Skip to main content

As the Fukushima nuclear power plant threatens to meltdown, too many otherwise sane people are ignoring the very real dangers that accompany nuclear power use. You think Fukushima, and other power plant's are safe? Well say that to my face. Because I almost died of childhood metastatic cancer that probably came from radioactive fallout. And there wasn't a single explosion to show for it.  

In the early through mid 1980's, I lived within walking distance of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in NY. Attended my very first protest ever there, with my mother, when a group of she and our neighbors marched up there and stood around the big, smooth silos that loomed over Highway 9. I think we held hands in a circle or something. I was eight years old.

Almost every day, after school, I'd hike for miles through the woods behind my house. The woods were exquisite, high cathedrals of gnarled trees dotted with postage stamp ponds choked with skunk cabbage and giant red spathes of some sort, underneath, patches of shy violets, tiny wild strawberries, impossibly green ferns and moss trimming the forest floor leading out into white carpets of lily of the valley and bleeding hearts; a wild, funky trillium here, a bottle rocket of a tiger lily there, tendrils from an unknown plant spilling out through sassafras, nightshade, hairy red sumac, and white winter berries. I'd trot down the horse paths, and when the horse paths ended, I'd tumble onward through deer paths seeking fiddle head ferns and the headless horseman, for this was the legendary region of his nightly rides.

When Winter came, icicles and snow and dusk would turn the forest into blazing cobalt.

In Spring, crocuses would rise up like Lazarus from the snow, accompanied by puffball mushrooms the size of my small skull.

A year passed. I was watching some game show with my grandparents, who had come to visit, when suddenly I couldn't breathe. I couldn't breathe at all and went limp. They loaded me quickly into the car, took me to the ER, and I was dispatched, at the age of nine, with a diagnosis of anxiety attacks.

My diligent mother sent me to therapy for three years to help with these anxiety attacks, which became increasingly frequent, and which caused me to grow a large, extremely visible lump somewhere in my neck that was dismissed as "hormones." Every adolescent girl grows an Adam's Apple, doesn't she? The so-called anxiety attacks seemed to worsen when I ran, and twice, I passed out in PE and was taken by ambulance home and given sedatives to "calm me down." They had me on a lot of sedatives for a while. Didn't help my breathing much.

About four years later, my physician started thinking my constellation of symptoms was, well, a bit curious. Three weeks later, I was being prepped for emergency cancer surgery, since it was noted that I had perhaps another month or two to live. Lumps had begun cropping up all over my body...

...The metastatic body grows much like the forest floor in Spring.

When I awoke, there I was, a twelve-year old mummy wrapped up and strapped down, tubes going in and out of me to pump and drain. A Frankenstein's monster with a line of airplane glue running over the eight-inch scar on my neck, swaddled in pillow-thick cotton, itching, sutured up with giant metal staples. I couldn't really hear. I couldn't really see. Thinking was a bit of a chore. Vomiting came pretty naturally, however, through the wrenching, raw pain of my throat. It was summer in NYC and the AC was broken. I recall nurse's wiping the sweat from my immobilized body.

The doctors came clucking in like some busy white ducks one morning or another, with manila folders flying, a phalanx of grave-faced doctors, and told my mother and I that the cancer was Stage IV, it was not the "good" kind (there's a good kind; who knew?) but a mixed kind, and that they had removed about seventy tumors, many lymphatic, one on my carotid artery, a dangerous spot for it, one on my voice box, one the size of a plum, one the size of an orange, and another -- that was compressing my windpipe -- that one was the size of a grapefruit. They had also removed much of the muscles in my neck, a good deal of my vascular system, assuring me I'd never miss it, and several vital glands without which one cannot live, but no matter, they have fine pills for that these days.

And I'd need to have radiation treatment as well.

"Why has this happened?" cried my mother.

They told her it was because the woods where we lived, this was an area that was then a well-known cancer cluster. They couldn't be sure of course, since mainly it was just a few million fish that were dying. But still, they'd noticed that most of their young patients with this sort of cancer were coming from there. This was characteristic of certain kinds of radiation exposure, they said. And it's true that the children of Chernobyl seemed to be afflicted mainly with the same forms of cancer that I did. Pure post hoc ergo propter hoc, of course. Speculative. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

And they had to take films of my brain to be sure it hadn't gotten in there, as well as my lungs, my intestines, and so forth. They wanted to be sure I didn't need any more of my stuffing removed.

Drinking radioactive iodine is really an acquired taste. It tastes like molten plastic with a sort of rubbing alcohol aftertaste. It's thick and viscous and has a toxic flavor.

For a few years, intermittently, they carted me in and out of that hospital. They'd take one thing or another thing out until I felt like something out of the Wizard of Oz. Some of my experiences in the operating room were outright nightmarish. Like waking up on the operating table and being quickly knocked out again, but not before getting a face full of blood. Having some dimwit night nurse try to change my lymphatic tube catch bulb thing, fucking it up, and drenching me in about a cup of my own lymphatic fluids, thinking I was asleep and just leaving me there inert and soaked. If these things don't give you a black sense of humor, really I don't know what will. It's important to be able to laugh at yourself. Especially when they keep telling you you're going to probably die.

My mother hired a lawyer to sue, but needless to say, that didn't go far.

The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, built in the mid 1970's, has been in and out of the news for as long as I can remember now, for various leaks, scandals, and controversies. It's still up and functioning. I was declared in "remission" finally, over twenty years later. So now I'm up and functioning as well.

If you want to tell me that nuclear power is safe, that Fukushima is fine and well, that there's nothing to be concerned about, then say it to my face. I dare you. Because I've stared down nuclear power and lost. The families who live near that plant, the children in particular, have no idea what they are handling. TEPCO, the company that owns Fukushima, has 29 violations on record. The Japanese Government has been long condemned for downplaying the risks of their plants. Fukushima is not a new plant. It was built before Indian Point, in fact. Whether or not it has an actual meltdown, which it's reported to still be at risk for, Japanese people, Japanese children, are very much at risk for suffering from the consequences of this plant that we have yet to see, and in many cases, may not see for years and years.

Go ahead. Tell me nuclear power is safe.

Chernobyl may have been a weapons plant, but Indian Point wasn't. It was an energy plant. It didn't explode. It didn't send out plumes. It just felt evil. You'd have to be dead inside to not feel the strange and curious evil coming off of that place, it's weirdly smooth, sky-high walls, it's deathly silence, it's overgrowth.

They said the headless horseman rode those woods. Perhaps he did. A long, pink scar runs from one side of my neck to the other like a scythe wound. I suppose he only nicked me.

Others won't be so lucky.

Fuck nuclear power!

Say it loud and proud!

Fukushima is an important reminder of why nuclear power is out-and-out dangerous, grade-A unadulterated bullshit, nothing more than a bunch of money-grubbers dabbling in what amounts to modern necromancy spun by oligarchs and flim-flam men.

From Greenpeace:

Reacting to reports that radioactive materials including the isotope Cesium-137 have been released from the Fukushima power plant, and that increased levels of radiation have been detected in the immediate vicinity, Jan Beranek, Head of Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign said:

    “Our thoughts continue to be with the Japanese people as they face the threat of a nuclear disaster, following already devastating earthquake and tsunami. The authorities must focus on keeping people safe, and avoiding any further releases of radioactivity."

    “The evolving situation at Fukushima remains far from clear, but what we do know is that contamination from the release of Cesium-137 poses a significant health risk to anyone exposed. Cesium-137 has been one if the isotopes causing the greatest health impacts following the Chernobyl disaster, because it can remain in the environment and food chain for 300 years.”

    “Fukushima remains under threat of a serious reactor meltdown; this would potentially create an iodine cloud, which could spread high radiation levels to both the environment and population over many tens of kilometres. By simply communicating to local populations the importance of staying indoors, the government could limit potential radiation doses from this cloud by a factor 2 to 5.”

    “How many more warnings do we before we finally grasp that nuclear reactors are inherently hazardous? The nuclear industry always tells us that situation like this cannot happen with modern reactors, yet Japan is currently in the middle of a potentially devastating nuclear crisis. Once again, we are reminded of the inherent risks of nuclear power, which will always be vulnerable to the potentially deadly combination of human error, design failure and natural disaster.”

    “Greenpeace is calling for the phase out of existing reactors, and no construction of new commercial nuclear reactors. Governments should invest in renewable energy resources that are not only environmentally sound but also affordable and reliable."

Whether or not it melts down, how many warnings indeed?

I've already had one too many.

Nuclear's power's safe? Say it to my face. I'm living proof... it's not.

h/t to kck for the excellent 1997 NYT article on long-term nuclear fallout studies, hey 40 years isn't so long to wait for these figures right?:

The National Cancer Institute today released information from a study of radiation doses from atomic bomb tests in the 1950's that was long, long-awaited and mostly inconclusive: 115,000 pages produced over 14 years that predict an increase in thyroid cancer of 2 percent to 20 percent above normal.


Update:

For those questioning the causality of cancer and nuclear power, numerous comments to sources ranging from WHO to various cancer research institutions have been provided throughout the diary. When I wrote this, my intention was to tell my story. I do not consider questioning my oncologist and his team, in that they are cancer researchers themselves, whereas neither myself, nor likely yourself, are. But since many have decided to take umbrage with this concept -- that radiation from nuclear plants may be related to cancer -- please find links provided for your edification throughout the diary. Thus said, it is not my intention to "prove" anything, which is why all of the language in my diary clearly states that it is qualified based on probable opinions from experts -- I hear some of the folks making noise here were also "experts" on the BP oil spill last year, in strong support of that. At any rate, my point has been simply to share my story, at a crucial moment that feels personal for me in terms of feeling empathetic cultural pain.

CNN is now reporting an increased risk of Fukushima's possible meltdown despite earlier assurances. Time will tell and it's not my job to prognosticate. 160 people are now reported, by Tokyo Reuters, to be treated for radiation exposure. However, 130,000 have been evacuated and the American Embassy itself has issued strong warnings. TEPCO, the company which owns Fukushima, presently has 29 previous violations on file and does not seem to have a reputation for credible presentation of facts about their plant. Moreover, we should consider the lessons learned in the US, ranging from big tobacco, to BP, to PG&E and on and on about how corporations tend to skew the truth when widespread health problems are reported, or when disaster strikes.

Also, check out boatsie's diary that explains the direction that Fukushima is headed to.

And a fantastic comment from edsbrooklyn:

My first paying job after college in 1982 was working on the Indian Point Project with NYPIRG.  Our goal was to shut the plant down, since -- aside from believing that nuclear power was dangerous anywhere -- the emergency plans that were instituted quickly after the feds required them after TMI were woefully inadequate.  We sued Con Edison over those plans and lost, of course. Indian Point is located 25 miles north of New York City.  There are 17 million people living within its 50-mile radius. If there were a serious accident there (there have been lots of releases that "cause no danger to the public" according to Con Edison and now Entergy, its current owner), those plans called for evacuating south through New Jersey.  Not possible.  Period.

mo, your story isn't unusual, although it is terrible.  My roommate when I worked at NYPIRG was from Buchanan, a town you certainly know.  Many of her friends were ill with all kinds of weird stuff as kids -- tumors, rashes, fatigue, all sorts of symptoms.

I hope your recovery is permanent, and thank you for telling your story.  It's important.

Remember. Bring them home.

by edsbrooklyn on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 08:29:03 P

Give ed some love for telling it.

And one more thing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update X3
This diary, and many subsequent conversations, made me realize how badly I wanted to start a Nuclear Free DK Group -- If anyone wants to join, click the heart and follow it. If you want to write essays for it, message me and I'll make you an account. Cool. Thanks!
here, so I did. Please click the link and follow if you are interested, or email me to join if you wish to write for it. You may be the first member! Also, if you see a diary that would be appropriate for the group, please p/m me to let me know.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (332+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Dreaming of Better Days, the fan man, JustJennifer, LaughingPlanet, Tonedevil, Karl Rover, shari, Miep, cskendrick, Ekaterin, IndyRobin, Montreal Progressive, Nowhere Man, princesspat, Youffraita, Parisgnome, BoiseBlue, timewarp, GlowNZ, scribe, grrr, second gen, flatford39, big spoiled baby, Ana Thema, dog in va, devis1, AnnieR, silence, lotlizard, UTvoter, drofx, Hedwig, aitchdee, missLotus, ursoklevar, Dave925, bluescrubs, jan4insight, dadadata, litoralis, jnhobbs, Dingodude, liberte, borkitekt, martinjedlicka, Tookish, fou, Pandoras Box, temptxan, AnnetteK, daliscar, Simplify, expatjourno, Timaeus, lincoln deschain, wolverinethad, TechBob, jguzman17, dirtfarmer, Jim P, ivote2004, hcc in VA, Daily Activist, JoanMar, erratic, Imhotepsings, Ice Blue, flurdman, camlbacker, Ky DEM, Mrs M, dansk47, raines, cotterperson, emmasnacker, Deoliver47, Fury, Loonesta, rubyclaire, MickeyT, pensivelady, badscience, ladybug53, Tam in CA, esquimaux, ninkasi23, freesia, Damnit Janet, mudslide, Picot verde, Annalize5, fhcec, johnnygunn, gobears2000, chimene, notrouble, congenitalefty, Susipsych, The Fat Lady Sings, edsbrooklyn, ogre, kurious, betson08, CA TreeHugger, Bionic, rubyr, mama jo, koNko, kathny, jim d, out of left field, wvmom, stolen water, bibble, laurak, princss6, Jim P, Betty Pinson, tubacat, BlueFranco, bisonoric, citisven, begone, ozsea1, mofembot, askyron, jackspace, CherryTheTart, Andhakari, theKgirls, WI Deadhead, Tinfoil Hat, DefendOurConstitution, Unitary Moonbat, viscerality, SeattleTammy, Adept2u, kml, NJpeach, Thestral, terabytes, pat of butter in a sea of grits, Matt Z, boran2, hepshiba, trashablanca, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, damfino, Rustbelt Dem, Aji, tacet, Kysen, vcmvo2, irishwitch, smileycreek, tardis10, opoponax, bythesea, Assaf, sricki, neroden
    Hidden by:
    quotemstr

    "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

    by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:00:53 AM PST

  •  i am so sorry you went through all that (42+ / 0-)

    wow. there was a world study few years back, concluded that good percentage of cancer now would be "cured" if only we stopped polluting ourselves and environment.

    but governments don't want to listen.

    i hope more voices like yours today will be heard.

    thanks.

    yes, your diary posted and found swimming in my stream!

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:11:57 AM PST

  •  I'd rather we focus on 100% renewable. (19+ / 0-)

    The potential dangers of a reactor explosion or leak whether from mis-operation or a natural disaster are very serious. People always say well yeah nuclear is carbon neutral but it's not renewable. It seems like a half way measure like civil unions (vs. marriage equality) or medical marijuana and decriminalization (vs. legalization).

    I'm happy that the state I live in has no nuclear plants and has restrictions on new plants: http://www.ncsl.org/...

    The electricity future is solar, wind, and power storage IMO.

  •  I have to agree (28+ / 0-)

    For a long time, I was on the fence about nuclear power because I, as some of you know, care more about climate change than most people. I thought of it as "carbon-neutral power." But I have learned even that is not true.

    Someone randomly handed me this book on Thurs, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer by Helen Caldicott, and it really hit home. Also, I recall a good diary by our own Laurence Lewis that makes many of the same points.

    Most pressingly, we don't have the 10 years it takes for new nukes to come online. Without drastic, urgent action, the climate battle will be lost in far fewer than 10 years.

    Our thoughts are with the people in Japan right now.
    My thoughts are always with the children of this world. What a fucking mess we are leaving them.

    Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

    by LaughingPlanet on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:19:08 AM PST

  •  Nuclear power need not be risk free... (21+ / 13-)

    nor need it be perfect, to be vastly superior to all the stuff you don't care about.

    It only needs to better than all of the stuff you don't care about.

    A dam collapsed and swept away an entire town in this event.

    An oil refinery is burning and is belching out huge amounts of toxic fumes.

    Buildings fell, crushing people.

    I have yet to see any person of your type arguing against dams, oil refineries or buildings.

    If you're getting information from Greenpeace, there is hardly any reason to discuss the science with you.

    Sorry about your anxiety attack.

    It has nothing to do with the future of the planet though.

    •  Learn how to read. (50+ / 0-)

      You didn't read my diary. I didn't HAVE anxiety attacks. I was dying of cancer.

      And I'm not getting my reports from Greenpeace. I'm getting them from my oncologists. Go back and read the diary.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:27:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many people (11+ / 0-)

        got the same illness you had and yet did not live near a nuclear power plant?

        I don't know.   You probably don't either.   That is the job of epidemiologists.     There are cancer clusters near some nuclear power plants.  There are cancer clusters that are not near nuclear power plants.     Some cancer clusters are purely statistical (look at a thousand locations, and you'll see a one in a thousand fluctuation somewhere), others are caused by environmental carcinogens, etc.

        To state categorically that your illness was caused by a nuclear power plant is ridiculous.   It may very well be that nuclear power increases the rate of cancer (there's no evidence of that, but suppose it does).  That STILL wouldn't mean that your illness was caused by the power plant---it's a question of statistical likelihood.

        •  Few, according to my oncologists (41+ / 0-)

          who obviously were quite interested in my cancer, given that it was of a particular strain. It went into the epidemiological books, actually, as part of the evidence for that cancer cluster that the research hospital where I had my surgery at was done.

          Your comment is offensive in how it makes presumptions. It's dehumanizing, moreover, and seeks to deny me of my experience. It also minimizes my own human worth. And it presumes that I'm stupid and didn't do my own research.

          I happen to firmly believe in Science.

          I don't, however, believe in apologism.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:54:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mahakali- (35+ / 0-)

            First, I apologize for my tone.  It was improperly dehumanizing.

            Jenny McCarthy blamed her son's autism on vaccines.  We should never forget the intense human tragedy that she and her son suffered.   We shouldn't deny them their experience, minimize their worth, or dehumanize them   Yet she ignored basic statistics and science.

            Any individual who claims that their disease was caused by X has to do proper statistical analyses (unless it was a completely unique illness).   There also must be some rational mechanism of causation (I would think that other environmental issues in the area could play a bigger role).  My problem is your absolute assertion that the plant caused your illness.  That is unscientific.

            But I shouldn't have dismissed your illness so cavalierly and apologize.  I know.   I lost my eight year old son to a one-in-a-million illness, and there's nobody I can blame.  It hurts.

            •  Thank you (19+ / 0-)

              and I'm very, very sorry about your son. That's unthinkable. Your pain must be exceptional. I have a child as well. Just one. A son too.

              (((((hugs)))))

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:44:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, we need more science to prove the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive, Betty Pinson

              poisons are poisoning people. That's the ticket.

              And if there's never definitive proof? The poisons stay because they're profitable.

              Where does this shit end? How many people have to continue suffering before we just err on the side of safety over profit?

              •  See, this attitude is kind of the problem. (6+ / 0-)

                You want to use science to prove something you strongly believe to be true.

                If you want to approach evidence-based policy, this means that if you discover, repeatedly, that the evidence does not support your assumptions, you cannot just ignore it.

                You have to accept the evidence regardless of whether it fits with your assumptions and chauvinisms.

                You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty.
                - Jessica Mitford

                by Swampfoot on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:11:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Part of the problem is, science and scientists (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive

                  have been co-opted and corrupted by Big Business to do their bidding.

                  One child shows up with a rare form of cancer associated with radiation poisoning and they live near a nuclear power plant, you don't wait till there are 10, then start producing competitive papers and arguments for and against what could be causing it. You do something. And if nothing is done, it's almost always because of the fear of the effect it will have on a corporations bottom line.

                  So to suggest I should abide by the findings of evidence produced by biased and "owned" scientists in the face of anecdotal evidence where it's becoming plainly evident that animals and people are being harmed in line with the introduction of some new product or technology is on the order of suggesting we just take "their" world for it.

                  To hell with that. All I have to do is look back at the tobacco industry's cover up and misinformation campaign and the DDT idiocy for proof that science combined with greed can be a deadly combination despite so-called evidence at the time suggesting otherwise.

                  Then you have the chemical industry claiming there's no proven connection between the increase in artificial chemicals in our environment with the increase in cancer. And they'd be right. It is near impossible to prove, yet, there it is. What do I take from a scenario where 2 studies from independent researchers claim there is a connection, and 50 from industry insiders claiming there's not?

                  See, it works like this today in Corporate America's environment of corruption and profit lust - the only scientists to trust are those that DO corroborate growing anecdotal blatant evidence. All the others can almost alway be traced back to some sort of financial ties with the very corporations whose products they're tasked with studying.

                  It's sad, but it seems to me a lot of science is done with little regard for its potential harm, and that'd be fine within the confines of the lab on the order of pure science. But, corporate sponsors of said science tend to exploit the shit out of that science innocence. And once something proves profitable, though harmful, it's near impossible to pull it from the market. Especially given the power of corporate monopolistic empires that have their very corporate existences tied to said harmful profitable somethings and their ability to corrupt and influence government policy meant to protect us from such things.

                  And there, IMHO, is the realistic environment common folk have to operate in to protect themselves.

              •  Yup (4+ / 0-)

                Reminds of the bullshit pulled by corporations all the time to protect themselves.

                How long did the tobacco industry claim there was no scientific evidence to support the link between smoking and cancer, even though everyone realized what was going on?

                As a poker player, I realize that people come to false conclusions about causality all the time, but let's be real here.  We all know that exposure to radiation increases the risks for cancer.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the area around a nuclear plant might not be a great place to live unless you believe 100% in the safety of the industry as administered by for-profit energy companies like PG&E, etc.   Ask the people of San Mateo, California how trustworthy PG&E is and how well they maintained the gas pipes under their homes.

            •  idiot (0+ / 0-)

              your ass should be banned. It's people like you that are the problem.

            •  Are you kidding? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Andhakari, opoponax

              "There also must be some rational mechanism of causation"

              Here's a mechanism: radiation screws up your DNA, so that your cells don't stop dividing, creating tumors, ie, cancer. That's not a mystery - Marie Curie died of it a long time ago. That's why dental assistants put the lead apron on you when you get x-rays, and then leave the room. That's why my chances of getting cancer in the future are much higher than they were before I was irradiated for 6 weeks for my own bout with cancer.

              Also, "proper statistical analysis" won't tell whether one person's cancer was due to a particular cause - statistics deal with probabilities within populations and samples, not individuals. The fact that there was a cluster of cancers near a nuclear plant is cause for both alarm and research. Before you decide that the diarist is anti-science, why not take a moment to google it and check the facts for yourself?

              "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

              by tubacat on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:46:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Clarification (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                quotemstr, Mcrab

                First, I teach at a university about the biological effects of radiation.

                The diarist claimed that the plant caused their illness, with what appears to be absolute certainty.   If the output of ionizing radiation (in rems) from the plant is 10% of the natural background levels (and that would exceed federal standards), then all one can say is that there is a 10% chance that a radiation-induced illness was caused by the plant.   When I said "rational mechanism of causation", I meant a rational mechanism that would assign a near certainty to the illness being caused by the plant.   Unless the output of ionizing radiation was much larger than the background (and it wasn't), I know of no such mechanism.

                Now, if there was a cluster of thyroid cancer, and releases of radioactive iodine, there would certainly be a mechanism of causation.   But I don't believe there is evidence of such a release.   I guess my main problem is the claim that "A is the cause of B", when (even with cancer clusters) no such statement can be made--just "A is x percent likely to be the cause of B".

          •  numbers are dehumanizing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jake Johnson, alain2112, OtherDoug

            but we are lost without them

        •  Cancer clusters (35+ / 0-)

          As a biologist these cancer clusters are just screaming for study and can teach us so much. Yet there is always huge pressure from industry to prevent their study. Why? Because the science just might back up the fears and industry would have to pay some lawsuits and change their practices.

          I'd love to see each and every cancer cluster investigated. From what I have read they are unlikely to mostly be statistical noise because by definition they fall outside of statistical noise. THat is hwy they get noticed. Some will reveal really interesting genetic disease information. Some will teach us about toxicity from industries. Some may teach us about diet patterns. But most will teach us something.

          FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

          by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:31:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's well known that radiation causes cancer (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive, zett, edsbrooklyn

          This isn't anything new.  Radiation damages DNA, and if the damage happens in an oncogene, cancer occurs.  

          A radiation hot spot will cause cancer, likely in higher numbers than in the general population, because of the higher propensity for DNA damage, and hence, cancer.  

          Some types of radioactive chemicals are known for certain DNA damages because they damage certain DNA sites.  

          This isn't new science.

      •  Um, I think I know something about oncologists. (14+ / 4-)

        Both of my parents died from cancer.

        Being an oncologist does not make one an epidemiologist.

        I'm sorry you're sick, but your attempt to make future generations sick doesn't sit well with me.

        Your claim to be dying from Indian Point is purely speculative.

        You have a long history of anti-nuclear activism and you have cancer.

        These things are relevant to the degree of rationality associated with your diary.

        My mother had no vices - other than being married to a smoker - but got a brain tumor anyway.

        None of the speculations I may have had about the etiology have any validity.

        Neither do any of yours.

        You did post a long written reproduction of anti-science bull from the anti-science group Greenpeace.

        I scanned it, but did not actually read much of it.   I've heard it all before.

        Be well.   Have a nice day.

        •  I'm not sick. Read my diary (again). n/t (18+ / 0-)

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:09:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  if you didn't READ much of it (27+ / 0-)

          why don't you please refrain from COMMENTING in it

          for pete's sake

          "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

          by Pandoras Box on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:10:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Condescend much? (13+ / 0-)

          It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

          by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:24:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your obsession with promoting Nuclear (24+ / 0-)

          and defending it against all charges (except when you refuse to deal with data as I've seen you do time and again) does NOT excuse you from reading the diary before commenting.


          Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

          by Jim P on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:33:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What, um, data are you referring to? (6+ / 0-)

            I spend most of my spare time reading the primary scientific literature.

            And, by the way, you're right.    I did not read this diary in very much detail, because, it um, doesn't deserve a lot of time.  

            Reading vast amounts of material involves skimming techniques.  

            I read enormous amounts of material every day.

            If you have some indication of some time that you have posted data that I ignored, you are welcome to produce it.

            I reserve the right to ignore it however, if it's tripe.    Analysis is often that way.    Reams and reams and reams of stuff is produced, by the only way to make sense of those reams and reams and reams is critical thinking.

            I am proud to be obsessed with the promotion of nuclear energy.    I consider this to be the single most important issue before humanity, and I am not about to be dissauded from my conclusions drawn over decades of serious and detailed study by rote crap from sound biters.

            Got it?

            No?

            Ok then, we're good.

            •  Horse hockey. You have no critical thinking (12+ / 0-)

              applied to nuclear power, or at least you've never exhibited it. You're more like a committed propagandist for it, given your track record.

              You have dodged evidence which counters your claims repeatedly in your diaries on the topic, simply not addressing it by either changing the topic, shifting the goalposts, or launching an ad hominem.

              I'll remind you of your claim that TMI caused no damage, and your refusal to deal with the fact that government falsified the data pdf starting at pg 199 to the extent of firing Penn's Secretary of Health when he insisted figures be released. Nor do you deal with the fact that the judge hearing lawsuits threw out evidence supporting the plaintiffs, including Sternglass', and then ruled there was no evidence presented by the plaintiffs.  

              Well, of course, officially, there was no increase in suffering if the officials are preventing data from being published, and deny it open hearing.

              Instead of interjecting yourself into a diary you admit you didn't really read, why don't you write an essay on how Depleted Uranium has caused no problems. Write it in Falluja.

              You might skim reams of paper, but you've got special glasses on which hide what's right in front of your eyes.

              The fact remains, if the shit was reliably safe and reliably profitable the industry wouldn't require anything like the Price-Andersen act. But they do. But they do. They do. You can't make that go away.

              But I'll not be helping you to distract from the diary any further. I know you'll offer only the evasions and partial data you always do in your, almost cult-like, devotion to the topic.


              Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

              by Jim P on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:35:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK then. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yuriwho, Jake Johnson, erush1345, gzodik

                Like I said, initially, I reserve the right to ignore tripe.

                The dangerous fossil fuel waste dumped by the electronic garbage generated while air heads argue endlessly about whether or not TMI was the worst energy disaster in US history, or even PA history has killed far more people than TMI ever did.

                Consider your, um, "data" ignored.

                I really, really, really, really, really refuse to dignify the claim that Three Mile Island wiped out Harrisburg, or has caused the same level of suffering that a half hour of air pollution from a traffic jam on the 405 freeway in the last week with much of a response.

                Even though I decline to engage in an anti-intellectual debate with you, I really do wish you to have a nice day.

            •  If you are indeed (4+ / 0-)

              reading primary scientific literature, it must be a very selective  list.   You've apparently skipped over the articles that don't support your point of view, particularly the ones relating to nuclear waste.  No one has solved the massive problem of safely and effectively disposing of materials that seep into ground water and aquifers, creating dangers that have not yet been quantified.

              The gas explosion, the tsunami, the dam, the earthquake itself that you mistakenly equate with the nuclear power plant situation, are all highly visible and  self-limiting in their destructive force.  Nuclear waste is not.   Its effects are not readily visible and  its destruction quietly continues.

              Since you illustrate by your comments that you are unfamiliar with the research work of the association of Concerned Scientists, I suggest you expand your reading.  

              •  I have discussed used nuclear fuel at length (7+ / 0-)

                on this website, and have written very many diaries about the chemistry, for instance, of neptunium, cesium, strontium, plutonium and technetium.

                Almost all of these diaries have reference to the primary scientific literature.

                I am a regular reader of many journals, including, but not limited to Energy and Fuels, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Annals of Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Journal of Nuclear Materials, Science of the Total Environment, Environmental Science and Technology and others.

                I have referenced many of these journals in my diaries here.

                It is true that this reading list suggests a bias, but I do not apologize for the bias involved, since it is well supported.   I began to read many of this type of literature from the position of being an anti-nuke.

                I feel deeply ashamed of my past - decades ago - as an anti-nuke.  Basically, I feel that in participating in that intellectual nonsense, I was responsible in some small way for the many of tens of millions of deaths associated with dangerous fossil fuel waste during my life time.  My mind was changed as part of a scientific inquiry into the events surrounded by Chernobyl.

                I have also described in some detail in this space something called the "Bateman equation," which is the primary equation governing the behavior of used nuclear fuels.

                This equation, which is a differential equation, demonstrates the asymptotic accumulation of radionuclides, which I would like to suggest, critics of nuclear energy know absolutely nothing about.

                Here is a link to the Bateman equation.

                One cannot intelligently discuss used nuclear fuels without reference to this equation and at least a generalized familiarity with it.

                Many tens of thousands of highly educated scientists and engineers in cultures around the world have worked with this equation.

                I might suggest that you, um, haven't.

                I have heard claims like yours many times, and note that your claims are accompanied by no references.     I dismiss them out of hand.

                •  Look matey. (5+ / 0-)

                  Its all well and good to have an opinion, write your diaries  and reference till kingdom come.

                  That does not give you the mandate to come and shit on this lovely diary with your less than acceptable attitude. Neither does the fact that you allegedly read these journals make you an expert on the subject in this diary.

                  Now... don't you have some referencing to do or something?

                  I love me peektures and that is that! Cheerleaders till 2016

                  by matrix on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:47:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ..oops ... should not give you the mandate (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive, neroden

                    I love me peektures and that is that! Cheerleaders till 2016

                    by matrix on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:54:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Look matey. (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    yuriwho, erratic, erush1345, alain2112, gzodik

                    The diary references the earthquake in Japan, Indian Point and disease states.

                    Your claim that it is a "lovely" diary is an opinion.

                    I think otherwise.   Irrespective of the events in Japan at the nuclear power plant, people do die, and will die from dangerous fossil fuel waste.

                    In fact, millions of them die every year.   My point, whether you get it or not, is that nuclear energy need not be perfect, nor risk free, nor need it satisfy the whining of every person who holds contempt for science to be superior, vastly superior, to everything else.

                    It only needs to be superior, vastly superior, to everything else.

                    There's nothing "lovely" about any of this.    Selective attention is, um, toxic.    My sig line says it.

                    Got it?

                    No?

                    I.  Couldn't.   Care.   Less.

                    •  If you couldn't care less (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mahakali overdrive, neroden

                      why are you here? Apart from wanting to stir trouble.

                      Clearly, your views and opinions are not valued here and neither are they welcome.  If it pains you, that Mahakali has received so much praise (oh I doubt you could touch  that  ...superior knowledge or not ) maybe you could benefit from learning a thing or two from this diary.

                      1. Stop being obnoxious and butting in peoples' diaries
                      2. Be courteous

                       Now seeing as you have nothing of interest to contribute in this diary I suggest you troll away.

                      I love me peektures and that is that! Cheerleaders till 2016

                      by matrix on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:17:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What's strange is that I've been trying (13+ / 0-)

                        to look for all this data online, because when I wrote this, I wasn't seeking to establish causation for my cancer; I simply presumed that my oncologist has been telling me accurate information for the past two decades.

                        Now, in researching it, I find out that it's due to Iodine-129 and -131, primarily, both of which have been found near Indian Point, and both of which were indicated, as per a 2006 study published in a reputable medical Journal of record, as being the reason for a 45X increase in thyroid cancer in children in Chernobyl, and also, that the degree and type of cancer which I had would have had no other possible reasons that are medically acknowledged. If it had been less severe, or one form, perhaps. But it was apparently very characteristic, in that it was multiple forms, invasive but slow growing, and a type which is typical for radioactive iodine absorption. Some of this I knew, but didn't read in journals. Now I'm reading it. It's very conclusive.

                        At any rate, I find that the cancer risks of nuclear power need to be reconsidered, particularly with today's issue of Fukushima. Tokyo Reuters is currently saying up to 160 are estimated to have been exposed now to radiation. That number is low. 130,000 were evacuated.

                        http://www.reuters.com/...

                        Time will tell there. It may be up to 40 years, gauging from the fallout study cited in my NYT article linked in the diary.

                        Protests are currently underweigh in Germany. They were already planned, but the Fukushima situation has bumped protest numbers into the tens of thousands.

                        Fukushima itself is still being reported as unstable, with no cooling capacities presently working. If this is incorrect, please let me know. I'm working from Google's news database.

                        http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

                        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:40:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  idiot (0+ / 0-)

              "I am proud to be obsessed with the promotion of nuclear energy"

              Yeah you're just a "corporate whore". It seems that some scientists that can't help themselves to being corporate whores.

        •  Ummm... (22+ / 0-)

          No they are not epidemiologists. But they DO know a LOT about the rates of particular kinds of cancer. I have done cancer research and at the time was very familiar with what is rare and what is common.

          Cancer clusters, particularly of very rare forms, are a giant red flag for scientists. Problem is many industries, like the nuke industry, put a lot of political pressure to block the research of this kind of stuff. To me they are clearly scientifically interesting. They might teach us about genetic disorders or dietary  links to diseases or about toxicity from an industry. As long as industry puts political pressure to block such studies I find them suspect. It's like the tobacco industry blocking and conducting misleading studies about the risk of smoking or global warming denialist "studies." The nuke industry uses many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry and that makes them suspect.

          If the nuke industry wanted us to trust them they would be far more upfront and far more willing to investigate these very cancer clusters because it may well exonerate them. And if it didn't they could learn how to be better corporate citizens. But that isn't the approach I see them take. instead they behave like the tobacco industry and hire PR firms to lie to the public (as the Japanese nuke industry has done with accidents in the past).

          FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

          by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:38:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  wow you didn't even read the diary (6+ / 0-)

          and you think you know what it says. Ridiculous.

          I lift weights, but I don't sweat. I go for a swim, but I don't get wet.

          by rexymeteorite on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:53:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Pure hyberbolic bullshit. (5+ / 0-)
          I'm sorry you're sick, but your attempt to make future generations sick doesn't sit well with me.

          So her diary is now an attempt to make future generations sick because she is undermining the clap harder nuclear power cheering section? You can't be bothered to read the dairy your commenting on?

          HR'd for trolling.

        •  Well, if you know science as well as you claim to (5+ / 0-)

          then you would know that DNA damage causes cancer.  And that radiation (among a lot of other things) leads to DNA damage, which in turn, causes cancer.

        •  Keep up the Good Work (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gzodik

          Statistics is a subtle business, and the untrained mind resists looking at the evidence when it conflicts with a pre-existing notion.  The natural instinct is to scream and throw excrement; to combat this urge is the reason we invest billions of dollars in education.

          Looking downstream, Joe Bob may have been around from the beginning (as I was) but in this thread he comes off as an ignorant blowhard.  Go figure.

          The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

          by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:38:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  HR'd for a personal attack. (7+ / 0-)

          Totally uncalled for and rude.

          MO, thank you for telling us your story.

          I have thyroid tumours.  Had half my thyroid removed already.  (Benign, thankfully.)

          Holding off on having the other half removed, despite the tumor.

          One of the questions asked by my specialists, because of my age (I was a child in the 1950's):  did you ever get X rays for tonsillitis when you were a kid.

          Well I sure did.  Repeatedly.  Bad thing.  The dosage then was way higher than it is now.

          Because of it, the specialists have told me there is a chance the tumors could become cancer (the cells in the tumors change a lot).  And I'll have the rest of my thyroid removed when I get up the nerve.  (Try having your throat cut for surgery and see how you like it.  Not fun.)

          This is not a theory.

          This is science.

          The reason for so many safeguards involving nuclear power is the possibility of danger to our health and lives.

          If it was totally safe, the level of safeguards used would not be needed.

          The company in Japan that owns these reactors has a history of not the best safety practices.  And perhaps not being entirely truthful about it.

          The Soviets did not admit to the Chernobyl explosion until 4 days later.

          They save face at our expense.

          That should concern us all.

          •  May you be so well, Marigold (5+ / 0-)

            I absolutely know what you've been through :(

            So very, very, very glad it was benign. Words can't convey this enough. And luckily they banned that tonsillitis x-ray business finally. That WAS giving kids thyroid cancer. No doubt. That's why they banned it, and put those big lead bibs on you at the dentist now too. My mom was... a hippie. She was kind of anti-Science and skeptical of doctors (something that I didn't really want to open up in the story, for obvious reasons). I never had throat x-rays, or much in the way of doctors visits, beyond a visit to the pediatrician maybe every other year. She was so paranoid, she probably had the first radon detector! We had to sit six feet from the TV. Do you remember the type? It's a bit of a holdover now.

            Every word you said resonates with me. And of course it's not a Theory. Pretty wild that anyone thinks that. It's well-established Science. I'm surprised I've had to explain it at all.

            BUT there are still people who advocate for all kinds of anti-Scientific views, or others who won't look at the prevailing wisdom of another researcher because they themselves are researchers and don't have the data in front of them. Well, okay. That's fine. I guess.

            May you be very well and have no more thyroid woes!

            "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

            by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:39:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If (0+ / 0-)

          If you don't like Greenpeace, then you can take to redstate.

        •  The funniest thing about this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive, neroden

          is NNadir's sig -  

          Ignorance kills

          After having made a statement that because 2 people this person knows have died from cancer:

          They are a specialist in oncology

          and

          Cancer cannot possibly be caused by radiation from nuclear plants because one of these two people had no vices.

          Non-sequitur, much?

      •  honey, read NNadir's profile and blogroll (5+ / 0-)

        and  you know that  guy has a strange fascination with the f(uck) orbitals and a puerile opinion that the future matters in addition he is of the opinion that ignorance kills and talks about himself in the third person and thinks he is mildly amusing.  

        It's an old handle with a mission that is not amusing. Ignore him.

    •  oil sucks too (10+ / 0-)

      just ask the folks down in the gulf.  As for the dam, at least it won't leave radioactive crap around for the next 300 years.

      Remember the thing about sending men to the moon but not being able to...?  How about cleaning up our energy generation, and getting efficient in usage?  It could be done, but that would take some political will, some good will, and some plain old will.  

      There was a great article in Scientific American a couple of years ago, outlining a feasible plan to generate enough electricity to satisfy current domestic demand using solar power farms in the southwest.  Oh, but that would require gov't investment and hurt entrenched private interests, so forget that.  Back to the nukes...

    •  anxiety attack? (10+ / 0-)

      read the whole diary next time, moron.

      "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!" - The Shoveler

      by Pandoras Box on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:08:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, NNadir, fuck off! (10+ / 0-)

      Complete lies about the diary. I can't believe you have any uprates for this shit.

      It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

      by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:22:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree with NNadir too but it's not HR'able (9+ / 0-)

        Being rude and condescending is not HR'able.

        We should tolerate some degree of aggressive interchange to encourage a fuller dialog about the use of nuclear power. Scientists, Democrats and progressives are all divided on this issue, it's both  controversial and emotional.

        Especially today, with the situation in Japan and our current President's support for more nuclear power plants here, this is an opportunity to dig deeper.

        •  Rude and condescending is in the (4+ / 0-)

          same spectrum as trolling. Its a matter of degrees and venues.

          In this diary NNadir is a troll IMO.

          •  NNadir is often a troll (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, OtherDoug, esquimaux, kck

            but, also, often correct. :( He has alot to say, but he should take a more conciliatory tone. I have seen him on DK for many years now, and I can understand how a constant refighting of the same battle over and over can cause bitterness and anger. But this is a political debate, not a scientific one, and you have to convince people, not bludgeon their article to death with a bad peer review.

            •  Well telling me that (5+ / 0-)

              I am an anti-nuclear activist trying to pass myself off as a pro didn't exactly win me over. He started at "liar" and descended from their. After that I decided not to engage him in further debate but instead reserve my criticism of his behavior to donut donations. I don't have any reason to engage him in a reasonable debate after he labeled me a Luddite.

            •  He's not careful about people sensibilities (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erratic, 2dimeshift, erush1345, technomage

              but he knows the topic of Nuclear Energy better than any scientist I have spoken with. Do not dismiss him as a troll, he has a lot to teach us.

              we are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place <- Me

              by yuriwho on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:32:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I would be willing to learn (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive, yuriwho

                had he not labeled me as a nuclear power hater over my objections to the contrary. He seems like a clap louder type to me and like to cast derision on anyone that is not completely in support of his clear superiority. (Simply agreeing with him while holding a mildly divergent opinion is simply unacceptable and idiotic). My big take-away is not to get so hyper-focused on one subject so as to present myself as the poster child of a raving fanatic on the subject I purport to hold dear.

                •  Yes, it's hard to have a reasonable conversation (0+ / 0-)

                  with him, but he knows this subject better than anyone else here and has the data and links to support it. Read some of his diaries from the last 4-5 years.

                  we are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place <- Me

                  by yuriwho on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:42:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  if he were interested in teaching (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                yuriwho, Matt Z, Timaeus, neroden

                he'd be a completely different person. Instead he pontificates and insults. He may not be a troll but he's an asshole.

                "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" - John Adams

                by esquimaux on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:42:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  IMHO (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            technomage, gzodik, ladybug53, Mcrab

            NNadir's remarks were neither rude nor condescending.  He made some balanced remarks that were germane to the discussion.

            In response he was gobsmacked with a wave of ignorant vitriol.  It's the pot calling the typing paper black.  Some people need to back away from the keyboard and settle down before they post again.

            The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

            by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:53:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh that is just total bullshit! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux

              "Balanced remarks" that were "germane"? WTF?

              Apparently you yourself also didn't even bother to read the diary.

              Oh, and fuck off with the attempts to condescend. You're not even remotely competent to attempt that.

              It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

              by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:20:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  IMHO (0+ / 0-)

                You, Timaeus, are one of the people who needs to step away from the computer and settle down before you post again.

                This endless, petty squabbling between progressives helps to keep the Republicans in power.  None of us want that, right?

                The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:51:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not a "progressive" and neither are you. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm a Democrat. And I stand on my comment above.

                  Step away from the computer? Fuck off.

                  It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

                  by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:03:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Quite the Gallic Cock (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, step away from the computer and settle down.  When all you do is mutter insults, you fail to present yourself as a reasonable and intelligent participant in the conversation.

                    As an aside, I am comfortable with many identifiers: Progressive, Democrat, Social Democrat.  I can even work with Liberal, if we all take care to define our terms.  When you quibble over such a trivial matter, you identify yourself as a Pillock.

                    To get back on point, why don't we turn our ire on the bad guys: the Republican Menace to the American Way of Life.  I am sure that you, as a Democrat,  can get on board with this program.

                    The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                    by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:18:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Gallic Cock? (0+ / 0-)

                      Ha ha. I mean, really, ha ha ha ha ha.

                      I fart in your general direction, you fool.

                      It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

                      by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:32:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Philology (0+ / 0-)

                        The gallic cock stands on his dung hill and brays of his self assured superiority.  Your ignorance of this simple bit of English discourse merely confirms the impression that you have endeavored to create.

                        As to farting in my general direction, the lads were on the cutting edge of humor - three decades ago.  Gimps like yourself have reduced their genius into dung such as that upon which you stand.

                        The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                        by alain2112 on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 07:25:14 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I agree - there was a lot of name calling (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive, alain2112

              that does not show us at our best.  I certainly disagree with the man's opinions, and I have great sympathy for MO, but I don't need to call him names or use swear words!

          •  Not true - read the FAQ (0+ / 0-)

            Besides, sometimes the person with the right information is unsociable. There are times it is more important to learn the facts than for your feelings to stay unruffled...would you want to silence all of those angry people?

            •  Quite right, but NNadir gave up on facts... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              ...quite a long time back.  He has absolutely no interest in reading any facts about solar power, for instance.  He really likes the idea that it's "never going to be enough", so nothing you show him will dissaude him from that viewpoint.

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:15:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Commenting without reading (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive, neroden

          general stupidity unworthy of the community

          and mostly for unfounded bullshit opinions, which if propagated will do us all harm.

          I've done a lot of thinking this week about our response to ignorant, yet widely-voiced opinions on issues that we care about.  In the past we've tended to toss out a rebuttal then attempt to ignore people saying crazy shit about labor, the environment, freedom, the class war, etc.

          I've changed my mind.  These opinions are what's driving the country (into the ditch), and it's time to counter them as strongly as possible anywhere they can be found.

          This is not to say that people can't disagree, but to do so without logic or facts, based on nonsense -  that's no longer acceptable.

        •  NNadir is HRable on sight at this point. (0+ / 0-)

          He's stopped actually reading anything (hell, he actually admitted that) and simply pops up to shill for nuclear power.  He adds nothing to any discussion (hence, hide rating) and spends his time disrupting.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:14:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You need reading glasses, therapy wouldn't (6+ / 0-)

      hurt either.

      “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

      by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:27:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Insinuations of mental problems are HRable (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        the fan man, Mcrab, alain2112

        ask Meteor Blades.

        Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

        by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:46:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I would never insinuate such a thing. Others (6+ / 0-)

          may see him as arrogant, judgmental, insensitive and self righteous. (I noticed he hasn't apologized, but has redoubled his taunts. May I add adolescent.) Therapy helps many individuals, not just those labeled mentally ill, but your point is well taken. I shall refrain from casting aspersions on the good name of this fine, upstanding community member and apologize for any transgressions I may have made in the pursuit of making a point.

          “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

          by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:07:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erratic, gzodik

            "... arrogant, judgmental, insensitive and self righteous."

            I think of him more as irascible.  He seems to easily become fed up with irrational bullshit, especially as it relates to fears of nuclear power that are out of proportion relative to the risks of other energy sources.  I also believe he is passionate about the threat posed by CO2 and that part of what drives his anger is seeing the continued destruction of the planet on which his children will have to live.

            Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

            by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:22:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He makes good points and beats himself (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              over the head with it. I'm sure he's just a fun loving guy, but when he tells a cancer survivor she suffered from anxiety and can't say "I'm sorry", I'd say he has an issue. Don't you? He is also hyper focused on one solution, all others are simply beneath contempt.

              I don't think what he wrote is HRable, neither do I think what I wrote is either. Now I have to walk my dogs and pick up some real shit.

              “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

              by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:30:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't want to pull a long range (0+ / 2-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                kbman, alain2112

                diagnosis but a particular type of autism comes to mind. I try to give him the benefit of a doubt.

                •  I can't go there, I don't think it's (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive

                  fair unless in a private message. If I wanted to get that involved, I would, but that can be intrusive and antagonistic as well. I can only call'em on the posts.

                  “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

                  by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:29:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  DID YOU NOT JUST READ (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Jake Johnson, alain2112, gzodik

                  That insinuations of mental health problems are HRable?  Have a donut.

                  Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                  by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:53:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wasn't insinuating anything. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive

                    I was not responding to anyone in particular. Hypersensitive much? You were looking for an excuse to throw a donut, you seem to think you found it. Lucky you.

                  •  Concurred and HR'd n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                    by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:57:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My comment was not intended as (0+ / 0-)

                      an insult nor was it expressed as a reduction of NNadir's point of view or person. I don't know NNadir and I don't think (based on our exchanges) that I am ever likely to know him. I have no idea what his mental condition may be and I was making no claim to having such knowledge. The pattern of his comments and his attitude towards others is suggestive but in no way diminishes his knowledge or the pertinence of his valid points. It is however distracting and hard to see past.

                      I agree that we need to look at the substance of his posts,some of which are very obnoxious.

                      •  Look in the Mirror (0+ / 0-)

                        Your lead paragraph is a pile of passive-aggressive faux reasonableness.  Your closing sentence is a clear provocation.

                        Settle down, and think before you post.  This will minimise your chances of earning the HR.

                        As to NNadir's diaries on nuclear power, I find them to be technically competent and reasonably argued.  You find them to be obnoxious.  I guess we disagree.  Where I am wrong, please demonstrate my error; I find that this helps me to become smarter.

                        Now, let's all get on with the important business of rolling back the Republican tide.

                        The White Race can not survive without dairy products - Herbert Hoover (-8.75,-8.36)

                        by alain2112 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:06:56 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  His diaries may be very illuminating in (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Terri, zett

                          regards to nuclear power. He may be an unmitigated genius but he is also obnoxious.

                          Please stand by and explain this comment:

                          I'm sorry you're sick, but your attempt to make future generations sick doesn't sit well with me.

                          He is stating that mahakali is actually attempting to hurt future generations by merely posting her story here. You are stating that this is a rational viewpoint? Really?

                          If you state anything negative about any part of the production of nuclear power you are the enemy of all life on earth according to NN. This is a completely irrational position wouldn't you agree?

                          I tried having a discussion with him about one of those negative aspects several weeks ago. He went from 0 to I'm an anti-nuclear power hater in 1/10 of a comment. There is being a proponent and then there is being NN who thinks it's his job to shout down anyone with the slightest doubt about the safety of any aspect of nuclear power production.

                •  Hr'd for the reference to autism. (0+ / 0-)

                  I HR'd the commenter because he was making a personal attack, which has no place here.

                  We can disagree and be civil about it.

    •  Well (23+ / 0-)

      As long as the nuke industry dismisses public concerns as hysteria, lies about risks, lies about what happens (like the Japanese industry has many times), downplays the role of green energy, downplays its own costs, risks and tax subsidies, and basically acts like anyone who doesn't trust them implicitly is by definition a fool, then no one will trust them.

      Also your statement here indicates you don't pay attention:

      I have yet to see any person of your type arguing against dams, oil refineries or buildings.

      There are considerable outcries against large scale dams and oil refineries and against buildings that are seen as an undue risk to the neighborhood. And your use of "your type" won't go over well either. Though I admit I have a wrong tendency to lump honest nuke advocates who openly admit the risks with nuke apologists who distort. I try to avoid that and enjoy engaging with the former.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

      by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:28:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You really should have (11+ / 0-)

      read the diary before you responded. It is very well written and worth the read.

      ay oh whey oh, walk like an Egyptian

      by greycat on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:33:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've heard this crap before, since 1954 (17+ / 0-)

      In fact, as testified before Congress in 1998 about the obvious weather map being identical to the pattern of cancers across the country:

      We should learn from past mistakes.
          The mistake in this case was one of proceeding with
      terribly intrusive and risky actions before enough was
      understood about all the uncertainties surrounding the
      activity.

      The highest rates - from Nevada test sites to New England- come from ingesting milk from cows grazing in fallout stricken fields after >90 atom bomb tests at the Nevada test site. Thus, the federal governments CYA strategy of a "war on cancer" to get a head start on the estimated 80,000 cases to result from the downwind radioactive fallout. They knew early on that at least thousands of infants and children throughout America had received thyroid doses putting them at substantially greater risk for thyroid cancer and other thyroid diseases

      The science and technology are not the problems, it's the people, Republican budgeting, corporate short cuts, and disaster preparedness that are the problems.

      The future of the planet is a concern for all of us, as are our health and safety.

      •  That NYT article is a must-read (13+ / 0-)
        The institute gave data on paper to some members of Congress showing, among other things, that at times the milk supply in various places, including New York City, had enough radioactive iodine in it to require that it be discarded. There was no warning at the time. The main pathway for thyroid exposure was cows grazing on contaminated grass, and incorporating the iodine into milk that was fed to children.

        I was not far from NYC...

        Going to add a link to this in the diary. This really, really gets to my issue with long-term damages that take decades to see.

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:20:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  In my family (10+ / 0-)

        we had a 'cluster' of thyroid cancer among certain family members.  Turns out those afflicted were all living near St. George, Utah in the 1950's.

        I recall my mom's uncle telling us about how at the time the government and men of science assured them there was nothing for them to worry about (regarding the bomb tests in Nevada).  They had a belittling and patronizing attitude towards people, much like this NNadir fellow.

        •  The blasts were a Today Show TV event in the '60s (7+ / 0-)

          We'd all watch them like Shuttle launches today and the sci guy would explain how it was perfectly safe. Then we'd go to school and have "duck and cover" drills.

          No one here is equating nuclear bomb tests with nuclear power plants. However, the inescapable equivalency between then and now is our cavalier attitude with the common good, our refusal to learn lessons, and, as you say, patronizing and belittling the worries Americans have with government assurances when it come to risking our own health and safety.

    •  HR Abuse by Timaeus and greycat (7+ / 0-)

      You may disagree with what NNadir has written, that is not grounds for an HR.  

      Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

      by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:49:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not true (14+ / 0-)

        He accused her of having an anxiety attack and clearly didn't read the damn diary.  The whole comment is an uncalled for attack on the diarist, not any sort of attempt to discuss the issue.

        I refuse to represent my political beliefs using numbers. It isn't accurate, nor is it helpful. But I'm around a -10 on both scales.

        by AoT on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:07:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't an attack on the diarist (5+ / 0-)

          It was an attack on irrationality.  The diarist has leaped to the conclusion that her cancer was caused by Indian Point and that her and others experiences mean that all nuclear plants should be shut down.  NNadir has challenged that view by pointing out the hypocrisy of being alarmed over nuclear risks while ignoring the risks of other forms of energy.

          It was also a direct response to the diarist's title.  She ASKED him to say it to her face.  And he did.  Furthermore, the anxiety attack to which he refers is likely the one which compelled her to write this diary.

          Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

          by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:43:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She jumped to what conclusion? (6+ / 0-)

            The one that she was told by her oncologist?  Because if you or the original commenter had read the diary you'd know that was why she said it was the plant, not just because she is scared of nuclear power.

            I refuse to represent my political beliefs using numbers. It isn't accurate, nor is it helpful. But I'm around a -10 on both scales.

            by AoT on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:02:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You'll note that in another post NNadir (8+ / 0-)

              also responded to the notion that her oncologist would be able to tell her that her cancer was definitively caused by Indian Point.  This issue has been addressed in multiple subthreads in this diary.  Regardless of who first did the leaping, it is an unsupportable conclusion.  

              And you know what?  Even if it were true that her cancer could be directly connected to Indian Point, and that there were thousands of such cancers around the world, nuclear power STILL would be a cleaner power source than coal or oil.  Coal plants spew more radioactive materials every day than most nuclear plants do in their lifetime.  According to epidemiological studies this airborn material causes tens of thousands of extra cancers and premature deaths every year.  But they're not as noticeable due to their ubiquity and people's general lack of scientific knowledge and understanding.

              Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

              by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:14:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, I see (10+ / 0-)

                You want to support nuclear power even if it kills a few kids because the only available other energy option is coal. We can't alter our energy consumption habits or discuss the dangers of nuclear power since then we will use more coal. An either-or binary, don't you think? Wouldn't you like to find a solution that didn't cause any children any cancer at all?

                Of course you would.

                So let's have a conversation, then, about how to achieve that.

                "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:31:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The numbers don't add up for most (7+ / 0-)

                  renewables.  The amount and reliability of power available simply is not sufficient for the needs of society, at least not unless we drop way back in our energy usage.  These other sources also have their costs and risks.  The exotic metals needed for high tech batteries, magnets, and other components of efficient wind turbine systems have their own health risks and environmental costs.  Hydro has well-established environmental costs with its destruction of ecosystems.  Solar cells use many of the same exotic materials as the other high tech stuff.  All of these materials present cancer risks to the workers who mine these materials, people who live in those areas, and to the workers who fabricate these devices.  Furthermore, even the most optimistic of the technical people working with renewables acknowledge that there are still hurdles in storage and distribution which require as yet undeveloped solutions.  

                  Again, you demonize nuclear without recognizing the risks and costs associated with the renewables you've embraced or the practical problems regarding the amount of power needed versus what can be achieved by these means.

                  I'm sorry for you that you experienced cancer and am glad that you recovered.  But to hold the belief that nuclear power is to blame and that it should be banished is, I believe, short-sighted and uninformed.

                  Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                  by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:14:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You seem very committed (9+ / 0-)

                    to nuclear power.

                    Unfortunately, if you look at the second comment in my diary, you'll perhaps see the correlation made not by me, but by my oncologist, and also, there by other legitimate medical sources.

                    If you can say this:

                    Again, you demonize nuclear without recognizing the risks  

                    Then I can simply respond with:

                    Again, you lionize nuclear without recognizing the risks.

                    Now go read about those forms of cancer which are known only to occur from radioactive exposure and then get back to me, okay?

                    Because we need to be sure that we're all in good understanding about why this deserves adequate discussion and serious consideration. The last thing anyone wants to do is be well-meaning but in support of dangerous solutions. That would go for me as well as you.

                    "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                    by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:29:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm committed to a planet that supports life (5+ / 0-)

                      And I see the belief that we can get rid of fossil fuels without the use of nuclear as being nothing more than magical thinking.  It is akin to believing that you can fill a warm bath using a 2 oz squirt gun.

                      I also believe that we should be transitioning from using uranium to using thorium.  The reactors are far less complex, much safer, and have many positive attributes.  The spent fuel is safe for extended human contact within a few hundred years, as opposed to the thousands of years with conventional spent fuel.  Furthermore, they can be configured to also burn up existing spent fuel and reduce its long term radioactivity.  They also run hot enough to be able to extract fresh water from sea water - something that could become increasingly important as our fresh water supply becomes increasingly fouled and privatized.

                      I doubt we'll ever agree on these issues, but I do wish you the best.  

                      Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                      by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:08:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well then how did we survive (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mrkvica, esquimaux, princss6

                        until 1954, when the very first nuclear power plant was opened?

                        Apparently we could not, or else did not, live until then. Apparently pre-1954 is 'magical thinking.'

                        They used to also say that those old reactors were safe. They wouldn't have made them otherwise.

                        And thus our disagreement.

                        I wish you the best as well. Obviously and of course.

                        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:56:12 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  With incredibly dirty skies and burning rivers (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          OtherDoug, Mcrab

                          We also had less than half the population then that we have now.

                          Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                          by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:31:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So then would it not be logical (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            esquimaux, kbman, CA TreeHugger, princss6

                            to advocate for increased population control as a viable part of our solution?

                            It would be, and should be, part of the advocacy anyone dealing with environmental issues foregrounds. Thanks for reminding me of this!

                            "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                            by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:26:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Google "demographic transition". (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kbman, Mcrab

                            Population growth rates drop when a country reaches a level of development where having more children is not necessary for the family's survival.  Getting to that level of development usually takes a lot of power.  The UK did it with coal.  The US did it with coal, hydro and nuclear.  The Japanese have done it with even more nuclear.

                            If we want the rest of the world to get to the point where their population growth rates drop we need to help them get access to large amounts of power.  We could do it with fossil fuels, but that will cause us a whole lot of grief very soon.  We might be able to do it with renewables, but not for decades and maybe not ever.  We could start doing it immediately with nuclear technology that we now have.

                  •  Ever heard of peak uranium? nt (0+ / 0-)

                    Barbara Lee and Howard Dean Speak for me! -9.25 -9.18

                    by laurak on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:44:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ever hear of thorium? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mcrab, OtherDoug
                      Many of us have discussed this "Thorium Grand Plan" and view it as a true "thorium bullet" to solves the worlds energy needs. I will use this space to discuss to the issues of this "thorium bullet" or "Thorium Grand Plan" or, as I like to put it "Toward a Thorium Economy". But Charles' initiation to develop such a plan, regardless of what it is called, should be taken up by all those that want to see coal and natural gas phased out of electrical generation and a world of almost limitless energy ushered in. Of course this thinking is counter to what most climate activists and environmental lobbyists would have us believe. Rather, they believe that any form of fission should be "Verboten", and that we "need to use less, not more energy". We beg to differ, of course.

                      from davidwalters diary, The World of Thorium Energy

                      Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                      by kbman on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:17:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  untrue (4+ / 0-)

                We as yet have no clear idea of how much long term damage is caused by nuclear power--specifically its waste products that seep into ground water and underground aquifers.  You  cannot say with any degree of credibility that nuclear power is a cleaner energy source than coal or oil.  

                Please stop using the specious arguments  set forth by the nuclear power industry.  We are neither blind nor fools.    

                •  The only issue with underground aquifers (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ebohlman, Mcrab, erush1345, OtherDoug

                  has been small amounts of tritium, or more precisely tritiated water.  The concentrations in the test wells at plants with tritium problems have all been well within guidelines of every health organization in the world.  You would get more radioactive material eating a banana than from drinking a glass of water from one of these wells.  Everything we eat has radioactive carbon, a beta emitter on par with tritium.  Radioactive Potassium is also present in most foods.  Being concerned over trace levels of tritium simply because they come from a nuclear power plant is EXACTLY the kind of irrationality and lack of a sense of perspective that frustrates me with anti-nukes.

                  Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                  by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:20:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, untrue (7+ / 0-)

                    Radioactive waste into aquifers has not been throughly studied.  And it's happened within a much shorter time scale than expected (e.g., leakage from the waste storage site at West Valley, New York, south of Buffalo).  All containers and containments—whether alloy tanks, ceramics, fused glass, salt domes, or geologic formations—will leak eventually.  It is only a matter of time.  But we don't have sufficient data yet to say its "the only issue" as you do.

                    A serious problem here is your instant dismissal of any information contrary to what you  hold as examples of "irrationality."   Too much is as yet UNKNOWN--and that is caution speaking, not irrationality--about the long term effects of nuclear waste.   Until the problem of effective and safe disposal is solved we should not be building more plants.

                    •  West Valley is part of the legacy (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      erush1345, OtherDoug

                      of the early days of nuclear power.  It is in the process of decommissioning and the problems there are being addressed.  There are far worse problems in Idaho which threaten to reach the Columbia River.  These were a legacy of WWII and the cold war, not commercial nuclear power.

                      As far as wastes associated with nuclear power, it makes a lot of sense to transition to thorium as a power source and liquid salt reactors to burn it.  The spent fuel from this type of reactor is safe for handling within a few centuries, not thousands of years like conventional spent fuel.  In addition, these reactors can be configured to burn up spent fuel.  In addition to extracting more of the available energy from existing spent fuel, these reactors can also reduce its long term danger.  Also, there is already enough thorium in storage to supply world energy needs for decades if not centuries.  It was not pursued in the 1960's because it didn't make good bomb stuff and the military wanted commercial nukes to also be backup plutonium makers.  Time to revisit that equation.

                      Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                      by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:30:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Moreover, I expressed clearly (9+ / 0-)

              that it was my oncologist's probable opinion. Nowhere did I state that my oncologist said it was absolutely the reason, nor would he likely state such a thing. It was his, and the group of other doctors and researchers, opinion collectively, at a research hospital, a teaching hospital, that this was the most probable cause for this type of cancer, and that they had seen other cases that were similar in my area. Since I've been in regular contact with my oncologist for two decades, and since he's credentialed like crazy, presumably he had some reason for telling us this. It was certainly during a time when radiation's effects on children would have been at the forefront of any oncologist's or epidemiologist's consciousness, given that it was a bit after Chernobyl. It was enough that my mother hired an attorney and wanted to sue Indian Point, at any rate. But we didn't have money like that (though she had a bit then, who has that much?)

              Now, my decision to share my story today, despite it being intensely painful to psychically "go there," was because the Fukushima situation, and how relevant the discussion about the safety of nuclear power still does strike me today.

              Although more and more we don't talk about it, because we're more scared, I think, of climate change. Nevertheless, we should be talking about it precisely because we need to address climate change in a viable way. And many people simply don't feel that nuclear power is that solution. So what is? We need to be talking about that. Strategically.

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:23:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A statement like "Fuck Nuclear Power" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deward Hastings, Jake Johnson, gzodik

                is going to cause alot of people to come here and comment aggressively, and invite some very personal challenges to your story and ideas.

                •  Okay... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mrkvica, esquimaux, CA TreeHugger, Matt Z

                  That's really unfortunate.

                  Fuck nuclear power!

                  Although I'm not sure what, in that, would cause my personal story to be challenged. I can see why it might cause my ideology, my Scientific basis of support for my views, or my championship for alternative energy forms and a reduced energy use to be challenged (by who, I don't know, given that all of these are quite well documented -- other than my ideology, naturally).

                  Personal attacks only distract from ideological dissent. Certainly we can discuss things on that basis, can we not?

                  I see no reason not to speak like reasonable adults on this integral matter.

                  "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:33:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, how about this (5+ / 0-)

                    Fuck nuclear power, except for all the alternatives which also have major problems

                    You can be pro-nuclear and still anti-fossil fuel, for decreased energy consumption, for a greener world in every way. But the kernel of a liberal pro-nuke advocate is based on the numbers required for a world with 10 billion people expecting an American or European standard of living. It is not this false dichotomy of "greens vs corporate shills" that seemed to be the rallying cry in the 1970s. It is so much more complicated. I can agree with you on everything else and still think that nuclear technology is a good idea.

                    You are making some very strong claims about causation. Other people are extending these claims into conspiracy theories about suppressed research and evil corporate control of the government. There are alot of moving parts in this discussion, and the momentum seems to be increasing towards confrontation (e.g. this diary) and away from calm discussion of the situation and the future.

                    •  Interesting (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, mrkvica, esquimaux, zett, Matt Z
                      Other people are extending these claims into conspiracy theories about suppressed research and evil corporate control of the government.

                      Well, not much in the way of C/T's when you're talking about companies caught red-handed, like PG&E, BP, and the entire tobacco industry.

                      Where have I created a false dichotomy between "greens vs. corporate shills." I've already been publicly accused once of being a corporate shill for the pharmaceutical industry and am pretty sensitive toward that one.

                      Also, I have only shared my personal story. Your issues with others should be taken up with them.

                      However, what I do strongly agree with in your statement is this:

                      But the kernel of a liberal pro-nuke advocate is based on the numbers required for a world with 10 billion people expecting an American or European standard of living.

                      My reaction to that is that American and European living standards require too much energy use in general, and that we can achieve better standards of living while limiting our own use while concomitantly creating alternative energy forms. The ease of reducing energy use is an almost painful oversight in this debate, particularly in countries that rely on heavy amounts of globalized import, monoculture, and other non-sustainable, non-local practices (for starters). There are a lot of energy reduction models that both the US and Europe could implement if they were so inclined, without any reduction in our lifestyles -- compared with the lifestyle reduction we face when we accept global warming as a conceivable option.

                      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:10:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Insinuating a mental condition is HRable (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive
            Furthermore, the anxiety attack to which he refers is likely the one which compelled her to write this diary.

            Yeah somebody mentioned that upthread I think.

          •  Are you bringing baggage to the discussion? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            I don't have an history on this site for this topic, so I am reading this diary and these comments with fresh eyes.

            You claim that NNadir was "attacking irrationality"

            But really, this is what was said:

            The diarist relates the story of undergoing treatment for a number of cancers in her youth, and the opinion of her doctors that there was a cancer cluster in her area and that it was related to the power plant.

            NNadir attacks the diarist's statements with:

            I think I know something about oncologists. (14+ / 3-)

            Both of my parents died from cancer.

            and

            My mother had no vices - other than being married to a smoker - but got a brain tumor anyway.

            The first statement is patently ridiculous and the second is a non-sequitur.  NNAdir may have some reasoned rebuttal to make on this subject, but this clearly isn't it.

            As someone who has not been previously involved in discussions on the safety of nuclear energy here, I find your support of this rebuttal and your statement that this rebuttal "attacks irrationality" to be utterly ridiculous.

            •  His post that attacks irrationality is his first (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mcrab, OtherDoug

              in this diary, the post about cancer is one in which he is making the point that regardless of what environmental factors people wish to blame for cancers, there is no causality that can be established without in depth epidemiological studies.  This also touches on the irrationality of the diarist being CERTAIN that her cancer was caused by Indian Point.  It is simply not something about which certainty is possible, just like in the case of his mother.

              Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

              by kbman on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please point to where it says (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mallyroyal

                in my diary that it was certain, rather than highly probable and the opinion of other experts. Thank you for your precise citation.

                "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:12:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  1000 pardons (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive

                  Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

                  by kbman on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 02:39:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No problem, and thanks (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kbman

                    I strongly tried to make an informed, level argument here. I am in no way, no how "anti-Science." Quite the opposite. Although my research work is in the Humanities, I'm still an academic, and am devoted to solid research to inform any claim made.

                    Thus said, it's my opinion, for various reasons cited, that this was probably connected.

                    But when I wrote this diary, it wasn't my purpose to prove a connection between my cancer and this plant, but rather to express a memoir-type experience that expressed empathy with the people of Japan. And then to spark civil conversation about the costs of Nuclear Energy. I have a firm sense, I believe, of where you stand on this matter. Which is absolutely your right to hold. It is not my stance, but I hope you can equally respect mine. Which is not mired in superstition or anti-Science or anti-Governmental reactionary tendencies. It's based in how frail humankind is to control our own creations, particularly when Nature has her way. It's a Frankenstein's monster claim that many, many who have dealt with nuclear science firsthand, from Einstein to the man who worked during the 3 Mile Island disaster today posting in Forbes this afternoon to what Oppenheimer himself stated. In that, I feel secure that my views are in a camp that has a noble Scientific tradition of opposition to nuclear power.

                    We shall see. But we need not dismiss one another's many valid concerns and points in the process. I believe we can truly learn from one another on this entire matter.

                    Now let's continue to look to Fukushima, because this is where the real concern is at the moment.

                    "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                    by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:20:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  *force of habit, sorry (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kbman

                      In my academic tradition, we call all "personal claims," an "argument." I didn't mean I was advancing an argument, per se. Just my point of view. I wanted to be clear on that point.

                      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:22:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  It was the anxiety attack comment that did it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, mrkvica, Matt Z

        It's possible to disagree in a civil way. There are several good examples further down in the comments. What I hide rated was just insulting, and because it was a very personal diary it sounded like a personal attack.  He admitted he didn't really read the diary and just assumed he knew what she was saying. Certainly if he were to go back and read it and apologize for his tone I would remove the HR. Instead he has dug in deeper. I have refrained from going through and hiding all his comments.

        ay oh whey oh, walk like an Egyptian

        by greycat on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:17:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nice. (4+ / 0-)

      HR'd for the trollish

      If you're getting information from Greenpeace, there is hardly any reason to discuss the science with you.

      If that is the case why not just move along and not discuss science with us Luddites. Seems to me that you aren't looking to enlighten but only insult.

    •  you're a idiot (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      "person of your type" wtf?

    •  Another nuke booster (0+ / 0-)

      This is one who simply doesn't believe in the very real numbers about solar power, and hates hydro.  A complete nutter.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:09:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wow (13+ / 0-)

    just a stunning diary. What an advocate you are M.O!

    When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? Eleanor Roosevelt

    by IndyRobin on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:21:19 AM PST

  •  I'm trying to understand the dragon (16+ / 0-)

    These BWR reactors are as "tame" as they get - and they're still scary.

    What's unsettling is there are even safer designs available... and they're not being used. Some may be on order - designs that can automatically flood with neutron absorbing chemicals the moment an emergency is declared.. designs that don't force plant controllers to choose between running profits and ruining lives.

    But those reactors aren't present in Fukushima. They don't exist anywhere yet.

    •  Been watching a lot of tv coverage (14+ / 0-)

      Have to say, I thought it was pretty interesting that the only media source I've seen so far which has mentioned that GE was manufacturer of the reactor is the BBC. As in, not NBC or MSNBC (which are owned by what large company?)

      "I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser." Mother Jones

      by histopresto on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:28:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two things in tanden are the basis (17+ / 0-)

        of US superpower-dom - control of oil supplies and nuclear power.

        Both are dependent on rare substances from specific, dispersed locations - the raw resources, their onloading and offloading points, their refinery points, their major usage points - all are very specific places with predictable routes in between.

        The entire design of the American military paradigm is built on control of those trading lanes and blocking access to the key nodes (or destroying them) from afar and maintaining the forward bases and fleets to do so.

        If we were to go to some other power source that is more or less equally available across the planet - say, solar - a new paradigm would be needed.

        And while American information and wealth resources would give it an advantage to springboard to a new model a lot of existing and very powerful interests, civilian and military, would find their portfolios and careers inconvenienced.

        Thus - solar is a no-no with many politicians. Not because it doesn't work... rather, it does not work for them - to their specific advantage - and works too well in general.

        The fear of change is so pervasive they don't even want more efficient internal combustion and nuclear power production happening. Because if we actually had 100 mpg hybrid cars and super small scale pebble reactors about, it would be effectively the same as having an all-solar economy:

        It would work too well for the world generally - and not well enough for them specifically.

        •  Solar doesn't work for baseload power. (6+ / 0-)

          I've long been an advocate for solar, particularly building integrated solar, but it just does not work for baseload.  You have to have 100% backup, usually in the form of natural gas fired generation.

          There is potential for solar thermal with molten salt for energy storage to serve as baseload, but that requires large amounts of environmentally fragile desert land, new and unproven storage technology and massive new distribution infrastructure to move power from the US Southwest to other regions.  It's possible, but expensive and comes with a large environmental price tag.

          In the end I think the economics are what is dictating what energy infrastructure gets built.  You get a much larger and faster return on your investment for a natural gas fired generator than you do for solar, wind or nuclear.  Upgrading or expanding a coal plant is a similar situation.  Until we're willing to put a price on costs that are now externalized that situation will remain.  Solar, wind and nuclear will all be unable to compete effectively with fossil.

          •  What might prove to be the solution is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, OtherDoug

            natural gas using a system that would create pure liquid CO2 as a waste product.  That would require either storage of CO2 or perhaps turning it into something else (a biochemical process using bacteria etc. to turn it into sugar, for example).  

            As it stands now nuclear is the best of a limited set of options.  The goal should be to shift away from fossil fuels as fast as possible but keep up the pressure to create even better energy systems.  Our goal should be to have a CO2 and nuclear free power grid, the first focus must be on eliminating CO2 which means relying on nuclear in the short term.  

          •  Air pressure storage could work (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive, OtherDoug

            And no one is suggesting with current off-the-shelf tech that we should go whole-hog solar.

            That wouldn't. be. prudent.

            •  Salt dome compressed air storage? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cskendrick

              It's possible, but the economics aren't competitive with dirty coal.  Small scale compressed air storage or pumped hydro storage could work but it would more likely be for dispatchable peak power than for baseload.  Now if you could implement a carbon tax you could probably make the numbers work much better, but we know how likely that is in the US.

              There's also some good developments happening with flywheel storage and ruthenium, but they're expensive and hemmed in by limited supplies of rare earth elements.

              We just don't have a lot of options.  Since I think the highest priority should be ending fossil fuel use for power generation I end up at nuclear.

              •  Then there is the other side of the equation (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OtherDoug

                Use less energy. Generate less heat. We've hardly exhausted the economic growth potential of rewiring our infrastructure to do the same or more work with less.

                •  Efficiency measures won't power Nigeria. (0+ / 0-)

                  Efficiency is worth pursuing regardless of what generation path we choose.  Still, it only blunts demand in developed countries.  It doesn't solve the problem of providing power to developing countries that desperately need it.  If those countries don't have access to something better they will import fossil fuels, as they are doing now.  They need to develop and we don't much ability or right to stop them.

                  •  And such countries do not need nuclear reactors (0+ / 0-)

                    Since any power source will be a one-up on fossil fools.

                    •  So they should downgrade from diesel... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...to something even less reliable.

                      I don't know.  I think they need dependable baseload power.  I think that could be provided with NG generators which would be better than the diesel, oil and coal that they have now.  That still doesn't adequately deal with GHG emissions.

                      There are modular reactors that could be used in developing countries, supplied with fuel by the international Nuclear Fuel Bank.  The whole system hasn't been outlined to my knowledge, but I think it offers better potential than fossil or renewables.

                      •  I think hawking nukes today of all days (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        2dimeshift

                        is really not good PR and whoever might mistake it as such should not be allowed to advocate for it.

                        •  What right do I have to speak when it's easy... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...if I'm unwilling to speak when it's difficult.  And who are you to say who should be allowed to advocate for anything?  Really, that is a contemptible argument.

                          I don't argue these points because I'm transfixed by the technology or because I'm employed by the industry.  I make the arguments because I am convinced that coal is worse than nuclear even taking Fukushima Daiichi into consideration.  I have long advocated renewables but I've lost faith that they can be developed and deployed fast enough to slow global climate change.  It would be easy to just say "No nukes" and "Go solar" but I've studied these areas for 30 years and I've learned a lot of difficult lessons about the energy, technology and economics.

                          I am not arguing in support of the nuclear industry.  They are nursing along 40 year old technology that needs to be replaced immediately with GHG free generation.  But that won't happen if we can't develop, test, approve and build new reactors.  Those reactors will continue limping along until they fail or are replaced with coal or NG.

                          I'm not hawking anything.  It's not PR.  Damn you for putting it in those terms!

        •  it's not just our own dependency (4+ / 0-)

          it's the strategic power that comes from being able to mess with other countries' dependencies as well. were we to become independent of both sources of energy, we would not relinquish that strategy; if anything we would probably get more aggressive about it, with less exposure to fallout should supplies get "disrupted."

          thus it is in our desperate interest to get the whole world off these commodities.

        •  Americans are interested in control of uranium (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Johnson, OtherDoug

          because it's used to make bombs. This would continue to be true whether or not there are 0 or 10,000 nuclear reactors in the world. This will be true forever, there is no going back.

    •  We're tangling right now (6+ / 0-)

      so let me agree with you for a moment to de-escalate the personal attacks.

      LWRs are pretty awful, but better than coal. Everyone is starting to agree that we need something better, but that the energy density of uranium and thorium are something we cannot ignore. I think there is alot of promise for molten salt reactors, and my main point of activism right now isn't pro- or anti-LWR, it's "why aren't we trying to build an MSR."

  •  Thanks for writing this, Recomended nt (6+ / 0-)
  •  I'm so sorry to hear about your illness. (19+ / 0-)

    I was arrested at an Indian Point protest, got jail time and a big fine. The town seal has a little atom symbol, they weren't going to play footsie with protesters. Why nukes are situated near populated areas, I'll never know (I do know, transmission lines and resistance).

    Unfortunately cancer doesn't come with little tags announcing its cause, so we are left to guess: radiation, the water, the air, our food. The Hudson river towns in north Westchester and Putnam are notorious for cancer clusters. We lived in Ossining near the old wire mill. Heavy metal contamination was found all around. Radium was found in soils around an old watch factory. Near Cold Spring, there are cancer clusters supposedly due to the water. Up river there's a coal plant that drops mercury laden particles on New Hamburg near Fishkill.

    I'll think of you when I drive by Indian Point from now on.

    Take care.

    “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

    by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:25:40 AM PST

    •  Oh so did I... (13+ / 0-)

      near the old wire mill! And then in Tarrytown, and a few others along the Hudson River. You can probably see those woods in your head, the ones that I described pretty vividly (I miss them badly out here in Cali too).

      What year? I wonder if we were at that protest together? It's a small world

      Take care yourself. Thanks for thinking of me too. And for all those kids in that area. There was probably a leak in the early 80's... that's my guess. There have been a bunch since then.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:32:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's also in Rockland County, across the river (9+ / 0-)

      and much of that is likely due to pollution that hangs in the valley areas, ground-water contamination from the power plants, etc.  It's not just potential radiation leakage from Indian Point, unfortunately.

      My Mom used to chew on fresh blades of grass as a teen when walking home from school where they lived in Long Island, only to later find out that the entire field she used to cross was an illegal dumping ground for manufacturers in the region, years before.  The county in which she spent many years has long been measured above most regions in the USA for breast cancer incidence - coincidentally, she died due to complications from breast cancer in her 50s . . . in a region of NJ associated with higher cancer rates, as well.

      The Industrial Age is still here, in many ways.  Nuclear power tends to be lower on the scale of issues from what I've read, but I realize that doesn't mean it's not part of the larger problem.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:54:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh man, yes (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, the fan man, ladybug53, neroden

        it's in the grass as well. In NYC and the surrounding area (I've been on both sides of the river)... down into parts Long Island as well. In the NYT article I linked to, they mention that. I'm so sorry to hear about your mother :/

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:14:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You have no idea what contractors dumped on (6+ / 0-)

        nice farms (buy paying nice farmers) during the seventies and eighties. Asbestos, pvc, demolition debris, you name it. Just disgusting. Then there's the superfund site in E Fishkill due to IBM. People did die directly from that. Many cancers along this one idyllic little road just south of 84 by the Taconic. Some firms hired to remove the toxic waste just dumped it nearby. Lovely. Excess cancers in a development placed between two huge corn fields in Ulster county where aerial spraying has gone on for years. The list goes on and on.

        Industrial civilization has its discontents for sure.

        “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

        by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:15:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry about your mom wader. LI (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, mahakali overdrive, ladybug53

        is quite a mess. I hate going to visit my relatives there.

        “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

        by the fan man on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:21:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am 100 percent against Nuclear Power (21+ / 0-)

    in any shape or form... and the country where I am from is too.

    The risks FAR outweigh the benefits.  Besides there are plenty of safe alternatives to use.

    My thoughts are with Christchurch... Please donate to http://www.christchurchearthquakeappeal.govt.nz/

    by GlowNZ on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:27:06 AM PST

    •  and your story just reinforced my thoughts on it (9+ / 0-)

      No one should EVER have to go through what you did.

      NEVER.

      And the nuclear power apologists should have to look you in the face.

      My thoughts are with Christchurch... Please donate to http://www.christchurchearthquakeappeal.govt.nz/

      by GlowNZ on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:32:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The french tested Nuclear bombs in the south (9+ / 0-)

      pacific for years.  The cancer rate around that area is  extremely high and babies have been born with deformities.

      I have seen it for myself the effects that anything nuclear has... and its all bad.

      Not to mention the enormous environmental damage that id does/

      My thoughts are with Christchurch... Please donate to http://www.christchurchearthquakeappeal.govt.nz/

      by GlowNZ on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:36:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, about 50% of NZ's power is fossil fuels (3+ / 0-)

      About 50% of your country's electricity comes from coal and oil. That is not safe power. The citizens of New Zealand have the right to make their choices about what kind of poisons they're willing to deal with to get their electricity, but don't pretend those choices aren't being made or that your country's citizens aren't dying from the output of your fossil fuel plants, or that the sea level around your island nation isn't rising.

      I don't ask you change your decision, just that you acknowledge the costs.

      -Jay-
      
      •  Your claim is nonsense (5+ / 0-)

        Not only is your link an apparently non-recently-updated Wikipedia page, when there are far more reliable and up to date sources (like say NZ Energy Quarterly or the IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics), but you've badly misread it to claim "about 50%" of the country's electricity is "from coal and oil".

        In fact the current generation mix in NZ is around 75% renewables, 21% natural gas, less than 3% coal, and less than 0.1% oil, and the vast majority of new planned generation is renewables - more wind, geothermal, and hydro.

        •  I gave you my cite, you give me yours. (0+ / 0-)

          Should be easy, I'm looking forward to it.

          -Jay-
          
          •  Sure (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive, zett, JayBat, neroden

            Google or any other search engine would have made finding the resources I mentioned easy, though: e.g. NZ Energy Quarterly and
            IEA Monthly Electricity Statistics show up as the first hits for those search terms as you might expect.

            As for the general mix of proposed new generation that is under construction or in various stages of consent procedures, there's no simple single resource. You can browse windenergy.org.nz or the "Projects" pages of various major NZ electricity generation companies (Meridian, Genesis, Contact, Might River, TrustPower) and you'll see the same basic pattern: loads and loads of planned new wind and geothermal, some new hydro, a little new natural gas, and practically no new coal.

            I'm not sure how you misread the page you cited to think half of it comes from coal and oil: the page itself, despite being a little out of date, states in simpler terms effectively what I wrote: "Approximately 70% of electricity generated in New Zealand comes from renewable energy, primarily hydropower and geothermal power. This is expected to increase over the next 20 years, with wind energy making up much of that increase."

            •  Thanks. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neroden, OtherDoug

              I notice there's no response to the meat of my comment:

              The citizens of New Zealand have the right to make their choices about what kind of poisons they're willing to deal with to get their electricity, but don't pretend those choices aren't being made or that your country's citizens aren't dying from the output of your fossil fuel plants, or that the sea level around your island nation isn't rising.

              I assume that point is taken.

              New Zealand is blessed with a relatively small population, an abundance of hydro resource (plus some geothermal), and it's great that they've been able to maximize their use of that. But for many years (since the 70's at least) about 25% (as you point out) of New Zealand's electrical power has be generated from fossil fuels.  See Figure G.1C page 105, "Annual Electricity Generation By Fueltype", in the 2010 New Zealand Energy Data File from the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development.

              I'm just asking folks not pretend that those power plants aren't building mountains of coal ash, aren't raising global CO2 levels, aren't dumping toxins into the atmosphere.

              My apologies for not going to primary sources in the first place, even though the New Zealand 25/50% difference does not qualitatively change my argument.

              WRT the Wikipedia page I'll point out that it also says:

              • "Approximately 35% of primary energy is from renewable energy sources." (3rd sentence)
              • The "NZ Primary Energy Supply 2009" table calls out about 50% Oil and Coal.

              After thinking about it for awhile, I see that "primary energy" as they're using it means total thermodynamic energy transferred before all generation and transmission losses.  Everybody's transmission losses are the same, but hydro has far lower generation losses than other sources, so the percentage of power delivered to the end user is quite different from the "primary energy". Learn something new every day, thanks.
              -Jay-
              
              •  Thanks, just thought the meat was gristle (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden, mahakali overdrive, JayBat

                (Figuratively speaking; it's been a couple of decades since I ate the stuff.)

                Upon ascertaining that your quoted statistic was incorrect and it seemed to be derived from confusing electricity with primary energy, the meat of your comment as you put it, seemed to have no real point:

                The citizens of New Zealand have the right to make their choices about what kind of poisons they're willing to deal with to get their electricity, but don't pretend those choices aren't being made or that your country's citizens aren't dying from the output of your fossil fuel plants, or that the sea level around your island nation isn't rising.

                This applies to all developed countries, and especially so if one has electricity and primary energy confused, because the reliance on oil for transportation is so pervasive.

                For example, France is similar to NZ in getting a substantial majority of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources (around 75% from nuclear and also some from hydro), but gets more than half of its primary energy from fossil fuels. So one could just say, replace "New Zealand" for "France" (and strike out the word "island") in that blockquote and get something just as meaningful.Of course, it's far more meaningful for developed countries that get a majority of their electricity as well as their primary energy from fossil fuels -- like Japan and the USA.

                Furthermore, there was no hint in the comment you replied to of pretence that choices aren't being made, that awareness of fossil fuel consequences is downplayed. In fact I'd suggest the opposite for NZ: the vast majority of new planned generation in the nation is renewable and New Zealand's emission trading scheme --with such notable features as planning to include agriculture emissions far earlier than equivalents in other developed countries that give certain sectors and industries exemptions for many years to come -- is in some ways the most climate-change-aware, forward-thinking and advanced such scheme in the world.

                So as I said, um, gristle.

                •  Sigh. (0+ / 0-)
                  Furthermore, there was no hint in the comment you replied to of pretence that choices aren't being made, that awareness of fossil fuel consequences is downplayed.

                  GlowNZ's original comment, to which I was responding, was all about how virtuous the Kiwis are for building oil and coal plants instead of nukes---
                  I am 100 percent against Nuclear Power (21+ / 0-)
                  in any shape or form... and the country where I am from is too.
                  The risks FAR outweigh the benefits.

                  I'm missing the part where anybody says "of course we're aware of the horrible and certain consequences of the fossil fuel we're burning".

                  I wasn't aware of anybody in the thread talking about how glad France was that they're burning fossil fuels instead running nuclear plants (though there may be anti-nuclear activists who do feel that way). So I made no comments about France.

                  As an American, I recognize that the US power generation infrastructure is shameful, 70% fossil fuel, and that our spending on R&D for renewable power infrastructure is pitiful. In the northwest, where I live, we have to throttle down hydro power on windy days in spring because the grid isn't smart enough to throttle the windmills, and not big enough (long distance) to handle the combined output to ship it down to the southwest where it's needed. Maybe in 3 or 4 presidential election cycles we're in a situation where we can start to turn that around, I'm trying to figure out how we're going to avoid destroying human civilization on this planet in the meantime.

                  Thanks for the conversation-- I'm unsure if you appreciate it or not, but I really have.

                  -Jay-
                  
              •  Hydro is insanely efficient. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive, JayBat

                Thermal power (which includes coal, oil, methane, and nuclear -- they're all basically steam engines) is horrendously inefficient for electrical generation (pretty good if you use district heating, though.)

                I thought most people knew that -- mechanical->magnetic->electric is over 90% efficient, while chemical/nuclear->heat->mechanical->magnetic->electric is much worse (mostly in the awful heat->mechanical stage, which can never be made very good due to theoretical considerations related to entropy).   But of course I shouldn't make stupid assumptions like that.  Why would most people know that?  Our education system is terrible.

                Wind is also extremely efficient.

                Solar -- well, it depends on your photovoltaic cell design.  Most are quite inefficient, I know some people working on a much more efficient design.  The long lifespan, continuous energy supply, and free fuel mean that economically they're still excellent over the long term, if not as good as hydro and wind (which have the same benefits).

                Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:26:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Efficiency of storage technology? (0+ / 0-)

                  That's the critical thing if you want to try using solar and wind for more than 30-40% of baseload power.  Then you need to add in a lot of transmission loss due to moving a lot of power across regions.

                  Hydro may be very efficient for generation, but here in the US we don't have many good sites left for large hydro.  We could implement a lot more run-of-the-river, but that is pretty small scale and dispersed requiring a lot transmission infrastructure.

  •  No child (13+ / 0-)

    should ever have had to go through the hell you did, ever.  To watch this horrible event unfolding now must be so very hard for you. My heart goes out to you and to all who are in harms way.  

  •  Thank you for saying it plain (13+ / 0-)

    and telling your story

    so sorry for all the suffering you have endured here (((((((((mo)))))))))))))))

    No to Nuclear!

  •  Incredible diary from a pretty incredible fig (9+ / 0-)

    Fighter.  

    Extremely moving and persuasive diary.   I didn't need any persuading, but apparently others do.

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:40:34 AM PST

  •  I was born in Las Vegas, Nevada in 1945 (30+ / 0-)

    and lived on a ranch 45 miles from the Nevada Test Site. As a child I wore radiation badges and watched the mushroom cloud come up over the hill behind my school......

    Last night I saw the flashes in my dreams.....

    Unlike you, I did not develop cancer. However I am left with a primal fear of mankind's ability to create what it cannot control.

    The people in my valley were deemed "....a disposable population".....When I wrote asking  for the records of the tests I remember taking as a child I was told no such records exist....

    Thank you for writing with such visceral clarity. Nuclear energy will never be acceptable to me......and I will always have an emotional reaction.

    May you live the rest of your life in good health.

    Love is the lasting legacy of our lives

    by princesspat on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:44:47 AM PST

  •  Explosion could only have been caused by MELTDOWN (3+ / 0-)

    Fukushima explosion

    Explosion could only have been caused by MELTDOWN says nuclear safety body:

    •  From what I have read... (6+ / 0-)

      From what I have read, which has mostly been on BBC and here at dKos, that is not the case. There are other possible causes. Also meltdown is not always catastrophic...

      Now of course the nuke industry is never upfront about risks, so I have to say I don't trust that it isn't a meltdown or even a catastrophic one, but the evidence so far seems to be that it hasn't gotten that far...yet.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

      by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:41:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They have been lying to us about this already (3+ / 0-)

        Remember the USAF delivery of "special coolant?"  What do you suppose that was, considering the coolant is WATER?  The only thing I can imagine is that it was heavy water, to try to increase the reactor's moderation, but if so why not come out and say what it is?  The story made no damn sense and still doesn't.  So what exactly was the USAF doing around for them yesterday morning?

    •  Please ... (9+ / 0-)

      See this comment from koNko

      The cause of the explosion was hydrogen that was vented from the primary containment structure into the building which houses it - the secondary containment, this is the rectangular building that you see when you look at photos of the plant.  The primary containment is still intact and reactor contents are not freely flowing into the environment the way they did in Chernobyl.

      One of the biggest problems when Three Mile Island happened was the spread of rumors and speculation that were reported in the media as fact.  Far more people suffered from anxiety over these false reports than from the effects of the accident itself.

      This is certainly an ugly accident.  A worker died in the explosion and others were injured.  But it is not the apocalyptic event many are conjuring up in their imaginations.  The overwhelming majority of the original contents of the reactor are still contained within the reactor vessel.  The reactor vessel is still contained within the primary containment and its several feet thick walls of steel reinforced concrete.  Yes, some small amounts of radioactive materials have escaped containment.  Furthermore, it is likely that additional venting operations will be necessary in the days to come.

      In the fourth most powerful earthquake in recorded history - finally upgraded to a 9.1 - of the 55 nuclear plants in Japan, 5 had some problems and one had major but not catastrophic problems.  In comparison, elsewhere in Japan there were many gas explosions and fires caused by natural gas lines, a breached dam wiped out 1,800 homes, there may well have been deaths, explosions and other major accidents at fossil fuel plants that have gone unmentioned in the media because they lack the sensationalism of the nuclear plant story.

      So all in all, yes, I'd say that the plant safety features have worked even under extreme conditions which well exceeded their design basis - they were designed to withstand a 7.9 earthquake.  Depending on the movement being measured, the actual quake was 10 to 100 times as powerful as this design basis earthquake.

      All forms of energy have associated risks and costs.  When a dispassionate analysis of the numbers is made, nuclear is much better in many measures of effectiveness, efficiency, and public and environmental safety.  Even with the deaths associated with this accident, nuclear power's industrial safety record will still be superior to most if not all heavy industries.

      And even though there was some release of radioactive material, it has been a small amount under extremely unusual circumstances.  Coal plants spew radioactive materials into the environment every moment they operate.  Not nearly as sexy a topic though, coal plant radiation just doesn't get people's fear up like nuclear plant radiation even though there is far more of it.  If a US nuke were to start releasing radioactive materials at the rate of a coal burner it would be immediately shut down and an Unusual Event declared to the NRC.

      Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

      by kbman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:30:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Btw-I think you should send this to the WH (8+ / 0-)

    The President and Administration disagree with you.

    Feb 2010...

    President Barack Obama is to signal a major step-change in the global nuclear industry this week when he announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors to be built in the US.

    The move will pave the way for the construction of the first nuclear power plants in America for more than three decades.

    Financial assistance will be given to build two 1,150-megawatt reactors to Southern Company's two-unit site south of Augusta in Georgia in the first of billion of dollars of loans guarantees allocated to the nuclear power industry. Mr Obama has said he wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to create a more self-sufficient energy policy for America.

    In his first State of the Union address last month, Mr Obama declared it was time to build a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country". He said nuclear power could play an important role in creating "clean energy jobs" and more efficient energy.

    "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

    by justmy2 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:51:57 AM PST

    •  I wish that any American Presidents (11+ / 0-)

      had been on the right side of the nuclear power issue. Truly. My sense is that the lobbyists in this Country obviously have more impact on politics than we do, as individuals. The only way that will change, that I know of, is by refunding elections (I'm sure others have also come up with better solutions). We need corporations out of Washington, period.

      The President's views on nuclear power are pretty typical of both politicians, as well as a lot of the electorate, including the Democratic Electorate (as you can see on this board, unfortunately... even here, I talk vividly about almost dying and some people are carrying their "GO NUKES!" signs over my virtual death bed).

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:02:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost all of the issues with our democracy (4+ / 0-)

        comes down to money in politics. If there is one long term issue that a coalition could be built around, public financing would be on top of my list.  

        "Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book - you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem." - Senator Obama, 9-16-2008

        by justmy2 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:44:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Likewise! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2, ladybug53

          I see no other better solution, although perhaps others do. My sense is very much that we need to get money out of politics if we want monied interests to not negatively impact politics. Which I would guess we all do, really. Except those 400 families that Bernie Sanders keeps (sagely) mentioning.

          It's why I blame the system, and pointedly so.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:11:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Better solution: equalize the money. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            If everyone had much closer to the same amount of money, money in politics wouldn't be a serious problem.  Furthermore, even "taking money out of politics" won't take away the ability of the "money men" to use their money to wield power.

            I can blame the system for the US having a terrible Gini coefficient, with 400 individuals having about as much money as half the population.  

            I suggest a more radical solution than you, I suppose.

            Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

            by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:30:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Is it more dangerous (11+ / 0-)

    than tons of coal strip mined in a mountain top removal, hauled in rail cars stretching as far as the eye can see, burned and spewed into the atmosphere leaving huge lakes of fly ash waiting to rush down rivers and streams flooding many square miles and burying it in toxic mud?

    The failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:54:10 AM PST

    •  Dunno. Maybe you could make a gladiator (12+ / 0-)

      ring and put a cancer survivor, like myself, in there with someone dying from toxic mud exposure or a dying salmon or something, and we could just duke it out and see what happens?

      Or do you have a better idea?

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:04:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't have a better idea (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, AoT, mahakali overdrive

        I know we need to be using less energy overall. I'm also pretty sure that any politicians who pushes very hard in that direction will find themselves out of office with the next spike in energy prices. :(

        The failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:39:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  With all due respect... (5+ / 0-)

        ...I think you are wrong to minimize the harm caused by fossil fuel consumption.  It's estimated that deaths in the US caused by pollution from coal consumption are between 25,000 and 30,000 per year.

        •  Right. That's my point (7+ / 0-)

          It's unethical to minimize one, or the other. Bingo! We're in agreement there.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:06:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I won't minimize the risk posed by nuclear. (5+ / 0-)

            But I will say that it is many orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by fossil fuels.  There is a risk of radiation exposure from nuclear power.  It is vastly outweighed by radiation exposure from radon, medical x-rays and nuclear medicine, smoking and long distance air travel.

            You mentioned living next to a nuclear power plant in a previous comment.  I would be far more willing to live next to Indian Point than I would be to a coal burning power plant, an oil refinery or a chemical plant.

            •  Why should we chose to live (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ladybug53, ctsteve

              next to any of these?

              Each is an important conversation to be had. In and of itself. Thus we are in agreement.

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:17:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because we rely on electricity. (3+ / 0-)

                If you want to turn on the lights and power up your computer you need electricity.  That requires fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear.  At some point in the future we may be able to do it with solar and wind alone, but not now.

                The oil refineries and chemical plants can be made much safer as well and use non-petroleum inputs, but that will cost a lot more and as a society we don't seem willing to pay those costs.

                •  I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be (0+ / 0-)

                  listening to anything that I'm saying.

                  So cordially, I'm going to cease our discussion. You may continue. But I don't feel that you're responding to the points that I'm raising, beyond in a rough topical sense.

                  Good day to you.

                  "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:12:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You want a risk free world (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Recall, OtherDoug, Mcrab

                    And that is physically impossible.  Your argument is roughly equivalent to a child telling a parent he wants to live on Venus, and throwing a tantrum when a parent says no.

                    This is the real world, where real decisions have to be made.  To keep 7 Billion people alive requires a massive amount of electricity, and most of that electricity has to come from either coal or nuclear power.  Because renewables can only be 30% of the mix before the cause the power grid to be unstable and collapse.

                    So in keeping 7 Billion people alive, we can either kill 100,000 people a year from coal, or 100 people from nuclear power.

                    I'm sorry you got the short end of the stick, but it's time to suck it up and deal with it.  Or go find 999 people you feel deserve to die instead of you.

                    •  Nope, I don't think it's possible (0+ / 0-)

                      to have a risk free world. But a different world that is better, and that doesn't include nuclear power and it's many associated risks? Well yes.

                      Say, have you heard that Fukushima is now reported as in meltdown? This is a huge shift from earlier. See Boatsie's diary (linked from mine) for more information.

                      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:43:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Ouch! (0+ / 0-)

                      Norm, I completely agree with your points, but

                      I'm sorry you got the short end of the stick, but it's time to suck it up and deal with it.  Or go find 999 people you feel deserve to die instead of you.
                      is really f*cking harsh.  And given the way this conversation has been moving I don't think the tough approach is going to make any headway here.
                  •  I am trying to respond to your points... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...while still keeping things rooted in reality.

                    Unless you want to live without electricity, advanced chemicals and automobiles you MUST have the facilities to fuel, power and manufacture the stuff.  You can do that with really dirty and dangerous fossil fuels or you can do it with significantly less dangerous nuclear.  You can't do it with renewables at this point, though I really wish you could.

                    •  You CAN do it with renewables. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mahakali overdrive

                      That's just a fact.

                      It would be expensive.  It's getting cheaper by the day because solar tech is getting cheaper and cheaper and better and better, tidal energy tech actually works now, etc.

                      I am sick of people denying reality about renewables.  You can do it with renewables -- it just costs money.  Right now, a lot of money; if we pursue massive energy efficiency gains first and let the technology mature while we do that, not so much money.  Either way, it is possible, it is merely a political choice whether to spend the money on that, or blow a wad on nukes and get less return on investment while handing a toxic waste bill to our grandchildren, or continue to "cheap out" with fossil fuels and hand that catastrophic bill to our grandchildren.

                      "It's too expensive to do it with renewables" would at least be a valid argument, though I disagree -- I believe it's worth the money.  "We can't do it with renewables" is purest bullshit; it's been demonstrated how to supply the entire existing power demand with a few hundred square miles of desert and existing solar tech.

                      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                      by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:47:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where does the money come from? (0+ / 0-)

                        You're not going to get anyone to build renewables on that scale unless you put a price on carbon.

                        It is possible to do it with solar thermal and molten salt storage.  And an immense amount of transmission infrastructure that doesn't exist now.  It will take decades to develop and build.  It will be very expensive.  And none of it will happen if we don't put a price on carbon.

                        I'm not denying reality.  I know it's possible.  I just don't think it is feasible in this country.

                        I also want to see the transition off of coal happen as soon as possible and I think nukes are the best way to do that.

                •  We CAN do it with solar, right now. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive

                  It would be expensive, but there is no technical obstacle.

                  First, massive, but easily achieved, increases in energy efficiency -- which could be achieved if the country were on a "wartime footing" -- "Save us from global warming!  Insulate your home!".  There's a LOT of quick, large wins here.  A LOT.  My energy bill is a quarter the size of the bill of the average house of the same size in the same area, because my house is superinsulated and equipped entirely with energy-efficient appliances.

                  Second, build up geothermal and solar thermal, including district heat, to replace heating demand.  Use cogeneration where suitable to generate electricity.

                  Third, replace daytime-peak-load thermal plants with solar, or wind where suitable.

                  Fourth, build tidal and any remaining hydro (including "in stream" dam-free hydro) which does not cause major local problems -- more baseload.

                  We have enough hydro for nighttime baseload in large portions of the world once we finish the efficiency drive.  For the rest of the world we have two options.

                  Option one: build up more solar, and develop pumped-storage hydro and large batteries for nighttime storage in the rest of the country.  Currently expensive, will keep getting cheaper -- new tech in energy storage comes on the market fast and often, so expect much better stuff in 5-10 years.  A nuclear reactor takes longer than that to build these days.

                  Option two: build up more solar, and major transmission lines to transmit from sunlight areas to dark areas.  Expensive, yet straightforward.

                  Solar is getting better at a very quick clip.  This plan is viable with current solar technology, just expensive.  

                  With the solar tech of 10 years from now, it will not even be that expensive -- certainly cheaper than comparable nuclear reactors, once you figure in all the backloaded decommissioning and cleanup costs.

                  Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

                  by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:43:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Usual false dichotomy. CUT IT OUT. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              We need to get rid of coal burning plants.  Nuclear is a stupid non-replacement which costs far more than the energy it generates is worth.

              1. Energy efficiency (start with insulation, folks)
              2. Hydro, including in-stream hydro and tidal
              3. Solar
              4. Wind
              5. Geothermal.  Preferably for heat.
              6. Biofuel thermal.  Preferably only for heat, as it's massively inefficient for electricity (just like all thermal engines).

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:32:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  No (7+ / 0-)

      So let's work towards reducing both.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

      by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:42:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  do you guys have any argument (8+ / 0-)

      aside from the false choice fallacy?

      •  Not many, no... EOM (0+ / 0-)

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:44:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a false choice fallacy. (0+ / 0-)

        If you want to shut down the nuclear plants you need to replace them with something that provides dependable baseload power.  You could get that from hydro, but we don't have enough dam sites to provide that much hydro power.  That leaves fossil fuel.  Natural gas is better than coal, but it's not clear that we have supplies available to cover the loss of nuclear.  That leaves coal.

        At some point in the future we may have more options.  I'd be really happy if we could transition to renewables, but they just aren't up to it.

        •  It *IS* a false choice fallacy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          You CAN do it with solar.  Here's a simple way: provide large solar farm installations in desert areas in a band all the way around the world, and provide massive transmission lines taking the power from the sunny side to the shady side.  

          You'll probably need a few extra power sources to deal with the period when the Pacific Ocean is the main recipient of sunlight, but we have hydro.

          Expensive?  Yes.  The huge number of transmission lines is a big deal.  Impossible?  No, it's completely straightforward.  An aggressive, powerful world government could have it done in 5-10 years.

          That's the "batteryless" solution, by the way.  Batteries and pumped-storage hydro mean you don't have to build quite as many transmission lines.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:50:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We have trouble wheeling power... (0+ / 0-)

            ...from Washington to Southern California.  You'd be better off advocating for solar power satellites and microwave transmission to earth's surface.  Really.  No disrespect intended.

  •  Those on the left who support nuclear power (7+ / 0-)

    like I do mostly aren't saying that it's safe, but that it's better than the main alternative. Greenhouse gases are even less safe. Climate change resulting from fossil fuel use has the potential to kill billions. Looking at the horrific costs of climate change leads me to the opinion that any fuel that can serve as alternative to greenhouse gases should be advanced.

    Certainly nuclear is one of the poorest of the alternatives and as seen from your case is very dangerous and should be strictly regulated. However, we don't have the option to pursue energy policies that only use the safest alternative energies. We simply don't have enough political power. We must fight for the end of fossil fuel use any way we can. The fate of the planet depends on it.

    •  The markets don't support nuclear power; (11+ / 0-)

      it can only exist with  government subsidies and exemptions from regulations and allowing the industry to be shielded from most insurance requirements.
      Without the federal governemnt bending and breaking rules on its behalf it's dead, dead, dead as it should be.

      •  That doesn't really address my main point (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, kalmoth, erush1345, quotemstr

        Climate change is a lot more deadly than the consequences of nuclear power. Government support for nuclear power should be part of the solution because any way that we can get more of our energy coming from non greenhouse gas releasing sources is worth it. The devastation from climate change is too great.

        •  We really don't know that one (6+ / 0-)

          is more deadly than the other.

          How do you weigh the value of your brain? Five brains? One hundred and fifty brains? A hundred thousand lungs? The lungs of a thousand fish? The brains of a hundred thousand fish? The lungs of twenty-five human beings combined with the brains of thirty thousand fish? In ten years? I mean forty years? Or rather a hundred years?

          Death kills stuff.

          It's all bad.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:31:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's clear that green house gasses will kill more (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kalmoth, Recall, Norm in Chicago

            Climate change has the potential to cause massive flooding, droughts, famine, etc. Head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen predicts that our current trajectory will lead to runaway climate change turning the earth into another Venus. That would mean the end of all life. The dangers of nuclear power don't even come close.

            •  I see you know what you believe (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              means are the ends, mrkvica, ctsteve

              and I know what I believe about how one places a value on atrocity, destruction, and death -- we could also play "rate that genocide on a scale of 1-10" for a REALLY awesome afternoon. But that would be a bit gauche.

              Good day to you then.

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:17:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you're saying we shouldn't use subjective (4+ / 0-)

                measures when comparing whether one thing is worse than another? If so, then how exactly do you expect to exercise any morals? Morality is built off of subjectivity. When you say nuclear power is a problem, you are making a subjective judgement that the pain and suffering caused by it is wrong compared to the consequences of not pursuing nuclear power. When I say that greenhouse gasses are worse, I'm saying I value the lives of billions over the lives of thousands. We are both making subjective judgments, as must be done in morality since there is no objective morality.

                However, just because whether billions of lives are more important than thousands of lives is subjective, doesn't mean that once we agree on such moral premises, objective accounts of which action is moral based on the subjective criteria can't be achieved. For example, if we were to agree hypothetically that the action which saved the most lives is the moral one, under this criteria, an action which saved 5 lives compared to an action that saved 4 lives would be objectively moral.

                So we absolutely can debate the costs of nuclear vs. greenhouse gasses, as long as we agree on some basic subjective premises.

            •  We can easily avoid BOTH. False choice fallacy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              I've laid out in other comments perfectly practicable technical methods which we could use right now to power the whole world -- at least the electricity-powered portions -- with solar.  Including baseload, because of course it's always daytime SOMEWHERE.

              If your argument is "it's too expensive to use renewables, let's just fuck about with nuclear power because we're cheapskates", say so.  If not, stop making the false choice.

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:53:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not just about what is technically possible (0+ / 0-)

                It's about what is politically possible. As I'm sure you know, next to nothing is being done on climate change politically. It's hard enough to move away from fossil fuels when one of the major options isn't eliminated. Why make it harder?

      •  Same applies for fossil fuel. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, Michael91, erush1345, zett

        Fossil fuel use is massively subsidized by the government, is shielded from regulation and liability.  It's waste products are not required to be handled as toxic waste, but just dumped in landfills.  Its significant external costs are passed onto society in general and third parties and no effort is made to bring those into the pricing mechanism as truly needed.

        If the external costs of fossil fuel use were brought into the pricing of fuel and power from those sources I think that the market would favor any other source whether it was nuclear or solar & wind with the infrastructure required to make them actually work as baseload power.

        I take issue with one point you offer in that I would argue that the regulatory requirements for nuclear are significantly higher than for fossil fuels.

        •  Absolutely true. If externalities were charged (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          to fossil fuels and nuclear, every single renewable would be favored by the market.

          By the way, solar works as baseload if you have transmission lines around the globe, or batteries or pumped-storage hydro or another storage method.  All are feasible.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:54:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Possible, not feasible. (0+ / 0-)

            Worldwide transmission is incredibly daunting.  I'd say that the economics and politics make it close to impossible.  Continent wide wheeling of power is possible, but again not feasible NOW.  Give it a couple of decades and it will probably happen, but there are a lot of technical obstacles and huge political, legal and economic obstacles.

            In regards to storage, battery storage is used now, but on a small scale for very short time frame load balancing.  It's done with lead acid batteries and is difficult to manage in many ways.  Pumped hydro is a better option and we could probably mass produce tower units.  Same could be said of compressed air storage.  It still adds a lot to the cost of renewables and I don't think it's feasible without pricing carbon.  I'm very pessimistic that we're going to do that anytime soon.

      •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)

        Another extreme example of the externalization of the real costs associated with nuke power, immediate and long term. Given that accurate and complete accounting of the risks and costs involved is not easy, this by itself should be a game ender. The industry cannot afford to insure itself. Without massive assumption of risk by the taxpayers they don't even want to play in this pond.

        Is this unique among all energy generating schemes? Just asking.

        "These days man knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde

        by metiche on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:17:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  markets don't suppose lots of things (0+ / 0-)

        that are worth doing. Because the price signals aren't correct. There is consideration of externalities. I didn't know progressives had embraced the efficient market hypothesis. :)

      •  How much of that is due to (0+ / 0-)

        competition from heavily-subsidized fossil-fuel sources?

        If you Google "headache brain tumor", you will come away convinced that your headache is actually cancer—Seth Mnookin

        by ebohlman on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:55:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (6+ / 0-)

      Better put than some. I don't necessarily agree that we can't pursue energy policies that only use the safest alternative energies....but so far it is clear there hasn't been the political will. But that is all it would take. And many Americans would benefit, so with the right advocacy a broad coalition of Americans could be behind a mix of wind, solar, methane from waste, geothermal, etc. But the money interests are able to block this so far.

      I have far more problems with nuclear energy than you do (e.g. the costs are higher than usually admitted by the industry and so soak up huge tax dollars...the time it takes to come on line is longer than we really need to be acting...) but I am not 100% against it as a part of the solution. But too many advocate it as the ONLY solution and so downplay the risks and downplay the benefits of other energy that I find myself becoming more anti-nuclear because I don't trust the info the nuclear advocates are feeding me.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

      by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:46:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wonderful diary, Sis MO (6+ / 0-)

    A powerful story from a powerful soul.  Thank you.

  •  And We Almost Lost Detroit (6+ / 0-)

    That was back in the Seventies.  Still a valid point today.  As Gil Scott Heron says, "When it comes people's safety, money wins out every time."

    ((youtube b54rB64fXY4))

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:12:28 AM PST

  •  Energy sources of Mass Destruction (3+ / 0-)

    Just like the BP deep water mine spill any energy source that can contaminate the environment across localities and or nations should be banned. If that reactor melts down China and the whole world will be affected in some way. I curse the day the atom was sued for energy and or weapons.  I hate the scientists that built the bomb. Immoral all of them.

    My Country Tis of Thee sweet land of Secrecy of thee I sing

    by hangingchad on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:13:23 AM PST

  •  Fukushima nuclear power plant is (4+ / 0-)

    sitting directly on the seashore. If there is no water source available for cooling they are no doubt using seawater to continue cooling the core. The condenser units are probably knocked out so there is no good place to dump the cooling water. The cooling water pools are breached or full. The  used cooking water is  probably going back out to sea through some kind of improvised ditch - bad news for sure. Because of the explosion the debris is keeping them from getting close to being able to disconnect the huge flanges to the water system in order to run water directly to the core. Right now they are sifting through a database of nuclear engineers who are in various stages of terminal disease and asking them to make their last sacrifice - going into or near the containment building (or what's left) to see if there is any way to manually pull on the core fuel cables to keep them from going super critical. It doesn't look good, for the present the wind is going in the right direction (for Japan) but the radiation will last longer than some short term weather conditions. No one can say (and they are) that the surrounding containment building can blow up and not affect containment. The intense heat produced hydrogen out of the H2O and along came a spark or static and boom....

    "WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY FOX NEWS IS JOURNALISM"

    by FakeNews on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:15:03 AM PST

  •  Point of order... (7+ / 0-)
    An explosion that sent white smoke rising above the Fukushima Daiichi plant Saturday afternoon buckled the walls of a concrete building that surrounded one of the plant's nuclear reactors, but did not damage the reactor itself, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters.

    The explosion was caused, he said, by a failure in a pumping system as workers tried to prevent the reactor's temperature from racing out of control.

    While Edano said radiation levels appeared to be falling after the explosion, the government nevertheless ordered an expanded evacuation of the area around the Daiichi plant, as well as a second facility where the cooling system had failed -- the Fukushima Daini plant.

    (from CNN)

    Can  we please wait before making conclusions? At least until the missing are found and the dead are buried?

    •  Band meeting... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stumptown Dave, kalmoth, mrkvica, neroden

      Do you watch Flight of the Conchords too, or am I taking the Point of Order bit out of context? If not, well Murray...

      Brilliant show. Truly.

      I'm not going to argue about the state of the reactor, since we don't know yet, and with 29 violations on the books and the investigation not finished, definitely it's premature to come to conclusions about whether it's had a meltdown. Of course, I think the problem is with nuclear power itself. Meltdowns or no meltdowns. I think, no rather, I know, the shit is dangerous.

      And I also know that we need some kind of sustainable energy source, particularly given the intense and painful looming of global warming. That we're running out of time, essentially, to figure it out. But we'll need to figure it out. And when the medicine is as bad as the disease, it's hard to justify its use.

      I don't support it. Period. I'd sooner drink rat poison than advocate for this nuclear madness. It's a scam. What we need is to radically reduce our energy consumption while figuring out other sustainable alternatives (I'm positive that someone has this figured out better than I do).

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:29:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's talk about the matter later n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive
      •  You could read my comments.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        I'm just regurgitating the sum total of what other people working in the fields of renewable energy have said (well, that I've heard).  I may have missed some other options which would get us 100% renewable.

        Our main problems in going 100% renewable are:

        1.  The economic.  Since they don't have to pay for their true costs, fossil fuels and nuclear appear cheaper -- in the case of nuclear, the decommissioning and cleanup is a bitch and may well wipe out all the profits earned over the course of the reactor's life -- except, of course, the profits have already been paid out to someone.

        2. The political.  I don't think we can separate this from the economic, as it is the reason for the economic situation where fossil fuel and nuclear power have massive negative externalities which are never "internalized".

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:59:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am watching and waiting (7+ / 0-)

      But a few points of order...

      Radiation HAS been released.

      The info the Japanese industry and government gives about nuclear accidents have been notoriously inaccurate.

      Even if all that CNN says is true, it is still a big problem.

      However, I do think that the chances of a Chernobyl scale event are low. I don't believe they are zero, particularly given that more than one reactor is involved, but I think they can still limit the problem.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

      by mole333 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:49:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry. News is radiation levels rising. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      And they're having difficulty keeping reactor #3 covered in water even though they're pumping seawater in.

      We need renewables and efficiency, and we need them yesterday.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:56:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jesus H Christ (9+ / 0-)

    are you from anioher universe of suoerintelligent beings who can write like God should write?  Must be...wait... maybe...!!! So, this universe ain't so bad....

  •  Wow. This is an amazing diary, (11+ / 0-)

    Mahakali!  Your contrast of the exquisite beauty of those woods and the invisible evil lurking within is really brilliantly written.

    I've had similar experiences of surgery and near-death and torments in the hospital, but nowhere as awful as yours.

    I agree completely with you about nuclear power.

    I feel like picking a fight with some of the pro-nuclear trolls who are plaguing DKos today.

    It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

    by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:19:41 AM PST

    •  They're obnoxious and absurd (10+ / 0-)

      I think they should all move two miles from a power plant known to be leaky for a couple of years, bring the wife, the kids, the dog, and mom too, and then come back here and talk about it.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:22:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Go ahead. I'm right here. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayBat, Jake Johnson, erush1345, Recall

      Please take a good hard look at the numbers.  How many people die extracting fossil fuels?  How many die from explosions at refineries and pipelines?  How many die from pollution emitted by vehicles, refineries and power plants?  Those numbers total tens of thousands per year here in the US alone.

      I am heartbroken when I hear about victims of cancer like Mahakali Overdrive.  My father died from chronic lymphocytic leukemia, so I've got a small window onto that particular hell.  But I am also saddened that people focus on nuclear power plants as major causes of cancer.  Studies don't support that conclusion.  There are a lot of sources of radiation in our environment that pose far larger risks than nuclear.  People generally face more radiation exposure in their homes from radon than from emissions from nuclear power.

      •  I'm not buying any of this. (3+ / 0-)

        As always for you nuke defenders, you're ignoring the ongoing fatal pollution risks (as discussed in this diary) plus the true magnitude of the damage from a big meltdown.

        It is a calling...to do things about injustice.... It helps to have a goal. I've always tried to have one.--Ted Kennedy, True Compass

        by Timaeus on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:06:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This diary contains no information... (0+ / 0-)

          ...about ongoing fatal pollution risks from nuclear power.  The only thing it quotes is a study about long term effects of fallout from weapons testing which has zero to do with nuclear power.

          It's late, so I'm not going to be able to dig up the references tonight, but tomorrow I will post some links with numbers for deaths from nuclear power and from coal.  I hope you'll be willing to look at them.

          •  Nor does this diary address GW (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive, neroden

            but that didn't stop you from bringing it up.

            •  Global climate change is pretty central... (0+ / 0-)

              ...to the whole argument about which power generation method to use.  That's why I bring it up and discuss the point at length.  I offered to find studies relating to the points I'm trying to make, which is what I would hope the author of this diary would do.  The one study she links to is not related.  

              I am trying to argue in good faith, respectfully and rationally.  I don't just drop some bon mot like you did.  It's easy to make some smart remark, n/t and away!  All of your comments seem to be that way.  All snipe and no substance.

              •  You try to argue in good faith? (0+ / 0-)

                While uprating comments by people who accuse the diarist of trying to harm future generations by merely telling her story.

                Nuclear power is such a boon to humanity that it never has a down side worth mentioning. Anyone that has any trepidation about it whatsoever is to be met with derision and treated as a lunatic conspiracy theorist. That is good faith?

                What is happening at Fukashima is supposedly impossible. Now it is only happening because of a rare earthquake (as if those can't happen in the future). Soon some pro-nuker is going to suggest that water moderated reactors aren't safe and that these shouldn't be in operation (if they haven't already). Too bad they weren't saying that very loudly two weeks ago.

                I think what I am saying is that you pro-nukers are myopically supportive of a technology that has distinct downsides which whenever they are pointed out you say: "At least it's better than coal".  Guess what, in some circumstances, IT ISN'T. It would be very big of you to acknowledge that this is a case where nuclear power plainly sucks.

                Fukashima is 10x worse than TMI and not as bad as Chernobyl. It is creating a huge problem in a country that already has more than its share of huge problems. Cordoning off a 50 mile circle in the middle of a tsunami/quake disaster area is a huge deal. Nuclear contamination of the wreckage is going to be a huge problem.

                BTW, this is something I am well aware of as a first responder who has participated round tables with FEMA on disaster preparation. Nuclear radiation is going to complicate this mess exponentially. Also, I believe the Japanese officials about as much as I do the ticket agent who says that they will begin boarding my delayed flight "in ten more minutes"for the third time. Call me a conspiracy theorist and I'll call you a rube.

  •  Good diary... (7+ / 0-)

    ...I think one of the best horror movies ever made was 'The China Syndrome'...

     http://www.imdb.com/...

    If you want the shit scared out of you,  forget your generic horror movie.

    In lieu of the diary's theme of nuclear power plants exuding evil, go rent the 'The China Syndrome' DVD.

  •  I'll say it. My bro is a Sr. reactor operator. (12+ / 0-)

    He tells me that in the hierarchy of accidents, this rates #3, after Chernobly and TMI, but that in his industry, this serves as a shining example of redundancy and the ability of reactor operators to address unfathomably un-anticipatable catastrophes.  

    He tells me that, as long as they can keep pumping enough water to keep the fuel rods covered, the reactors will be brought back to manageable temperatures.  They pump water in, monitor it until it comes to a boil, then let the steam vent and repeat the process.

    He said that the explosion was probably caused by hydrogen created by fuel rods having been exposed to the air for a while.  When the pump switches came on, the spark made the hydrogen explode.

    The other good news is that the small amount radiation being released in the steam, while "1000 times greater than normal", should not be harmful to the surrounding populace, as "normal" is really safe and "1000 time greater than normal" is about the amount of radiation that you would expect to get outside on a sunny day in Denver.  

    The bad news is that there was probably some level of meltdown, making the cleanup something that may take years.   That, combined with the loss of infrastructure (electric distribution lines and towers) will leave a lot of Japan without juice for the immediate future.

    If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

    by SpamNunn on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:31:48 AM PST

  •  Death Toll: Tsumani - 1,500 Fukushima - 0 (7+ / 0-)

    Something like 25%-30% of people will become diagnosed with cancer. Every one of those living near Fukushima for the next 50 years will believe they got theirs from this acccident. Japan will no doubt commission the best universities and epidemiological organizations in the country, if not the world, to conduct cancer studies around the area for the next 100 years. The studies will come back that there was no statistically significant change in cancer rates. Wrong answer. We are biologically programmed to seek a cause to associate with an effect, even if it means calling on supernatural beings to explain why the volcano blew or the lightning struck. If The Establishment, with its vested interests, won't give us the right answer, we will turn to alternative researchers willing to tell us "the truth".

    My Dad died of cancer 20 years ago. We wanted to blame it on Thimet, a potent corn rootworm insecticide popularly used on farms decades ago. The stuff almost killed him when I was 10. He got sloppy and too much of it was absorbed through his skin. He spent two weeks on Death's doorstep. We were convinced Thimet caused his cancer 20 years later. The truth is, as far as I can figure from reading the medical literature (and I'm not a doctor), Thimet is many things but carcinogenic isn't one of them. I have an uncle (also a farmer) who died a few years ago from the same cancer. I have no idea if he used Thimet. Maybe it was caused by a different farm chemical they both used. Maybe they contracted it from some biological pathogen in the soil like the virus that causes cervical cancer. Who knows? I just know I don't have my reason and it still bothers me. If believing Indian Point was the reason gives you piece of mind, good for you.

    For what its worth, the NRC has commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an updated study of cancer rates around nuclear power plant and other nuclear facilities. NAS has only recently assembled the team of researchers involved. Their credentials look impressive to me (but then I don't work in the field, so I am easily impressed). It will take them a few years before they are done and publish their findings.

    I'm sorry for what you had to go through as a kid. Life is cruel for some. I'm happy you pulled through.

    •  The NCI did a study in 1999 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ebohlman, Blubba, erush1345, ladybug53

      That showed now increase in cancer rates I the counties surrounding nuclear power plants.

      No type of energy generation is 100% safe.  According to the WHO pollution from the burning of fossil fuels kills almost 2M a year...not including those that die in the extraction process.  

      Many of the chemicals used in the manufacture of solar cells, wind turbines, and batteries for hybrid cars are carcinogenic, but that doesn't mean we should abandon those technologies.

      The science says that nuclear power is not 100% safe, but the science does say that nuclear power is much safer than most of the alternatives.

      •  Thats the study NAS is supposed to update. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, OtherDoug
      •  Less safe than hydro, wind, solar, geothermal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        (And yes, geothermal HAS killed people)

        Nuclear power is significantly less safe than most of the non-fossil-fuel alternatives.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:03:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OtherDoug

          if we had more rivers to dam we could use it to displace coal. But we don't.

          And if there were lots of locations where the geothermal potential was relatively shallow with a convenient water source and transmission lines nearby, such that it would be economically competitive, we could use it to reduce our usage of natural gas. But we don't. It will have some role, just not as much as people would want it to.

          Solar doesn't even provide a meaningful amount of the grid's day time peaking power due to its costs. Adding storage capability to make it look anything like baseload power only makes an expensive option even more so.

          Wind will play some role, but it isn't as easy to integrate into the grid as non-experts like to believe and on a MW basis still receives exhoridant subsidies that you will see in either your utility or tax bill. While I've heard of studies in places like Germany and California that claim that wind and solar compliment each other, it would be a big mistake to assume that works there will work anywhere. In most places the wind blows hardest in the Spring and Fall when demand is lowest.

          We won't know for a few years what the health effects of this event are, but so far the media is using words like "fear", not "deaths", in its reporting. Just like Three Mile Island, this is so far shaping up to be another light water reactor accident with zero long term health effects. You can't get safer than zero.

    •  BREAKING! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      Submersion in water kills faster than exposure to radiation.

      Details to follow.

  •  Thank you for this (10+ / 0-)

    You put a human signature to a complex issue.  Yours is a brave struggle.

    Nuclear power is terrible mistake modern society is making out of sheer desperation to maintain an unsustainable level or energy usage.  But the real reason it is being touted as the technological solution is that it dovetails perfectly with the military industrial complex, which benefits from DOE R&D and harvests the common and ultimate by-product of the process- weapons grade materiel.   There is so much profit at stake, and it is the money minted off nuclear power that warps the scientific integrity used to defend it as well as the regulatory vigilance necessary to implement it.

    Under the aegis of combating global warming, this sword is held out as a ploughshare by those who still chant the 'too cheap to meter' mantra, despite repeated 'minor setbacks' such as what is going on in Fukushima.  

    As the pro-nuclear contingent will inform you, I am no expert in things nuclear, but I am somewhat experienced in how complex mechanical systems often fail as a result of human error, unforseen natural forces, and most importantly, the desire to maximize profit through cutting corners, be they in design, manufacturing or operational.  Ours is asystem in which technical opinion of an engineering professional is commonly overidden by an executive (usually with an education in finance and never in physics) whose career survival depends upon using corporate rank to advance economic interest over safety.

    Nuclear power may pencil out as potentially safe in scientific principle, but devilish detail is that these power plants are built and operated in the real world by actual human beings.

     

    "Welcome to Costco, I love you" -- Greetings from "Idiocracy"

    by martinjedlicka on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:40:09 AM PST

  •  Wow great diary mahakali overdrive! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, mahakali overdrive

    My wife is a breast cancer survivor (2008 diagnosis). That now seems like a walk in park compared to what you went through. I am very glad you're now healthy.

  •  when it comes to the nuke plants, the (3+ / 0-)

    lying is fast and furious.

  •  Beautifully written diary (4+ / 0-)

    Thank you for sharing your experience--bravely done! Your writing this has given me much to think about.  

  •  Thank you for sharing your story. (3+ / 0-)

    What a horrendous experience it must have been.  I really fear for the Japanese people right now.

  •  Now is the time to think about risk (13+ / 0-)

    When news of this developing catastrophe was first announced, dailykos sported the usual reassuring "voices of reason", calmly taking a tone that fact-based scientific-like people understand not to worry about this plant.  "Five levels of failsafe" blah blah blah.  I heard this talk when I was a nuclear reactor officer in the navy, about how irrational the public was while we were taking all sorts of irrational risks.

    Right now is a good time to talk about how to think about low-probability, high-damage risk.  When people hear 1 in 100 odds, they intuitively make a false conversion to zero chance.  If you think of 1 in 100 meaning "will probably happen every 100 years" that helps, but doesn't solve the problem completely.  Right now is a good time to ask, "Are we willing to use a technology which does something like this every 100 years?"  It's not very often, but the results are devastating.

    Likewise, the seemingly balanced voices of reason who would make nuclear foes out to be unscientific alarmists, who are fond of citing costs per kilowatt hour and such, these same proponents of nuclear power are fond of leaving out of their analysis the cost of such rare occurrences as we are seeing today in Japan.  What will this accident do to the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity from this plant?  What were the projected costs when this plant was being built?  I wish I had time to write a diary about this.  I hope someone else will.

    Now is a good time to think about nuclear power, when "five levels of failsafe" bullshit can be seen for the smooth-talking invitation to denial that it is.  I have been trained in nuclear power, and I am deadset against its use.

    Sadly, I do not have time to engage the debate.  I won't be around to respond to this comment.

    Don't believe everything you think.

    by geomoo on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:56:37 AM PST

  •  The science about cancer risk should be doc'd (3+ / 0-)

    ...by now, especially given the number of power plants globally and varieties of technology. It probably is but unavailable. If anyone has actual data which probably needs to be by site given the diversity it would be great to see.

    However,  we don't need to prove precisely the link to cancer from proximity to know that  the overall risk is unacceptable juts in emergencies and natural disasters.  We know that the consequences of any non-zero risks are very high and that the expertise of Americans managing such risks is very very low.

    As a rule, science and technology are the least of our concerns. Demagogic proponents never seem to address the simple human and corporate inadequacies of managing risk.

  •  I'm glad you survived mahakali overdrive (6+ / 0-)

    No One should have to endure those, many horrors,

    for the sake of "Cheap Energy".


    I wonder how many in your "local cluster"

     -- didn't survive?


    Where is the EPA regarding "Hot Zones" like this?


    Oh how I wish, we had a country,
    that wasn't run by Corporate Interests.


    (oh yes, mahakali overdrive,
    welcome to DK4, the water's fine.)


    I dream of things that never were  -- and ask WHY NOT?
    -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by jamess on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:03:19 AM PST

  •  You write so beautifully. EOM (3+ / 0-)
  •  Mt. St. Helens & Trojan Nuclear Plant (16+ / 0-)

    That plant operated in Rainier, Oregon near Portland.  Its cooling water was supplied by drawing water from the Columbia river.  The plant went online in 1976.  Four years later, Mt. St. Helen's blew its top.

    The biggest blowout came down the Toutle River, which empties into the Columbia just downstream from the plant.  So much ash and pyroclastic flow came down that Interstate 5 was shut down for awhile because the Toutle topped over the bridge as it emptied into the Cowlitz River, a tributary of the Columbia.  Cargo boats ran aground in the shipping channel in the Columbia thanks to the massive amount of material that washed down.  It took the Army Corps of Engineers months to clear it out.  The city of Longview, Washington had all its storm sewers clogged by the ash.

    Within a few hours of the big eruption, officials at the power plant announced that it was "100% volcano proof."  Nevermind that the top 1,500 feet of a mountain had just blown off in a matter of minutes.  So what if rivers and sewer systems were all clogged up.  The plumbing serving the reactor's cooling system was inviolable.  So they would have us think.  

    At the time, the only possible reaction was sardonic laughter and a sorry shake of the head.  And relief that the volcano hadn't released down the Kalama River insteade, which drains off Mt. St. Helens into the Columbia just upstream of the plant.  Other problems and defects closed the "volcano-proof" plant down in 1992.  Building and then decommissioning it 16 years later cost nearly a billion dollars.

    The lesson I took from that is the same thing that happened at 9/11 with asbestos and other exposure.  In times of emergency, preventing panic has a higher priority than honest disclosure or longer term health & environmental hazards.  Such thoughts were foremost in my mind when inundated by the smoke from Los Alamos National Lab burning back in 2000.  All the authorities colluded to pretend there couldn't be a problem from breathing the smoke.

    If the full story of this "accident" in Japan is ever made public, it won't be any time soon.

    That our nation has done so little to advance "alternative" energy is criminally insane.

    exmearden: Grab every minute of joy you can. 8/30/09

    by Land of Enchantment on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:15:46 AM PST

    •  We just went through this with the oil (8+ / 0-)

      spill in the Gulf. The lack of disclosure. Hello?! Can this Nation wake the fuck up already please? Your comment is dead-on. It should be a diary in and of itself.

      Corporations and Governments have been known, from time to time, to lie about these matters. Why don't we note that fact carefully? More carefully? When Chernobyl happened, they concealed that. The BP oil spill. We all just watched that. There are a lot of these issues that, quite bluntly, get covered up for corporate reasons or to avoid public panic. When they come out forty years later (like the NYT article I upated with) we seem to not learn much. We go into fetal denial mode. It's pathetic and will be our demise.

      We have over half the Nation (if I recall the statistic) STILL denying Global Warming!

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:38:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nuclear power is safe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yuriwho, Recall, erush1345

    Especially as compared to the alternative of fossil fuels.

    Nuclear power has been widely used for 40 years...and has killed how many?

    Now how many die every year due to air pollution?

    It is debatable that your illness was caused by nuclear power and it is even more doubtful that an oncologist would give you a definitive cause for your illness.

    •  Well, I guess I would have been (8+ / 0-)

      expendable, by your standards?

      Okay.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:30:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So how many have to die (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yank2351, erush1345

        On our roads every year before you ban cars?  Over 50k die right now...are they expendable?  

        How many have to die from pollution caused copd before you realize that nuclear power is a better alternative that fossil fuels.  Do you really think we can replace all our coal power with wind in the next 10 years?  Worldwide?  Do you really think France and japan will replace their nuclear power wind and solar?

        Your energy would be better spent on fighting for even safer nuclear power (like pebble bed reactors)....

    •  how reassuring (4+ / 0-)

      your expert advice and generic oncologist referral surely puts all our minds at ease and an end to the discussion.

    •  You obviously don't understand the term (7+ / 0-)

      cancer clusters and what that means to cancer researchers (not oncologists).

      I suggest you look it up and how it comes to be used.

      Thanks

      Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

      by Methinks They Lie on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:02:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Go read the research and get back to me (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, OtherDoug, Mcrab

        No increased rates of cancer have ever been linked to proximity to a nuclear reactor.  Last comprehensive study was done in '99 by the national cancer institute.   Go read it and then you can come back and discuss this with some actual facts.

        •  Well, the World Health Organization (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Methinks They Lie, mrkvica, neroden

          has a valuable take on this.

          http://www.who.int/...

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:15:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. And also (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Methinks They Lie, mrkvica, neroden

            http://www.fhcrc.org/...

            The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center conducted the largest to-date review of post-Chernobyl. Here are their conclusions. They've been involved in another study again, yet to be reported, since 2008.

            The risk of thyroid cancer rises with increasing radiation dose, according to the most thorough risk analysis for thyroid cancer to date among people who grew up in the shadow of the 1986 Chernobyl power-plant disaster.

            The incidence of thyroid cancer was 45 times greater among those who received the highest radiation dose as compared to those in the lowest-dose group, according to a team of American and Russian researchers led by Dr. Scott Davis and colleagues in the Public Health Sciences Division. They report their findings in the September issue of Radiation Research.

            "This is the first study of its kind to establish a dose-response relationship between radiation dose from Chernobyl and thyroid cancer," said Davis, referring to the observation that as radiation doses increase, so does the risk of thyroid cancer. "We found a significant increased risk of thyroid cancer among people exposed as children to radiation from Chernobyl, and that the risk increased as a function of radiation dose."

            "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

            by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:20:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Are you kidding me? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive, freesia, neroden

          I guess you're not familiar with the research.

          Try this on for size. (from 2003)

          Does NIH mean anything to you?

          Or this. (from 2010)

          From the study:

          A recent well conducted state-of-the-art case-control study of childhood cancers in the areas around German NPPs (KiKK study) showed a statistically significant cancers (2.2-fold increase in leukemia and a 1.6-fold increase in solid tumor) among children under five years of age living in the inner 5 km circle around NPPs when compared to residence outside this area.[...]

          In fact, few months ago the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a state-of-the-art study on cancer risk for populations surrounding NPPs.

          OR this. (from a 2001 English health audit of Hinkley Point Nuclear Power Station)

          From the audit:

          It is now well known that the radioactive nuclear fission-products discharged from nuclear sites to the sea become attached to fine silt and are re-suspended by wave action and blown ashore. These novel man-made radioactive isotopes like Strontium-90, Caesium-137 and Plutonium-239, become inhaled as fine particles and trapped in lung tissue. They are then absorbed into the lymphatic system of the body where they cause cancer by irradiating local cells and attacking the immune system. Recent research undertaken by Green Audit in Wales and funded by the Irish government has shown that excess cancer risk exists in those populations of towns on the north Wales coast which are adjacent to mud banks and estuaries where high levels of such radioactive isotopes are found.
          The results support the hypothesis and show:

              1. Relative risks for all malignancy combined, breast, prostate and lung cancer were consistently high in the down-winders at Burnham on Sea. For breast cancer Relative Risk was 1.47 on 26 observed and 17.7 expected (p = .03). For prostate cancer the figure was 1.48 with 21 observed and 14.2 expected (p = .05). This population is closest to the mud bank but also downwind of the power station and they thus receive gaseous emissions of Tritium and Krypton-85 from the reactors and solid isotopic material from incinerators also.

          I'll just stop there for now.

          Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

          by Methinks They Lie on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:45:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  False choice dichotomy again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      Nuclear power is very unsafe compared to solar power, wind power, hydropower, etc.  How many have been killed by solar panels again?

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:04:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus, as others noted, you're wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        It's quite clear that nuclear power plants, with their releases of toxic chemicals and radioisotopes, make people sick and kill people.  "It's not as bad as a coal-burning plant" is no argument, we have to get rid of those, but we've got MUCH better alternatives.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:06:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  i am so very sorry (5+ / 0-)

    that you went through this horror that can never be undone or forgotten.

    this  is exquisitely written.

    i've been through a long series of medical torturers, but nothing comes close to this.

    peace sister.

    i hope you can turn your eyes away for a while and just rest in the knowledge that you have survived to spread your story so that others can think about these issues in terms of the real toll we are wreaking on ourselves and our planet.

    nuclear is insane.

    stop reproducing humans.  lower the toll on the planet.

    so simple but so very hard.

    I am awaiting delivery of my new DK4 signature

    by BlueDragon on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:21:53 AM PST

    •  Thanks ((((((BlueDragon)))))) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citisven, Tam in CA, Matt Z

      My one child was one child for a reason. We have so many parts of this to think about. And we MUST think about it, talk about it, and act on it.

      Particularly with global warming being at hand. That's all the more reason to analyze this more closely.

      Sorry that you've been through so much. ♥

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:32:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're still using old bomb technology (8+ / 0-)

    Uranium reactors were favored by American authorities because they were dual-use, the same technology applied to military and civilian purposes.  Submarines need small, highly-concentrated power plants, and uranium reactors do the job.  And the enrichment process can be extended to build bombs, though bomb-grade uranium is much more concentrated than reactor-grade.

    It was the military that blocked further development of thorium reactors, which were tested in the 1950s, worked, but had no military application.  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, a form of molten-salt breeder, use thorium dissolved in molten sodium fluoride, seeded with uranium-233 (a reactor waste product that we have, uh, plenty of in stock).  It cannot melt down; if the containment vessel breaks, the salt solidifies and the nuclear reaction just stops.

    India and China are now developing this; the US is still talking about expanding nuclear power by building more 1950s-style uranium and plutonium reactors.  We do need alternatives to carbon as a source of energy, and renewables won't do it all in the reasonable future, though we need more of that too.  But this meltdown should warn us that the old designs aren't as safe as they want us to believe.

    •  Renewables CAN do it all in the near future (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      It's a matter of political will and willingness to spend money. basically.  There are no technical obstacles to a 100% renewable economy, it's just expensive.  It gets cheaper with every passing year of research.

      And there are a lot of immediate-application research improvements.  It's not like steam engines, which have pretty much reached the pinnacle of their theoretical development.  Nuclear reactors are steam engines.

      Thorium reactors are a lot safer from what we can tell -- but there are always so many catches with designing something dependent on fission reactions and steam engines, I'd want to run over the designs three ways from Sunday working out failure modes to tell whether they're really fail-safe.

      Even if they are they are likely to still not be cost-effective compared to renewables.  The construction lead time is much longer and the cleanup cost is much larger.  And as I say, solar tech is being developed really, REALLY fast right now.  Geothermal tech is going pretty fast too.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:11:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Renewables aren't there yet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        Solar and wind are nice, but highly transient, and thus require costly storage and long-range transmission.  Biomass still frees some carbon, and there probably isn't enough.  So while I support their development, some other forms of baseline and peaking capacity are still needed.

        Thorium reactors would indeed power steam engines, like uranium reactors, but they are a lot cleaner.  Since the material is only marginally fissile, it takes effort to maintain the reaction, rather than (as sadly noted in Fukujima) effort to shut it down.  The lab reactors built in the 1950s ran during the week and were shut down for weekends -- just let the molten salt flow into a flat, rather than tall, pan, and poof, it freezes and the chain reaction stops.  Apply heat, melt, pump back up, and it restarts.  It burns much more thoroughly than uranium, too, so there's very little high-level waste.

        Of course keeping it going involves mucking with fluorine gas, among other things, so it is still nothing you'd want to trust to a Homer Simpson.

      •  This: (0+ / 0-)
        It's a matter of political will and willingness to spend money. basically.  

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 09:41:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hugs and kisses MO (4+ / 0-)

    What a touching diary! Did anyone tell you what a great writer you are!

    Thankyou.

    I love me peektures and that is that! Cheerleaders till 2016

    by matrix on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:27:48 AM PST

  •  what a powerful essay (5+ / 0-)

    I'm so sorry to hear what you went through, thank you so much for sharing your story. Though nothing even remotely close to the hell you went through, Fukushima brings back vivid memories of Chernobyl for me. I grew up in Germany and remember it like today. Just the utter despair and fear, not knowing whether it was safe to go out or not, the whole creepiness of an invisible cloud of death, the lack of information. Incidentally, there was a big nuclear rally planned at the plant in Neckarwestheim less than 100 kilometers from my hometown today, how apropos. The people who just keep lecturing on how safe nukes are and for everyone to just get over their irrational fears are themselves completely irrational. It's one thing to say that there's an inherent danger in nukes and discuss whether as a society or world community it's a risk we're willing to take. But to keep contending that nuclear power is foolproof is just totally disingenuous. It's like bullying. I mean, some of the modern technology everyone keeps touting me in fact be the way to transition into a cleaner energy future, and I'm willing to listen to the arguments, but it's hard to have a good faith discussion with people who say that nuclear power is guaranteed safe. Yeah right.

    •  Thank you tremendously for your perspective (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citisven, mrkvica, neroden

      Was hoping you'd chime in on this, citisven.

      Strangely, I forgot about the fear of the Cold War in this essay, although I grew up with those bomb drills where we'd all get underneath our desks "in the even of nuclear disaster." To this day, if a plane goes by overhead, or a loud noise goes off, my first instinct is to fling myself underneath a desk. We're all too easily programmed as human beings. Both for disaster and for delusion.

      This:

      The people who just keep lecturing on how safe nukes are and for everyone to just get over their irrational fears are themselves completely irrational. It's one thing to say that there's an inherent danger in nukes and discuss whether as a society or world community it's a risk we're willing to take. But to keep contending that nuclear power is foolproof is just totally disingenuous.

      I look forward to visiting the Neckar River for the first time this summer, btw. We're taking our first trip to Germany; I've heard it's very, very beautiful.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:54:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you'll love it, mo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, mrkvica

        summer time is the best time. Pretty much anywhere you go, everyone will be out in the streets, having coffee or beer, hanging out. The Neckar River is most beautiful in the smaller towns and villages it runs through, not the most attractive in my home town Stuttgart, though it's definitely worth a visit. Heidelberg is a great place to see the Neckar, and obviously an amazing town to visit. And if you're driving from Stuttgart to Heidelberg, you can see the nuclear plant in Neckarwestheim. Send me an email if you need some more tips for the area...

        •  I will take you up on that email (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          citisven

          citisven. We're a little lost about our itinerary! We're coming into Frankfurt, and driving to Salzburg, with stops in Heidelburg, Munich, and a few other places. I've tried doing the "look online" thing for information, but most people talk about the food or the lodging. I don't care about these! I want good hiking, good cultural hits, and so on. I'm excited about going!! You will get an email from me in a day or two for sure :)

          Thank you. I have so many German friends, but few in the Southern regions.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:14:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  please do (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            btw, here are some photos from today's protest in Southern Germany, 45 km long.

            •  WOW! Beautiful! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              citisven

              #5 in that series really got me. But they're all fantastic. Thank you for sharing that. I hope others check it out too. Exceptional.

              I've heard a lot about Germany's debate about capping speed limits on the autobahn for environmental reasons. One of my great admirations for Germany is their constant regard for environmentalism, at least with some Governmental representation, and certainly support from the people. It's commendable, and in opposition to California, where we increased speed limits, about ten or more years ago now, disregarding the environmental impact it seemed entirely.

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:16:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, it's funny (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive

                I always find myself tempering people's effusive praise for all things German these days. ;-) There are certainly a lot of issues, both environmentally and in the social system that people aren't happy about. People seem to be split on the nuclear issue. While Merkel and the Christian Democrats have been big proponents of nuclear power after the previous red/green coalition was ready to phase them out, this is going to boost the anti-nuclear movement again. It's a constant back and forth, which shows how difficult and complex an issue it is.

                And while people are generally much more conscious in terms of recycling and waste reduction and there's a big push for solar and wind, keeping the cars going fast and without speed limit is somewhat of a holy cow in Germany. It's definitely changing, as you say, there are a lot more sections of the Autobahn that now have speed limits, but considering that every other country in Europe has had speed limits for as long as I can remember, we shouldn't get off so easy on that one, especially since we've developed this big eco reputation. Also, I see more and more plastic bottles being sold at stores, and even though they're recyclable, I'm pretty appalled that this is becoming a trend over there. When I grew up, there were no plastic bottles, we got everything in cases of glass bottles that we returned and that would get reused. On the positive side, I still see hardly any paper coffee cups or plastic cups. People just like real mugs and glasses too much, and they don't mind taking five minutes to drink they're beverage at the cafe, often even while standing.

                Anyway, there are a lot of good things happening over there, for example I'm glad that everyone is adamantly anti-GMO, for example, but I guess as a German I have maybe more of a tendency to find our own faults, perhaps similar to how a lot of folks on dkos feel about the US.

  •  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU (9+ / 0-)

    I so appreciate you sharing your story with all of us.  No one should have to go through what you have dealt with.  

    It amazes me that there is a significant fraction of otherwise rational progressives who buy in to the idea that if fossil fuels are bad (which they surely are) that we have no choice but to go full throttle to nuclear energy.  Such flawed logic...  Fossil fuel is bad so quickly substitute with an energy source that creates a waste that takes thousands of years to become safe.  And the cherry on top is that their waist solution is to putt is underground in a salt dome and pretend all is good.  

    The other flaw in this thinking is as you pointed out, the operators of these plants are big corporations who only care about quarterly profits.  It seems like most her at DailyKos understand that problem, but for some reason some of us grant an exception to the nuclear power industry and buy their line of BS hook line and sinker.  

    I was on the emergency response team for a US nuclear power plant and I saw first hand how these money grubbers only were concerned about profits.  I saw first hand how they had complete disregard for the safety of the people living around their plant.  I saw first hand how their PR department put a positive spin on everything that benefited the utility and outright lied about safety issues.

    The nuclear industry has been very successful at convincing a significant portion of people who consider themselves environmentalists that the only answer to climate change is to build numerous nuke plants.  This is another amazing success of corporate PR that is so good at manipulating the public perception.  I can only hope that these well meaning folks wake up and realize that they are just pawns of the big corporations.

    Thank you once more for sharing your amazing story.  I am so glad that you survived the invisible attack to your young body.

    •  You should seriously consider (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, ashowboat, mrkvica, Matt Z

      diarying this. Your story is deeply powerful too. I know what you know, but from seeing a different vantage point. Everything that you've said strikes me as exactly correct. A perfect rundown here. That corporations should care about corporate profits should come as no surprise to anyone after what we just saw with the BP oil spill. The definition of insanity is often said to do something again and again and expect a different outcome. Corporations that have giant, environmental responsibilities and disasters seem to be excluded from that definition by some. I don't know why other than presumably many want to feel they are doing right by climate change (which is moral to do right by). And yet they're willing to be snowed by another dangerous game. It's redundant. It's not sane. It needs calling out.

      Ya basta!

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:49:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just learned on CNN (7+ / 0-)

    that three people have tested positive for radiation poisoning from the Fukushima Plant. I dont care what anyone says nuclear power is dangerous. Using seawater is not going to help cool a nuclear reactor. Its sad that people still rely on nuclear power.  Good diary :)

  •  you've got the gift of the written word (3+ / 0-)

    MO.

    I am finding myself more and more in the anti-nuclear camp. Its dangerous and archaic.

    I lift weights, but I don't sweat. I go for a swim, but I don't get wet.

    by rexymeteorite on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:56:11 AM PST

  •  Saw a presentation by a group of activists (10+ / 0-)

    from the Three Mile Island area. This was maybe 1990.

    Several women, still living in the area, some who were ill, some with sickness in their families, had found a government map of the plume of radiation in the local library. After thoughtlessly publishing maps of the plume, the government had hastily collected and destroyed them; but that one had been overlooked.

    The community organized and went door to door throughout a huge area around TMI, surveying each household and making a map for each radiation-related illness - with a dot for each incidence of that illness that had occurred in the ten or so years since the accident.

    They traveled around the country speaking to nuclear power protesters; our group was protesting the building of the Shearon Harris plant in North Carolina.

    The presentation was a many-layered map on an easel, maybe four feet wide. First the government's map - the plume - and a short talk describing how they had found it, how they were absolutely not supposed to have it, and how they had conducted the door-to-door survey under the most difficult of circumstances.

    Then they began bringing the overlays down over the plume. Disease after disease, map after map, each clear sheet showing, with colored dots, the incidence of each disease in the area around TMI for the ten or so years after the meltdown. The different kinds of cancers, leukemia, breast cancer, thyroid cancer - the miscarriages, stillbirths. Birth defects.

    Overlay after overlay matched the plume, with a few outliers here and there. As each overlay came down over the plume, the people in the audience gasped. By the end many were in tears.

    In its simplicity, it was the most stunning visual presentation I've ever seen. I have often wondered what happened to those courageous women.  

    I am so thankful that you survived.

    Thank you for this diary.

    We don't need a third party. We need a second party.

    by obiterdictum on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:57:27 AM PST

  •  The question is not "if" another meltdown (7+ / 0-)

    will happen, but "when."

    And you're right. How many will it take for us to wake up?

    I'm sorry you had to go through this. Those that think nuclear power is the answer to our power problem never think of people like you. Or if they do, they must be sick, heartless bastards.

    Good health to you.

    Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

    by Methinks They Lie on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:00:36 PM PST

  •  I hate to say it but (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, Jake Johnson, erush1345, OtherDoug

    I suspect you are unlucky enough to have inherited mutations in both alleles of an important DNA repair enzyme. Thats what caused your cancers.

    If you want to be sure, you can send a sample of your DNA for screening. Check out 23andMe, deCODEme and Navigenics if you want the truth.

    I highly doubt your walk in the park gave you your cancer problems. Know thyself, read your DNA.

    we are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place <- Me

    by yuriwho on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:02:19 PM PST

    •  Again, understanding the term cancer cluster (5+ / 0-)

      is important here. Your argument does not hold in such a case.

      Thanks

      Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

      by Methinks They Lie on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:11:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Still, anecdotal testimony can be compelling. (0+ / 0-)

      The comments above rush to agreement, one after the other.

      BTW: same for the alternative cuasation related to poisons in that area going all the way back to 19th Century manufactures.

      I went to RPI and for worked a bit at Indian Point.

      Financial capitalism's criminals + Angry White Males + KKK wannabes + Personality Disorder delusionals + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:31:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See the second comment that I made (4+ / 0-)

      in this diary. This type of cancer is not associated, in any way, with normal genetic mutations. It is ONLY associated with radioactive exposure when it appears in children. In all cases that I've seen mentioned now, after spending some time online looking for what my oncologist was talking about.

      Thus it was quite often seen at Chernobyl.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:10:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  that explosion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, OtherDoug

    is either a hydrogen or steam explosion.

    if it's hydrogen, it formed in the reactor, then either built up
    in the secondary containment or it blew the reactor.

    if it's steam, it had to have formed in the reactor and then
    blew the building.

    either way, the reactor is most likely damaged, no longer
    able to cool, and the secondary systems are shot.

    At this point, it s a boric acid shutdown, with hope that
    it congeals in the basement.

    God help us if we have a second tsunami.

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:34:37 PM PST

  •  Until they can dispose of it, they shouldn't be (4+ / 0-)

    allowed to keep building reactors. Even with their safety plans (assuming they can keep this thing from a major blowup) the area around there will be affected.  

    Unless the govt is prepared to provide lead shielded houses to everyone in the vicinity when they build these things (which they're not) then there are better, cleaner, truly renewable sources of energy -- solar, wind, tidal, bio-fuels.

    How about some shit that runs on hemp oil? Oh I forgot, old white conservatives are scared of a plant...and not even the right one. Stupid is as stupid does.

    -7.75, -6.97 Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge. -Mark Twain

    by Chirons apprentice on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 12:56:49 PM PST

  •  Obama is committed to nuclear energy (6+ / 0-)
    President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research.

    http://thehill.com/...

    This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

    by Agathena on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:05:11 PM PST

  •  While your sentiment is understood it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Johnson

    is way too soon after this disaster to start this type of diatribe.

    If... the machine of government... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. ~Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobediance, 1849

    by shigeru on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:35:30 PM PST

  •  Amazing post! Thank you! (6+ / 0-)

    I lived in the shadow of the necrophilic beast too and I and my wife and kids all paid the price with thyroid disease.

    A friend had both babies born with deadly abnormalities and only one recovered. Too many casualties from nuke plants and not to mention spontaneous abortions and miscarriages

    Come See What Liberation Angels Are ALL About at www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAngels

    by Liberation Angel on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:37:50 PM PST

    •  I am tremendously sorry to hear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctsteve

      about your family (((((Liberation Angel))))

      We must speak out about the truth.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:43:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your post is inspirational and courageous and... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        it is something I want to say all the time, yet people are in a state of absolute denial about this.

        No parent wants to send their kids out to the bus stop each morning believing that they are sending their kids out to a deadly environment - one in which it all looks beautiful yet you can't smell or taste ot feel the deathly mutagenic and carcinogenic toxic cocktail of radionuclides.

        It is necrophilic fascists who promote this and cover up the piles of corpses and who lie to us over and over again about how safe we are and that no one is endangered.

        My family is surviving as downwinders or downstreamers yet the guilt I feel for letting my kids live and play and swim in a radioactive soup near a deadly plant and in a community which is a nuclear "sacrifice community" and the suffering of dead thyroid glands may one day be deadly for each of us as our immune systems are compromised and our whole endocrine systems are f*cked (not to mention whatever cancer likelihoods we face eventually).

        I know exactly how you feel exdcept that we, so far, have dodged the cancer bullet. The thyroid damage, however, is painful, deep, and potentially deadly all on its own.

        But I try to keep the faith and just wanted to express my gratitude for your post. It speaks volumes. Thanks much.

        Come See What Liberation Angels Are ALL About at www.youtube.com/user/LiberationAngels

        by Liberation Angel on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:41:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nuclear Power (4+ / 0-)

    Great article!

    Nuclear power is not renewable or safe.  It is not a clean source of energy if we have no ability to contain or recycle nuclear waste.

    Oppose all nuclear energy and weapon projects.

    We're all just monkeys burning in hell. SmokeyMonkey.org

    by smokeymonkey on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:42:50 PM PST

  •  Awesome diary, MO...makes the (8+ / 0-)

    whole green energy thing that much more important!  See Bob Herbert's column today in the NY Times...

    Puerilis institutio est renovatio mundi. Jesuit dictum, ca. 1590.

    by dizzydean on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 01:44:35 PM PST

  •  "Correlation Doesn't Imply Causation" (6+ / 0-)

    Your story is heart-wrenching for anyone (which means most people, especially over the age of 40 or so) who has gone through really bad stuff like you have.

    However (and I do hate the word), you really don't know what caused your cancer. I am especially skeptical of pinning it on the one power plant you mention. I am quite far from being any utility spokesman, but I haven't ever heard that those power plants release radiation into their surroundings, at least as a matter of course.

    The list of problems with power plants, nuclear and otherwise, is long, but I can't see a reason to tie your cancer to Indian Point. That much said, maybe there is good reason to change my mind. If you offered some more information that would help me do that, I'd definitely reconsider.

    •  Of course it doesn't (6+ / 0-)

      but this form of cancer is virtually unheard of without radiation exposure, specifically from Iodine-129 or -131. These are what caused a 45X increase in childhood cancer in Chernobyl, causing the first definitive connection between nuclear power and childhood cancer in a 2006 study published by an international medical review journal. Both forms of these have been found around Indian Point, moreover, in the form of what was considered natural seepage. Indian Point has, moreover, like many older nuclear power plants, been reprimanded for multiple leaks, one of which was in 2005. This let out a good deal of Strontium, although that normally causes bone cancer (which I did not have).

      I knew none of this when posting this diary and researched this since many brought it up. My presumption is, however, that the excellent oncologist and his staff at the top-notch research hospital that I was at were looking into this at that time, thus their suggestion of causation.

      I will have to ask him more about it the next time that I talk with him.

      When I wrote this diary, I wasn't aware of this fact being in dispute since it came from an absolute expert. But I understand why it would be questioned. And have thus tried to research it myself further, responding with sources throughout the comments here to further explain.

      However, I'm not sure how many people would let their kids play within view of a nuclear power plant every day, diving in and out of the puddles there with great glee! Would you?

      I wouldn't.

      My mother probably wouldn't, but she wasn't really paying much attention to my daily traipsing through the woods and creek beds back there.

      Now seriously, would you let your child, or your fiance, or your partner, yourself, your mother, anyone you love, leap in and out of creeks and puddles in sight of a nuclear power plant? That's an earnest question. Really for all of those concerned with the causation argument here.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 02:54:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Questions (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, erush1345, Mcrab

        I am open to the idea that the plant caused your cancer. The issue I have with your diary is that you didn't substantiate your belief that one is linked to the other. And because there's so much emotion in it, you put those of us who are "evidence-based" in the position of being real bastards for asking dispassionate questions.

        I say the foregoing by way of telling you that I am much more sympathetic than this or my other post might sound. I don't have the gift of lyrical writing, but I do have the gift of an analytical mind. With that:

        1. What kind of cancer did you have? I saw "childhood metastatic cancer," but that doesn't tell me much, given that metastatic refers to cancer that spreads, but it doesnt say what kind.

        2. You say that the cancer you had is almost always radiation related. Were there any other sources of radiation in your environment? I am not being snarky here. Radium is a much more common and much more significant health issue than most people know.

        3. Was Indian Point reprimanded for multiple radiation leaks? (You wrote "leaks," but didn't say what kind.) Did they happen while you lived there, and can you say anything more about them? I ask because, as I read the coverage today, I see that some kinds of radiation produced by these plants has a half-life of a few seconds. So not all radiation is equal.

        I realize that I am sounding like George W. Bush and nuclear industry wrapped up in a sandwich. All I can tell you is that it's not true for me. I'm as capable of getting really angry as anyone, but then my rationality gene kicks in, eventually.

        •  All of these have been addressed (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, Betty Pinson, Matt Z, neroden

          in the comments and the update.

          I'm an analytical person myself. I understand your skepticism more than you realize. I'm an academic and teach at the University, as well as engage in the requisite research associated with that. In my update, I've tried to explain how I'd not thought to question my oncologist and his epidemiologists, nor did I suspect that would become a central point of this. I took their opinions in good faith and still do.

          I spent about twenty minutes answering these questions and then felt it was TMI. I realized that I left some of these slightly blank because they hurt to talk about. They still hurt. But if you look closely through my comments, they've all been addressed, or linked to. I promise.

          I was never ready to talk about this one. It's been like a knife in my soul to do it. But that's how important it feels to me to share my story.

          Thank you for your compassion here.

          I've questioned many stories that lacked details as well. Please know the details ARE in the comments, however. They are all here, or can be found by links included. After doing my own research today, which also was truly painful and still is, I'm yet more convinced my doctors were correct and that we need to be careful to not hurt ourselves in our quest for a solution to global warming. Which IS my number one issue, incidentally. Without solving this one, there are no other issues to solve.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:08:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Answer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        You asked whether I'd let kids, loved ones, etc. play in the ponds next to a nuke. My answer is "no." I'd say, "Look, I'm sure it's safe over there, but why take any risk?"

        •  Right. But you're saying others (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, neroden

          should take risks when you're saying it's okay for these plants to be around other peoples' kids. And they are. And I was one of them.

          It's too bad my parents weren't as aware as you are, right?

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:42:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not What I'm Saying (0+ / 0-)

            What I am saying is what I wrote. Please don't put words in my mouth. Instead, just answer the questions I asked. I can be convinced. I'm not screwing around with you, so please don't do it with me. Thanks.

            •  Please see my last reply (0+ / 0-)

              to answer your questions in full. Sorry if I caused you any offense.

              Also, I'm not really in the job of convincing, per se. I'm sharing. That's all. I think many other commenters here would be better at convincing. Some craft exceptionally fine counterpoints and dialogue on this matter. All I have is my story.

              "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

              by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:09:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You Made Claims (0+ / 0-)

                I'm looking for some backup. Sending me through hundreds of comments in search of a few simple answers isn't kosher, but hey, it's the Internet and no one really has to have a serious dialogue, I guess.

                •  You aren't really open to reading (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  esquimaux

                  what I wrote then. I'm sorry. I thought I explained myself well. Perhaps not. But that's okay, and most certainly is your right. We'll all manage, I think, and I won't even get upset over it :)

                  I think the Internet is an incredible place for serious dialogue. I think it's also a good place to share experiences. There are different goals. I feel like I'm repeating myself, however, so have a great evening.

                  "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:31:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I Read Your Diary Three Times ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive

                    ... before I asked you the questions, which you could easily answer quickly. I'm trying to follow the big story, and get a bunch of personal stuff done. I don't have the time to paw through hundreds of comments in search of a few bits that we both know you could provide easily.

                    Anyway, I was moved by your account, and my mind remains open. But I'm not some Palinista who believes it just because someone who shares my politics says it. For better or worse, I need more than that. I'm sorry you didn't want to give me a hand. If I get the time, maybe I'll search the thread, but I've got a bunch of other things going on this evening.

                    Best to you. Honest.

  •  I used to work in a craft that exposed me to (9+ / 0-)

    lots of toxins - I tried to protect myself as best I could by wearing a respirator but I was getting more and more rashes and just feeling sick a lot. I felt like I could FEEL my immune system breaking down.

    I could not find a doctor capable of screening me for the toxins I was being exposed to - ended up just quitting my profession, and after about 4 months away from the chemicals started feeling better.

    The upshot being, the US medical establishment seems WILLFULLY under-informed about treating people with illnesses caused by manufactured toxins. I find it hard to believe this is a mistake, and that research needed to treat these kinds of medical conditions are INTENTIONALLY being stifled by corporations and those associated with them (like those who insure their businesses and banks who loan them money).

    And just look at the SHAMEFUL way that Republicans have tried to block paying for  healthcare for 9/11 First Responders. There can be no doubt this is because they are protecting their corporate patrons from lawsuits down the road.

    The Nuclear Industry, like the Chemical industry, is entwined in a tapestry of overlapping interests that invest a lot of money into being sure their dangers are never fully exposed to the light of common knowledge.

  •  The dirty people who enable dirty industry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Johnson, neroden

    The people who enable these industries are usually the problem and nuclear is a particularly strong example.

    Thorium, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is far more abundant than uranium, easier to mine, and produces far less radioactive waste.  The radioactive waste it does produce has a far shorter half life; a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands.

    There's one little flaw.  Thorium produces so little waste there just isn't much there to make nuclear bombs with.

    And that's why thorium was spiked in favor of uranium in a series of government decisions from the Second World War through 1970.

    India is now taking up thorium with gusto, as they have the world's biggest proven reserves (although US reserves are also substantial).  For the next generation nuclear plants we'll inevitably need, are we going to buy American thorium reactors, or Indian thorium reactors or are we going to go on polluting the world with uranium and plutonium?

    Ask our military-industry complex and the enablers who reside there . . .

  •  Hi MO - thank you for sharing this personal (5+ / 0-)

    story. I commented yesterday in a diary about how I use to live by San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in San Clemente. I believe that it is still online.  I am technically unfamiliar with how the cooling system works.
    I do know that when I spent time on the beach near the power plant (Trestles), I'd find numerous fish washing upon the shore that had many tumorous growths in their gills.
    When I lived there --- I believe that some of my neighbors were talking about knowing several people who lived nearby with some form of cancer. They believe that the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant had something to do with it.

    This is a link to a site that someone sent me a long time ago about a woman's motorcycle trip to Chernobyl. The woman is a writer that goes to Chernobyl from time to time, and writes about. Very eery place. There are tourism trips to Chernobyl now on line.  
    Ghost Town - Tour of Cherynobyl

    I found a you tube documentary on the Animals surviving very well in Chernobyl including many that were once endangered. Chernobyl Documentary (Part 1) Animals This is Part 1 (9:58), there are 4 parts you can see online. Very interesting.
    I wonder what their DNA is like......
    Glad you are doing well. thanks again for sharing.
    WWC

  •  It appears to be getting worse (3+ / 0-)

    rather than better.

    latimes article

  •  The perfect is the enemy of the good. (3+ / 0-)

    Getting rid of fossil fuels needs to be our top priority.

  •  Well, I will say it for you and for me... (6+ / 0-)

    ...Fuck nuclear power! and Fuck nuclear power!

    Sorry for what you have to endure as a child. If anything has not convinced anyone in the past about the evil in the nuclear plants, this diary should.

    Thank you MO for this beautiful diary.

    ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

    by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:39:26 PM PST

    •  Damn the man, I wondered if you (5+ / 0-)

      were going to make it in here, Bro TiMT.

      I'll say it with you gladly!

      FUCK NUCLEAR POWER!!!

      We've got to come up with a better alternative to our fossil fuel dependence. It's like, is it better to kill someone with a gun or a knife. That's the argument made again and again here. My argument is it's better to find a way around killing anyone at all. We've got solutions at our disposal, but man, we're greedy about our energy consumption. It's bullshit. Sheer bullshit. Multinational corporations making a profit by killing us all, and the fishes too, hey, and what about our kids? No thanks!

      Those going on and on about the blessings of nuclear power wouldn't let their kids jump in the puddles fifty feet away from a reactor, would they? I don't think they would...

      Would they let their mama's hang out around them, day in and day out? Nah. That's how I know it's pure crap.

      But my point is that we need to think hard and push for as many viable alternative, non-lethal solutions as possible.

      Solar. What. You get a blood blister with overexposure. Wind turbines. I guess in a hurricane, they could fall on someone. But they don't make your mama grow two heads, so with global warming staring us in the eye, we need to rethink or knee-jerk desperation to embrace some dangerous solutions. I mean, heroin is a good cure for a headache, but no thanks.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 03:48:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Many people have a short memory on what (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, Matt Z

        happened in 3 mile island and Chernobyl.

        More huge aftershocks. I'm watching CNN, the Prime minister of Japan looks very very down....conflicting information on whether a meltdown is occurring ---
        Japanese Government says there is --- Nuclear Agency that runs power plants -- says not yet...semantics. :-(

      •  yesterday, many said 0% chance of meltdown (4+ / 0-)

        in threads on this topic yesterday, several confident people were saying that there was no chance of a meltdown in a light water reactor because the control rods would immediately go in, and there would be 3+ backup systems for keeping water flowing over the core, thus the worst that could happen was releases of stream. Now, I bet that there was damage to part of the water pipe leading to the pumps, because the hydrogen explosion wouldn't have happened unless part of the core was uncovered.
          So obviously, backup systems can fail even when there isn't human error, but instead, the right type of damage occurs. Thankfully, the steel container is pretty impenetrable.

        •  I linked to the CNN report (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          We Want Change, Matt Z, bee tzu

          which is now saying:

          Official: Meltdown may be under way at nuclear reactor in Japan.

          It offically may be underway. That's some mixed up rhetoric they have going there.

          But yes. The BP disaster that was a few months ago should have taught us a little more. I'm a skeptic by nature and don't tend toward fatalism. But I also believe in being analytic, first and foremost. I saw that power plant go up. Saw the tsunami. I'm usually on the "let's wait and see" side of these matters. This one's kind of a no-brainer. There's always a big risk with nuclear power. Too big, in my humble opinion.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 04:19:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Very well-written, this piece Mahakali. Bravo! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive
  •  Hi Mahakali, really appreciate your diary (7+ / 0-)

    and your perspective. Your "say it to my face" title is a good strong challenge - who would argue that nuclear power is safe, to someone who experienced such serious health issues, very possibly due to their proximity to a nuclear power plant, which may not have been managed responsibly?

    But then I thought, I certainly would tell anyone that cars are safe, even though I drive regularly. There are plenty of unsafe activities that I participate in, and the fact that they're not safe does not result in my abstaining from those activities, or campaigning for them to be banned.

    I have full respect for your perspective and experience, and I'm not going to say that Fukushima, or any other nuclear power plant, is safe. But I'm also not convinced that nuclear energy should be abolished. There is a middle ground.

    Your experiences with Indian Point, and our experiences with TMI and Chernobyl, do not necessarily inform what's happening at Fukushima. It's possible that Fukushima won't result in a significant release of radioactive materials, and it's quite likely that Fukushima is far better designed, in terms of safety protocols, than TMI or Chernobyl.

    I'm not saying that it's perfect - there are obviously some very serious problems and weaknesses, that will need to be corrected. But I do agree with NNadir's core point that nuclear energy can and is being produced with minimal risk. Not always, not optimally, but so far, I still see Fukushima as a responsibly managed situation.

    For perspective, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, and lack of health care each kill more people in America every year, than how many died in 9/11. But we chose to spend trillions "fighting terrorism". I'm sure some of that money was well-spent. But I know that most of it could have been better spent on other initiatives to protect innocent life, and support democracy and freedom.

    We live in a complex world, without obvious easy choices. Choosing to ban nuclear energy will have consequences, which may or may not be worse, in terms of human and environmental impact. And for all that I value personal perspectives on the issue, I also value data-based, analytic perspectives on the topic.

    Some comments:
    -It's fine to talk about transitioning to alternative energy sources (I work for a green energy company), but absent a very significant shift in consumption (eg a lot of people getting rid of their cars, becoming locavores, and paying significantly more for green energy), that's not going to happen in a meaningful way.

    -I think the most serious danger we face from nukes is nuclear bombs. I grew up in the Cold War and as a fifth grader, the concept of nuclear brinksmanship was an obvious abomination.

    -My dad was an engineer. They think about things differently. There is no way to eliminate all risk, the goal is to minimize risk. Nuke plants are built by engineers.

    •   I certainly WOULD NOT tell anyone cars are safe.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, neroden

      (correction)

    •  Rec'd for a good counterpoint (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erratic

      and for engineers. My grandfather was an engineer. I think my son may be headed down that path himself.

      I also strongly agree with this, and it's probably the key subtext in what I'm saying (although I'm not all that calculating, and really just felt for the Japanese, 160 now irradiated, and like to tell personal stories that seem ripe for some cultural moment or another; I like how real this makes our connections, in my sad attempts to transcend text):

      It's fine to talk about transitioning to alternative energy sources (I work for a green energy company), but absent a very significant shift in consumption (eg a lot of people getting rid of their cars, becoming locavores, and paying significantly more for green energy), that's not going to happen in a meaningful way.

      This is 100% true.

      And thank you for working on Green Energy works. I appreciate that deeply.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:17:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I appreciate you Mahakali! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive

        It takes skill and compassion to manage comments on a controversial diary and you have done so admirably. I greet the buddha within you!

        •  Thank you, erratic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erratic

          When people hold different viewpoints than me, it's not something I hold against them (unless they are really and truly hateful points of view - like bigotry). But when it comes to how we see the world? Well, we all have a perspective, and what is a conversation, or what should it be, but a sharing of our personal experiences?

          Now this matter, it's of deep importance to me, ergo I want to discuss it. I don't want to be "right." I want to be shaking up a few neurons!

          We can't tackle this by tearing one another down. Here, we need to hear one another out.

          My inner buddha sometimes turns into a Kali.

          But what use is a conversation that seeks to tear each other down while focusing on solutions? I just see no need for that here. My belief is that anyone, other than a few trolls (and by this I mean only the usual trolls, since there are always some on the DK just here to stir it up) ultimately all want the same thing:

          A sustainable type of energy that does the least harm.

          Figuring out what that is, weeding through the PR spin from the anti-Science, that can be very difficult. Indeed. But we have to do that. We're in a serious crisis as a planet. No time to tear one another down. We're already in deep shit.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:05:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  ((((MO)))) A winner through and through. I (4+ / 0-)

    have been for nuclear energy but now I have to rethink.
    The thought that hundreds of thousands can be cooked - yes, cooked - in the very near future is terrifying.
    I am happy you survived to tell you your story, MO.
    And thank you for telling it so powerfully.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:06:01 PM PST

    •  JoanMar, please rethink this one (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JoanMar, Matt Z

      it's important. And often, it can really seem like hysteria and teeth-gnashing. But boy, if there's one issue that is worth our full consideration, it's this one. Because many want to solve global warming. We all do, I'm sure. I do, like crazy. And so we're quick to hop on board here with this one. But...

      Well, it's bad. And I'll tell you that because I love you to PIECES, my friend. Let me know if you want any more information. But this is a killer in its own right, and will cook many a kid too, so we'll all come out of the frying pan only to find ourselves in the fire.

      They need to keep thinking on this one!

      30 years from now, my guess is that we'll look back on this like we do on tobacco now, scratching our heads thinking, "What?! They had doctors saying Camels were better for you than Marlboros?!"

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:13:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am rethinking, my friend. This is as serious as (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, Matt Z, neroden

        death...literally.
        The problem of storing the waste has been the biggest negative for me up to this point,  but now the very idea of nuclear power itself needs to be re-examined. I can't pretend that I have any grand ideas but I do know that our scientists have a whole lot of work to do.
        If Chernobyl wasn't a wake-up call, then this most certainly is.

        Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

        by JoanMar on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:21:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JoanMar

          It's a tough one. I can see what people are saying here, but I know that it's still not justifiable in the end. You'll make a wise choice. I trust you. And if you decide you aren't with me on this, meh, I wouldn't respect you any less. Just do your critical thinking!

          Because we better learn from our repeat, global mistakes already.

          And I hope I didn't just go airing my dirty laundry for nothing. That was really sensitive to write about.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:25:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your "laundry" isn't dirty. Your story is one (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive, neroden

            of bravery, tenacity and victory. Could and should never be described as anything less than grand.
            And in any case, self-sacrificing love (exposing yourself to those who would belittle and condemn for the greater good of us all) love is the greatest love of all.

            Btw, lots of love to your family, especially your mom.

            Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

            by JoanMar on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:35:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Global warming is going to fuck up the planet more (0+ / 0-)

        than any nuclear disaster possibly could.

        A thousand years from now, no one is going to give a shit about Three Mile Island, Fukushima, or even Chernobyl.

        You can't say the same about gloabl warming.

        •  There should be some other way (0+ / 0-)

          to minimize harm. There are more choices than just these two.

          I don't want to be redundant here because there are SO many excellent comments here from many, many posters throughout.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:06:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good point but we are in the here and now and (2+ / 0-)

          hundred of thousands of lives are at stake right now. There has to be a way to make the getting up energy safer than the options we have now.

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:29:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wonderful sentiment, but not much of a plan. (0+ / 0-)
          •  Yes, there is. (0+ / 0-)

            Replace the old nuclear plants and the coal burning plants with new nuclear plants with better designs.  Then replace those in 40 years with renewables if they have advanced to the point they can provide the power we need.

            Our choices today are between fossil fuels and nuclear, unfortunately.

            •  Or, replace fossil fuels with renewables now. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              I'm sure you understand that solar can provide the world's entire power during the day.  So start by replacing all daytime load with solar.

              When you get to the point where you're starting to cut into nighttime max load -- note that most locations provide a coal-based baseload larger than the nighttime max -- then start installing batteries, pumped-storage hydro, and transmission lines from neighboring regions.

              Also, heavily push energy efficiency, particularly of those things used at night -- nighttime max load could be a lot smaller than it actually is.

              Most of the nighttime max is shortly after sunset and shortly before sunrise (relatively speaking).  So the lines to neighboring regions which are still getting sun in those hours will shave off that peak.

              If the remaining nighttime load is still more than is supplied by the hydro plants and the wind plants and the neighboring-region solar installations, even after massive increases in efficiency, we can consider whether we want more energy storage devices, more transmission lines, or dangerous nuclear plants to replace the old coal and nuclear plants.

              We haven't done any of the earlier stuff yet though. The problem is mainly political.  If we can't find the will to insulate the nation's houses -- a no-lose all-win move -- why would we find the will to replace coal plants with ANYTHING?

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:22:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  1. You're wrong; 2. False choice. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          1.  A thousand years from now, people will still be dealing with the radioactive contamination at Chernobyl.

          2.  You seem to be telling us "Your choices are drawing and quartering or hanging, so choose hanging!"  Right as far as it goes, but a false choice.  Renewables can still supply the world's energy needs, no matter how much nuke promoters claim otherwise.  It's simply expensive, nothing more.

          Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

          by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:15:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, I'll say it to your face (8+ / 0-)

    Nuclear power is safer than most ways of generating electricity.
    The Fukushima plant has been providing reliable energy for four decades.  It was hit by a quake of a magnitude not seen in a thousand years and, for now, is still holding together.  Which means, logically, that any plant built to the same standard could operate safely for another millenium.  Of course, new plant designs are safer still than Fukushima.
    The same quake burst a dam, reportedly washing a town away, and yet I see no screams for banning hydroelectric.  
    This is not to mention all the terrible health effects from gas and coal and oil power plants, which don't leak once in awhile but rather spew their carcinogens into the air, constantly, day and night, for decades.  
    I am terribly sorry for the health problems you cite, but when you do an analysis of the health effects of fossil fuels vs. nuclear, nuclear is the much safer long-term option.  If you want electricity, if you want a modern lifestyle, it's the price you have to pay.  I'm terribly, terribly sorry you specifically were the one who had to pay.  I can't imagine what you're going through.
    And just so you don't think I'm not putting my money where my mouth is- I live in Japan.  Our town wasn't damaged by the quake but we're less than 300 miles from the Fukushima plant and well in range of any coming fallout disaster.  I guess I'm about to see how strong my resolve is.

    •  Ah, well it wasn't safe for me (5+ / 0-)

      So I guess all those blowdryers blowing at the same time were worth my life. That's that black sense of humor of mine. Actually, I don't feel they were. We use far, far too much electricity, not only personally, but also due to our export/import habits, and how we run various industries, and could easily scale this back right off the bat with further regulation, shifts in our habits, both personally and culturally.

      But I wish you all the safety in the world. That's a decent proximity. You are so deeply in my heart, you have no idea. I hope your resolve remains strong! I'm sick inside for the 160 Japanese citizens who are struggling with radiation poisoning now :/

      Be well.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:22:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for the good wishes (2+ / 0-)

        I agree 100% that we use too much power, and reducing our use of electricity is the best way to protect ourselves and the environment.  I wish nuclear power wasn't necessary at all, but while it is, it's indeed a necessary evil, especially in countries like Japan that don't have other resources.  Maybe this will drive them to examine things like tide power and expand their wind farms, though.

        We're going to head out to the next town and do some shopping (ours is so small we don't even have real grocery stores) and hope they figure out a way to stop or contain the meltdown.  Again, my best to you.  

    •  additional thoughts (3+ / 0-)

      I sit here, having just written the comment above, looking over at my wife of 9 years, who's taking a nap on the couch.  I would do anything to protect her and keep her safe.
      I look out the window and see some kids playing by the river.  They're my students at the local elementary school and I care for them deeply.
      I would hate if anything happened to us.  No one lives their life wishing they'll become a case study or a warning or a symbol, someone to point to and say "remember so-and-so, because of them, this or that industry has become safer".  But we did learn things from Three Mile Island, and Chernyobl, and we'll learn from this as well and keep on making nuclear power safer.  The only other alternative is to keep burning coal and oil and screwing up the climate and atmosphere.  If we could make solar and wind the primary sources of power that would be ideal.  
      Until then... we go on.  My best to you, Mahakali.  Peace.

      •  Peace to you too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citisven, Hatrax

        It's scary. We're facing what seems like an impossible dichotomy to solve: which way do we want to die? How many lives must we sacrifice, and whose? I reject that dichotomy. New technologies, new habits, we can get there. I don't care about a little dissent about how along the way, as long as we are all focused on the edict of "Do no harm." No one deserves that. None of us should be case studies at all. And I hate to be one. But more so, the thought of my son, my husband, or my family, that also hurts me more.

        Perhaps it will be made safer. I don't believe it's possible. But it could happen. I'd feel more comfortable with known quantities, particularly after all this lying from this particular industry over the years with their myriad disasters, and so hope we can find something we know is safe already. But that's where I leave it to those who are working on green energy solutions, good engineers, and others. Solar and wind WOULD be ideal. I'm guessing we have other solutions that we haven't even dreamed of yet out there; we need all the smarties working on this stuff to be dreaming like crazy, on paper, in the field!

        I'm just here to tell my own story. Everyone may respond as they see fit. I have no problem with that. I just want to see us really thinking about this. Hard and well, thoroughly and from many sides.

        Blessings and safety to your family. Let me know how you are if anything changes, please? In the meanwhile, I'll be keeping you and yours deep in my heart.

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:54:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Geez. nt (0+ / 0-)

      Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

      by Fury on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:40:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  None of our current forms of energy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      the fan man

      are safe...including nuclear. That's why we should redouble our efforts to push for clean technology that produces clean energy, mass transit, and fuel efficiency. But defending and justifying these poisonous forms of energy....just ain't gonna cut it, or get us there.

      Come join us on the gulf coast where thousands are becoming ill from exposure to the toxic corexit that was, and is still being used, to sink the oil. It's a trade off, right? for the use of oil?

    •  The Aztecs Believed - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      That the blood of human sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli was essential for preserving the world in its 52-year cycles and the everpresent war against darkness.

      Your comment above seems quite similar.

      •  I had a nice resolution with the poster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnnygunn

        who I think is really suffering. Can you imagine being in the midst of that mayhem, just 300 miles away? I'm going to be empathetic about this. Also, like so many folks, the poster is trying to figure it out. That's pretty clear to me. But what a dark space to be in right now.

        Let's definitely show compassion for those in Japan, who may have family or friends who are affected. And if that reactor does meltdown, I don't know if he is in the fallout zone. But he may be. He may be.

        "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:35:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          I saw the resolution - and I commend your tolerance.
          I am just troubled with the "people gotta die" meme.

          •   (0+ / 0-)

            "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

            by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:54:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm just a touch offended (3+ / 0-)

            that you think I embrace a "people gotta die / you gotta break a few eggs..." attitude.  
            My actual point is that people need to have a clear, level-headed view of the risks involved in anything.  Again, Japan was just shattered by a quake more powerful than any in a thousand years and the reactors still have not gone Chernyobl on us.  On the other hand, a dam broke, destroying a town, and an oil refinery caught fire and burned down whole neighborhoods, but no one is talking about those incidents in terms of how we should immediately ban those forms of energy generation (for those reasons, anyway).
            In an ideal world, the authorities in charge of the energy industry would be open and honest, and the people they serve would be educated and informed, and we could all decide on what risks we are willing to take.  In an even more ideal world, we'd work together as a planet for these same goals.  In a perfect world, we'd all know the right balance to take between risk and reward, between environmental impact and our own comfort, between our current needs and the needs of future generations.  Since our world is far from perfect, let's start by having a rational discussion about energy and our options instead of trotting out bogeymen.
            Mahakali has a very, very, VERY good reason indeed to be skeptical of nuclear power, and her story should definitely be told far and wide as a perfect example of the horrific impact of dishonest and careless industry practices on the lives of ordinary people.  My argument was simply that the condemnation should fall squarely on industry practices and the people who aid and abet them, not on the technology itself, which, if run according to strict guidelines and policed transparently and honestly, is a safe and valuable source of power to wean us off fossil fuels.  It's not perfect, not even close, and I would hope it'll be supplanted later by better things.  But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.  That's all I'm saying.  Peace.

            •  Very well put. Honest, sincere, intelligent. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              I agree, industry and technology should be treated separately and in a perfect world, they would. You're also right that we are all irrational creatures, our views of risk, need and reward are always skewed. Those in power rarely ask the public what it wants and it's possible if they did, the public wouldn't have a definitive answer. Apparently there was debate in Japan about which paths to choose in energy development, those in power chose nuclear. I couldn't see a small island like Japan importing coal and natural gas. Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Was there a cultural motivation as well as rational? Did Japan decide to harness the energy that brought such destruction to their country for the good of its people?

              We had a chance in the seventies to move to a soft energy path, those in power nixed that big time. Since the American public didn't want nuclear, the same companies that supply nuclear and a complicit gov't said "we'll give them coal". No move to more efficient motors and appliances, no move to more efficient engines. More, more, more. That is the world we live in.

              I hope you and your family are well and Japan moves quickly to recovery. This is a disaster of epic proportions. That any infrastructure is standing is a testament to Japanese technology and culture.

              “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”, Theodore Roosevelt

              by the fan man on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:16:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We *should* get rid of oil refineries (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive

              I don't know if you're not talking about them, but I have.

              The problem with the nuclear industry is that dishonest and careless practices have a much more massive effect there than elsewhere.  Everything is incredibly finicky  -- nothing is truly failsafe.

              In contrast, dishonest and careless practices in the wind and solar industries have fairly mild, relatively harmless results.  For example.  The same is even true of the power transmission line industry.  

              The battery industry is another story, as its use of chemicals makes it very dangerous, but dishonest and careless practices there still may have marginally less harmful results than in the nuclear industry.

              Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

              by neroden on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:25:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You might like this, neroden (0+ / 0-)

                Doesn't look like much yet. But it will be good. Needs writers, mainly. Members too --  you came to mind.

                It's called the Nuclear Free DK. Started it just a few mins ago!

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                (of course, anyone who groks the mission statement is absolutely welcome to follow or contact me about writing as well).

                "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

                by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 11:40:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Excellent points, but... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive

                you're still in my ballpark, i.e. we need to police the industry instead of tossing out the technology itself.  
                Cars and trucks are very finicky, too.  One errant loose bolt, one goofy nut behind the wheel, and you have a catastrophe.  Smaller-scale than a disaster like Chernyobl, yes, but repeated many times each day.  It adds up to far more death and destruction than any nuclear accident that's ever happened, or is likely to happen.  What is it, something like 50,000 people killed per year in auto accidents?  That's a lot of lives.  

                But no one talks about banning cars and trucks (again, not for that particular reason, anyway).  Instead, we recognize that cars and trucks, policed by the industry itself (for their own self-interest) and by outside agencies (to keep them honest just in case), combined with educated and careful operators, are a very useful and necessary tool for our modern civilization.  Unregulated, they can become death traps.  Regulated, they are a useful tool.  Still, if you use them, accidents can and will occur and some people are going to pay the ultimate price for everyone else's convenience.  It's horrible but it's true.

                Special note to Mahakali- this comparison is in no way intended to be flippant or disrespectful.  I used this because I had a friend who was killed in a car wreck that would have been prevented by better oversight.  Until we come up with the political will to implement a better solution, cars are what we have to work with, and will always be useful to some degree.  

    •  Nuclear power is not only horribly dangerous (0+ / 0-)

      in the short term, unlike other forms of energy it is DANGEROUS for thousands of generations following ours - provided the human race even lasts that long.

  •  powerful diary mahakali, thank you n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, esquimaux
  •  Good antinuke story to send out (5+ / 0-)

    You should send it to the people doling out billions of dollars in guaranteed loans to build two more reactors in my state, making the Vogtle Plant the only one in the U.S. with four reactors.
    They DO have no trespassing signs around 3,100 acres surrounding it. That should keep the kids out.  :/

    After three decades of no new reactors nationwide too.

    whitehouse.gov contact

    Education is too big to fail. Truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

    by Burned on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:32:24 PM PST

    •  I'd be glad to send it anywhere (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctsteve, Picot verde

      it would help. Truly. We're way, way on the same page when it comes to environmental issues.

      Our nuclear fixation is not a solution. Surely there is a solution, but this isn't it.

      Thanks for this, Burned. Peace to you.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 05:47:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sorry about your cancer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall, Jake Johnson, OtherDoug, Mcrab

    You have not provided evidence that the power plant had anything to do with it but that's normal.

    I looked to find any evidence of radionuclide releases. I found that small amounts of radioactivity were released.  So far I have not found any reason to conclude that the power plant caused your cancer. Perhaps you have some evidence.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:13:45 PM PST

    •  What year is that report from? (0+ / 0-)

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:18:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That one appears to be ancient (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mahakali overdrive, OtherDoug

        It discussed the 70's.

        You were there a long time ago, however.

        I skimmed a few more reports but they were not very helpful. The state didn't find Sr90 in fish above background levels despite problems with a leak in the pool that stored spent fuel rods.

        Honestly, that kind of situation does not build confidence, but it doesn't show any causation of cancer.

        FWIW the troubled Japanese plants were not properly sited to deal with known tsunami risks. They also appear to have not been designed for as much acceleration as they might be reasonably expected to get in a large or great earthquake like this one. I say appear, because I haven't double checked the accuracy of reports I have seen here and elsewhere.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:47:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, you'll want to definitely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ctsteve

          double check the reports. Mine came from the top researchers in my area, so prior to this diary, I never thought to question them. Since then, I've done some research and posted some here and again.

          Iodine-129 and -131 seem to be the problem? These were the problem in Chernobyl, according to the World Health Organization.

          I moved there in 1981 or 82.

          Unsure if this helps, because I'm not sure where the data cited is from, and moreover, it's much more recent:

          http://www.riverkeeper.org/...

          This may be of more help?

          http://www.timesunion.com/...

          It explains that specific situation better.

          At any rate, I still trust my oncology team best. They were top notch and again, on the cutting edge of researching this area.

          But that wasn't the point of my diary. Although as a Scientist, I can appreciate your wanting the data! At this point, I'd like to find it too. The one thing I do keep reading is about Indian Points failure to report much of this, etc... so it may be missing or inaccurate. Also, my sense is that Indian Point will be shut down since it's in a bit of a battle now with local folks who are concerned (and many are QUITE wealthy).

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:02:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The most recent data cited in the report (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux

      works cited page is from 1973. That was prior to the building of Indian Point. Additional data in the water samples are from before 1973. Is that report from a later time? Say, after the power plant was constructed?

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:21:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Releases from Indian Point are discussed (0+ / 0-)

        The reactor is 40 + years old.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:58:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. There were three reactors (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gobears2000, neroden

          Unit 1 operated from 1962-1974, and was then shut down.

          Units 2 and 3 were build in 1974 and 76.

          Your document is probably referring to Unit 1.

          I'd like to see more recent documentation. Sincerely. That refer to Units 2 and 3, since those are the ones which I was practically climbing on every day.

          Current articles that I've seen reference Iodine-131 and Strontium, as well as this, which refers to nickel-63 AND a previous history of problems... note, it says it was safe because no one was drinking it. I was definitely climbing through creeks that were right by it regularly.

          http://www.nytimes.com/...

          By MATTHEW L. WALD
          Published: March 22, 2006

          WASHINGTON, March 21 — Two more radioactive contaminants have shown up in the groundwater under the Indian Point nuclear reactor complex in Westchester County, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Tuesday. But the agency and the plant owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said they did not pose a hazard.

          My suggestion is that, based on all that I've read, there is no sound data in 1982 for what was there, but there were a lot of cancer cases that are typical for radiation in other kids like myself, weird cases that aren't normally seen, in that area, according to the leading cancer specialists then in NYC.

          "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

          by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:11:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I share your concerns. We need better data (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            than we have been able to google up.

            For what it's worth, I still think coal power is far more dangerous than nuclear power. That is, unless very foolish people site reactors in  major tsunami and earthquake hazard zones

            look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 08:11:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Fish - (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, esquimaux

      To what degree is nuclear power central to your worldview?

      At almost every possible level of analysis, nuclear power is insane - cost, environmental degradation, waste storage, military/industrialization of society, neocolonialism, nonsustainability.  Yet many who call themselves enviroonmentalists have latched onto new nuclear as if it were the Holy Grail.

      What happens if you remove nuclear?

      •  We need to get off of fossil fuels (6+ / 0-)

        Coal contains uranium & toxic elements. Coal power plants generally release more radiation than nukes.

        Coal produces far more waste than nukes and that waste includes arsenic, selenium and mercury.

        The economics of building new nukes in the U.S. looks dubious to me. Renewable power is my first choice but I think that we need to use every option to cut our coal, including nuclear when or if renewables aren't feasible.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 08:05:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  All the pro-nuclear shills coming out of the (0+ / 0-)

      woodwork....

  •  Kind of off topic, but in your travels (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive

    through the woods, did you see any Indian pipes?  I grew up in upstate New York, and spent lots of time in the woods, and you named all the things I loved to find!  I now live far away, with a different climate and different plants.  But I miss my childhood forests -- and finding Indian pipes!

    •  You know, I wasn't sure and googled (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53

      them, and not sure that I did see one, but they're stunning. There's such an incredible bounty of nature out there and so much sheer diversity; it's almost tropical, really, in the summer. I do miss my childhood forests too, and all of my favorite plants (my big "score" was always fiddlehead ferns).

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 06:44:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  THank you for sharing your story... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, Picot verde

    trade-offs are how they couch the use of such poisonous energy...just like the trade off of drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and using corexit to sink the oil if there is a disaster.

    No more trade offs. Period.

  •  mo (5+ / 0-)

    We might have many differences but on this we are solidly together.
    Thank you for your personal story. It is these stories that the  nuke supporters can't debate, can't explain, and can't deny. The lack of moral responsibility for those exposed and those yet to be born reeks of greed and ignorance.
    I have people close in my life who are dying slow painful deaths due to Hanford. Tell them it's a choice between nuclear and coal. They'll tell you your a fool and a provocateur. It's not an either or we all get to live in the dark ages. When did we become so lazy, so unwilling to commit to a future where our children will be safe and warm?
    I'm so glad your in remission ;)

    Remove BP's corporate charter for environmental terrorism.

    by Picot verde on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:19:46 PM PST

    •  Thank you picot verde (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Picot verde, ladybug53, Matt Z

      What tragic stories to hear :( I wish you, and they, Godspeed and great strength.

      It is imperative for people to not worry about this or that on an issue, because there is strength in numbers, and moreover, in reality. I see some of the most diverse people coming together here. And honestly, it gives me hope to finding some better solution. I'd gladly stand with anyone willing to recognize the gravity of this situation.

      And it REALLY isn't an either-or dark-ages postulate. Surprised to see that come up so often. But my feeling is that people are truly scared of climate change -- and rightly so. So they're grasping for solutions that twenty or thirty years ago, they would have rejected outright. Some who are "for" this issue are probably still working through it. I'm okay with that. We can work to educate them. We have to. And we have to find better solutions, fast, and better lifestyle choices. Education is going to be the most important solution to this one.

      Blessings to your loved ones.

      May no one ever see the inside of my Hell. And for all who have, may they know my compassion.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 07:26:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My first paying job after college in 1982 (8+ / 0-)

    was working on the Indian Point Project with NYPIRG.  Our goal was to shut the plant down, since -- aside from believing that nuclear power was dangerous anywhere -- the emergency plans that were instituted quickly after the feds required them after TMI were woefully inadequate.  We sued Con Edison over those plans and lost, of course. Indian Point is located 25 miles north of New York City.  There are 17 million people living within its 50-mile radius. If there were a serious accident there (there have been lots of releases that "cause no danger to the public" according to Con Edison and now Entergy, its current owner), those plans called for evacuating south through New Jersey.  Not possible.  Period.

    mo, your story isn't unusual, although it is terrible.  My roommate when I worked at NYPIRG was from Buchanan, a town you certainly know.  Many of her friends were ill with all kinds of weird stuff as kids -- tumors, rashes, fatigue, all sorts of symptoms.

    I hope your recovery is permanent, and thank you for telling your story.  It's important.

    •  Thanks ed... I'm going to update my diary (6+ / 0-)

      with this, if that's okay. That's right.

      Was that the group, your group, the one I might have protested with? I remember the goal was to shut it down, but was just a little kid then. No one was arrested that I saw. We had a circle and joined hands.

      Do you have any of the legal material from that Con Edison suit still? And are you allowed to publicly post it?

      We should be TALKING about this one.

      All of them.

      I want to put nuclear power back on the table as a serious conversation topic we need to not forget to have again, right now.

      I'm sorry for all the sad stories that I know you've heard :(

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:19:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's scary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, edsbrooklyn

      Not just because it shows such a blatant disregard for human life and reality, but because we've let them get away with it.

      Thanks for sharing your insight. It doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy, but it's always best to know what your up against.

  •  {{{{mo}}}} I am so sorry to hear about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, Matt Z

    all you went through.  What a horrible, terrible experience.  I'm in tears.

    The nuclear power industry risks go beyond the plants, too. My childhood camp (Fort Scott) was only 2 miles from the Fernauld uranium enrichment plant in SW Ohio. The Catholic Church had to close the camp down.  The stuff got into the ground water and area wells.  We drank from pump wells, there.  We bathed and swam in the stuff every summer.

    I had a giant schwanoma tumor removed from my spine and sciatic nerve about 10 years ago.  I've always wondered if maybe that's how I got the darn thing.  

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 08:34:58 PM PST

    •  {{{{{{{{bkamr}}}}}}}}} (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Matt Z

      I am crying too, reading your reply. My heart aches for you, it aches for you.

      What pain you've been through.

      You might want to talk with your oncologist if it will bring you peace? Or look online for connections between your type of schwanoma and uranium? You could even talk with a Professor who researches these forms of cancer, I would think, by email? Unsure there.

      I wouldn't rule it in or out as the reason without speaking with your oncologist.

      Also, finding out if the area had any history of leaking Uranium into the groundwater at the time you were there. You can probably find that at the County Water Board where they are housed. Come to think of it, the next time I'm in NYState, I'm very MUCH going to my old county water board to look at some records from 82, since I can't find these online.

      Great big healing blessings to you.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:12:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It was rough, but better, now. The surgery (0+ / 0-)

        left me with quite a bit of nerve damage -- I was in a wheelchair for about a year -- but I can walk, now.  Some of the after effects are kind of funny.  I have very little feeling in my right foot, so I've learned to unconsciously use my peripheral vision to guage how my foot is interacting with the floor.  Turn out the lights, and I have to sit down and scoot.

        I went through the taking things out experience, too ... uterus, appendix, ovary, lymph nodes, and but nothing like you went through with critical components.  For me, it was the nerve damage and the pain.  Thank goodness for neurontin.  

        There is some information on schwannomas and depleted uranium which, I think, is one of the by-products of the process they were doing there.  However, it's the common story of the decades that can pass between exposure and no definitive causitive information.  Some of the people who lived in the area did win a class action suit for some damages, but nothing was ever done regarding the thousands of children who attended the camp summer after summer, right next to the place.

        I was also at PSU during the Three Mile Island disaster.  My step-father was a State Rep. in Harrisburg, at the time, and he called and told my friends and I to get the hell out of there.  So, we went on an impromptu road trip south and then west for a week. Fortunately, it resolved the way it did. It could easily have been so much worse since the roads into University Park are very limited through the mountains and the wind was projected to blow the stuff into the valley where it would have gotten trapped by the mountains on all sides.  70,000 students ... I shudder to think about that.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 06:37:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  And if you were injured in a car crash? (5+ / 0-)

    Would you demand that everybody abandon their cars and return to horses?

    Because the reality there is that many people died in filth ridden cities, from diseases caused by horse manure.  Cars allowed a dramatic increase in urban sanitation and cleanliness.  But yes, some people would tragically die in car crashes.

    Such is the price of progress.  People used to be smothered to death by the thousands during Victorian London coal smog epidemics.  Now there's a cancer cluster every other decade.

    I'm sorry that modern physics doesn't live up to your lofty expectations, but the engineers are doing the best job they can.  They could use political help instead of demonization, if you insist they do a better job.

    Otherwise, please prepare for a coal power plant to be built in your backyard.

    •  Interesing. I have been injured in a car (4+ / 0-)

      crash. I'm not making that demand, no, not at this time. I don't appreciate your tone, however, and am going to not further respond to your comment due to it.

      Other than to say that if, tomorrow, cars were outlawed, I would truly shed not one tear for myself. But that's of no consequence to the discussion that we're having.

      Have a fine evening.

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:15:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  mo--I am so sorry to be (6+ / 0-)

    so late to see your diary.

    This is a beautifully written diary and I know you told your story to try and help others.

    As for the raging, brainless assholes who are attacking you here, ignore them.

    Thank you for sharing this and I am sorry that you had to go through all of this horror.

    People who are deniers of the evil of nuclear energy gone wrong are people who do not know enough about it. The information regarding the dangers is readily accessible. The United States did not stop building nuclear reactors in 1977 for no reason. The last built was the River Bend plant in Louisiana. They intended to build two plants but a group called Louisianans for Safe Energy fought very hard and only one was built. The only reason that a citizen's group was able to stop the construction of a nuclear power plant was because of documented evidence of the potential dangers. Note: the area where this plant is located (and the 2nd plant would have been located) is near the Mississippi River north of Baton Rouge. This area is lined with petroleum processing plants and storage farms, is referred to as cancer alley and is, by no means, a pristine part of the country, yet we were able to stop construction of the second plant.  

    The dangers are clear to anyone who has the intelligence and curiosity to look into it. Think of all of the very dangerous energy enterprises that have never been halted. This tells us how dangerous nuclear power plants are. Not to mention the environmental dangers of storing spent fuel and rods, the transporting of same and the fact that there is no safe place to store them as spent nuclear material still has a long half-life.    

    "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

    by rubyr on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 09:15:32 PM PST

    •  {{{{rubyr}}}} (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rubyr

      Missed you, my friend. Was offline for a while and was thinking about much of what you're saying... it's not like everyone doesn't know this isn't safe territory, and now it does look like that reactor is in meltdown mode, gauging from boatsie's update. The information has been back burnered because people are desperate, by and large, to solve climate change, to come up with anti-fossil fuel solutions. I don't think that's wrong at all. I just think this is not an either-or proposition, as well as this type of power not being safe -- if it can be hit by a big wave and result in nuclear catastrophe that can impact people, animals, plants, and so on for decades upon decades, if not longer, that's not safe at all.

      And then, some are just deniers. Well, there are climate change deniers as well. The irony is only when I am told that I am anti-Science for being pro-Science, for addressing the real radioactive isotopes in fallout from Chernobyl and found in groundwater near my own house, with their known connections to cancer of certain types. That is nothing save Science. Although perhaps it is my faith in Science that didn't cause me to consider having to prove what strikes me as a no-brainer point about "nuclear plants are connected with cancer." I'd think everyone was Scientifically saavy enough to recognize mutagens, other than perhaps a few who are well wed to their ideals of a pro-nuclear society, for what reason, perhaps they've bought the PR from that industry? Saw a LOT of that last year with BP...

      Of course I'll ignore them ;)

      I don't fight with anyone!

      I do, however, fight ferociously on the behalf of others :)

      But for me? Nah. I don't bother and am not much offended what denialists and apologists say. As far as the few Scientists seeking data, I admire that, and hope they pull up factual documents rather than outdated ones, while also realizing that any good Scientist knows things sometimes don't get properly reported due to the nature of some industries. Like BP again. Last year. Like tobacco, until that guy played whistle blower that IT caused cancer. We already have WHO saying nuclear plants cause cancer. That lack of info is oversight, wishful thinking, a genuine desire to review the data firsthand, or plain old cantankerous trolling.

      So glad to see you here!

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 10:04:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The resistance to seeing corporate (0+ / 0-)

        propaganda for what it is, is mind boggling, especially with all of the evidence to the contrary.  

        Thanks again, so much.

        Blessed be the people of Japan.

        "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

        by rubyr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 07:02:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  {{{{MO}}}}} (3+ / 0-)

    Mo, girl, wow!  I'm so sorry for everything you went through.  Sending loving energy to you and thank you for sharing your story.  

    I for one am tired of pandering to perpetrators --- many of whom are opposed to any discussion however it comes. -- soothsayer99 DPK Caucus

    by princss6 on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:14:11 PM PST

  •  Thanks for telling your story. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1

    My personal opinion (and without any knowledge of the nuclear industry) is that if the Japanese can't even get it right, no one can.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Sat Mar 12, 2011 at 11:55:45 PM PST

  •  Gotta love the Japanese (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, Adept2u

    from a friend on another blog...

    ...one guy, at the edge of the footage, sort've just looked up from his desk, with an earthquake-or-not-these-reports-are-due-9am-tomorrow look on his face. When the camera shuddered back onto him, he was actually holding a pen and writing something out.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:03:01 AM PST

  •  Like you, the 'downwinders' of Washington State (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74

    Have paid a fearsome price as well.

    A heartfelt story, well told. Thank you.

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. ~T.Roosevelt, 1918

    by ozsea1 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 12:04:58 AM PST

    •  "Downwinders," yes. (0+ / 0-)

      A kid that walked by a properly functioning Indian Point nuke plant, no-no-no.

      “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

      After the event, therefore because of the event....

      Half the postings in this diary go for scare words and logical fallacy.

      Evidence, not.

      BTW: "downwinders" all over the West were trashed.

      Crazy stuff. Crazy bad.

      Financial capitalism's criminals + Angry White Males + KKK wannabes + Personality Disorder delusionals + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base

      by vets74 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:34:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  9/11 plane flew above Indian Point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vets74, Adept2u, bee tzu

    The second plane passed right on top of it but keept going for the WTC.

    US dodged a bullet. Had it crashed against Indian point, it could have exposed millions to cancer causing flames

    To cons the deficit and the debt are the budgetary result of the distasteful, ongoing presence of unnecessary and unproductive people that need to be punished

    by lawnorder on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 01:16:29 AM PST

  •  I remember that when Chernobyl (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    ... blew, they were putting vegetables in the garbage in Italy because they were too radioactive to eat safely.

    Nuclear power is not safe.

    I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

    by CherryTheTart on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 01:41:34 AM PST

  •  I spent years working (7+ / 0-)

    with the DOE on nuclear and cancer registry issues.  One thing I learned early on, and found few exceptions to, is that prevarication, obfuscation, and misdirection do not constitute lying for DOE staff at any level.  The furtherance of nuclear energy and weapons were always paramount and scientific and medical evidence and financial considerations that contradicted that objective were never acceptable.
    Facts were only used as leavening for the lies they told.  The public could not be trusted with the truth because they might come to conclusions disharmonious with the overarching policy.

    "I almost died for the international monetary system; what the hell is that?" ~ The In-laws

    by Andhakari on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:35:49 AM PDT

  •  what do we use then? (0+ / 0-)

    We can't use nuclear
    we can't use coal
    we can't use oil
    we can't use gas

    the only things that you seem to think we can use is
    wind and solar... two of the most expensive and least efficient forms of energy on planet earth and both of them would require use of toxic batteries to store the energy.

    i hate to tell you people if you want to live in a modern society you have to pay a price. there will be polution and heath risks any way you take it.

    There is a nuclear power plant just eight miles from my city. There is risk and i accept that.

    There is also a coal planet in the city... putting out polution everyday.

    There is a price we pay for our modern convience. Most of us accept this price.. The whiners.. they seem to want us to use fairy dust for energy or live in the dark ages. I'm not prepared to give up modern convience and i'm not willing to trust unproven, unreliable, and expensive technologies to satistfy other's insecurities.

    Nuclear Power is Safe Enough.

    •  We declare energy as a national priority. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, tardis10

      We start by nationalizing the system rather than leaving it to for profit killers. We remove our resources from the mid east and focus on a serious commitment to renewables.

      Our current energy consumption is so leveraged with blood and treasure, the true cost is not reflected in prices of megawatts and barrels. People say, oh renewables won't work...well how do they know?...we never tried. A few measly tax credits is not a real effort when compared to what we did and do in Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

      -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

      by Blueslide on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 09:37:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh and living in Vermont (3+ / 0-)

        and being anti nuke, I am just thrilled at the VT4VY.com ad blinking at me. (that stands for Vermont for Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor). Yes by all means, let's keep a nuclear reactor up and running where the owners repeatedly lie , the plant leaks tritium and the cooling tower collapsed
        The decommissioning is currently estimated to cost 1.7 billion by the way...cheap power indeed-$2833 for every Vermonter to shut that thing off.

        Nukes have got to go.

        -7.5 -7.28, Democratic Socialism...It's not just for Europeans.

        by Blueslide on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 10:19:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My President's Pretty Mouth (4+ / 0-)

    Almost got me convinced humanity might be ready to be responsible, and maybe our science could now handle it nuclear power.

    Oh shit was I ever stupid.

    I'm not going to use my nice words here, we may have just fucked up the entire northern half of the largest Japanese Island where the entirety is just California with 200 odd million people.  No, we do not have the wisdom, the tech, the expertise, to do anything at 100% no fuck up and half this country is infested with people so stupid I fear we may have to print up posters telling them not to stare at the sun.  So, not just no, but fuck no to nuclear power.  The shills they've had on the TV machine since this incident started are so disgusting I wonder if God grants them comfortable sleep.

    Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

    by Adept2u on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 08:18:55 AM PDT

    •  Agree, Adept2u (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adept2u

      and I like that, about a pretty mouth. But no, we aren't ready. We all know it. Most of us do, at any rate. I think that such a giant, multinational industry must have an incredible amount of political clout, however, particularly with climate change looming in a very real way. I think the shills are sick, and I honestly can't understand how they can sleep at night.

      I'm really glad to see you here.

      Love up!

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 09:45:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for this post! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, bee tzu

    Sadly, I live only a few miles from Indian Point.  When I was just a dkos young'n several years ago, a post of mine about the facility was mocked by the one commenter I had.  Sigh.  

    Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-

    by boran2 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 09:34:24 AM PDT

    •  Oh yeah... I feel you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boran2

      There were a lot of demands in here for my entire medical history and water samples, etc... it was silly.

      I'd love to read your diary. I'll have to go find it. Don't you think it's bizarre how you can go on up close to it? I don't know if you still can. But in the early 80's, when I was over there, we could get very, very close. I didn't add this to the diary, but it was on a rather pebbly hill with a good amount of wetness, puddles and such, and I would literally dig for mica flakes, as kids do, in the wet ground surrounding it. Thinking back on it, that shocks me. I don't recall how much fencing was around, but it was definitely right there, within view. Not close enough to cast a shadow down on me. But close enough to see. Right there.

      Now I must find your diary. Thanks for stopping in and lending some support!

      "There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement." - Emerson

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 09:49:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WHen I worked for a Big Six executive search firm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive, Assaf

    in Manhattan in the 80s, I was asked to help find (I couldn't make this up) a new PR director and several toehr top executives for Three Mile Island. Only a year before I'd sat in my living room, holding the hand of my closest friend, as we watched the TV, We lived in Baltimore, and if the winds changed and the plant blew, we were in for soem bad news. A d her mother lived in a farmhouse where she could see the damned plant in the distance--and the widns were blowing in her direction.

    I politely asked to have this assignment given to soemone else. I simply couldn't in good conscience work on it.

    I still feel that way.

    I lived in Japan for 7 years.  My husband was Navy.  The Japanese won't allow any Navy ships that are nuclear-powered, as most of the new carriers are, to dock in their waters. But nuclear power plants are their main source of fuel, in a very earthquake prone country.  The  mentality made no sense to me.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 02:38:34 PM PDT

  •  The women of Three Mile Island: (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/...

    I saw these women give a presentation on the survey they had done, to a nuclear protest group in North Carolina, before the licensing of the Shearon Harris reactor. It was the most stunningly effective presentation of a set of facts that I have ever seen.

    We don't need a third party. We need a second party.

    by obiterdictum on Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 01:30:38 PM PDT

Kimberley, Tookish, shari, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, buffalo soldier, Joe Bob, Sylv, miriam, Mogolori, hester, murphy, SLKRR, ogre, Marie, laurak, Timaeus, native, abarefootboy, RonV, kaleidescope, TechBob, tommurphy, Fishgrease, Pescadero Bill, tacet, CupaJoe, KateG, rubyr, Pompatus, lawnorder, emelyn, expatjourno, silence, scribe, Zinman, missLotus, Dr Know, flurdman, cskendrick, whenwego, OCD, Agathena, cmairead, Bionic, Stumptown Dave, Aquarius40, roses, ivote2004, peraspera, jennifree2bme, jalbert, ctsteve, askyron, splashy, admiralh, aitchdee, wader, SneakySnu, scorpiorising, dejavu, Getreal1246, hangingchad, minorityusa, MrSandman, danthrax, mrkvica, pat bunny, gmb, westyny, Damnit Janet, churchylafemme, flatford39, Chirons apprentice, betson08, liberte, grrr, clarknyc, ybruti, Kitsap River, randallt, Pola Halloween, Emmy, justmy2, vacantlook, realalaskan, rambler american, solesse413, The Gryffin, boran2, bibble, wolverinethad, libnewsie, drofx, Into The Woods, lavaughn, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, 3goldens, Tinfoil Hat, Hoomai29, greycat, Independent Musings, Tonedevil, chimene, Laurence Lewis, reflectionsv37, dg10348, Annalize5, dansk47, majcmb1, SaraBeth, Sun Tzu, Dem Beans, Fury, ladybug53, Barcelona, Kayakbiker, cassidy3, sofia, lotlizard, Ice Blue, gerardbellavita, Eric K, bluescrubs, PinHole, Shotput8, neroden, coolbreeze, sillia, Ekaterin, hcc in VA, Box of Rain, viscerality, Land of Enchantment, schoolpsyc, kathny, fhcec, Jim P, begone, Nowhere Man, LeftOverAmerica, RodSerling, Knucklehead, K S LaVida, esquimaux, kumaneko, irishwitch, bee tzu, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, souvarine, HoundDog, borkitekt, koNko, smokeymonkey, AoT, Loonesta, The Wizard, bluebrain, fou, kck, Lefty Coaster, NBBooks, jguzman17, eglantine, Art Garfarkle, boatsie, Unitary Moonbat, dirtfarmer, middleagedhousewife, jim d, CA Nana, means are the ends, frostbite, Dreaming of Better Days, goinsouth, chapel hill guy, shaharazade, kurious, Picot verde, leighkidd, Hedwig, kml, pale cold, Drama Queen, timewarp, out of left field, mochajava13, DorothyT, anotherdemocrat, tgypsy, ninkasi23, devis1, edsbrooklyn, martucio, Jimdotz, greenchiledem, certainot, DWG, bnasley, Orange County Liberal, rivamer, second gen, cyncynical, jnhobbs, OIL GUY, Got a Grip, JML9999, keikekaze, dizzydean, Assaf, kafkananda, bkamr, also mom of 5, kingneil, GlowNZ, Youffraita, bythesea, VL Baker, jamess, Ocelopotamus, MrJayTee, Tam in CA, ashowboat, Drewid, Karl Rover, David Futurama, kpbuick, bijoudesigncom, maggiejean, Ran3dy, Florene, rubyclaire, DontTaseMeBro, Lura, litoralis, not a cent, radmul, carolyn urban, stolen water, Nebraskablue, dark daze, Sarge in Seattle, Methinks They Lie, Gorilla in the room, janmtairy, Valhalla, VoteAqui, dfe, IndyRobin, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, aunt blabby, elziax, obiterdictum, asym, JustJennifer, sricki, Denise Oliver Velez, Feliks, cs, nancat357, astral66, clifmichael, schnecke21, Adept2u, citisven, Just Bob, ZAP210, smileycreek, Captain Marty, LaughingPlanet, gramofsam1, leftywright, The Free Agent, princss6, klompendanser, tubacat, wvmom, Radical def, hepshiba, beverlywoods, ThisIsMyTime, sharonsz, melfunction, nirbama, BlueFranco, eclecta, science nerd, FrankSpoke, Its a New Day, HylasBrook, tekno2600, mallyroyal, Eric0125, According to Fish, Barbara Marquardt, PaDemTerry, kerflooey, Bluefin, allenjo, mama jo, the mom in the middle, hopeful human, ozsea1, sboucher, opoponax, Tommy Ates, We Want Change, soothsayer99, Coilette, princesspat, molunkusmol, Lusty, Ace Nelson, BarackStarObama, floridablue, CherryTheTart, rexymeteorite, pensivelady, Imhotepsings, Caddis Fly, randomfacts, CA TreeHugger, CMYK, lincoln deschain, Friendlystranger, Ezekial 23 20, RLMiller, StepLeftStepForward, DRo, ChiTownDenny, DEMonrat ankle biter, PrometheusUnbound, Dom9000, BlueDragon, AnnetteK, quill, 2dimeshift, Patric Juillet, GenXangster, Voiceless, ursoklevar, APA Guy, damfino, oblios arrow, Aji, Eric Nelson, passionateprotagonist, AnnieR, Joieau, Ginger1, congenitalefty, martinjedlicka, renewables, Tyler R, jan4insight, Pilkington, Liberation Angel, supercereal, Ana Thema, Road Dog, radical simplicity, BusyinCA, notdarkyet, lunachickie, Reluctant Empath, jeannew, Kinak, bigrivergal

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.