Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race

Nuclear energy is not a viable solution to the climate crisis. It is expernsive to build plants... they take too long to build... they waste much water... they are toxic... and the mining for uranium is unhealthful and deadly to plants, animals, waterways, and humans. The disposal of waste is DANGEROUS. Nuclear plants do not secure the safety of this country. Nuclear power is an antiquated source of energy trying to be revived by lobbyists and those looking to make profit off the climate crisis.

Therefore, I will fight John McCain tooth and nail on his policy of continuing to allow this planet and country to be toxified for his rich buddies. I will also fight any Democratic nominee that continues to allow nuclear power to be considered a viable energy source when wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and other alternate sources of energy are available and marketable NOW.

And I do give credit where it is due as well. After reading that Obama supposedly opposes new subsidies, that would be one step in the right direction. He must then come out against nuclear power as a viable solution to the climate crisis and break ties with Exelon in order for me to believe it. His watering that bill down in Illinois regarding nuclear leaks is also an action that makes me skeptical of his intentions vs.his words, and his feet will be held to the fire on this.

As far as HIllary Clinton is concerned, I have included her because she has not dropped out of this contest, the nominee has not been selected yet, and I happen to believe objectively that she has the better plan out of all of them. She is also the only one who did not vote for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill that gave more subidies to the nuclear industry... which again is why I find it hard to believe what Obama says because his words don't match his actions.

Bottomline for me: if you are an environmentalist you are not for nuclear power. It is time for politicians to stop pandering to these industries and see the light. Healthcare costs in this country are out of control and cancer caused by uranium poisoning, mercury poisoning, dioxin poisoning, and other ways of toxifying our waterways, our fish, our plants, our air, and ourselves must be addressed by these candidates NOW in conjunction with that if they are to be considered viable on the issue of the environment, and that doesn't even begin to address their lackluster climate change plans.

This is a big issue for me in this or any election, as it is the one issue that connects to health, economy, national security, and life itself. It is then time that these candidates know just how big it really is for the continued sustainability of this planet and start putting people before those interests that fund their campaigns.

if you are an environmentalist you are not for this type of power solution.

AMEN.

GREEN POWER SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY IT SERVES and it should be sustainable.

This is a GREEN community issues that will never have old energy designs for any logical GREEN working long term solution.

Keep in mind the GREEN community must also deal with their own WASTE. THIS IS KEY.

This is about LEADING BY EXAMPLE.

GREENS MUST RUN FOR LOCAL OFFICE AND WIN ON THIS GREEN SUSTAINABLE LOCAL POWER OWNERSHIP PLATFORM. Guess what.

They will win.

snorkel

Will Obama supporters hold his feet to the fire on this crucial issue for our safety and security? Would Clinton supporters do the same? How will they even 'win' if Democrats continue to tow the line as Republicans do or play it safe by trying to play both sides? I think people on the whole see nuclear for what it really is and see that its time has come and gone. So how long are we the people going to allow special interests to dictate our public policy against our own interests and the health of our children?

I think caring means standing up to anyone regardless of whether you 'support' them or not if they do not uphold their duty to the people. Taking donations from the nuclear lobby and then trying to skate around that by saying you will not be for new subsidies when you already voted to approve them is not the way to do it. If people want to join to unify then they should also wish to join to hold people accountable to their word. This is too crucial an issue to play partisan politics with.

ACT.

On this point we have to remember that former First Lady and now Senator and now Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton was in the Administration when her husband was President and when Vice President Al Gore was in office. I remember when former Vice President Gore would speak about Globe warming and the republican Congress would act as if it did not exist. I was laid up in a hospital bed at the time and even i knew the changing of the seasons were not the same as they were when I was younger that the earth was changing so much but did they listen.
No they were interested in putting money in there pockets and when Vice President Al Gore and President Clinton put together a bill to help clean up the lakes and the environment.

BUSH got in there a vetoed it after he got into office, first thing. Along with no control over Energy companies.

I just wish Florida had not been stolen from Al Gore in 2000 and this country would be in great shape because we would not have this deficit and we would not have an environmental issue. But now we need Hillary she was one of that Administration that knew what was going on then and can fix what is broken and you know former President Clinton will be right there to give her his advice but at the end it will be her decision to make not his!

And if only former Vice President Al Gore was there it would be great because she could really use his advice!
I saw it as the best Administration this country has ever seen at least since I've been growing up and I have seen a lot. I watched President John F. Kennedy when I was young all the way to Bush.
And former President Bill Clinton former Vice President Al Gore and former First Lady Hillary Clinton was the Best Administration I have ever seen.

My environmental vote is for Hillary!

I cannot dispute the environmental policy of Clinton/Gore because I think it was one of the most environmentally friendly, though not going as far as we could have and should have gone. Mr. Gore couldn't get traction regarding climate change (Kyoto) because as you stated as well, the Republican Congress stopped him at every turn, and in the case of Kyoto so did Democrats. They even voted down his Triana Project which could now be in deep space helping us regarding climate change by giving us a continuous 24 hour view of Earth from Lagrange 1 in deep space. So much vision squashed in politics by people with so little of it and too much of a political grudge. I simply hope that whichever Democrat makes it that they stand up for what is right instead of what is expected of them in payment to the bigger donors who will claim they got them there. Supporting nuclear power now is not "change" regardless of any spinning of it.

Mr. Gore's stance:

http://www.nirs.org/press/11-13-2000/1

Time for the candidates to follow suit if they respect his advice.

My concerns are so much so now that I was never that deep into politics before. Matter of fact I have tried my best to stay away from them because my Dad has aways been so deeply involved in them. He is 85 and was in the Navy and worked at a Naval location that built the guns that were placed on board on Battleships. He was in connected in Unions and was very good friends with many Admirals and Captains.
He help set up many of the Senior Apartment buildings that you see today along with HUD.
Put I'm married and have Grandchildren and my life is not my own and I worry about their future and I have looked deeply into both candidates and I can not in good understanding vote for anyone that does not salute the American Flag, connects himself with a location that teaches ( I studied Theology was going to be a preacher) or speaks GOD name in vain, That has a doctrine called the Black Value System and has subjected his children to it, and many other things I could name but, he takes money from Oil Companies and then says he wants to help lower Gas prices.

I'm Sorry I got off into a roll there! I want so badly for the BUSH Administration to have never existed and for those Republicans in Congress that year to have not had the majority. It is a new thing that the Democrats might very will have the majority in both the Senate and the Congress and we have the chance to have a Democrat in the White House.
And I can not even begin to image another situation like we had with Dukakis, McGovern, taking place it took the Democratic party till the Clinton/Gore ticket to recover and that was a long time and they are still taking about it.

Very Good Advice

Well, who you decide to vote for and why is your prerogative though I would stress to you that the sustainability of this planet is on the line and it will take more than one person or one election to make it right... So, that then means that regardless of who is 'elected' (and particularly if it is a Republican) our voices must be heard.

My concern is that lobbyists and politicians are now trying to push nuclear as 'green' so they can insert it as part of a new global treaty... that is something we and any new president must NEVER allow to happen.

I can surely empathize with your feelings regarding the Clinton/Gore years. While they were not perfect and more needed uplifting it was a better time regardless of what those who hate them say. And in my opinion, Al Gore was by far the best Vice President this country ever had, and has been the best president we almost had.

Thanks for discussing this with me. I wish more would since this is truly a crucial issue that so much of our future depends on.

Jan, thanks for inviting me to this conversation. This is such a complicated issue, but I think it is a no brainer. We cannot afford to have all these nuclear power plants around the world. Like you said, it destroys too much water and there is toxic waste that must be stored, and by looking at Oregon and Washington you can see that this country hasn't taken the issue of radioactive waste storage seriously enough.

The waste stored there has crept into the groundwater supplies of the surrounding communities and the cancer rates in those communities is 400% higher than the average rates.

And the worst part is that the contamination is very close to entering the Columbia River and the Gorge. This would be tragic, not to mention the death of millions of Salmon and their runs.

Jan you are really right on to be tackling these topics with such vigor. I was very pleased to see the other piece you did on water.

Jan you are awesome, I am so glad that you are a member of Current.

Jubal: Thank you for that discussion on water, BTW. As we were discussing there water is alive, and we are killing it and by doing so killing ourselves as we are certainly connected to water. Just once I would like to go to a rally a candidate has and raise my hand to ask a question. And when picked ask them if they have ever lost a loved one to cancer. I watched both of my parents die of cancer and I would not wish it on anyone. So I would want them to even once understand that beyond the interests, the power, and the greed lie real people suffering needlessly because of all of that. I don't know, perhaps that would touch a cord?

To weigh the devastation to this planet against the money they make from making that devastation there is simply no way you can justify what they are doing. Thank you too for your comments. And I truly do treasure being here.This place is now my voice.

Thank You again Jan I do understand what you have gone through I lost my previous wife and my wife now has a problem which concerns me greatly also. This is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed. I must leave now have to fix dinner.
Again nice talking to you.

I think that such power stations are often irresponsible, though they are safe waste remains a generational issue, and at our rate of consumption would prove a greater problem than we could tackle. I am glad there is only one such plant in my state. The locals fought for the closure of three such plants here before the reactors could be installed.

In the future advancements such as peble bed reactors which produce less heat and have no chance of overheating and at the same time have a longer lifespan for thier fuel rods might be acceptable as they are fairly self sustaining and the power considerations are so great. Until the science advances that far it just seems irresponsible to me. Though it kills me that France is becoming energy independent this way and may develop such technology in the near future.

It is most unfortunate that during this Bush/post Bush era it appears running for public office has nothing to do with anything beyond "winning" public office. Bush's campaigns and terms in office were focused on nothing more than getting into and staying in the Whitehouse. Forget about actually doing anything that will benefit the country. Brilliant campaigns, excellent job of getting into an unnecessary war, cleverly convince of the masses of the necessity to do so, all to insure a re-election. And it looks as though Obama is playing the same game. Get into office...and that's about it. Brilliant campaign to do so, and my guess would be the only thing that will come of that (IF...a BIG IF) Obama were to get into office, the game plan would be to stay in office. It's the new politics in America. You can see the same pattern. Anyone actually planning on doing anything to really improve things (energy/health care/economy) is NOT invited to play. Somewhere along the line, Bush made the game nothing more than the game...and Obama, a "new kind of candidate"...the new Bush game player type (say it enough times makes it true...WMD/CHANGE) could actually care less about any type of energy plan that contributes to making the US energy independent AND is environmentally friendly. That is not what the game is about these days. Politicians are not interested in moving this country forward. They're only interested in moving into office. Its a sad thing to watch happen...but that's what the big boys get paid for. Spin, spin get into office and keep workin' to stay there.
This does very much reflect the general mentality of Americans. Not too many roll up your sleeves workers out there. Most Americans think they are entitled to everything and spend a lot of energy trying get something for nothing. Work is a "four letter word" and to be avoided like a disease. People snub their noses at those that actually get off their butts, work hard and like it (hence the hatred for all those "illegals" taking away jobs). Working is somehow a bit 'unamerican'. Don't expect McCain or Obama to do crap about environmentally friendly energy independence...that would take way too much work. Besides, we saw what happened to Jimmy Carter when he laid out the plan in that speech twodee referenced.

Well, thank you all for the comments. It is very telling however, to see Obama supporters who frequent every esoteric thread about his campaign stay away from serious discussion about nuclear power. It speaks volumes to me about what some really consider important. At least a couple of Hillary Clinton supporters discussed the issue at hand. Thanks again.

Happy Mothers' Day JanforGore! You have proven that you are also the best mother of future generations! Thanks for this post. There was talk in Illinois of impeaching Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich but I think there was a deal cut behind closed doors. Democratic Senator Emil Jones, Illinois State Senate President is a big utility supporter and nuclear power advocate. Even the most "liberal" senator at the national level, Illinois Dick Durbin is a nuclear power lover. It's just horrible! These people don't have any sense of responsibility for the cancer and deaths that they are directly causing to all life. The National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) report affirms that even extremely low doses of ionizing radiation pose a health and cancer risk and that no threshold exists below which such exposures can be treated as harmless. I wish these elected "leaders/officials" would truly care about people and other life forms instead of money and bombs. They are so selfish and so cocky. There is so much dirt in Illinois politics, if someone would just take a look at these corrupt politicians and utility companies they would find nothing but cover-up, death and dirt. Obama is tied closely to corrupt Illinois politics. The Illinois politicians are still trying to push new nukes on the state and eliminate the nuclear moratorium which states that no new nuke should be built in Illinois until the high-level waste solution is reached (i.e.never). The deadline was just extended to May 23rd. Everyone in Illinois needs to call their state representative and ask them to defeat HR 2971, Amendment 1. If it passes the house, then it will go to the senate and they will need to call their senator. Illinois is WAY to dependent on nukepower, it's time for renewables. It's time to clean up this planet. All these people want to do is proliferate radiation worldwide for a profit. Believe me, it all starts right here in Illinois and Barack Obama is their new Public Relations Advocate.

oops, sorry, must have wandered accidentally into the wrong religious congregation...

@jubal, please describe how nuclear plants "destroy water"? i'm a bit puzzled as to where that claim comes from... url's, links, please?

and gee, with the US getting 20% or less from nukes and France getting 80% or more, maybe those frogs really ARE that much dumber than we are over here...

after all, they've standardized their reactor designs so that parts are interchangeable and easier to repair and replace, and all of the control rooms operate exactly the same way, unlike the US, where they're ALL different, and anyone trained to work in ONE can NOT be transplanted to ANY other without complete retraining.

gee.. what do we know that they don't...

oops, wrong pew, too... Back to you, Chet... here we go...

DO YOU BELIEVE??????????

DO YOU BELIEVE?????????????????? [LOUDER]

AH BELIEVE!!!!

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!

[LOUDER] AHHHHH BEEEEELIEEEEEEVE!!!!!!!!

ah, that's better...

remember: welcome to the Church of No-It-All, where any risk higher than 00000.000000000000000000% is unacceptably high, and "we know better than you do."..........

http://www.plusaf.com/soapbox/no-it-alls.htm


and happy mother's day, Jan and Ver and all the others.

(((((all)))))
+af

@TouchArt.... very interesting link. i read a bit of it. but i think the author may have confused the concepts of "it would be most desirable to" with "we should."

yes, the programs and plans would be fine, but there's no "how to get there," just "we need to go."

distributed generation has lots of value, but i can't afford it on MY roof because the coal- and nuclear-powered electricity is cheaper, so there's no financial incentive [and with a url like "nmglobalwarming" as in "no more"?, what's the real agenda? reduce man-made global warming or distribute generation of power?]

conflating the two doesn't help.

virtually every time a community tries to move towards wind or solar, some No-It-All on the OTHER side refuses to allow the "unsightly" generation units in their back yard or offshore of THEIR vacation home.

in eco-friendly California, which i left 2.5 years ago, a solar-electric outfit in Los Gatos, near San Jose, next to the heart of Silicon Valley, was denied the rights by the "city fathers" to put solar electric panels on the roof of their building within the city limits!

why? because it would change the "look and feel" of the village. even after the company offered to mask them from sight with visual barriers much like the ones which hide ugly roof air conditioning units from view.

right after the Kennedys and the Bushes "allow" wind generators offshore from THEIR digs.... right?

Renewable energy solutions ARE online AND ready to be implemented, but some of the barriers are political and some are just plain economic.

if you took the nearly $200billion away from farmers which do little but raise farm goods' prices and subsidize agricultural mega-companies, and then put the same subsidies into solar electric and the like, in the long run, you'd probably end up with the same situation: taxes paid by you and me to people who shouldn't get the money in the first place, and who, after getting the money, will discover that they can no longer live without it.

try this: solar and renewable energy subsidies for ten years MAXIMUM, and END ALL OTHER subsidies of ALL KINDS in FIVE years.

after five years, it would free up tons of money for what you want, and after ten years, if they can't survive on their own, maybe it was a bad idea in the first place.

nah, you won't like that.
but i knew that.
ciao!