Fukushima Watch, Week 3--Where Do You Stand Now?

[marions ghost]

Quick Poll:

So after the 2 week long nuclear roller coaster ride from hell, what best describes your current position on Nuclear Power?

Make comments or kick the poll, thanks!

[Electric Monk]

1. I was ambivalent before Fukushima, but now the more I learn about nuclear power the less I like it.

k&r

[Warren DeMontague]

2. This has been an eye-opener for me.

I was skeptical but open to it previously, despite the fact that no one seems to have a coherent strategy for dealing with the waste.

Now- no way. People can't be trusted to not cut corners in pursuit of $$$, and the risks are just too great.

[Dems to Win]

3. Oppose nuclear power now more than ever. I sent this letter to Obama 10 days ago:

Dear President Obama:

I am writing today to demand that you follow the lead of Angela Merkel and immediately shut down the 70s-era nuclear plants, as Germany is sensibly doing. No studies are needed or could possibly provide reassurances to allow them to keep operating.

President Obama, I have always opposed nuclear power and tried to vote accordingly. Though sometimes I've contributed to and voted for someone like yourself in spite of your pro-nuclear stance because I agreed with you on other issues.

Never again. I have now become a single issue anti-nuclear voter.
You have about 18 months to come to your senses and follow the lead of Angela Merkel of Germany and immediately close all pre-1980 nuclear plants, including those in California, and earn my vote.

If the only antinuclear candidate in the race is the Green, I will vote for the Green. No more choosing the lesser of the two evils between the Republicans and Democrats. Only anti-nuclear candidates will get my vote, period. No compromise.

Close all pre-1980 nuclear plants immediately, and enact a plan to close the rest in a couple of years. No other course of action meets the sanity test.

Respectfully,

[GReedDiamond]

4. Opposed since...

...way before TMI.

[Hannah Bell]

5. Still opposed to hysteria, rumor-mongering, & citing taboids & blogs

written by anonymous stock traders.

Oh, & I've been opposed to nuclear power since high school.

Even though some posters think you can't be the first & the second simultaneously.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Opposed to nuclear power in it's present implementation

But not opposed to nuclear power on general principle.

There are fundamental flaws in our current approach to nuclear power; massive reactors at near critical levels.

There are ways to harness nuclear power with sub-critical reactors that simply cannot go into melt-down states.

What keeps us from developing those kinds of reactors is the dual use of the existing ones; we use this technology not only to produce energy, but to breed plutonium for our nuclear arsenals.

[marions ghost]

7. Seems like

the horses are out of the barn...melt downs are apparently worth the risk to the PTB.

"Sub-critical reactors" still have the problem of nuclear waste.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Sub critical reactors RUN on nuclear waste

Those waste pools they have to keep cool; those are sources of nuclear energy; they're just not 'hot enough' for our present day nuclear reactors.

[AndyTiedye]

10. They Ought to At Least Harness That Heat to Run the Pumps to Keep it Cool

Then there is a source of power as long as the pools are hot,
and if they're not, you don't need the pumps.

[marions ghost]

16. Lower output, lower efficiency, high cost

why bother? Just to recycle the trash we've already generated?

I would go with that plan only if no more Mother Nukes were ever built.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Watching my Parents (and way too many others in my Home Town) Die of Cancer

My home town had one of the earliest nukes. Everyone was really proud of it
for a while. Then people started dying of cancer.

Both my parents died of cancer. So did lots of other people in town.
My dad died of a formerly-rare type of brain cancer that the doctors
said at the time was becoming much more common than it ever used to be.

My mom died of one of those really fast-moving brain cancers.

No industrial pollutants in the area, nor would there have been any
occupational exposure.

I certainly don't have a solid case to claim that the nuke killed my parents
but it's the most likely suspect.

[rdking647]

11. nukes are a matter of acceptable risk

even if nuclear power killed 5k people a year. that would still be less than 1/6 the number killed by cars each year..
why not ban cars since they are so dangerous..

Nothing in life is risk free... its all about acceptable risk... I think nuke fall in to that category

[marions ghost]

13. Except

if the "5K" per year who died included you and members of your family.

[Hatchling]

12. I've been against it since high school.

That's when I became aware of it and that was at least 15 years before TMI.

[marions ghost]

19. what did it

Nuclear bomb testing?

[DCofVA]

14. There needs to be the option, "Have always opposed it."

I'm there

[marions ghost]

15. You're right

Two other options should have been available:

--"Have always opposed it even before TMI"

--"Have always been ambivalent" (ie. expressing the difficulty of making a choice on such a complex issue, especially when the downside is suppressed and nuclear has been sold as a necessity.)

Thanks for input

[tnlefty]

23. If that 'have always opposed it' had been an option

I would've voted for that option. Instead I voted for the TMI version.

[Thunderstruck]

17. Pro-nukes stand down. You lose. In a democracy, majority rules. And you ain't

the majority. Not by a long-shot.

[marions ghost]

18. Correct

theoretically. But in truth, who rules in America today? Surely not the majority. So in fact, is America a democracy at this point, or in name only?

A Parable: I used to have a friend who tried so hard to grow vegetables. He would imagine his bountiful harvest as he applied every rule in every gardening book, diligently, faithfully. His trust and innocence was sweet. Many days he believed his garden was growing. But in the end he could not see that whatever he was doing was not working. I called him the theoretical gardener.

Still I like your courage in the face of the Nuclear Juggernaut. There are 250 nukes in the world to generate power with more in the planning stage, and 180 on ships (not counting other smaller reactors). That's a LOT of momentum, a lot to put the brakes on. The minority IS ruling in this case. This is De Facto, a done deal. Nuclear Power has been forced down our throats--and with its by-products now raining on our heads, we are being asked to cheerfully go along with MORE. Even our relatively enlightened president pushes for more nukes in the face of Fukushima. How in hell do we push back with those forces against us?

We are right, but we are not in control.

[GliderGuider]

20. Problem is, there aren't many actual democracies left.

The global corporatocracy doesn't much care what we think. What will get them to shift is if it looks like nuclear power is going to cost them their yachts...

[TheWebHead]

21. the problem is

every form of energy that can scale to global demand today has members of DU bashing it at various points because of negative headlines. If people here aren't bitching about nukes, they're bitching about coal and its impact on global warming or coal ash spills or mine collapses, or they're moaning about natural gas because fracking fluid chemicals getting into well water or causing earthquake, or they complain about oil due to spills and global warming. Wind and solar have cost constraints and an ill prepared grid to deal with intermittent energy sources.

But with nuclear, you do have a black swan event risk. Not many forms of energy can cause a stock market to crash like what occurred with the Nikkei 225. When you can wipe out nearly $2 trillion in global equity valuations in a week - albeit that drop outside of Japan has since been recovered - you begin to understand that nuclear power isn't so cheap.

[marions ghost]

22. good point about the hidden costs of nuclear

--however we have seen at least 40 years of corporate thugs and the American Oiligarchy actively discouraging every one of the cleaner forms of energy generation...not to mention ignoring conservation. None of these alternatives has been allowed to compete.

So you can understand WHY people on DU MIGHT complain...:eyes: can't you?

[marions ghost]

24. any more votes out there?

:kick:

[McCamy Taylor]

25. As far away from Fukushima as possible?

[marions ghost]

26. Antarctica?

If it continues, it will be everywhere.