Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932
Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!
"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.
Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.
The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.
1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."
2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.
3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."
4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."
Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
From the Huffington Post
If you don't watch the debates on CNN, you are really missing something. CNN has set up a dial group of uncommitted Ohio voters. At the bottom of the screen CNN then shows the graph of the reaction by men and women as they rate statements they like or don't like.
McCain seems to think his strong support of nuclear power is a big political winner for him, since he has brought it up three times in the first hour. But every time he talks about nuclear, he flatlines with both men and women. They simply are unenthused about nuclear power, which is no surprise.
At best, people consider nuclear power as Castor oil, something your parents made you take that is supposed to be good for you. At worst, people think it's a source of radioactivity they'd like to stay far away from.
Frankly, McCain has been flatlining for most of the debate, which I suspect post-debate audience polls will reflect.
Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Town Hall Debate from HuffPost bloggers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/note-to-mccain-uncommitte_b_132804.html
First they both produce power. The difference is nuclear creates nuclear radioactive waste. Nuclear waste is not a problem until it is being dumped in your back yard. John likes nuclear because in Arizona we have 3 nuclear power plants. The only thing he did not tell you is that they are reaching their maturity and they are off line more than they are on line and he knows that some of those nuclear reactors would end up out at Palo Verde and create lots of jobs in Arizona.
Plasma Converters get rid of garbage. With this technology the only thing you need to recycle is the paper. Go to http://renewableenergy101.wordpress.com for the full explanation of a Plasma Converter. First the fuel is free. The benefits are numerous and there is zero emissions. See the heat produced in these unts is the same heat as on the sun and so everything that is introduced to the plasma becomes molecularly dissociated. The results is heat and lots of it, hydrogen, some process gas, metal slag, a stone like material and no emmissions.
I do not agree at all with either candidate. Nuclear is not the answer...Not at all. Even if you reprocess fuel there is still all the equipment that came in contact with the radioactivty that has a half life of 1000's of years.
Maintaining the equipment is an absolute nightmare.
I participated in a study with handling waste at the Hanniffer GE Richland, WA project and the amount of people required to fix anything is ridiculous. It is because any one person can only be exposed to so many rads for a given time and so it is cheaper to throw away than it is to fix.
The Challenge is the status quo and new designs cost money. If you replicate old designs you can make more money building new power plants. Then there is the politics of the existing vs the new. People resist change especially when they are getting near the end of their careers. I saw this with my Dad when he worked for what use to be Combustion Engineering. They were just bringing in computers when he was 2 years from retirement and he did not want anything to do with the new technology.
With Plasma Converters you have to deal with the egos and status quos of the existing power companies who usually know nothing about waste management. And waste management companies that know nothing about power.
Places like Hawaii, Japan, big cities have a garbage issue and they are usually more open to change because it solves a major problem.
Conclusion: This and many more changes will not happen unless governent mandates the change and provides money and incentives to make the change. Someone needs to lead and be bold.
Stephen Views the News 10/5/08
http://stephenviewsthenews.blogspot.com/
* Thanks But No Thanks – The much anticipated debate between vice presidential candidates Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin was enlightening. One candidate demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of a broad range of very serious issues facing our country and the ability to articulate his views to the public. The other candidate reincarnated her bid to become Miss Alaska with enough “being a Mom”, dogonnits and bless your hearts exhalations to sell a truckload of Girl Scout Cookies. The best that can be said about Ms. Palin is that she did not implode while repeating her tape recorder-like responses to questions. There may have actually been a time or two when her response somewhat coincided with the question. Aside from expressing her admiration for the over-reaching power of Vice President Dick Cheney we learned little about the woman who would be a heart beat away from the Oval Office. Do not despair. Help is on the way.
I have never met or spoken with Sue Katz, author of the intelligent and timely blog Consenting Adult. We crossed paths through the blogosphere and have exchanged emails discussing a potpourri of issues. As a result of this association I received an advance copy of her new book “Thanks But Not Thanks: A Voters Guide to Sarah Palin” that will be released October 13, 2008. This well-written, informative and entertaining book is the first well-researched and comprehensive document available to voters and political junkies who want to know more about this little-known Republican instant star – information that in many cases the McCain campaign would prefer be kept in the dark.
TBNT provides the reader with a whirlwind tour of who Sarah Palin is, where she came from and the influences that led to her meteoric rise to prominence. Perhaps the main influence is the religious right, a constituency critical to a successful McCain election. We see Sarah Palin attending her church and the influences she meets. “Jews for Jesus’ David Brickner, was a guest speaker recently and Palin was there. The Times tells us that Brickner “suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah.” Palin did not walk out and there are no reports of her objecting.” Katz ponders the question of how Palin’s religious convictions would impact her political policy decisions.
Katz also looks at Sarah Palin in the context of the women’s movement and observes that Palin “has also changed the face of national politics. She has subverted the feminist agenda, running as a woman and mother, but neglecting to look after the needs of women and children. She has subverted the notion of experience, turning the PTA into a major qualification while ridiculing Obama’s three years of community organizing with poor people.”
Among the many perspectives that TBNT shares with the reader is a chapter devoted to how the world community views Palin. As great a loss of stature that America has experienced under Bush, the next administration will have much work to do to restore the reputation and role of America in the world community. Katz explores how the world is seeing not only Sarah Palin but its anticipation of an America being lead by John McCain or Barack Obama.
This link provides a detail background of the talented and multifaceted Sue Katz and additional information about her latest book – a guide that enables voters to make an informed decision.
* Politics puts your vote at risk ~ irony out the wrinkles in a democracy - Although you believe that your voter registration is valid, in reality, it may not be. In many parts of the country, for any number of reasons, mostly partisan, voters are being purged from voter records. A visit to The Brad Blog offers details of what CBS calls “Massive Voter Roll Purges in 19 States” These systematic purges ignore federal law, the National Voter Registration Act. At Vote for Change one can register to vote or check on the status of an existing registration.
* Welcome to the American Dream – Conventional wisdom suggests that it is liberal political philosophy that seeks to help every American achieve the goal of owning a home, gaining a piece of the pie and grabbing a brass ring. Somewhat ironically, it is conservative political philosophy of deregulation and free markets that has enabled every American taxpayer to own at least pieces of multiple homes. You may not live in the home, have a lawn to cut or windows to wash but, if you are a taxpayer, regardless of your current residency situation, you own pieces of multiple homes. That is what the bailout/rescue plan achieved. Your government just spent $700 billion to buy the troubled mortgages held by financial institutions so that they have funds to loan to businesses and individuals, a move intended to keep the economic system functioning. No one is certain that the legislation will achieve its goal and the NY Times notes that this legislation is a stop-gap measure with much to be done by the next president and congress. The cloud may not have been removed from the U.S. economy but we can still say, “Congratulations to the American taxpayer” – even if your piece of the pie is humble.
* Put on your seat belt - Expect the folks that gave you the “American Dream” to infect the last four weeks of the presidential campaign with toxic advertisements and Kool Aid misrepresentations. As of Saturday Obama is surging in the polls and significantly outdistancing McCain in the most important statistic, electoral votes. In spite of McCain’s promise to run a clean campaign brace yourself for a strategy that would make Karl Rove blush.
* Italian imports ~ Sì e no – I have no objection to the vast quantities of Italian shoes, clothing and wine that enters our country. Their design and quality are examples of the best that the world has to offer. When it comes to nuclear waste I am of a different opinion. We produce enough of our own and have yet to come to terms with what to do with it. EnergySolutions operates a nuclear waste site in Tooele County, Utah and they have requested permission to import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy. Currently the U.S. has 64,000 tons of spent fuel being stored on-site at nuclear power plants in 33 states and the amount of this very dangerous material continues to grow. Until we solve our own disposal of nuclear waste problems there should be an embargo on importing it. And even then we should probably say, “Thanks but no thanks.”
* I wish I could give you a lot of advice, based on my experience of winning political debates. But I don't have that experience. My only experience is at losing them.
Richard M. Nixon (1913 – 1994) 37th President of the United States (1969-1974).
During the presidential debate, McCain spoke of off-shore drilling and nuclear power plants. When pressed on renewable energy, his response was vague, and he evaded the questions by acknowledging that we need to consider all avenues to reduce dependence on foreign energy. I for one am not convinced that McCain would do squat (can I say that?) in terms of renewable energy. He will focus on nuclear power because nuclear power generation has high barriers to entry, and only his billionaire buddies can afford to enter this market. We would be trading one evil (oil) for a worse evil (nuclear waste). McCain did not engage in conversation on how he'd handle the nuclear waste produced by the plants.
Barack has firm plans for brining the United States to the cutting edge of renewable energy. He want the US to take a leadership role in developing these technologies creating several substantial benefits:
1. Reduce dependence on foreign energy
2. Save the environment and stop/reverse climate change
3. Create millions of American jobs
4. Put the United States back in leading position in the world markets
Anyone who thinks nuclear energy is "clean" energy, please read some articles:
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/start/fact-sheet_ne&w.htm
Ummmm..Mr McCain?…are ya sitting down? Here’s a few of your own words that lead all of us to distrust you overwhelmingly, every day! You’re an embarrassment to yourself, McSame! This is the age of the “Internet(s)” and “the” Youtube using Bushian malaprops. We’ve got you on record, McFlip/Flop! Facts are just silly things that get in your way…ehhh, McSame?
Many, many, many thanks to one of my true media heroes and ever-present mentor..Keith Olbermann!
He was for it before he was against it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h29B--3vBbg
The New Nuclear Danger: Bush's Military-Industrial Complex
One of the most important people you should learn about is Dr. Helen Caldicott, the antinuclear activist. If you haven't heard of her before, you will. She says he doesn't know it yet, but she will be working with Barack Obama to end nuclear proliferation.
When I heard about her work and received a link to her video, I put it off for a week. I figured this would be dry, important but not urgent enough to see now. Was I wrong.
Not only is she a delight to listen to, with special insight into past presidents, Dr. Caldicott talks about the growing nuclear waste problem in the US and overseas. What she says is frightening! She gives many examples of innocent people (including children) who died from or have serious and hopeless medical conditions as a result of exposure to nuclear radiation through working with or handling nuclear substances, conflict where uranium ammunition is used, and nuclear waste that contaminates food and water sources.
Explaining just how fragile our situation is, Caldicott says every second of every day a nuclear accident could occur that would change our lives forever. Over 100 nuclear accidents occur each year in the US, of which a few are considered life threatening. The government nor the media will ever tell us about these accidents. What's more, hundreds of missiles are pointed right at key cities in the US by Russia and other countries. Even a blast thousands of miles away can be devastating. The ingestion of carcinogenic, radioactive particles poses a serious risk to the population, because they could be either inhaled or ingested through the food chain.
Caldicott states the following:
"America has the power and resources to reverse global warming, to save the ozone layer, to prevent chemical pollution, to stop deforestation, to curb the human overpopulation problem...The money that [the American government] invests in killing must now be redirected urgently to the preservation of life. America must rise to its full moral and spiritual height to reach its intended destiny--the nation that saved the world. In a similar vein, the people of Europe must resist the constant call from America to arm and re-arm. So too, the people of Canada, of Australia--and indeed the people of the world. We cannot continue to behave as primitive animals killing for pleasure, killing for money, killing for religious imperatives, killing for greed and territorial imperative. Conflict resolution and peacekeeping must be our new priorities."
Every American should read this book or view the video below, then begin writing letters to your congressmen. Our lives and our children's lives depend on it.
View the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOZ4G7080JcBook: The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex------Let no man imagine that he has no influence. Whoever he may be, and wherever he may be placed, the man who thinks becomes a light and a power. -- Henry George
I am willing to question conventional wisdom in defense against the world's two headed enemy: the energy crisis / global warming. Our leaders must not surrender to Not In My Backyardism that has paralyzed our efforts to answer this threat to world peace and the lives of millions at risk from climate change fueled natural disasters. This NIMB opposition takes the form of blocking wind mill farms, transport of nuclear waste through someone's district, positioning of energy production facilities anywhere near anyone.
One of Socolow wedges dealing with the Energy/Globalwarming threat is nuclear fission (source). Naturally he notes that building 700 GW reactors world wide must deal with the waste issue.
Which brings us to Yucca mountain. Everyone following the campaign knows what the party line on Yucca is. Hillary, Barack and John have definitively stated they will cancel Yucca entirely. Now this may be heresy in the democratic party, but in the interest of survival of the planet / sticking to the standard of being fact driven as we strive towards our goals, I am troubled about the reasoning that went into this decision to discard Yucca.
Let me preface this heresy with a statement that I share the skepticism about the quality of research that has been done. With the Bush politicization of the federal bureaucracy, it is very difficult for me to take any DOE report made during the last 8 years at face value. So I violently agree with everyone's skepticism about the science behind Yucca.
We have heard many stories during the last 3 or 4 years about fabrication of information used to support Yucca. In particular, googling for the following phrase from one USGS researcher will return many of the in depth articles on the subject:
"I don’t have a clue when these programs were installed"
While there may be some missing context that would render similar statements in this particular email harmless, it impossible to take a report seriously when a researcher makes a statement like this one:
"This is as good as it’s going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff."
Certainly, the report from this USGS researcher is unreliable and the studies he was involved in should be conducted again from scratch. Further, all other Yucca reports should be reviewed aggressively by peers for similar indications that questionable science practices where engaged in.
Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced of the reasons for cancelling Yucca Mountain. I agree the scientific case has been flawed, and agree with Edwards' alarm expressed in the Nevada debate that data on Yucca had been fabricated. Without doubt, those reports that are similarly impugned should be rejected. We should not proceed without an affirmative argument backed up by solid science.
But similarly, I fail to understand the assertion that Yucca should be discarded if the science case against Yucca has not been made. Absence of an affirmative argument for Yucca does not mean that the negative case has been proved. Perhaps I am simply ignorant on this. Where is that negative case? I don't see it on the Yucca Mountain opponent sites- it isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and so on. Maybe it is out there, but if it exists, this really this is what Obama, Edwards and Clinton should be pointing to- not anectodal instances of misdeeds of particular researchers. Otherwise it looks like caving in on our energy security / global warming policy based on innuendo rather than fact.
Perhaps someone else can give a pointer to the convincing science case against Yucca. Acceptable negative cases could take many forms. Eg: hydrology reports assessing likely risk of permeation of the soil over 100K years, risk due to unstable geology, and so on. It's disturbing to me that if these exist, that they are not being pointed to as the foundation for cancellation of Yucca Mountain.
Minus a science case, then a pragmatic case could be made that using of dry casks rated to safely store the waste for a century will buy us time to develop sufficient technology and perform sufficent scientific study to justify construction of very long term (100K year) storage solution. But this is not the case being made.
Minus such alternate arguments, it is insufficient to cancel Yucca based on doubts concerning science tainted by inept or politically manipulated research. If we have no support in science for the democratic position to cancel Yucca then it is unnacceptable, because we would be no better than republican leaders giving in to political pressure to push Yucca mountain forward regardless of the science.
