Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's Nuclear Madness

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 2, 2006.


If George Bush gets his way, the USA is going nuclear -- and he won't let a little thing like radioactive waste stand in his way.
050106_story1
040106_story1

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Joshua Holland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

George W. Bush has a vision for a strong, independent nuclear America. He wants nuclear weapons for everyday use -- deterrence is for Democrats -- and he wants to build dozens of new nuclear energy plants across the United States.

He'll also ship thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country, first to a huge storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev. But that will only contain a little more than what we already have sitting around. We'll need nine more Yuccas by the end of the century if Bush's plans go through.

Filling the one we already have means shipping highly radioactive waste through 44 states -- coming within a half mile of 50 million Americans. The most toxic, deadly substances known to humanity would pass through Boston, Baltimore, Newark and Miami.

A 1982 study by Sandia Labs -- the country's premiere nuclear research facility -- found that a containment breech in one plant in Pennsylvania would kill 74,000 people within a year and another 34,000 later from cancer. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster spewed more radiation across Europe than was released in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, took out 486 villages in Belarus and left a region that had been inhabited by 100,000 people a glow-in-the-dark no-man's land.

But don't worry. According to the administration and the deep-pocketed nuclear lobby, it's all perfectly safe. Sure, there's no human invention that's foolproof and, yes, we're talking about making dozens of ripe new targets for terrorists to attack, but haven't the administration and its corporate partners earned our trust?

Nuclear Renaissance

According to Bush administration spin, the mighty atom is a 21st century panacea for the United States' -- and the world's -- most intractable problems. Nuclear energy will free us from our dependence on those "tyrannical regimes" that sponsor global terror, bail out the planet from global warming and avert a new superpower struggle by giving fast-industrializing behemoths like China and India an endless supply of "renewable" energy. Nuclear weapons that we can deploy freely in small conflicts will lock in our global dominance for the rest of the century. And, of course, all this will create lots and lots of high-paying jobs.

It sounds great on paper. But if you look behind the dramatic shifts in U.S. nuclear policy over the course of Bush's presidency, you find an intense lobbying and public relations campaign by a handful of firms that stand to rake in billions from the construction of new civilian reactors, and by a generation of Cold Warriors that lusts after new, more "usable" nukes for their toy chest.

The administration has offered up a series of initiatives that will reshape decades of nuclear policy, both civilian and military. Bush scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and undermined the Test Ban Treaty. And it's not just plans for new bombs and new reactors; he's shifted U.S. policy towards countries like India and Pakistan that developed nukes outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And Bush plans to use Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for the world's nuclear waste, not just our own. It's the linchpin of what the administration hopes will become a new economic order -- superseding OPEC with a nuclear cartel that reads "Made in the USA."

At the heart of Bush's atomic dreams is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) announced in February. Under the plan, we'll dramatically expand nuclear energy production at home, encourage new nuclear generation abroad and import other countries' spent fuel for reprocessing in the United States.

The idea is to limit the two most sensitive parts of the nuclear cycle -- enrichment and disposal -- to a handful of sites in the United States, Russia and perhaps France and Japan. In January Vladimir Putin announced that one piece of the puzzle -- a joint waste initiative between the United States and Russia -- was a done deal.

The GNEP constitutes a sharp break with decades of American nuclear policy, dating back to Jimmy Carter. He banned nuclear fuel reprocessing in 1977, concluding -- along with the American public -- that the costs were too high and the hazards too great.


Digg!

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Democrats and military spending
Posted by: nbrown on May 2, 2006 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad this article is partisan. Do alternet readers deserve the truth?

The truth is that the Democratic Party is 100% onboard with military budgets. If you want to stop this nuclear madness, stop making the DOD the most important part of government. That goes for Republicans AND Democrats.

And stop invading countries and killing people! The Dems are fully down for this, which greatly increases the nuclear threat from other governments.

If you want to see some of the damage done by the Iraq war, have a look at these Iraq war photos. These are real people! You can't just go to other countries and create madness!

So long as people write partisan commentary that excludes the Democrats from criticism, we'll continue suffering under the military-industrial complex and all it produces: insane budgets, violence, war, and the increased nuclear threat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here, Here! Posted by: Steven Wanzell
» RE: Democrats and military spending Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver
» RE: Democrats and military spending Posted by: gonzoskismet
Technology
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 2, 2006 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was listening to an American scientist on the radio just recently - he commented that if the US pulled 60 years' worth of plastic out of their rubbish dumps, etc, and broke the plastic down into its original components, the petroleum gained would supply the US with 20% of its current oil needs for x number of years. (forgive my vagueness, I cannot remember the time span he gave it)

Also - whatever happened to alternative fuels? Whatever happened to Presidents investing in their own people and their own country? Or has that never happened in the first place?

Why does California use too much electricity despite getting 497 days of sunshine every year? (Apparently, no one in that state even hangs their washing out to dry in the backyard because washing lines indicate poverty and bring land prices down! Talk about lazy and shallow!)

And where are your nuclear power plants going to sit? On the San Andreas fault? In the path of hurricanes or tornadoes?

AND where are you going to get the money, anyway? You ain't got any - trillions of dollars worth of debt (no wonder Bush is threatening Iran after their president decided to trade oil using Euros), a war that will never end (and should never have started). Where will you get the money - from the oil companies???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Technology Posted by: Abushite
» RE: Technology Posted by: markusmark
» RE: Technology Posted by: Longdream
» Anoter Source of Oil... Posted by: aussidawg
» California Posted by: Pooty T
» RE: Technology Posted by: kryptx
Stop the Hysteria
Posted by: feller on May 2, 2006 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US has a dangerous phobia about nuclear power that it can no longer afford. Nuclear is clean safe and reliable. Dozens of nations are building nuclear plants. We haven't built a new plant in decades. Our current plants are safe and provide carbon free cheap power not dependent on coal or oil.

Presidential leadership and congressional courage is necessary to assert majority rule over a small but influential band of Hollywood radicals and wacko scientists who fight any technology that will assure American security. America is not going to become a low-tech, organic farm based society. We need and will use every increasing amounts of energy to have the level of prosoperity a democratic society requires. Nuclear is the key to that prosperity and democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop the Hysteria Posted by: Roverton
» RE: Stop the Hysteria Posted by: adp3d
» RE: Stop the Hysteria Posted by: churchofone
» RE: Stop the Hysteria Posted by: AndyG
» Mad, Mad, Mad world Posted by: Nick
» Here We Go Again! Posted by: Steven Wanzell
if bush is going to push nuke power, that is the best thing that %#$ has ever done
Posted by: cry0fan on May 2, 2006 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuke power is the future. The very best nations EVER on this planet depend heavily on nuke power. France has almost all of its electrical power coming from nukes. I sure as heck don't trust what the GOP or the Dems or bush or the mass media or the fauxlefties like Holland have to say, but if there is one source that can be counted on to deliver at least SOME truth, Western Europe does that. THey are into nukes, and so therefore we should be.

And I say this as a former nuclear power plant operator! ETRO Navy Nuke Power School, 1977 grad!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pushers inc.
Posted by: rsaxto on May 2, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies have nukes on the brain so much that they are pushing the world relentlessly toward death and destruction on ever larger scales. Moderation and common sense are being tossed out in favor of risks galore. The Death Fathers are in charge of train wrecks worldwide. We've got to get these monsters out of office by any means reasonable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SSI & $$$
Posted by: Evo1450 on May 2, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the social security program is going broke all too soon, why not take that 30 billion & invest it in OURSELVES ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SSI & $$$ Posted by: Nick
» RE: SSI & $$$ Posted by: gonzoskismet
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on May 2, 2006 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the human condition.

The attributes upon which we must draw are the human attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures." - William Fulbright

"During the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower."-Jimmy Carter

excerpted April 12, 2006 WAWA blog:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THE AGE OF WARRIOR KINGS HAS PASSED Posted by: Steven Wanzell
We Are Surrounded By The Stuff
Posted by: Riverside on May 2, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reality time: Every day we wake up to the nuclear energy inferno called the Sun. Wander your garden any day with a Geiger counter and see the useful nuclear radiation that abounds in your own backyard.

We need to progress beyond the point of fearing and blaming the atom and recognizing that nuclear energy DEMANDS responsible design, development and management. Take a look at the nuclear power systems disaster and you will find at their core either poor engineering and maintenance or mismanagement or a combination of both. The atom is lethal only the hands of madmen and the irresponsible. So lets shape up, grow up, and end the energy crisis that is slowly choking us to death.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Are Surrounded By The Stuff Posted by: Third_Eye_Open
nbrown
Posted by: maddy on May 2, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY is it "partisan" to focus attention on the folks who currently ARE in power and are GENERATING these mad energy plans?

It's like faulting the kid at the end of the line for the direction being taken by the person at the front of it. While it's certainly true that Democrats are, by and large, spineless corporate profiteers and warmongers, can we deal with who's in charge, please?

Give me a break with the partisan line already--it's not credible. It's dodging--a rather sad defense mechanism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sure
Posted by: repo on May 2, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
go ahead & put it in my back yard, pay me well for the rental and i will supervise the containment quality myself. no problems. the left sounds just like the right when it comes to fear. so much for being "progressive"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nuclear is the only option Posted by: geoff_canuck
» RE: Nuclear is the only option Posted by: aebartle
» RE: Nuclear is the only option Posted by: Steven Wanzell
Nukes: wrong and right
Posted by: greenman on May 2, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article conflates two separate issues: the spread of Nuclear Weapons and the increasing use of Nuclear Energy. The first issue is one most people can agree on: Nukes as weapons are horrible, and Bush's moves to discard treaties, and to include nukes as regularly used weapons in the American arsenal, are criminally stupid. Additionally, his agreement with India is likely to cause an arms race in SE Asia, if approved.

When it comes to generating more of our power from nuclear energy, that's another matter. We are rapidly reaching the point when we will have to make some painful choices about where our energy is going to come from. Coal and gas are churning out carbon dioxide at prodigous rates, wheras nuclear plants have zero CO2 emissions. Yes, there is the disposal problem, but let's face it, all of America has a NIMBY problem here. As has been pointed out, the French generate about 75% of their power with fission, and somehow they manage to handle this problem. Why can't we?

Yes, there are other zero-emission sources: photovoltaic and hydro power, but neither of these are mature industrial-strength sources. Unfortunately, nuclear generation is the only proven technology immediately available. And, let's face it, we need to act immediately if the human race is going to have a chance to survive Global Warming. Look at the way we live, and admit that our highly urbanized, technological way of life is dependent on energy. Yes, we can conserve and cut down, but at the end of the day, we still need the juice.

Greenman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nukes: wrong and right Posted by: Cathyc
Al little perspective is needed here
Posted by: Jesse on May 2, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your points about the relative unreliability of some companies -- Bechtel being one -- are well taken. But that should not be an indictment of nuclear technologies per se. There are several intertwined issues here.

First is weapons. The fact is the US nuclear power plants were intiially built with that in mind. Fast breeder reactors were part of that effort. But I should point you to a very interesting Scientific American article ("Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism" in the April Issue). It talks a little about how the technology -- without developing anything new -- can be made less vulnerable to terrorists and also redesigned for cleaner operation. But the US and other nations have not taken those steps because they want to make bombs.

Also, while nuclear waste is a pretty big problem, it is not ergo insoluble. Again, there are rector designs that produce little or no waste. But they aren't weapons-friendly.

You should also beware of bandying about estimates of thousands of deaths from nuclear accidents. Chernobyl, simply put, did not kill that many--only those in the immediate vicinity, really. (One number I have seen strewn about was 100,000 people. The methods for coming up with that are so flawed I don't even know where to begin, and show a deep, deep ignorance of nuclear physics and health studies).

In fact, even a very bad nuclear accident is no worse than a lot of other things that could go wrong. (Levees in New Orleans, for example). The issue is how you set systems up so that the damage is minimized. The French have an admirable record in this regard. One thing they did -- which cut costs and made nuclear power economical -- was take the industry out of private hands and standardize reactor design.

Now, on radiation and all that other fun environmental stuff: as a general rule, highly radioactive material is not highly radioactive for that long. That is, Californium-252 is pretty deadly if you are standing near it, but the half life is 2.6 years.

What elements are so bad? The ones that have middling half-lives, like Strontium-90 (90 or so years) which camps out in people's bones. Heavy metals are pretty bad anyhow, but certain radioactive ones like Sr-90 are especially so because they are just radioactive enough not to kill you immediately but hang around long enough to do harm.

Anyhow, the point is that how dangerous nuclear waste is depends on what elements it is made of, what kind of reactor produced it and what kind of containment you have it in.

It also depends on the way you manage and design the plants. After all, nobody worries about hte Hoover Dam bursting or a coal-fired plant blowing up. This is partly because they are designed in ways that are relatively open to public scrutiny. The nuclear industry hasn't been. This has absolutely nothing to do with the technology involved, it was a political decision.

So while I certainly don't like GW's plan for the energy, and am in no hurry to rush out and mine tons more uranium, I am interested in, for example, recycling nuclear waste into useable fuel (possible with current technology) and perhaps shifting some power capacity in that direction. Sayng that nuclear power is bad on all fronts is like saynig solar power is bad becuase of the deadly toxins and waste products used to make solar cells (like gallium arsenide).

After all, making solar cells produces tons of industrial waste--they are made of silicon and plastic-- that is very, very nasty.

(Before people flame me as an evil science-worshipper with no environmental conscience: Listen folks, I am trying to offer a measured response. Josh Holland does not name-call, so please respect that).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why I don't trust nuclear Posted by: YogiBear
» Thanks for the rational perspective Posted by: doctorsquared
Defining Renewable
Posted by: Elmowilcox on May 2, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with any new energy plan....existing energy must be in place to create whatever it is you are making, a wind generator, nuclear facility, hydroelectric plant, etc. All these things are made out of materials that must be manufactured somewhere, that must then be transported elsewhere, and then put together using yet more energy. All of this must be done before a single green watt is ever produced, but by then the new green source of energy has a fossil fuel deficit that it has to make up for. The problem is that unless we start producing a serious infrastructure of renewable energy, eventually fossil fuel will run out, then whatever we have is what we have. Solar cells, dams, and wind generators have to come from somewhere, and they don't grow on trees. With that said, to produce a solar cell right now requires either oil or coal, what good is that really?
So what we need is a self-powered renewable energy plant-producing plant. A facility somewhere that has it's own renewable source of energy used to produce.....new sources of renewable energy.(think about a plant the size of ALCOA's with a huge windfarm attached) It would also need to flexible in what it can produce. Then you would have a place that doesn't require external fossil fuel for electricity, and produces a truly green and renewable solar cell, or concrete for dams, parts for wind generators, etc. Otherwise, like I said, we'll end up running out of whatever fuels we have left and whatever exists is all that ever will.
This is all really pipedreams though, I've been pessimistic about our future since college but as of late I've lost hope that we will ever see any of the neat things we see in sci-fi flicks. I initially gave us 150 years(as a long term) before our planet kills us off with help from ourselves. I'm not so sure we will ALL see the end of this century to tell you the truth. Anyone out there that wants to contend that, bring some data.
We are dealing with superdiseases, ridiculous cancer rates, global warming, humanicide(sum total of killing going on), and even nonviolent nonviral death by poverty because we can't feed everyone. We shall fall from grace in the same fashion as the Romans, Mayans, Aztecs, Greeks and many other "superpowers" that came before us. I hate that term, very arrogant this "superpower" term. I got a superpower for ya, two of em. One is Mother Earth and the other is the sun. You think we can kill people? Our planet and it's sun keep a running slaughter going on at all times to kill our parasitic arses and protect her own. Our planet(and everything on it including ourselves) and the sun form what we SHOULD all be recognizing as the largest organism known to us. We would be something like the fish that clings to a Nurse shark's mouth to clean it, except that that is a MUTUALLY beneficial relationship, so we're really more like a deer tick that can give you Lyme's Disease. Nurse sharks can shake their companions off, and you can flick off and squash a tick. Still think we are in control and the planet is at our mercy? The one truth, the planet will go on, whether we choose to remain a part of it or not is up to humanity and the time to act is not now, but 50 years ago(we've got a lot of making up to do).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Defining Renewable Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Defining Renewable Posted by: Jesse
» Problems and solutions Posted by: Elmowilcox
» RE: Problems and solutions Posted by: Elmowilcox
Truth and Consequences
Posted by: YogiBear on May 2, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh has made some good points here. I was a reporter for several years in a suburban town which had a nuclear power plan in its backyard, so I've written many newspaper articles on the subject. Through the process I became very jaded with the industry and local government who consistently refused to deal straight up with the public on the issue of high level radioactive waste storage (Low level storage is another issue under the radar, and the term low-level is sometimes misleading). High level means the fuel rods themselves and related material (often decomissioned nuke plant buildings themselves are both high and low level waste).

Josh is right -- the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, which isn't even environmentally vetted yet, and not near to having it's construction completed, is already full in terms of promised storage for currently operating nuke plants around the country. In fact, currently operating plants will already need a new storage facility the size of Yucca Mountain to take care of some of the waste that will be generated while we wait for it to open. Altrnatively, those plants will have to store their own waste on site, often in much less desolate areas than inside of a mountain in the desert.

The problem with waste storage is like this: Imagine you have a radioactive pencil. You can't use it, because it radiates into your hand and body, making you sick. You can't throw it in the trash, because it will spread its radiation into the garbage can, the garbage truck, and the landfill, where water, passing trhough the landfill, will be bombarded with radioactivity, and slowly add radioactivity, to the dirt it passes through, and eventually, albeit in a small way, to the underground water table that we all get our drinking and bathing water from. Even if you encase the pencil in some sort of shield, some particles will still sneak out, just slowling the process of water table contamination down.

This is why hundreds and thoudands of highly radioactive fuel rod assemblies cannot just be buried in the ground. They have to be encased in some protective way, and buried deep in a place which has been estimated to have lower amounts of or no water working its way through the ground, so's to prevent irradiated molecules of water from making their way back to springs. Even Yucca Mountain can't prevent that from happening. Some radiation will escape. It's an inevitable fact. The government even has formulas for dealing with it. One formulas is calculated by estimating the number of cancer deaths per population. I don't remember what's considered acceptable -- something like 1 per 100,000, I think. Of course the govenrment has gone forward with Yucca Mountain even before finishing the evnviromental statements. So who knows if it even meets that standard?

One thing is certain: If we do go on a blitz of building new nuke plants, a lot of that waste is going to be stored (often temporarily, at the plant site) in places all over the country with much more water accessiblity than the Nevada desert. Or maybe we'll stick it to Nevada foir all the waste.

So if we decide to go ahead with this, or go ahgead witht he fast breeder reactors which recycle more, but not all waste (but produce fissionable n-bomb material), we need to accept the truths about what it really means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lethal and still leaking
Posted by: moshejp on May 2, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Josh as always.

Maybe the French have tamed the atom (and I truly dont know).
What I do know however is America hasnt. Just look at this

Lethal And Leaking - CBS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History
Posted by: BlueTigress on May 2, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest thing nuclear power has going against it is how the atom was introduced to the public: BOOM!!

So if you pick people at random and play word association, if you say "nuclear" I'm willing to bet that their first response will overwhelmingly be "bomb".

Ford developed an idea for a nuclear-powered car called the Nucleon. I think when it was pointed out that this would have many nuclear reactors facing the potential of crash damage, they decided production would be a bad idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do We Think Bush Will Ask Our Permission??
Posted by: mite on May 2, 2006 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets see first we bombed Japan, then there was the incident of the boat in Vietnam, Then Iran-Contra, AND ALL THE LITTLE WARS WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THROUGH OUT THE WORLD for corprate America, then 911, then Iraq, and now we have Iran.
Do we think the powers to be are going to ask our permission to bomb Iran? Our President, Congress do what they are told to do, and not from us. If we think the U.S. is controlled by us were living in a fantasy. WAKE UP people.
Look how the media conditioned us before every war we have had. All they have to do is let a so called terrorist in and blowup something killing hundreds or thousands of people and say it was from Iran and off we go flying into the wide blue yonder with a couple of bombs for Iran. Do you think they really care about peoples lives? They care about one thing the same as we do MONEY!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chernobyl exclusion zone doesn't glow
Posted by: mazur on May 2, 2006 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...left a region that had been inhabited by 100,000 people a glow-in-the-dark no-man's land.

It's a no-man's land, sure enough. Lots of wild animals and birds, including rare and endangered species. And it doesn't "glow", meaning most of it is quite safe for animals. There are a few storage sites with highly radioactive stuff that should be buried in geological formations.

To those who consider the dangers of nuclear power -- NPs are very vulnerable to military attack, whether by regular troops or guerillas (terrorists). This is often forgotten.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Efficiency is the best answer
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 2, 2006 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The quickest, most effective and most economically beneficial answer to our energy crunch and it's environmental effects is government mandated efficiency for all energy consuming appliances, lighting and equipment. In addition to a CAFE-like efficiency mandate for everything that consumes electricity or fossil fuels, heavy taxes on inefficient products combined with tax waivers on high efficiency products will speed up their development and deployment.

Here is an example of how this could work. The old standby incandescent light-bulb is cheap to buy, has a short life and is notoriously inefficient. The compact fluorescent bulb costs more up front (but is cheaper through energy costs), runs cooler (saving on A/C) but outlasts many generations of incandescents (saving energy in manufacture, distribution, etc) and produces equivalent light for a fraction of the energy.

Imagine the energy savings if everyone just replaced their incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. 300 million people have a lot of lights in their house and they are used every day. It adds up to a lot and is a technology that sits on the shelves of stores all over America TODAY . By taxing incandescents heavily, people would rapidly adopt the CF bulbs and the prices would rapidly drop. The money from the energy tax could be used to assist low income people to buy the new bulbs and make other energy efficiency improvements.

In almost every appliance and device made today there are higher initial cost, but more cost and energy efficient versions available. If you are sitting at an old klunker PC you could be consuming 300+ Watts, while many newer computers consume less than 100 (the Core Duo iMac I am using , for example). From Air Conditioners to Vacuums to Refrigerators to Clothes and Dishwashers, more efficient technologies and components are available. Using a similar tax carrot and stick, the market can be jump-started across the board. The combined energy savings would be phenomenal.

Another benefit from this would be the creation of many new jobs designing, making, distributing, selling and installing the new higher efficiency products. This proposal will allow us to save energy, help the environment and create jobs...quickly.

Efficiency is cheaper, faster, less disruptive and will be more effective than any other single thing we could do. It's adoption does not in any way impede the adoption of solar or other more sustainable means of generating power. In fact, the adoption of a new generation of more efficient and low power consuming appliances and devices will make Solar more cost effective and viable. Countless technologies are sitting on the shelf or exist only in high-margin products that can make this happen quickly with a market incentive. The efficiency achieved can offset many power plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop Global Warming with Nuclear Energy
Posted by: grolan on May 2, 2006 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Left needs to get over its hysteria about nuclear power plants and face a simple fact: Global warming, and resultant climate change, is the single biggest threat facing us, bar none. If we don't act to mitigate the damage, the results will be catastrophic, and may even spell the end of advanced civilization. We need alternative sources of power - now - not 500 years from now, not 100 years from now, not 50. Now. Nuclear fission plants are the only viable source to supply the majority of our power needs. Yes, we also need to build as much wind, solar, and other "clean" sources as possible, but those sources are insufficient. Nuclear waste is dangerous, but it can be contained, and does not contribute to global warming.

You want alternative fuels for transportation - ethanol, say, or hydrogen? Those are currently not viable either because they are produced by burning oil. We need alternative basic energy sources to even consider hydrogen, if we want to produce it without further contributing to global warming. That means nuclear. The crisis is upon us, and it is time to choose between the lesser of evils, because there is no clean alternative that is sufficient. Dither, wring your hands, run around in circles and bemoan nuclear energy, and while you do, the planet burns. You can't have it all, so choose. But do it quickly, because catastrophic climate change is even now beginning, and will soon be upon us in full force. People will starve in their millions, wars will be fought over energy, food, and clean water, human populations will attempt to migrate en masse from areas rendered uninhabitable to those that are still getting by - and those already living in the destination areas will not be welcoming. As for the natural world, the greatest mass extinction since the last asteroid hit is already underway, and will only accelerate.

Look to France for an example. They run many nuke plants, and do so safely. Have you paid attention to energy news lately? What are they talking about now that cheap oil is pretty well tapped out? Coal. Oil shale. Oil sands. Think of the environmental devastation when all of that is mined, aside from continued global warming. Would you prefer that Colorado become a slag heap? The only viable, large scale alternative to all of this is nuclear.

Time has run out. We need non-petroleum based energy, in vast quantities, and we need it now. So choose, but be prepared to live (or die) with your choice.

For the record, I'm a blue state leftie and an environmentalist, and was once solidly anti-nuke. Things change, and we learn as we go, and we no longer have the luxury of time or ideological purity. Try reading James Lovelock's latest book, "The Revenge of Gaia". For Lovelock - an environmentalist if there ever was one - the choice is clear. Build as many nuke plants as possible, right now, or face the end of civilization. He's right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

France's nuclear wonderland ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland on May 2, 2006 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was going to discuss France's nuclear energy program, but couldn't fit it in to the piece.

Now that folks are bringing it up, I posted a few comments about it over in The Mix.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop Global Warming with Nuclear Energy
Posted by: grolan on May 2, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Left needs to get over its hysteria about nuclear power plants and face a simple fact: Global warming, and resultant climate change, is the single biggest threat facing us, bar none. If we don't act to mitigate the damage, the results will be catastrophic, and may even spell the end of advanced civilization. We need alternative sources of power - now - not 500 years from now, not 100 years from now, not 50. Now. Nuclear fission plants are the only viable source to supply the majority of our power needs. Yes, we also need to build as much wind, solar, and other "clean" sources as possible, but those sources are insufficient. Nuclear waste is dangerous, but it can be contained, and does not contribute to global warming.

You want alternative fuels for transportation - ethanol, say, or hydrogen? Those are currently not viable either because they are produced by burning oil. We need alternative basic energy sources to even consider hydrogen, if we want to produce it without further contributing to global warming. That means nuclear. The crisis is upon us, and it is time to choose between the lesser of evils, because there is no clean alternative that is sufficient. Dither, wring your hands, run around in circles and bemoan nuclear energy, and while you do, the planet burns. You can't have it all, so choose. But do it quickly, because catastrophic climate change is even now beginning, and will soon be upon us in full force. People will starve in their millions, wars will be fought over energy, food, and clean water, human populations will attempt to migrate en masse from areas rendered uninhabitable to those that are still getting by - and those already living in the destination areas will not be welcoming. As for the natural world, the greatest mass extinction since the last asteroid hit is already underway, and will only accelerate.

Look to France for an example. They run many nuke plants, and do so safely. Have you paid attention to energy news lately? What are they talking about now that cheap oil is pretty well tapped out? Coal. Oil shale. Oil sands. Think of the environmental devastation when all of that is mined, aside from continued global warming. Would you prefer that Colorado become a slag heap? The only viable, large scale alternative to all of this is nuclear.

Time has run out. We need non-petroleum based energy, in vast quantities, and we need it now. So choose, but be prepared to live (or die) with your choice.

For the record, I'm a blue state leftie and an environmentalist, and was once solidly anti-nuke. Things change, and we learn as we go, and we no longer have the luxury of time or ideological purity. Try reading James Lovelock's latest book, "The Revenge of Gaia". For Lovelock - an environmentalist if there ever was one - the choice is clear. Build as many nuke plants as possible, right now, or face the end of civilization. He's right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RShort sighted Posted by: Gregor
» RE: Short sighted Posted by: Barbara
Nuclear reality
Posted by: akdave on May 2, 2006 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the posts above are dancing around the realities of using nuclear energy for power (not bombs). I am sure we have the technology to safely generate electricity with fission reactors with less dangerous waste than current methods provide. I was frequently reminded of this by a physics prof who helped pioneer nuclear power. That is one reality.

The other reality has been alluded to above - the NRC is heavily influenced by the industry it is supposed to regulate. Just how are we supposed to build SAFE nuclear plants when all industry is interested in is making money. Do we really want to award a construction contract to the lowest bidder who will cut even more corners and pay the NRC to look the other way?

I'm not sure we can afford ($) to build plants the way they should be built, but we sure can't afford (safety) the way our current government and industry would build them either.

Peace,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'two-thirds of Americans oppose new nuclear power"
Posted by: pzzp on May 2, 2006 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They may, unfortunately, be the two-thirds that don't vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean?
Posted by: Ben Furman on May 2, 2006 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't clean the way it's currently done in the U.S., but it could be made to be. Breeder reactors convert up to 100% of the fissionable material into non-fissionable, non-weapons-recoverable material. (As for toxicity - the stuff was toxic even before we dug it up, and the earth's core is full of it.)

We need the right programs in place for nuclear to be done right. Yucca Mountain could house our waste for the next 1000 years with reactors done properly (read: not cheaply).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clean? Posted by: Klaxton
Nuclear? Why?
Posted by: Gregor on May 2, 2006 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It always amazes me when the government only follows money interests. There are many Green companies that are actually producing energy efficiently, new technology in magnetics that are efficient, and yet just because of money we go after nuclear because no one researches or does their homework on Green technology already being used. What isn't done or mentioned in these powerful pushes for nuclear is exactly how devastating one nuclear accident can be. We have these nuclear fools building a nuclear plant (Three Mile Island) right on a fault line. Explain that? Or when Three Sisters nearly melted down (maybe it did how would we know?) nuclear radiation was leaked. Why do you think there is a jump in cancers in this country since the 50's?

The problem with nuclear radiation is that it doesn't go away. It has a half-life of 100 years. And still the ground, air and soil will be poisonous.

In this sad government of ours it is apparently only about money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuclear? Why? Posted by: Ben Furman
What's the Problem?
Posted by: gonzoskismet on May 2, 2006 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Condi tell you that there were 'mushroom clouds' in your future? Well, obviously, there are. And if they aren't available from a convinent terrorist organization, then, by God, well make our own! Gee, ain't you figured it out by now? Everthing George
says is the truth! He loves you guys and if Condi promismed mushroom clouds, by God, as your President, he's going to produce them one way or another! Count on it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patrick Moore - comments from Australian 60 minutes
Posted by: shrub666 on May 2, 2006 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Moore was once on Peter Garrett's side (totally against nuclear energy and weapons). But then he did the unthinkable — he turned pro-nuclear. What's so dramatic about Moore's about-face is that back in the early '70s he helped found Greenpeace, and for many years this former scientist was a driving force in the anti-nuclear movement. You've been called a traitor, a heretic, a turncoat.

'There is too much misinformation in this debate and discussion. We really need to get down to facts and to science, and the fact is there are 440 nuclear reactors operating safely and at a reasonable cost producing electricity that does not have any greenhouse gas emissions or air pollution associated with it. '

Josh your article is quality when it comes to pushing the negative view. Perpetuated by zelots. But technology moves pretty fast and quoting reports from 1982 just doesn't stack up.

As Mr Moore is also quoted in the story (link following).

'You don't ban the beneficial uses of a technology just because that same technology can be used for evil purposes. What are car bombs made out of? Diesel oil, fertiliser and automobiles. Are we going to ban those? So if we banned everything that you could harm people with, we would never have harnessed fire. Civilisation would not be possible.

See stroy: The nuclear solution
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comparison to other forms of energy
Posted by: nickptar on May 2, 2006 7:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Air pollution is estimated to kill 3 million people a year. That is AT LEAST THIRTY CHERNOBYLS. How much of that do you think is from fossil fuel electricity generation? How much could be displaced by nuclear? Nuclear is not necessarily the only way, but it may be - MAY BE - necessary in order to displace all fossil fuel generation (which we're going to have to do regardless of pollution).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Differing view from a nuclear trained individual
Posted by: atomicrod on May 3, 2006 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though there are many individual assertions in Joshua's article that are inaccurate, what I want to challenge is the overall impression provided that the inevitable nuclear renaissance is just the product of intense lobbying by an industry cabal.

Early in my Navy career, I spent about a dozen years learning (often it seemed to be at the end of a fire hose) intricate details about a technology that is clean enough to run inside a submarine. Not only that, but it is powerful enough so that a single fuel charge, with a mass of active material that is roughly my own body mass, propelled my 9000 ton vessel for more than 14 years. The nuclear power plant inside that vessel was durable, sailor proof, and functioned without an excessive amount of intervention. Sure the job was complex and required hard work, but many of the requirements that added to our work hours were the double, triple and quadruple checking that we did.

After that intensive period of learning, I left the Navy convinced that I had learned something very valuable, particularly in a world where some of my closest friends were going off to risk their lives in tanker escort duty and actual battle to protect Saudi oil fields (I initially left active duty in 1993.)

I had done some independent research (not part of any cabal or even funded with any government money) and developed what I judged to be a logical next step in the development of a VERY new technology. (The basic physical process of fission was only discovered in a laboratory in 1938-39, several years after my very active mother was born.)

For the past 13 years I have been working diligently, if intermittently, to bring that development to fruition. Part of my efforts have included public information activities, often in cooperation with other dedicated, independent thinkers. For the most part, our efforts to share our passion for nuclear energy have not be well received by leaders of what some people would call the nuclear industry.

They have often counseled us to act more quietly; some of them have been quite concerned that any efforts to tell the world how good nuclear energy is would harm their other businesses - oil, coal, gas, wind, and solar. You see, most of the companies mentioned in Joshua's article are an ENERGY companies with long histories of government supported endeavors. They love big projects - it does not matter much to them what the fuel is or even if there is any fuel involved at all. (For example, GE - one of Joshua's villains - is the largest wind energy supplier in the US.)

I have no love for the management at large, well established energy/government contracting companies run by lawyers, accountants and MBAs.

I wish that the nuclear industry was led by more independent thinkers that had deep understanding of the incredible potential gift that has been bestowed on the Earth and its people in the form of uranium and thorium, the raw materials that contain 2-5 million times as much energy per unit mass as available alternatives.

That is not the case, however, so I will learn to live with the big boys and try my best to keep working to convince them that nuclear power is far, far better than the fossil alternatives. I would also hope that a few of the critical thinkers that read AlterNet realize that there are dedicated, intelligent individuals who have plenty of other choices of careers who feel the same way that I do about the benefits of learning atomic physics and engineering so that we can help employ it in the safest possible way.

Even with focused opposition, nuclear power now provides about 50% more useful energy to the world's people each day than Saudi Arabia and has the potential for so much more. Criticize if you must, but learn all you can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Energy
Posted by: AnarchX on May 3, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]