environmentalism is becoming fascism and renewables are imaginary

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/03/31/an-attack-of-the-bellamoids/

George Monbiot says the 90 year old Lovelock is irrational and eccentric.

When Lovelock says environmentalism is becoming fascism and that "renewables do not exist" and are imaginary, you can see Monbiot's point.

Lovelock has lost all credibility and is now a shill for the industry.

If there were no dangers from nukes and the radiation they spew, then the degree of greenhouse gases they emit or produce (in the total cycle) might be more acceptable than coal or natural gas. But they DO produce greenhouse gases AND they emit carcinogenic and mutagenic radiation into the atmosphere as part of their regular operations. THAT makes them unacceptable.

Lovelock has lost his marbles. Pity.

[Liberation Angel]

173. The power of the unrec button - STILL no greatest page

and at least in theory all disruptors have to do is monitor the rec count and click on unrec whenever it gets to five.

Seems like if the pronukers thought they could win this pol they might let it rise where more people could see it.

I do hope Skinner and friends are watching this thread. I think it can provide a valuable lesson.

I believe that the more people see this thread the more likely it is that the no nukers would win.

But keeping it off the greatest page and the front page means it will not get that visibility and thus (at least on this issue) those who support this industry which is traditionally NOT a left of center or progressive position will win and using the Unrec button helps keep an important issue marginalized.

[high density]

176. I guess that won't stop you from selfishly kicking yourself to the top for a few more days.

I have a pretty good feeling that whether or not this thread makes it to the 'greatest' page has no effect on our energy policy. The new rec/unrec system provides a good balance and it is unfair of you to blast it simply because the votes have not been working overwhelmingly toward your own feelings on the subject.

[Liberation Angel]

178. The only way to et a fair poll is to keep it visible

the more who see it the more will vote and I am confident that the nonues can win this poll.

But it has to be seen.

With unrec, keeping it kicked is the only option.

How selfish is it to unrec something to keep it OFF the greatest page?

[harun]

189. Kick

[Liberation Angel]

191. Thanks harun - the rec unrec button is locked now but the poll can still live

but they could be gaming that too

[harun]

195. Yes it can!

Kick

[Liberation Angel]

196. Indeedy

thanks - will give it a few more spins before this topic dies for now

[Liberation Angel]

177. 71 Pronuke? Really? C'mon Duers. Show the real deal.

Thanks

[scheming daemons]

180. Keep getting your friends signed up at DU until you get the result you want....

:eyes:

It's been several days.... accept defeat and move on.

[Sugarcoated]

183. It's my understanding that one can't vote in a poll

if they've signed up after it's been posted.

Nothing is more worthy than letting people know that cancer rates are higher in the surrounding areas of a nuclear power plant. That should inform their decision on what they think about this issue.

Um, oh, yeah heres one of those :eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

186. And that is why we can win this

however stealth folks could still unrec after they sign up AND they could have already signed up before and just wait to be "activated" or motivated to act.

[rug]

179. If they can't be trusted to get a loan without a government guarantee

why should they be trusted with plutonium?

[Liberation Angel]

181. the nuke industry, like all Big Energy, cannot be trusted

they are monopolies and plan to stay that way.

weapons and power = absolute corruption

(especially when the results are crimes against humanity)

[Liberation Angel]

185. Worst radiation releases in US history: Church Rock, New Mexico 90 MILLION Gallons of radioactive..

Mark the Day! July 16: America's likely biggest - and most forgotten - radioactive accident

1979 is etched in all our memories as the year the U.S. suffered its closest nuclear call when the Three Mile Island Unit 1 reactor melted down releasing radioactivity across Pennsylvania and beyond. But almost no one knows about or remembers the potentially even bigger accident later that same year, on July 16, ironically exactly 34 years after the Trinity atomic test. On this day, in the small Native American community of Church Rock, New Mexico, 90 million gallons of liquid radioactive waste, and eleven hundred tons of solid mill wastes, burst through a broken dam wall at the nearby uranium mill facility, creating a flood of deadly effluents that permanently contaminated the Rio Puerco River.

The spill formed toxic ponds where children splashed unawares, washed across fields where animals grazed and, in entering the Rio Puerco River, flowed on from New Mexico into Arizona contaminating countless communities downstream. Yet five weeks after the accident, the mine and mill operator was back in business. Today, the site's current owner is applying to open a new, in-situ leach uranium mine in Church Rock. Meanwhile, no health study has ever been conducted in the community despite the deadly and long-lasting contamination left behind by the accident.

Why is this accident unknown and ignored? Could it be because it took place in a remote area inhabited by a disenfranchised Native American population seemingly powerless to prevent such race-based discrimination? The dangers of the nuclear waste dam had been flagged but no steps had been taken to prevent this foreseeable disaster. The community has been written off as one of many nuclear sacrifice areas.

Even today, the EPA's preferred quick and dirty cleanup of mine tailings for the Northeast Churchrock Mine site boils down to placing tailings on top of a mountain of tailings at the United Nuclear Corp. mill site. Residents are fighting for clean closure or removal of all wastes to an off-site disposal facility at a cost of $293.6 million.

Please join us in commemorating this accident and in working to stop further environmental racism. Won't you please consider marking the day with activities in your communities? Write letters to the editor or contact a local reporter. Contact Beyond Nuclear for materials or a visiting speaker to educate your congregations and clubs. Refer to the materials posted on the Atomic Discrimination page of our Web site. And please call your U.S. Senators and Representative via the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) and President Obama via the White House Comment Line (202-456-1111). Urge them to block any further subsidies to the nuclear power industry, which would create the demand for more uranium mining that could lead to an expanded nuclear folly and future radioactive disasters like the one at Church Rock 30 years ago.

[Sugarcoated]

187. Kick

[Liberation Angel]

192. Thanks sugar!

the only way to get this seen is to keep it alive.

Those dmn unrecs suck.

They totally shut down any visibility and real debate

[Liberation Angel]

194. Kick for Tuesday DUers

Thanks

[Liberation Angel]

198. Please vote and weigh in before this poll is closed

These guys are wearing me out.

[midnight armadillo]

199. I put strontium 90 on my corn flakes. I love isotopes!

Let's see...coal plants kill 30,000 each year in the US from particle pollution (source: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp)

US nuclear power plants have killed zero people since the first one was built. ZERO. I am dramatically less concerned about radiation and isotopic pollution in the environment than I am about the toxic chemical soup we all live in (dioxins, PCBs, hormone-mimickers, VOCs etc etc etc)

Heck yes, let's build some more of 'em, especially the new-gen ones that are passively safe (i.e. the physics and thermodynamics are such that meltdowns are not possible). Super-critical water cooling? Bring it on. Let's have waste reprocessing too and we'll never run out of fuel or have a waste problem worth worrying about.

The risks from global warming are far, far greater than that posed by nuclear power. I have yet to see a study convincing me that intermittent renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal) can completely replace nuclear/coal/nat gas type power generation for a modern industrialized society. Can you run an arc furnace for steelmaking on solar and wind? I don't know. My preference would be for renewables to power most of our needs, with hydro, geo, and nuclear power generating the rest.

[Liberation Angel]

200. According to these estimates of the European Committee on Radiation Risk - 1 million dead per year

more or less, from cancer and other illnesses

From their summary::


10: The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

12. The committee lists its recommendations. The total maximum permissible dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv, with a value of 5mSv for nuclear workers. This would severely curtail the operation of nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants, and this reflects the committee's belief that nuclear power is a costly way of producing energy when human health deficits are included in the overall assessment. All new practices must be justified in such a way that the rights of all individuals are considered. Radiation exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable using best available technology. Finally, the environmental consequences of radioactive discharges must be assessed in relation to the total environment, including both direct and indirect effects on all living systems.


http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

That is only up to 1989.

By now the numbers will be much higher.

I worked in the nuclear industry. Anyone who thinks there have been no deaths from cancer and other radiation exposure has not one clue what they are talking about.

Operating nuke plants cause cancer and birth defects, infant mortality and spontaneous abortions (it kills foetuses when they are mutated and cannot survive)

Read the reports at the journal link at www.radiation.org and stop talking out of your nether regions.

[Liberation Angel]

201. 83 pronukes, 65 no nukes, 5 dunnos, and 3 recs

and counting

[Liberation Angel]

202. Last chance to vote

before i am beat down and give up this ghost for now

[Liberation Angel]

203. 85 pronukes 65 nonukes 5 dunnos 3 recs

nt

[DRoseDARs]

204. Yeah, we can read the poll too. Too bad you can't deal with the fact that most people AREN'T buying

...into your hyperventilation over nuclear power. Seems most of us realize that 100% renewable energies are a pipe dream for the foreseeable future (though hopefully it's inevitable that we'll have them), so many recognize that nuclear power may well play a large role in weening us off fossil fuels. It's telling that you put on airs your belief that all nuclear power generation relies on 1950's technology and designs. Nuclear scientists have made great effort and taken great strides in refining the concept and making it safer while dealing with the potential environmental pitfalls. You wear your bombastic ignorance of decades of development as a badge of honor and that's sad given just how far nuclear power technology has come and has yet to go. These scientists don't have a tin ear, they know well the stigma their industry bears and they've worked hard to allay concerns. Through science and research, not incessant tone-deaf screeching.

[Liberation Angel]

205. if anything you said was less than tragic hyperbole and excuses

I might be inclined to make more of a response

I have posted the scientific studies and links to show that you are dangerously deluded on this issue.

you ad hominem attack on me has no merit

I have worked in the industry and been involved in regulatory hearings as well as investigative hearings

you are simply wrong either due to lack of unbiased knowledge or some other rationale

[Sugarcoated]

209. Higher cancer rates in folks who live near nuclear plower plants

is worth getting hyper about.

[SidDithers]

219. +1...

Well said.

Sid

[Soylent Brice]

207. no nukes is good nukes.

[Bluerthanblue]

208. until we find a realistic way do cope with the waste- we shouldn't

be building new plants which produce it.- I've said that since before Seabrook went on line here in NH.

We are living in denial- there is STILL no reasonable program in place to deal with all the waste we've accumulated since the first plant went on line.

It's not going to just 'go away'- :shrug:

[Sugarcoated]

212. Exactly

That, along with elevated cancer rates makes nuclear energy a big fail. And you are correct, pro nuclear people here are in denial. It's extremely disturbing to see.

[JerseygirlCT]

215. I'm with you. nt

[NeedleCast]

210. Cleverly worded Poll

I'm pro-nuclear energy.

I am anti-nuclear weapons.

and yes, they are totally seperate issues.

[Liberation Angel]

213. read the question

nothing too clever

[JerseygirlCT]

214. Until they've figured out how to safely dispose of nuke waste

I'll remain as I've been for 30 some odd years: anti-nuke.

[Liberation Angel]

216. thanks jerseygirl - they will never figure that out

there is no way to store it safely for 250,000 years.

The projected cost of that alone and the carbon use for protecting it is staggering.

This problem will never be solved

[mp9200]

217. No

We have too many as it is.

[Liberation Angel]

218. Thanks, mp9200 we are gaining here

little by little

so i am giving it another round to try to get those who missed this earlier

(because of the new unrec feature)

[Sugarcoated]

222. Much higher cancer rates around plants makes nuclear unacceptable.

A kick for truth.

[Sugarcoated]

223. Night time kick

[Liberation Angel]

225. Thanks sugar, we keep getting close

but they keep the numbers steady against us.

I assume that wull continue at about this rate because they do not want to be too obvious

and have Skinner watching their ISP addresses as I hope he will

[Liberation Angel]

229. getting closer

thanks sugar!

[Liberation Angel]

224. 77 NO NUKES, 93 Pronukes = damn!

they seem to keep the vote at @ 44 to 54 percent Pronuke

we still need a few more votes environmentalists.

HELP!

[Liberation Angel]

226. 79! NO NUKES! 93 Pronukers ; (

gaining

but still being gamed...

[Liberation Angel]

228. 82 NO NUKES TO 95 pronukes - CMON Green people ! 100% Renewables. No coal.nonukes!

help this poll and coment

leave your support

the no nukers kept this off the greatest page with the unrec button

but you can vote and keep this going til we beat them!

I KNOW we can.

Not giving up yet

[theboss]

234. Is this poll binding or something?

You might be a little overly passionate about this.

[Liberation Angel]

236. If you read my posts you'd know that nukes emit deadly radiotoxins

you might understand.
My children and family were harmed by effluents and emissions from local nuke plants (according to our doctor).

Ultimately it will likely cause us to get cancer and die early deaths. In the meantime we live with a form of radiation illness.

If your kids were to get sick (and my wife suffered a miscarriage right after a nuke accident in our town) then you might understand why I am so passionate about people understanding what is really at stake and the consequences of supporting this industry.

A vote on support for the industry is coming up.

DU can help make sure Obama does not vote for this death industry when so many better alternatives (not coal) are NEEDED.

[theboss]

239. I meant passionate about the thread

I grew up within three miles of a Coke Plant, a coal by-products plant, a chemical plant, a integrated steel mill, two finishing mills, and a BOP plant. They way I look at it, there are so many toxins in my body right now that I am either going to die next week...or live forever.

Nukes might be the best of a lot of bad options right now.

And you seem to be against all forms of energy production that actually work.

[Liberation Angel]

249. I support 100% renewables which are 100% possible in our lifetime

Nukes are the worst option right now. They take forever to build and cost much more than they can deliver and there is no way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste.

I have posted numerous links on how 100% renewable energy is possible and should be our goal in our lifetimes!

[theboss]

260. How about today?

No one is opposed to 100 percent renewable in our lifetime.

But we still need to keep the lights on today. You are against coal and nuclear. How do you propose to run the country until this goal of 100 percent renewables is met.

And if you say that 100 percent renewables is possible in our lifetime as an answer, I'm throwing a shoe at you.

[johnaries]

231. Pronuke only as an INTERIM option.

Nuclear power creates radioactive waste that we currently have no good way to dispose of in large amounts. Also, mining and refining nuclear fuel is more dangerous than I think most people realize. However, everything I have read and studied makes me believe that 100% renewable energy is a long way off. And we need to lower carbon emissions drastically NOW. So, despite the drawbacks, I think that nukes almost HAS to be a part of any interim energy policy. Just so long as it is a small part and temporary.

I wish we had better answers.

[Liberation Angel]

238. 87 vote NO Nuke, 100 Pronuke.

The no nukes are rising, slowly but surely

so i will keep this up for another day or so to let more folks weigh in.

I honestly think the no nukes will win if enough people read this which is why I was so burnt that the unrec feature kept this off the greatest page where it would have had much more visibility (at least for a few days)

I know I invite the pronuke crowd too when i bump this but that is okay.

They have stopped commenting to keep it unkicked and so i suspect they fear more visibility if more DUers weigh in.

[SidDithers]

241. A deceptively worded poll...

with 22 self-kicks by the OP, and the "pronuke" vote is still higher. Perhaps you need to accept the possibility that a majority of DUers really do support generation of electricity through nuclear energy.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

244. The unrecs kept it off he greatest page/nothing deceptive about this poll

so this is a fine way to do it to get a real sense of opinion.

You gave it lots of play too, sid.

and so far we are catching up.

If it had made the greatest page I believe we would have kicked the industry's asses.

but so far i think the pronukers have drained a lot of their resources and the nonukes will catch up.

pronukers may have kept it off the greatest page but you cannot keep it off the DU entirely.

and i believe we can win this battle.

so keep responding.

[Liberation Angel]

242. kick

[SidDithers]

243. 23 self kicks...nt

Sid

[Sebastian Doyle]

245. Looks like we have 101 new locations for nuclear waste dumps

Right in the basement of who ever voted for this. Because apparently you all believe radioactive waste is "completely safe".

[Liberation Angel]

246. In their refrigerators and bedrooms (ask Karen Silkwood)

that's where they found nuclear waste in her case.

She was an anti Nuke activist and whistleblower who was murdered on the way to give records doctored by the nuke corporation to invetigators showing the plants were not safe.

Her home was found to be full of radiation from the nuke plant (they were trying to poison her and set her up.

Put in between the pronukrs sheets, in their fridges, in their beds, in their genes.

It seems okay with them if we ALL get irradiated and sickened by nuke spewage.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

247. We have enough nukes to blow up the world in one hand

why would we need more!

[Liberation Angel]

248. thanks rosa - well said

nt

[SidDithers]

253. Nope, nothing deceptive about the wording of this poll at all...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

255. given your passion for nukes, it would seem that...

you might at least declare precisely what you cliam is "deceptive" about the wording.

And since the pronukers are presumaby wining (altho it could be getting gamed by industry hacks here) I don't see how you can claim it is deceptive.

Anyone who actually reads the question will know precisely what I am talking about.

Your attempt to denigrate me with aspersions about my honesty and integrity is beneath a fellow member DUer.

[SidDithers]

256. I thought your poll was about nuclear energy...

and that poster has clearly responded about nuclear weapons. That's what's deceptive about your poll, you're conflating two different issues.

And your continuous warnings about the system being "gamed" are fucking laughable. If anyone has "gamed" the poll, it's you, with 23 self-kicks and never-ending cheerleading for your "side". You've been here for all of 3 months, but you've been constantly implying that DU is overrun with "industry hacks" who are "gaming" the system, and conspiring to hold your posts to only 3 recs. You might think you know something about "nukes", but you don't know a damn thing about DU. Hell, asking Skinner to exempt your posts from unrec clearly showed that!

As for your honesty and integrity, well, I don't know you. You're an anonymous poster on a message board, so I have no way of knowing what your true motives are. For all I know, you're a coal industry hack with an agenda to protect that dying industry. As far as I can tell (but I haven't really looked), you haven't posted about any issue other than "nukes", and maybe the unrec feature (but only as it applies to your vanity posts about nuclear energy). Maybe as you develop a history here, your honesty and integrity will be unquestioned. Unfortunately, tho, you're not off to a great start.

Lastly, is it really so fucking hard for you to imagine that liberals of good character have come to an informed opinion that happens to be different from yours? I generally support nuclear energy initiatives, buy I'm certainly not passionate about it. What I am now passionate about, what you've made me passionate about, is balancing the absolutely one-sided, and often deceptive "information" (and I use that term very loosely) that you've been presenting in your single-issue existence on this website.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

257. It IS about nuclear energy as anyone who pays attention can see

I post on a lot of issues

but started this poll precisely because Obama was considering what i consider to be a disastrous compromise to give $50 BILLION DOLLARS in bcking to the nuclear industry.

To me that is insanity and dangerous (as is any policy supporting nuclear energy).

I have posted links, resources, info and my own perspectives.

But I post on lots of issues if you bothered to even look.

Seems like you haunt my antinuke threads and keep them kicked as much as I do (which is fine by me).

The facts on the dangers and lunacy of nuclear power speak for themselves.

i try to counter the lies and the misinformation and disinformation.

Since I am a downwinder and my children were harmed by this (and my wife suffered a miscarriage after a major leak in my community thereby killing my child)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

258. we have about 10,000 warheads that would blast us out of the universe

[Spider Jerusalem]

250. France generates over 90% of their electricity from nuclear energy.

Compare that to the US, or the UK, where over half of all electrical generation comes from coal. Modern reactor designs have a demonstrated record of safety under normal operational conditions, and waste disposal in deep repositories (such as the proposed Yucca Mountain site) is low-risk. Nuclear energy should be part of any sensible plan to move away from fossil fuels and to a low-emission future, especially considering that there are no other comparable methods of low-emission power generation under consideration that could meet capacity needs.

[Liberation Angel]

252. France's Nukes have been a mess recently and their success is a myth (links)

www.nirs.com

examples of reports there:

Reports, Papers and Info You Can Use:

May 2009: Nuclear France Abroad: History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries. A new report from Mycle Schneider Consulting on the expansion of the French nuclear power industry across the world.

EPR: The French Reactor. A Costly and Hazardous Obstacle to Climate Protection. November 2008 report from Greenpeace International on the problems with the French Evolutionary Power Reactor, proposed for Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania and New York in the U.S.

France’s Nuclear Failures: The Great Illusion of Nuclear Energy, November 2008 report from Greenpeace International on the failures of the French nuclear program.

[Liberation Angel]

259. 45% NO Nukes. 52% PRO nukes

still time to vote folks!

I honestly believe the unrec function destroyed this poll and gave it to the pronukers.

But that's life

I accept defeat on that front even though I think the admins will come around sooner or later and see it as a serious error. The downsides far outweigh the upsides.

If this poll had hd more visibility on the greatest page I think manty more would have seen it and voted aganst nukes.

But we can never know now.

Too bad.

Nukes (power plants) kill

[Liberation Angel]

263. Okay - I am almost ready to give this a rest for now - issue is postponed

and while this was posted just as the new unrec function took effect, I believe that the poll was too low profile to get the responses I expected if it had been prominent on the greatest page.

However, the issue remains but as for the energy bill the latest info from www.nirs.org says that the matter has been delayed until after the August recess on Capitol Hill.

So there is still time for folks to inform themselves.

Ihoipe to get a few more votes before i go away on this

thx and please read the links in this thread

[Liberation Angel]

264. almost done

nt