What is Kerry's position on Nuclear Power?

[seventhson]

I make no bones about it: I oppose nuclear power.

My candidate needs to not only be opposed to the use of depleted uranium, but he also has to have a decent position on the issues of nuclear effluents and disposal of nuclear waste.

Given the story about the 3 headed, 6 legged frog found near a leaky nuke plant in England, I am more convinced than ever that this is a really serious issue.

After a little research I found this interesting article on the nuke plant near where the frogs were found.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,754946,00.html

I was lambasted in another thread for drawing this association of the frogs heads and the nuke plant, but I was not the only one to do so.

This thread deals with THAT issue at LBN:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=402501&mesg_id=406840


But I think we need to KNOW where Kerry stands on the nuclear issues.

Is he going to stand by while our children are irradiated.

We know Bush/Cheney are proNukes (Halliburton's Brown and Root Engineers nuke plants globally)

So where does Kerry stand?

[Dookus]

1. He believes in having

personal nuclear reactors in every home. He believes in irradiating children just for the hell of it. He believes in plutonium enemas for all Americans under 18.

:eyes:

[Duder]

2. It's Kerry, so your thread title should probably be...

...positions.

[seventhson]

4. Umm ... does he have more than one?

low blow, but I guess it's funny.

[wuushew]

3. What is your solution to the electricity shortfall brought by peak oil?

cause it better not be burning more coal.

[seventhson]

6. My solutions mean nothing - it is the candidate's positions that matter

I could give you an answer - but it is late.

short answer -

I agree with Gore that the internal combustion gas-fueled engine should be obsolete. Corporations keep us dependent on gas and oil and coal.

I think we need a national effort to retrofit the entire national infrastructure (which means jobs) for renewable energy, wind, solar, hydrogen, natural gas, passive solar construction and tax incentives for solar and a national transportation system that utilizes clean energy.

Mandatory conservation (we are in a disaster mode already globally) recycling and a new WPA to make it happen from new cars to efficent machines (with incentives to make them effective and the sooner the better).

[leftistagitator]

5. I hope he supports it

I don't see any alternatives to nuclear reactors in the future. Sure, we can augment that with solar, wind, ect..., but when we hit peak oil we are going to have to switch to nuclear energy, of some form anyway.

[seventhson]

7. You must have missed this then

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2002/DU-Weapons-Pollution31jan03.htm

It is NOT a resounding endorsement of the technology

In fact - it is deeply disturbing.

[leftistagitator]

13. A few things

1. That radiation they were talking about includes atmospheric weapons programs testing, not just reactors.
2. Our reactors are better now, and will continue to get better in the future.
3. They assume that cancer increases are due to nuclear fallout, when it could be due to over use of pesticides and food additives or another factor, or a combination of reasons. Many of the kinds of cancer levels predicted by radiologists after Chernobyl failed to materialize, so maybe our models don't accurately take into account the Earth's self regulating ability.
4. We will have little choice. I don't like it either, nuclear power is dangerous, especially if improperly maintained. But what are we going to do when oil can no longer meet our needs? We need to do whatever it takes to maintain technology until free energy is discovered. That means stressing energy efficiency and investing heavily into alternative forms of energy, even, unfortunately, nuclear energy.

[Gore1FL]

14. The problem isn;t the reaction

The problem is the waste afterwards.

To borrow from Peter Paul and Mary:

Music clip -> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/clipserve/B00000I8TV001003/0/102-2208244-3063351

Chorus:
Just give me the warm power of the sun
Give me the steady flow of a waterfall
Give me the spirit of living things as they return to clay.
Just give me the restless power of the wind
Give me the comforting glow of a wood fire
But please take all of your atomic poison power away.

Everybody needs some power I'm told
To shield them from the darkness and the cold
Some may see a way to take control when it's bought and sold.

I know that lives are at stake
Yours and mine and our descendants in time.
There's so much to gain, so much to lose
Everyone of us has to choose.

(Chorus)

We are only now beginning to see
How delicate the balance of nature can be
The limits of her ways have been defined
and we've crossed that line.

Some don't even care or know that we'll pay
But we have seen the face of death in our day.
There's so little time to change our ways
If only we together can say

(Chorus)

All of your atomic poison power
All of your atomic poison power
Away.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. Kerry has the best environmental record of all the candidates

I wouldn't start out assuming the worst.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=442633&mesg_id=442633

[seventhson]

9. I don't see anything about nukes here - butr otherwise it looks damn good

and is exactly what I would support (except I say we shut down ALL nuke plants immediately)

[seventhson]

10. On second thought - his silence on Nukes is disturbing

Many of you missed the No Nukes revolution.

Once you become aware of what is happening you cannot remain neutral or silent.

Go here for more info:

Radiation.org

[MurikanDemocrat]

11. Your original premise was based on cleaning up nuclear waste

and Kerry is NOT silent on that. He has an excellent environmental record.

Now, do you have a separate agenda in mind for bringing this topic up? Are you looking for problems where none otherwise exist? Because that's really what I suspected, given your history with Kerry.

[seventhson]

15. No - My agenda is to old Kerry's feet to the fire on this issue

I already know where Bush et all stand - so my goal is to get this issue on the agenda and to have it on the platform.

So far I have to admit that the best thing about Kerry has been many of his environmental positions. His statement is a pretty strong one.

But NOT addressing nukes is a BIG danger from my perspective - not so much as a candidate but as a potential president.

I WANT Kerry to beat Bush.

My public enemy politically number one (after Bush, of course) is Nader.

But Nader has been very good on Nuclear issues from what I know.

So I am hoping Kerry will be.

Tell me something good about him on this.

BTW - studies in nuke pollution indicate higher prostrate cancer rates downwind of nuke plants. Perhaps this will encourage him to fight the nuke powers that be.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioStateProgressive]

16. Dennis Kucinich shut a nuclear plant down in the 1970's(nt)

[seventhson]

17. I'd love the details

any details