Stop Nuclear Insanity, The President Needs Your Help

Stop Nuclear Insanity, The President Needs Your Help

I have watched with interest since The President’s most resent declarations about nuclear energy, and while much of the ‘environmental’ and ‘humanitarian’ communities are rightly outraged and rightly feeling betrayed, the movement to ‘stop the insanity’ is disappointingly slow and weak, so I must ask for a few moments of your attention…

We have enjoyed a relatively ‘cool’ few decades, No new Nuke start-ups since Reagan (30 years). Lately the President has been going way off the deep end and wants to initiate a Nuclear Renaissance. Now just in case you haven’t thought about it in a while, here is just part of
The Argument Against Nuclear Power (The Dirtiest Power):

If you want to skip the editorial, CUT TO THE CHASE, and lend your support right now, follow this link…


Exorbitant Cost: Cost estimates for new reactor construction move in only one direction, UP, UP and UP. Congress has already awarded the nuclear industry $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for new reactor construction (the President wants to bump that up to about $60,freakin ’Billion) and Nukies are demanding even more. Ultimately, as history shows, taxpayers will foot the bill…
~ for building the deadly monstrosities,
~ for defending them from attack,
~ for cleaning up after the routine screw-ups and the inevitable major disasters (and the disaster- related relocation of populations),
~ and for decommissioning them after their service period.
Of course then there is the cost of monitoring and containing the waste FOREVER.
As an example, on the small side of typical, is Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station with its share of the county’s over 60,000 metric tons of spent fuel and its 1,435 spent fuel assemblies and innumerable additional tons of contaminated materials. This little plant was torn down 5 years ago, but the utility customers continue to pay EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS per year just to maintain and guard the untouchable stuff on site… from just one reactor. (
Nuclear power has already been subsidized to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over the past 50-some years. And to be fair, every BILLION that we allocate swells to much more because most of our money is borrowed from other countries and must be paid back with interest.
Even the cost of proposing such non-sense, the cost of all the efforts made by our representatives on behalf of ‘Corporation Nuke’ and the cost of the protests which must be mounted to resists/stop the proposed renaissance is significant… We could be spending our energies on being ‘Pro’ something good… instead of acting ‘Anti’ something ridiculous.
Government support of nukes means that it will be done essentially with the people’s money but the profit will go to the black-corporations. There is a very real ‘never-ending’ expense tied to this failed technology and if our grandchildren ever ‘miss a payment’, so to speak, more stuff will leak and ‘hot’ stockpiles will be more venerable to theft and attack… Once we create the contaminated buildings, complexes and waste we can’t take our attention off of it for one moment, and will never stop paying. Yeah, good idea Mr. President. Nukes are a fine example of a corporate enterprise which some like to call ‘too big to fail’. That doesn’t mean that they don’t fail, they very reliably DO fail. What it means is that the biggest expenses tied to failure are born by the people, of course a nuke bail-out indicates a problem far greater in scope and intensity that a bank bail-out. From the perspective of the aware consumer investment in this obsolete technology is inequitable to the max.

Climate Change: Nuclear energy cannot help prevent climate instability. Nuclear power plants are far too costly, they can hardly pay for themselves by the time of decommissioning, they take too long to build, and are too expensive to operate to affect the problem in time. By the time it takes to license and build a nuke (something like ten years) we may be beyond the climate catastrophe tipping point… but could have had years of operational clean technologies well underway… If support were appropriately directed. In fact, investments in nuclear power obviously deprive other efforts.
Can you imagine if the support of 60 BILLION DOLLARS were directed towards technologies and efforts which make sense and could actually provide solutions? Such a degree of support in the right direction would be unprecedented a-million-fold. It would in fact be the biggest boon for domestic economic health and one of the greatest gifts we could give our children! 60 BILLION DOLLARS for something good, please try to imagine that.
By the way nuclear power is [in reality] so immensely carbon-heavy/carbon dependent, as we can see, just accounting for the fossil fuels consumed from mining through building and to start-up, that it is estimated that a nuke doesn’t actually produce ‘reactor generated’ electricity for 15 years or longer (that’s how long it takes to offset all the ancient sunlight [fossil fuel] used to get the plant built and fueled). That’s almost half way through its entire initial license term. It is not clear that these estimates even include the ‘carbon cost’ of the mountains of concrete used for foundations, 21 foot thick floors, skeletons and containment walls and multi-mega-ton domes. Concrete has huge amounts of ‘embodied energy’, as it uses exorbitant amounts of carbon-source energy to create the indispensible ‘portland cement’ component of concrete. (Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of a material, from the acquisition of natural resources to product delivery), concrete has far and away the highest embodied energy of any common building material. Yes, I know that some wind turbine towers and dams for hydroelectric also tie up concrete, but on scale there is a big difference, besides, dams do, and wind towers can, last much longer than a nuke and when the dam is disassembled, the concrete can be recycled. Wind towers and dams, while they may have (or make) their own problems do not radiologically contaminate, the site, the surrounding area and all of the materials used for all time. You see, contrary to what nukies claim, and contrary to one of the President’s lies, Nukes are quite ‘carbon-heavy’, In addition, large amounts of chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only up to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (greenhouse gas) than CO2, but it is a multifaceted pollutant and a convicted destroyer of the ozone layer.

Terrorism: The opportunity for theft of nuclear materials, if for use to contaminate utility water (which could end up inside millions of people from just one utility in just one day), or in a garage-built ‘dirty bomb, or any number of creative uses would increase dramatically if we do actively initiate a ‘Nuclear renaissance’. There is, by the way a whole bunch of ‘Hot Material’ missing already, yeah, just missing. In fact there is an entire ‘Hot’ nuclear submarine missing off the east coast of the U.S. For more such nightmares see #1
Aside from theft of fissile / fissionable material the reactors themselves are huge terrorist targets. They are currently ill-protected, and the cost of protecting/defending them is never figured into the propaganda spit out by the promoters. Thirty-two U.S. reactors have fuel pools on the upper levels of the reactor building, shielded only by sheet metal. If I know this, people with a grudge know it too. They might as well paint a big ‘bull’s eye’ on top of the building.

MISSING PLUTONIUM — It takes about 17 pounds of plutonium to make a traditional nuclear bomb.
According to the General Accounting Office, the investigative branch of Congress, security at the government’s nuclear fuel reprocessing plants is inadequate and monitoring systems are not accurate enough to detect the loss of bomb-sized amounts of plutonium [].
The GAO report notes (admits) the following amounts of plutonium “unaccounted for” at the government’s Savannah River reprocessing plant in South Carolina (one of three in the nation) — 114 pounds in 1964; 18 pounds in 1969; 38 pounds in 1970; and about 10 pounds in 1978.

It’s extremely expensive to protect the plants and the expense will not go away as time goes by. We will need to protect the nuclear power plants from this day forward. Thus, they are not and never will be economical to run (they never were before). And if they aren’t even economical, why in the world should we continue to risk the dangers they pose?

Routine Radioactive Releases: All reactors are designed to release radiation into the air, water and soil and are anything but ‘emissions-free’. Each and every one of the 104 reactors in the U.S. release radioactivity every day of operation. These are not benign burps, but daily reoccurring fatalistic farts.

Radioactive Waste: The entire nuclear fuel chain, from prospecting/mining to milling, transporting, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and fuel irradiation in reactors, generates and/or releases radioactive waste [and wastes lots of carbon heavy energy]. Nuclear reactors produce large amounts of long-lasting, deadly radioactive waste (gaseous, liquid and solid). There is no operating repository site anywhere in the world for high-level radioactive waste. “Low-level” radioactive waste is an oxymoron, a misnomer and is dumped into landfills or incinerated, contaminating our water and air. There are already consumer goods containing ‘recycled’ radioactive waste. Talk about deferring HUGE, virtually perpetual costs (economic and health) to our children and our children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s children’s… children. Other ‘by-products’ are built into the wings of commercial and military aircraft… And tons and tons of DU (depleted uranium) have been incorporated into munitions and subsequently exploded and spread, as a fine powder, all over the Middle East, some of which comes home in the bodies of soldiers who then spread the hot-contamination to family and friends. Yeah, we’re behaving real responsibly with the nuke stuff……

Accidents: Accidents are inevitable. Virtually all other industries admit that. Existing evacuation plans for nuke accidents are insufficient and unrealistic. The planet and her children usually recover from other types of industrial accidents eventually; it’s different with ‘eternal’, ‘super-toxic’ nuclear stuff. The Price-Anderson Act ensures that the liability of an accident to a utility is capped at $10.8 billion and there is a move in Washington to lower liability. A memorable reactor accident could easily cost $1TRILLION, the difference would be paid by, you guessed it, taxpayers. In the foreseeable future that would be our kids.
Remember a serious disaster is a sure thing if we build and operate many more nukes, and ‘the people’ will pay economically, and in quality of life and in terms of health.

Nobody, not a handsome constitutional lawyer ‘change’ guy, not some self-proclaimed ‘maverick’ not a holier-than-the lower forty-eight ‘Rouge Sara, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO LAY THAT ON OUR KIDS!!!

Using Three Mile Island as an example, Ernest Sternglass, professor of radiological physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, has revealed that the accident at TMI may have exposed about a million people to up to 130 times more radiation than the government has reported so far. The effects of this exposure on the health of those people also will be significantly more serious and longer-lasting than the NRC has so far acknowledged.
In its attempt to assure the public that radiation exposure from the accident was minimal, the NRC reported only the external gamma radiation doses received from passing clouds of radioactive gases.
The total dose received by vital organs and bones from inhalation of fission gases has not been calculated by the commission, even though it is through inhalation that the greatest biological damage occurs. Calculations based on data from earlier nuclear accidents and from nuclear bomb tests show that when gases are inhaled they produce a radiation dose 100 - 200 times greater than the dose absorbed externally.


Reactors and Bombs: Vice Pres Joe has been running around talking about reducing the nuclear arms stockpiles worldwide (while admitting that we are beefing up our own, in fact his boss has committed to boost the expenditure by at least five Billion over five years to be spent on the nuke arsenal and related labs). These guys are missing (hiding) an important connection. “You can’t prevent nuke warfare if you fart around with nuke energy. The world cannot free itself from nuclear weapons while reactors and nuclear fuel chain facilities such as uranium enrichment and reprocessing factories exist. Hello, have you looked at Iran, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan lately?

Squeezing the world: The planet keeps getting smaller in a sense, as we contaminate more of her land, air and water. There is no more dramatic AND PERMINANT way to contaminate our life-sustaining resources than with interminable radioactivity. It is the most deadly kind of poison and it lasts virtually forever. So as we build more nukes (reactors for power and bombs for killing… they go hand and hand) we remove more and more of the limited land on Earth from the ranks of inhabitability. That’s no small crime. When we pollute in pre-nuke ways it can be nasty, and I don’t mean to minimize, but the Planet’s faculty of homeostasis will generally restore balance within several generations. As wrong as that can be, by comparison spreading nuke-pollution around changes things in a very unhealthy way virtually forever. Society has noticed in the past few decades that it’s getting rather crowded on our home planet. Who thinks it makes sense to keep adding more and more huge tracts of irreplaceable ‘terra-limita’ to ever-growing ‘fenced-off – KEEP OUT’ areas?

For the past 20 years, people in parts of Pennsylvania can’t safely grow a vegetable garden in their own yard. They will never be able to thanks to a little glitch, one like the NRC clamed could only happen once in a million years. Here in beautiful sunny Arizona, one of the best ‘organic’ farms can’t really grow anything organic, and never will because of its proximity to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station. The company has spent millions of dollars trying to persuade the NRC that its mistakes—like deliberately draining water from the piping for emergency core cooling system pumps between 1992 and 2004, when the NRC caught them at it—aren’t so bad. Every day the presence and operation of nukes further adulterates ‘the commons’, so there is less and less land to live on, grow food on and leave to the children. In the case of nuclear contamination, the land so poisoned never recovers. In effect ‘the commons’ belongs to everyone born on Earth, but much of it continues to be ruined virtually forever by the shortsighted selfishness of a few. It’s a spiral of downward productivity and increasing insanity which is (according to his own words) supported by Mr. Obama.

Comes back to bite ya’: There is no place to put the hot stuff and we can’t get it off the planet. Nobody wants it, so more and more of it from the big, modern, industrial countries is shipped to third world locations where unstable governments coup back-and-forth, in-and-out, and the people can’t afford a full meal. Who thinks that deadly radioactive waste will be safely guarded and sufficiently contained it the rusty sheds forever?

There is nowhere to run. If you send it to Timbuktu it’s going to come back and bite you.

As with the human being and all living organisms, so it is with the Earth, “all conditions are systemic”. The inescapable complication with radioactive waste is that once created it must be looked after long, long beyond any memory of the people who made it remains and it will eventually contaminate every cubic inch of the biosphere.

“No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it themselves.”
~ Rachel Carson

New Dumb Ideas: Some of the ‘taxpayer- milkers’ with plutonium brains are also pushing for funding to develop, and more money to build a nationwide battery of smaller nukes, so everyone can have a nuke in his proverbial back yard.
The pushers like to say that the downsized plants will be inherently safer. Listen to what they’re saying, ‘safer’, not ‘safe’. And to say that new, small plants will be safer [their words] is to say that the ‘perfectly safe’ [their words] conventional plants actually aren’t safe after all. Anyone smell contradiction?

And a twisted Past: Well known physicist Prof. Michio Kaku ( in a conversation about the dark side of nuclear energy, detailed various little-known nuclear mishaps from earlier decades, including a Soviet incident that happened in the Ural Mountains in the 1950’s, which he called “the mother-of-all nuclear accidents before Chernobyl.” The reactor was actually in flames and entire villages had to be evacuated, he noted.
“I would say I’m critical of nuclear power,” Kaku said, pointing out that having a potentially unstable reactor near a large population center such as Indian Point (which is 20 miles away from New York City) creates a dangerous scenario.

Hidden Costs: It is not possible to calculate or predict precisely the costs in terms of serious illness, loss of productivity, the negative toll on the body and mind of fear, multi-generational genetically cascading DNA corruption, devaluation of property Etc. and the myriad of ways that those costs will be heaped upon and accumulate in, on and around the Planet’s population of humans, all life-forms and the entirety of both autonomous holdings and ‘the commons’. We do know with certainty that exposure to the forms of invisible pollution particularly related to: daily exhaust, routine emissions, the ever-spreading ‘warm contaminants’, frequent ‘minor emergencies’ and major incidents which are absolutely inherent in the operation of modern nuclear generating and defense/offence installations are of the most serious kind and by a very large degree, the most persistent (virtually ‘forever’ is a very long time) influence that [some] people choose to force on all life for all time. Radioactive waste is expensive to dispose of, contain or move, so unscrupulous contractors slip it into unguarded, unapproved places. And ‘hot’ waste easily ‘hides in plain sight’, that is, it’s invisible, or visually indistinguishable from safe stuff. Because of these factors dangerously radioactive consumer goods and building materials have already spread covertly into the homes of people around the world.

In the future we won’t know if the neighborhood park is a hot spot, certainly some will be. What is the cost of scanning every item purchased (including food) and scanning every location visited with a Geiger counter?

The Need: Some say we need to include the nuke sector in our ‘energy mix’. A peek at reality easily demonstrates that there actually is no correlation between nuclear generating facilities and our electricity requirements. The true correlation is between nuke plants and the further enrichment of corporations/control of the people. The corporate monsters and their governmental attendants see nukes as the ideal utility: they are [marketed as] highly technical, (so the people can’t understand them) and they are centralized, (keeping people reliant on some un-challengeable royal provider).

Mr. Obama says that he would like to up the nuke loan guarantees (giveaways) to almost 60 BILLION. I’ll bet he does not plan to retire to Georgia where the first new nukes are planned.
One must be stupid, ignorant and/or hugely corrupt to back a nuclear renaissance. No disrespect intended, I’m a nice guy and I’m kida’ stupid and certainly ignorant in some arias. Stupidity and ignorance are not positive traits in a leader, but are not [necessarily] character flaws. Large scale corruption however is indefensible!

… And there is so much more wrong with atom splitting and uranium concentrating. Our upstanding new President, who certainly does not look stupid to me claims that the U. S. must Nuke-it-Up because other countries are increasingly Nuke friendly. This point of view begs the questions “Should we also veil our women like Iran, Eat our dogs like Korea, Harvest organs (not the musical ones) from healthy citizens like China and Mexico?”

Watching some of the insane directives coming out of the new White House, and really wanting to like a President, I am forming a theory and trying desperately to sell myself on it:

The nuclear issue is one of those telltale issues which can provide insight into the intent (and sometimes the sanity) of an administrator.

The working theory:

If we can accept that (at least it is my assertion) one must be stupid, ignorant and/or corrupt to propose the building a bunch of new nuclear plants, and yet would like to think that Mr. Obama is certainly not stupid, is not ignorant and is not corrupt, or at least he was not more corrupt than his professional peers before he got the job, then what is he really doing with this insane giveaway to the Nukers?

Why is this intelligent man, with huge responsibilities warming up to ‘future- killing’ nukes?

Yes, I know he has shamefully lied to us, saying that the nukes will be clean (LIE), green (not possible) carbon free (not even close) and economically viable (impossible for several obvious reasons, not the least of which is the unaccounted-for cost of containing and monitoring the waste and burned out plants in perpetuity). But I would like to think this intelligent attorney knows better, but can’t be ‘real’, the job won’t allow it. The job comes with frustrating limitations, directives and with a built-in system of bargaining and trade-off deals which no President in modern times has been able to circumvent and live to tell about.

So what if Mr. Obama does indeed understand the obvious, that nukes solve nothing which needs solving, and in fact create virtually NEVER ENDING problems, escalating expenses and threaten the well-being (absolutely guarantee profound injury) of the planet and her inhabitants on a scale grater than, well, I guess any other goofy idea born of the human mind? What if he does understand that nuking-up will certainly graphically illustrate a slipping into idiocy on a governmental scale… But because throughout much of his political career he has been heavily funded by nuke friendly corporations, and now his staff, circle of advisers and various agencies have a scary percentage of nuke-supporters, and given all of the pressures from the super-rich who run the show, as well as his apparent strong desire to woo Republican cooperation he feels he too must ‘cooperate’ with the overwhelmingly ‘nuke-friendly’ Repubs and conservatives.

It is quite possible that the position Mr. Obama finds himself in is so utterly controlled by uncontrollable forces that he can find no way out of acting in support of nuclear nonsense.

He needs our help. We need our help.

I suspect that even for a high level insider (which we may assume Mr. Obama already was a few years ago) that the very first briefing (after the election / before inauguration) was an eye-opener and mind-blower, and that, like his predecessors, whatever the new guy’s aspirations might be, he learns, not long after the election, that he is not the boss, not even close. I remember that Jimmy Carter said something like, “I learned the corporations tell the President what to do on my first full day in office”.

If the inside situation is something like this, then the person and the parent and the President, Barak Obama is counting on us. He can’t SAY NO TO NUKES even though he knows better, but we can, and we must. For so many reasons and for the sake of so many, for so many years to come, we must SAY NO TO NUKES.

The President needs our help like few throughout history have ever needed the people’s help.

Imagine that he knows better, he knows that his proposals, if realized, will char the planet that his own children want to live on, but ‘the powers that be’ will not allow him to act in a responsible manner.
It is up to us to save The President’s kids.
It is up to us to save The President’s kids.

It’s easy to take pot-shots at public figures, it is a constitutional right. Just tune into almost any conservative radio, TV or blog and witness a belligerent, mean-hearted, counterproductive abuse of this right.
I have used some direct, descriptive words, but do not feel, or intend to transmit any disrespect or of lack of appreciation.
When a candidate assumes the position of figurehead of our country, he enters into a partnership with the people. Now we must work together. We (the people) have the most important job of putting power and support behind positive movements and kicking the wind out of contrary ones. Left to itself, Washington will repeatedly demonstrate what it has become… As some say, “A wholly owned subsidiary of greedy corporations”. When we allow that to happen, the damage done is our fault. If we let the senseless nuke thing get any more out of hand, what will we tell the kids? How could we defend our apathy?
Please, if you recognize any of the many problems associated with nukes or can grasp even a hint of how economically backwards is the idea, lend your efforts, if only your name on a petition, add your voice to the ‘collective voice of reason’. It’s the only hope the kids have.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

To make it easy to help get things moving in a better direction I have provided a few links below… With just a few clicks you can lend much needed and much appreciated support.


In case you choose not to help stop Nuclear Insanity and to thank you for your attention, for your convenience, I have provided a letter of explanation that you may use to explain your position to your descendants. You’ll find it right below the support links.

Tell President Obama not to risk our future with loan guarantees for the nuclear industry:

How to help everyone,
How to help The President,
How to save the grandkids:
Easy email form, just click to email the President: Easy email form, just click to email the President:

Tell President Obama:
“Stop nuclear loan guarantees!”
Click here: Your letter will be sent to The President

Please sign the Petition to Stop the Nuclear Bailout:
Go to:
Just type your name, click send and you’re done. Thanks!

Stop Nuclear Power Expansion—Call Your Senator
Please phone your U.S. Senator as soon as possible on Monday and urge her/him to vote against a “Sense of the Senate” resolution that would build support for expanding nuclear power, especially if your Senator serves on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Particular attention is being paid to Sen. Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire.
Urge support for an expansion of energy efficiency and renewable sources of electricity, such as wind, solar, and geothermal.
Call the central Congressional office office at (202) 224-3121.

Letter of explanation that you may use to explain your position (choosing not to resist the deadly Nuclear Renaissance) to your descendants:

Letter to the grandkids (the future):
Back to the Future,

Dear Aquarians,
Well, we got through that sensationalized 2012 thing and the Earth is still spinning, but I sense that things could be a lot more comfortable for you had we never fooled around with atom splitting, or at least, if after Hiroshima and Chernobyl we would have cut our losses. We could not have made the mountains and oceans of radioactive waste go away, as you know, (now many centuries after my generation and the one before us tried to ‘fool Mother Nature’) there is still no solution, but conditions on our beloved Earth might well be much more conducive to good health, happiness, economic stability and broad cooperation of her nations if we had stopped that Nuclear Renaissance early in the 21st century. Many of my peers knew better than to support that backwards movement, and some worked feverishly to ‘stop the insanity’, but [I fear] it wasn’t enough. I know now, that many of the thoughtful anti-nuke/pro-life activists did not even fully understand the technology, but did understand that everything made by man fails and that failures and even small glitches with systems using highly radioactive materials would injure all life-forms for all time, and it was easy for them to understand that such a sentence delivered to everyone for all time, whatever the claimed need, was simply not acceptable.
From my ‘freer perspective’ (if we allow an imagined ’knowing’ from beyond the veil imposed on physicality) I too now clearly see that we, back at the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries never did really ‘gamble with nuclear folly’ (gamble with your welfare) as some clamed, because in fact, we had a sure-thing. Everyone at the time, save a miniscule percentage of the population suffering from profound mental handicaps, had the intellect to grasp the blindingly obvious facts about nuclear games which are so graphically illustrated in what is left of the world around you and the bodies of the people in your suffering society. Long before that primitive time early in the 21st century, when the fateful Nuclear Renaissance was proposed there were mountains of irrefutable evidence/proof regarding the negative aspects of ‘radioactive experimentation’. All humans had measurable levels of radioactive contamination in their bodies, mothers passed it along in breast milk and fathers, through their sperm. Simple lab tests could accurately pinpoint the age of a person by measuring the percentage and calibrating the placement of radioactive markers in teeth and bones. There really wasn’t an argument… The corporate government invented one. We could all understand the connection, yet some of us used everything at our disposal to put reality out of our minds. In our (my) defense, it was a scary and confusing time. It was the infancy of the age of hyper-information and there were ten counters to every story. Everything that our fathers had counted on for stability was changing, for a while there, it seemed like the whole of society was crumbling… I’m surprised that the race survived at all, though not in very good condition I see. It may be hard for people of your time (when neuro-empathetic communication is the norm, and ‘privacy’ is only an historic artifact) to imagine, but, back then many people did not think for themselves. Many of us relied on mainstream news for information and to feed us opinion. Back then, what was called ‘the news’ was (for the most part) actually a twisted form of low class entertainment authored and programmed by ruthless, selfish, money-worshiping corporate enterprises, the same forces that controlled the governments. As things became extremely confusing and our ability to reason diminished, in large part because of the compounding stressors, including pollutions of many (new to the species) kinds, and not the least of which was propagandized, implanted fear and frankly, measurable levels of radiological contamination from the very sloppy technology at the heart of this matter… some of us fell into apathy and too many others relinquished any remaining hint of critical thinking ability, ‘donned the sheep skin’ so to speak and followed the herd in any direction that the political faces pushed. As what is now history to you demonstrates, that was a big mistake since the political faces were (could only be) the puppets of the most gratuitously greedy among us. The greed was so extreme that they knowingly sold the well-being of their very own children and grandchildren for bigger yachts. The country called the United States enjoyed the greatest opportunity to move things in a healthy direction, the powers controlling its government effectively did just the opposite. I know now that it was lazy of me to choose my temporal comfort and to render whole huge tracts of the only Earth uninhabitable, at the price of your health and happiness. Please know that the news and the leaders assured us that the juice required to fire up TV screens and operate the ski-lifts and casinos flowed necessarily from nuclear generating facilities. Many among us at the time knew that wasn’t so, indeed, there had been, since at least the mid-20th century, numerous proven technologies which were relatively clean, green and renewable, they were ruthlessly blacklisted, slandered and suppressed. Actually, we could have lived very comfortably without any nukes and even without burning much more coal, but the situation was not portrayed that way. Even if nukes would have been essential to the provision of our creature-comforts, clearly it would not have been worth the price that you and the bleeding world you have inherited now pay.
For the apathy, the carelessness and the selfish decisions of myself and many of my 21st century brothers and sisters I sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart. The way I understand it… we can’t go back, we cannot undo the assaults of our mistakes, I wish we could, or at least I wish I had been among those who resisted the nuclear invasion, then it would be much easier to face you now. And you know, we could have stopped it if more of us had just gotten up off our pastry-stuffed butts and said NO!

My generation inherited a world that needed some work, but the planet was still relatively healthy, and a darn nice place to live. Some of the folks of those few generations changed all that with unprecedented speed. Now I can see that the Human race does indeed qualify as intelligent life, yet is not nearly smart enough to fool around with radioactivity without hurting someone, everyone. Back in the day we did a lot of stuff ‘just because we could’. What a shame.
Please Aquarians, if you can find it in your hearts, forgive me, and if you can’t, well I don’t blame you, but please, don’t do something ‘just because you can’ without knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that the consequences are completely benign.
- Your Name Here -, One of those who just let it happen.

A little more on waste:
The U.S. Department of Energy and their friends who make money on Nuke business have been working diligently to lower the standards for disposal of ‘hot waste’, they want the relaxed regulations to allow the dumping of the greatest volume of nuke waste in the same neighborhood landfills that your worn-out tennis shoes rest in. This would mean that most of the stuff, (that is not the actual ‘fuel rods’), the stuff that makes people sick before it kills them (as opposed to the stuff that kills in seconds) could legally be layered in open landfills, eventually covered over with no signage or records (many saturated landfills become the foundations of shopping malls, parks or residential housing developments). The same level of ‘lethal’ radioactive gunk could be mixed into more (unlabeled) consumer products. It could even be spread on cropland. All of these illegitimate insults upon ‘the commons’ already take place, but it’s not quite legal yet. If the ‘glowing’ renaissance becomes a reality these practices will accelerate by many orders a magnitude, there would be no choice, the crap is already stored temporarily all around the world, and many huge tracts of land have become what the industry and the feds call ‘sacrificed land’, permanently. I honestly think that if people had an idea of how much deadly hot stuff is currently spread around we would not be having this worn-out argument.
A little more about how it hurts:
For that past two years the health care debate has been the most consistent story in the U.S., with all kinds of proposals and arguments about: who, how, when, why and if, and with scarcely any mention or meaningful discussion of the importance of keeping people well in the first place. Here, in one of the only TWO countries in the world where Big Pharma is allowed to push drugs directly to the public, we would, if we had reasonable collective wisdom and/or legitimate representation act upon the understanding that there isn’t enough wealth in the world to nurse everyone if everyone is sick all the time…Here, where we do so much to make people sick and keep people sick, the last thing we need is to promote, or even tolerate the existence of an industry which automatically lowers the ‘health quotient’ of all citizens to the extent that humans are now born with a strike against them (the fetus suffers from ‘minor’ radiation damage), into a world suffering from an unprecedented high level of toxicity, with no clean space left, and beyond the extent that we can even estimate in terms of severity and duration. This industry produces unavoidable side-effects resulting in part from its unique brand of pollution which is stealthy, insidious and ever-enduring.

Dangerous Complacency with Radioactivity and EMR

The pollution which is inevitably tied to nukes occasionally kills people instantly or quickly and often kills some people (those working in, or in close proximity to facilities) more slowly. In addition, the general nuclear contamination which is now systemic to the whole of our planet represents a ‘negative stressor’ upon the bodies of everyone living here. Even people, other animals and plants in the farthest undeveloped reaches of Earth suffer from man-made radiation poisoning. It’s bad enough that the people using the electricity coming from nukes live sicker and shorter lives, and can offer noting better to their children, but imagine how unfair it is to spread ‘Nuclear Disease’ to subsistence, in-balance people living a sustainable life in Amazonia or remote Tibet. How do our American natives feel to have this happen on their continent? Much of the uranium mining necessarily takes place on the most undesirable patches of American Homeland, those places to where the natives were herded, the reservations.
Every living thing on Earth suffers from man-made radiation poisoning which expresses itself in a myriad of individual conditions and as an amplification of all ill conditions. Science has found no way to intervene in a helpful way. The very existence of nukes (generating plants and defense/offence installations) pollutes the planet every moment of every day. There is no known way to stop it, no solution to the deadly influences just from what we have already built.

To build any more nukes, knowing what we know, would be terrorism, murder and clearly qualify as an act of war.

In fact wasting any more time and energy on nuke debates even just with regards to shutting down all the radioactive monsters currently ‘cooking us’, is immoral. To invest more in this ‘proven-failed’ technology would surely break the bank. The problematic side effects resulting from the ridiculous practice of using radioactivity to boil water are dramatic to say the least, they hurt us in terms of physical, emotional and mental well-being, in terms of freedom (parts of formerly pristine Utah, Nevada and New Mexico are forever off-limits and have been sacrificed to the god of nuclear insanity till the end of geological time, and much of the Middle East is now blanketed in radioactive dust). The bankrupting would exert its ruination in economically relevant ways as well.
In fact the whole of the nuclear power thing has never, in its entire history paid off for the people. The whole industry and every move it has made has been paid for by the people with; tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies, liability caps, risk insurance, anti-trust exemptions, shutdown subsidies, people funded decommissionings and defaulted superfund clean-ups, and the list goes on… and on.
The Truth about Toxic Waste Cleanups: How EPA Is Misleading the Public about the Superfund Program

The Truth About Toxic Waste Cleanups: How EPA Is Misleading The Public About The Superfund Program

The people pay dearly, the corporations reap the profits, many politicians get their cut, the sell-out continues and the world keeps getting smaller and scarier.

But it doesn’t have to continue this way.

We can turn it around today.

Our representatives have a tough time of it; the system makes it very difficult to rise above, though a few appear to manage it. The thing that can save us, save the kids is our voice and our resolve. Every meaningful improvement to the workings of government comes from the people, from the street, from a collective of individuals willing to ‘Speak Truth to Power’. That still works.
This time though there is a huge propaganda/programming campaign which has infected the thinking of the masses that must be overcome before some of us can think clearly on the issue. It must first be understood that we cannot rely on Washington (or its counterpart in other countries) or on mainstream news for the facts. That’s no longer a limitation as independent sources that accept no corporate funding or conventional sponsorship are readily accessible.

Television Without Borders | Link TV

Television Without Borders | Link TV

Free Speech TV | Powered by Our Viewers

Free Speech TV | Powered by Our Viewers

Democracy Now

Democracy Now

Thom Hartmann
Thom Hartmann

We could continue the debate, or we could wisely use any one of the many factually irrefutable problems for which there is currently no solution what so ever as the reason to ‘stop the insanity’ in its tracks. I can easily site over a dozen distinct problems with the technology for which there is no solution on the horizon. It only takes one fault in a plan to render the plan a failure, with nukes we have many, and they are big. For those who insist on ignoring reality, to be fair, you cannot use the empty rhetoric about “solutions that will be developed”, that simply demonstrates irresponsibility. When the stakes are this big (Insuring disease for everyone, poisoning the planet in the most hideous way and risking virtual annihilation) you cannot take chances. Under the rules of responsible behavior, you may not create a problem unless and until you fully develop the solution. And we must understand the meaning of ‘solution’. For instance when a nuclear-fueled country claims that their solution to ‘low level’ waste (a very deceiving term) is to bury it or ship it to Africa, we see that the country has not consulted Webster. Moving the poison or placing it inside a dynamic, living, planet in flux may be and answer (though a poor one), but it most certainly is no solution.

Dear Mr. President, fellow Americans and Planetary brothers and sisters,
When the pro-nukes among you are ready to prove SOLUTIONS to every problem created by nukes we will have the food for a productive discussion. At the moment, lacking solutions, there is nothing to discus on the issue. So may I suggest that we put our heads together get on with something productive?

Most respectfully,


The Truth About Toxic Waste Cleanups: How EPA Is Misleading The Public About The Superfund Program
The Truth About Toxic Waste Cleanups: How EPA Is Misleading The Public About The Superfund Program

No Real Support:
For all of its worn out rhetoric about the importance of free enterprise and the and self-balancing nature of the free market system, the U.S. government does not actually support such a system. Probably the best example of the forked tongue on this point is the tight bond between the feds and the nuke corporations.
Without the life giving, life sustaining umbilical through which ‘the people’s’ money flows reliably to the nukes, there would be no nukes. I don’t think that there is an economist or a sane investor in the world who would put up his own green to get a piece of something so red. This is not the free market working its magic; it’s the same old ‘special interest’ system at work. There is nothing free about it for the people, and while big-ticket slight-of-hand is at work, there is really no magic. Supporting this view is commentary from Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, in March 2008 before the [House of Representatives of the U.S.] Select Committee on Energy Independence ( His thesis: “expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security…but can’t survive free-market capitalism.”

Making his case with brilliant concision, Lovins, a consultant to business and the Defense Department, demonstrated with numbers and other data that nuclear power “is being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no and low-carbon power resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster.”

Lovins doesn’t even include the accident or sabotage risks. He testified that “because it’s [nuclear power] uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn’t inquire into its other attributes.” Renewable energy (eg. wind power), cogeneration and energy efficiencies (megawatts) are now far superior to maintain.

Not many years ago the official claim was that nukes provided between 8% and 11% of U.S. electricity, now they say ‘nearly’ 20 percent, it’s always fuzzy, and remember that electricity is not equivalent to energy. We harness and use many times more units of ‘energy’ that we don’t use as electricity. Still, if the 20% were honestly adjusted to include the ‘payback’ for the fossil fuel consumed in the process of getting a nuke to the point of producing electrical energy from the nuclear reaction, the number would be smaller by about one half (10, maybe 11%). Now if we could accurately factor in the energy costs of all the peripheral expenditures, the number would fall quite dramatically further. We can’t do that accurately of course, but we can see that the number would be very small, though maybe still to the right-of-zero (a positive number). If however we could see the whole mess from a wide vantage, we would not have to project very far into the future, including the after-costs (waste containment issues, sickness and related health care, real estate sacrificed and so on) to drop the real number below zero. At that point, for all our gargantuan investment in nuclear power, it pays nothing back. It leaves us with a NEGATIVE BALANCE energy wise.
We quickly reach a negative number without even factoring in the inevitable terrorist attacks and accidents.
The weird thing is: the more nukes we build, the quicker we reach the negative numbers and the deeper to the left of zero we go.
That’s the reality and there can really be no argument, it’s not an exact calculation but the direction is clear. We don’t know exactly how much we will pay for ‘less-than-nothing’ in return, but we can see that it’s not a fair deal. This little slice of reality is not a good selling point for the nukies.

The Corporate Mandate: is dangerous and deadly when mixed with radioactivity.
Nuclear power stations exist for the benefit of the corporations directly involved. This is not a healthy arrangement. According to some legal authorities, American corporations are legally mandated to put profit and shareholders’ economic welfare above all else, other legal researchers who have carefully read various state and the U.S. corporate codes site the language “corporate directors must act in a manner [] reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the corporation”. However we may interpret these code directives, we can say that in a twisted way the nuke-corporation is legally bound to produce the fattest profits possible and to present and protect its public image, even at the expense of the health and well-being of living humans, future people and the environment. The nuke-corps, while they may appear ‘dark and soulless’ are following the legally mandated model when they quietly leak a little here, and leak a little there and when they cover-up accidents, under-report radiation levels and so on, even at a cost of damage to the environment and people, if their shenanigans save shareholders money or raise their profits or preserve their milky white image.

In two words, nuclear plants are NOT SAFE. The companies that run them lie to the public and to you. Furthermore, society’s net gain from keeping the plants running is negative: The cost of security negates any profit there might have been — and there is STILL (after 50 years and 50 billion dollars in research efforts) no solution to the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste which is being generated.


This moment in time presents one of the most critically important opportunities to help make or break the future that the world has ever known.
All eyes are on the U.S., the sharp-fanged jaws of the nuke corps are salivating all over the prospect of frying the planet for temporal profit. It’s high road or low road time. The direction taken now will decide the future virtually for time immortal. Big stakes!

Strong momentum is pushing in the direction of destruction.

The President and all representatives need to hear from us NOW.

Everyone we know deserves the opportunity to help save their children. Everyone we are in touch with needs to be reminded of the urgency.

We don’t need to fear, only make sure they hear “NO NUKES”

Those who choose the low road can just sit back. Doing nothing is voting for ‘a world that was’.

Only those wanting to stop the insanity and act responsibly need make an effort. I hope that includes you.
Imagine if you must, that the great-grandkids are pleading, “Please give us a chance”.
Please help and ask your friends to help.

Thank you!

Oh yeah, one more easy way to help:

Help the “Nuclear Renaissance” Crumble
Dear Friends,
Here’s a quick, handy action help the “nuclear renaissance” crumble!
Though Bush’s fantasy “nuclear renaissance” appears to meltdown before our eyes as 19 of 27 announced new nuclear reactors are cancelled or tabled in favor of efficiency and alternatives, a few reactors are unfortunately still rockin’ along in the second year of the new administration.
Notably, Southern Co.’s Vogtle reactors in Georgia and SCG&E’s Summer reactors in South Carolina are first in line with hands out for TAXPAYER-FUNDED loan guarantees which are reported to be rolling out from U.S. Department of Energy very soon. Besides the obvious socialism involved with bailing out the faltering nuclear industry, the reactors proposed for both projects are the ill-fated Westinghouse AP1000 design, just sent back to the drawing board for at least one year for serious safety concerns by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
E-mail U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu at:
Copy and paste the sample letter below, or write your own, but DO IT TODAY!!! Stop the Speeding Nuclear Bailout!!
Dear Energy Secretary Chu,
I am writing you to ask that you stop immediate payouts from the ill-advised taxpayer-funded nuclear loan guarantee program, an out-of-step legacy from the Bush administration’s fantasy “nuclear renaissance.”
Two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor proposals, in Georgia and in South Carolina, are the only remaining hold-outs of the rush to announce new reactors in recent years. Most of the new reactors have been cancelled or tabled in the face of better alternatives and escalating financial risks for nuclear reactors.
The ongoing interest of South Carolina Gas & Electric to add reactors at Summer in South Carolina and of Southern Company to build reactors at Vogtle in Georgia is maintained solely by the unwholesome enticement of taxpayer-funded loan guarantees promised by the U.S. Department of Energy.
SCG&E and Southern Co. have both testified before their respective Public Service Commissions that they persist in pursuing nuclear power because they “don’t want to lose their place in line at the DOE.”
The unfinished and unlicensed AP1000 reactor design has been, as you are aware, sent back to the drawing board for deep revisions by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dr. Chu, your work with renewable energy at DOE speaks for itself. Non-poisonous renewable energy sources are ready to free us from the security risks and environmental degradation of nuclear and coal.
I beg you to use the power of your office to protect U.S. taxpayers from bad investments in drawing-board nuclear reactors.
Respectfully, e your name and address … you may receive a reply)
Send your letter


Sources include:.

Back to: Dr Billy Health .com
Union of Concerned Scientists
Nuclear Power

U.S. Government Accounting Office

Helen Caldicott, MD

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Green America


3 mile island today
3 mile island today


New revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety The truth behind the meltdown


Ron Paul on Nuclear Power?


National Research Council

Grist Magazine

pacific free press

Please sign our letter to Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama! Dear President. Obama:
Please sign our letter to Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama! Dear President. Obama:

Back to: Dr Billy Health .com


Honest Experts say:

Amory Lovins On Nuclear Power
Democracy Now has an interview with Amory Lovins, looking at way nuclear power is a poor option to choose. Reason number 1 - cost. From Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse:
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it’s not an option, given the oil crisis?

AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can’t even make mobility fuels out of anyway.

What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do.

So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies.


AMORY LOVINS: It’s uneconomic. It costs, for example, about three times as much as wind power, which is booming.

Let me give you some numbers about what’s happening in the marketplace, because that’s reality, as far as I’m concerned. I really take markets seriously. 2006, the last full year of data we have, nuclear worldwide added a little bit of capacity, more than all of it from upgrading old plants, because the new ones they built were smaller than the retirements of old plants. So they added 1.4 billion watts. Sounds like a lot. Well, it’s about one big plant’s worth worldwide. That was less than photovoltaics, solar cells added in capacity. It was a tenth what wind power added. It was a thirtieth to a fortieth of what micropower added.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s micropower?

AMORY LOVINS: Again, it’s renewables, other than big hydro, plus co-generating electricity and heat together, usually in industry.

In 2006, micropower, for the first time, produced more electricity worldwide than nuclear did. A sixth of the world’s electricity is now micropower, a third of the new electricity. In a dozen industrial countries, micropower makes anywhere from a sixth to over half of all the electricity elsewhere. This is not a fringe activity anymore.

China, which has the world’s most ambitious nuclear program, by the end of 2006 had seven times that much capacity in distributed renewables, and they were growing it seven times faster. Take a look at 2007, in which the US or Spain or China added more wind capacity than the world added nuclear capacity. The US added more wind capacity last year than we’ve added coal capacity in the past five years put together.

And renewables, other than big hydro, got last year $71 billion of private capital; nuclear, as usual, got zero. It is only bought by central planners with a draw on the public purse. What does this tell you? I mean, what part of the story does anybody who take markets seriously not get?

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, well, the media clearly in this country doesn’t get it, because it is raised over and over again by the candidates. I mean, it seems that Senator McCain has a favorite number: a hundred years in Iraq, also hoping for a hundred more new nuclear power plants. He had said something about, he doesn’t want to lose the knowledge of building, since the last one was built more than thirty years ago; the people are dying who had built it, so we’ve got to rush and build them now.

AMORY LOVINS: Well, you could say that’s already been lost, in the sense that most of a nuclear plant built now in the US, if there were any, would have to be imported, which, by the way, means we buy it in weak US dollars, which is part of the incredible cost escalation we’ve seen. Moody’s latest number is $7,500 a kilowatt. That’s, again, as the Journal said, about two to four times the numbers that were being bandied about just last year by promoters.

Obama’s Atomic Blunder
by Harvey Wasserman
As Vermont seethes with radioactive contamination and the Democratic Party crumbles, Barack Obama has plunged into the atomic abyss.
In the face of fierce green opposition and withering scorn from both liberal and conservative budget hawks, Obama has done what George W. Bush could not—pledge billions of taxpayer dollars for a relapse of the 20th Century’s most expensive technological failure.
Obama has announced some $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two new reactors planned for Georgia. Their Westinghouse AP-1000 designs have been rejected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as being unable to withstand natural cataclysms like hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.
The Vogtle site was to originally host four reactors at a total cost of $600 million; it wound up with two at $9 billion.
The Southern Company which wants to build these two new reactors has cut at least one deal with Japanese financiers set to cash in on American taxpayer largess. The interest rate on the federal guarantees remains bitterly contested. The funding is being debated between at least five government agencies, and may well be tested in the courts. It’s not clear whether union labor will be required and what impact that might have on construction costs.
The Congressional Budget Office and other analysts warn the likely failure rate for government-back reactor construction loans could be in excess of 50%. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has admitted he was unaware of the CBO’s report when he signed on to the Georgia guarantees.
Over the past several years the estimated price tag for proposed new reactors has jumped from $2-3 billion each in some cases to more than $12 billion today. The Chair of the NRC currently estimates it at $10 billion, well before a single construction license has been issued, which will take at least a year.
Energy experts at the Rocky Mountain Institute and elsewhere estimate that a dollar invested in increased efficiency could save as much as seven times as much energy than one invested in nuclear plants can produce, while producing ten times as many permanent jobs.
Georgia has been targeted largely because its regulators have demanded ratepayers put up the cash for the reactors as they’re being built. Florida and Georgia are among a small handful of states taxing electric consumers for projects that cannot come on line for many years, and that may never deliver a single electron of electricity.
Two Florida Public Service Commissioners, recently appointed by Republican Governor Charlie Crist (now a candidate for the US Senate), helped reject over a billion dollars in rate hikes demanded by Florida Power & Light and Progress Energy, both of which want to build double-reactors at ratepayer expense. The utilities now say they’ll postpone the projects proposed for Turkey Point and Levy County.
In 2005 the Bush Administration set aside some $18.5 billion for reactor loan guarantees, but the Department of Energy has been unable to administer them. Obama wants an additional $36 billion to bring the fund up to $54.5 billion. Proposed projects in South Carolina, Maryland and Texas appear to be next in line.
But the NRC has raised serious questions about Toshiba-owned Westinghouse’s AP-1000 slated for Georgia’s Vogtle site, as well as for South Carolina and Turkey Point. The French-made EPR design proposed for Maryland has been challenged by regulators in Finland, France and Great Britain. In Texas, a $4 billion price jump has sparked a political upheaval in San Antonio and elsewhere, throwing the future of that project in doubt.
Taxpayers are also on the hook for potential future accidents from these new reactors. In 1957, the industry promised Congress and the country that nuclear technology would quickly advance to the point that private insurers would take on the liability for any future disaster, which could by all serious estimates run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Only $11 billion has been set aside the cover the cost of such a catastrophe. But now the industry says it will not build even this next generation of plants without taxpayers underwriting liability for future accidents. Thus the “temporary” program could ultimately stretch out to a full century or more.
In the interim, Obama has all but killed Nevada’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. He has appointed a commission of nuclear advocates to “investigate” the future of high-level reactor waste. But after 53 years, the industry is further from a solution than ever.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reported that at least 27 of America’s 104 licensed reactors are now leaking radioactive tritium. The worst case may be Entergy’s Vermont Yankee, near the state’s southeastern border with New Hampshire and Massachusetts. High levels of contamination have been found in test wells around the reactor, and experts believe the Connecticut River is at serious risk.
A furious statewide grassroots campaign aims to shut the plant, whose license expires in 2012. A binding agreement between Entergy and the state gives the legislature the power to deny an extension. US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has demanded the plant close. The legislature may vote on it in a matter of days.
Obama has now driven a deep wedge between himself and the core of the environmental movement, which remains fiercely anti-nuclear. While reactor advocates paint the technology green, the opposition has been joined by fiscal conservatives like the National Taxpayer Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
Reactor backers hailing a “renaissance” in atomic energy studiously ignore France’s catastrophic Olkiluoto project, now $3 billion over budget and 3 years behind schedule. Parallel problems have crippled another project at Flamanville, France, and are virtually certain to surface in the US.
The reactor industry has spent untold millions lobbying for this first round of loan guarantees. There’s no doubt it will seek far more in the coming months. Having failed to secure private American financing, the question will be: in a tight economy, how much public money will Congress throw at this obsolete technology.
The potential flow of taxpayer guarantees to Georgia means nuclear opponents now have a tangible target. Also guaranteed is ferocious grassroots opposition to financing, licensing and construction of this and all other new reactor proposals, as well as to continued operation of leaky rustbucket reactors like Vermont Yankee.
The “atomic renaissance” is still a very long way from going tangibly critical.
Harvey Wasserman is Senior Advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at

Greenpeace: Greenpeace
Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.
We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions. (Briefing: Climate change - Nuclear not the answer.)


Union of Concerned Scientists
Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear Power Risk
Nuclear Power Safety
Sabotage and Attacks on Reactors
Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
Nuclear Power and Global Warming
Nuclear Power Solutions
What You Can Do
Nuclear Weapons & Global Security

But look at this:
Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant
Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant
Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant, 2

36 ways to stop nuclear power 36 ways to stop nuclear power



Thanks for your attention, I know your time is valuable.
I think that says it pretty well, but if you’d like a little more:

Hot Links, Nuclear Energy Videos, Audios, Lectures
Hot Links, Nuclear Energy Videos, Audios, Lectures


Nuclear mishaps, A short list…
Nuclear mishaps, A short list…

From: Bear Market News, Just the Facts: A Look at the Five Fatal Flaws of Nuclear Power
This series of educational fact sheets about nuclear power is aimed at refuting some of the central arguments that nuclear power advocates use when advancing their message. Specifically, there are five key reasons why nuclear power is not a solution to the United States’ energy needs: cost, security, safety, waste, and proliferation.

Just The Facts: Cost
Just the Facts: Cost

Ten More: Excerpted from ‘Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power’
@ Green America
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here’s why:
1. Nuclear waste — The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It’s untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.
Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.
The proposed solution a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain is over budget and won’t provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.

2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.
Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands

3. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
What’s more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.

4. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.
Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.

5. Cancer — There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.
According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, we don’t have to rely on risky nuclear power.

6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 — nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.
There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.
Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?

7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world’s electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.
As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.

8. Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.
What’s worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community.
Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government’s current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.

9. Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.
As the Nuclear Energy Institute recently reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, “100 percent loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential … because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary” for new nuclear power plants. Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50 percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.
And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn’t exist, nuclear power still can’t be a climate solution because there is …

10. No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.

Back to Climate Action: Dirty Energy »

An Estimated 92 Lost Nuclear Bombs Rest at These 15 Sites, these are some of the known missing hotties, imagine how much worse it is.
1. Russian nuclear submarine Kursk sinks in the Barents Sea.
2. A B-47 bomber carrying two nuclear weapon cores in their carrying cases disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea.
3. An American B-36 bomber jettisoned a bomb into the Pacific Ocean.
4. A C-124 transport aircraft that was having mechanical problems jettisoned two nuclear weapons off the east coast of the United States.
5. Savannah River, Georgia A nuclear weapon was lost following a mid-air collision. (Tybee Beach bomb)
6. Off Whidbey Island, Washington– A U.S. Navy P-5M aircraft carrying an unarmed nuclear depth charge crashed into Puget Sound
7. USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) in the Pacific Ocean an A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier and fell into the sea. (Japanese island chain of Ryukyu)
8. The USS Scorpion sank 400-500 miles southwest of the Azores. (It was carrying unidentified nuclear weapons.)
9. Nuclear device from Thor rocket fell into the Pacific Ocean near Johnston Atoll
10. Another Thor rocket lost its payload near Johnston Atoll. (Yes, a second one.)
11. Three nuclear bombs were jettisoned in the Indian Ocean by a U.S. Air Force B-52
12. The K-219, a Soviet Golf II class (Project 629M) diesel-powered ballistic missile submarine armed with three nuclear SS-N-5 missiles, sank in the Pacific, about 750 miles northwest of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii.
13. The K-8, a Soviet November class (Project 627A) nuclear-powered attack submarine, sank in the Atlantic Ocean 300 miles northwest of Spain. (2 nuclear torpedoes, 34 nuclear warheads)
14. The K-219, a Soviet Yankee class (Project 667A) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine armed with 16 SS-N-6 missiles (two warheads each) and probably also two nuclear torpedoes, sank 600 miles northeast of Bermuda.
15. The K-278 Komsomolets, the Soviet Mike class (Project 685) nuclear-powered attack submarine sank off northern Norway. (2 nuclear torpedoes)


Sources include:

Back to: Dr Billy Health .com
Union of Concerned Scientists
Nuclear Power

U.S. Government Accounting Office

Helen Caldicott, MD

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Green America


3 mile island today
3 mile island today


New revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety The truth behind the meltdown


Ron Paul on Nuclear Power?


National Research Council

Grist Magazine

pacific free press

Please sign our letter to Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama! Dear President. Obama:
Please sign our letter to Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama! Dear President. Obama:

Back to: Dr Billy Health .com

Hot Links, Nuclear Energy Videos, Audios, Lectures
Hot Links, Nuclear Energy Videos, Audios, Lectures


Nuclear mishaps, A short list…
Nuclear mishaps, A short list…

Hot Links, Nuclear Energy Videos, Audios, Lectures

Counter-Radiation Diet

Dangerous Complacency with Radioactivity and EMR

Stop Nuclear Insanity, The President Needs Your Help

Check out some great info by author Annie Leonard….. on her website
The Story of Stuff

Some helpful stuff from the good folks at…

Activist Links, From
Clisk here for Activist Links


Shelly Thomas's picture
Shelly Thomas 9 years 18 weeks ago

I don't know what all the fuss about nuclear energy is about. It's theoretically dangerous, if safety measures aren't adhered to, but that applies to coal even more so. Coal is much much more dangerous and more radioactive. Why not the hysteria over coal?

Nuclear power plants have on-site storage where the nuclear waste is perfectly safe, for the time being. All the nuclear waste in the country is smaller than a cubic football field.

The hysteria about nuclear power is going to destroy the planet by not allowing us to get off coal and oil. Nuclear power is safe if people are smart and well-trained. All accidents have been human error and that can be avoided.

I'm far more worried about CO2 and global warming than I am about nuclear power, which has an excellent safety record in the U.S. with only a couple of exceptions and accidents. That's far better than the coal industry.

bmitche2's picture
bmitche2 8 years 25 weeks ago

You need to clarify the facts that mining uranium contaminates the surrounding area, the people who mine it die young, enriching it creates contaminated waste, and using it creates nuclear waste that is normally stored at the plant. It is not clean energy by any measure.

Zenzoe 8 years 25 weeks ago

Shelly, nuclear energy is "theoretically dangerous?" What was it about Japan's nuclear disaster you missed? There was nothing theoretical about that!!! No disrespect, but it looks like you need to inform yourself. You might want to start by reading up on the aftermath of Chernobyl. It's not a pretty picture.

The point you're missing is that both coal and nuclear power are dirty and dangerous—each puts the planet at risk. Only sun, wind and other clean, renewable sources of energy can provide the answer you're looking for. Stop comparing nuclear with coal. Compare both coal and nuclear with 21st century technologies (green)—coal is 19th century; nuclear is 20th century energy.

I'm curious—where did you get your information? What news source do you follow?

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Come Cruise with Thom Hartmann in July 2020

Join me for an exciting Bermuda getaway aboard Oceania Cruises, the world’s leading culinary and destination-focused cruise line. Set sail on the reimagined Insignia for 7 nights beginning July 25th 2020. Take advantage of Oceania Cruises’ OLife Choice promotion, where you can choose shore excursions, a beverage package, or onboard credit – Oceania Cruises also includes Wifi! You'll also receive complimentary gratuities, a $50 onboard credit and two exclusive cocktail parties. Did I mention we are planning special onboard events with yours truly? Prices start at $1199.

Reserve your stateroom today by contacting Keene Luxury Travel, and mention the Thom Hartmann Group 800.856.1155

or go to

Can the Presidency Regain Its Integrity After Trump?

Thom plus logo Even those of us old enough to remember have probably forgotten that in the spring of 1979 the Attorney General of the United States appointed a special prosecutor to look into his own president's ownership of his peanut warehouse, to make sure that he wasn't, in any way, making money from his presidency.