NO NUKES PLEASE!

[Sugarcoated]

I will fight this tooth and nail - I am so against this! Am I over reacting to this or are there others who can't believe this is coming up again?

[hippiepunk]

1. What are you talking about?

Which kind of nukes? The filibuster kind or the :nuke: kind?

Edit: I'm an idiot.

[Sugarcoated]

2. In his energy plan recommendations

He's going to push for building more nuclear power plants. This scares me, I thought they were going to be phased out.

[hippiepunk]

4. I agree with you then.

Nuclear power is dangerous.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

3. Agree

Nuclear energy is not the way to go.

[Sugarcoated]

5. Everything Bush proposes,

Every idea, every utterance and everything he stands for. Including him as a person - it all is bad, it never fails to go against everything I believe to be true and right. WTF is with this crazy man????

[FloridaPat]

6. Notice the word "conservation" has not been used once this week.

Or year for that matter. I think the last time I heard anyone in Bushco use that word is when Cheney said conversation didn't work.

[chlamor]

7. Agree-Nuclear 'Power' is the problem not a solution

Also beware the 'hydrogen economy' which is a masque for nukes.

Helen Caldicott:

At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years.

The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity.

It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.

<snip>

In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

<snip>

Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons...


http://www.energybulletin.net/5595.html

[Sugarcoated]

9. That's it

This is my cause, I'm dedicating myself to this. I've been trying to hone in on something environmental. I was outraged and scared out of my mind after 911 when it came to light these plants weren't protected properly. If a nuclear bomb goes off you have a chance of avoiding the fallout if you know what to do, then it dissipates after a few weeks. A nuke plant gets blown up? Well, that's bad. A very different kind of radiation.

[me b zola]

8. I am with you...NO NUKES

I was a girl during the energy crisis of the 70's, and I remembered thinking then how in twenty years we would be weening ourselves off of oil. At that same time (70's) wonderful activists were fighting against nuke power. What a sad commentary that the Dems (& everyone else) have dropped the ball while our Nation desperately needed to be free from petrol.

You are not over reacting. We must demand & expect better.



Peace

zola

[chlamor]

10. Yes

Nothing redeeming about nukes