Funded by Nuclear Power

Abookamongstthemany

http://www.nirs.org/

http://www.nirs.org/alerts/03-02-2008/1

El_Kabong

mdg164 wrote:

Finally a voice of reason! I also work in the nuclear industry, and was actually just out in Rockford Ill, at an Exelon plant this week. I have a 2 degrees in Nuclear Engineering.

sorry, why should i trust someone who works at Exelon???

BOSTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice today announced that they have reached a $6 million enforcement case settlement with a local power plant that will result in significant air quality improvements for Boston school children and North Shore commuters, as well as a restored salt marsh in Chelsea and construction of a new commuter bike path across the Mystic River that will link Everett and Somerville.

In a settlement stemming from air quality violations over a five-year period at the Mystic Station power plant in Everett, plant owner Exelon Mystic LLC has agreed to pay a $1 million civil penalty and fund more than $5 million of environmental projects in the Boston area. The settlement was filed in US District Court late yesterday in Boston.

and

Exelon has agreed to pay a $20,000 penalty to settle an EPA complaint alleging Clean Air Act violations at Exelon’s Delaware Generating Station

and

Exelon Fined $602,000 for Air Quality Violations....

and

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, April 6, 2006 (ENS) - Exelon is in trouble with the state of Illinois again for leaks of water contaminated with radioactive tritium from one of its nuclear power plants.....IEPA has already sent two violation notices to the Exelon Generation Company for violations at the Braidwood Station facility. Both were subsequently referred to the Attorney General for enforcement action, and the state filed charges against Exelon in March for leaking millions of gallons of radioactive water laced with tritium...The Dresden Violation Notice specifically identifies violations of state environmental regulations relating to the impairment of resource groundwater. Exelon has reported tritium in several monitoring wells on and off plant property, as well as four private drinking water wells off-site.....

may be a few years old but they spread a bit of cancer around, eh?

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/facility.tcl?tri_id=19022DDYSTNO1IN#maps

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/facility.tcl?tri_id=19125DLWRG1325B#maps

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

interesting...

is this interesting, too?



Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.

These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.

Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.

The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.


Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.

Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.

Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.

Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans.

ClimberInOz

El_Kabong wrote:

is this interesting, too?

Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year.

I'm not taking sides here because I am a long way from making up my mind on this issue. But, in the interest of keeping the things fair it should be said that coal power plants also combust radioactive isotopes that are released into the air.

In fact in a nuclear and coal plant of the same electrical output, the coal plant will produce 3x the radioactive emmisions of the nuclear plant.

So there is no doubt that nuclear is far cleaner than coal, and I think perhaps an intermediate step between coal and complete renewables. However, there is also a valid argument that suggests that to move to nuclear now is only deffering what we have to do ultimately- to invest in renewable technology... and nuclear is not a renewable.

So I am still undecided. Why doesn't somebody just solve cold fusion...

El_Kabong

ClimberInOz wrote:

I'm not taking sides here because I am a long way from making up my mind on this issue. But, in the interest of keeping the things fair it should be said that coal power plants also combust radioactive isotopes that are released into the air.

In fact in a nuclear and coal plant of the same electrical output, the coal plant will produce 3x the radioactive emmisions of the nuclear plant.

So there is no doubt that nuclear is far cleaner than coal, and I think perhaps an intermediate step between coal and complete renewables. However, there is also a valid argument that suggests that to move to nuclear now is only deffering what we have to do ultimately- to invest in renewable technology... and nuclear is not a renewable.

So I am still undecided. Why doesn't somebody just solve cold fusion...

yes, at least one of the articles mentioned that

it also says:
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.

i agree that we need to look into renewable energy, not invest in new nuclar reactors, not invest in 'clean coal' technology, not a shitty 25 percent renewable energy by 2025....nuclear power is not an answer, we need to be pursuing better ways and obama aint gonna do it.

while 3 times fewer is something it's still not the 'clean' answer that the industry pushes it as.

every tax dollar we put into this is money taken away from real answers. i would much rather find answers, REAL answers instead of subsidizing the nuclear power industry to build more reactors when they are 'just a little bit' better as far as pollution to the air and water but certainly not long-term

unsung

It is ok to debate nuclear power but I think the original thought was to show how politicians, in this case Obama, flip-flop their support on the issues. First he goes against nuclear power but later it is found that some of his largest donations come from execs of these companies. It seems he is playing both sides.

farfromglorified

The near-abandonment of nuclear power was one of the stupidest things this country did in the 20th Century. Nuclear power is certainly not without its problems, but the enemies of it did nothing but ensure another 100 years of utilizing technologies with far greater problems. Our continued use of coal and oil are in large part the result of the efforts of foes of nuclear power. The ultimate irony is that the evidence people offer against nuclear power looks quite silly when compared to the realities of the devestation of coal, oil and even the beloved "renewables".

Urban Hiker

So if we get more nuclear power, will the administration continue to fund the safe disposal &/or containment of its waste???

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/features/hanford/111305HanGovRemarks.html

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/122070.asp


Reduce your energy consumption folks. They want to create more supply because of the demand.

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_actionitems.asp

farfromglorified

For those interested in confirming their anti-nuclear power bias, feel free to read above. For those interested in incensing their pro-nuclear power bias, feel free to do the same.

For anyone interested in simply learning about nuclear power and its advantages and disadvantages, here's a good place to start:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_emissions_by_electricity_source.PNG

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

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

The near-abandonment of nuclear power was one of the stupidest things this country did in the 20th Century. Nuclear power is certainly not without its problems, but the enemies of it did nothing but ensure another 100 years of utilizing technologies with far greater problems. Our continued use of coal and oil are in large part the result of the efforts of foes of nuclear power. The ultimate irony is that the evidence people offer against nuclear power looks quite silly when compared to the realities of the devestation of coal, oil and even the beloved "renewables".

I think a lot of people formed their opinions about nuclear power based on either bad 50's/60's sci-fi (if we use nuclear power giant ants or Godzilla will be created and attack us) or based on what they see on The Simpson's (if I set foot in a nuclear plant when I come home I will glow in the dark).

unsung wrote:

You need to remember much of what is running is 1960's technology, these aren't Big-Macs that can be whipped up instantly.

As far as the plant's running in the US the design of a lot of that 60's technology is also based on the reactors that would be installed in a nuclear submarine.

farfromglorified

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I think a lot of people formed their opinions about nuclear power based on either bad 50's/60's sci-fi (if we use nuclear power giant ants or Godzilla will be created and attack us) or based on what they see on The Simpson's (if I set foot in a nuclear plant when I come home I will glow in the dark).

I think you're spot on. By the way, do I detect a reference to "Them!", one my favorite silly sci-fi films, in your post above?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

The near-abandonment of nuclear power was one of the stupidest things this country did in the 20th Century. Nuclear power is certainly not without its problems, but the enemies of it did nothing but ensure another 100 years of utilizing technologies with far greater problems. Our continued use of coal and oil are in large part the result of the efforts of foes of nuclear power. The ultimate irony is that the evidence people offer against nuclear power looks quite silly when compared to the realities of the devestation of coal, oil and even the beloved "renewables".

The point you're glossing over is about having our politicians vested in one kind of power, especially one that is known to have many problems with pollution and health side effects. We can't rely on nuclear power forever and should be seeking aggressively renewable alternatives. But like the oilmen cronies of Bush, we can't trust our politicians to be square with us and put what's in our best interests first if they are being bought by the nuclear industry and mold their policy to better suit the needs of the nuclear power industry over the needs of the people. We've seen this happen time and time again. They keep on pushing fossil fuels, coal, nuclear as the only way until we are in a huge mess and have to work 10 times as hard to get out of it. We will be the ones dealing with the problems after they've squeezed every last dime they could out of selling the nuclear industry to us as the best, most safe and efficient way and they will continue to neglect newer more sustainable pursuits until their backs are against the wall. It's a huge problem

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The point you're glossing over is about having our politicians vested in one kind of power, especially one that is known to have many problems with pollution and health side effects.

This is a bizarre statement since it was politicians that did much to stand in the way of nuclear power over the past 40 years. Are politicians only "vested in one kind of power" when they're disagreeing with you?

Politicians are currently vested in many energy sources. Oil, biofuels, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, hydro...the list goes on and on and a politician's vested interest is rarely logical or technical, at least in terms of actual energy challenges. If anything, the nuclear industry has been the least successful in attracting political support.

We can't rely on nuclear power forever and should be seeking aggressively renewable alternatives.

Who is "we"? You should be seeking whatever you think think is best! Since when are these things mutually exclusive? I think both avenues should be available to those who wish to produce and consume power.

The fact of the matter is that "renawable alternatives" are not in any position to satisfy the world's thirst for energy. That does not mean they shouldn't be persued and that they shouldn't be persued aggressively by those who wish to invoke them. However, nuclear energy has been in a very good position to power this world more cleanly and more cheaply than our current methods for 2 generations now.

But like the oilmen cronies of Bush, we can't trust our politicians to be square with us and put what's in our best interests first if they are being bought by the nuclear industry and mold their policy to better suit the needs of the nuclear power industry over the needs of the people.

Who are "the people"? Is the "nuclear industry" not "the people"? Were those who lobbied, bought and traded politicians over the years in the fight against nuclear power "the people"? Are the vast majority of people in this country who now believe that nuclear power should be utilized "the people"? Or are "the people" and "the needs" whatever you happen to determine to be correct or incorrect at any given point in time?

We've seen this happen time and time again. They keep on pushing fossil fuels, coal, nuclear as the only way until we are in a huge mess and have to work 10 times as hard to get out of it.

Absolutely! Don't forget biofuels and ethanol, too! Ever wonder why they do this and why the results are often times so disastrous?

We will be the ones dealing with the problems after they've squeezed every last dime they could out of selling the nuclear industry to us as the best, most safe and efficient way and they will continue to neglect newer more sustainable pursuits until their backs are against the wall. It's a huge problem

Then why not simply tell them to get out of the way and let "the people", in its true meaning, decide the best route for themselves??? I'm all for ending the days of nuclear lobbying and political horsetrading. The fact of the matter, abook, is that if you got the politicians out of the way, there would be a new nuclear power plant going up somewhere in this country every few months, very much at the behest of consumers who are seeking greater access to cheaper energy.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

This is a bizarre statement since it was politicians that did much to stand in the way of nuclear power over the past 40 years. Are politicians only "vested in one kind of power" when they're disagreeing with you?

Yes, much like you, I tend to focus on the things I disagree with and support the things I do agree with.

So why have the politicians stood in the way of nuclear power for so long? Have anything to do with the pollution, health effects or that we have no real solutions for disposal? But now it's being sold as a proper response to global warming and everyone eats that up so the politcians have their 'in'.

farfromglorified wrote:

Politicians are currently vested in many energy sources. Oil, biofuels, nuclear, renewables, natural gas, hydro...the list goes on and on and a politician's vested interest is rarely logical or technical, at least in terms of actual energy challenges. If anything, the nuclear industry has been the least successful in attracting political support.

I never said any different. Obama is heavily funded by the nuclear power industry which makes me feel he will direct his policy based on their support and has already been accused of as much.

Again, if nuclear power is so super fantastic then why have they been so unsuccessful at attracting this political support?

farfromglorified wrote:

Who is "we"? You should be seeking whatever you think think is best! Since when are these things mutually exclusive? I think both avenues should be available to those who wish to produce and consume power.

Here I mean people who have traditionally spoken out against nuclear power (liberals) but now think it's a-okay because their selected candidate is funded by the industry. Don't you see that as a bit backwards? Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent us and not us take on whatever they think? Politicians have been wonderful at selling shitty ideas to the people. i was hoping that trend would start changing at some point.

farfromglorified wrote:

The fact of the matter is that "renawable alternatives" are not in any position to satisfy the world's thirst for energy. That does not mean they shouldn't be persued and that they shouldn't be persued aggressively by those who wish to invoke them. However, nuclear energy has been in a very good position to power this world more cleanly and more cheaply than our current methods for 2 generations now.

Renewable energy hasn't been pursued as aggressively as it could be, not even close. Instead Washington keeps making money off band aid type solutions that can not last, stalling as long as they can to make a buck and call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the most effective or efficient way to run a country.

farfromglorified wrote:

Who are "the people"? Is the "nuclear industry" not "the people"? Were those who lobbied, bought and traded politicians over the years in the fight against nuclear power "the people"? Are the vast majority of people in this country who now believe that nuclear power should be utilized "the people"? Or are "the people" and "the needs" whatever you happen to determine to be correct or incorrect at any given point in time?

They, the nuclear power industry, are indeed people...they are people with money, power and an agenda to make more of it....and they do not have the best interests of those without money and power in mind when they
buy off these guys and dictate policy. If you can't see how it's a conflict of interest and how corruption has caused so many problems in our governments where the majority of the people's needs and interests are passed over in the
name of more profits then I really don't know what to say here.

farfromglorified wrote:

Absolutely! Don't forget biofuels and ethanol, too! Ever wonder why they do this and why the results are often times so disastrous?

Profit

farfromglorified wrote:

Then why not simply tell them to get out of the way and let "the people", in its true meaning, decide the best route for themselves??? I'm all for ending the days of nuclear lobbying and political horsetrading. The fact of the matter, abook, is that if you got the politicians out of the way, there would be a new nuclear power plant going up somewhere in this country every few months, very much at the behest of consumers who are seeking greater access to cheaper energy.

The average person isn't informed enough to decide the best route, unfortunately. That's why we need government to protect the people for various reasons but it needs to be non conflicted reasons based on what we know to be the facts thus far without corporate bias.

It's just like you wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing your brain surgery. He doesn't know what he should know to make the kind of decisions needed to perform surgery.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, much like you, I tend to focus on the things I disagree with and support the things I do agree with.

Unlike me, however, you invoke certain principles and means when they're used for things you like and then reject them when they're used for things you oppose.

So why have the politicians stood in the way of nuclear power for so long? Have anything to do with the pollution, health effects or that we have no real solutions for disposal? But now it's being sold as a proper response to global warming and everyone eats that up so the politcians have their 'in'.

Very much so, yes! But not really in the way you mean. Politicians have stood in the way of nuclear power because of the fear of pollution and health effects. See, they believed pollution from nuclear power to be bad and negative health effects from nuclear power to be bad because people were afraid of those things vis a vis nuclear power. Yet, at the same time, they didn't care about the much greater pollution and much greater negative health effects from their chosen subsidized targets (oil, coal, etc). In other words, they invoked certain principles and means for things they liked and then rejected them when used for things they opposed. Pollution and health effects made nuclear power untenable. Those same things, however, were perfectly acceptable when it comes to oil or coal. The same bullshit is now happening with the renewables.

I never said any different. Obama is heavily funded by the nuclear power industry which makes me feel he will direct his policy based on their support and has already been accused of as much.

Yet the irony here is that you seem to be stating that Washington should be dictating "our" energy agenda.

Again, if nuclear power is so super fantastic then why have they been so unsuccessful at attracting this political support?

Because people were terribly afraid of nuclear power, of course. Nevermind the actual data, they said "not in my backyard".

Here I mean people who have traditionally spoken out against nuclear power (liberals) but now think it's a-okay because their selected candidate is funded by the industry. Don't you see that as a bit backwards?

Hehe...no. It's certainly hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect anything more from partisan liberals or partisan conservatives. Regardless, their earlier positions against nuclear power were just as stupid as their current position on nuclear power, so what's the difference?

Aren't our elected officials supposed to represent us and not us take on whatever they think? Politicians have been wonderful at selling shitty ideas to the people. i was hoping that trend would start changing at some point.

See, here's the thing abook -- politicians aren't just selling the ideas. Politicians are typically idea consumers as often as they are idea producers. And their primary source of ideas is either one of two things that are actually largely the same thing: the people or special interests.

Politicians sell ideas in the same way Bob Dole sells Viagra. Bob Dole isn't making Viagra, he's simply telling people what they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is.

Renewable energy hasn't been pursued as aggressively as it could be, not even close.

You could have certainly held a gun to everyone's head 5 years ago and forced them to use ethanol (something Hillary Clinton still wants to do). That would have been very aggressive and very stupid.

Instead Washington keeps making money off band aid type solutions that can not last, stalling as long as they can to make a buck and call me crazy, but that doesn't seem like the most effective or efficient way to run a country.

Absolutely! Now stop looking for them to solve the problems.

They, the nuclear power industry, are indeed people...they are people with money, power and an agenda to make more of it....and they do not have the best interests of those without money and power in mind when they
buy off these guys and dictate policy. If you can't see how it's a conflict of interest and how corruption has caused so many problems in our governments where the majority of the people's needs and interests are passed over in the
name of more profits then I really don't know what to say here.

You certainly don't have to lecture me on corruption and conflicts of interest in government. I'm the first to warn people how those things will always come when you can replace value with force. I'm not justifying nuclear lobbying or political support of nuclear power. All I'm asking is that the fools in Washington and the fools on the street simply get out of the way of those who wish to construct nuclear power plants and those who want to consume nuclear power.

Profit

It's deeper than liberal mantra of profit, abook. It's profit without value. That's what Exxon gets with every government subsidy. That's what "the people" of Iowa are getting for every ear of corn mandated into a gallon of gasolene.

The average person isn't informed enough to decide the best route, unfortunately.

Hehe...really? Who gets to decide what "the average person is informed enough to decide"? You? Me? Ralph Nader? George Bush? Personally, I'll always take the risk of one fool deciding for themselves over one fool deciding for everyone.

That's why we need government to protect the people for various reasons but it needs to be non conflicted reasons based on what we know to be the facts thus far without corporate bias.

Sigh...."without bias" or "without corporate bias"?

It's just like you wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing your brain surgery. He doesn't know what he should know to make the kind of decisions needed to perform surgery.

I certainly wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing my brain surgery. Thankfully, I'm able to choose my brain surgeon.

baraka

According to the WHO (world health organization), air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone. Electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US. HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but such a thing does not exist. I think the whole idea of probability and risk management just isn't understood (or maybe just not accepted) by the general public. Not every risk is worth doing something about. And this is one of the reasons for the lack of public support of nuclear power.

The risks for nuclear power are too low to be considered worth ditching altogether, especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year. There have been NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detrimental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.

Clearly there needs to be an alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels. But there are also significant technical, envirnomental and economic issues involved. Switching to nuclear is not so simple and straightforward.

I have concerns with the disposal of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear energy does not address the current transportation infrastructure which is based on personal mobility, vis-a-vis automobiles, buses, trucks and aircraft. A large proportion of oil-based fuel is used in transportation.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Unlike me, however, you invoke certain principles and means when they're used for things you like and then reject them when they're used for things you oppose.

What's that? Faith in democracy and a more efficiently functioning government? I don't think money should be allowed to buy the governments positions on issues....I feel I have been pretty consistent about that.

farfromglorified wrote:

Very much so, yes! But not really in the way you mean. Politicians have stood in the way of nuclear power because of the fear of pollution and health effects. See, they believed pollution from nuclear power to be bad and negative health effects from nuclear power to be bad because people were afraid of those things vis a vis nuclear power. Yet, at the same time, they didn't care about the much greater pollution and much greater negative health effects from their chosen subsidized targets (oil, coal, etc). In other words, they invoked certain principles and means for things they liked and then rejected them when used for things they opposed. Pollution and health effects made nuclear power untenable. Those same things, however, were perfectly acceptable when it comes to oil or coal. The same bullshit is now happening with the renewables.

So you view all this 'fear' of nuclear power to be without merit, then? I'm not saying that we should do away with nuclear power in the place of coal. Not once have I said that. I'm saying that to be truly interested in focusing on renewables and finding alternatives, we shouldn't allow our politicians to be bought and show bias towards this industry...especially when it's not a long term solution. Not to mention the fact that an industry with the this kind of pollution and carelessness on its record needs to be regulated not allowed to do as it pleases because we all pay when that happens. I'm not saying anything about pollution from coal or what have you is perfectly okay. Where have I said that? Other energy industries should also be regulated and scrutinized for corruption, of course.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yet the irony here is that you seem to be stating that Washington should be dictating "our" energy agenda.

We need regulation laws and those laws should come from well informed officials without bias due to money. We need to start finding and implementing
alternatives and not have that process stalled by special interests. What's your proposal? To let the consumers dictate it? They always make the best decisions, don't they? And their decisions that have lasting effects on us all...what about those? Wouldn't you just love my freedom to pollute the air and water right beside your home if I was your neighbor? How about everyone
just start doing exactly what they want to....there will be no problems with that...

farfromglorified wrote:

Because people were terribly afraid of nuclear power, of course. Nevermind the actual data, they said "not in my backyard".

I posted enough info to make me think twice about wanting it next door me. I suppose you'd be alright with living beside a nuclear plant? I think there is good reason to be concerned about nuclear power.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...no. It's certainly hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect anything more from partisan liberals or partisan conservatives. Regardless, their earlier positions against nuclear power were just as stupid as their current position on nuclear power, so what's the difference?

Well the point of the thread was to address the change some seem to have taken with their stance on nuclear power since their candidates have been proven to cater to the industry.

farfromglorified wrote:

See, here's the thing abook -- politicians aren't just selling the ideas. Politicians are typically idea consumers as often as they are idea producers. And their primary source of ideas is either one of two things that are actually largely the same thing: the people or special interests.

Politicians sell ideas in the same way Bob Dole sells Viagra. Bob Dole isn't making Viagra, he's simply telling people what they want to hear, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it is.

Yes, I'm aware they are only selling what they are told to to keep the money rolling in their way. I didn't say it was their idea originally.

farfromglorified wrote:

You could have certainly held a gun to everyone's head 5 years ago and forced them to use ethanol (something Hillary Clinton still wants to do). That would have been very aggressive and very stupid.

Yes, lets cut out the 'stupid' part and focus on the facts of the situation without the money doing the talking for us. If something's not working then I don't see why we should keep pushing it and banking on it instead of focusing our resources towards more sustainable solutions.

farfromglorified wrote:

Absolutely! Now stop looking for them to solve the problems.

Stop holding them accountable? Stop expecting them to do their job? Stop expecting them to do what is best regardless of money. Now I'm aware we all have a different idea of what is 'best' but ignoring problems to make more money and maintain power is keeping us a long way from having real discourse and national debate in this country about what is really best based on the information out there. And the citizenry, in large, is just going along with what's being told to them.

farfromglorified wrote:

You certainly don't have to lecture me on corruption and conflicts of interest in government. I'm the first to warn people how those things will always come when you can replace value with force. I'm not justifying nuclear lobbying or political support of nuclear power. All I'm asking is that the fools in Washington and the fools on the street simply get out of the way of those who wish to construct nuclear power plants and those who want to consume nuclear power.

Well I disagree with your anti-government opinions. Corporations unchecked can have just as much power and force their will on the rest of us via the power of money as the government you disdain. They can create monopolies and leave people with no choice. I don't think we can allow either to do whatever they wish...especially when their wishes affect is all and they don't seem to mind it.

farfromglorified wrote:

It's deeper than liberal mantra of profit, abook. It's profit without value. That's what Exxon gets with every government subsidy. That's what "the people" of Iowa are getting for every ear of corn mandated into a gallon of gasolene.

profit without value then.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...really? Who gets to decide what "the average person is informed enough to decide"? You? Me? Ralph Nader? George Bush? Personally, I'll always take the risk of one fool deciding for themselves over one fool deciding for everyone.

That's why we play an active role in civics and pay attention to what's going on, stay informed. A Democratic government can't function properly without the people keeping them in check.

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh...."without bias" or "without corporate bias"?

Your *sighs* reek of pretension. Without any bias is fine with me.

farfromglorified wrote:

I certainly wouldn't want some guy working at the library doing my brainsurgery. Thankfully, I'm able to choose my brain surgeon.

As long as you have access to the best choices. Nevermind what effects your choices could have on the rest of us.

Abookamongstthemany

baraka wrote:

According to the WHO (world health organization), air pollution kills 70,000 people in the US every year and affects virtually everyone. Electric power generation is the leading producer of air pollution in the US. HALF of the electricity in the US comes from COAL. Nuclear power isn't a perfect solution, but such a thing does not exist. I think the whole idea of probability and risk management just isn't understood (or maybe just not accepted) by the general public. Not every risk is worth doing something about. And this is one of the reasons for the lack of public support of nuclear power.

The risks for nuclear power are too low to be considered worth ditching altogether, especially in the face of the alternative risks: a virtually guaranteed 70,000 deaths a year. There have been NO deaths specifically attributed to nuclear accidents in the US. Each and every year there are tens of thousands of deaths due to coal plants in the US alone. That's not including the detrimental effects to health caused by belching tons of smoke into the air.

Clearly there needs to be an alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels. But there are also significant technical, envirnomental and economic issues involved. Switching to nuclear is not so simple and straightforward.

I have concerns with the disposal of nuclear waste. Also, nuclear energy does not address the current transportation infrastructure which is based on personal mobility, vis-a-vis automobiles, buses, trucks and aircraft. A large proportion of oil-based fuel is used in transportation.

This thread in no way is saying coal is the better way or the answer. I'm saying that we can't allow our politicians to bank on the nuclear industry for our future energy while stalling on alternatives the way with have done in the past with coal, fossil fuels, etc. And it should grab our attention when politicians are taking money and molding their policy to better fit the agenda of said industry. Because then we can not trust them to make their decisions without bias when their aim of maintaining power and receiving cash in always going to be there. These things have to start concerning us and we need to let them know we are paying attention.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What's that? Faith in democracy and a more efficiently functioning government? I don't think money should be allowed to buy the governments positions on issues....I feel I have been pretty consistent about that.

Ok, let's test that. The "renewable" energy movement, just like coal, power, and nuclear, has contributed millions of dollars to politicians in an attempt, sometimes successful and sometimes not, to "buy the governments positions on issues". Do you condemn that? Do you condemn politicians like Tom Daschle who have pushed so-called "renewable energy" as a better solution when in fact all he's doing is giving in to farmer's special interests?

So you view all this 'fear' of nuclear power to be without merit, then?

Largely, yes. Certainly nuclear power carries with it risks, but historical data shows those risks have been greatly overstated.

I'm not saying that we should do away with nuclear power in the place of coal. Not once have I said that. I'm saying that to be truly interested in focusing on renewables and finding alternatives, we shouldn't allow our politicians to be bought and show bias towards this industry...especially when it's not a long term solution.

I agree with both these points. I recognize that you're not saying that coal is a better solution, but unfortunately those are the kinds of technologies you're going to get, just like those who held similar positions to yours over the past 50 years.

Not to mention the fact that an industry with the this kind of pollution and carelessness on its record needs to be regulated not allowed to do as it pleases because we all pay when that happens. I'm not saying anything about pollution from coal or what have you is perfectly okay. Where have I said that? Other energy industries should also be regulated and scrutinized for corruption, of course. We need regulation laws and those laws should come from well informed officials without bias due to money. We need to start finding and implementing alternatives and not have that process stalled by special interests.

By whom? The very bodies you said are corrupt and bought? I absolutely agree that the nuclear industry should be regulated and scrutinized. It should be regulated and scrutinized by consumers.

What's your proposal? To let the consumers dictate it? They always make the best decisions, don't they? And their decisions that have lasting effects on us all...what about those? Wouldn't you just love my freedom to pollute the air and water right beside your home if I was your neighbor? How about everyone just start doing exactly what they want to....there will be no problems with that...

There's no such thing as a "freedom to pollute" without a corollary "freedom to aggress". I'm not suggesting that the nuclear industry should be "free to pollute". They shouldn't be. If you wish to use the force of government to hold nuclear polluters accountable, I will feel no sympathy to them. I will, however, feel sympathy towards those you deem to be polluters before they introduce any amount of pollution upon any population. Furthermore, I will feel little more than pity towards those who ensure greater pollution, greater harm, and greater cost in their fight.

I posted enough info to make me think twice about wanting it next door me. I suppose you'd be alright with living beside a nuclear plant? I think there is good reason to be concerned about nuclear power.

I'd have no problem living near a nuclear power plant. I'm already living within 50 miles of one.

Well the point of the thread was to address the change some seem to have taken with their stance on nuclear power since their candidates have been proven to cater to the industry.

The reason most of the candidates have changed their stance is because of the foolish hysteria around global warming and carbon emissions, abook, not just because of "the industry". The nuclear industry has been funding and courting politicians for decades.

Yes, lets cut out the 'stupid' part and focus on the facts of the situation without the money doing the talking for us. If something's not working then I don't see why we should keep pushing it and banking on it instead of focusing our resources towards more sustainable solutions.

I think it's silly to say that nuclear power "isn't working". There are dozens of plants in this country and hundreds around the world that work exceptionally well.

Stop holding them accountable?

No, understand that the system you're pushing makes them unaccountable.

Stop expecting them to do their job?

No, understand that they are doing their job, and that's the problem.

Well I disagree with your anti-government opinions. Corporations unchecked can have just as much power and force their will on the rest of us via the power of money as the government you disdain.

Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established structures of power and force we have today.

They can create monopolies and leave people with no choice.

Absolutely! But this position is pretty meaningless coming from someone who is defending the established primary monopoly we have today.

I don't think we can allow either to do whatever they wish...especially when their wishes affect is all and they don't seem to mind it.

I'm not suggesting we allow anyone to do "whatever they wish". I'm simply suggesting we not proclaim people to be criminals before they've committed a crime.

That's why we play an active role in civics and pay attention to what's going on, stay informed. A Democratic government can't function properly without the people keeping them in check.

Hehe...but that's exactly what's happening. "The People" don't like carbon emissions abook. And they've gotten over their fear of nuclear power. "The People" are demanding solutions from those least qualified to provide them. And they're likely to get exactly what they're asking for.

Your *sighs* reek of pretension. Without any bias is fine with me.

Excellent!

As long as you have access to the best choices. Nevermind what effects your choices could have on the rest of us.

This position would have some merit if you weren't doing the same. Obviously you do not mind one person's choice affecting everyone.

mdg164

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This thread in no way is saying coal is the better way or the answer. I'm saying that we can't allow our politicians to bank on the nuclear industry for our future energy while stalling on alternatives the way with have done in the past with coal, fossil fuels, etc. And it should grab our attention when politicians are taking money and molding their policy to better fit the agenda of said industry. Because then we can not trust them to make their decisions without bias when their aim of maintaining power and receiving cash in always going to be there. These things have to start concerning us and we need to let them know we are paying attention.

While we need to explore many types of energy, Nuclear should be our main source. We have plenty of nuclear fuel sitting in the spent fuel pools and dry casks of every nuclear site. Jimmy Carter banned spent fuel reprocessing, so all that energy sits there. Breeder reactor technology actually creates more fuel than it uses, but is useless if we can't reprocess.

Which leads to long term storage of the spent fuel. If we could reprocess, there would be much less to store. Secondly, Yucca Mountain is the answer!!! Seismically stable, low water table, isolated, government owned land! Engineered to be safe for 10,000 years! But the NIMBY folks are holding it up. Democrats are out there playing on people's fear of what they don't understand. Instead they should be educating people on the subject.

I work in the nuclear industry, and have multiple degrees in the subject. farfromglorified seems to know what they are talking about. I haven't read everything he/she has posted, but what I have read looks spot on.