No one has ever reported a solar energy meltdown.

People around the world are recognizing the danger of nuclear energy. Over the weekend, 500 protesters marched down Main Street in Battleboro, Vermont to rally against the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The group gathered in opposition to what they claim is the illegal operation of the plant, which is owned by Entergy Nuclear.

The plant has been operating without the state's required certification of public good, and has been plagued with with technical problems. Protesters carried signs reading “No more leaks, lies and lawyers,” and demanded that the plant be taken off line.

Meanwhile, half a world away in Tokyo, Japanese researchers announced that a type of shellfish has disappeared in waters near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. And scientists say that the species that remain have high levels of radioactive material inside their bodies. Researchers state that the disappearance of the shellfish is linked to the nuclear disaster, and is not a result of the 2011 tsunami.

These two events illustrate the dangers of nuclear energy, regardless of the location of the plant, or the regulations imposed on plant operators. One nuclear disaster can leave an area uninhabitable to people or animals, as we saw after Chernobyl, and as we're seeing at the Fukushima site. It shouldn't take a catastrophic event within our own borders to make lawmakers wake up to the danger of nuclear energy. Plants around our nation are outdated, under-regulated, and extremely dangerous.

It's time to end the use of nuclear power. No one has ever reported a solar energy meltdown, or a toxic spill from a wind farm. For the sake of our planet, our nation, our economy, and our safety, let's make the switch to green energy. No nukes.

Comments

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#1

On the other hand, more people have gotten skin cancer (and more people died) from the sun than from nuclear power plants. And even wind farms have not gone without complaints from some people who fear that the rotating blades kill birds. Just can't win with some people! Maybe the philosophy of 'nuke a baby whale for Jesus' will win out. Nuclear energy wouldn't be so bad (dangerous) if profit mongers weren't allowed to cut corners on safety. But, as Lenin said: "A capitalist will sell you the rope to himself with". But before you can make the world safe, you have to control the capitalist's selfish and greedy ambitions. And that won't happen until the people take back government from those greedsters (both Republicans and many Democrats).

As Robert Scheer wrote in his article "Treason of the Intellectuals" yesterday: Even the "left-leaning" intellectuals have sold us out. Those who have posed as liberals were all for the Iraq war, in the beginning, largely because they had no backbone to stand up to the might of the war mongering (patriotic?) right-wingers. 10 years after Iraq, many are now trying to pose excuses why they were all "tricked" into supporting the Iraq war. Many of these opportunists avoided being "under the gun" for personal and political gain. And now, they are trying to wiggle out from under their (now unpopular) positions. Makes me wonder how many so-called "liberals" are, even now, acting like the conniving Inn-Keeper ('Master of the House') characters in Les Miserables, or the slimy, slippery character (Smeagol/Gollum) in Lord of the Rings.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_treason_of_the_intellectuals_201...

SueN's picture
SueN 9 years 26 weeks ago
#2

On the other hand, more people have gotten skin cancer (and more people died) from the sun than from nuclear power plants.

Spending enough time out in the sun to get skin cancer is a personal choice. Being downwind of a major nuclear disaster is not - radiation crosses national boundaries and oceans.

PhilipHenderson's picture
PhilipHenderson 9 years 26 weeks ago
#3

Nuclear Profit Plants should be shut down. They are inherently unsafe. None should be operating until a method is designed to neutralize the waste materials that are piling up around them. The waste piles are as dangerous as the operating rods. These nuclear profit plants produce thousands of tons of radioactive waste material every year. There is no known method of safely storing or neutralizing this waste. If we produced laws that required those who owned nuclear profit plants to live within five miles of the plants they would close in a week. The nuclear power plants that fuel submarines and aircraft carriers are safer because the folks who operate them live on the vessel; they have skin in the game. Today we have billionaire owners who do not live with the zip code of the power plants calling the shots for everyone else.

ken ware's picture
ken ware 9 years 26 weeks ago
#4

One advantage of living near a nuke power plant is when you fish at night the fish are easier to spot, they give off a nice glow and are easier to net.

On the more serious note, I live about 90 miles from the San Onofre nuclear power plant near San Diego, Ca. and it is not a reassuring feeling to know we live close enough to be affected by radiation levels if the plant is damaged, not to mention what it will do to the environment if the containment walls fail. This particular power plant is surrounded by earthquake faults, capable of producing a quake large enough to damage the containment walls, which could result with us having to deal with the same problems that face the residents that live near or far from Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. Nothing is completely safe proof when you live in an area that has earthquakes on a regular geological basis. I suppose one could say we choose to live in an area where nuke power plants and our natural disasters (earthquakes) make it somewhat more hazardous than if we were in Arizona, but as it was mentioned in an earlier statement, we will not be the only people affected if the nuclear power plant fails, anyone downwind of us will have to deal with the effects of nuclear radiation and since the winds blow eastward from the California coastline, everyone in the United States could theoretically be nuked to some degree! From what I have read California has no intention of licensing another Nuke power plant in the future, hopefully we have learned from the mistakes that occurred in Japan and Three Mile Island. Also, considering the fact we have over 23,000,000 people living in California could make any failure at a nuclear power plant even more deadly than say, a state like Arizona. I think living within the kill zone of a nuke power plant gives one a different insight of the pending disaster of a failed containment of nuclear material might have on one’s life if the infamous "Big One" (quake) should hit us here in Southern California. I think I just felt the building start to shake, nope, it must just be the thought of what could happen if we get a 8 to 9 pointer on the Richter scale living this close to or far from to a nuke plant! Ha! I will take my chance with getting skin cancer from the Sun here in Sunny California over getting cancers from nuclear material that was released into the atmosphere. If the containment walls should fail and there was a release, the people I would be most concerned about would be my daughter, son in law and my grandson who will be born in several weeks and the affect it would have on his health and the world he would be inheriting from us. Most of us older folks would not be here to witness the real horror that would be created from such a terrible disaster like the one created by the failure of the containment walls in Fukushima! It will take a generation to see and feel the real affects that will take hold of the Japanese population in the future from the exposure to radiation and the contamination of their food in the present and in the future. The U.S. could face the same problem if one of our (Calif.) plants should fail and release radiation into the atmosphere, since we produce a great deal of the fruits and vegetables, as well as dairy products we consume here in the U.S. and for countries abroad. Just something to consider when one thinks a failed nuclear power plant would not affect them if they lived far enough away from the incident, you would be affected! Damn, I thought I just felt that rumbling feeling again...

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#5

Well, we all suspected it would happen but now it has...the Keystone Exxon pipeline has burst in Arkansas and gushing through the streets of Mayflower, Arkansas.

In other news...swat teams burst into a man's home in Connecticut, and kills the owner and severely wounds another man huddled in a corner. Both men unarmed. The cops only found a tiny amount of cocaine in the home.

In Kansas, Swat teams invade a couple's home, scaring the 7 and 11 year old children, all because they suspected the couple were growing marijuana in their basement. What did they find? Several tomato plants and some squash. If you buy hydroponic equipment...you become suspect...look out! At least, in this case, the swat teams didn't actually shoot anyone. This hasn't always been the case. They often do.

And now, after the Dorner case where he claimed the LAPD had unfairly treated him as retribution for speaking out, yet another veteran LAPD cop whistle-blower is speaking out the LAPD that had an illegal gun-selling ring within the force. They are not only in the business of buying up our guns...they are selling them too.

leighmf's picture
leighmf 9 years 26 weeks ago
#6

As a general protest, I adore the slogan “No more leaks, lies and lawyers” since the three are inseparable. Wholly Trinity!

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#7

Right you are SueN...and of course...we all have a choice about whether or not we heat our homes or drive our cars. If we want these 'luxuries?' we must use some way of getting the energy we need to provide our comfort levels we are all accustomed to. There are some people, even in New York and elsewhere, who have decided to go completely without using energy...no driving of cars....no heat in the winter time (just dress warmly). But for the rest of us who think we really do need various forms of energy...we have to compromise somehow.

I personally think nuclear plants are a very bad idea, in light of the fact that they are built and operated by capitalists who sacrifice safety for profits. Building them in earthquake areas is insane. Building them in heavily populated areas is nuts. I lived in the Wash DC area at the time of the 3 Mile Island accident and we were worried that, being down wind and only 85 miles away could be very disastrous. Those people who live on the west coast have been seeing flotsam and jetsam on their shores from the Fukushima accident. Reports of radioactive fish are a big concern. The radioactive pollution could get into our fruits and vegetables and into our livestock.

But then, fracking is suspected of releasing radioactive materials from deep in our bedrock and polluting our water. It won't be long...we'll all be 'glowing' radiantly in our future...just like the fish.

I am all for solar and wind farms and geothermal. Electricity can also be generated by wave action. Other countries are way ahead of the US. We need to busy and get off the hydrocarbon energy sources.

SueN's picture
SueN 9 years 26 weeks ago
#8

I'm currently living about 10 miles if that from an active nuclear power station; I don't intend to stay here long. I'm looking for a new home where I can live with a much lower impact on this beautiful Earth of ours.

SueN's picture
SueN 9 years 26 weeks ago
#9

New York is actually one of the most environmentally friendly places to live in America, because so many people live in small homes which are kept warm by the homes around them, and they do not drive cars.

BMetcalfe's picture
BMetcalfe 9 years 26 weeks ago
#10

I hate driving to San Diego. I have always had an eerie feeling about the nuclear plant there, even before I knew that's what it was... I'm a transplant to the L.A. area, so when I drove by it the first time, it was my gut - not my knowing what it was - that caused me to drive faster. Then after 3-Mile-Island happened in 1979, and Chernobyl in 1986, I knew my gut reaction to San Onofre had been correct. Now SoCal Edison is seeking to start one reactor again by Summer 2013. Since it's the same design as Fukushima, and we're living on hundreds of faults all through California, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?! I guess the answers are: Greed... and they're not thinking at all!

ken ware's picture
ken ware 9 years 26 weeks ago
#11

Green_TZM It does not matter what party you identify with because they have both been purchased by the highest bidder, the Corporations and the Wealthy. Conservative or Progressive, these are just name tags so people can identify themselves with some entity they think is going to save our sorry asses and make it alright once again here in America. It has never been alright, they just did a better job of hiding the truth from the American voters in the past, all 50% of the people who bother to vote. Obama rammed through Sequestration in 2010 as well as the Affordable Health Care Act, two of the worst pieces of legislation that have ever been enacted! And the Democrats led by Obama are trying to make out that the Republicans are the people forcing Austerity upon America! The L.A. Times reported on Saturday that Obama Care will increase the cost of health insurance for the middle class in California. who purchase their own health insurance by 30% this year! Like they stated, when bills like these are passed there will always be some group won wins and a group that loses. Obama made sure that the Insurance Corporations would have a way to recoup any loses they would incur as a result of his bungled health care bill that he admitted was flawed, but stated he would correct the problems in his second term! He did not know if he would be here for a second term, but he made sure the Insurance Corporations would be covered by the loop holes he left in his bill, and the Democrats and the Republicans knew what he was doing. Did anyone notice that once Sequestration was enacted the Stock Market began to climb higher and higher? Why, because the Wealthy knew Obama and the politicians in Washington had taken any risk out of the market by cutting the budget deficit on the backs of the poor and lower middleclass with Sequestration, but he only asked for a mere raise of 5% on Capital Gains from the Stock Market to make sure the Wealthiest Americans paid the least in taxes per capita income ratio. The Wealthy and the Corporations own Obama, the Senate and the House. It does not matter whether they are Republicans or Democrats; they have all sold out to those who finance their next campaign. Politicians from the House and the Senate, as well as the White House would sell their mothers on the street to keep the power they think they now hold in Washington. We can all talk about what we think is going on, but until some group stands up and does something about the corruption fed by the greed for power, not a damn thing will change in our country. It will only get worse with each passing election until this society is a two tier society, the Wealthy and the Working Poor. And brother and sister, we are not far from that society becoming the reality of the American public. Only when they, the Wealthy and Politically Corrupt, actually have something physically tangible to loose, the stench in Washington will only get worse and worse. I think everyone knows what I think needs to be done, but to be honest I would just be blowing hot air at this point to ramble on. Hopefully, there will be a group of brave Americans that will come together and do what has to be done. At my age, which is only sixty (I know some of you think that is old!) I am beginning to doubt I will see any change in my life time, hopefully I will, but it looks like most people are just too whipped by the present powers that be and are only concerned about surviving another year. Hopefully, Europe will stand in the streets and disrupt the Banks and Corporations to bring change and we will follow. It is the only chance I see for our future generations to have any quality of life in our society...As far as the voters changing Washington, that will never happen as long as Corporations are seen as people and money is deemed as free speech by the Supreme Court. It will take violence and disruption of profits to bring change to our society.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#12

Agree 100%!

Kend's picture
Kend 9 years 26 weeks ago
#13

The problem is the true cost of energy. Without the government subsidizes green energy would cost up to five times more. With one of five on food stamps how the hell are they going to afford to heat there shitty government housing project house when energy triples. Natural gas is they way to go. Clean, affordable, and available but the problem is you have to buy it from those big bad oil companies. I can't say anything about nuclear I live thousands of miles from one and know nothing about them.

Love the night fishing glow in the dark thing Ken W

Elioflight's picture
Elioflight 9 years 26 weeks ago
#14

Kend:

Glad to see you return.

Natural gas is only cheap now, but will rise in cost as it becomes scarce--much domestic gas is being sold overseas and some experts say that 100 years of gas is a farce to lure investors and customers. I have been following this issue for 6 years, as my state is the new hotbed for fracking--fracking in our national parks, even.

Oil and gas companies, who don't really need government help, are subsidized by the government. Why shouldn't future clean sustainable technologies also be government funded? I'd be glad for my tax money to go to clean energy rather than oil/gas. In the future, we could be looking at public housing (and all dwellers and businesses) producing its (their) own energy. I think that is worth paying for. Subsidizing oil and gas is throwing away money. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a better world, not one that has been spoiled by greed and selfishness and stupidity.

I don't think that the people who live near gas wells that are being fracked, whose air and water and land have been polluted/contaminated, whose livestock have died, who are sick themselves, will tell you that gas is clean. Or the communitites with injection wells that risk water contamination and earthquakes--property damage and injury through the results of business--not natural diseaster.

It takes anywhere from 3 to 8 MILLION gallons of water to frack ONE well. All of that water is contaminated. Just think about from where that much water could be drawn. When the water is gone--it is gone. Humans cannot live without water.

I live near a wind farm, which my husband and I supported enthusiastically, and would much rather see them in our yard than have frackers do their dirty work anywhere near our beloved home/small farm.

Elioflight's picture
Elioflight 9 years 26 weeks ago
#15

I wanted to add that I am also against nuclear because of the dangerous waste issue and the fact that I live near the nuclear plant that is in the top three in the nation for safety violations and which stands on the shores of the largest freshwater source in the world--the Great Lakes.

Wind and solar are the pathways to the future.

Kend's picture
Kend 9 years 26 weeks ago
#16

Elio, you make some good points but I don't think we are going to run out of oil or natural gas for at least 100 years. I life in Alberta, Canada and just today Esso is putting a 11 billion dollar upgrader into production that will produce 110 million more barrels a day. Phase two and three will produce a additional 225 million barrels a day. We are finding huge gas deposits in the Artic. Canada is building two new ice breakers to explore the north and already there are disputes as to who owns the rights to these areas because of the vast resources. The fact is green energys true cost is off the charts and we are not ready YET. I have said it many times here the US has spend hundreds of billions of dollars on these projects to combat CO2 emissions and they havn't droped at all. ZERO. I fear things like "lets pick on fracking" are way out of control and have turned into a business themselves. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has had enough and now works with the oil compan

drn42 9 years 26 weeks ago
#17

agree , no nuclear power plants can be both safe and cost effective and therefore they should be discontinued. BBBBBBBBbbbbbbuuuuuttttttt........ wind power as it is being done now is FAR FROM green energy. Entire mountains are strip mined to produce the most rare metals in the turbines , And there is no plans to take the wind mills down when their life cycle has left them as a hillside paper weights

. for example in California along the I 5 we have an entire wind farm which no longer produces power because the mills are now too old. The cost of taking them down is left to the public while the utility has taken the fake "profit" and run away with their money. If you account for these hidden costs ,... wind can't be done on a large scale.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#18

"Wind and solar are the pathways to the future."
And other countries are proving that! The US, as usual, is falling further back into the dark ages. Another Empire will bite the dust (no doubt dust highly contaminated with radioactive, and other life-threatening, materials).

And as for no-longer-functioning windmills left to clutter up hill sides....there are lots of people who would gladly disassemble them and carry away all that metal. If they can steal the copper wiring out of houses...they would love to have at it on those windmills. And, at least, defunct windmills don't gush chemically spiked tar-sands gook all over the place contaminating neighborhoods as has happened in Mayflower, Arkansas.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 9 years 26 weeks ago
#19

" If you account for these hidden costs ,... wind can't be done on a large scale."
If you "account for the hidden costs" of nuclear and fossil fuel contamination they can't be done on a large scale either.

I agree that we are all being fooled by cars being run on electricity (unless they are being recharged by solar or some other green energy). One still has to charge their batteries, most likely, using non-green sources. You will use a lot more electricity to charge these cars than you would have just for your normal home use. And electricity is expensive. Your "carbon footprint" just shifts from your direct production of hydrocarbons out of your tailpipe to the massive hydrocarbons produced at the electrical generating facilities (unless they are green). And all those batteries have to be replaced periodically which means you are adding to the contamination in the production and disposal of lead-acid batteries (unless you are using some other kind of batteries). But, at least it is a start in the right direction.

ikeberltersen's picture
ikeberltersen 9 years 26 weeks ago
#20

I'm not so sure about those numbers. The USA consumes about 25 million barrels of oil a day, and that is about one fourth of the worlds oil consumption. Now if that was 110 million cubic feet of natural gas that sounds more plausible. As for green energy's true cost being off the charts, from what I've read the cost of solar photovoltaic has been steadily dropping and should be competitive with fossil fuel generation in a few more years. Geothermal and hydropower are green technologies that have been used for years. In addition the true costs of fossil fuel or nuclear energy are never worked into the calculations. There's the environmental cost as we take ever more shortcuts to extract energy - mountaintop removal, oil spills, fracking, pipeline ruptures, Fukishima, etc. And there's the military cost as the USA maintains bases around the world to protect its supply line of fossil fuels.

akelous's picture
akelous 9 years 26 weeks ago
#21

We don't need nuclear power plants and they are dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. They are not fail-safe and only by the day-to-day vigilance of their current staff have we come this far without massive "accidents" causing death and destruction on the scale of a chemical, biological, or even a nuclear weapon. It is not reasonable to set ourselves up for this and it is not reasonable to continue to maintain it.

The "accidents" can be expected and one day we will lose a large swath of Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or {insert your state here}. There are 104 power plants operating in the United States. Many of those who now live in the "accidently" selected area will die miserably from radiation-induced illness. Like Chernobyl, we will abandon the affected area to mutated fauna and flora. The power plant closest to you is listed at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/.

The fuel rods at Three Mile Island had begun to fuse together into a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. Had things progressed just a bit further it would have burned through the containment building floor and burned down to the water table. Harrisburg, PA would no longer be inhabited. Gettysburg Memorial Park and all it’s monuments would be deserted. The Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay would be full of mutated life forms and commercially unusable. If the wind had been to the south, Washington DC would have been evacuated, to the west Pittsburg, to the east Philadelphia, perhaps Trenton N.J., perhaps New York City. How do you evaute a city? What a huge cost in money and life disruption. How could that be worth it?

One of these predictable disasters has now happened at the GE designed power plant in Fukushima. It will happen again -- somewhere else -- if we don't back out of nuclear power production and shut down the existing plants. Nuclear power cannot economically produce safe and sustainable electric power. We need to start shutting these plants down now.

Happily, perfectly satisfactory alternatives are at hand. Solar and wind along with improvements in production, distribution, and consumption will more than cover the 15% of the current electric power supply that nuclear plants now supply.

But if we are to succeed we must be aware that Duke Power, GE, and other economic/political behemoths need a centralized infrastructure to keep centralized control over the energy market and to survive in their current forms. Nuclear power plants are part of their centralized infrastructure. They are working hard to block the development and deployment of decentralized technologies. Their PR flacks overwhelm the media with argument and presumption. They lobby and are otherwise active at every level to protect nuclear power and to discourage even the belief that solar and wind power are viable.

Sadly so many of our government officials -- federal, state, and local -- seem committed to protecting the behemoths continuing operation of nuclear plants as well as their activates to block the development of competing alternatives. This is a perversion of "business friendly" government.

We can overcome these institutional barriers. Left on their own, government officials will not shut down plants nor will Media find and report the unvarnished facts. We must push them. We must communicate to legislators and other officials that they can lose their job by continuing to support nuclear power. We must engage and protest and create media events. We must write letters to legislators and governors. We must post to web sites and write letters to the editor. America is a democracy and we can retire officials who are too "business friendly" in the interest of over-grown, over-powerful corporations. We will have to impose nuclear plant shutdown and to do so we will have to push, push, and push again.

megalomaniac's picture
megalomaniac 9 years 26 weeks ago
#22

Some time ago a scientist once said that humans are made of star dust, and perhaps an immortal essence of a past person’s, too, brought you to this time and place by the energy of the sun which is fusion. It was a stunning thing for me to hear.

However, it is fission that has waste as a byproduct; the so called fusion does not have the same waste as we know it. The possibility that man can create fusion about the size of a marble would remarkably change our way of life. Imagine a marble size fuel cell in every home.

Nano science could do it. Perhaps the very reason fanatics on the right reject science. But not all, especially the Koch brothers, illustrated an example in sponsoring a telecast of science research patching a spiders DNA with sheep’s DNA that produced an incredibly strong string where in tension and stress was harder than steel.

Green_TZM's picture
Green_TZM 9 years 26 weeks ago
#23

I Know you read the current comments, and as this is not about nuclear power (collect methane from landfills) l'll try to be brief. Mike Papantonio was on your show Thurs and he furthered the discussion re: progressives ability to unite and accomplish. A gentleman called about 2:50pm est. - I think his name was Clayton from Pine something Illinois.

He said in essence that the Democrats were progressive and were getting things accomplished. (I disagree on both counts but no matter) then he said we don't need any big shots, or head honchos coming around telling us that we are unsuccessful.

Two problems: 1) I was disappointed that you didn't have Pap's back, the stalwart progressive that he is. And that you didn't tell the guest of Pap's accomplishments FOR US in the struggle (not to mention plug his show and CPT ) so that man could see for himself the schooling he's missing

But 2) THAT is the problem with Progressives like Pap says, we think we know everything. CORPORATIONS are destroying us and we need to walk away from them in every way possible. ESPECIALLY POLITICALLY. If your politicians are taking money from corporations, they are not serving you as well as they could. And ALL Democrats are not Progressive. If you remember the progressive budget vote, 65 DEMOCRATS voted against it. Bill of Rights Defense Council has a saying: "Dissent is Patriotic" . If you can't take the criticism, of Democrats, and Obama how are we going to shape progressives into what we need them to be.

(original was made on cell phone, can't see the preview)

radster63's picture
radster63 9 years 26 weeks ago
#24

Why do you hate driving to San Diego ? My goodness the US Navy has all those nuclear powered subs and aircraft carriers that make our Navy the envy of the world. It's time that people like you and Thommy get things figured out that solar is a joke and the most expensive way to generate power on a sunny day. Wind is even worse are they only have a 20 yr life expectancy and a 50 yr payback. (It takes one technician to maintain 5 of them)

People always try and make any issue out of 3 Mile Island but the only problem was a cooling water valve stuck open which is why they shut down the reactor. There are no 3 headed cows walking around today becuz of this. People like you and Thommy get the movie China Syndrome with none other then Jane Fonda which was all fiction and not a single element of truth about what actually happened.

THe Russians had operators that performed a test they were told not to perform, this is what caused the incident.

The Japanese nuclear plant actually survived the earthquack and Tsunami. The emergency generators were in a bad location which did no allow them to operate and provide backup power.

France gets over 80% of their power from their nuclear plants. Germany is making a mistake in that they are going to buy natural gas from Putin and also in turn have to buy power from Frances nuclear power grid(France recycles their spent nuclear power rods by the way). China, India, and Tiawan are building new nuclear power plants to get away from the dirty coal fired plants. Our coal plants produce 20% more pollution then all the cars on the road in this country.

Lucky for us, we are building 3 nuclear power plants and some day, no more coal and will have cheap pollution free power that is available to you every day whether the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining,

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Today, we are closing 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.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a literary descendent of Ben Franklin and Tom Paine. His unflinching observations and deep passion inspire us to explore contemporary culture, politics, and economics; challenge us to face the facts of the societies we are creating; and empower us to demand a better world for our children and grandchildren."
John Perkins, author of the New York Times bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
From Screwed:
"The powers that be are running roughshod over the powers that OUGHT to be. Hartmann tells us what went wrong — and what you and I can do to help set American right again."
Jim Hightower, National Radio Commentator, Writer, Public Speaker, and author of the bestselling Thieves in High Places
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Tom Hayden, author of The Long Sixties and director, Peace and Justice Resource Center.