YES! The risks of nuclear energy far outweigh the benefits.
82%
NO! Closing plants would leave millions without affordable energy.
18%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
The public is misinformed about nuclear power. Newer nuclear power plant technologies could replace fossil fuels. There are more people killed in one year from fine particulate pollution (mostly from coal) than all nuclear accidents (including the WWII bombs in Japan). Ten ex EPA administrators have endorsed nuclear power. We need to be building nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is not without some risk, but compared to global warming it is miniscal.
I am no fan of nuclear power. But until something better comes along, we need to keep them up and running...and safe. What I would like to see more agressive investment into solar and wind power, as well as a hydro. The less we as a nation are dependent on oil, especially from the Middle East and South America, the safer and stronger this country well be, not to mention clearer. At the risk of upsetting some folks, I owuld go further and say that energy is a national security issue and as such, such be nationalized or at the very least under federal supervision.
I would like to see a industry specific clean up funds--be coal, oil, nuclear, or even auto or timber, which would be funded by the companies in that industry rather than by taxpayers. If a company pollutes and goes out of business or "disappears" for instance, the industry would be responsible for the cleanup not US taxpayers. This would also serve to ensure that the industry is, to a degree, self-regulating.