Skip to main content

Tap Water in Tokyo is now unfit for Children
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The Japanese government says that Tap Water in the capital has radiation levels double the allowable level for children, and the release of radiation has not been slowed yet, at all.

The only BIG news of the reactors right now, the 23rd, is that "the lights are now back on in the control room of reactor 3."

Not "its covered" not "its cooled down" not "the smoke has stopped" not "the burning fuel is out" not "we have all trucks working," not "the back up system works" and not "we have it under control."

It is still getting worse, and already it has reached the water sources for the largest city in the world, reached and contaminated. Presumably that contamination is from days ago, and will be getting worse, for days and days to come. The contamination is from leakages up to several days ago. The radioactive isotopes reached the water source, contaminated that water, it travelled through the pumping stations, through the municipal water system, through the local pipes, and out into a testing cup. The radiation there now is from an earlier point in the crisis. The water coming out of taps now, was contaminated before.

So contamination from three days ago, is not coming out yet, nor the radioctive fallout from yesterday, nor todays. Tomorrow's fallout will raise the levels, and every day until it is "fixed" - sealed, buried and decommissioned, weeks we are told by the government, weeks say the American advisers, says the IAEA, and each day will increase the levels of radiation in Tokyo's water supply.

The price for this lesson is too high, the lesson is cruel, it is expensive beyond the ability of TEPCO, it adds to the 300 billion dollar cleanup, it will affect the economy of the world. It is a terrible lesson, but we have now learned, so now we must act.

Nuclear is too great a risk. The first action is: We must drive supporters of nuclear fuel from every office, including from inside our party, in our legislatures and in every energy organization in the world.

It is time to stop arguing, and stop talking about theoretical safety, and drive them out of all offices of responsibility.

The argument is over.

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

    •  Scary news about the water. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, neroden, Calamity Jean

      I agree, nuclear is finished. (BTW, "finished" has one "n", unless you are referring to the country of Finland.) ;-)

      A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. -Greek proverb

      by marleycat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:25:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  tell us, specifically, how you intend to... (15+ / 0-)

      .....make up for the lost baseload power.  

      One-liner answers will not suffice: you need credible technical details or you're just another two-bit fear monger.  

      Hint: I was involved in the design engineering for @ 300 MW of wind, so I know a few things about the field and I don't take BS for an answer, especially from people who make absolute statements.  And there are far more experienced engineers than I around here, who are even more eager to pounce.

      •  well then you tell me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden, Calamity Jean

        where shall all the people of tokio go if and when the evacuation radius is set as big as the one for chernobyl.
        for your energy problem could something like desert tech solve your worrys.

      •  Billions, spend billions on grids, solar, wind (4+ / 0-)

        geo thermal, retrofitting, chnage laws about simple things like making the of clothes lines legal in every town and city.

        Right now the great majority of cities have laundry drying ordinances that forbid hanging clothes outside illegal. This is an example of what needs doing, a thousand things need doing. 10 percent of us are unemployed in America, more elsewhere, when we had to fight Japamese and German and Italian fascists, we built quickly and effectively, we must do so now as well.

        3% of world generated power is now wind, we must double that, and double it again, and again.

        I do not worry that we can do it.

        Most easily once we stop talking about the theoretical safety of the failed arrogant nuclear solution.

        Do not spend billions on nuclear.

        •  Demonstrate that it can be done. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AnnCetera, Samulayo, Darmok, Recall

          Seriously. Show me a 100% renewables, ten-year solution that (a) can be politically achieved in the current political climate, (b) provides for all of the nation's projected 2021 power needs, (c) uses technology available today (i.e., "R&D miracle" isn't one of the steps) or that is projected to be available and implementable on a national scale in ten years, and (d) can be implemented nationwide by 2021, and I'll support it.

          If you can't show that, then we have to go with what we've got. Which means we still need either nuclear power or fossil fuels. We can either deal with the possibility of nuclear accidents, or we can deal with the absolute certainty of tens of thousands of deaths every single year from fossil fuel pollution plus millions of deaths from climate change in the future. Or we can sit in the dark.

          Show me a viable, concrete plan for an alternative, not pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by "we did it in World War II and put a man on the moon" pablum.

          •  Can you tell us where you work? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, bincbom

            What organizations you have responsibility in?

            •  Huh? What does that have to do with anything? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Darmok

              Are you going to actually address my comment?

              •  Because my purpose is not to argue, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden

                it is to identify supporters and remove them from offices of responsibility for such things.

                If you have more power than one vote, it was granted by the vote of others, it is time to remove those votes from people who support nuclear power.

                Please continue speaking, and use your one vote, but now we are going to use our votes, to protect our planet and lives, by removing people who would take this risk from offices responsible for making these choices.

                •  Of course. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Darmok
                  Because my purpose is not to argue, it is to identify supporters and remove them from offices of responsibility for such things.

                  The great and almighty workingforprogress has declared the debate "FINNISHED," and thus it is so.

                  You dare to suggest that workingforprogress should have to present a concrete plan for a viable alternative? Poppycock! The great and almighty workingforprogress has declared the debate "FINNISHED." Were you not paying attention?

                  God forbid that workingforprogress be asked to support his or her conclusions with facts, or give information beyond platitudes and pablum to back up his or her claims. That would be DEBATE. And the great and almighty workingforprogress has declared the debate "FINNISHED."

                  •  I am sorry for my typo (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    neroden

                    and said so on the third comment above.

                    Yes, I say we must drive nuclear supporters from office.

                    •  The typo isn't the problem. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kalmoth, Darmok

                      I was just poking a little fun there :-)

                      The problem is that even if it's spelled correctly, I'm not sure where exactly you get the authority to declare the debate "finished," such that you don't have to present any concrete or viable alternatives to this thing you say is "over" that supplies 20% of our electricity.

                      •  Anyone who wants to poison New York's water (2+ / 0-)

                        like Tokyo's was just poisoned needs to be driven from office.  The debate is over.

                        We can actually reduce energy usage by 20% with efficiency alone.  Everyone knows that.  20% is the standard "wasted due to inefficiency which could easily be corrected" number.

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

                        by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:57:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There are many paths... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          OtherDoug

                          To the same goal.

                          Nuclear power doesn't have to be subject to meltdown.  Ever heard of pebble-bed reactor design?  They're air-cooled reactors that remain at safe temperatures even when the air supply is cut off entirely.  IIRC, this is either of German or Danish design and is current technology - available right now.

                          The issue of nuclear waste remains unsolved.  But France currently takes nuclear waste and vitrifies it, placing it mixed into large blocks of glass.  Blocks of glass are very inefficient at contaminating groundwater supplies.

                          These are current technologies - available TODAY.  This begs the question...

                          Why are we not using these methods of greater safety in nuclear power generation?

                          (I suspect that answer involves money, but I could be mistaken.)

                          "Fast, Cheap, and Good... pick two." - director Jim Jarmusch

                          by AnnCetera on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  I have a vote, I have decided how to use it. (0+ / 0-)

                        I am communicating to all others that have learned in our collective wisdom, that discussing it is a waste of time, a waste of money and it is time to act, to remove those that have not learned from office.

                        Thats democracy james, we say, no more debate for us, just time to lead, follow or get out of the way. If you support nuclear you are in the way, it is time for us to lead, and end nuclear power.

                        We have learned enough, the risk is too high, the damage too easy and too great.

                        There are other solutions, safer cheaper solutions, solutions that will create many non-off-shorable jobs, solutions that dont increase the need for "security" solutions that drive the end of the carbon energy era.

                        It is time to act.

                        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          workingforprogress

                          Its the 21st century , we need not use dangerous nuclear fuel to heat or "basically"19th century steam engine to make our energy.  Its just stupid.

                          We live in a universe made up entirely of energy, the only reason we have not moved on from last century is because of the big money interest.

                          Bad is never good until worse happens

                          by dark daze on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:54:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  You are a menace (0+ / 0-)

                          Know-nothings are a menace to democracy and you've essentially conceded that you're not interested in relevant facts.  Therefore, you are the one that needs to be driven from the discussion.

                          But the good news is that there is another party that runs on fact-free fear for you to join.

                          •  The evidence that I am a menace (0+ / 0-)

                            are my posts that Nuclear power is a failed idea, that we do not need to consider it as an energy source any longer, and we must not tolerate people who have not learned that, -- in positions of power.

                            On the other hand, the evidence that nuclear power is a menace is in the water coming from the tap in Tokyo.

                          •  Nothing in life is without risk (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall

                            Living anywhere along the Pacific Ocean, for example, carries the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc.  The need for energy requires enormous risks in acquiring and harnessing that energy.  Many forms of energy have significant risks.  And energy forms without significant risk have not yet shown to be sufficient to meet our demand.

                            So, pointing to harm that happened because of a nuclear accident adds little to the debate about the use of nuclear energy.  

                            What makes you a menace is the idea that you have quite emphatically closed your mind to all facts other than "there's radiation in that there water."  Know-nothings - particularly people who revel in their ignorance - are a danger to any rational debate on any subject.

                          •  "that there" ?? (0+ / 0-)

                            what kind of comment is that?

                            And end to nuclear power, we all mourne the passage of a failed idea, even a failed ideal. But failed it has, and end it does.

                            No more money ever to any nuclear power. Money to close, taken from the profits of the industry, money top clean up, also from the industry, and all new energy funding ONLY to non-carbon, non-nuclear sources:wind, solar, geothermal, to grids, to batteries, to new research for all renewables.

                            My mind is not closed, like most of America, like the great majority of Democrats, my mind is made up. NUCLEAR IS TOO BIG TO FAIL.

                            We have merely chosen a new path, and it does not pass a nuclear reactor, not a functioning one anyway.

                            We will not let pro-nuclear activists make these decisions anymore.

                          •  You're not in a majority at all (0+ / 0-)

                            There is no groundswell to close nuclear plants, even after this incident.  The fact is that nuclear energy is on the table to be discussed and will be as we increasingly recognize and act on the need for an independent energy source that doesn't contribute to global warming.

                            I'm always amused by people who pronounce the death of something because it often means that that thing is headed for a huge upswing.

                          •  Yes I am with the majority (0+ / 0-)

                            the growing majority
                            as new polls show, the majority of Americans need no more lessons.

                            As new polls show, they have seen enough, and they will not support the building of new reactors.

                            Too many have not listened to that, and are attempting to go against this majority, against the wisdom of abandoning this path.

                            They must be defeated in elections, in the party, and in the country.

                            We have built no reactors in America for 25 years, now we must declare, the argument is over, we will never build another reactor.

                            The argument wastes our time, stops our move to renewables, engages our activists in pointless debate about a failed technology.

                            For some it is more than that, it is a failed religion. And they fight like zealots for their reactors. But the great god nuclear is a jealous and viscous god, and it is time to for it to be left behind.

                            We have decided, it is time to act.

                      •  it means it is finished (2+ / 0-)

                        as far as new projects go. Its finished as a real alternative going forward.  Its pretty self explanatory, sorry if it means you may lose your job.

                        Bad is never good until worse happens

                        by dark daze on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:51:23 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  b, c, and d are easy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dark daze, Calamity Jean

            as long as money isn't a factor. This isn't about technology, per se. It's about money and politics.

            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

            by jam on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:51:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Now you're calling for POLITICAL achievability? (4+ / 0-)

            Nuclear is not politically achievable, so game over for your arguments.

            I'm not sure that the survival of the human species is politically achievable.

            (b) and (c) are trivial to provide, and have been shown several times before.

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

            by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  we waste 60% (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            workingforprogress

            we waste the majority of energy created here.  Energy efficiency is the answer along with renewable sources such as wind and solar.

            The answers are simple, but the energy companies lose huge sums of cash if they come to pass, so of course the energy companies will do everything in their power to stop real efficiency and renewable sources.  

            There is no money in it in the long run for big energy, so that's why we wont be allowed to have it.

            Bad is never good until worse happens

            by dark daze on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It probably can't be done in ten years. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW

            We could do it in twenty, using technology available today.   It will mean diverting money from oil wars to manufacturing wind turbines and PV panels.  Will we?  I don't know.

            Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

            by Calamity Jean on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Solar with intercontinental transmission (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        workingforprogress

        Yes, it's fucking expensive, but it works, and I'm sure you realize that.

        The more pumped-storage hydro we install, the fewer intercontinental transmission lines we'll need.

        The more energy efficiency we establish, the fewer intercontinental transmission lines we need.  Nighttime electric use goes substantially to light and heat, both of which can be made massively more efficient very cheaply.

        I'm giving you the "today's technology" answer.  There are other answers from technology under development but I don't expect you to believe them because you haven't seen the technology under development, so why should you?

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

        by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:55:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was thinking more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          workingforprogress

          of a massive deep well geothermal program. You can get hot rock anywhere in the world if you dig deep enough. That's also fucking expensive.

          I also think that hydrokinetic (e.g. tidal, wave) is huge since something like 70% of the world's population live within 150 miles of an ocean (you know that 74% of all statistics on the internet are made up, right? There's a lot of people that live near water...)

          Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

          by jam on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:14:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  how about (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods, Calamity Jean

        over 60% of the power generated  is WASTED in the US.  

        Think about that.  There is your answer, along with a real push for wind and solar.  But of course the energy industry doesnt want every home producing its own power, god knows thats the last thing the want.

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:46:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If We Did for Solar and Wind (2+ / 0-)

        (and the requisite related technologies, including those relating to grid efficiency and resilience) what we did for nuclear power, putting that much money and backing behind those sources of power that we did (and still do decades later) behind nuclear, are you saying it is not possible to replace a substantial portion of our existing power sources?

        Given the current politico-business interests that dominate the decision process, it may not be politically feasible (though Fukushima may be changing that somewhat).  

        But if that were not the case, if we threw the amount of money at advancing and supporting those technologies as we did nuclear and O&G, are you saying it is impossible that in a reasonable amount of time we could not make those technologies as commercially feasible as nuclear power is today?

        Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

        by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's some ideas: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        http://www.dailykos.com/... .  It starts with coming down hard on efficency improvements.  

        Obviously, all nuclear power plants can't be turned off tomorrow, but if we make serious efficency improvements AND install wind and solar as fast as possible, we should be able to phase them out.  Clearly no new ones will ever be built.  They are too expensive and take too long.  

        Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

        by Calamity Jean on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:09:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'll believe that (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Maori, G2geek, Dom9000, polecat, kalmoth, Darmok, Recall

    ...when I see it.

    Pres. Obama said last week:

    "I still think that nuclear power is an important part of our overall energy mix. But we’ve got to do it in a safe and sensible way.  It's similar to offshore drilling.  Everyone's now concerned about our oil prices.  Last summer, everyone was concerned about the oil spill. Our attitude is, it's appropriate for us to engage in offshore drilling as long as we're assured that we can contain an accident.  With respect to nuclear power I think it's the same approach.  We've got to make sure that we're doing everything cautiously, we're doing everything carefully, but we have to make sure that we're tapping into a wide range of energy sources, including alternative energy, clean energy. One power plant can remove 16 million tons of carbon pollution each year."

    If the reactors are shut down at this point the takeaway from this crisis might easily be how minimal the effects were given this worst-case scenario. So what's better, 16 million tons of carbon per year, or a release of  210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131?

    •  What's better? Offering false choices (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cody, neroden

      or engaging in genuine debate?

      On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

      by JesseCW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought the premise of this diary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dom9000, kalmoth, Recall

        ...was that the debate is finished?

        •  As far as i can tell, you agree with that part (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          of the premise.

          You just come down on the other side.

          On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

          by JesseCW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:08:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't follow (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dom9000, BachFan, kalmoth

            My quoting of Pres. Obama is meant to show that nuclear energy is not "finnished" even outside the usual suspects.

            Whether or not you may have some as yet unrealized alternative to coal or nuclear does not make the very real tradeoff between those technologies a false choice. Gas accounts for 20% of US production but of course that produces carbon emissions too.

            •  The claim that we must make a choice (3+ / 0-)

              between cola and nuclear is simply false.

              Between reasonable and cheap conservation measures that cut demand by as much as 15%, a SmartGrid that reduces our requirements by as much as 20%, and a serious investment in renewable energy we simply don't have to make that choice.

              On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

              by JesseCW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:42:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just to pick one (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kalmoth

                ...of those yet-unrealized items, what is the time frame and mechanism where consumption realistically is going to be cut by 15%? Whether or not it can theoretically happen, what will make it happen?

                And while we're waiting for that, it's still an interesting question: what's better, 16 million tons of carbon per year, or a release of  210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131? Just curious...

          •  Your posts are not making sense. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BachFan, neroden

            To my understanding he was quoting Obama to show that even if it should be, the debate is obviously not over as the diarist says it is.

            Your comments in response are not coherent.

            Repeal the Fascist Un-American PROTECT Act NOW ! ! !

            by Dom9000 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:25:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm having a very hard time (3+ / 0-)

              understanding where you got lost.

              So what's better, 16 million tons of carbon per year, or a release of  210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131?

              Classic false choice.  Presented only to try to pretend that Nuclear "is the answer".

              On the other side of ..."Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the gunfire, pointing towards their chests...in an invitation to shoot.

              by JesseCW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:46:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So what's the third option? (0+ / 0-)

                Because from where I'm sitting—with my lights and computer on, both of which are drawing electricity—I have yet to see a plan for a feasible, implementable renewables solution that provides for all of our power needs.

                Do you have one?

                Because I don't much like the thought of sitting in the dark.

                •  No new money for nuclear, ever. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  neroden

                  That's doable. Its easy. No new money for nuclear, except to to end their life cycle.

                  All new monies to wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, grids, batteries, capasciter systems research and retrofitting.

                  We can reduce the amount needed for heating in a home by a factor of five, and hire lots of Americans, and that is the same as building reactors.

                  I do not doubt our ability, nor is there doubt about the need.

                  No new money for nuclear, except to end their life cycle safely.

                  Remove people from office who believe otherwise.

                  Tme to change our energy systems.

                  The argument is over.

                  •  That's a whole lot of platitudes... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and nothing concrete.

                    Like I said above, show me the plan. Demonstrate that it's viable, not with more pablum and one-sentence paragraphs but with concrete and verifiable facts. Give me numbers.

                    •  other than "we can do it" (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      neroden, Calamity Jean

                      it is a list of actions, including removing nuclear supporters from office, not platitudes.

                      NO new MONEY for nuclear, except to end their life cycles. NOT ONE PLANT, no refurbishing, no re-starting, and all new monies to grid wind solar etc.

                      Actions.

                    •  Numbers? Look up the numbers. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      workingforprogress

                      Count the prominent experts who have explained that using current solar power technology the entire world's energy needs can be supplied by a few hundred square miles of solar farms (and sufficient transmission lines).  Look up the standard estimates for "low hanging fruit" efficiency gains.

                      This stuff is EASY.  It's not our job to do your homework for you.

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

                      by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:00:56 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Did the Nuclear Power Industry Have to Meet (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Calamity Jean

                      that same challenge?

                      Could they meet it today without massive government subsidy and socialization of risk?  

                      When Kennedy said we were going to the moon by the end of the decade, I'm pretty sure "The Plan" with "concrete and verifiable facts" did not yet exist.

                      In fact, when committing to develop new or improved technology,  aren't your oft-demanded "concrete and verifiable facts" really impossible to produce?    

                      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

                      by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:57:06 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You should do some actual research (3+ / 0-)

                  Mutliple compellilng plans have been put forward for an all-renewables future, over the last several decades.  Look them up please.  The best ones are the most recent, obviously.

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

                  by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  C vs. I (0+ / 0-)
                So what's better, 16 million tons of carbon per year, or a release of  210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131?
                Classic false choice.  Presented only to try to pretend that Nuclear "is the answer".

                OK, so I think I have your opinion--you feel that 16 million tons of carbon per year is worse than the radiation release. Interesting. I mean, you might have argued that the 210 becquerels per liter is worse and thus even a dirty coal plant is better than a nuclear one. It's debatable.

            •  We DO have a problem with shills. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dark daze, Dom9000, Calamity Jean

              It is true.  Just like the debate over whether to torture innocent people is not over, the debate over whether to risk poisoning the water supply of our major cities is apparently not over.

              It should, however, be over.

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

              by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:22:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Drill (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, dark daze, Into The Woods

      baby drill, glow baby glow.  Money talks.

    •  Why don't you go to Tokyo, (4+ / 0-)

      drink a few liters of water, and report back to us in 5 years how you feel.  We will try to avoid a big wind or solar spill in the meantime.

      I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

      by hcc in VA on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:59:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I'll take the carbon, please! (6+ / 3-)

      Look, all this talk about CO2 being dangerous is horsepuckey.

      CO2 is Natural, Iodine 131 is clearly Unnatural since it has a big number at the end.  And that means it's Bad.    

      Every single one of us emits carbon dioxide from one end, and methane from the other, and we don't drop dead from it (aside from dying of embarrassment about the methane when it's particularly loud and odorous).  If CO2 was all that dangerous we'd die from breathing!

      Besides, even if you climate scarecrows are right, so what?  I could use an extra five degrees celsius right about now: it's cold in here!  

      All those pictures of people in Siberia lighting the snow on fire are cool, I wish I could do that!  I'd move to where there's some good snow and have a snow fire in the fireplace.  Wouldn't that be something?  

  •  nuclear is not over (7+ / 0-)

    We need it for our energy independence.  I will never vote for anyone that will not support nuclear power.  

    There are also better, far safer plants, than that 40 year old junker.

    I'll say this though, I'll donate money and work against anybody who does not support nuclear power, even if I disagree with them on just about everything else.  Energy issues are just too important.

    "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

    by overclocking on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:34:18 AM PDT

    •  Nuclear not worth it (9+ / 0-)

      For the amount of money we spend on nuclear we can install a solar panel on every rooftop in the south which will produce the same if not more electricity as nuclear plants.  Not to mention solar is far safer.  You combine it with wind, geothermal and tidal and nuclear is easily replaced.  Not to mention that it will take far less time to be up and running with wind or solar than it will be with nuclear.

      If nuclear energy is your litmus test then it is mine too.  Only I will not support anyone who supports nuclear energy.  You will find that with your position on this issue you will not have many friends and the few you will have are the unsavory kind.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:44:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Easily replaced? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78

        which is exactly why we already do it right?

        •  We don't do it (3+ / 0-)

          because we're too busy subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear energy.  That has been our policy ever since shit head Reagan took over in 81 and removed the solar panels off the White House.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:42:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not exactly (0+ / 0-)

            The oil subsidies we currently have were enacted during Clinton era. As for being easily replaced that is a myth at best. The cost of producing and transferring and converting the equivalent energy is staggering and, at this point, impractical. Which was point. If it was easy we (or someone somewhere) would be doing it. No one is because it isn't easy. Doesn't mean we stop researching and trying, but it isn't easy - yet.

            •  Oil subsidies were enacted during Clinton Era (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              workingforprogress

              BY REPUBLICANS.

              And you are wrong about not being able to easily replace it.  at the Germans,  they're taking their nuclear reactors offline because they put solar panels on rooftops.  The reactors were replaced by panels and it was done in a matter of a few years (well 12 or so).

              So don't tell me it can't be done.  Germany had roughly the same amount of energy coming from their nuclear plants (23% of total as opposed to our 25%) as we do and they're shutting them all down.

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:11:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  BY Democrats (0+ / 0-)

                check the votes. And Clinton/Gore supported it as well.

                As for Germany:

                Germany's plan to shut down its reactors will require at least €150 billion ($210 billion) investment in alternative energy sources.

                When we are in such dire economic straights, it isn't "easy" to convert 25% of our energy. Germany's population is 81.8 million. More than triple that and then add in out higher energy consumption.

                •  Population doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

                  you're talking about replacing 25% of your energy.  Whether you have 80 million or 800 million people it shouldn't matter.  Germans did it in a bit over 10 years by putting solar panels on rooftops.  If we have more people using more energy all it means is that we also have more rooftops to put solar panels on.

                  As for the subsidies, Clinton and Gore supported it because oil was selling at between $10-$40 a barrel.  They needed the subsidies at that time otherwise it would not have been profitable to explore for oil and we would eventually have had a shortage as suppliers stopped supplying.  And it was mostly Republicans with your typical moderate Dems and some pragmatic Dems.    

                   

                  This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                  by DisNoir36 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 05:25:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I know we are debating but (0+ / 0-)

                    "Clinton and Gore supported it" was my point #2. Gore wasn't worried about the planet then.

                    #1 is you keep saying it has happened. They have a plan to make it happen. And yes size does matter. investing another trillion here isn't feasible at the moment. And our dispersed population is much different than the dense cities of Germany.

                    Look I;m all for better energy policy, but saying it doesn't make it so. And nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe.

                    •  Gore was a DLcer (0+ / 0-)

                      he's evolved a bit since then.  A bit late but better than never.

                      As for Germany, they have already done the rooftop thing.  They were in the middle of a 25 year plan to get away from nuclear and have decided to cut it a bit short because of Japan.  But the panels are already on the rooftops.  Other countries like Portugal are also way ahead of us in this regard, actually writing it into their building codes that solar panel hookups has to be done on all new houses.  

                      As to whether or not we can afford another trillion, well a good number of politicians think $10 trillion to $17 trillion in loans to build 100 new nuclear plants is ok, so why is it that $1 trillion for solar panels is not ok?

                      Nuclear energy is definitely NOT cheap. being the most expensive around.  It's safe until it's not and then it's EXTREMELY dangerous.  It's clean until you factor the spent fuel, then it's EXTREMELY dirty.  To say that it's clean, cheap and safe while at the same time pooh poohing renewable energy like wind solar, geothermal, tidal and so on is ludicrous.  All those are cheaper, cleaner and safer.  All those are being used extensively around the world and greatly expanded.  

                      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

                      by DisNoir36 on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 09:47:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78, polecat
        For the amount of money we spend on nuclear we can install a solar panel on every rooftop in the south which will produce the same if not more electricity as nuclear plants.

        [citation needed]

        •  Here's your citation (4+ / 0-)

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          You may not hear much discussion of this in Congress, but the construction of new nuclear power plants is the most costly approach to producing new energy. Each new plant costs $10 to $17 billion to construct, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the risk of default on taxpayer supported loan guarantees is more than 50 percent. The simple truth is that building new solar capacity is a lot cheaper than building new nuclear plants. The cost to produce electricity from new nuclear plants is estimated to be 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour. Compare this to the cost of producing electricity from solar photovoltaic panels at 13 to 19 cents per kilowatt hour. Also, importantly, the price of solar is coming down, whereas the price for new nuclear keeps going up. You do not have to be a financial wizard to figure this one out.

          That was written in 2010.  If anything costs have gone up for Nuclear and down for Solar.  There were calls for legislation that would have built 100 new nuclear plants at a cost of $10 billion to $17 billion per plant.  That would mean the fed gov't would have subsidized via loans about $1 trillion to $1.7 trillion for 100 new nuclear plants.  

          The typical rooftop solar system costs about $35,000.  With that same $1 - $1.7 trillion you can install 25 million to 48 million rooftop solar systems.

          There are 80 million single family homes in ALL the US.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:02:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And this is while nuclear power (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            neroden, dark daze, Calamity Jean

            still has laws that say they don't have to clean up, laws that limit financial responsibility.

            And it does not count the monies to dispose of waste.

            Nuclear is over, remove supporters from office.

            •  I'd like to point out, no one argues against (0+ / 0-)

              the cost of nuclear, a chorus of crickets can be heard we point out how much public money is wasted, how little of the actual costs are spoken of, no speaks about the Too Big to Fail laws that put the costs of catastrophes on the public.

              Why? because if the costs of catastrophes were added to the costs of nuclear energy (????) not one single investor cough up a dollar.

              ONLY if the dangerous technology is backed up by having the costs of diasters fall on us, the citizens, while investors walk away with profits, because they corrupt law makers into putting the costs and risk on us. Just like the banks. Risk for us, (because they don't care) and profit for them (just like the banks).

    •  And look what it took to ruin this one! nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  Them's fightin' words (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW

    My grand daddy was an atomic pile.

  •  there is a generation of inheritantly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ralphdog, G2geek

    failsafe plants on the drawing boards.  That are smaller and have assemblyline like design to avoid the overruns of the past.  Unless fear causes constant redesigns.

    •  we were told. . . (5+ / 0-)

      . . .that THESE plants were "inheritantly failsafe".

      "It can't happen here. It can't happen here. Keep saying it over and over. It can't happen here."   Frank Zappa

    •  Hubris To Call Anything Failsafe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      especially anything this complex.  

      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

      by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:45:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the new designs are far less complex (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Into The Woods

        and if something "fails" the system falls to a stable condition because of its geometry

        •  It May Be Better, But Nothing is Unsinkable. (0+ / 0-)

          Nothing.  

          No free lunch.

          No perpetual motion (or profit) machine.

          And no FailSafe anything.  

          The only way that test is met is if you grade on a curve.

          The curve may take into account a host of highly improbable events.  It may even expand the universe of what is used as a measure of probablity and impact.

          But the curve is still in use and anything that reaches outside that curve reduces the score to less than 100% safe, including things we could neither know or predict.

          That's actually what just happened in Japan.  

          The fault that produced the 9.0 was widely agreed to not constitute anywhere near that kind of threat.

          And yet, boom.  

          The science we thought of as sound in meauring the seismic threat in the US even 10 years ago has been altered significantly.  New, unmapped fault lines are producing 4.7 earthquakes in Arkansas and enough concern has been raised that fracking may have contributed to that quake that the fracking sites were shut down by unanimous emergency direction of the state oil and gas commission.  

          It's still not determined whether the fracking contributed, but it is possible.  Is that factored into the FailSafe test?  

          I support 'simpler', 'more resilient' and 'more safe', things that the new reactors may well be.

          But saying they are 'FailSafe' only makes people like me more skeptical that they are anything other than the new, improved brand of snake oil.  

          Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

          by Into The Woods on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 08:28:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The real reason why it shouldn't be over (6+ / 0-)

    The real reason why it shouldn't be over: because the alternative may be worse.

    If we shut down every nuclear plant today, we'd have to turn to other forms of energy, and in this country, that particularly means coal.

    Properly operating coal plants produce more radiation than do properly operating nuclear plants.  They release more toxic chemicals as well, including mercury, while the byproducts of nuclear energy are generally stored as spent fuel rods, rather than being pumped into the atmosphere.  That is, of course, in addition to sulfur, CO2, etc.

    Moreover, coal produces fly ash, which must be stored.  That fly ash contains a host of heavy metals, which can contaminate ground water even without spills, and there have been spills in the last few years.  An earthquake near one of the storage areas could devastate a large area, especially if the fly ash gets washed into waterways.  And of course, none of this even takes into account the devastation of coal mining (and we need to mine a lot more coal than we do, or even would, uranium).

    The lesson of this tragedy is not that nuclear power is unforgivable but that we should focus on promoting renewable power, on securing waste (this event might not have been so bad had they been storing the spent fuel rods elsewhere), and on being more conscious of the world's natural dangers, such as earthquakes, floods, and high winds.  It's in building plants and storage facilities in excess of any conceivable danger for a given location, rather than in excess of "likely" danger in a given location.  And it's in realizing that Fukushima, while a terrible tragedy, should not force immediate and unconsidered actions.

    •  Are you with the "one accident every 20`years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerald 1969, workingforprogress

      is not so bad" crowd?  Most of us aren't.

      I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

      by hcc in VA on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:00:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm in the "thousands killed by FFs every year... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raoul78, kalmoth, OtherDoug

        ...and millions more killed by climate change is worse" crowd.

        Show me an all-renewables package that's (a) capable of powering the entire nation's projected energy use in 2021, and (b) capable of being completely built and implemented nationwide by then, and I'll support it.

        Until that's actually do-able, nuclear plus renewables is probably the best of a bunch of bad options.

        •  Try millions (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JamesGG, BachFan, kalmoth

          for 2002, the WHO estimated 850,000 deaths/year due to air pollution, primarily from burning fossil fuels.
          Link (to an excel file, but its from the WHO website)

          In addition, 1.5 million people a year die due to indoor air pollution, again, due to the burning of coal, wood, dung, etc.

          That is PER YEAR, with the majority of the effects falling upon women and children.  

          •  Yep, and we have to stop that too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            If nuclear were a reasonable "bridge" from fossil fuels to renewables, I'd support it.  But it's not, because the construction lead time is sufficiently long that we could go all-renewable during that time.

            If anyone in power was making money off doing so.  :-P  The problem is economic and political, not technical.

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

            by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And "most of us" will vote them off boards (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neroden

        out of committees, out of office and away from positions of responsibility where they can threaten us.

        The argument is over, and it is time to act, removing people who cannot see from power.

        Those that spend time now speaking about theoretical safety is to identify people to remove from power.

        Its over.

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        No.  But as far as I can see, the dangers of the alternatives at the moment (and I don't mean renewables, I mean coal) are no less than nuclear, and possibly significantly greater.  A significant spill of fly ash in the wrong place would cause massive environmental damage and potentially poison ground water to a worse extent than a nuclear disaster.  I'd love to see us get rid of non-renewable power altogether, but I'm not convinced that nuclear is the worst alternative until we can do so.

    •  More false choice stuff... (0+ / 0-)

      But unlike the nuclear shills, at least you get it:

      we should focus on promoting renewable power,

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

      by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:05:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Responding the the Most Extreme Proposal (0+ / 0-)

      makes it easier to appear to win a debate.

      It does little to advance discussion that might actually help solve problems.  

      In the next twenty years, what might we be able to do and how should we invest our public resources and shape our public policy to take us in a direction that we know we should go?  

      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

      by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:48:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I haven't seen any comment yet that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      says, "Shut down every nuke today!"  What I think everyone is trying to say is, "Forget building any new nuclear power plants.  Forget building any new fossil fuel plants.   Replace the ones we have with solar and wind as fast as possible, and shut the existing ones down within the next few years."  

      Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

      by Calamity Jean on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:33:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But there have been an awful lot... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall

        ...of comments implying that, since the earthquake in Japan damaged the reactors at Fukushima. I personally would like to see the ~38% of electricity generated here in Illinois replaced first by renewables, then the ~60% from nuclear fission could be worked on, but the age of our 11 reactors, and the state moratorium on any major construction seems to be an impediment to that.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:49:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Historically, they've only delivered on one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OtherDoug
        "Forget building any new nuclear power plants.  Forget building any new fossil fuel plants.

        of those promises.

  •  Bring on more coal burning! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Georgia Liberal, BachFan, Darmok, Recall

    Because that's what you're saying.

    There will not be enough solar/geothermal/wind power available soon enough to avoid the need to rely on existing nuclear plants for at least the near-term, even if not another nuclear plan is built going forward, which I quite agree is almost certainly going to be the case.

    But if you demand that all existing plants be promptly closed, you're effectively demanding the construction of hundreds of new coal burning power plants. And that will be far more damaging to the planet than existing nuclear plants.

    •  I am not arguing, I am identifying people to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      remove from office.

      It is like saying "lets secede from the US". If you say that, you will not be elected to office, thrown out of responsible positions of power and laughed at. If you debate the merits of Secession, you will be noted as a dangerous fool.

      People who debate the theoretical merits of nuclear are dangerous fools. Debate is to identify them only.

      •  I prefer my elected officials to be people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ralphdog, kalmoth, Recall

        who are willing to debate the theoretical merits of anything so they can try to select the least worst options possible.

        For example, it may be that the risk-adjusted price of conventional generators may be greater then renewable energy plus power storage and transmission to make it work with the power grid.

        However, if we were willing to do reprocessing reactors, we may be able to generate some additional power while reducing the stockpiles of waste from existing reactors.

        Or perhaps not.

        I think factoring in risk in any discussion is essential. That may be CO2, that may be radioactive, that may be broken windmill blades shattering and flying through the air (check out videos on youtube). I personally think that broken windmill blades is the smallest worst case expected failure mode myself...

      •  "Dangerous fools"? Good to know. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kalmoth

        Given what we know right now about global warming/climate change, it's clear that anyone advocating for more fossil fuel burning power plants is either seriously deranged (and trying to bring the Apocalypse on sooner) or so misinformed that they are...well, a dangerous fool if you will.

        And as I've noted, if you're advocating for the immediate closure of existing nuclear power plants, you are forcefully arguing for the immediate construction of more fossil fuel burning power plants.

        So folks can draw their own conclusions.

        •  No money for new nuclear plants, (0+ / 0-)

          No money to refu7rbish, no money to do anyhting except bring them to their end. Safely, as President Obama says about leaving Afghanistan, with more care then went into nuclear power, but to go, to end it, and bury them.

          All new monies, and there should be the same amount of money, the same percentage of the economy, the same drive, the same comitment as the moon program, to build many wind generation plants, many solar plants, many gep thermal plants, larger smarter grids, more interconnections, more battery storage, at the city, neighborhood and house levels, more tidal programs.

          There should be contests, competing technologies, and lots of building.

          Wind electrical generation is now 3% of total world power generation, a young boy in a remote African village, built a wind generation unit himself out of garbage, givng his family and nieghbors their first electrical power. If he can do it, millionjs of us can do it.

          Another HUGE help would be a law making power companies buy back wind power generation from home and business owners.

          Right now, power companies do not allow power to sold back to them, and other only buy back the level of power sold, you cannot make money, only reduce your bill to zero. And it must be at the same price that the utility sells it.

          OF COURSE we can do this, we're Americans!

    •  Yes, it will take a decade to phase out nuclear. (2+ / 0-)

      Yes, it will take at least that long to build all the replacement solar/wind/geothermal/tidal.

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

      by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:06:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Should we also get rid of all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan

    of our nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs?  They also produce nuclear waste that must be sored and guarded forever. Should we go back to diesel powered submarines for our defense?  

    Obama would be perfect if he were a Cubs fan.

    by Georgia Liberal on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:16:54 AM PDT

  •  I think more people die mining coal than have ever (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raoul78, polecat, BachFan, Recall

    died as a result of a nuclear accident - unless you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accidents.

    We have to make Nuclear Safe but that should be doable at a reasonable cost.

    •  gee (2+ / 0-)
      We have to make Nuclear Safe but that should be doable at a reasonable cost.

      so you admit it is not safe  right now
      and second thing
      what is a reasonable cost do you say the japanese where to greedy or to stupid to just make it right or do you say we can have the safety we(the industry is willing to pay) can afford.
    •  "reasonable cost"? (3+ / 0-)

      We were told initially that "it would be too cheap to meter". It has not liived up to that promise. It has not lived up to the promise of even being cost effective. . .the costs have been soaring and after this "accident" (actually a failing of engineering) the costs will be through the roof.

      There are many, many safer and cheaper alternatives.

      •  Define safe and cheap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geek of all trades

        Cheap:
        Jerome a Paris recently linked to an Exxon report showing wind and nuclear are the two cheapest forms of electrical generation.

        The European commissioned ExternE report, which quantified the price of electricity when externalities were included, found similar results.

        Safe:
        One way to look at this would be based on deaths per TWh of electricity produced.  

        Here's a blog post, based primarily on the ExternE numbers.  Nuclear is at the bottom.  Even if there are 10x as many deaths than have been predicted by the WHO, IAEA, and UNESCAR, nuclear still kills less people than solar based PV (but more than wind). Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job in America.

        •  what? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, workingforprogress

          How can you quantify deaths from nuclear if you cannot count them? I am certain my aunts death was not counted in the statistics (three mile island) for nuclear, but I am just as certain that it was that looming power plant, visible through her kitchen window, that ultimately killed her. Nuclear deaths are largely, invisible.

        •  Your link doesn't work. (2+ / 0-)

          The ExternE report is not there.

          One of the serious problems with attempting to quantify the externalities of nuclear power is the extremely backloaded nature of the costs.  So far there has been NO successful permanent disposition of high-level radioactive waste.  How do you figure that cost into your externality estimates?

          Oh, and the other link you gave is lowballing Chernobyl-induced damage.  For one thing, to be fair you have to include all the consequences of the cropland permanently removed from production, including the consequent effects on world hunger.  Bet they didn't even try.

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

          by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:12:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raoul78

            http://www.externe.info/

            I haven't read it

            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

            by jam on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:29:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The links provided below (0+ / 0-)

            sorry for my html fail, was posting multiple things in multiple places.

            In the ExternE report, they use a model proposed storage facility - whether such a facility is ever built or not, this was how they calculated these costs.

            The second post is simply looking at the number of people directly killed due to energy use.  The ExternE report does in fact take into consideration the loss of land use in response to a nuclear accident.

    •  Holy false choices, Batman! (2+ / 0-)

      It's proven quite impossible to make nuclear safe.

      Not due to theoretical impossibility -- although it is a fundamentally dangerous and toxic technology in many different ways -- but because there appears to be no organization in the world which is responsible enough to avoid cutting corners.  And in nuclear, you cut just ONE corner, and you get disaster.

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

      by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:09:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  um... exactly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall

    how many deaths have occurred with nuclear power accidents?

  •  No one wants (5+ / 0-)

    Investment in nuclear power in the US.
    Nuclear power was fading in U.S. before Japan accident

    U.S. nuclear development, already slowed by a lack of private investment, seems likely to be further stalled by the political fallout from the Fukushima disaster in Japan. How fast this slowdown will lead to more renewables is an open question.

    The U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors which supply 20 percent of the nation’s electricity but no new plant has been brought online in decades.

    Talk of a nuclear renaissance was unrealistic, even before Fukushima, industry officials say.

    “Even before this happened, short-term market conditions were bleak,” Nuclear Energy Institute vice president Richard Myers told TIME last week.

    Nuclear plants are enormously expensive to build, and investors have walked away from several recent projects amid rocketing construction costs.

    That's why its over.

    PTSD, don't leave 'Nam without it.

    by BOHICA on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:33:26 AM PDT

    •  And we must make it reflect the much larger (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden, Calamity Jean

      actual costs, so no investor will ever risk their money this way.

      They have lobbied for laws that limit the amount they must pay for disasters, the Japanese people will be paying for the nuclear cleanup, not TEPCO, not the world atomic energy companies. That must end. We must calculate what it costs to fix Chernobyl and Japan and have all new reactors produce a bond for that amount.

      That Will End Nuclear Forever.
      Just by itself that will end it.

      We must give the bill for storage of spent fuel to the industry, we must give the bill for cleanup to the industry, for past failures, and the bill for future failures.

      We must remove them office everywhere.

      •  You know, I actually don't disagree with that.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        polecat, neroden, semiot

        ...at least to the extent that nuclear power companies should be carrying insurance against the probability that a disaster will occur, for the full amount of possible damages. It would make them much more likely to keep their plants safe.

        But, I think the same should hold for fossil fuels. Every single electron of fossil-fuel power should carry the cost of all the people killed by fossil fuel emissions every year. They should be required to start a fund that will compensate each and every family that suffers a loss due to particulate pollution. There would be a per-gallon gas surcharge so that those who drive would be paying into this as well. Give the bill for fossil fuels to that industry as well.

        Anything less would be a subsidy of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the nuclear industry.

        •  I will stipulate right now that I support (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden, semiot, Calamity Jean

          adding the cost of carbons damage to its cost of use.

          I would love to see the cost of wind compared to both these costs.

          End coal, oil and nuclear, easy is not an answer, its a lie.

        •  I agree with this absolutely. (3+ / 0-)

          This gets us back to the political problem -- we have been unable to remove subsidies for oil drilling, which is an obvious slam-dunk, when we should be forcing fossil fuel burners to pay their externalities.

          I do not know how to solve the intractable political problem. If I did I could save the human race from likely extinction.  If you figure it out, do tell me.

          In the meantime, I'm going to push for the technically correct solutions.

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

          by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:17:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Now there is something I can (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW
          But, I think the same should hold for fossil fuels. Every single electron of fossil-fuel power should carry the cost of all the people killed by fossil fuel emissions every year. They should be required to start a fund that will compensate each and every family that suffers a loss due to particulate pollution. There would be a per-gallon gas surcharge so that those who drive would be paying into this as well. Give the bill for fossil fuels to that industry as well.  
          wholehearedly support!  Thank you for such a great idea!  

          Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

          by Calamity Jean on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:48:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  US is uncompetitive with large centralized (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OtherDoug

      reactors...that's why the French are grinning. US push for smaller more passive designs.

    •  In Part Due to De-Regulation of the Energy Market (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BOHICA, Calamity Jean

      Hoisted by their own petard.

      If they will fall away of their own weight in the marketplace, we need only stop propping them up and make sure their statutorily mandated Decommissioning Funds are not being shorted or accounted as sufficient due to overly optimistic projections of future earnings on the funds or by use of the same fund to satisfy multiple potential future obligations.  

      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

      by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:00:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Calls to conserve energy... (4+ / 0-)

    always amuse me.  Not because I don't agree with it... I do agree that we should do what we can.  And here we are on the Internet calling for it.  

    It's quite ironic, because one of the biggest drivers of the need for energy is the internet.  The Giant server farms all over this country use huge amounts of electricity.  According to some estimates, for every 100 watts spent on running the servers, roughly another 50 watts is needed to cool them

    A 50,000-square-foot data center uses approximately 4 megawatts of power, or the equivalent of 57 barrels of oil a day. Although no one really knows how many servers are spinning in the United States, research firm IDC estimated there were 1.8 million new servers installed in 2002, and by 2009, that number will increase to an estimated 4.9 million per year

    http://www.govtech.com/...

    If we were really serious about reducing energy needs we need to address this issue.  Conservation isn't just about light bulbs.

    "Aubrey, may I trouble you for the salt?"

    by Borg Warner on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:36:30 AM PDT

  •  It took a .9 quake and a tsunami to break it (0+ / 0-)

    so I think this makes nuclear look a little better,

    •  The water in the largest city in the world (0+ / 0-)

      is contaminated to double the safe level for children, so far. It will be getting worse.

      Tokyo, possibly the most important economic city on the planet.

      Your inability to recognize the consequences is unfortunate.

    •  Magnitude at the Fukushima site was less (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      workingforprogress

      If a 9.0 had had its epicenter more near the site, who knows.

      It was tested (computer) for only 7.9.

      It was designed and built for between 8.0 and 8.2.

      The tsumani they planned for was 5.7 meters.

      The one that came was 14 meters.

      Whether the current situation makes nuclear look "better" depends a lot on what you thought of it in the first place.

      Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

      by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:06:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You tell 'em, diarist! Let's burn more coal! (7+ / 1-)

    We have enough coal that we could tell the A-rabs to go screw their camels.  We can just retrofit every nuclear reactor with a coal burner and be done with it.  

    If CO2 was dangerous, why do we exhale it when we breathe?  Otherwise we'd get sick and drop dead from breathing!

    You've been exhaling CO2 all your life and you're still alive.  How do you account for that, eh?  

  •  104 operating reactors and their associated waste (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, Recall, OtherDoug

    aren't going away any time soon.....Deal with it.

    •  No new money to nuclear except to end (3+ / 0-)

      their life cycle, clean them up and bury them. All new energy money to wind, grid, solar, geothermal and retrofitting.

      End the limits on what nuclear power plants have to pay for disaster, repeal the laws that transfer the costs to us. The cost that will make the Bailout look small.

      That alone will end nuclear power.

      •  It won't end until there is a replacement (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Recall

        that is CO2 free and provides sufficient amount of energy.

        And that is a LOT of energy.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. No money, ever again. (0+ / 0-)

          It is not an argument I care to keep, just identify supporters and treat them like soemone calling for new bailouts, treat nuke supporters like people calling for racism, like people calling for fraqing, for oil drilling in parks, like people wanting child labour laws removed. Its not a subject worth debating, just for acting on.

          No money for nukes, no new nukes, all money for renewables.

          Period.

          •  You're equating me with a racist? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geek of all trades, kalmoth
            treat nuke supporters like people calling for racism

            Unfortunately the rules do not permit me to HR you for that.

            But I would.  

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            -Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:31:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am equating very bad ideas, and the end of them. (0+ / 0-)

              and saying that very bad ideas don't need to be discussed anymore. I am equating the time we should spend discussing it with the time discussing, for example, whether or not it was worth ending the years of Democratic Party members from the south of the US or going with the Civil Rights Act.

              When said enough was enough, the Civil Rights Act must be passed even if it means we will never elect another Democrat from Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama etc. ever again, and it did. The vast gang of Dixiecrats have been lost to history, because we could stomach racism no longer.

              It was the right decision, racism cannot be supported, even if it means we loose fifteen or twenty Senators.

              If you want the metaphor explained more clearly, I am saying, despite the losses to our party if we pass the Civil Rights Act, it must be done. People who will not pass the Civil Rights Act must be removed from office so that it is possible to enact it.

          •  that's a step too far. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat
            treat nuke supporters like people calling for racism,

            Have a donut, mate.
            •  upon more consideration... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              polecat

              giving this twaddle a donut might imply it should be taken seriously. No donut for you.

            •   I am equating very bad ideas, and the end of them (0+ / 0-)

              and saying that very bad ideas don't need to be discussed anymore. I am equating the time we should spend discussing it with the time discussing, for example, whether or not it was worth ending the years of Democratic Party members from the south of the US or going with the Civil Rights Act.

              When said enough was enough, the Civil Rights Act must be passed even if it means we will never elect another Democrat from Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama etc. ever again, and it did. The vast gang of Dixiecrats have been lost to history, because we could stomach racism no longer.

              It was the right decision, racism cannot be supported, even if it means we loose fifteen or twenty Senators.

              If you want the metaphor explained more clearly, I am saying, despite the losses to our party if we pass the Civil Rights Act, it must be done. People who will not pass the Civil Rights Act must be removed from office so that it is possible to enact it.

              •  You are not arguing in good faith... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat, Recall

                and at this point, your doubling down on unfortunate hyperbole precludes any useful further conversation. Good day.

                •  Yes, I am, arguing in good faith. (0+ / 0-)

                  The children unable to drink water in Japan, are unable to drink water because people thought the risk was low enough.  It is not hyperbole. All the bad ideas we got rid of, that had supporters, that made up good reasons for thier ideas, thought they were doing the right thing.

                  Nuclear power is not a good thing.

                  The time of accepting it as a solution, of even thinking of it is a potential solution have passed, like all bad ideas.

                  Having passed from consideration, it is now an old bad idea, like child labour.

                  I do not discuss the theoretical safety of nuclear power anymore, I do not discuss the future of nuclear power anymore, I do not support wasting our time with it, wasting our money, wasting our political capital anymore, it is a failed idea.

                  It distresses people that supported a failed idea, it distresses people that the idea they supported has endangered and killed so many, but it is gone, like Carthage, like Rome, like child labor, like racism, like empire, like kings and queens, like bloodletting. But one has to give up failed ideas. Move on. It is time to move on.

                  Nuclear power is the past. It is not a sleeping parrot, it has passed away.

                  It is time to drive supporters out of positions of power.

                  I have no desire to waste my or our party's energy discussing its potential to be safe.

        •  Solar will provide plenty of energy. (3+ / 0-)

          It's just expensive.  We have to stop siphoning off money into wars and nuclear and tax cuts for the rich and start spending the money.

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

          by neroden on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:19:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The only thing finished right now is Sendai (4+ / 0-)

    economically the city is destroyed.  Thank you Tokyo Electric.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 08:39:40 AM PDT

    •  methinks you can stick a fork into Tepco also. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat, neroden, kalmoth, OtherDoug
      •  Their finacial responsibility must be asigned to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        the company, to the owners, to their companies elsewhere, and not one cent for the cleanup from the state.

        The laws that limit nuclear power companies responsibility must be removed, so that the toal cost of nuclear is clear to investors, if there is an accident, it will come out your pocket, your estate and heirs.

        The lobbyists who forced, bought and seduced legislatures to pass the costs on to taxes must be identified.

        Transparency and true cost, no public monies for nuclear ever again.

      •  No. Tepco will go on (0+ / 0-)
        •  Is it against the FAQ to call for seppuku? /nt (0+ / 0-)

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          -Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 09:36:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that most Japanese (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat, OtherDoug

            understand the primary culprit here is not Tepco, but the quake and the tsunami, which seems to have killed over 20,000 of their fellow countrymen.  And I know the nuclear crisis does not blot out the humatarian disaster happening right now.

            There will be criticism of the manner in which Tepco informed the public to be sure.  And I think Tepco will get raked over the coals for cutting corners and managerial excesses.  And I think there will be strong minority of voices which rail against nuclear power and find a minority of the public's ear

            Still, I think the majority of Japanese will respond very positively to the govt slapping Tepco on the wrist, and promising to make improvements in the industry.  Which they will.  

            This is the pattern of the past.  I could very well be wrong.

            •  The quake and tsunami were awful and unpreventable (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean

              the contamination of Tokyo's water supply was not an accident, it was a result of the preventable decision to buld nuclear reactors. We are saying we can end those risks, and will. We have come to the end of the debate.

              it is time to act.

              No more public money for nukes ever. All energy monies to renewables,  the great portion of stimulus monies to renewables. The true cost of nuclear must be borne by the investors.

              People who disagree, while they can continue to identify themselves as supporting a dangerous waste of money, must no longer be allowed to pretend they have our support, they must be removed from office.

              •  "We"? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                polecat

                This is primarily a matter for the Japanese.  And ultimately they will decide what they want to do regardless of what you and I think.  I have told you my opinion of how I think the people of Japan will understand this crisis an deal with it.

                I think your view not only does not take into account what the people of Japan think; I think you have shown here that you don't care.  

                •  "Primarily a Matter for the Japanese" ? (0+ / 0-)

                  Tell that to the growing list of countries that are looking at it as a good reason to review their policy not only on new plants but existing ones as well.

                  We may not know all that this 'incident' will teach us, but to try to characterize it as "primarily a matter for the Japanese" is seriously understating its importantce and impact.

                  Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

                  by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:11:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I cannot vote in Japanese elections (0+ / 0-)

                  I am urging action here, in my home.

                  I could comment on Japanese blogs I suppose, do you deny everyone's right to urge the Japanese to move on from this failed idea?

                  In what way is that ethical?

                  I am not however urging the Japanese, I am saying that our party must move on, our country must move on. I hope eventually to urge all of the world citizens to drive nuclear power supporters from office, in every land.

                  No nuke weapons would be wonderfully and strongly helped by no nukes at all.

                  •  Well, while you are ready to "move on" (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Recall, polecat

                    I think I'll stick around and try to help the all the victims of the earthquake and tsunami, which, since in your haste to 'move on' you seem to forget caused the nuclear crisis in the first place.

                    I don't see you as urging action; I see you as trying to make political hay off one aspect of a catastrophe that killed 20,000 of your fellow men, and has left a half-million without homes.

                    I think that is immoral.

                    •  ugly and ham fisted. (0+ / 0-)

                      This is what supporters of nuclear power have sunk to. Nuclear power cannot be supported or defended, so this, this ugliness, this Ann Coulterish attack is what is left.

                      •  I don't support nuclear power (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Recall, kalmoth, polecat

                        So it looks like you are the one who will stoop to use any means at your disposal.

                        In all matters re: pushing your agenda.

                        I say again, so that it is crystal clear: I see you as trying to make political hay off one aspect of a catastrophe that killed 20,000 of your fellow men, and has left a half-million without homes.

                        I think that is immoral.

                        •  And the polls agree with you, (0+ / 0-)

                          America has learned, in Pew's new Poll, 52% say there must be no more spending on nuclear power.

                          I salute them, they have learned the lesson of Fukumisha and Tokyo. Now we must act to drive nuclear power supporters from positions where they can decide to spend money on nuclear power.

                          •  The lesson that I learned is, that as far (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Recall, kalmoth, polecat

                            as a you are concerned, you don't give care about the people of Fukushima, or the victims of the tsunami

                            And so I don't give care about what you have to say about this, or much of anything.  I see you as trying to make political hay off one aspect of a catastrophe that killed 20,000 of your fellow men, and has left a half-million without homes.  

                            That is immoral.    You have had the opportunity here to dissuade me or anyone else who may read this exchange away from that conclusion, and you have chosen to repeatedly ignore this point.

                            I cannot help but conclude at this point that you are an immoral person and are doing your cause no favors by being so open about that.

                          •  Away with you! (0+ / 0-)

                            Off you silly boy.

          •  Yes. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Renewable energy brings national security.      -6.25, -6.05

            by Calamity Jean on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:52:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  maybe.....but the arrogance is kaput. (0+ / 0-)
          •  The criticism that I read (0+ / 0-)

            of Tepco, what little there is, is not concerned with attitude.

            It is concerned with effects and results.

            •  Then You Need to Read More (0+ / 0-)

              Recent history provides significant reason to criticize their attitude and corporate culture.

              Sometimes when life hands you lemons, you should throw them back.

              by Into The Woods on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:13:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, you are only concerned (0+ / 0-)

                with how to use this crisis, which is a smaller part of a much larger crisis, to push your political agenda.

                In short, you have no ground on which to use this crises to do so.  Because you have shown not one iota of care to the victims of the any part of the crisis.

                I urge you to rethink your presentation and at least feign concern for the victims of the earthquake, tsunami, and the  resulting nuclear crisis.

    •  I think you mean Fukushima (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat

      The tsunami wiped out Sendai.  

    •  sorry, Sendai... (0+ / 0-)

      was destroyed by the quake and the tsunami. Kindly get your facts straight.

      •  I didn't mention nuclear, the diarist did. (0+ / 0-)

        the root cause of this was the earthquake and tsunami -- Sendai will be a ghost town.

        Oh, and nuclear ISN'T finished.

        The debate on what should replace coal and nuclear needs to be had, and the funding for that needs to be found.

        But right now we need to think about the disaster victims in Japan.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 09:21:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  En ole suomalainen ... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but Finland actually is getting about a third of its electricity from nuclear reactors, and this fraction is going to increase significantly - three (?) reactors currently under construction.

  •  I think this thread has demonstrated (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, OtherDoug

    That the argument is not finished.

    However, I do think the argument has changed to the point that hand-waving risk and safety is going to be a lot harder.

    Also, the final resolution of the current crisis is not yet at hand, and I suspect that will shape the discussion too.

  •  I strenuously disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Recall, OtherDoug

    We still have a mind-bendingly formidable problem: almost 7 billion people need energy, and the billions of poor about whom I am particularly concerned will need energy at increasing rates as their standard of living improves. We have reached peak oil and are having to hydrofracture for natural gas. What energy source do we have right now, in such amounts that it can reasonably supply a huge % of the world's energy needs until we can find/build/deploy sufficient sustainable, non-carbon-based substitutes? COAL.

    Centuries of mining and burning coal has directly and indirectly killed and injured millions of people, laid waste to vast stretches of the planet, and caused extravagant damage to our atmosphere, freshwater systems, and oceans. By every objective measure, nuclear power is safer; and its mining, waste disposal, and human and environmental health and safety footprints orders of magnitude smaller.

    As grave and frightening as the situation in Japan is, an extraordinary thing happened: A FORTY-YEAR-OLD NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SURVIVED A CATEGORY 9 EARTHQUAKE. To me, that is flat-f*ing amazing. Had its siting and risk analysis been half as bright as its design and construction -- for what is more insane than building nukes in arguably the world's most seismically active country??? among millions of people and a slingshot from some of the country's prime farmland??? at an elevation that puts it all-but-within certain reach of a tsunami??? with only enough backup capacity to its emergency systems for less time than a child's schoolday??? -- we would be reading and blogging about post-tsunami rescue, recovery, and reconstruction, and the miracle that so many people were able to cheat death because of building codes, tsunami warnings, and a reasonably high level of preparedness.

    A few grams of potassium iodide per person vastly reduces thyroid uptake of iodine-131. What blocks the respiratory and neurological effects of breathing coal combustion byproducts? Nothing. What blocks the atmospheric effects of CO2 resulting from coal combustion? Nothing. What blocks the acid rain and ocean acidification resulting from coal combustion? Nothing.

    Coal is a far more pernicious evil than nuclear, and, if anything, IMNSHO, the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster demonstrated the soundness of reactor engineering at the same time it highlighted our species' continuing inability to counter hubris, arrogance, and piss-poor risk analysis.

    Someday, if we're lucky, humans will look back on these Dark Ages of fossil and nuclear fuels the way we look back on surgery without anaesthesia and the burning of witches. But today is not that day.

  •  Work on killing off fossil fuels first. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, OtherDoug

    Then worry about the nukes.

  •  Water is SAFE today (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OtherDoug

    its easy to jump to conclusions

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site