Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let me remind you of something crucial when it comes to nuclear power incidents and accidents.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:16 AM
Original message
Let me remind you of something crucial when it comes to nuclear power incidents and accidents.
People lie. When it comes to nuclear incidents and accidents, plant owners, government officials, and the media lie. If they can't cover up an incident, they will minimize it. Since radiation not only kills immediately, but also over time, the plant and government officials will simply say that all is good, nobody has died, meanwhile, years later, cancer cluster pop up and people who were exposed die prematurely .

When a crisis, such as TMI or Chernobyl, comes down, the danger is minimized. Since most folks don't have a Geiger counter, they feel that they can get away with minimizing the amount of exposure. Only later does it turn out to be major.

We've seen this pattern followed for years and decades. Minor releases of radioactive material are covered up for years, if not forever. Major incidents, such as TMI and Chernobyl, are downplayed, sometimes to ludicrous extents, until the scope of the devastation simply can't be hidden anymore. And even afterwards, the damage is minimized. Proponents of nuclear power like to point to TMI and say that no deaths occurred, all the while ignoring the fact that there are cancer clusters surrounding the downwind side of TMI, one full of thyroid cancers and childhood leukemia.

We're seeing the same game being played out in Japan. All yesterday, the damage was minimized, the threat was minimized. Vague statements that were trying to be reassuring were issued, and all the buzz words were used. Yet the situation continued to worsen until now we have the building that houses the reactor and containment vessel exploding, and yet the dissembling continues as authorities hastily rush to mention that radiation levels are going down.

Nuclear power has been shoved down the throats of the people in this world for the past sixty years, despite the dangers, despite the threat, despite the fact that it is now the most expensive form of energy production going. A small group of powerful people have a vested monetary interest in continuing down the nuclear path, and they are able to exert their influence to put out lies and propaganda. Don't fall for it. The evidence of nuclear's dangers are apparent in the cancer clusters of Pennsylvania. They are evident in a 2,800 square mile dead zone in Ukraine. And they are being played out for us now, on the coast of Japan.

Don't fall for the lies, spin and propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Amen (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Remember Chernobyl
and the lies that are still being spread surrounding all of the damage it has and continues to do.

This will never go away nor will the lies.

People won't begin to realize the damage that has been done in Japan (and worldwide) until dead and deformed children are born and cancer rates rise astronomically. :(



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. This 2009 study from Russian and New York Academies of Sciences supports you
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 05:12 PM by kristopher
Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health
Alexey B. Nesterenko1, Vassily B. Nesterenko1,, Alexey V. Yablokov2
Article first published online: 30 NOV 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04822.x 2009 New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areascomparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contaminationrevealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

...

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposedliquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.84.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. the heck with Chernobyl
look into the history of the US atomic energy program and all the corruption and lies that have been going on since Oppenheimer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. k&r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. Not to mention the lies about the alternatives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
128. Thanks - I didn't see that
and just gave it a rec!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. There was a serious fire a Japan's Monju prototype breeder reactor in 1995 - lots of CYA
Officials attempted to cover up the serieness of the fire

yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks for putting this into words I hope all the
nuke plant cheerleaders can understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:22 AM
Original message
+10,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. Amen! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
7. Nawww! Capitalists wouldn't lie just to save money. Just ask BP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. Absolutely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Everything is fine. Nothing to see here. Don't panic.
Clear the area please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
10.  A campaign to silence the news about it has begun
10:21pm
With the evacuation zone extended to a 20km radius around the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and journalists reportedly not allowed within a 60km perimeter, Japan's prime minister Naoto Kan urged people to remain calm, telling reporters:

"By taking firm measures, we will do our best not to have even a single person suffer from health problems ... From the bottom of my heart, I would like everybody to listen to the government and to media reports and to act calmly."
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/asia/live-blog-japan-earthquake


I've even seen it start to happen here.

I live in a location which could possibly described as 'downwind' of Japan, Indonesia, and we are expecting our first child in September. So I have personal cause for concern in this matter.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. you find something strange about the fact that the evacuation
Edited on Sat Mar-12-11 03:29 PM by Hannah Bell
included everyone within a 20km radius of the reactor, while journalists were restricted from entering a 60km perimeter?




that means the journalists were allowed to come within a 10km radius from the reactor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
50. Yes, I do. If the journalists aren't allowed within 60KM then that should be the evacuation zone
as well.

Thanks for the graphic, it helps everyone understand what a circumference is in this context.

A perimeter is a path that surrounds an area. The word comes from the Greek peri (around) and meter (measure). The term may be used either for the path or its length - it can be thought of as the length of the outline of a shape. The perimeter of a circular area is called circumference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #32
68. Aren't you assuming what was said is what was meant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #32
77. If you are saying that they are protecting the press more than their own people,
I think there's a different reason. They don't want the press to see how terrified people are and they don't want the people to get worked up by the news media.

The reality that is quickly being quashed is that everyone to a greater or lesser extent in Japan will be effected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. Having walked the walk...I can tell you MadHound is telling the TRUTH..
If you chose to dis this or ignore this message, well, I say; "A fool and his
cancerous thyroid, lung, prostate, leukemia, pituitary gland, etc. will ultimately be parted."


Tikki
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
12. would much rather have nuclear than wars over fossil fuels.
there are dangers with nuclear power. however, it is still vastly preferable to fighting global wars for access to energy.

alternative energy isn't at the point where it can completely fill growing demand. hopefully someday it will be. at that point, it will be time to reconsider eliminating nuclear. but that might be many decades away. until then, we need more nuclear power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Actually green alternative have arrived at the point where they can fill all of our energy needs.
But that fact has been absent from our media.

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
84. That is why a compromised TV media
is so damaging to progress. They knew exactly what they were doing when they abolished the fairness doctrine and allowed massive media consolidation. Our most pressing issue is media fairness because it affects every single problem and potential solution.

Germany has transformed their energy production with a wholesale move toward solar. Considering how many sunless days they have in Germany this is just incredible. But every day on TV corporate Republican talking heads tell us that 'alternative' energy only supplies us with one percent of our energy needs. Well, duh, that's the point, get that number up to 60% as soon as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
114. These technologies are *not* ready yet. Many of them (according to the article)
are still testbeds that need to be scaled up in order to work. You're being a bit disingenuous when you say the technology is here now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. From page one
"Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic."

Apparently you can't even read past page one, but thanks for demonstrating the "social" barriers these energy sources have to overcome. Textbook example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #116
135. Reading *is* fundemental. The authors say up front that they
are making certain assumptions about the state of the current technology and it's ability to be "scaled up". They are guessing at best and are providing their OPINIONS - just as I am. I don't believe we are anywhere near what it will take to go completely green right now. It may take decades to get there. I would love to see it, but I'm being realistic and know that we will need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

we consider only options that have been demonstrated in at least pilot projects and that can be scaled up as part of a global energy system without further major technology development.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #135
137. Actually, while you are presenting your own, biased, uneducated opinion,
The folks at Stanford, get it, Stanford, are presenting theirs based on the best, latest, scientific evidence.

I think that their word carries quite a bit more weight than some anonymous internet hack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. You have no idea. And I'll leave it at that. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. Apparently I'm not the only one then,
Because your lack of ideas, and critical thinking processes, are evident to everybody. The only ones I know who are more determined to reject scientific findings and science in general are religious fundies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #141
142. No, you read what you wanted to read in the paper and ignored the rest. And thanks
for adding the cheap shot. Nice touch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #142
144. Deservedly so, since I'm not the one trying to argue against science and scientific studies
And frankly all you're doing is trying to project your own problems on me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. I read the report (the same as you) and quoted where they said
that some of their projections were based on "pilot projects". It doesn't take a doctorate in science to know that that is a far cry from ready to go right now. But that's what was strongly alluded to in this thread. As it says in my sig "facts are stubborn things." I don't have a problem with green solutions to our energy problems, I embrace those solutions. I have a problem with someone saying we are ready to go green right now on a global basis. That just isn't the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. Actually they said it would take until 2030 to get everything ramped up,
But only if we started right now.

But hey, shouldn't you know that if you actually read the report, you know, that scientific, fact based report, as opposed to your own biased opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #146
147. That's their estimate based on what exactly? I read the report and it assumes
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:47 PM by SlimJimmy
quite a bit - like global cooperation to get it done, and the release of massive amounts of capital. Would China and India be exempt like in Kyoto? I applaud their optimism, but mine tends to be more reality based. Your mileage may vary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #114
123. Did Detroit hold off on making cars until the V-8 engine came along?
You are being more than disingenuous in saying the technology is NOT here now. We maximize what we have, make improvements as we go along. Every bit of alternate energy put in place now reduces the need for fossil fuels.

The ONLY holdback on alternate energies is the corporations haven't figured out how to profit on multiple, diverse decentralized energy alternatives.

Wind: The corporations and government backs massive wind farms - directly competing with major power plants. But i remember way back at my first Earth Day, in 71, seeing models of wind turbins which could be installed at any home, tied into the power grid, and supply that house with more than enough energy for itself, even feeding energy into the grid, or when underproducing allow the house to draw on the grid for energy. In the past 40 years there have not been enough technological advances to make such a system feasible? In 1971 home computers didn't exist. More than half the TVs in the country were still black & white, and video tape was only used by television stations. Are those technologies less complex than generating and storing energy with windmills?

The problem is NOT the technology - it is the vested corporate interests OPPOSED to the technology. And THEY all say "These technologies are *not* ready yet."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #123
134. So, you are saying that we are ready to drop fossil fuels and go with
wind and solar, now? You can't be serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #134
136. Actually yes, we are
"Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic."
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

Next question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. Their opinion. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #138
140. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #134
152. If we invested the amount of money in alternate technologies that we now
give away as subsidies to the oil industry, yes, we could supplant a significant portion of the fossil fuels in a matter of months. And within a matter of a very few years, free ourselves from importing any oil whatsoever.

As I pointed out, it need not be a fait accompli at this very moment. The objection that "we can't do it NOW" is completely disingenuous. We can START now, and with a 'Manhattan Project' for energy, be independent in five years or ten years. Not being able to build a formula one racer doesn't mean we can't build a Model A (we already have the Model T).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
118. Nothing stopping you from putting renewable power sources in/on your home.
Reactors are beyond our reach as private individuals, but there's always solar/wind right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. What makes you think I'm not?
But meanwhile, beyond relying upon individual initiative, we need to start offering incentives for people in general to start switching to wind, solar and other green renewables.

Instead, our government is continuing to subsidize oil, gas and nuclear at obscene rates. This practice needs to stop ASAP. Thus, policy and governmental action is required. Otherwise we will simply continue down the same path we're on now, with less than five percent going off the grid, while we continue to build more nukes, coal and gas plants, thus continuing to degradation of our environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. "might be many decades away" only if the funding isn't there.
Do you know how long a nuke plant takes and costs to build?

Put it like this, it certainly isn't a quick solution (roughly 10 years) and it doesn't cost pennies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny_dollar Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
23. We don't [i]have[/i] to fight wars for access to energy
The wars are a choice made by the PTB. Even if we were 100% nuclear, there would still be wars for markets, for other raw materials, and STILL for energy to sell to others.

Wholesale nuclear power generation is more than a danger; it is a tragedy certain to happen. In any human endeavor, if practiced long enough, things will go wrong in spite of our best efforts. This is true for oil drilling, power generation, pizza making or baseball playing. The question is can we stand the consequences of gigantic f*ckup? The wholesale devastation in the Gulf of Mexico has been devastating to the livelihoods and businesses in that area--probably far in excess of any benefits gained from deep water drilling. A nuclear power plant meltdown may make that look like a walk in the park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endless october Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
47. electric is most likely the transition to whatever comes after oil.
the problem is that we don't have enough electricity to facilitate that transition. as much as i like alternative energy, it's basically either going to be coal, ng, or nuclear that is scalable to the extent we need right now. nuclear is by far and away the best choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
38. actually we are there
but between NYMBY and propaganda... I rather much have distributed energy... that is clean and efficient... but that is just me.

Nuclear is great UNTIL you need to deal with the spent fuel or you have yet another spectacular failure.

Having to remember the protocols about time\distance for RAD exposure is not quite fun any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalun D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
62. Wars for Oil are not a necessity in any scenario
the wars for oil are for cheap oil prices for the greed pig oil companies, without the wars you would have just as much oil but the greed pig corps just wouldn't make as much money

we import most of our oil from Canada, did we go to war with them for the privilege?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
78. I'm neither a cheerleader nor anti nuclear energy
That said, I hadn't thought about the insanity of placing a nuclear reactor on the ring of fire or any major fault line. That just doesn't make sense. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #78
85. I believe California has one right on the
plate boundary. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe it has been closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
119. Let's be clear about this. We are not fighting wars over fossil fuels.
We are fighting wars over PROFITS from fossil fuels.

By invading Iraq we disrupted the oil production there, which decreased the amount of oil on the market, which increased the cost. Anybody remember gas at $1.09/gal?

If we had continued paying market prices for oil instead of invading it would have cost the country hundreds of billions less than the war has cost - but the oil companies would have not seen the record, unfathomable profits theyve seen over the last decade.

We don't need to fight wars over oil. We just need to nationalize the oil industry and take the economic rapists out of the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. No, we are fighting wars for fossil fuels,
Since our own supply is limited in the states, we have got to secure new supplies of oil overseas. Iraq was/is the last great untapped oil resource in the world, mainly due to the fact that Hussein and Iraq were involved in three plus decades of war, thus making oil drilling and pumping a dicey situation at best. We didn't go in after profits, but rather we went into Iraq to secure that supply. My guess, we're going to go into Iran for the same reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. Nonsense. We could have had all the oil we wanted from Iraq
by investing in their oil production, and purchasing the oil from them. Just as we did (and continue to do) with Saudi Arabia and our other oil clients. And purchasing it at market prices from a stable supplier could NEVER cost as much as starting a war.

The oil was there and available. Somebody else was getting the profits, and THAT is what the war was about.

You gotta look at the big picture. WHY were Hussein and Iraq involved in three plus decades of war? Remember that pre-war pic of Rummy and Hussein shaking hands? Our corporate overlords pushed the Iran/Iraq war to reduce oil production from both countries, because they were heavily invested in Saudi Arabia - reduce supply, drive prices up, make more profit.

After 10 years do WE control Iraq's oil? Has Iraqi oil production even reached pre-war levels yet?

Securing supplies was never the object. It was controlling the production levels, and thereby profiting.

What has the profit trend in oil companies been over the past 10 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
13. How have they shoved it down our throat without a new plant in 30 years?
It's way too early to say who is lying about what right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Incidents go unreported for years,
The tritium leak at Vermont Yankee wasn't reported for five years. That is but one in a long line of examples.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
154. The purveyor of the OP has a long history of pushing dishonest, anti-science views.
Unfortunately, propagandists like this tend to run under the radar for far too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #154
155. Ah, so now you're following me around over here to,
Spreading your shit. Like I said in the other thread, your behavior is getting stalkerish creepy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #155
156. I'm just letting reality have a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
17. Crooksandliars.com has some quotes from the 1979 TMI disaster.
http://newstalgia.crooksandliars.com/gordonskene/three-mile-island-day-one-march-28-197

"The plant is in a safe condition. The radiation levels at the site boundary are really only a tenth of the general emergency level where we usually get concerned. We do have our crews out. We're monitoring for airborne contamination. The amount we've fond is minimal. Very small traces of radioactivity has been released from the plant"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
18. K&R
Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. Rachel Maddow said Nuclear plants are there so we can boil water
She said this last night. And she did one of her explanations that finally makes people like me understand what a nuclear melt down actually is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Just to clarify, she said so THEY can boil water to power steam turbines that produce electricity.
Nuclear reactors are just heat sources for steam turbines. Doesn't seem like the risk is worth the small role it has in producing power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. That is what they do
efficiently well, and good, until they have cascade failures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. Efficient, right.
Boiling water at 100C with a fission reaction at 1,000,000C. Brilliant. Like shooting flies with a cannon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Care to look at the function of a coal fired plant?
They ALSO boil water, and it is less efficient.

I don't like nuclear power... due to the spectacular failures, but essentially both a nuclear plant and a coal fire plant and an LG Plant do the exact same thing. They boil water.

We need other means to produce the energy we need, or go back to the 19th century tech wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Coal burns at about 5oooC
to heat water to 100C.

Why would someone boil water with a million degree flame? It's and exercise in the physics of overkill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Perhaps you should learn a bit more about power plants...
before making these sort of judgments. A good grounding in thermodynamics might help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #48
149. Wouldn't that depend on the amount of water one wants to boil?
You can have the same amount of energy expended with a much larger flame burning at a much lower temperature. Having such a hot flame only means that more work is able to be done within a much smaller space. I think this is an example of where a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #37
60. Then let's go with green renewables,
After all, the technology has reached the point where they can fulfill all our energy requirements:shrug:

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

The equation is no longer either/or, fossil fuels or nuclear. We had another, cleaner, option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #60
67. Hey no argument from me
just pointing out that all these plants essentially boil water..

If we can generate power without boiling water (solar, wind, hydroelectric... hey the more power to us,) and we can.

We could even use volcanic energy... to essentially do the same thing water boiling does to turn a turbine.

We are at the point we can do this,,, but the power concerns do not want us to do this since also the distribution model CHANGES from a central point to decentralized systems... they hate those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #34
148. You do know that water requires a fixed amount of energy to change states, right?
You seem to believe that the additional 999,900 degrees simply goes to waste. Energy does not work the way you seem to think it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. So, one thing that activists can do is invest in a geiger counter, and get readings.
Sounds not only good, but necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
22. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. and again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
26. Something else to remember...
most of what you read on the internet is bullshit.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I remember that every single time I read one of your posts,
Thanks for the reminder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Megadittoes...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Like that snappy reply,
I can only imagine why:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Most? Boy aren't you an optimist!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
30. The entire Nuclear Lobby is out in force today. On their ability to spin this....
rests the future of the resurgent nuclear power industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yep, you've got a great point there,
This couldn't have happened at a worse time for the nuclear industry. What with a generation removed from TMI and Chernobyl, they thought that there was now a chance to ram through reactors again. Now this happens, and they have to spin, spin, spin in order to save their asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoutport Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. this is going to be hard to overcome...
this might finally be more spin than even they can spin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. If they were wise, they would not have aligned themselves with the Japanese
who have a long history of, er, dissembling during reactor accidents.

They should instead have begun frank discussions about the folly of keeping old, unsafe, designs online.

If they were wise....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. Agree. I learned from all that history
and it's discouraging that so many here have drunk the Kool Aid. I guess I need to understand that propaganda media works on progressives too.

The news has been canceled and the 4th estate is derelict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
35. Roll on mighty Columbia

Despite billions spent on cleanup, Hanford won't be clean for thousands of years

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/despite_billions_spent_on_clea.html


And for many years the US Navy dumped barrels of nuclear waste right outside the Golden Gate Bridge. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #35
64. You would have to mention Hanford...my husband died because of Hanford.
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 01:47 AM by Raksha
He lived in Yakima, Washington as a kid, when his father worked a pipefitter at the Hanford Atomic Reservation. The damage didn't show up for 30 years, but then it made up for lost time. Progressive bone marrow disease: First essential thrombocytosis, then myelofibrosis, then myelogenous leukemia. At which point it killed him, of course.

I haven't checked out your link yet, and to tell you the truth I'm not all that anxious to find out how bad it still is. Does anyone still live in Yakima? I didn't realize it wasn't going to be clean for thousands of years.

I still freak out whenever I see the word "plutonium." I don't want this to be happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
39. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
41. +rec
lots doing it here too, little helpers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
44. They do this with oil spills too n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
45. thank you
much more politic than I could ever be
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
51. Re: Three Mile Island (1979) & cancer deaths 25 years later
I went to work in Harrisburg, PA some 20+ years after TMI, and most of the people I worked with were lifelong residents of the area. Whenever I raised the subject of what kind of radiation people had been exposed to, I seemed to trigger a forcibly cheerful, head in the sand denial, i.e, oh, no - they'd never had any kind of exposure and neither did anyone they knew. The winds magically carried all the danger off in some other direction than to wherever they lived. Or so they were told.

Fast forward 8 to 10 years later, and 5 people from my relatively small circle of co-workers died of aggressive cancers. I have worked on asbestosis and silicosis class action lawsuits, and taken death bed depositions of plaintiffs. I know that some of the deadliest cancers can take decades to evidence themselves. Maybe that cluster of deaths was a coincidence. But I really doubt that people were told the truth about their exposure to radiation at TMI. Just as the government lied about air and water quality at Ground Zero, and the Gulf of Mexico, I think the likelihood is they lied their asses off about TMI. And I know that some very good people died painful deaths.
http://www.cqs.com/enuclear.htm
Nuclear Generation Sites - New England

These are sites of nuclear power plants or other large scale producers of long-lived radioactive waste. Generally speaking, most or all of them have had radiation leaks, and the areas around the plants have been contaminated with strontium-90, cesium-137, and other radioactive isotopes. Before the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear accident in 1979, the federal government performed regular strontium-90 testing of milk from cows in the areas around nuclear facilities. This testing yielded a consistent pattern of increased strontium-90, when compared with milk from areas without nuclear facilities. That testing was abruptly stopped after the TMI accident, with no explanation. (Note that dairy cattle from the area around TMI supply milk to one of the world's largest chocolate manufacturers - Hershey Foods).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snagglepuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. Never know about the source of milk in Hersey chocolate.
Sometimes it is truly hard to believe to what degree officials brazenly lie and continue to lie despite evidence is staring everyone in the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #51
61. Speaking of milk, I remember as a kid during the seventies
There was a big deal made about Wisconsin milk. Apparently the years of fallout from nuclear bomb tests had drifted west, settling on the crop and farmland. Apparently the cows in Wisconsin were producing radioactive milk, having eaten grass that itself was contaminated.

Funny thing, the final report just recently came out.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E2DD103AF93AA15754C0A961958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #51
87. My step family lives in Middletown since before the accident - and I know of none
Where they lived I could walk to TMI.

I use to water-ski there before AND after the accident.

My family is STILL in Middletown and live around many of the folks who have lived all their lives near those reactors. Yet if there was some kind of 'cancer-cluster' we've not heard of it. Don't you think if anyone was affected it would be those who live closest to TMI.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #87
93. Could depend on where the vented krypton-85 ended up.
There was a major core melt down. Radiation did escape and was deliberately vented. The EPA relied on PA's DEP, which had NO prior experience in tracing, monitoring, measuring fallout. From what I've read, they set up a few stationary meters, and also were driving frantically around trying to figure out wind patterns. I don't think the radiation was accurately measured.

My friends/co-workers who developed cancer 20 years later had no family history of such cancers. God knows there are enough chemicals and pollutants in our world today, that the combination of same makes all of us more susceptible to cancer. As I said, I began to connect-the-dots when a group I knew began, sad to say, dying off. It is anecdotal evidence. As to clusters, my friends lived/worked in Harrisburg & suburbs, so perhaps had exposure at work or commuting to work. I'm glad your family and their neighbors are OK. Hope that continues to be the case. I usually drove to Harrisburg. The one time I flew in, the plane went right by the TMI reactors and I frankly found the sight chilling. Here's to a world of clean energy, if we can ever achieve that!


There's a book: Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective.
Page 226: "By early 1980, confidence in the NRC among the population around Three Mile Island had declined sharply, apparently as a result of the well-publicized transcripts of commission meetings, during the crisis, criticisms of the NRC in the Kemeny and Rogovin reports, continuing uncertainties over the future of the plant, and fears of the effects of radiation at any level of exposure. In contrast to a poll in April 1979 showing that 69 percent of local residents approved of government management of the accident, a survey taken the following March found that only 32 percent approved."
"The anger and mistrust of area citizens was vividly apparent when the NRC conducted public meetings to discuss the venting of krypton-85."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #93
100. Yes because you know, there isn't anything else in that region that could cause cancer
:eyes:

And thankfully that radiation escape managed to skip over the exact town where TMI is located just to infect everyone else outside of middletown.


And btw, that last clip - that was 1980. Only complaint I hear from folks in Middletown is the fact they don't understand why their energy costs aren't cheaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #100
125. You're somewhat defensive - I DID qualify my answer
(1)"God knows there are enough chemicals and pollutants in our world today, that the combination of same makes all of us more susceptible to cancer."
(2) "It is anecdotal evidence."

I'm not claiming a peer reviewed scientific status for my opinion. As a former govt. employee, I know how much cover up goes on for political gain and to minimize suits against private industry.

You are very sure that you are correct in your beliefs on this topic. And that is a position which is reassuring to you, since you have friends/family who lived through the incident and remained there.

Here's another point of view which was published a few years back on Huffington Post about deaths resulting from TMI and how and why they were covered up. It goes into great detail and quotes scientific studies and experts which came to different conclusions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html
"People died---and are still dying---at Three Mile Island. (Headline)

"As the thirtieth anniversary of America's most infamous industrial accident approaches, we mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history.

As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.
That quickly proved to be false.

The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core.
Both those assertions were false."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
52. I agree "dont fall for the lies, spin and propaganda". However, there are lies from both sides.
Radiation is energy and is harmful if you get exposed. It doesnt last. It's like an xray at the dentist, it is instantaneous. Contamination is another thing. Contamination is matter that is radioactive. Contamination is very dangerous. If ingested it will be harmful. However, the plants in Japan are talking about the release of radiation and not contamination. Unless you are very near the plant, you are not in danger. Misinformation and out right deception is not for those of us on the left. Give us facts. Otherwise, you might as well be watching Fox Noise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. What do you mean, "both sides"? Who exactly are these two sides telling lies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:35 AM
Response to Reply #54
74. The green peace movement has been telling lies about nuclear energy for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #74
80. bullshit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Is that all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #74
88. And since you arrived here
you have been pushing the Reich Wing view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #74
95. the "green peace movement?" who's that?
and if it's who i think it is, they don't lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #95
109. You haven't heard?
The nuclear "environmentalists" have shared the truth with me, that all of the environmental NGOs who reject nuclear power (which is 100% of them) are doing so because they want to curry favor with - and gain BIG donations from - supporters.

But the nuclear industry is filled with altruistic heroes serving the interests of science and humanity while enduring persecution in the form of false and malicious slander from every non-nuclear-industry scientist in the world.

I thought everyone knew that but me. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
126. When you're right and you're right.
And in your case, when you're wrong, your are far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #74
131. Yell out an assertion without backing then cut and run. I see.
That's no service to your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #54
111. The side that supports nuclear power minimizes the danger and the side that opposes nuclear
power tries to maximize the danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #111
130. Do you think it's just a belief conflict with no economic incentives in the game?
This is an incredibly naive view. Also depressingly common.

The industry has an enormous incentive, at least in the capitalist value system that prevails, to make atomic power look safe, contrary to the repeat evidence, and give us snow jobs each time about "how things are different now." Also, to crush its critics and to spread the meme of "everyone's lying anyway," because then the status quo wins.

The critics have no such comparable incentive. Any opportunists among them are sharing in sparse rewards by comparison. They have nothing to sell, they have to sustain fundraising as non-profits. There is no production industry in it to support this in the long term. Only if it is addressing genuine problems can the campaign keep up for decades.

It's these repeated disasters and the ridiculous rationalizations after each one that organize the anti-nuclear movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. I absolutely agree that the decisions are economically driven.
That is why I want the message against nuclear power needs to be made without misleading information. On DU in the last few days there has been a load of garbage designed to scare people. Nuclear power isnt without dangers but please lets stick to facts.

I am against nuclear power in part because of cost. It is tremendously expensive. Another reason, is the danger to the degree that no insurance company will insure the plants leaving the public to be the insurers.

If people want to be scare of something, be scared of the tons of spent (highly radioactive) fuel being stored near power plants around the nation. Instead of a permanent storage in a mountain, we have settled for long term "temporary" storage here and there and everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #133
143. People are realizing it wasn't misleading information
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
150. The Union of Concerned Scientists is lying for one
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 03:13 PM by Nederland
The Union of Concerned Scientist is an avid anti-nuclear group that has been around for decades. Two days ago, Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the group, made the following statement:

"Any attempt to make it seem that this is not the worst case imaginable is foolhardy,"

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-explosion-workers-injured-radiation/story?id=13120888

Note that Edwin Lyman didn't say "could become" the worst case imaginable. He said "is". This is an outright lie. The worst case imaginable is what happened at Chernobyl--a complete meltdown that breaches a containment structure. Given that the amount of radiation released from the Japanese reactors at this point in time is approximately 0.00002% of what was released at Chernobyl, not only is this an outright lie, it is a whopper.

But hey, if you want to continue to believe that only the pro-nuclear power side lies (and yes, they do), feel free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #150
153. Hmm, and it's now looking like containment is breached,
Perhaps the UCS weren't lying after all:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #153
158. It was a lie when spoken
Edited on Tue Mar-15-11 11:27 AM by Nederland
...and until the amount of radiation released gets anywhere close to what happened at Chernobyl, it remains a lie still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #52
65. Good post...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
certainot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #52
71. one side is trying to sell trillion dollar centralized environmental
suicide that will benefit the GE's and Halliburtons and encourage overconsumption and the other supports decentralized diverse alternatives that would help small business and encourage efficiency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #71
89. Exactly
More false equivalency from the right wing apologists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #71
112. I agree and I oppose that. However, the side that opposes nuclear power ofter exagerates the danger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #52
127. No, the Japanese plants are releasing radioactive materials (gasses, liquids, particles)
The measured radiation is from the radioactive materials being released.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
53. Thanks, Madhound.
Even here some people think the tsunami and the nuclear plant meltdown are 'not that big a deal'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
55. It's time to shut the nuke plants down for good.
That's the only good thing that might come of this tragedy - it might be the necessary wake-up call to use our resources and technology more wisely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
56. remember our country tortures and lies - so they would lie really big if this was us and fox news
would support it completely - the corporatist lie and make a lot of money doing it without any consequences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-11 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
59. The movie China Syndrome illustrates this very point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
63. We're not -- but Obama is hot on the trail of some new nuclear reactions for USA!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
66. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
69. This is so true. This is why I so vehemently oppose nuclear energy.
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 02:19 AM by JDPriestly
For example, there was such a cluster in the town in which some members of my family.

And imagine, 300 years from now, there is nuclear waste all over the place. After the few humans who survived a series of climate-change related natural disasters are struggling to re-establish civilization. How do they deal with sites on which we located our nuclear reactors. Unlikely, yes. Maybe even far-fetched. But, do we want to take that chance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Very, very few in power today think long term like that. To our demise.
Sad how our culture rewards such short-term, self-serving gains. For their own selfish gain is why they lie, even if it destroys humanity's future, possibly even life on the planet. Tragic. Such short-sighted thinking is contemptable and anyone who scoffs at all the warnings around us should personally be held in contempt and given little tolerance. Because they hasten our collective demise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:33 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. Your blind ignorance of science hastens our demise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #73
79. I know people who call fracking harmless. That you could believe
nuclear power to be such a good thing is no small stretch.

There are many far less harmful and costly alternatives so why risk it. I'm sure the science is exciting. But you don't have to watch your children grow up with lukemia, I take it.

You want to see nuclear power flourish? Fine. Just make sure it's damn good and ready before it's hoisted upon large groups of people. And judging by the results, more work needs to be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. Nuclear reactors generate a relatively small amount of waste.
As I was explaining to someone in another thread, the plants have the capacity to store decades and even centuries worth of spent fuel with little trouble.

Once we develop viable reprocessing techniques, we could then take that spent fuel and use it again.

And, yes, there are people in the nuclear energy industry thinking long term. It's not just you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #72
83. My partner comes from Cumbria in the UK
and she knows about storage and reprocessing facilities and their safety. Why? because a few miles down the road from her parents home is Selafield/Windscale/Seascale (or whatever name the UK government has given recently it to dilute the news about its failings). It is the largest employer in the area by far and stories about the leaks and accidents are common currency.

There is no such thing as safe storage or safe reprocessing and I used (prior to this current accident) to be persuadable about the safety of nuclear power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 04:35 AM
Response to Original message
75. K&R!!!
Damned straight they'll lie. Most of what we're told is lies.

- That's what happens when a country's government becomes as corrupted as ours is.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
76. I hate lies
And the fact that these lies may be partially about saving butt, I hate. But, right now, they need to keep people calm. It's about the only valid reason I can be okay with as far as lying. That said, I'm doing my own research and as those Pineapple winds are likely to bring the plume over us, I'm getting prepared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
81. Up to now I was persuadable about the "Nuclear Option" for generation
Now I am not.

In theory Japan built the safest nuclear reactors, designed to overcome the multitude of problems associated with the "Ring of Fire" and guess what? They required a huge slice of luck. Indeed they still need luck because of the problems at other reactors in the Fukishima Daiichi plant and a couple at the Fukishima Daini plant. I am even suspicious about the state of affairs at the Onagawa plant despite the reassurances I have received on another thread ( about contamination in Miyagi Prefecture )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
86. I lived near TMI - there was no damage, just a threat
Please stop lumping in TMI with Chernobyl. If they both were the same thing I wouldn't be here posting.

Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #86
90. There was extensive damage...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #90
97. I stand corrected - outside of the actual core itself
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patiod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
99. An expert on NPR clarified the distinction last night
RAZ: Chris, the big question, of course, is that if none of these works, what happens next? I mean, are we looking at a Three-Mile-Island-type meltdown here?

JOYCE: That's a possibility. People are speculating. Nobody knows where we are on that continuum, at the end of which lies Three Mile Island or worst. You know, in Three Mile Island, there was a partial meltdown; some of the fuel did melt, but they contained it. It didn't go outside the containment building. There is a containment building here as well. So, if there is a partial melt, maybe it might end up the same.

You know, the worst-case scenario, of course, will be something like Chernobyl, where there was a huge meltdown and lots of radiation released, and people are hoping that won't happen.


The expert (Joyce) did a good job in clarifying that TMI would NOT be the worst case scenario - that it was probably, at this point, the best case scenario.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #99
107. Thank you for that
Lumping TMI with Chernobyl is like lumping the Unitarians with Westboro baptist.

Sure they are both technically Christian organizations but that's about it with similarities.

There was alot of potential that could have gone wrong with TMI but didn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
91. Sorry. They don't have as big a motive to lie here.
Edited on Sun Mar-13-11 08:28 AM by caseymoz
You're comparing a situation where a utility or government agency has to cover up their incompetence to an accident triggered by a natural disaster. You simply don't have the frantic need for ass-covering here, especially in the thick of it. Given their history, I'd say the words "partial meltdown" don't sound reassuring at all to Japanese public.

Perhaps the statements are vague because they really don't know anything? Or they can't make sense of the information? You can't really go in and take a look in those hot buildings, not that you'd see anything if you could. The instrumentation is out or melted. There isn't enough experience with reactor accidents to know what to expect or what something means.

The radiation could go down if the fuel has fallen below critical mass, as it might following an internal explosion followed by a meltdown. That doesn't mean the situation is better yet, and frankly, the spokesperson sounded puzzled by that, too. It seemed to me like they would have their re-assuring pseudo-technical theory in place. Or, it could have been simple errors in the reading. People tend to get unreliable when they're scared, as they would be.

We're not going to get any accurate idea of what's going on or what happened there for at least three to five more days, to judge by other catastrophes. That's not because of a conspiracy, only because accurate information is hard to get in a disaster and the news is too motivated to cover the first, usually worst story that comes out.

Try not to assign a conspiracy theory to every human action especially triggered by something that doesn't require a cover-up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #91
94. oh please
you seem to have a very naive view of human nature. Shame on you for invoking "conspiracy theory" here.

The authorities always downplay the risks. Remember how the EPA said the air was safe at Ground Zero after 9/11? It was hardly the EPAs fault that the buildings went down, was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. The EPA under George W. Bush.

That was probably under orders not to panic people, prevent lawsuits, keep emergency workers in there, and finally, in keeping with Republican policy, make the EPA look really bad. It worked, BTW. You fell for it.

I know that there's some deception because the Japanese government has been issuing iodine as a "treatment" for radiation exposure-- which is bullshit meant to keep people from panicking. The only thing iodine does is protect your body from storing very dangerous iodine isotopes in your thyroid.

In the case of the meltdown, no, I just don't see as much motivation to lie, not when blame can be shifted to an Act of God (or the Japanese equivalent). It helps that I'm pretty well educated about nuclear power plants. You're not going to have a nuclear bomb size explosion from this. What you can have, at worst, is a fairly large, but "conventional" size explosion that will pollute the area with with highly radioactive isotopes, like U-235. It won't take out a city, but it will make it uninhabitable for more than, say, two days, if you wear a mask.

I simply don't see what they have to gain in lying about this, and I don't see that they've had time to get their story straight even if they did. See? I'm not naive.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #94
117. I don't assume the Japanese government is as craven as the Bush Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #117
122. They may or may not be as craven as the Bush administration,
But the fact of the matter is that when it comes to nuclear power, all governments lie, they lie in order to not panic the public, or because they want to protect their own asses, or protect the nuclear industry. This is SOP around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #122
129. Actually, they lie because the plants are based on military design.

Mostly, our military's design. That is designed to power a ship in a war zone. The military inherently sacrifices the long term good for surviving the next war, and the production of waste was seen as a necessary evil. It has a few added safety features, but for the most part, it's inherently unsafe in the long run. Japan got its design directly from us.

So, you have to lie about the safety to begin with, and all the way through. Then, of course, after you spend billions of dollars and work hours to build a nuclear plant, you're going to be stuck with it whether its safe or not. You might as well draw power from it. So, governments and utilities will lie after the fact just to protect the commitment they've made and keep people calm.

Fact is, there was absolutely no secret that plant was on a fault and it was unsafe. They tried to say it wasn't that bad that the cooling system somehow wouldn't fail. How? They never said. Anything that they told you was just meant to get you through the day.

That being said, it's not going to be the equivalent of another Hiro-saki. A power plant isn't made for a big explosion. The problem is, it has more isotopes and can make a large are virtually uninhabitable. It was bad in Belarus; that's for worse for Japan!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
92. very well said-- it's crazy we still have these things around
but we live in a mad world, I guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
96. K&EffingR.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
98. Nuclear Power
What specific proof do you have that the Japanese or the media are "lying" about the nuclear power plants there? You're making very broad allegations, such as "We're seeing the same game being played out in Japan." What evidence do you have that the Japanese are lying or "downplaying" what is happening? Actually, the Japanese have been very measured in their statements. At this point it is too early to determine all of the consequences, and the Japanese are working very hard to try and contain damage.

You're blaming the media for misinformation on Chernobyl, when, in fact, it was the Soviet Government at the time that lied about it to the world and then downplayed its significance, which is a pattern over and over in Communist regimes (in case you haven't noticed). There's a big difference in what happened at Chernobyl and what is happening in Japan. Chernobyl was the result of a lack of safety standards being followed and, more importantly, a basic lack of respect for human life, no surprise in Communist/totalitarian regimes.

Japan's current situation is a result of a major natural disaster. The Japanese are very competent people; the mentality is completely different from that of the Soviet Union. Japan is a wealthy nation. What is happening in Japan is the result of something far different than what happened at Chernobyl.

I'm far more concerned about the type of tyranny that shoves tiny, expensive, and unsafe "green" cars down our throats than I am about nuclear power plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #98
110. Nuclear "meltdown"
Here is some interesting information on nuclear "meltdown" from Wikipedia. FTA: "A nuclear meltdown is an informal term for a severe nuclear reactor accident that results in core damage from overheating. The term is not officially defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency<1> or by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.<2>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

Soviet Union-designed reactors:

RBMKs - "Soviet designed RBMKs, found only in Russia and the CIS, do not have containment buildings, are naturally unstable (tending to dangerous power fluctuations), and also have ECCS systems that are considered grossly inadequate by Western safety standards......Rapid shutdown (SCRAM) takes 10 to 15 seconds. Western reactors take 1 - 2.5 seconds.

"In the Chernobyl disaster the fuel became non-critical when it melted and flowed away from the graphite moderator - however, it took considerable time to cool."

It should be noted that Japanese reactors are NOT Russian built reactors, nor are they graphite moderated like the Russian built units at Chernobyl. Operator error and a faulty shutdown system were the cause of the Chernobyl disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #98
132. Natural Disaster? Plants were built on a coastline in a country that INVENTED THE WORD TSUNAMI!!!
It's not the natural disaster, it's the inane, greedy, industry hacks who built the plant on the coast of a country that any anti-nuke activist would have told you was a foolish idea that would likely lead to the scenario we are seeing now.

So, whose lying?

I don't know, but saying this was only the result of a natural disaster is certainly only half the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
101. Words by the wise.
Kicking. Good to keep in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
103. 'People lie.' - something to remember always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChazII Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
104. Thank you for this reminder.
You're correct and not only on this issue. People lie is good to remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
on point Donating Member (613 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
105. he danger is listed as a 'low' probability for a site, but never a high probability for some site
That is the likelihood that anyone site will have an incident is listed as a low probability, but never is it mentioned that given all the hundreds of sites worldwide the likelihood of some incident is actually quite hight over time.(There is a similar problem with oil spills by the way)

All these incidents create local radioactive problems, but help to create a larger overall background radiation for everyone. The radioactivity does not decay in sufficient time periods that all these do not add up together to impact people worldwide.

We have to conserve, become more efficient, change our profligate energy ways and use alternative energy sources.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackInGreen Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
106. The only trustworthy plant
is one that's been demolished, we can't run risks playing Russian Roulette with our lives or environment any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
108. HUGE K & R !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
113. Thank you! Up thread a few above me, a poster replied that we
don't know if anyone has lied and the Japanese people are scientifically, or something, minded. Well, someone has lied because of all the mixed statements coming out of Japan. I have never been so confused about what is really happening and on top of that we, as usual, are experiencing spin of the statements! I for one would like accurate, honest statements NOW not thirty years hence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-13-11 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
115. Even the nuclear scientists who give interviews are not truthful because
if they point out the true dangers of nuclear power...no one will want NP
and their expertise will no longer be needed. In other words they'll become unemployed or irrelevant. Good reason to put a rosy scenario on the whole matter. On the other hand.... oil people and mostly Republicans will probably push the dangers. Everything is so political these days it takes a genius with an analytical mind to find the truth. In the meantime all the poorly educated or brainwashed people believe anything they hear...especially listeners and believers of FOX "NEWS". Now lets all go listen to some more propaganda from the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuart G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
151. Wasn't Safe Then, Not Safe Now...Never Will Be... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pulledpork Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
157. One thing that bothered me
When the initial reports came out by the Japanese government after the first reactor explosion stating that was all was well, it was just the walls that exploded, etc., I noticed some friends of mine saying, "Unlike the American media/government, I am sure the Japanese media/government is telling the truth, blah blah, I wish we were as honest as other countries, etc. blah! Corporatist media!". They said the same thing after Gabrielle Giffords was shot. The British press had reported she died, but the American press had her still alive. Friends were saying the same thing as with Japan: "I would trust the BBC before our media! etc. etc.! Giffords is dead and they aren't telling us!" Hey, how did that turn out?

I realize the American media/government constantly sells us bad bills of goods, such as the Iraq invasion of 2003, or the current fiasco in Afghanistan, not to mention countless other contemporary examples. But this fact does not magically absolve other countries from their journalistic/governmental wrongdoings, nor does it confer honesty and objectivity upon them by virtue of those countries not being the U.S.

I understand the disillusionment and skepticism with the U.S. media. Believe me, I am Chomskyesque in my criticism. But some leftists need to let go of their knee-jerk impulse to convert all American failures in their media coverage into quality, virtuous coverage everywhere else.

Japan's government and media can lie with the best of them, including the U.S. My simple advice, whether reading the usual wire reports, watching MSNBC, or Al-Jazeera is: Be Skeptical.

Be Skeptical.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #157
159. I thought from the very beginning that the Japanese authorities were telling porkies...
...turns out my suspicions were correct...

I think that the reason for the lack of forthrightness is due to public safety/public panic concerns rather then some nefarious sub-plot, but they were lying their asses off from the start...and now the PM is trying to blame the power company for withholding info...

Bottom line = nuke plants on fault lines = not a good idea
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 17th 2022, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC