Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 9 (9 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   12 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

NUCLEAR POWER = INSANITY

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Well Said 3   Valuable 3  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 3/17/11

Become a Fan
  (18 fans)


Some of us learned some lessons thirty plus years ago, after Three Mile Island.   One of the lessons we learned was that the disaster is spun throughout the media in order to minimize its effects to the gullible, non-technical public.

The default position is to downplay the severity of the crisis and its potential catastrophic loss of life.  

Let's have a bit of reality, for a change.   Nuclear power could not exist without the governments forcing "liability caps" onto the public and shielding operators and manufacturers from paying the real costs of a meltdown.   Their costs are capped at a set amount, far below the actual damage that would result from a total failure.   This is government interference in the economy, and something the so-called "conservatives" are supposedly against, but yet, in this case, they are mind-numbingly in favor of it.   As are most liberal ideologues.   Strange bedfellows.

How it works is: if your house is nuked and you wind up in one of those "uninhabitable areas," then oh well.   That's your problem.   Your insurance won't cover it.   The nuclear industry will not compensate you.   Go elsewhere, and good luck.

If nuclear power was forced to compete on a level playing field, it would not exist, and we would not be in such a great amount of danger as we currently are.  

Back in the 1970s it was the paradigm of the day that alternative energy sources: solar, wind, tide, geothermal, hydrogen, and others would be the next phase of human development.   President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House.  

Then Reagan and company took over.   Alternative energy development was killed in the cradle.    Oil became the central focus.   The solar panels were taken down.

The reason that we do not have a larger alternative energy sector and a greater amount of our energy produced that way today is political, not technical.   It is a limitation of our political system, not our technology.  

Centralized energy production and distribution produces billionaires, oligarchs and corrupt politicians.  

Decentralized energy production (solar panels on your own house for example) produces happy people who sell clean, non-polluting energy back to the grid.

Which model do you think has been championed in the halls of government?

Which model does nuclear energy fall under?

Today photovoltaic cells are cheaper, more efficient, cleaner and safer than nuclear.   They do not require liability caps, radioactive containment, cancer, corpses, military responses, mass hysteria or terror.  

Of course there are alternatives.   But is that what your television is talking about?   Is that the discussion on talk radio?   Are corporate news sites comparing our real world options as a society?   As a species?  

Force the issue.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/

Political Film Blog Author of HELL OF A DEAL: A Supernatural Satire, a tale of Hollywood's accommodation with torture and militarism.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is This the Man Who "Radicalized" Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

The U.N. Would Never Lie to George Monbiot

The Future Children of Fukushima

Genocide and the Native American Experience

Nuclear Nightmare Worsens

Do I trust Christopher Nolan or his Batman?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 people are discussing this page, with 12 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Correction: It's Harvey Wasserman, not Bob. Yeste... by Joe Giambrone on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:14:16 AM
It is the private electric utilities, and their cr... by steve windisch on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:05:17 PM
is, perhaps, the premiere example of corporations ... by John Sanchez Jr. on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27:36 AM
a Hobsons Choice for you all..... are YOU willin... by Chris Bieber on Thursday, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:11:22 PM
is a one option, take it or leave it proposition. ... by John Sanchez Jr. on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:50:57 AM
There is no need for us to give up cars or other c... by Allen Gerhardt on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:04:07 AM
What scares and disgusts me the most about the nuc... by Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:40:54 AM
Anti-nuclear energy bigots toss around the term "m... by Stuart Chisholm on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:07:02 AM
with only around two percent of reactors worldwide... by John Sanchez Jr. on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:48:04 AM
'I need more coke, I need more coke, I need more c... by Ned Lud on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:54:19 AM
Anti-nuclear bigots are in good company. Anyone wh... by Allen Gerhardt on Wednesday, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:20:12 AM
You have it right. It's all about controlling the... by Timmie Stockman on Friday, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:22:28 PM