Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 24, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

No Nukes Is Good Nukes

Posted on Mar 16, 2011
AP / The Yomiuri Shimbun, Daisuke Tomita

Futaba Kosei Hospital patients who might have been exposed to radiation are carried on stretchers Sunday morning after being evacuated from the hospital in the town of Futaba near the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

By Robert Scheer

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

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
Sorry, Mr. President, but there is a dimension of fear properly associated with the word nuclear that is not matched by any oil spill.

Even 11 months after what has become known simply as “Chernobyl” I sensed a terror of the darkest unknown as I donned the requisite protective gear and checked Geiger counter readings before entering the surviving turbine room adjoining plant No. 4, where the explosion had occurred. 

It was a terror reinforced by the uncertainty of the scientists who accompanied me as to the ultimate consequences for the health of the region’s population, even after 135,000 people had been evacuated. As I wrote at the time, “particularly disturbing was the sight of a collective farm complete with all the requirements of living: white farm houses with blue trim, tractors and other farm implements, clothing hanging on a line and some children’s playthings. All the requirements except people.”

Back then, working for the Los Angeles Times, I had been covering the nuclear arms race, and my invitation to be the first American newspaper reporter to visit Chernobyl came from one of Mikhail Gorbachev’s top science advisers, Yevgeny P. Velikhov, whom I had interviewed on arms control issues. 


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Velikhov had led the effort to contain the damage at Chernobyl, risking his health in the immediate days after the incident by flying low over the contaminated reactor site in a helicopter, as well as by scaling the sidewall of the damaged reactor to more accurately evaluate the situation. 

His point in arranging my visit was to demonstrate the terrifying consequence of a “peaceful” nuclear explosion, let alone one resulting from a weapon designed to inflict mass destruction. It was an argument he advanced with the military in his own country about the folly of nuclear war-fighting scenarios: “After two weeks of discussion with the army corps, I asked how you wish to survive a nuclear war if you have no possibility to clean this small piece of nuclear garbage.” 

This was a sentiment echoed by Harvard physicist Richard Wilson, who also made that Chernobyl trip, and who pointed out that with nuclear weapons “one is dealing with a technology designed to explode that is also under the control of human beings.”

An important lesson that should be reinforced by the ongoing disaster in Japan is to worry more about the elimination of those nuclear weapons designed to explode, and another is to be concerned about the prospect of sabotage of nuclear power plants. This last is a reason to rely less on nuclear power in a world made volatile not only by natural disasters but through the concerted efforts of those who can fly airplanes into targets of their choice. At the very least, the expense of properly maintaining the internal safety and external security of power plants should be considered in any cost-benefit analysis of their usefulness as an alternative source of energy. 

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

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

As journalist Kate Sheppard points out in Mother Jones online: “Nuclear power is part of the `clean energy standard’ that Obama outlined in the State of the Union speech in January. And in the 2011 budget the administration called for a three-fold increase in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. `We are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy,’ said Energy Secretary Steven Chu in February 2010 as he unveiled the budget. … In Monday’s White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said that nuclear energy `remains a part of the president’s overall energy plan.’ ”

Trust me, this is not the way we want to go.

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

MK, those who say green energy is not sufficient either:

a) are ignorant due to believing the talking heads who are paid to obfuscate

b) haven’t researched for themselves to find out if in fact green is doable

c) have an incentive to tow the line of the old guard and so fill these boards with their lies

d) all of the above

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Yeah Lee, I listen sparingly now… like using hot sauce on my food… for when I do, I know when it comes out of me… it is nothing but a HOT MESS.

Listen with caution, for the ‘play’ is consuming and becomes believable after a while.

My, what fortress of ignorance the enlightened are facing.

Report this

By mk, March 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

The point is, things happen, mistakes happen. So, knowing this, you don’t play
with things that you can’t control. When—not if—mistakes happen with nuclear
power, the results are catastrophic and long lasting. That is a foolish mistake to
make, both hubristic and sociopathic. And this doesn’t even address the fact that
we are already sitting on thousands of tons of radioactive waste that we don’t
know what to do with. It is time to stop all this arrogant madness!

I don’t know where you guys are getting this idea that “we can never get all our
power from green technologies.” I say we can and will.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 29, 2011 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Talk radio has its place in me heart.  I listen to it on the radio when I find the pressing need to hear stupidity instead of reading it, like when I am at work with my jack hammer!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

I listen to conservative talk radio ( am640 in LaLa Land ) and I cringe when I hear these shills talk about how solar power / energy is ‘bad’ for the environment, how it doesn’t produce enough, and how we ‘need’ nuclear energy… and oil..

I just want to put my hand through the radio speaker and squeeze shut their lying throats!

Not to mention the ethnocentric, prejudice and racist themes their speech is laden with… those overtones only very few catch it seems… and when I call up to have a decent dialogue with their ignorant hearts, I get cut off right when I start to convict them of their hatred…

Report this

By samosamo, March 29, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment


Always with more technology. Never have enough, technology
will save everything. Pile on many more layers of technology,
make it more fragile and delicate. Make it more susceptible to
‘murphy’s laws’. Dealing with nuclear material with thousands,
millions or billions of years of half life is incredibly risky. Just
look at Chernobyl, TMI and now Japan. All based on serving
the needs of more and more people.

No rational thought on population control of humans. That
door is sacrosanct and forever closed.. or well for yet a good
while longer. And the depopulations by invading other
sovereign nations is not the answer. What is debatable is
whether any one person on this planet will live any longer a
life before murphy becomes a factor again.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 29, 2011 at 3:52 am Link to this comment

Why not 10 distributed small reactors instead of one big monster? But
please, don’t get near the ocean or a fault line.  DavidWI



The recorded history of “mankind´s” dealings with nuclear energy, since
Edward Teller´s more or less discovery, clarifies why N O N E of these
ideas will work. Over an extended period of time. On the other hand,
there was Nicola Tesla. Who was assassinated, because the Hitler society
wanted to control his recordings of his findings. Which they have done,
since his assassination.

Thus, we see now the see-thru-concrete-machine, developed on contract
with the C.I.A., now sold back to the USGOV by the company of a MOSSAD
officer, a GHWBushSr entourage former appointee.  Which machine damages
DNA, bony structure, and neural synapses of red-blooded beings.  Which I
question if a secondary result, or the goal of the evil, inhuman-
beings in control. (After all, billionnaire William Gates lectured
medical students that if orthodox medicine- with alleged inoculations -
were efficiently utilized, the world could be depopulated efficiently.
Right. Inoculations work, however, antithetical to advertisement.)

Especially when the evil forces that control the “U.S.ofA.” control a
device that engenders an earthquake over a hundred miles away from the
“fault line,” as occurred in Japan. And what caused the Tsunami, in
association with the nuke-generator plant destruction?
And WHY?
So, Japan has had a small car in operation for a year, that runs on HHO from water?  And now, a full-sized Honda that runs on HHO from water has been produced?  Did the oil-power-vultures that run the western world give the Japanese leadership a warning to not produce the HHO-powered vehicle, or face nuclear destruction from within if they did ???

I do not support the agent who suggested in the mid 1980s, and stand against the idea, that the Russians would do the world a favor by dropping a six-meg on DC when Congress is in full session.  Would take out too many real Americans, destroy a beautiful geographic area, and pollute for too long.  Anyway, the treasonists have an effective system to cover themselves. Who was the first treasonist in the presidential cabinet bunker shortly after sunup on 9-11?  However, the destructive HAARP array in Alaska serves no altruistic purpose. Do scientist-types who make the scientific decisions, yet who permit themselves to be misused as peons, and who push the buttons, not have consciences ?

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 29, 2011 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

Welcome DavidWI.

Before giving Sheer too much credit, be sure to realize that he omits the collapse of tower 7 on that faithful day ( 9/11 ) and toes the line with the ‘official’ story being touted from Capital Hill… in my opinion, he doesn’t want to lose his beloved website and his position among all the other shills and lackeys.


Report this

By DavidWI, March 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a new visitor to this site, I’m impressed with its content. I even more impressed with Mr. Scheer’s work after reading The Great American Stickup. However, on this subject of nuclear energy, I find myself a bit in the middle.

As a retired engineer with a BS and MS in EE, I look at technology as something that is always improving. In particular, the things we build that simply must work right are really improving by leaps and bounds. If we had let one airplane crash block he airline business, we would still be taking an ocean liner to Europe. The same thing goes with bridges and dams.

Nuclear plants are entirely different things; however, and I always thought it was unfortunate that we stopped building these things after Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was a bit different since the Russian design lacked many crucial safety features including a containment building. The Japanese reactors are similar to many in the US but they are all getting old (almost 40 years for some) and their technology is as far away from what we can do today as black and white TV was to today’s high definition TV’s. Few people realize that there are ways to power today’s reactor designs with spent fuel from yesterday’s. In general, we will never build plants as big as they were then and they will not be sitting in pools of water that circulate from outside. Safety technology will be far superior to what we have today. We also know a whole lot more about earthquakes.

Having said that, many readers will instantly jump on it tell me that it only takes one mistake, one attack, or one fault (human or earthquake type) to start spewing radiation. If Japan cannot contain this, they will have to forget that patch of the island and a million people will have to move somewhere else. What if this happened in Connecticut or outside Chicago? This is a fair argument but we also have to look at the other side. What if we have no choice but to use coal for power? Contrary to many believers in solar and wind, those technologies will increase in use by orders of magnitude, but they will never be able to fully support our energy needs. New nuclear plants, far different that what we have today, may be the only way forward.

What happened in Japan is a fault not of the nuclear plant itself, although that particular design has its many drawbacks. The fault is in the thinking that these things were safe next to the sea, and especially in an active fault area. They hit a “black swan” event of the first rank. No one apparently believed the sea could come in that fast from an earthquake. Mother Nature proved them wrong and she also demonstrated her strength with the tsunami near the Indonesian island of Sumatra in 2004. The reactors reportedly withstood the earthquake itself but the instant flood wiped out the backup cooling power systems. They could not get power from other sources for weeks because of the quake. As I understand it today, most of the reactors are under control and being cooled by pumps that now have power, but a couple have been damaged to the point where their future is seriously in question. They may in fact have to bury these things as they did the Russian reactor.

Large systems that will never fail cannot be built. However, large systems can be built with redundancy and backups in place that can withstand anything, even a full on hit by a plane. Newer reactors can even be built underground. Think about the technology that is in nuclear subs? We now know how to put windmills on grids. Why not 10 distributed small reactors instead of one big monster? But please, don’t get near the ocean or a fault line.

We can do this and perhaps we should. In any case, its going to take a lot of careful consideration on how to move on. The alternative of a planet without the Greenland Ice Shelf is not that promising either.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 26, 2011 at 4:11 am Link to this comment

“Nuclear energy is good, but benefits the owners of those for-profit resources.  Nuclear waste benefits no one.” Napolean DoneHisPart, March 24 at 2:01

IF nuclear energy and nuclear waste were separate issues - - - .
BUT, they are not.

Humans (we) have consistently demonstrated that we cannot store nuclear wastes
safely for even fifty years. The concept of several BILLION years, is beyond my
comprehension. The proper use of nuclear energy seems to be beyond the
comprehension of humans.

Also, it appears to me that those who fumble with nuclear energy have not learned to properly utilize that which has been “on-hand” for approx. seventy years.  Blowing “enemies” off the face of the earth, and polluting their offspring with destructive radioactivity for a few hundred years does not seem to me to be “proper utilization.”


If a frog had wings, it wouldnt bump its hiney each time it hops. But it does
not have wings, thus bumps its butt with each hop.

Applying the frog analoby, it seems to me that the anarchial oligarchy controls the legs, and the citizenry constitutes the ass end. The direction of hopping seems to be oblivion.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 26, 2011 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

Interesting. I wonder what E=MC2 would be like in reverse. That
is, not an explosion but pulling energy into the ‘conservation of
energy’ type, meaning matter. By samosamo, March 24 at 2:20
Think, “black hole.”

Nahhaeelly wahishtomaih !

Report this

By mk, March 24, 2011 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

Exactly my thought: opinion is not the same as fact. Stubbornness is not the same
as determination. May MT learn to discern the difference.

Meanwhile, I think of the 50 workers who decided to stay at Fukushima to try and
control the damage. Brave souls. Here’s a woman engineer who helped with

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 24, 2011 at 8:22 am Link to this comment

MT states with a degree of self congratulatory pomposity: “Everything I’ve presented earlier is fact, and my arguments are logically implied by these facts”  MT tooting his own horn?

So everything,..... everything as being absolute with orthodox certainty presented by MT are facts; well….. because MT says so?......... MT, do these facts allow for human error…. allow for mistakes or in the MT world of things, the MT proper world,.......errors and mistakes do not exist?

From what I gather of MTs presentation, what he labels as logical facts are really his own opinions based on personal bias! ......MT calling someone an alien, using the steam engine allegory and wanting to keep ones middle class status do not seem like logical facts to me?

Report this

By samosamo, March 23, 2011 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment


Interesting. I wonder what E=MC2 would be like in reverse. That
is, not an explosion but pulling energy into the ‘conservation of
energy’ type, meaning matter.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 23, 2011 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

This topic and its discussion reminds me of these words:

“Everything is permissible” —but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” —but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.”

- 1st Corinthians 10:23-24

Nuclear energy is good, but benefits the owners of those for-profit resources.

Nuclear waste benefits no one.

And the other famous ‘discoveries’ coming from E=MC2, we can all atest to, benefits no one and is all about destruction / being deconstructive.

Sorry that I had to go to church on y’all… but really, I’m not.

Report this

By MT, March 23, 2011 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

Maybe I shouldn’t have said that. “You’re an alien!” “No, you’re an alien!” It seems a remarkably immature line of debate.

Report this

By MT, March 23, 2011 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

The question is not what the half-life is, but how dangerous it is. If disposed of properly, it is not dangerous.

Everything I’ve presented earlier is fact, and my arguments are logically implied by these facts. And you’re right: my advice to the Japanese people would be exactly that: don’t be afraid. However, the Japanese seem to already be following that advice. The Americans are the ones who are afraid, because of the media.

Maybe drbhelthi is an alien trying to get people to become cynical about all technology, because probably the only way to run an electrical grid without poisoning the environment is to go nuclear. A human race without technology would be very easy to conquer indeed.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 23, 2011 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

“It does not ring of hubris to say that we can control nuclear power. We have been controlling nuclear power just fine for fifty years.”  MT

Such tripe is not worthy even of the classification of “bull shit.”

If MT is not the voice of an extraterrestrial, the extra-earthers have no need to actively remove humanity from the earth. Take a look at how effectively humanity is removing itself, with “personages” such as MT tooting the horn.

The “we” MT represents has been polluting the world with nuclear radioactivity for 66 years. The pollution accelerated with the conversion of “depleted uranium” into munitions, initiated by Israel against Egypt in 1973.

While thousands of Patriotic American agents cry in their sleep at night, since the GHWBushSr entourage nullified their charter under the U.S.Constitution, by “executive privilege.”  SAD _ . Maybe it is time for this group to fulfill their charter by presenting the evidence at hand against the GHWBushSr entourage to the World Court. If no American Federal Judge is willing to do ones constitutional duty.

Report this

By mk, March 23, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

Um hmm…and what’s the half-life of steam?

So I guess your advice to the Japanese people would be, “Don’t be afraid”?

Report this

By MT, March 22, 2011 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

“It is extremely disingenuous to present nuclear power as just another technology.  That kind of thing is not going to convert any skeptics.”

The problem I have with this kind of skepticism is that it is based on fear, and not on logic. I think nuclear power IS just like any other technology. It’s analogous to the steam locomotive: it uses a kind of power never before known to humankind, with spectacular results. And, just like the steam locomotive, it inspires fear in people who don’t know what to expect. Is this fear rational? Of course not! It’s just fear of the unknown, no more rational than fear of a steam locomotive. We’ve gotten used to the locomotive, and if the media stops their terrible non-fact-based reporting on Fukushima, we’ll get used to nuclear power.

It does not ring of hubris to say that we can control nuclear power. We have been controlling nuclear power just fine for fifty years. The only accident ever to cause serious harm to the environment and human beings has been Chernobyl, which WAS the result of hubris. But nothing else in the course of operations in these nuclear power plants has resulted in catastrophe.

Report this

By mk, March 22, 2011 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Indeed, consider this…

We’ve now accumulated over 63,000 metric tons of spent fuel at the
approximately 110 reactor locations throughout the U.S. That’s almost 150 million
pounds of radioactive waste, the same stuff that they are currently struggling with
in Fukushima.

It is both sociopathic and hubristic to dismiss the dangers involved. Take a look at
what the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say:

Report this

By samosamo, March 22, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment



There is a use for nuclear power.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 22, 2011 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

It is extremely disingenuous to present nuclear power as just another technology.  That kind of thing is not going to convert any skeptics.

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

Napoleon, I don’t mean to judge you when I say this, but I believe we have to be extremely specific and cogent about what we support and what we oppose. When you say “You may want to consider the revolution at-hand and discontinue the drudge of supporting the hierarchy of tyranny…” I am led to believe that it’s not so much the nuclear power which you oppose, but the tyranny of an unjust hierarchy. Our capitalist economy has become exactly that. The rich capitalists are on top, and everyone else is on bottom. But that doesn’t imply we need to ditch nuclear power (at least not yet). What it does imply is that we need to change the capitalist system so that it’s not simply a scheme to transfer as much wealth as humanly possible to the richest of the rich and no one else. THAT is what creates “drudge” and “tyranny”—at least for me.

If we had a nuclear-based electrical grid, how much really would change? We would probably need the same amount of infrastructure and technology as if we had, say, a solar power grid. Solar power uses minerals too, probably minerals more rare than uranium. So switching to solar power will keep the same amount of infrastructure as if we use nuclear. So if it’s this infrastructure which creates drudge and tyranny for you, I don’t think ditching nuclear is necessarily the right solution.

And if you’re worried that nuclear is inherently unsafe or involves Western civilization’s technological hubris I shall refer you to my previous posts. Nuclear power involves no more hubris than the steam locomotive did at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, yes, the world has “survived” for billions of years without nuclear power. Why do we need it?

Well, when the world didn’t have electricity, it was fractured into different nations, which warred with one another, and dominated and controlled and enslaved one another. As bad as capitalism is now, it is not anywhere near as tyrannical as, say, the Spanish invasion of the Azteks. Or any invasion of the Native Americans. The Native Americans were by no means not advanced people. Yet the Europeans invaded and enslaved them. There are other examples, as I’m sure you know.

But now, because of improved means of communication, we have the ability to make full use of our democracies, and we’re moving towards one world government. Anyone on this thread who doesn’t believe that technology can make a positive difference is a total hypocrite. Why would you be online on a political website if you didn’t believe that?

I believe I heard the statistic that the world is on average more safe for more people now than it has ever been. And it is all due to technology. I am a middle class American, and I am going to give up being a middle-class American over my dead body. Getting rid of the electrical grid means getting rid of the ability for most Americans to be middle class (given the right political and economic institutions).

Yeah, I know, there are many people in 3rd world nations who are not experiencing the benefits of technology. But that’s not due to technology, that’s due to corporate capitalism. I think the most beneficial scenario for all involved is to get rid of the corporate capitalism and keep the technology. But if you get rid of both, it’s back to the Anglo/Saxon warring tribes where life was meaningless and sorrowful for everyone. Or, best case scenario, warring nations with no guarantee that the victor will be a democracy.

Report this

By Litl Bludot, March 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment


phone Washington White House 202 456 1111

Nuclear industry and Obama playing Russian Roulette with the American People

closed monetized minds, Obama, energy secretary Chou, will not meet with nuclear power critics, but only with nuclear corporate allies, technological insanity, won’t be financed by bankster, but only by taxpayers.  Closed “monetized minds” in Washington.  Obama’s rush to defend nuclear power by Obama, a cheerleader for Nuclear polluters. Obama likes “clean coal”, and hides continuing oil disaster in Gulf


“Many legal experts know that Obama is committing war crimes and should be impeached, veterans for peace want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama committing worse crimes than Bush in Afghanistan “innocents are being slaughters, using state secrets,  CIA engaging in illegal surveillance “running wild”, “if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached”

At this time, the longer citizens wait to stop the corporate fascism takeover of the US, as described by Chris Hedges, who you people seem to follow, the less chance there is going to be to keep the planet from being destroyed by disaster capitalism, as described by Naomi Klein.  Google it, if you’re ignorant of what is happening to your country and the world by “monetized minds” the term used by Ralph Nader, the only guy that I can see that has dedicated his life to citizens of this country, has the brilliance and organizational skills, the decades of experience fighting corruption, the incredible knowledge base required to lead the effort to end the corporate fascist takeover.  The longer you people believe that Obama is a moral human being, the less chance we and all life on this planet have of making it to the next century without living in war ravaged, desolated,radioactive, toxic, ugly, lifeless world.  Please people, realize Obama is a fake, a frenemy, he will not even listen to you, he is a tool of the corporate fascists.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Isn’t Idaho next to Texas?

Double meaning of Nuclear Reactor has become clear to me, a Nuclear Reactor is someone from Idaho, who believes they cannot survive with out Nuclear Reactions! 

Lets see, if MT is religious, the world has survived for 3000 years without Nuclear power, but MT cannot survive without it?
If MT is not Religious the world has survived a hell of a lot longer then 3000 years and MT cannot still survive without Nuclear power?

Is that supposed to be an argument? You know MT you buy a horse and become Amish!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for stating so MT…

Now I’m really surprised you being a college student and still follow the old ways of thinking.

You may want to consider the revolution at-hand and discontinue the drudge of supporting the hierarchy of tyranny… the continued tribute to those who hold oil and nuclear energy’s against the common man… who’d rather use the sun’s free energy, the wind’s free energy and the other things nature has to offer.. of which they cannot pull a return from.

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

I think simply restating what I’ve already stated in this thread will counter most of the arguments being made now. I, too, desire to live, which is why I want nuclear energy.

Napoleon, I do not work for GE. I am a college student at the University of Idaho.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 21, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

[mt’s and mk"s?]  May help one become like a confused Tea Bag!

In an attempt to annoy and become like one of those obstetricians, I may try using brackets for the hell of it!

If the brackets do not work, I will use them until they do work, if they do happen to work properly, I have learned something new which affects and enriches and yet again fulfills my life until demising time, I really enjoy learning about things I which I really never needed or wanted to know about!

Report this

By samosamo, March 21, 2011 at 10:56 am Link to this comment



From my comment: ““it does add to the already overflowing
pollution dumps that will not ‘just go away’.”“

I guess I was too general here as the ‘waste’ on further
comments were directly related to nuclear waste.

And there in lies a problem if all the other insidious wastes
MOST ESPECIALLY those the take forever or never break down in
the ‘disposal system’ . Why just want to consider something
about the 4.5 billion year half life of U238? Isn’t something like
PCBs a long term pollutant? Doesn’t there need to be
consideration of those medications that don’t break down but
just keep floating around in of all places the water tables or if
those meds get into the wet lands, doesn’t even the decline of
amphibians give cause for concern?

Well, it will be Love Canal’ all over again when some shyster
developer decides to build on another polluted landfill or
obscure dump somewhere.

It isn’t just nuclear wastes, it is the whole of all the wastes we so
flippantly throw out in the environment. Just think that ‘maybe,
just maybe’ some time in the future someone will come up with
an affordable way of fishing out that state of texas size floating
plastic island and recycle it or do something useful with it. But
hey, that ain’t floating around here in our backyards so why
should we give a shit, out progeny can deal with it, if they don’t
become to affect by any toxic wastes.

Report this

By mk, March 21, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Your desire for nuclear energy does not trump everyone’s desire to simply live. It
is not okay for you to needlessly and foolishly endanger all life (including future
generations), just because you are willing to take the chance.

It is similar to all the financial risks that were recently taken. The greedy finance
boys also thought they were smart and infallible, and that didn’t work out so well.
It never does.

Nuclear energy? Radioactive waste? The answer is no. Find another source of
energy, one we can all live with safely.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 21, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

MT, March 21 at 3:15 am:

Ah, I see what you’re saying. I have to define what properly regulated means.

Okay then: properly regulated means better than Chernobyl. Chernobyl is, in my mind, the only real nuclear disaster, because (I believe) it’s the only one which we have evidence actually hurt people.

That’s a matter of considerable dispute, and hand-waving the issue will not further your cause, at least not in the future.  In any case, I strongly advise you not to use Chernobyl as a standard in your future efforts at persuasion.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 21, 2011 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

Is it possible MT works for GE or the military?

Does it sound like MT does NOT live near a nuclear power plant?

Could MT be happy to spending $4 a gallon, contributing to the pollution of our collective air by supporting the oil tycoons with his tribute, and could MT simply be a lackey?

Is MT hired to battle logic and support the Amerikan Empire’s agenda?

Could MT simply be believing everything the news tells him, especially CNNothing and FOXtrap news?

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

Ok, Leefeller, fine. Regulations have to be QUITE A BIT better than Chernobyl.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 21, 2011 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

So proper regulations are now compared to no regulations, with out even defining proper?  Comparing Soviet non regulations to the clearly much better US proper regulations now are we?

Damn it Anaccassi, I really find the Scottsman argument analogy slightly unpleasant, because I happen to play the bagpipes very badly, but the advantage of playing the bagpipes very badly is most people can never tell.

Attempting to promote a topic Point of View by calling it an argument supported simply by calling it an argument, does not make it an argument.  This seems especially true,  if one has the finer choice of directing discussion from their point of view, by ignoring all others, so this means from self defined proper bull shit to the self defined proper bull shit vantage point!

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 1:51 am Link to this comment

“The waste.” by far less than the waste produced by other energy sources. And when disposed of properly, it poses less risk.

“The risk.”

What risk?

“The closed market ( how competitive is the nuclear market? ).”

More competitive than many other mineral markets, which even green energy relies on. Why? Because Uranium is everywhere.

“How can folks debate whether this tiny amount is ‘ok’ as opposed to ‘this’ amount?”

Because there is no evidence that tiny amounts of radiation do any harm whatsoever.

“ANY amount of fall out is UNACCEPTABLE.”

That is a fundamental difference in philosophy here. Safe amounts of fall out is, to me, acceptable, if it means no resource wars, which really would kill people. I see it as weighing costs and benefits. The costs of nuclear energy are WAY outweighed by the benefits. For one thing, you’re never going to get rid of imperial capitalism without ditching oil. It’s just not going to happen. And to me, a populus with no energy to run travel infrastructure and communications is an uninformed populus just asking to be invaded and enslaved. Or enslaved by the people who run the country. That, to me, is an unacceptable risk.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 21, 2011 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

Nuclear is no good. 

The waste.

The risk.

The closed market ( how competitive is the nuclear market? ).

ANY amount of fall out is UNACCEPTABLE. 

How can folks debate whether this tiny amount is ‘ok’ as opposed to ‘this’ amount? 

Like saying it is safer swimming with piranha than tiger sharks.

Why should we be swimming with deadly fish in the first place?


Report this

By samosamo, March 21, 2011 at 1:22 am Link to this comment


I just don’t go for nuclear. The wastes left over for the future
generations of our and our children’s children are what is in the
way. And it is a way of showing those future generations that we
don’t care about them. It’s just and a little more than, a way of
telling them ‘fuck you, you deal with it’, which they may or may
not be able to do because it does add to the already overflowing
pollution dumps that will not ‘just go away’.

Report this

By MT, March 21, 2011 at 12:21 am Link to this comment

Regulation has made things quite a bit safer. I think it’s telling that no nuclear accident since Chernobyl (which wasn’t regulated) has caused any illness or death.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 21, 2011 at 12:16 am Link to this comment

Proper regulations could be argued to support Republican foot tapping so then it would be proper and regulated?

How does one obtain or decide on what proper regulations really are?  To make matters worse the people who are being regulated, lobby with money and power to constantly water down proper regulations so they may be proper in their own eyes, in this case the Nuclear lobby, who is promoting a Nuclear plant always in someone else’s backyard! Even worse most of the regulators are employees of the companies being regulated, this has been business as usual in Washington, all part of the accountability and integrity program.

I suspect, the concept of proper regulations is a fantasy and does not exist, just maybe if lobbies did not exist that could change things a bit?

Report this

By MT, March 20, 2011 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

Holy wow… the media being reasonable and responsible??

Report this

By MT, March 20, 2011 at 11:43 pm Link to this comment

But, see Napoleon, this is exactly the thing that disgusts me about the U.S. media coverage.

They say, “look: a radioactive plume.” But they don’t say HOW radioactive the plume is, when that would be easily measurable! Mark my words, if there’s ever a plume which is actually dangerous, they will say EXACTLY how radioactive it is. They will say, “This plume is pumping 1 sieverts of nuclear radioactivity into the atmosphere every hour!” But instead, they just say, “Hey look, a radioactive plume!” They are trying to sensationalize the disaster and make people scared to increase readership. See here: (

The moral of the story is being misread. It shouldn’t be “don’t trust nuclear power,” but rather, “don’t trust the media!”

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

I don’t know about anyone decent, logical and non-inbred human being reading this.. but I would NOT like ANY radiation amount or level raining down on me…. for one measuring amount is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Here is the plume:

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 20, 2011 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment

To the shills who support the nuclear endeavor… you will be held accountable… and your obfuscation on here is evident to those who ‘see.’

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 20, 2011 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

How can anyone justify nuclear energy when we’ve had several examples of catastrophe.

If you lived near the nuke facility in Japan, you’d be aware of the madness… same if one lived near Chernobyl… or three mile island.

It is easy to read the pros and cons… living at a ‘safe’ distance… yet have you seen the fallout from Japan as it has made it’s way across the northern hemisphere is NOW raining down on the western states?

SHUT THEM DOWN in 120 days and replace with wind, solar and other renewable / clean energy.


Report this

By MT, March 20, 2011 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment

Ah, I see what you’re saying. I have to define what properly regulated means.

Okay then: properly regulated means better than Chernobyl. Chernobyl is, in my mind, the only real nuclear disaster, because (I believe) it’s the only one which we have evidence actually hurt people.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 20, 2011 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

MT—You can look up ‘no true Scotsman’ in Wikipedia.

There is lots of evidence that nuclear power is bad, but one can always say it’s the product of improper regulation.  To determine whether a nuclear plant is properly regulated or not, we start it and wait to see if it blows up.  It’s ‘properly regulated’ until it blows up, after which it’s ‘improperly regulated’.

It could be that a safe nuclear power plant could be constructed, but to do it people would have to get serious about doing it and stop laying political games.

Report this

By MT, March 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

I wasn’t aware my argument had a name. But all I’m arguing here is that unless there is evidence that something is bad, there is no reason to go on claiming it’s bad just because you’re scared of it. Especially when there IS evidence that it does good. We have to be evidence-based about these things.

Drbhelthi, you’ve just gave a lot of good reasons why the U.S. military is full of crap. Which is good, but I already knew that. I was talking about commercial nuclear reactors which generate electricity. Not the U.S. military.

Report this

By ockitaris, March 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

A reply to Mr Chesser of Texas and all the rest of the takers.
People who believe that we must go down the fossil fuel and nuclear path refuse to look at results at the end of this road.  We are approaching this end soon.  They do not see the destruction of the planet.  They must believe that the space telescope that is searching for a liveable planet will find one and that technology will get them there and that the planet if they get will will actually be liveable.  We have global warming the prospect of irradiating everyone and now with the gas well drilling that requires breaking up of the bed rock of many areas of the US we will be ruining our drinking water.  Industrial farming is ruining our farm land - the mid-west had top soil of 2 or more feet in depth now it is about 1/2 foot.  Our industrialism was married to militarism during WW2 and became our jobs program.  Mr. Chesser obviously has the Aian Rand mentality that world ends when he dies.  But having children I want a world for them to live in.  And if giving up on industrialism is what it takes I’m all fore it.  We have a Amish, religious sect, hear in Pennsylvania who choose to live with out electricity and they seem to be happy enough to keep procreating unlike the present generation who have almost quit having babies (latest stats is that deaths out number birth in every county in the US).  If one investigates farming you’ll find that for every 1 calorie of food produced it takes 11 calories of fossil fuels.  Manual agriculture produces the same amount of food as industrial agriculture on 1/2 the acreage with out the pollution.  It will also absorb all the labor available.  Hopefully the change to the agricultural society will not be done under catastrophic conditions like the Roman empire’s collapse.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 20, 2011 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

MT, March 20 at 2:22 am:

... Until someone actually digs up some evidence that nuclear energy when properly regulated has ever been dangerous, I won’t believe a word of this anti-nuclear nonsense. ...

That’s the No True Scotsman argument.  It’s kind of silly to present it to logical whizzes like us.

As for Obama, he is the same cautious, conservative, established-order person he was before he was elected (as was evident if one read the small print on the side of the box).  He has maintained the same general policies that have been in place for the last 30 or 40 years at least.  If he had not been manifestly prepared to do that, he would not have been allowed to get anywhere near the presidency.

Eventually, these policies—imperialism, repression, money-printing, the destruction of resources, the immiseration of the lower classes and so forth—will bring the United States to ruin.  At that time we may see some heroic character step forth and change things for the better, although history teaches us that we will probably get something far worse.  The excessive consumption of energy in the U.S. will be taken care of the hard way.  But that day has not quite arrived.

Report this

By prosefights, March 20, 2011 at 10:38 am Link to this comment

‘There are three basic principles that govern the limits and utility of energy. The first two laws of thermodynamics tell us that when it comes to energy production, we cannot win, and we cannot break even.

We will always battle the transformation of energy from one form to another, and have it dissipated by forces beyond our control. But the third law is most daunting, for it states that the first two laws must proceed until all that remains is inaccessible. In other words, if we are to survive, we have no choice but continue to play the game.’

It takes more than twice 3412.14163 BTU to produce 1 kWh, we learned at PNM electric IRP.

Foil reported that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to wind and solar generatation of electricity.

We will see about this.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 20, 2011 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

Depleted uranium munition, the forced choice of the U.S. Military, is
doing the DNA alteration, without the need for nuclear power plants. 
Communism did not initiate the misuse of nuclear energy. No Gov has
covered up the nuke debacle as much as the USGov.

All the following are excerpts from articles regarding DU munition used by
U.S. Forces:
“Ingested DU particles can cause up to 1,000 times the damage of an X-
ray”, said Mary Olson, a nuclear waste specialist and biologist at the
Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington D.C.
Ross B. Mirkarimi, a spokesman at The Arms Control Research Centre stated:
“Unborn children of the region are being asked to pay the highest price,
the integrity of their DNA.”

Dr. Ahmad Hardan has documented the effects of DU in Iraq between 1991 and
2002.  “American forces admit to using over 300 tons of DU weapons in
1991.  The actual figure is closer to 800.  This has caused a health
crisis that has affected almost a third of a million people.  As if that
was not enough, America went on and used 200 tons more in Bagdad alone
during the recent invasion. 
I don"t know about other parts of Iraq, it will take me years to document
that. “In Basra, it took us two years to obtain conclusive proof of what
DU does, but we now know what to look for and the results are terrifying.”                                     
By far the most devastating effect is on unborn children. 

In a group of eight U.S. led Coalition servicemen whose babies were born
without eyes, seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU dust. In
a much group (250 soldiers) exposed during the first Gulf war, 67% of the
children conceived after the war had birth defects.

Dr. Durakovic’s UMRC research team also conducted a three-week field trip
to Iraq in October of 2003. Durakovic said preliminary tests show that the
air, soil and water samples contained “hundreds to thousands of times” the
normal levels of radiation.
(NOTE ABOUT DR. DURAKOVIC;  First, he was warned to stop his work, then he
was fired from his position, then his house was ransacked, and he has also
reported receiving death threats.  Evidently the U.S. D.O.D is very keen
on censoring DU whistle-blowers!)

Report this

By MT, March 20, 2011 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

Leefeller: thanks, and I’m glad there’s some sanity in this thread. =P

By the way, the reason why I tried to explain why I joined this site was because of drbhelthi’s post, where he said: “A two-day member of Truthdig bloggers, MT obviously represents his/her group, indicated by the prevalent use of ‘we.’  The ideas trumpeted reflect the shadow USGov, not those of an informed Truthdig blogger.” So I thought it was appropriate to explain.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 19, 2011 at 10:57 pm Link to this comment

MT; You may be right that Obama is only one man, but he has a room full of idiots telling him what he should be doing and as far as I can tell none of them support any of my great ideas,.... like lowering the price of Tequila or finding things to do with pineapples and Republicans!

“Until someone actually digs up some evidence that nuclear energy when properly regulated has ever been dangerous, I won’t believe a word of this anti-nuclear nonsense.” Yeah,..... I feel the same way about properly regulated banksters and Wall Street!

MT comment; “You wonder why it is I just joined this site to comment on this article?”......Uh!... No not really,... you may want to ask someone else like Anacissie the fleged anarcists or Psychobabbler, I think Lafayette may be real busy installing a nukler rector in his back yard and Beer Doctor is counting his days watching the calendar, so you may also try the real Tao Walker with blood shotless eyes!

Now I feel like a fricking welcome wagon, Nice to meet you MT!

Report this

By MT, March 19, 2011 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

I think it’s ridiculous to assert that having Obama in office is worse or the same as it would’ve been having McCain in office. Or even Hillary. Obama is one man. He can only do so much. He can’t start an entire revolution on his own. So if you want a revolution, fine. That’s your opinion. But don’t be blaming the fact that there hasn’t been one on Obama. You don’t vote for presidents for the purpose of starting a revolution. That’s just stupid.

“Mis-usage on earth of nuclear energy is gradually altering and destroying mankind and all life on earth.” There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Chernobyl is the only severe nuclear accident in our history, and the reason why it happened was because of Soviet Communist stupidity. There are no more Soviet Communists building nuclear power plants, so that shouldn’t be an issue.

Until someone actually digs up some evidence that nuclear energy when properly regulated has ever been dangerous, I won’t believe a word of this anti-nuclear nonsense. Especially if it’s argued from the perspective of “I’m scared. Therefore nuclear energy is bad.”

You wonder why it is I just joined this site to comment on this article? Because 1) I am disgusted with the media coverage of this event, and believe it is fueling anti-nuclear sentiment without cause. 2) It pisses me off when people use fear to turn down good solutions to extremely dangerous problems like global warming. You want change, but you are asking too much. The only viable alternative to nuclear power is to go back to the dark ages and destroy all of civilization and probably 80% of the people living on this planet. Hopefully, that’s not going to happen.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 19, 2011 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

Dr. Doug Rokke, U.S. Army Health Physicist, Nuclear Medicine Sciences Officer, explains that nuclear weaponry has been consistently in use, since used by the Israelis against Egypt in 1973.

Depleted Uranium, the ultimate dirty bomb:

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Realizing that the earth is a living thing much like all things who spring up from it… why does man continue to besiege our collective ecosystem with ridiculous ‘creations’ which, in the end, only harm us?

Einstein himself was sorry from bringing forth this knowledge… at least he was able to see his mistakes, unlike the beasts at the helm of military and big corp mammoths.

I mean, who else is in the business of nuclear energy?  What is the competition like?

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 19, 2011 at 2:05 pm Link to this comment

“MT” repeats below the all-too-common, and idiotic, assertion of this Living Earth being “our ecology.”  The Natural Fact, of course, is that we ALL belong-to the Living Arrangement here that is entirely Hers.  Best get used to it.

Now that’s the “JDmysticDJ” we all know and like.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 19, 2011 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

I have a plan that will work for everyone!..... Why don’t we just make sure all the Nukler Rectors are built and set up in Lafayette’s backyard?

Report this

By samosamo, March 19, 2011 at 11:39 am Link to this comment


One thing is certain, if people keep demanding nuclear power
for energy, the accidents will keep happening as for 1 reason, it
is too expensive to set up a risk free reactor. And though that
might be an ‘every once in a while’ accident, cleaning up these
things will be rather expensive with a part of that expense the
demise of useable arable land.

Report this

By prosefights, March 19, 2011 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Byron King on the future of nuclear generation of electricity.

Report this

By mk, March 19, 2011 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

We’re drifting off topic, but David Swanson discusses the O thing here:
[url=“”]Is Obama
Even Worse Than Bush?[/url]

It seems the hardest thing for people to understand is that both parties represent
the Oligarchs. Take an honest look around: it doesn’t make much difference if it is
a “white hat” or a “black hat” in office, they all march to the same general orders.
It’s a game they’re playing, at our, and the world’s, expense. When we, the people,
wake up, it will change; before that, it will only continue getting worse. The choice
is yours.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, March 19, 2011 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

“First, we need to stop being so critical of Obama. Second, regarding the
risk of nuclear power and environmental impact: We don’t know what it is,
exactly, but we are reasonably certain that it’s a hell of a lot better
than coal and oil.”  =  MT

A two-day member of Truthdig bloggers, MT obviously represents his/her group, indicated by the prevalent use of “we.”  The ideas trumpeted reflect the shadow USGov, not those of an informed Truthdig blogger.

Obviously, MT represents neither the well-informed, nor the group who know
enough about the life-destructiveness of nuclear energy so as to discontinue its use, which use is basically, mis-use.  Humans have demonstrated that they cannot adequately control nuclear energy, thus are grandiosely naïve in its continued mis-usage. Mis-usage on earth of nuclear energy is gradually altering and destroying mankind and all life on earth.

Americans need to become more critical of Mr. H.B.Obama, his shadow supporters, and the U.S. citizenry who naively continue to expect him to carry out his pre-election promises.  Comparing his pre-election promises to his actual “presidential behavior” seems to be beyond the capability of many American voters.  Even if Mr. Obama tried to behave decently as the U.S. President, the shadow forces that inserted him into the U.S. Presidency would not permit it. The GHWBushSr entourage accelerated their machine, which machine has the next USPresidential imposter well positioned.  Yes. The next will be worse than Obama.  Unless “the people intervene.”

Instead of threatening to send U.S. military dupes to Lybia, Mr. “Obama” might more constructively interrupt the genocide of Moslems in their homelands, interrupt the artificial, GHWBushSr entourage “war on terror,” withdraw U.S.Military Americans from a few hundred “U.S. bases overseas,” and disband illegal organizations such as AmericanTaskForce 373, which conduct surreptitious war against foreign governments, without U.S. Congress approval. 


There is adequate terror in the world, without the shadow USGov sending the maligned “U.S.Military,” CIA,Blackwater/Ex/, and illegal, secretive TASK FORCES around the world to control oil reserves, destroy sovereign governments, and manipulate the U.S. Citizenry via artificial terror.

Report this

By MT, March 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

A couple of things:

First, we need to stop being so critical of Obama. Whatever Obama is like, the alternatives are a hell of a lot worse. Remember HOW Obama was elected. He was elected by individuals, less by corporations than the alternatives would’ve been. If Obama loses to a Republican in 2012 and this Republican is worse than Bush (as he almost inevitably would be), then I’m blaming it on you guys.

Second, regarding the risk of nuclear power and environmental impact: We don’t know what it is, exactly, but we are reasonably certain that it’s a hell of a lot better than coal and oil. Global warming is the biggest threat to our ecosystem ever. Coal causes more death than nuclear power, by a hell of a lot. Don’t be brainwashed by the stupid, fear-mongering U.S. media coverage of this event.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 18, 2011 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

By Leefeller, March 17 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

Of the comments that have appeared here since my last comment, yours is the most intriguing. I may be easily intrigued, but I have to ask you, do you recycle your old shoes, after they’re spent?

Allow me to divert from the issue at hand, and offer this recounting of something I observed many years ago, in my formative years. It has to do with a very progressive individual who was in the vanguard regarding the issues of conservation and consumerism. This individual was known as “Barefoot Johnny.” Barefoot Johnny was a troubadour who performed in coffee houses, and on the streets, near a major Northern Institution of Higher Learning. Barefoot Johnny was, as I said, in the vanguard of issues regarding conservation and wasteful consumerism. He also reproduced old blues songs, protest songs, traditional folk songs, and even the occasional Beatles song. He was very hip, for his day and time. As an example of Barefoot Johnny’s attitudes on consumerism, other than a few pairs of ragged jeans and some flannel shirts, Barefoot Johnny’s only worldly possession appeared to be an antique accoutic, Gibson Arch Top, Jazz Guitar, I think it was a Gibson Super 400, if memory serves me, but I digress. The point is Barefoot Johnny was held in awe by those who encountered him; not so much for his musical genius, but because of the fact that he went around barefoot in all kinds of inclement whether, and for his progressive attitude about consumerism. Barefoot Johnny proved that shoes are not necessary, but perhaps I’m being to chevalier with my contention that shoes are not a necessity.

While I’m here, I may as well comment on some of the other comments here. In order to avoid the despicable Adhominem attacks of which I have been guilty, I will focus on the historical record, and specifically on Lafayette (the real one.) According to the historical record, the gallant, cavalier, chevalier, Lafayette after leading (perhaps leading is not the appropriate word, perhaps observing would be the more appropriate word) anyway after leading 990 of his fellow Frenchmen to death, or observing the death of 990 of his fellow Frenchmen, while they were fighting for the interests of bourgoialiers, and the landed gentryaliers, against the multi-national Brits, he turned his chevaliering skills against the French prolatarianaliers, which may have been the thing to do at the time, considering the “Reign of Terror” and whatnot. Personally, I find the “Reign of Terror” not so much intriguing, as baffling, but I really shouldn’t be baffled by the head lopping and whatnot, seeing as how such things are not at all atypical behavior for some unenlightened human beings… Did the Reign of terror occur during the enlightenment period? Um…?  Never mind, it’s not important.


Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, March 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

There are no acceptable risks with nuclear energy.

Outcome =  probability of an accident X environmental impact of the accident

Since the impact of a nuclear accident is either inestimable at the lower bound due the pervasive (atomic)  nature of radiation or certainly lethal at the upper bound,
we are left with anything from guesswork about damage to the environment to nuclear winter.

Multiply such an event by even the smallest probability and it is still unacceptable.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment


Back to the historical record concerning the gallant, cavalier, chevalier, Lafayette (the real one.) Lafayette the gallant, cavalier, chevalier (the real one) was very close to Hamilton the plutocratalier. It’s been said, (by me,) that Hamilton and Lafayette were very, very close, if you get my drift. It has also been said, (by me,) that Hamilton and Lafayette “bivouacked” together in a tent. Lafayette’s real name was: Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette. What does that tell you? A man who’s first name was Marie? Enough said.

Based on my knowledge, and surmising, this has been an accurate recounting of history, free from despicable Adhominem attack, but in order to prove my fairness I’ll include the following:

François-René de Chateaubriand reported on Lafayette’s death, and expressed regret for participation in the early mistreatment of his reputation in France:

“In this year of 1834, Monsieur de Lafayette died. I may already have done him an injustice in speaking of him; I may have represented him as a kind of fool, with twin faces and twin reputations; a hero on the other side of the Atlantic, a clown on this. It has taken more than forty years to recognize qualities in Monsieur de Lafayette which one insisted on denying him. At the rostrum he expressed himself fluently and with the air of a man of breeding. No stain attaches to his life; he was affable, obliging and generous.”

Yeah Right! It took forty years for One Aristocratic French Fop, to find any redeeming qualities in another Aristocratic French Fop.

Post Scriptumalier:

As far as I know, Marie didn’t comment about her/ his, whatever… opinions regarding nuclear power, and nuclear waste.

Report this

By mk, March 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Obama is nothing more than a corporate tool, in a long line of them. May their
shameful reign end soon! The people will decide when they have finally had

Report this

By Litl Bludot, March 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

The most relevant discussion concerning the Japanese nuke disaster, Obama’s
response to it, the nuclear industry, Ralph Nader’s analysis-which is clear, concise,
and intellectually honest.  Obamazombies should watch it and then comment here. 
I would love to hear their rationalizations for their continued support of the creep. 
It is fascinating to read their blustering self delusion.  My thought is that the mind
set is identical to what happened in Germany prior to the nazis takeover.  Good,
literate Germans somehow ended up cheering in the streets for a mass murdering
maniac in league with the corporate fascists of the day.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 18, 2011 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment

*for they do NOT see nor hear*

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 18, 2011 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

Every election year, droves of folks are duped and fooled by the media lies… and very few actually realize they’ve been lied to, misled and bamboozled… and they quickly WAKE UP!

Yet, the vast majority, simply accept the dubious nature of our political lying system and keep their head down and keep scratching out an existence… for they do now see nor hear.

May God Bless the uninformed and bless the evildoers… with hot coals on their heads!

Report this

By Litl Bludot, March 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Since Obama is doing the same crimes and worse as Bush and Cheney, on
Democracy Now today’s show at the very end of it, in the last seconds, Ralph
Nader called for the impeachment of Obama for war crimes, and for directing
the CIA, the Treasury Department, to break laws, our laws, you know, the ones
we have to follow or get thown in jail.

Just wondering if any of the liberals here who voted for the creep are able to
recognize that they made the wrong decision and should call for Obama’s
impeachment, arrest and jailing for crimes against humanity and our

Otherwise, it seems clear that it’s ok for your guy to commit crimes, but not
anyone else. .  Some may call that hypocrisy.  Besides, that’s what wing nut
nazis Republicans do, not you ethical, humanitarian, liberal Democrats.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 18, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Well Japan has raised the worry fret level to 5 from a 4?  How high does it get to go? You know this number thing really bothers me, ....because I know with a degree of certnity half the people in the United States do not under stand numbers higher than….. number one !

Why do you think Bush went to the Terror light system? He wanted to screw color blind people? Possibly,..... but I think it was much shallower than that!

Just heard this morning, that the West Coast of the United States does not have to worry about radiation drifting over their houses.
......Boy, that is real good news to me, I would rather radiation drifts over some other peoples houses then my grandma’s

Lafayette, thanks for the history information. My history knowledge is on par with most people here in the U.S. and I thought Lafayette built the Statue of Liberty!

You know Jd, cavalier doesn’t sound so bad,.... it appears a segment of the postings here on TD qualify as jaunty or pompous and I am not even talking about the apparent Republicans!

Report this

By mk, March 18, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

“The technology is mastered in such a manner that such
consequences are minimized to an acceptable level.”

Not “acceptable” to most living creatures on this planet, not by a long shot.

“There Is No Zero-Risk Energy Production. Neither with renewable
energy sources - if one looks at the illnesses that have been produced by low-
frequency noise of wind-farms.”

Thanks for the morning chuckle: equating radioactive waste with wind-farm
hum…yeah, those two things are just about exactly the same. C’mon, dude, get a
grip! You’re not going to convince anyone spouting nonsense like that.


Shorten your ramblings. It takes energy to send this stuff out, and we need to


We’re quickly heading towards the reality of decommissioning most fossil- and
nuclear-fuel production on the planet. If that isn’t going to be enough power for
you, I suggest you hook an exercise bike to a generator and start peddling.

Report this
Psychobabbler's avatar

By Psychobabbler, March 18, 2011 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

I don’t know how the media operates in France, but here all we get is soldiers in slow motion to hero songs. I appreciate what Manning is accused of doing because it creates some balance in terms of what the American public is being exposed to. How convenient it must be to stand on a pedestal and arrogantly suggest with Pogo references that we get what we deserve.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 18, 2011 at 5:39 am Link to this comment


JDm: Nuclear Accidents in France

Yes, and you forgot the ones from the MRI machines that are miscalibrated.

There have been accidents, probably on a lower level, than if compared to fossil-fuel powered plants. But, whoever said there were no accidents?

The points being made are about human deaths. Fossil-fuels deaths have been estimated - see here:

1. Global death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organics and heavy metals, notably mercury) and 170,000 people die annually world-wide from coal burning-based electricity generation

I was one of the first on this forum-thread to write: There Is No Zero-Risk High-Volume Electricity Production Technology.

But, also, there has never been a recorded death due to a nuclear explosion at any nuclear plant in France. Which is where we started in this rat-hole as a consequence of the Japanese catastrophe. (And which will indeed produce deaths from those brave souls who are working too close to the damaged reactors. As happened to the same brave souls at Tchernobyl.)

The technology is mastered in such a manner that such consequences are minimized to an acceptable level.

So do you get it? There Is No Zero-Risk Energy Production. Neither with renewable energy sources - if one looks at the illnesses that have been produced by low-frequency noise of wind-farms.


Photo-voltaic cells is the closest one gets to a risk-free process. And, yes, they can be employed to augment some capacity and displace energy production from fossile-fuel plants.

I have, here in France, installed geothermal heating, which also means my electricity bill has been cut by 65%. (Eighty-percent of Nuclear Energy goes into electricity generation in France.) Many neighbors have either photo-voltaic cell or passive water-heating panels on their roofs. Why?

Because the French government gives tax credits to install them.

So put your money where your mouth is.


You are flogging a dead-horse just because you feel offended in a public forum. The facts regarding energy sources (for large-scale production of electricity) remain the facts and you have yet to viably refute them.

Report this

By MT, March 18, 2011 at 5:06 am Link to this comment

By the way, the way the U.S. media has been covering Fukushima is nothing short of disgusting.

Report this

By MT, March 18, 2011 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

This is the same luddite nonsense people have always been arguing. He might as well be saying, “There is a dimension of fear properly associated with the word steam that is not matched by any horse.”

Arguing from fear is by no means a good argument, sir. And I’d like to point out that none of the radiation levels measured at Fukushima have were dangerous. That fact bears repeating: NONE OF THE RADIATION LEVELS MEASURED AT FUKUSHIMA WERE DANGEROUS. The photographs have been misleading, too: the containment of the nuclear materials has not been blown to shreds, like the popular media likes to claim.

Let’s not get carried away with fear here. President Obama is right: nuclear power is the best option we have to fight global warming.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 18, 2011 at 4:19 am Link to this comment


JDm: ... This neo-Lafayette has ascribed to him self the duty of giving instruction to U.S. Progressives. Given that he has criticized wikileaks, Assange, and Bradley Manning, as well as being an advocate for nuclear power, I personally find him to be somewhat short of desirable as a guru, sage, whatever

First of all, Lafayette was not a “chevalier” (noble rank of “knight”), he was a Marquis. From his grave, he thus refutes your recalibration. Secondly, this is a debate forum and Lafayette is kissing nobody’s ass - least of all yours.

In a forum, when a commenter’s remarks seem contrary to one’s own, one can easily place them on their SOB-list (Scroll On By). Or, better yet, they can rebut the remarks posted with reasoned argument substantiated by fact.

Get off your high-horse, JDm. Make an intelligent effort to argue dispassionately and cogently with facts.

You (and others here) are wallowing in ad hominem innuendo. (Innuendo = an allusive or oblique remark, typically a disparaging one. Ad hominem = in argument or debate, personal rather than objective.)


There are two places in France where the American flag flies night and day. One is the American Embassy Paris and the other is across town at the Pictus Cemetery over the grave of General (of the Revolutionary Army of the United States of America) Lafayette.

(I chose this pseudo to honor the Frenchman and the American patriot. Along with the 990 French soldiers who died to give birth to the American nation.)

Lafayette was an American patriot because of his convictions; meaning that a people deserve collective freedom and not the tyranny of either a monarch or plutocrats.

So the rebellion against tyranny continues. History repeats itself, but always in different ways.


You are a lost soul if you think progressives are defending Manning or Assange.

Assange is a highly disturbed character facing remittance from Britain to Sweden on charges of rape. Manning is British-born American nationalized citizen who committed a crime by breaching military security. He is likely to lose his American nationality should he ever be found guilty of the charges made against him.

Wikileaks, otoh, is a good thing that has finally happened. The Assange leakage of secret documents is unfortunate; whereas the ability to make public (bona fide) business confidential documents could be a boon to regulators in need of such evidence to bring corporate offenders to trial.

Corporate America has been manipulating both Congress and federal agencies to obtain profitable gain for far, far too long. This corruption is the rot menacing America today.

Report this
Psychobabbler's avatar

By Psychobabbler, March 18, 2011 at 12:54 am Link to this comment

I like it when the DJ brings information.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction unless you take into account human behavior.

I feel offended and insulted by anyone who insists that I am somehow dependent on any source of man made energy, personally.

All of this mooching on our wanting to spend endless hours on our asses watching power play ego-beauty B.S. instead of having a reason to find a more useful purpose is missing the point of what a healthy community needs to live successfully.

Report this

By prosefights, March 17, 2011 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

TV reported at 17:00 Thurday March 17, 2011 that the Japanese workers trying to correct nuclear problems were Kamikazes.

‘Once a Japanese man decides to do something, he carries it out to the bitter end, at all costs.’ This reminds one of a popular song about kamikaze fighters:

What a wonderful child!
He fought until the very end
With the pride instilled by his mother,
Infused with the Japanese blood of three thousand years
(‘The Kamikaze’s Mother’)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 17, 2011 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Geeze! Now the French Nukler plants are starting to sound more like Italian sharpshooters?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm Link to this comment

cav•a•lier [ kàvv’l ?r ]



careless: showing an arrogant or jaunty disregard or lack of respect for something or somebody

One of the most famous “Cavaliers” in history is Lafayette’s namesake. The original Lafayette was a cavalier who came from France to help us in overthrowing the Brits.

Apparently, this neo-Lafayette has ascribed to him self the duty of giving instruction to U.S. Progressives. Given that he has criticized wikileaks, Assange, and Bradley Manning, as well as being an advocate for nuclear power, I personally find him to be somewhat short of desirable as a guru, sage, whatever… In fact, he reminds me of Lanny Davis, who proclaims him self to be a liberal, but actively lobbies for juntas and dictatorships. Maybe that’s a too extreme a comparison, I don’t at all believe that this new Lafayette is a paid lobbyist for the nuclear power industry, I believe he only lobbies for nuclear power because he has a cavalier attitude, and because he is a light-weight.

Regarding having a cavalier attitude, I can personally attest to the dangers of a cavalier attitude. Over the course of my life, my cavalier attitude resulted in a number minor fractures, bruises, abrasions, and puncture wounds, from accidents, as it were. For example, in my foolish and carefree youth I had a cavalier attitude about traveling at high speeds on the hoods and roofs of automobiles. This foolish behavior did not result in a meltdown, but it did result in a somewhat discomforting loss of large patches of skin.

But I digress. One of my English language composition teachers told me to avoid clichés’, but I do find clichés’ helpful at times. For example, “If you play with fire you’re bound to get burned.”

Nuclear Accidents in France

25 July 1979  

Sac lay, France  

Radioactive fluids escape into drains designed for ordinary wastes, seeping into the local watershed at the Saclay BL3 Reactor.
13 March 1980
Loir-et-Cher, France  

A malfunctioning cooling system fuses fuel elements together at the Saint Laurent A2 reactor, ruining the fuel assembly and forcing an extended shutdown  
14 April 1984. 

Bugey, France  

Electrical cables fail at the command centre of the Bugey Nuclear Power Plant and force a complete shutdown of one reactor.
22 May 1986  

Normandy, France  

A reprocessing plant at La Hague malfunctions and exposes workers to unsafe levels of radiation and forces five to be hospitalised.
12 April 1987  

Tricastin, France  

Tricastin fast breeder reactor leaks coolant, sodium and uranium hexachloride, injuring seven workers and contaminating water supplies.
27 December 1999  

Blayais, France  

An unexpectedly strong storm floods the Blayais-2 nuclear reactor, forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems fail from water damage.
21 January 2002  

Manche, France  

Control systems and safety valves fail after improper installation of condensers, forcing a two-month shutdown.
16 May 2005  

Lorraine, France  

Sub-standard electrical cables at the Cattenom-2 nuclear reactor cause a fire in an electricity tunnel, damaging safety systems.
13 July 2008  

Tricastin, France  

75kg of natural uranium, in thousands of litres of solution, accidentally spilled on the ground and runoff into a nearby river.
12 August 2009  

Gravelines, France  

Assembly system fails to properly eject spent fuel rods from the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant, causing the fuel rods to jam and the reactor to shut down.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 17, 2011 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

If I had my druthers, (I seem keep misplacing them) I would change a few things.

Whats with this spent rod thing I keep hearing about? When I have spent my last dollar on Tequila or adding a pair of sneakers to my wardrobe, my money is gone, never to be seen again,..... as in I spent it!

So how can these radioactive rods be spent and still exist at all,..... nevertheless for a whole bunch of more years?  From what I understand these spent rods are still hot, so I have an idea of what we can do these non existent spent rods, it has something to do with those non existent representatives in Congress, usually but not always a Republican!

Anyway,... who the hell has 20 pairs of sneakers?I only need one pair to pick up my non existent spent unemployment check!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 17, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

Great point truedigger3.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, March 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment


By Lafayette, March 16 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment

“With just wind, water and the sun, we cannot, with present technology, hope to replace the energy generated by coal, oil and nuclear fired plants.”

This is a falsehood. The energy available from the sun and wind alone is far greater than the energy available from Lafayette’s mighty poisoners of the Earth. The technologies are available now; they only need to be implemented.

“Economic decline: Yes.”

Yes, long term economic decline will occur if we don’t invest now in renewable, clean energy.

I’ll suggest that many have been duped by propaganda and lies, propaganda and lies that serve the interests of profiteers and ideological nay sayers, and yet, we’re instructed to yield to superior pragmatic realities, that are not pragmatic at all.

Investing in nuclear power now, will squander the limited funds available for energy investment, cost overruns and economic feasibility aside, any new nuclear facilities would not be online for 7 to 10 years. If current realities are any guide, any additional nuclear facilities built today, are unlikely to be closed in the future, in addition, the closing of nuclear facilities does not curtail the nuclear fission created at those facilities. Meanwhile, tons of the most lethal poisons known to man will continue to accumulate.

Lafayette is very cavalier regarding the ability of “future technologies” to alleviate the problem of High Level, and other forms of Nuclear Waste. Having learned the dangers of having a cavalier attitude, I find the existence of 90,000 tons of High Level Nuclear Waste worldwide, to be somewhat disconcerting.

Let me shed a little light on a misconception here on this forum.

“It is sometimes said that nuclear power in France has reduced the country’s dependence on oil for electricity generation. While this is true for the electricity generation sector, about 70 per cent of the total energy consumed in France during 2006 was still from fossil fuels.”

It seems that France would have been better served if it had focused on investing in fuel efficient automobiles or alternate sources for powering automobiles. France would have performed a service to the world, and possibly elevated its status as a world leader by doing so. As it stands now, France is a world leader in nuclear power, and in the production of the problematic nuclear waste.

But why quibble, Lafayette will continue to demonstrate his cavalier attitude about nuclear power, and the nuclear waste that it produces.

I’ll confess to a nostalgia for the primitives, at least they didn’t build the volcanoes that they sacrificed human life to.

Report this

By truedigger3, March 17, 2011 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

Almost all of the posters in this thread were either pro Nuclear energy or not. May be one or two posters wrote urging ENERGY CONSERVATION. This is very depressing and disappointing!!
I say the US can consume about 25% less energy, with simple conservation measures, without any sacrafices or any inconvenencies whatsoever!!
Is driving these monstrous Hummers, Pickup Trucks and SUVs is a necessisty. Is living in these VERY BIG houses with its COOLING and HEATING a necessisty??!!
Is buying all these new clothes each year and having more than ten sneakers, twenty shoes a necessisty?? etc etc…
Yes some corporations and members of the chambers of commerce will make less profits, but we will be living in saner world and cleaner environment. We will still have problems, but this is good step in the right direction.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, March 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

What inuendo? The facts speak for themselves. France is nuke-friendly in total indifference to the environment.  What proves that is that it took a lot of protests to stop it.
I thought France was full of smart people.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 17, 2011 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

Here here Gmonst!!!!

Report this

By mk, March 17, 2011 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Well said, Gmonst.

I’d like to add that two of the key concepts to our better future will be
decentralization and localization (this will apply to energy production also). Both
of these concepts are antithetical to giant corporations, who will fight the process
with all the money and power they can muster. We must be prepared to push back.

A good book on the subject is “Alternatives to Economic Globalization.”

Report this

By Gmonst, March 17, 2011 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

To all those who say we can’t go on into a fossil-fuel free energy future without nuclear are just dragging their feet and acting as a voice of the dying status-quo.  A status-quo which has to change if we are to assure the survival of the ecosystem which sustains us and is essential for our continued survival.  The simple fact is we of the human race are presented with no viable long term option other than to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear.  We don’t have a choice. 

From the present situation in Japan it is clear that nuclear is not a good way to go for the present or the future.  It addition to its lack of economic viability (huge production, maintenance, and operating costs), and immensely toxic and long-lived waste, we now see that there also always remains the possibility of worst than worse-case scenarios arising causing catastrophic failure.  Things can happen beyond our control, earthquakes can happen where none have happened before, human error, a multiplicity of unlikely failures, unforeseen factors, terrorism, etc.  The probability is sooner or later it will happen again, and happen worse.  Also think of what one small nuclear weapon detonated at the site of a nuclear plant like the Fukushima Daiichi could do. 

If we are serious about long-term survival on this greenhouse of ours we have to strike out in new energy directions immediately and with vigor.  We don’t know what we can accomplish until we are forced to get out of our current energy box and get creative.  The sooner we come to the realization of essential nature of the daunting task before us the better.  It will require creativity, cooperation, willful conservation, and decreased personal consumption.  Economic prosperity depends first and foremost on having a planet on which to live and thrive.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, March 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Good point Leefeller… many folks are FREAKED out and SCARED… which is exactly what some in positions of leverage LOVE to see: FEAR.

We can see about five articles on the same topic, just labeled slightly different.

TD, much like mainstream profiteering media, plays on people’s fears for revenue.

Scheer the Shill, are you reading this?  Sucker.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 17, 2011 at 12:07 pm Link to this comment

Okay, whats going on here? 2012 has decided to show up with daylight savings time? So all this screaming and yelling about nukler reactors in Lafayette’s back yard makes me think the earth quake and swamie in Japan, was planned by those Republicans as a distraction, just so they could fornicate on the Constitution. 

Do you know how hard it is to find any information on the Republicans obviously choreographed demising of Unions and peoples rights?

After all the whining about Huffington post here on TD after the AOL buyout. We heard how Huffington was an opportunist and against people, Well, Huffington may be an opportunist, but she may not be against people, I found three very interesting articles on what is happening in Wisconson and other states being screwed by Tea Bags!

  Okay, I will make sure to run out and purchase my radiation suit and pick up a fork lift full of Iodine pills at Costco,  but what about peoples rights, if ignoring them means groveling to Republican butt probing, then demising may be the better choice!

Come on TD,....a little less nukler panic stuff and at least something on the great Republican/ corporate fornication, after all Sheer did write a book on the subject!

Like,... how are the recalls going?  What about that Michigan plan, or Ohio, what are those mini minded Republicans up to?  I admit the Nukler thing is a big deal, but wouldn’t it be prudent to keep at least on hand on the wheel?  Maybe I am missing more than my deluded usual?

Fear seems the perfect distractor, it works perfectly on manipulating those Tea Bags!

Report this

By ockitaris, March 17, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nuclear power is out.  We in Pennsylvania will be in an other sacrifice zone soon with the gas drilling in the Marcellus shale that brings poisons long buried into the ground water making living hear impossible.
All this “wasting of the world is to make rich men richer and co-opt with money more men into the personal wealth binge.  As De Toqueville said in his Tour of America that we are a nation of man against man.  A fight over resources and fighting over resources as in any war is wasteful and we are certainly wasting our world.  We have gone through the worlds resources like a fire storm.  There seems to be nothing we won’t destroy for wealth. 

We have to learn to share.  When we enrolled our son into kindergarten the teacher talked about the maturation process.  Saying that when the child learned to share toys and play they made a large step toward maturation.
Then we spend the next 12 to 20 years in schooling that out of the person.  I would say educating but there is a big difference between the two.
The only way we can get out of this is to return to an agronomus country.  We have to learn to share again.

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 17, 2011 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Leef: It looks to me like Japan has just dumped there motorcycle with a whole lotto help from mother nature!

The Japanese were warned two years ago by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) that Fukushima was a catastrophic risk due to off-shore tectonic plate shifting that would provoke seismic activity.

They did nothing.

But, oh yes, they can keep the ban on American beef imports, that was put up during time of the Mad Cow Disease ... to protect their beef-farmers.

Look, the Japanese people did not deserve this calamity. It is not the moment to be pointing fingers. In fact a prayer or two are in order.

But, neither is their political class blameless. They’ve got the same problem, apparently, as we do.

Politicians who kiss the ass of BigMoney in order to get reelected.

Heaven help both our countries.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 17, 2011 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

if we do not learn from other peoples accidents and we do not learn from our own accidents, .....we must be Republicans!

Leefeller hits another grand-slam!

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, March 17, 2011 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

drb: What about damage done to the ocean and sea creatures by each nuclear
blast, and the nuclear radiation?

Apply that same logic to all the nuclear test sites that you see on this map here. How about them poor critters out in the Nevada desert or on the Bikini atoll? Why was no one thinking of them?

The development of nuclear weapons is Cold-War history. A great many nations did nuclear testing, not only France. The imperative was to have nuclear weapons during a time of MADness. (Mutual Armed Destruction, that, in fact, guaranteed peace.)

This is a poor argument to attribute consequences to just the French and this exchange is going into a rat-hole.

Over and out.

Report this

By mk, March 17, 2011 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Nuclear energy and weaponry are unnecessarily risky, with very difficult-to-
manage and unhealthy byproducts (radioactive waste). Better to do with a little
less energy, and find another way to produce it, than take such foolhardy
chances. (Actually, there is plenty of good, productive work (jobs, jobs, jobs)
involved in the switch to green energy. Same with mass transit. The list goes
on. There is plenty of good work to do.)

It comes down to priorities. We need to put life and health at the top of that list,
not money, not the economy, not convenience, not maintaining the status quo.
Not so long ago, people lived without electricity (many still do), so it wouldn’t
be the end of the world if you had to switch off your GameBoy, or Fox News,
and venture outside for part of the day. Plant a tree, dig a garden, stretch,
breathe, exercise—do something positive and productive.

It’s better for everyone to have a decent chance at a healthy life than for a few
to have excess energy to waste (while putting the entire planet in great peril in
the process). We, as a group, have to start making much better decisions.
Collective evolution is what we’re after here, and fat, lazy, stupid, greedy
Americans have a lot of catching up to do.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, March 17, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Nothing can go wrong.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook