Join DFH's United Against Toxic Waste Like Glenn Beck
By Nicole Belle Thursday Oct 25, 2007 11:30am
Download | play 
Download | play
Glenn Beck: "The reality is that no one, not one person, has ever died as a result of nuclear energy in this country."
Um, that is just so not true. CNN will never be "The Most Trusted Name in News" as long as they keep this idiot dissembler on their network. Not only is nuclear energy not safe, it's far from clean, or cheap & efficient , despite what Beck and Inhofe claim in this segment.
If you're already a dinosaur, or on your way to becoming one like me, you may recall Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) and their 'No Nukes' concerts 28 yrs ago. Well, they are back, and Glenn Beck and global warming denier and big oil puppet Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) aren't happy about it one bit. Glenn Beck went on a childish rant Thursday against the cast of celebrities, or "hippie singers" as Beck calls them, including such greats as Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Pearl Jam, Melissa Etheridge... aww, hell I can't begin to name them all here, who have lined up in opposition to the atomic power industry obtaining government loan guarantees to build new nuclear reactors here in the US. Their website is NukeFree.org , Find out why nuclear energy is NOT the answer and learn what is to combat our global warming worries and our future energy needs, and you can help by signing their petition.
They've also put together a great new music video. It's a remake of Stephen Stills' "For What It's Worth." Check it out:
Login or Register to post comments.
Idiot.
He's recent convert to Mormonism. Does that tell you everything you need to know about this moron?
Sue him.
People have died in their nasty little nukes. Find the surviving family members and have them front a law suit. Find a tricky dicky lawyer and drag him into court with defamation or some other shit. Just attack that idiot. He won't stand up to it like O'Reilly. CNN isn't going to bat for him. And they will can him when real pressure is applied.
Sue him over every effing lie he tells. Somebody get on this, pronto.
JackMormon @ 2:
Nothing is recent about this idiot's conversion to moronism.
Oh wait ...
there's no need to post the clip in its entirety...it's too much to take. one of the worst things I've seen and heard in a long time
shut up
heh...
quality debate
from CNN
heh...
how about the 500,000 year half-life of nukular waste?
I'll start with that!
JackMormon @ 2:
yeah! he did it for the wives, I'm sure.
Nicole, as much as Beck was wrong about nobody ever dying because of nuclear radiation, you are waaaaaay off base when you denounce nuclear energy in general.
Why do you fear technology so much? Nuclear technology raises people's standard of living and helps with all sorts of things like medicine, transportation, nano-technology, and many other things. To denounce nuclear technology like you do reminds me of those people in the dark ages who, when confronted by scientists with simple chemical reactions, they ran away in rabid fear thinking these chemists were witches. It is really sad that there are still people today who distrust new technology.
If it weren't for the environmentalists, we would have had nuclear energy as an energy source by now, which would have decreased our dependence on foreign oil, which may have stopped the war in Iraq. If this is true, then nuclear energy would have saved the lives of millions of Iraqis. Are you saying that a few deaths in the US and Russia from nuclear reactors is enough reason to let MILLIONS die?
Go back to the stone age where you belong, you obviously do not belong in the 21st century.
Come now. The question is not, "is it safe or clean.", the question is, is it safe(r), clean(er), then coal and oil. With the vast amounts of energy a first world country requires, nuclear power is a vital necessity. Japan and France make extensive use of it, and the USA creates 20% of its energy with it. Is there a certain amount of danger associated with it, yes, but to make a complete ban of it and switch back to coal because we all love our internet and internally heated houses, is to create even more pollution.
Beck is annoying. Inhofe is a friggin criminal.
Dump the waste in his backyard.
Doesn't the co-founder of Greenpeace favor nuclear energy?
glenn thinks they should just "shut up and sing".
i never understood that. They're american citizens first. Just because they make music they forfeit their right to speak out??? What other jobs cause American citizens to forfeit their rights to participate in this democracy?
Every American is born with the right to petition their government, to protest their government, to participte in demonstrations...but if you're a singer, or you work in "hollywood" with your "hollywood values" you forfeit your citizenship???
How about a website for beckfreetv.org?
Seriously.
What the hell is this guy doing on CNN?
Isn't there some way people can get a clear understanding on how this joker got his job?
Normally I agree with what I see here, but this time you're pimping a site thats pure FUD. I don't have a problem with solar power, far from it, I just don't think alarmism is the best way to spread the gospel. Science, cost analysis preferably done by those with a clue, now thats the way to influence intelligent people.
Is he really that stupid?? He's also a disgusting condescending individual. I can't stand to watch him.
We do need more nuclear engery. It does not matter if Beck is right or not it is something that needs to be done.
J @ 10:
Nuclear is not a vital necessity. Nothing says that Nantucket Sound couldn't be filled with turbines and that Nevada couldn't be covered with PVs to replace the long-term hazard of nuclear by products, and then you'd say that we can't live without wind and solar.
Inhofe: "there is clean coal technology now"
One can speculate what reasons are behind Inhofe´s words, but the people who elect a spermstain like this to office have to be among the most ignorant bunch of biowaste on the planet.
BTW, the US does need nuclear energy in the nearest future. The way Glenn Beck argues for it though must be putting a lot of people off the idea :p
Nicole, as much as Beck was wrong about nobody ever dying because of nuclear radiation, you are waaaaaay off base when you denounce nuclear energy in general.
Why do you fear technology so much?
Why should we fear radioactive waste? If you're asking that question you need to go work in a Leukemia ward for a while.
If you follow the links, you may notice that there have been 0 fatal accidents since 1986. Working at a nuclear power plant is safer than pretty much any other job. You can't link honestly link nuclear weapons with nuclear power. It's possible to do one without the other. This is complete FUD.
Triple Lei @ 13:
Yes he does, and he also says that the green movement (who are the ones against ALL technology) are not actually about saving the world, they are a self-serving political movement and are destructive to everyone's lives.
Glenn Beck is an idiot, and ultimately solar is definitely the way to go, but I can't stand the left's knee-jerk reactions to nuclear power. I'd much prefer the "dangers" of nuclear power over coal or oil. They just don't compare.
Though I think Mr. Beck should apologize for his outright lie that no one in the United States has ever died during a nuclear reactor accident, I am a supporter of nuclear energy. We have come a long way with the technology and if we are going to get off our dependency on fossil fuels, we need alternatives, and nuclear energy is a good alternative.
I also think, we should be investing in solar farms, especially here in overly sunny Arizona.
Okay... I am okay with Nuclear Energy. I think that Wind driven, small-armed turbines in streams, and solar will do a whole lot better in the future, but I can deal with Nuclear Energy fine.
I just think Glenn Beck is the worst possible face for ANY Cause.
Okay, well after Coulter...
J
J @ 10:
You could not be more wrong, and no one is arguing to "switch back to coal"
Try clicking on a few links. Nuclear power is NOT "a vital necessity"
It's a load of crap. The biggest most toxic crap and highest valued terror target on the planet. You can't protect it, no insurance company will touch it, the first nuclear waste from 50 years ago has yet to find a safe place for disposal, when you factor in capital costs (which Inhofe ignores) it's at least 3 times as expensive as any other source of power per KW/hr. It's rediculous on a whole scale of reasons.
Well, the dillema with nuclear power is the long start of time. Nuclear power plants take a bit of time to build, and the interim would be solar and wind. The problem with solar and wind is that they are determined by the weather, and solar plants in the south would not do so well in New England, and wind plants wouldnt do so well where there is low wind areas. Nice thing about nuclear power plants, once they get built, is that they dont have that problem.
Nuclear energy may have its problems (many of which are because innovation and development in the industry in the industry have been impeded by years of anti-nuke hysteria and NIMBYism), but it is far better than the only viable alternative; coal-driven plants. Coal plants release *more* radioactivity into the atmosphere, pollute more, and generate wastes that are harder to deal with and far greater in volume.
Glenn Beck is a lying weasel who is wrong about how many people have died in nuclear energy incidents, but even a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day.
johnx @ 22:
Oh please. I don't fear nuclear waste anymore than I fear toxic waste, or raw sewage, or any other hazardous chemical used in our economy.
Are you saying that the world will be able to find energy sources other than nuclear power once the oil is gone? Don't fear nuclear energy, it is primitive to do so. Europe and Japan use it extensively. It is actually very safe.
To all you nuclear energy advocates:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE?
Wait for someone to enrich it for weapons?
I'm all for nuclear energy....just don't build one in my backyard. I'm sure Beck wouldn't mind one in his neighborhood. I'll start the petition to have one built in his 'hood.
Now I don't agree with Beck on the subject, but demonizing nuclear energy is just as full of misinformation as advocating its purported absolute safeness. No form of energy generation is completely safe. All have substantial downsides. Whether it
be damning rivers for hydro power or land blight for solar farms (not to mention the manufacture of those solar panels), not to even begin on coal power. It's about progress. Steps must be taken to address the downsides. Nuclear plants tend to be safer and clearer then other types of power plants. But innovation in the states has stagnated. This is not Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl. What this is a simple lack of understanding about basic scientific principles. Wastes can be minimized and if protocols are followed it can be beneficial and relatively safe. From breeder reactors (which convert most of there waste to fuel) to advances toward fusion reactors, there are advances that have much smaller foot prints and possibly less ecological short comings then what we are doing now. Knee-jerk reactions are not the best way of handling this topic.
Now it bears repeating. I am not saying it is completely safe, But no advance is ever completely safe. Every energy generation method known to man is dangerous in one way or another. It's all about refining what we know and making it as safe as we possibly can.
justabill @ 28:
I skimmed them. USA requires vast amounts of energy, and switching off oil requires *something*. I dont see wind or solar producing the levels needed, for reasons stated above.
Wag, seemingly good argument, but how about covering all the byproducts of nuclear power; hell, nuclear anything. Environmental, health, cost, safety, current knowns about the energy as opposed to what was known since it's inception, and the pros-cons compared to all alternatives. Labeling someone a Luddite, and the inference was certainly there, is a straw man argument at best. Two questions: Are you at all involved with the energy industry or an offshoot and did you just come up with the off hand link to medicine technology and leave out nuclear weapons on purpose? I thought so.
It's amazing how fast the AEI trolls respond to a post like this.
They must have a team like Romney does set up.
Mitt Romney Monitors The Internet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afsbeH9_XSU
johnx @ 32:
Whats the problem with that? It puts them to use, and doesnt leave them in your background for the radiation to kill you.
Louis Slotin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
5 seconds.. 5 seconds to educate himself and he doesn't even respect his audience enough to do that.
Ricky @ 17:
Did you bother to follow the links. Especially let's look at the nuclear accidents. There is NOTHING safe about Nuclear power. NOTHING. It is dirty and inefficient. It's a goddamn expensive way to boil water, and that's all.
Call me when fusion becomes viable. Or better yet, let's put all that effort into developing solar and wind, which don't require us to figure out how to store filthy spent fuel. Also have you done the math on the supply? I have read in the past that if we went completely Nuclear today, we would reach Peak Uranium in about 25 years. Doesn't sound like a strategy with a whole lot of depth to it, except to enrich people who are, once again, squatting at the spigot of a natural resource waiting for a fucking handout for being in the right place at the right time.
That's what really bothers the energy industry about wind, solar, and geothermal. They can't use the "invisible hand" to shut off the fucking SUN.
The problem with nuclear is the same as oil it is a finite resource and will be depleted within 50 years, so then what?
First thing I read on the nukefree site: "Nuclear power makes global warming worse"...what bullshit. This issue is like most....it forces a choice between evils: oil keeps us dependent on the middle east, and pollutes like mad....nuke scares the shit out of everybody, and has long term waste issues....OF course I wish everything could be powered by sun wind and rainbows, but until then, nuclear power IS a great alternative to oil until technology makes the other sources more viable. Glen Beck is irrelevant to the issue.
What a waste of a fine song!
Bonnie Raitt was tolerable on her debut and debut only.
J @ 35:
WOW. That is some LAZY thinking.
ckerst @ 41:
Id like your source for Peak Uranium, please. That not withstanding, it gives us breathing space for setting up energy sattelites. History is all about stop gap measures.
J @ 38:
"Whats the problem with that?"
No, it just kills and maims and causes birth defects for hundreds of thousands of years to our soldiers and the populations they spew the crap at.
DEPLETED URANIUM: DIRTY BOMBS, DIRTY MISSILES, DIRTY BULLETS
http://sundaymag.ca/index.php?id=64
Wait a minute......We can build nuclear reactors so that we can produce nuclear energy but Iran can't?
Since nuclear power plants generate very little electricity without fuel (aka uranium) and the fuel comes from mining, which has obviously claimed more than one life, Beck's facts are wrong. However, I could deal with factual inaccuracies (since they seem to be the norm, not just from Beck, but from the MSM in general, politicians, etc.) if Beck weren't the totally offensive twit he is. It's like he has some horrible neurological disorder.
Did Glenn Beck start the SoCal fires?
How can we find out?
johnx @ 32:
Depending on the type of reactor, you can recycle almost 97% of the waste from a standard reactor, and reuse it as nuclear fuel.
As to that remaining 3%, well we would have to come up with some sort of plan for dealing with that. But surely that must be better then 40% ish waste from coal or oil that is kicked into the atmosphere. Not that radioactive waste wouldn't be an issue, but currently sulfates and nitrates seem to pose a greater risk to our ecology.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 47:
They're Muslims, silly. No Nukes For Muslims. Didn't you read the sign?
-amused- No arguments here from DU. Nasty things. When you say enrich them for weapons, do you mean DU, or do you mean the actual nuclear devices that annihilate cities?
Wag @ 31:
What are you going to do with the waste? I'm sure that acid rain and burning rivers give you absolutely no cause for concern as long as the economy is going well - nuclear waste is in a class of its own. I know of no other toxic chemical that can kill for 20,000 years. Why did Japan just lie about that reactor leak? What of the deaths due to radiation poisoning and subsequent cancer after Chernobyl?
slippytoad @ 51:
I have no problems with them switching over to nuclear power. They prolly see the Peak Oil better then us.
johnx @ 53:
Do we really want to play that game? Lets look at the current death toll from oil and coal mining. Nuclear power has caused less death and causes less pollution.
johnx @ 22:
The connection b/t radiation and leukemia is far from a proven fact.
The Beaver only does childish rants. The guy has issues...telling the truth is the least of them.
Note to the Beav: Take your Ritalin!!
J @ 55:
No one is arguing for coal. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making.
nuclear troll
AbbeyHoffmansGhost @ 36:
All your points are noted. It's so boring that you accuse me of being in the energy industry. I am not, nor is that important anyway, for my judgement would not be compromised. If I worked in the auto industry, which I did at one point, I did then I still now, abhor the pollution cars make. My judgement is not that cars are awesome just because I worked in the car industry.
Also, your points about the waste. Nuclear waste can be handled easily, just like all our garbage. The key is to let people do what they want and if there is a need for something, like garbage dump sites or nuclear waste sites, they will be created. The only thing we all have to worry about is that property rights are respected, meaning waste must not interfere with other people's lives. That's it. If this principle is followed, then nuclear waste would be no more of a problem in a modern society than poop. Of course nuclear waste will be handled differently than human waste, but this is not the point. The point is that humans are smart enough to handle nuclear energy. We have already proved that.
Anyone who says humans cannot handle nuclear energy must speak only for themselves because those who CAN handle it should not be stopped from handling it just because of some freaked out monkey people. We should not live by standard of idiots, we should live by the standards of the smart people. Smart people came up with nuclear energy in the first place. If humans can come up with something THAT sophisticated, we can easily handle how to use it safely, as we have been doing now for the last 50 years.
That website which is posted "nukefree.org" is the most insane reference used to back one's argument that I have seen in a long time. Nukefree.org? Hahahahaha...they are nothing but a bunch of whacked out mountain gorillas who are afraid of their own shadow.
J @ 45:
Heard of TEH G00GL3S? Jesus people are lazy. Some suspect that we are already at Peak Uranium. In fact, there's a graph here which shows what looks like a fukkin' peak to me.
Wag @ 9:
Who are these all powerful environmentalists that often get blamed for impeding progress?
Do you want a terror target like that near your house?
jafari @ 20:
I agree...most of the nay sayers for Solar and wind, or any other clean alternative enrgy source, are on the payroll of the coal, or nuclear industry...their lobbyists sway politicians to keep them in business...businesses that care ONLY for short term profit, not long term sustainability...
As for Beck...that man is a fucking moron...will someone PLEASE staple his lips shut?!
I live next to about 40 colleges, 35 million people, and a whole row of weapons labs. If the bomb drops, Im the first to go.
No fear mongering plz, justabill.
Glenn Dreck is an absolutely worthless slime.
liberalNmoderation @ 63:
Please, no strawmans. Im a fan of the alternate energies, I just point out building enough to sustain our energy use would be unlikely. Hence my interest in nuclear plants, danger notwithstanding.
Charles @ 61:
They are VERY powerful people nowadays. They are virtually everywhere. They have strengths not in terms of dollars but in numbers. Remember when Bush wanted to drill for oil in Alaska? He was shot down almost immediately. Who shot him down? Those who are influenced by the environmentalists, or the environmentalists themselves. I am actually not sure just WHO they are, but they are definitely influential, or else we would be drilling for oil in Alaska!
PS Bush is insane
J @ 64:
No strawman arguing then. Nuclear power sucks, and no FRICKIN way in hell should our Congress let slide a bill the Republicans passed without debate that subsidizes 100s of billion of tax dollars to a nasty industry like nuclear power just because it's unfeasable cost-wise without it.
The Dems better fricking undo that sorry piece of crap ASAP.
Omaigah. I swear it looks like Jackson Browne had Botox. Yecch!
Wow, if you dare point out that solar panels with current tech produce hazardous chemical waste on production, you're a lobbyist? New one for me.. Where's my goddamn check...
Wind? Great stuff, but you can't put it everywhere... Same with geotherm and hydro...
But it doesn't matter to the 'HATE NUCLEAR, MUST HATE NUCLEAR' crowd. They see a few pounds of extremely heavy metal that must be handled with care, and flip out. They pretend depleted uranium is highly radioactive(It's not; it's dangerous mostly because if it's vaporized and breathed in, you get metal in your lungs. Metal in lungs bad, whether it's uranium or iron), they pretend Chernobyl was not caused by the most incompetent bunch of all time(I include Bush; Bush never turned of all the safeties of a system and drained the coolant).
But hey. Don your tinfoil hats and hate some more. Perhaps you can pretend something other than U-235 fission can produce up to 8.9^10*13 Joules per kilogram. I bet you think a fusion plant would go up like a bomb too...
justabill @ 68:
Of all the things to undo from this administration, that would be the last on the list. France has 80% of their power coming from nuclear power, and Japan has 40% - even with all that, Godzilla remain in the movies. I think your dangers are overstated, when both of these countries have made nuclear power their priority for decades.
Nuclear energy is NOT the answer for all the reasons you listed, as well as for this one: it takes TREMENDOUS amounts of water to cool nuclear power plants, and pumping in that water, and cooling it, requires lots of energy.
So it's not an efficient power source in terms of water resources.
Graffiti Grammarian @ 72:
Please, run the numbers, show me it's no efficient. I suspect you won't. Mostly because you've no idea how.
raymond @ 42:
Its not bullshit. You need to mine the uranium, which is tough to do with hand tools, so you're going to use lots of fossil fuels up front.
No insurance companies will cover a nuclear site.
If there is a release to the public, which has happened lots of times, you are shit out of luck.
And a terror attack on one is exactly what people should be talking about before they let billions of our tax-dollars get wasted on building one of these go up near their house.
justabill @ 28:
Your argument loses steam when you misspell ridiculous as rediculous.
If you do not know how to spell common words or at least use a spell checker, then intelligent people will ignore your comment.
Why any news organization would give, to steal a line from the movie Office Space, "a no talent ass-clown" like Beck any sort of forum is beyond me. Enough said!
Yeah, let's stick with the status quo. Spending TRILLIONS in the middle east to tinker with the balance of power there just enough so we can get our black gold has been working great. Fuck the environment. Screw nuclear. Too scary.
How long have you been working as a troll for the nuclear power industry J?
First let me just say that Glenn Beck is a tool.
Not that I've said that. Let me also say that I'd rather see nuclear plants built, and lots of them. Radiation is easier to deal with than global climate change. Meanwhile, we should also build windmills, and lots of them.
johnx @ 74:
Where do you think all the steel for windmills and the silicon for solar panels comes from? The magical environmental fairy?
You have to mine for steel and silicon, so your argument is bullshit as well.
Martin Kemmish @ 70:
Here here...
CHernobyl was operated by damn communists for crying out loud. Communists have no regard for the health and well-being of people so safety was at the bottom of the to do list. The people who constantly bring up Chernobyl don't understand that accidents caused by ineptitude is not the rule, but an exception. It is a rule, of course, in socialized countries, not advanced countries.
WIth all the crap going on in the middle east, I cannot believe that there are people who even think that nuclear energy is bad. I thought everyone would be running over each other to the nearest university to learn how to utilize nuclear energy so that we don't have to depend on oil so much. But no, they would rather use oil and nuclear energy almost daily and COMPLAIN about the very things they live on. hahaha...like a spoiled child. Biting the hand that feeds it.
justabill @ 79:
Im a polisci major who spent too much time in the Middle East last year -amused-. I dont like the price we pay for oil, and would much prefer alternate methods.
Also, if you are going to post pure attacks, dont post at all. Accusations of being paid off are meaningless in this setting.
Glenn Beck: The hardest-headed man in showbiz.
Huh? @ 76:
You are picking on a typo? on a blog thread?
Huh?
THAT is the most pathetic comment on this thread so far. lmao!
Yes, nuclear power is out because we have to mine uranium with hand tools. wtf?
Huh? @ 81:
Save yourself, you're talking to a monkey.
J @ 83:
I don't believe you.
justabill @ 88:
Don't. I don't care. Far be it from me to point out there are people who think nuclear power would be a good idea because they dont like spending trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in the Middle East.
A couple of points on nuclear power, which I believe to be true though i don't work in the area.
- most of the reactors in the US were designed 30 years ago or more, reactors do have a life span
- much of the cost of a nuclear plant is regulatory. its expensive, but necessary. there are many things the government insures like beach front housing, New Orleans, etc. so I wouldn't worry too much about them not having insurance. Most manufactoring companies insure themselves actually.
- safer reactor designs (been around for 30 years) haven't been built in the US but China is planning on using them, so called pebble bed reactors that are designed to be meltdown proof. YMMV
- there have been advancements that allow the half life of waste to be reduced.
- most of the problems with the waste stems from the time when it was generated. In Oak Ridge,TN during the war they actually injected people with plutonium to see what the effects would be. they had no idea what they were dealing with or the health effects it would cause. we're left with their mess but we have a much better idea of how to deal with it than they did.
my biggest worry with any power source is a lack of regulation and oversight. companies cut corners to save money at the expense of the community. It is fairly easy to detect radiation leaks though, so I still support nuclear power, at least in moderation with other energy sources. I have spent my career working in manufactoring plants and I can assure you that theres nasty stuff used in everything we build or produce (including solar panels). The truth is that its all dangerous if used/disposed of inapproapiately, far more so than most people realize.
I think I was around four or five when my family evacuated three mile island, and for what its worth, we're all ok other than our current chimp in charge. A friend of mine actually got called in to TMI during the accident and was on site, and he's ok too even though I think he got his yearly rad dosage in a couple of weeks. I don't think it does anyone any good to be afraid just for the sake of fear. Learn, understand, then make a reasonable decision based on what you can actually accomplish. For some reason some "liberals" treat nuclear power the same way "conservatives" treat unions or gays or books. It doesn't matter what powers your home, if you don't insist that its generated responsably you're in danger. The thought of death by colorless odorless radioactive particles scares the crap out of people, but a power outage at the wrong time could be far more deadly.
Wag @ 59:
Show your work. Where is there any proof that we can safely store nuclear material? How many generations will have to deal with the radioactive waste? You haven't modeled this out or applied any long term thinking. Its just not sustainable.
johnx @ 74:
Of course all this may be a moot point if if BushCo and Pals keep pissin the world off...we'll all likely be back to the stone age and killin each other with pointed sticks.
justabill @ 85:
People do that when they can't INTELLIGENTLY counter your arguments. It's like they don't believe 2 + = 4. WHen you show this to be the case, they say "Well, you smell!", and then run away.
Please, don't respond to those who accuse others of being unintelligent spellers. It is a diversion in their own mind to try to score points with the posters here. Rather sad actually.
More fear for sale johnx?
Agreed with 90. Regulation is such a key thing with power plants, and the regulations should include passive systems - IE, if something goes wrong, the system turns itself off. Designing active safety systems (need to be working to turn the system off) are a very bad idea.
Nuclear & Renewable Energy Facts
http://www.nukefree.org/facts
Glenn Beck is vying for the Oscar for the world's biggest horse's ass!
Nuclear power is absolutely the answer. For once in his miserable life BG is right -- we need more nuke power plants. They are safer for the environment, cheaper, produce more power, safer etc.
justabill @ 96:
ZOMG! I can post links too! http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=111626
Gosh it sounds like nuclear power plants are a good thing what with cheaper, cleaner and safe energy. They sound like the perfiect answer. No wonder we object to Iran and Syria building them.
And were Inhofe and Beck just promoting the idea of government guaranteed loans? Can't the private sector and market economy properly provide the necessary funding without government involvement like we've heard from these guys so many times before? Hypocrisy, it's what they do.
J @ 99:
Yes, but I wasn't blog whoring.
Wag @ 87:
Way to sling personal insults instead of making a factual argument. What are you going to do about the waste?
Beck is wrong on 2 counts:
#1 There have been fatalities related to nuclear power in the US. Several decades ago, 2 men were killed while refueling a small reactor at a military training facility in Idaho. If I remember correctly they were actually killed by the steam conclusion when operator error caused the core to go super-critical. Another fatality resulted from a guy named Peabody dumping a liquid radioactive slurry from one container to another. The shape of the second container was apparently ideal for holding neutrons in, and the material went super-critical. Peabody died some time later of radiation poisoning. And everybody knows what happened to John Cusack when he worked on the Manhattan Project!
#2 And even if Beck were correct in asserting that no one had died as a result of nuclear technology, it would essentially be a logical fallacy to conclude from that fact that nuclear energy is safe. That's like a group of habitual drunk drivers claiming that because they had never killed a single one of their children, or anyone else, that drunk driving is OK. In determining the safety of nuclear energy, like drunk driving, you need to consider the likelihood that something is going to go wrong, non-zero, and the consequence if it should, dire.
Beck of course conveniently ignores the real issue. Although a reactor meltdown is unlikely, it is still possible. An examination of the core of Three Mile Island, years after the incident, revealed a void in the center of the core where it had begun to melt. If a reactor were to meltdown, and the primary coolant were released to the atmosphere, direct fatalities might be few if any, but the contamination would be massive. The economic expense of cleaning up one serious nuclear accident, and/or abandoning the contaminated area, would far outweigh any economic savings we might expect from all the reactors currently on the drawing boards.
johnx @ 91:
OMG johnx, why do you try to argue about this? LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND YOU. Europe and Japan and the US ALL store nuclear waste. They have been doing this safely for years. Show my work? What is this, a tutorial from hell?
Don't you think that your ignorance is direct evidence of the fact that nuclear energy is working? Just becuase you don't hear about deaths from nuclear waste on TV doesn't mean we are not using nuclear energy already. You are assuming that if we did store nuclear waste that we would hear about all the horror stories on TV right? hahaha
Show my work...geez, can you imagine this guy?
Lazy lazy LAZY!!
No, you were just quoting random sites sponsored by Greenpeace.
Wow. I've never seen Beck. Why does he act like that?
J @ 45:
And that is exactly why we find ourselves in the fine mess we're in now. Let's try thinking past our own asses for once?
Le Roi Est Mort @ 43:
"The Singing Dinosaurs"
dmitry @ 98:
NO IT IS NOT any of those things.
Idiocy.
justabill @ 46:
Every form of energy has adverse effects. Every single one. No form of energy is safe. None. Not one. Electricity is dangerous. Fire is dangerous. Hell the wheel or anything with moving parts is dangerous. The sun is a gigantic massive nuclear reactor. Are you saying the sun is evil? Why do you hate the sun? :-)
And by saying nuclear energy is a finite resource...is a gross mischaracterization. Gross. Between Fission and Fussion (and if you don't know the difference I would recommend consulting the Google) that is about as limitless as we are ever to know. It is what the sun uses. It is how atoms work.
Ronin Tetsuro @ 107:
Sure. If you can find cold fusion or a quick method to set up energy satelites, we'll all get in line to give you money.
I would love long term solutions. I just dont see too many.
raymond @ 94:
I am scared of people who will sell out the health of the planet and future generation for a quick buck.
1.) What are you going to do with the radioactive waste?
2.) How are you going to maintain and protect these sites from terrorism?
3.) How are you going to maintain standard as the rest of the world follows suit and build reactors?
4.) How much radiation exposure causes Leukemia in children?
J @ 83:
I don't tend to trust opinions or observations made by people who belong to a field that can't even get their own name right.
What a mess
Dr. Who @ 113:
. . . .are you seriously dismissing a post because they used a common form of abbreviation?
You are out of your mind.
Answers:
1) I am not going to be afraid.
2) I am not going to be afraid.
3) I am not going to be afraid.
4) I don't know, but I know THOUSANDS of children have died to oil wars.
johnx @ 112:
This isn't a blog to teach people how not to be ignorant. Your job is to go out and discover the answers to these questions yourself. By accusing people of being unintelligent or stupid, and then post a series of questions, makes you not only ignorant, but a hypocrite as well.
Deal with this fact, please.
We. Are. Using. Nuclear. Energy. Right. Now. Safely.
Got it?
raymond @ 116:
Much higher then that, darlin. The high end estimates for Iraq are heading to the 1 million range, and with 50% of the population being below 18, well...
When nuke energy sources were being researched in the 1950's, there were two choices: uranium and thorium. Thorium is three times more abundant than uranium, much less radioactive, and more efficient in a fission reaction because it's easier to control... plus it's nearly impossible to build a bomb out of it because you need more energy to get it to reach critical mass.
However, research into thorium power plants was killed off early, solely because you couldn't make nuclear bombs out of the stuff, and this was considered important during the Cold War. It hasn't been until the past five or ten years that thorium nuclear energy has been reconsidered.
raymond @ 116:
Hahahaha
Why are the links in proprietary format only? I don't want to install Quicktime or Windows Media Player to listen to them.
Wag @ 104:
You whine well enough but I knew you couldn't cite an example. The only options for hot waste (spent fuel rods) is burying the waste under the ocean floor, storing it a mile underground, or shooting it into space. All are very costly. How is this a sustainable alternative?
Funny you mention Japan, they just had a leak. They lied about it too.
Europe is thrilled about Chernobyl. Perhaps you should move there and grow a garden.
Jason @ 121:
No Quicktime OR media player? What are you using, an etch-a-sketch?
Sorry, just a joke. Just a little peeved at some of the posters here.
There is NO EASY WAY out of this gawd damn MESS.
People have to set aside their egos and personal interests and work together to make progress.
Thats not happening in this Country. We're so freaking polarized and divided at this point the country may as well split up into 50 separate countries-territories.
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
J @ 115:
Obviously the irony of it all flew over your head at supersonic speeds. Let me break it down to see if you get the joke: Political Science it is not a science, ergo.. if you guys are unable to even get your own nomenclature right, more complex things like considerations regarding nuclear technology and energy infrastructure should be left for consideration by you guys until you manage to get the basics right.
I'm a progressive for sure, but you you people are freaks for not supporting "nucular" power. Seriously, it's one of our only options with the coming energy emergency. If we were smart we would have an forward thinking policy with this like France has acomplished. Solar and Wind just aren't going to cut it, folks.
BTW, Beck uses the Burear of Labor Statistics to show that the nuclear plants are safer. Well, safer for the workers, maybe, since those of are the kind of statistics compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sure, they may be safer to work in than a coal mine, but when was the last time a coal mine collapse caused fatalities outside of the mine? When was the last time a coal mine spewed radioactive steam into the environment and the surrounding community? The nuclear plant near me has been shut down for years because it was constantly plagued with problems and the voters finally voted to shut it down. So, Beck can look up Rancho Seco for a shining example of nuclear power inaction.
notmark @ 23:
OK, smart guy. Here's something I picked up from the first link: "One of four cold fusion cells in a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory exploded while being moved; electrochemist Andrew Riley was killed and three others were injured." Maybe you were too busy whimpering to notice. It's not as if everyone here is linking nuclear weapons with nuclear power. Give me a pebble bed reactor over the smog levels in Los Angeles anyday, but people who regard nuclear energy as "essential" are idiots.
I don't fear progress, and there is a world of difference between opposing technological advances and encouraging nuclear safety. What is so difficult to understand here? Glenn Beck is a sneering douchebag, and anyone who considers him a journalist deserves to be nuked.
Wag @ 117:
I'm sure the same was said of fossil fuels 60 years ago. You can't answer my questions obviously, especially #4. You should go clean up the vomit from a Leukemia patient instead.
Hippies? Jane Fonda? These guys are still fighting 1970's culture wars.
Inhofe is a relic. I can see the Exxon/Mobil strings moving Inhofe's mouth. Beck is just another loud mouthed, soft, pudgy, pasty white, combat dodging, wrong about just about everything, reich wing shill. A Rush Limpballs wanna be.
Never thought I'd say this but, aside from the smarmy tone, this particular rant by Mr. Beck is absolutely correct. You cannot run an industrial economy on unreliable energy sources like wind and solar power. In fact no power grid can support much more than approximately 10 percent of these unstable sources. Conservation is desirable and necessary but will not answer the needs of future population growth and economic expansion. It's not just the industrialized countries anymore. Growth in India and Asia is putting incredible pressure on the world's non-renewable resources. Only nuclear power can bridge the energy gap that will develop very soon as the available gas and oil supplies are consumed.
johnx @ 122:
Didn't site an example?
OK, now I know I am officially dealing with a REAL monkey.
Example 1. US
Example 2. Japan
Example 3. Europe
Need I say more?
And if you are going to use rare unfortunate accidents as justification for not using a technology, then you wouldn't be able to even use your computer and make stupid comments, because at some point somebody died from using a computer. As well as cars (thousands a year), airplanes, trains, even drowning in 1 foot of water.
Are you going to be afraid of 1 foot of water?
Best description of nuclear energy.
"It's a helluva way to boil water".
Jack @ 16:
I think it involved kneepads, mouthwash, and aching jaws.
Jason @ 121:
Actually I'm with Wag on that one.
I agree they do both suck though. I use neither.
VLC player plays everything, its open sourced and is available for a number of operating systems in addition to OSX, such as Linux, Windoze and BSD.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
"The last video player you'll ever need"
http://download.nytimes.com/VLC-Media-Player/3003-2200_4-10717937.html
People don't help their case against nuclear when they list accidents that don't have anything to do with nuclear energy. For instance the accidents involving ruptured steam pipes can and have happened anywhere steam is being used (including geothermal plants). A fire caused by a worked accidentally igniting insulation? What does that have to deal with nuclear power?
Blue Buddha @ 119:
Actually that is not even close. Thorium by itself is not fissile, it will however be turned into Uranium-233 by absorbing neutrons. The problem of nuclear reactors is not the fuel itself, but the isotopes produced by the reaction. Thorium is not different, and it will produce actually a far more powerful isotope. The main problem was not nuclear bomb potential, but costs. Thorium right not is not cost effective, it is however far more abundant than other nuclear fuels.
Anyhow, I would suggest that some people get an actual background in physics before making statements about fairly non-trivial scientific issues.
Johnx, I could be Einstein with every answer in the world for you, but the problem is, you are a fear monger. Your response to everything has been a line or question that promotes fear. No matter what energy is used, there are going to be risks. No one is saying nuke is perfect, but it CERTAINLY looks pretty good given the status quo.
Regarding your luekemia question 4 and your suggestion to clean vomit...well, it's fairly irrelevant, OK? Now be nice and go learn something somewhere...and STOP BEING AFRAID.
First time I've actually seen a clip of Beck in action. Reading his puerile rants has always obviated the need for me to watch him.
Jesus, what a piece of work. This is one messed-up dude ...
Really: Why on earth did CNN hire him? Are they really that desperate to be just like Faux Noise?
Peter G @ 131:
Huh. Never heard of BATTERIES, have we?
Clayton Counts @ 128:
As I stated in my post, I was referring to nuclear power plant accidents, not nuclear research facilities. I wasn't justifying what Beck was saying in the least, I was just noting that the people who are so anti-nuclear technology fail to admit that most of the accidents occurred in the infancy of nuclear power.
You don't have to be a dick about it.
When it comes to nuclear energy for power plants, you should be afraid.
nuclear power is not the answer. There's a reason none have been built in 30 years, and if Congress doen't give the industry hundreds of billions of dollars, no more will because the capital costs make it the most expensive alternative. Nuclear power is not green power.
Nuclear energy is NOT the answer
Sorry, but I have to side with pro-nuke people here (even that repulsive troll Glenn Beck). Not because I think nuclear power is clean or safe, but because it is WAY better than anything we can do with hydrocarbons. We simply don't have the technology yet to power ourselves fully with fusion or solar, and geothermal, water, and wind just aren't enough. When we do have that technology, then I'm all for dropping nuclear power....but until them I'm all for it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know that Nuclear power plants provide a good target for terrorists and that its waste is concentrated poison for 10000+ years, but really, REALLY consider what you are comparing it to.
Look, this isn't easy. We've lived for a century with the consequences of oil and coal, so they have become an integral part of who we are as a species. But keep in mind....
-Oil doesn't provide a single target for terrorists, it provides HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of them, from wells to refineries, to tankers, and even filling stations. Moreover, to maintain the worldwide supply we have created and sustained some of the most repugnant governments in the world...which, I might add, are churning out terrorists the way McDonalds churns out French fries. It's a geopolitical disaster.
-On the score of environmental damage, nuclear power isn't even in the same league with the kingpins that are oil and coal. Shall we count the ways?
1) The Greenhouse: Folks, there IS no global warming without oil or coal. And even if we stopped using them today, the GLOBAL consequences of having used them will last for CENTURIES, during which entire nations, most of the worlds coral reefs, and a significant fraction of all the species on Earth will be destroyed. Short of nuclear war, atomic energy has no chance of unleashing that kind of catastrophe.
2) Smog: That's some impressive list of people who have died from nuclear accidents, isn't it? That must justify sticking with coal and oil! Just to drive the point home, how about we add that to everyone who's died from a nuclear bomb (not really fair, but it won't matter) and compare that to the lethality and health effects that come from smog produced by oil and coal burning. It's like comparing my daughter's softball team to the this year's BoSox. Heck, every year smog kills or sickens more people than cigarettes, cars, guns, trans-fats, and wars do...COMBINED. It's a leading cause of asthma, emphysema, cancer, colds, flu, and a host of pulmonary diseases. In addition to that, it's poisoning the land and water through acid rain. Plus, it blocks my view of the mountains only 20 miles from my window (hey...it counts!). It's a nasty, horrific, stinking cloud of death whose cost to our civilization is almost beyond calculation. Look, we're born under the weight of this rock, we live our lives there, and we die there too. It's easy not to notice it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
3) Spills and Runoff: Exxon Valdez anyone? There are hundreds of tankers going around the world at any given time and literally millions of boats that run on gas/oil. Can you seriously compare what nuclear waste from power plants means for the environment with what inadvertent and/or matter-of-course dumping of waste oil is doing? You could probably take all the spent nuclear material ever produced and dump it en masse into the Marianas trench and, while you might make Godzilla, you'd leave the oceans in much better shape. It's not even close. In addition to the spills, the runoff from coal and oil production is poisoning our rivers, lakes, and farmland. It's even less obvious than smog, because it's often hidden by those who produce it. But it's still a killer all the same.
4) Mining: Strip mining, ocean floor drilling, and ANWR are just a few of the environmental flash points that oil and coal put into our daily news. In addition to basically turning the entire surface of our planet inside out, these activities are highly dangerous to those who do them. Is anyone seriously keeping tabs of industrial accidents from coal mining from 1967 to compare them with nuclear industry deaths? Why should they? More people were killed THIS YEAR in mining accidents than are on the list we were linked to. And that doesn't count the black lung, pulmonary disease, and cancer that takes a significant fraction of the 'surviving' workforce. Sure, mining uranium is nasty too, but it's not as devastating, because less is needed. We get MUCH more energy/mass from it than we do from oil and coal.
Enough said on this...
I agree with those who are upset about nuclear power and want to replace both oil AND nukes with something safer. But that doesn't mean that we have to put oil and nuclear power in the same box. They don't belong there. Given the choice, I'm for nukes over oil 86,400 seconds out of every day. It's no contest.
Now I need to take a shower for having agreed with Glenn Beck about something. Ewwww.
Keith @ 136:
The problem with current fission-based nuclear reactors is not the accidents that have happened, but the potential for major consequences if even a single accident was to happen.
It is like juggling chains-haws, surely you are very skilled and you have never had an issue... but I don't necessarily want to be in a small closed room right next to you while performing the trick.
There are safer alternatives like wind generation, or solar. And there should be a significant amount of funding going towards fusion-based reactors.
We always end up in these sort of pickles because of our myopic approach to problem solving, nuclear technology as it stands right now is a short term solution --yet another patch in a leaking bucket-- with the potential to cause more harm than benefit. The problem is that we need a whole new bucket, not a patched one....
I will not hold my breath for things to change as long as we have oil men running the government...
I find it surprising that an Oklahoma senator actually thinks that no one had ever died because of nuclear energy... I got two words for the douchebag (I'm in Arkansas and I was born in Oklahoma, so I can use that word...): KAREN SILKWOOD! Now, she didn't directly die because of her work with Kerr-McGee and the plutonium plant that made plutonium pellets for fuel rods. However, she did point out to the AOE in 1974 about how badly the plant handled such materials.
raymond @ 138:
People should be afraid of nuclear contamination. Its a world wide problem.
There is nothing sustainable about nuclear energy given our current technology. Either find a safe cost effective solution for the waste or stfu. Without doing so, we use the resource at the expense of future generations, but perhaps any disease caused by radiation exposure won't concern you as its "fairly irrelevant".
slippytoad @ 140:
The problem is that you have people with exactly 0 background on the subject at hand making quantitative estimations. For example, why are solar or wind "unreliable"? Do you have the data, do you know the solar/wind cycle? etc, etc...
If people like Beck et al did not feel like going to grad school and get an advanced degree in physics or engineering, fine. I have however have an issue when they open their mouth about something they know little to nothing about.
I could only take about 10 seconds of this simpering fool.
Its interesting to note "Glenn" that if they all DID shut up,they could still rely on their talent and sing.You on the other hand,make a living shooting your lying yap off.
If YOU shut up(please God)there would be nothing left of you except an empty suit and a bad hair cut.
Most people seem to forget that U-235 is also a fossil fuel. There isn't anymore of it being produced, and once it has all been depleted we'll be out looking for something else. It may look like we have an unlimited supply, but that's the way we felt about oil at one time. The more nuclear reactors we build the quicker we use up the fuel we have. Then we'll have to live with the waste.
There's nothing magic about nuclear power. The U-235 isn't converted into electricity, it's just used as another way to boil water. Nuclear Power plants use steam driven turbines to produce electricity, just like coal, and oil based power plants. I just seems to make more sense to find a way to boil water that neither pollutes the air like coal or oil, or pollutes water like nuclear energy.
The U.S. is best served by a diverse energy portfolio, including coal, hydro, solar, wind, and hopefully new technologies like tidal. Nuclear energy has been, and will continue to be, a valuable part of that portfolio.
As far as I know, this is the only issue that I have ever agreed with, choke, Dick Cheney about.
Login or Register to post comments.