Obama on nuke plant: "all energy sources have their downside .... we saw that with the Gulf spill."

[Better Believe It]

No Nukes Is Good Nukes
by Robert Scheer
March 15, 2011

When it comes to the safety of nuclear power plants, I am biased. And I’ll bet that if President Barack Obama had been with me on that trip to Chernobyl 24 years ago he wouldn’t be as sanguine about the future of nuclear power as he was Tuesday in an interview with a Pittsburgh television station: “Obviously, all energy sources have their downside. I mean, we saw that with the Gulf spill last summer.”

Sorry, Mr. President, but there is a dimension of fear properly associated with the word nuclear that is not matched by any oil spill.

I know there will be an attempt to sell us the argument that the odds of a catastrophic earthquake and a catastrophic tsunami occurring together in an area containing a nuclear power facility are incredibly low, that the Japanese plants in question were of inadequate design and, as in the case of Chernobyl, that “human error” was at fault. Despite the earlier accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, there was a strong tendency to present the Chernobyl disaster as a warning sign not about nuclear power in general but rather the particular failures of a rotting Soviet economy.

After the Japanese experience, such cavalier dismissal of the intrinsic problems of nuclear power is no longer plausible. Recall that it was Obama himself who in October 2009 celebrated Japan as the model for nuclear power expansion: “There is no reason why, technologically, we can’t employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France does it, and it doesn’t have greenhouse gas emissions. …”

Read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_nukes_is_good_nukes_20110315/


-------------------------------------------



Obama Defends Nuclear Power Amid Japan Crisis
March 15, 2011

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is defending nuclear power as an important source of energy in the U.S., even as new questions are raised about its safety following radiation leaks from an earthquake and tsunami-damaged nuclear plant in Japan.

In interviews Monday with Pittsburgh television station KDKA and Albuquerque's KOAT, Obama said nuclear facilities in the U.S. are closely monitored and are designed to withstand certain levels of earthquakes.

"I've already instructed our nuclear regulatory agency to make sure that we take lessons learned from what's happened in Japan and that we are constantly upgrading how we approach our nuclear safety in this country," the president said on KOAT.

However, Obama said that all energy sources have downsides and none are foolproof. He said the U.S. learned that last summer during the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/27205893/detail.html

[Safetykitten]

1. How someone can go from spectacular oratory in the race, but the blandest pablum later is stunning.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PhillySane]

66. He's a gem

[Avant Guardian]

116. Lately he is scared to say anything

Everything he says is scripted anymore.

[LaurenG]

2. He can defend it all he wants but until and unless there are systems in PLACE

to prevent this from happening EVER again, his opinions mean nothing to me.

Does no one think beyond right now anymore? Not even the leader of the free world???

[ElsewheresDaughter]

108. when the fallout poisons our farmlands in a few weeks, he will be singing a different song......

[truth2power]

3. There are just no words....

:eyes:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[truth2power]

73. Yes, that would work. The trouble is that, when I see quotes like this from Obama

I go through a number of iterations trying to figure out how I can respond without violating the rules here.

I mean, we're not supposed to call him a liar. I don't think he's stupid, but to be honest I've come to the conclusion, here of late, that he's not as smart as people make him out to be.

So I go through all the possibilities and just shake my head and say, "There are no words."

[PurityOfEssence]

76. Oh, he's plenty smart enough, and so's Bill Clinton

Raw intelligence isn't a panacea; personality is often a greater asset for a politician, and they both have some serious issues there.

Obama is some kind of concierge or referee; he's simply not a leader. At least Clinton was a leader of sorts and an executive, and that's a much different personality type than legislator.

I am just so spitting mad with the constant broadly-smiling stylemongering, constantly humming the same soothing melody of coming together and reaching out while getting played. It's infuriating. It's ludicrous. The sheer timidity of it all was horrifying enough when he had comfortable majorities and an unseen-for-thirty-years groundswell of anti-conservative fervor. Now that he's met some serious resistance, the expectation of any sane person is to see little but tepid sloganeering and abject submission to the reactionaries.

The reactionaries don't compromise. They need to be fought every inch of the way simply to slow them down. It's like putting up some kind of rearguard or holding action to force the enemy to deploy his forces and prepare for a fight. That never seems to occur to him. He sees that a certain bit of policy will be surrendered, and he starts the negotiation by giving it away first.

The health care battle was an abomination, and belies his supposed desire to really tamper with Medicine Incorporated's choke-hold on our very lives. If he REALLY wanted a Public Option, he would have put it on the table, or better yet, floated single payer and settled for this. No, that would have been the act of either a vertebrate or someone who wasn't part of the problem himself.

It's all so very galling, and to hear people still swoon with rapturous love at what a crusading champion (ha) he is, and how he's going to suddenly morph into a progressive is beyond belief.

Deee-pressing.

[adnelson60087]

86. Yes! 100 percent correct.

[Cameron27]

115. Well said.

"that would have been the act of either a vertebrate or someone who wasn't part of the problem himself."

:thumbsup:

[truth2power]

119. I agree with all you've said, above. "Swoon with rapturous love" gets to me, too...

I voted for Obama (sadly), although it was either that or not vote at all after Gramps partnered with the imbecile. I have a theory about that, too, but for brevity's sake I'll move on.

I saw the emptiness of his rhetoric early on, but I managed to convince myself that it would all work out. What is one to do, after all, because the choices we are given are those approved by the PTB.

I think Chris Hedges nailed it when he said about Obama, "He's weak." I think Obama is conflict-averse, and yes, the whole reaching out and coming together thing drives me nuts, given how dire our situation is at present.

I've never been one to suffer from depression, but lately I seem to be fighting it all the time. I think it's because I read enough to know that we're going down a very bad road and our so-called leaders are complicit in our destruction. What is there to do?

[xxqqqzme]

127. I hear everything you say.

I too, reluctantly, supported his candidacy. I was 'hoping' he was a leader this country so desperately needed, considering, as you state, 'our dire situation'. I too, oddly, find myself deeply depressed. I am chair of our Assembly District's Democratic committee. I struggle w/ finding the energy to inspire others to volunteer, to register voters, to attend meetings, to write a little article for our monthly newsletter. I'm spent. I'm done. Anymore I have no way to pump myself up.

I am beginning to take 'all politics is local' more seriously; as more deserving of my time. I also find it more rewarding. The presidency is so far removed from our district's influence, it is not worthy of our energies.

The city council, county supervisors, state assembly and senate, those are the spheres directly touching our world. Those spheres deserve our focused attention, support and questions. We make it right in our own back yards and we will reap the rewards from the spheres outside our reach.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[GodlessBiker]

4. Was the US military told not to go within 50 miles of the Gulf spill?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. What he "learned" was to appease the corporations and help cover up their crimes.

[wordpix]

65. unfortuntately, it's looking that way

[Better Believe It]

6. White House Resists Calls From Democrats for a Review of Nuclear-Plant Safety

Obama's Energy Policy Faces Pressure
White House Resists Calls From Democrats for a Review of Nuclear-Plant Safety; Official Cites Rigorous Regulations
By JONATHAN WEISMAN And STEPHEN POWER
March 16, 2011

On Tuesday, the White House resisted calls from Democratic congressional leaders for a special review of U.S. nuclear-plant safety in the wake of the Japanese nuclear crisis—a move similar to one ordered by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) on Tuesday called for reviews of U.S. nuclear-plant safety. Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a key Obama ally on environmental issues, demanded information on seismic safety features, including power plants' abilities to sustain cooling functions during a total power blackout, the situation that has crippled reactors in Japan.

White House officials held their ground on Mr. Obama's pro-nuclear energy strategy. Mr. Obama requested the NRC do a "lessons learned" study of the Japanese disaster and to incorporate the findings into the agency's safety reviews.

But, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "He doesn't have to order a review because they're constantly going on."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202443133881196.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

[truebrit71]

24. ..that end quote is eerily reminscent of "we have always been at war with Eastasia.."

...now move along, nothing more to see here...

[wordpix]

67. this is a huge disaster - O's continuous caving to the corporations, I mean

[still_one]

7. Even if Obama feels this way he should shut-up until we see how this unfolds. /nt

[Gravel Democrat]

8. Someone needs to tell Spain what the downsides of solar are

toot suite




The Olmedilla Photovoltaic Park is a large photovoltaic power plant in Olmedilla de Alarcón, Spain. When completed in July 2008, it was the world's largest photovoltaic power plant.<1><2> The plant uses more than 270,000 solar photovoltaic panels to generate 60 megawatts (peak).<3> It produces enough electricity to power more than 40,000 homes.<4>


14 Olmedillas= 1 average nuclear plant.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_output_MW_of_a_nuclear_power_plant

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




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

[wordpix]

68. tell it to the Germans, too

[Chris_Texas]

110. 40 of those = 1 nuke plant?!

[grahamhgreen]

142. Germans have 9 nuke plants worth of solar.

[FourScore]

9. Tell me Obama, what was the downside of solar again? n/t

[Blue Owl]

20. +1

n/t

[Bluebear]

75. +1

[Avant Guardian]

117. Sunburn?

[Bluebear]

143. !

[bahrbearian]

10. Why are we deep water drilling? Why are were spending 35 bill on Nukes ?

[dkf]

11. What is the downside from Solar?

[hifiguy]

13. BP and Exxon don't own the sun nt

[dkf]

16. Ain't that the truth.

They need for us to spend a consistent portion of our money on energy. They don't want us getting solar cells and sitting pretty for years.

[anamandujano]

30. yet

Maybe we should just let them lease it for a hundred years. We'd still have to pay but it would be a bargain saving lives and lessening the misery.

[Bluebear]

51. + + + + +

[yurbud]

59. yep--it can't be monopolized by a few

[aquart]

80. What if we give them a deed to the sun?

Then can we have clean energy?

[ecstatic]

56. Probably that it cannot meet our demands

Americans use a LOT of energy. More energy than many countries combined.

[Hugabear]

63. It's going to supernova in few billion years. Sheesh.

I swear, some people just don't think ahead far enough...

:sarcasm:

[Spider Jerusalem]

84. Apart from the fact...

that replacing existing electrical generating capacity for just domestic use with solar power would require covering an area roughly equivalent to the entire state of Mississippi with solar panels you mean? Replacing total electrical generation capacity would require about 3 or 4 times that. It's not really a viable solution.

[DireStrike]

85. There's no reason every roof in the nation shouldn't be covered in solar panels. nt

[truth2power]

137. Nuclear is not a viable solution, either. In so many ways. instead of

downplaying solar from the get-go, we should be using it (and wind-power) to the extent we can, and working on improving the technology.

You offer a false dichotomy by saying the only answer is to replace total electrical generation capacity with solar. There are many other possible configurations. I agree with the poster below who says every roof should have solar panels installed. No, it wouldn't meet all our needs, but it's a part of it.

Nuclear power plants are not the best way to boil water.

[Norrin Radd]

144. Another downside to solar, for him:

it eats up precious golf course space.

[The Wielding Truth]

12. Honestly how long will it take to get through that we must find safer

renewable energy. If it destroys our environment, is in limited supply or will contribute to breaking our economy, don't use it! Make something else work. Solar,algae,something else. Get on it now.

This is an obvious realization.

[wordpix]

69. we must despoil and overpopulate the ENTIRE planet before they see the evidence

really sad :cry:

[Generic Other]

15. "upgrading how we approach our nuclear safety in this country"

That means turning them all off now and not building new ones. Instead I think he thinks it means, hire more PR people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. If they admit that nuclear safety can now be improved...

...then they concede that the industry has been lying about the safety of American nukes for years and government has been complicit with that. Which begs the question, why should anyone trust what they do or say now?

Sometimes we learn from the last mistake. The problem is that you can't lean from the next one until after it is too late. Whenever it happens, however it happens, there will be voices assuring us that we then will be "upgrading how we approach our nuclear safety in this country"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Lesson to be learned from the Japanese disaster: CYA should be preemptive.

And, upgraded regularly to cope with the reality of meltdowns and irradiated people.

[Better Believe It]

19. And the downside of wind power? A wind tower could go kerplunk and hit someone on their head!

It hasn't happened yet but someone could get injured from a wind tower.

Maybe a blade will fall off and go boom.

[ecstatic]

57. Tremendous noise, nobody wants to be near the turbines... and it kills birds nt

[wordpix]

71. how many birds have wind turbines killed, really? Birds can't see or hear them with all that noise?

??

It's starting to look like a pro-nuke, pro-oil PR plot.

[bullwinkle428]

100. Wind turbines account for 0.1% of all "unnatural bird deaths"!

Wind turbines kill 10,000-40,000 birds per year, while CATS kill HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

And I post this as a cat lover - mine has killed exactly ZERO birds, as an exclusively indoor pet.

[eilen]

145. I'm sure they kill less than the

Deep Water Horizon oil gusher and the following spray of corexit 100 times over. Nevermind the irradiated birds in Japan.

[highplainsdem]

21. Harvey Wasserman, AlterNet & Democracy Now, Feb. 2010, on Obama and the nuclear-energy lobby:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/145813/nuclear_energy%27s_comeback_is_fueled_by_lobbying_dollars,_not_by_safer_or_better_technology/

But $645 million---SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE MILLION---can buy a lot of opinion going one way, and suppresses a lot going the other. Op eds, air time, "independent" reports, phony claims that "green" nukes can solve global warming…not to mention campaign "donations," fact-finding junkets, political fundraisers, K-Street dinners…all can be had for a trifling drip from the mega-slush fund.

The latest payback is Barack Obama's $8.33 billion in promised loan guarantees for two new nukes proposed in Georgia. Two old ones came in at 3000% over budget at a site where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission warns the proposed new ones might crumble in an earthquake or hurricane.

As Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! points out, Team Obama has taken VERY goodly chunks of that $645 million from Chicago's nuke-loving Exelon. Despite his campaign hype for a green revolution, Obama's first two named advisors, David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel, were proud Exelon "associates."

Now Obama wants taxpayers to pony up $36 billion MORE in loan guarantees. (John McCain wants a mere trillion).

That links to this Democracy Now story with Wassermann, Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/18/nukes

HARVEY WASSERMAN: -snip-

And it’s interesting, because we started off with Van Jones. We started off with an industry that was going to make these strides forward. And now we see a complete reversal on the part of the Obama administration. The only explanation we have is that Obama was an Illinois politician. He was backed by Exelon, which is a major nuclear utility. And he seems to have basically completely abandoned the premise on which he was elected, that he would lead a green power revolution. And now he’s gone to an obsolete, dangerous technology with no solution to the nuclear waste problem. You know, Amy, he’s established a commission.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Harvey?

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Harvey, if I can, you mentioned the issue of Exelon, and I think that when you say that folks in the progressive movement are surprised, I wonder how surprised they should be, because I remember back during the presidential primary writing a column about the close ties between Exelon—Exelon is not just a nuclear power industry generator, it’s the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the United States. I think it has seventeen. And the firm was a major—has historically been a major backer of President Obama. And two of his chief aides have ties to Exelon. Rahm Emanuel, as an investment banker, helped put together the deal that eventually merged, created Exelon. And David Axelrod was a lobbyist for Exelon. So there are very close ties between the chairman of Exelon, John Rowe, and the Obama administration. I think even Forbes Magazine listed it, talked about those ties. So I think that the President was very equivocal on the issue of nuclear power during the campaign, but that there was no—there seemed to be—the industry believed he was going to be their salvation.

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, he’s certainly come through for his backers at Exelon there. And it’s a tragedy for him and for the administration, but most importantly, for the American people. We’re seeing the corporate interests flooding through this administration, getting pretty much what they want. And in this case, Obama has done a tremendously destructive about-face of taking the technology of the failed—of a failed technology from the twentieth century and trying to use taxpayer, ratepayer money to foist this on the economy.

-snip-

[Better Believe It]

23. Your post answers a lot of questions about why President Obama is backing nuclear energy. Thanks

[highplainsdem]

27. You're welcome. I've been posting a lot about Republicans pushing for corporate-written

legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). But too many Democratic politicians are influenced by these corporations as well.

[wordpix]

72. yes, it does. As I surmised by his absolutely dismal performance on energy

Bought by the nuke industry.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. My Illinois family introduced me to Obama as Senator Excelon

They are hard core Democrats and they opposed him way back then because they saw him as deep inside the pocket of the nuke industry, and as a user of extremely cynical rhetoric. They said- he says anything, seems to mean something but really stands for nothing.

[Ignis]

34. This really needs its own OP.

[highplainsdem]

36. Thanks! Just posted it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x661758

[truth2power]

113. As another poster here has said, this certainly does need its own OP. n/t

[xchrom]

25. well, that was weak. nt

[DefenseLawyer]

26. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed.

[geardaddy]

29. ....

:rofl:

[kenny blankenship]

28. Always manages to top himself.

"Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."

But they are not, we can all agree, as Presidentially impressive examples of technological advancement as are nuclear power stations. Those things are just awesome. It's like being on the set of a Bond film you know? Ten minutes...and counting...beep...beep. Really cool.

[thereismore]

31. The downside of solar being that oil companies don't make money. So there. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

107. Don't be so sure.

I'd be shocked if they weren't all heavily invested in green technologies. But first they have to drain every cent from petroleum.

[Zorra]

32. More non-change we can't believe in. This is getting ridiculous.

And it is so boring.

All he seems to ever do is carry water for a plutarchal status quo that gets more destructive to the majority of people in the US by the day.

[nc4bo]

33. You know the saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same"

This President is no different.

Somehow, some way we've GOT to get the corporate influence out of our politics!

[bvar22]

35. Obama was NOT defending nuclear power.

He WAS defending the money of the Billionaires in the Nuclear Power Industry....
just like he defended the money of the Billionaires in the Oil Industry during the BP disaster.




You know....his Base.
So what if Working Class Peasants have to Bite the Bullet.
Chess at its finest,
Sacrifice the Pawns to protect the Royalty.



Who will STAND UP and represent THIS American Majority?
Platitudes, Rhetoric, Empty Promises, and Excuses are meaningless now.

"By their WORKS you will know them,"
And by their WORKS they will be held accountable.

[ReggieVeggie]

37. +1

[jillan]

38. Spot on!

[ladjf]

39. "Downside", what an idiot! A major nuclear catastrophe in Japan

could kill everyone in the Country and leave to land uninhabitable for over 200,000 years,not to mention the fallout risks around the world. To refer to the events taking place in Japan today as a
"Downside" reveals a monumental degree of callousness and naivete by the President.

[Hatchling]

40. He's calling the Gulf Oil Spill a "downside"!??!

Can we begin compiling an Orwellian Speak to English DIctionary?

Downside:a disaster caused by global corporations that is minimized to save the corporation money and further the political agenda. ie: 1.a massive oil spill that has contaminated the Gulf of Mexico and is steadily killing the life cycle, destroying the local fishing industries an causing wide spread illness among people expose to the contaminates. 2. a nuclear disaster in Japan whose consequences so far are horrifying, and have every possibility of becoming catastrophic.

Downside!??!

I have to go lie. My blood pressure can't take this!

[uponit7771]

41. "but there is a dimension of fear" from what generation? Thx

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. He HAS TO defend the Nuclear Industry.

He has received a LOT of money from them and he's also from Illinois which has more Nuclear facilities than any other state. He LOVES Exelon. They have donated a ton of money to BO. Money talks and we all know the corporations have all the money to buy the politicians.

[SkyDaddy7]

43. Nuclear has done less damage to the environment than oil,coal & N.gas...

Just saying there is no arguing which has done more environmental damage. No argument whatsoever!

Does not mean I support nuclear or that I am against it...Simply a statement of fact.

[Better Believe It]

45. So do you favor more nuclear power plants or are you against it?

[SkyDaddy7]

46. To be honest...I was 100% for it prior to this...

And I could still be once we know more about the ongoing crisis. I know everyone is worked up and for good reason. However, if we step aside & look at the history of nuclear power it is by far safer in terms of human lives lost & environmental damage than oil, coal & N.gas...It just is!

Even with Chernobyl that plant was built with much much older technology than what would be built today & the biggest factor Chernobyl did not have a containment dome.

This Japanese plant is old tech compared to what would be built here in the future.

However, I would love to see a nation wide safety eval of all 104 operational plants, 250 research reactors & not to mention how many reactors the Navy has powering ships.

What gives me hope for Japan is the International limit for radiation exposure has not been met yet or there would be no workers in there...If we find out later the limit had been reached & they sent them in anyway then of course there will be hell to pay...But we will know eventually...And we will learn a lot from this as well.

I am not ready to abandon nuclear power just yet...I try to keep my emotions in check & look at the facts regardless of what they may say.

[Eric J in MN]

50. The nuclear power companies would use the cheapest design in the future...

...as they have in the past, not the safest design.

The design used in the leaking Japanese plants was also used in the US, and that design hasn't been banned, not even banned from future construction.

[NickB79]

60. In this case, the cheapest design is safer as well

Designs for the next generation of nuclear call for passive cooling of the fuel rods, which eliminates the need for a water cooling circulation system. This is actually cheaper to build than the old designs like the Japanese reactors with their complex installations of cooling pumps, control systems and water recirculation plumbing. They also call for use of thorium as fuel rather than uranium, which also makes it harder to get a runaway fission reaction going like we're seeing today.

[Better Believe It]

61. And how many billion cheap is this design per reactor?

[LAGC]

77. A lot cheaper than solar being deployed on any level of scale.

We have to face it -- modern nuclear reactors are much safer than some of those old Japanese models.

[liberation]

81. What "old Japanese models" exactly? Those reactors melting down were made by General Electric

Also nuclear watt per watt is not that competitive (neither are fossil fuels for that matter) with renewables.

If you take into account the cost of the externalities associated with nuke plants. The cost of mining. refining, transporting and then disposing of the fuel. The actual cost of building a nuclear plant and the maintenance required per hour of operation. And let's not forget the massive amounts of taxpayer money pumped in the form of nuclear research (mostly paid by public money), things like the Manhattan project (one of the most expensive "public works" ever), or the subsidies that nuclear producers receive. Those are some serious overheads, which makes traditional power generation not that efficient in a true level playing field.

But I guess some people think it is a good idea to shit where you drink and sleep just because they have been told is "common wisdom."

There are far easier, safer, and yes cheaper ways of boiling water. The problem is that those approaches are too problematic when it comes to concentrate profit, which is our current priority... since, apparently, some people think nature accepts cash, checks or credit cards.

[Better Believe It]

97. So how much money are we talking about here? Do you know?

[SkyDaddy7]

98. Have you heard about "Fast Reactors"

They would produce NP using all the waste from current plants now...There is a ton of upside to this technology! It could run for the next 1000yrs or more on waste stock piles, the waste it produces is 1/50th of current technology, it would only have to be stored 100-300yrs rather than 10,000yrs,etc.,

Watch this & tell me what you think...5 minute video highlights the technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis

I know people get very emotional when it comes to NP but when you actually take the time to compare it with damage Coal, N. Gas (Fracking) & oil NP is by far safer! YES, there are many concerns & we should take everyone seriously!

I can't stand the damage we have done to this planet with carbon based energy...YES, I would love to fill the desert with solar panels & the Midwest with wind turbines but we also need to upgrade most of our electrical grid & the technology for storing energy needs more breakthroughs so until then I do not see why we can't at least look at NP.

[Avant Guardian]

120. Emotional over nuclear power?

Emotional? Do you ever watch the news?

[SkyDaddy7]

131. If "emotional" is not the right word then help me out...

Why do people get more upset over Nuclear Energy than they do when it comes to Coal, N. Gas & Oil when clearly the latter has done far more damage to human life & our planet.

If it is not "emotion" what should we call it?

[Avant Guardian]

139. Its the radioactivity, it kills people instantly

Its called immediate danger.

[chervilant]

78. Wow.

I think it's time for you to read "No Nukes" by Anna Gyorgy and Friends, or any number of well-researched anti-nuke books or articles. The nuclear power industry has been "storing" spent fuel rods at various nuclear reactors throughout the US (the WORLD), as a 'temporary' measure (which means--in actuality--for several years), since no long-term containment or storage has been created ("Yucca Mountain," notwithstanding). Long-term storage is now and will continue to be the most expensive aspect of nuclear energy, and one about which we seldom hear accurate information.

Furthermore, we are seldom told when nuclear waste is transported from place to place, and we're seldom made aware when accidents happen to vehicles transporting nuclear waste. The Corporate Megalomaniacs who've made vast fortunes on nuclear power want us to be good little mushrooms--in the dark and fed lots of bullshit.

[SkyDaddy7]

95. I agree! There are many things to be very concerned about...

My whole point is I can't stand what we are doing to this planet with Coal, N.Gas (FRACKING) & OIL...These carbon based energy sources are destroying the planet! If you compare that with Nuclear Power's damage to the Earth there really is no comparison. But I share the concerns that everyone else does about oversight & that would be one of the biggest reasons why I would be against Nuclear power.


Plus, speaking of Nuclear waste...There is technology out there that could run for the next 1000 years on just the waste from current plants. The waste it produces is by far safer than current waste, it would reduce the current waste stock piles, it would only have to be stored for 100-300yrs...It is called "Fast Reactors" if you are interested.

All I want is to get off fossil fuels! And I am willing to AT LEAST look at the facts when it comes to everything because we are killing this planet with coal, N.gas & oil...It is a silent killer that does not have the impact of a Chernobyl or what is going on in Japan so we tend to not have the same passion for stopping it as many do Nuclear when it has done & will continue to do massive damage to this planet even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today!


Would I love to see us pour money into covering Mojave desert in solar panels & the Midwest in windmills YES! But we also need to fix our outdated electrical grid for that to work.

I know you disagree but I just want to thank you for not calling me names or whatever.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. You should also share with us information about the mining of

uranium. You claim it is safe as houses, not like coal. Who mines your materials, and where? Are you aware that at present rates of consumption, they estimate 100 years of viable fuel for nukes available to mine without extreme costs. That is, it is finite, like other mined materials. Both coal plants and nukes begin in the mines. Both need fuel that is mined from the earth. They way they burn it is different, but both are burning shit we dig out of the earth.

[SkyDaddy7]

128. There is new Nuclear Technology...

Called "Fast Reactors" that would produce NP using all the waste from current plants now...There is a ton of upside to this technology! It could run for the next 1000yrs or more on JUST waste stock piles so we would not need to mine uranium anymore, the waste it produces is 1/50th of current technology, it would only have to be stored 100-300yrs rather than 10,000yrs,etc.,

Watch this & tell me what you think...5 minute video highlights the technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXmHrC7kpis

[Better Believe It]

132. Let us know when this new technology and "clean coal" has been developed and perfected.

Right now it just seems like an interesting idea but nothing that is really in the practical development stage. And we still will have pretty bad nuclear waste .... but it only has a 300 year lifetime!

[chervilant]

103. Well,

I don't disagree with you, and I too am hopeful that we'll see an end to our insane and hedonistic addiction to environmentally unsound sources of energy. I just cannot fathom why our species goes straight for self-immolation instead of using our massive and gifted brains to help us evolve into the peaceful and respectful global stewards that we COULD be.

[SkyDaddy7]

130. I hear exactly what you are saying!

I just watched a speech from a guy at the CATO Institute & he was nothing short of disgusting! He was making fun of solar, wind & alternative energy...Saying it would be a waste of time, effort & money to fund R7D into alternative energy when we have all this coal & N.Gas here in America.

I swear the Right wing in this country are scary!!!

[chervilant]

104. PS

I've heard about fast reactors, and the initial information about them is nicely packaged and quite seductive. Since we've historically been told only what the PTB think we need to know, I remain skeptical about this technology. In short, I will wait until I've gotten a lot more research done before I get on board that particular bandwagon.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. To demonstrate the safety ratio between methods, you need

to look at the number of plants of each kind, and the duration of time they have been used. That is, coal has been mined for generations. There are over 600 coal plants in the US. When the first energy producing reactor went on line? In my lifetime. I'm not a math person, but clearly if there are far fewer nukes running for a fraction of the time than other sorts of power generation, you'd have to extrapolate a few things, you can not simply state 'fewer deaths in history'. Doing it that way, space flight is safer than walking or eating dinner, because way more people have choked on a sandwich than have died in a spacecraft. However, if you look at the ration between sandwich eating and space flying, and come to see that one is far more common than the other, the low number of space flight deaths looks very different.
So. A Club Sandwich, or a test flight? Both being equally hazardous, of course.

[howmad1]

122. Blah, blah, blah!

"If we step aside & look at the history of nuclear power it is by far safer in terms of human lives lost & environmental damage than oil, coal & N.gas...It just is!"

Gee, not a single mention about the nuclear waste from these "safe" nuclear plants. Wonder if SkyDaddy wouldn't mind living a few miles from a nuclear plant stockpiling nuclear waste?

[MadHound]

44. "And besides, Exelon and the nuclear industry contributed handsomely to my political campaigns"

Exelon to the tune of three hundred and forty thousand dollars, what between his '06 Senate run and his presidential run.

[Autumn]

47. Looks like they got a lot of

bang for their bucks.

[Rex]

48. Please Obama...shut up, stop now, don't speak...ugh.

Why did we get this corporate suit and not a progressive as was advertised? Oh right, lies.

[whatchamacallit]

49. UGH...

What have we done...

[Bluebear]

52. That's comforting rhetoric in the midst of a crisis, Mr. President.

Well done, really.

:crazy:

[mochajava666]

53. More non-leadership and corporate apologies

This shit won't play well in 2012.

[Better Believe It]

55. Jim Hightower has a good column on the lack of leadership in the United States.

America's True Crisis: Zero Vision, Zero Leadership by Jim Hightower

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x663572

[Bluebear]

58. Thanks for that link, he is awesome.

[mmonk]

54. The question is why do we choose those with the most.

[scarletwoman]

64. Yeah, Obama. Oil spills and radiation are SO inconvenient.

But, chin up and carry on, yes?

[Matariki]

70. "downside"? Seriously? Downside?

Creating unprecedented environmental disasters, the effects of which may last for generations is a 'downside'?

I'm speechless. I expected better from President Obama. I'm starting to wonder if there isn't some sort of 'Stepford President' program in place.

[libmom74]

83. no kidding!

[upi402]

74. Nowhre to store waste, time hides resultant cancer

Green energy, sustainable living has never been tried. The elites don't prefer it. Turns out the hippies were right about everything, and Republicans were full of it.

[aquart]

79. Oh dear. That was an unfortunate remark.

Bush could have made it.

[liberation]

82. Well, at least Obama did not say "nucular"

Yay for lowered expectations! ;-P

[NHDemProg]

87. Hmmmm..

so now he's saying nukes aren't so bad?

[EstimatedProphet]

88. He's always said that

[Le Taz Hot]

89. I just don't know what to say anymore. n/t

[lunatica]

90. I can only conclude he's no nuclear expert

Why he actually comes out to say such idiocy is beyond me, and I'm the furthest thing from a nuclear expert. Hell, if it weren't for Rachel's explanations I still wouldn't know what a nuclear melt-down is. But having understood what it is, I don't see how anyone would think it's safe to have nuclear reactors. Water has no power when temperatures rise to 2,000 degrees. It vaporizes instantly and even explosively before it even touches the rods.

[vicarofrevelwood]

91. Yeah, RIIIIIGHT.

The difference between drinking dirty water and Hemlock. Both can make you sick but one will surely kill you.

[JJW]

92. Is there a Nobel Award

for greatest corporate shill?

[Recursion]

93. I think the Gulf spill will have more long-term effects than the Japan situation

It does kind of astound me that there was so little traction for ending drilling after BP, and so much for ending nuclear power after this.

[devils chaplain]

101. It's because...

... nuclear seems more "scary".

[ElsewheresDaughter]

102. yeah but the oil spill doesn't have the killing power for 280,000 yrs like spent nuke rods does

280,000 years of killing power from spent nuclear rods

[Recursion]

109. No, but it has a much, much greater killing power in the short term

Toxicity isn't as "sexy" as radioactivity but it's a lot more worrisome in some ways. Even the depleted uranium thing suffers from this: the real problem is that it (and the molybdenum it replaced) are toxic, but people only care because its scary radiation.

[OwnedByFerrets]

105. I've never even had this THOUGHT with this president, but

FU and your corporate mentality.

[chervilant]

106. Obama

might be thought prescient when he handily wins in 2012, but he's fast becoming the darling of the Corporate Megalomaniacs, who will be sure to 'help' him get reelected. I hate to be a killjoy, but even the handful of politicians (Kucinich, Grayson, and their ilk) who continue to truly represent the hoi polloi have been rendered moot by the criminals who've usurped our government, our media, and our industry.

[Myrina]

112. Yep ...

:( you are correct.

[WinkyDink]

111. "Downside": Euphemism for "Tragic consequences requiring suicide-mission-level attempts at fixing."

[avaistheone1]

125. Ehhh...25,000 dead so far. Just a little collateral damage.

Not much of a downside at all.


:sarcasm:

[cbdo2007]

114. So is the article saying that the main downside of nuclear is "fear"???

ha ha, that's what it looks like.

The President is correct. All energy sources have their downsides and they all have their upsides.

[lark]

121. Man of the people - NOT

Tool of the largest corporations and richest of the rich - Yes.
A huge disgusting disappointment - that too.
Democrat - ha, ha, ha NOT EVEN CLOSE.

He sickens me more on a daily basis.

[Politicalboi]

123. No they don't

Or in other words they don't have to have a downside. Hemp, Switch Blade, trash compounds. I don't see downsides there. Oh and then there's the Sun. We need to get beyond all this. Instead we have inventors being bought out, and their ideas get thrown out by oil companies. In 2000 there were a couple of guys who invented a converter that would run your car off of chicken fat. It would have cost about $2,000 to set it up. Where is it?

[avaistheone1]

124. What a horrific statement.

Obama is about as out of tune on this disaster as Bush was on Katrina.

Maybe Obama should watch TV more. I would recommend some BBC coverage.

[Marnie]

126. Somebody needs to get a cattle prod and get it up close

and personal with Obama.

"I mean, we saw that with the Gulf spill last summer.”

People are sickening any dying along the Gulf Coast still and will be for years or decades. Jobs are gone, lively hoods are gone, marshes and islands are gone or endangered.

There is still BP oil and its soluble and insoluble toxins are on the Gulf floor killing all life forms that are touched, in the water column " ", on the surface " ", and everywhere else along the cost and into the waterways.

So what Obama said is a 33% lie, because we are still seeing and will continue to see the harm and the cost to the people of the Gulf and to the economy of this nation. Obama's willfull blindness to the facts and playing ostrich with those facts is a total failure to lead and a damnable one.

[truth2power]

129. "Obama said nuclear facilities in the U.S. are closely monitored..."

And your point is what, Mr. President? That the Japanese plants were NOT closely monitored? I haven't read anything that attributes the Japanese events to human error or lack of monitoring.

It seems like this is about Murphy's Law, or the law of unintended consequences more than anything else.

More meaningless blather to promote acceptance of nuclear power.

[Crowman1979]

133. I'd like to know what qualifies for closely monitored.

With the way our government is bought out by corporations, I'm pretty sure not a damn thing is being monitored.

[blackspade]

134. Obama has become so tone deaf about this kind of stuff.

[ClarkUSA]

135. Oh the outrage!! lol! How dare Pres. Obama state an obvious fact???!

BTW, according the the latest Gallup poll, 87% of liberal Democrats approve of President Obama, despite the non-stop bashing he receives from his opponents.


Furthermore, the liberal Democratic base are his biggest supporters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

[dionysus]

138. it's gotten to the point where if he made a statement on the weather, people would scream

"corporatist DINO!!1!!!!"

every time he holds a press conference there is new outrage to be found...

[grahamhgreen]

141. Where do you work?

[eilen]

146. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf_Jk1zLisg

so what's your point?

Some people may be more interested in truth and justice than fanciful Orwellian words from presidential spokesmodels. Others prefer the programmed Madison Avenue happy life commercials. Since the majority of us were raised on tv and trained to be brainwashed by ad executives, it is not a surprise that we were all sucked in by the "Hope & Change (tm)" campaign.

If the DNC is so disturbed by our buyer's remorse, perhaps they should develop a better product that actually works as claimed.

[Initech]

136. You don't hear of any disasters with solar and wind power.

[grahamhgreen]

140. He's lying, again. "obviously all" energy sources do not have a downside like nukes,

Oil, or coal.

The opposite is true - obviously some have significantly less downside, like wind, solar, tidal, wave, and even hydro.