Hillary hearts nuclear power

A transcript-- (4.00 / 3)

I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution.  I think we've gotta do a better job at figuring out how we're going to deal with the waste.  You know, because in a post 9/11 world we've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants.
  Ah, but I, I don't have any preconceived opposition. I wanta be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can--because obviously it's a tremendous source of energy. We get about twenty percent of our energy from nuclear power in our country. A lot of people don't realize that. and other countries, like France, get, you know, much much more.  So we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emmissions into the air. But we gotta make sure it's done as safely as possible. We're going to count on people like your husband to help us get the answers.

Hillary Clinton speaking in South Carolina

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 12:42:03 PM CDT

No Nukes (4.00 / 2)

Germany is basically doing away with nuclear power plants. Even the conservative CDU (Christian Democratic Union) has a no-nuke platform. Many windmills have gone up around southern Germany and they look pretty good. If the Germans can do without nukes, so can we. There is no safe way to deal with the waste; there is no safe or foolproof  way to deal with a major accident or event. Plutonium is forever, as the song goes--and even after its incredibly long half-life, it becomes lead in the end (if I'm remembering my high school chemistry correctly)

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is one place we part ways. He also sees nuclear in the mix. I hope enough supporters of his can talk him out of it. Also, there is too fine a line between so-called peaceful use of nuclear energy and weapons production.

Atomkraft? Nein Danke.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 13:07:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

France (0.00 / 0)

I read that Germany is buying its nuclear power from France and France is building more plants.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 18:25:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Link? (0.00 / 0)

I'd need to see a link or a reference to this. The Germans remember Chernobyl, and they know nukes know no borders when it comes to meltdowns and other things. France does have a lot of nukes for its size, though. Their citizens do not seem to be as concerned about the dangers inherent in this form of energy.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:09:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369610 n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: hannah @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:49:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More nuke plants to come (0.00 / 0)

The unfortunate scenario is energy demand is going up not down. We can be energy effecient here and there but personally I don't see and slow down of energy use in the future. But I digress.

As far as energy demand goes, there are a number of nuclear plant proposals in the works and many of them could be decided in the next administration. The kicker is the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and the Atomic Saftey and Licensing Board have never turned down a single license to operate as a nuclear power plant.

Looks like Hillary's in line to grant those plants, whoever and whereever they may be, the go ahead.

God help us.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 13:23:51 PM CDT

Hillary's actual position on nuclear power (0.00 / 0)

  Sen. Clinton has made a number of energy policy speeches in the past few years, including last spring at the Portsmouth Herald. She has made it clear each time that we can't plan on nuclear power for the future unless we solve the serious problems with waste, security, cost, etc. She has called for more study of nuclear power because even if this country doesn't build more plants, the rest of the world will, and their problems with waste and security will be our problems whether we want them or not.

  I've included an excerpt from a speech she made last year.  Anyone who is really interested in our energy and environmental future should take a few minutes to read the whole speech. It's included in the "speeches" section of her website: hillaryclinton.com.

May 23, 2006 at the National Press Club:
  Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power and our ability to manage it in a world with suicidal terrorists.
  So I have real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian Point, which has had a number of problems, and more generally with the capacity and quality of the oversight provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
So we need to resolve problems with the NRC, as well as questions of cost, safety, proliferation and waste, before we go forward with nuclear power.

---

by: calvin @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 14:44:20 PM CDT

Translation: I still support nuclear power n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 15:04:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton's real position on nuclear power (0.00 / 0)

  I can't decide whether you read the speech and are upset because it refutes everything you believe or whether you couldn't take five minutes to read the speech and discover that, as a matter of fact, Sen. Clinton does not support nuclear power as a solution to our problems now or in the future as was obvious from the small portion I quoted.

  Certainly, the people who could trouble themselves to attend her speech in Portsmouth have no question about her position.

---

by: calvin @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 21:52:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is perhaps evolving. (0.00 / 0)

I am all in favor of politicians growing and developing their positions through the process of campaigning.
But, the video clip is the most recent utterance on Clinton's position on nuclear power plants and, since she seems to be familiar with the questioner, the answer seems planned, not to mention entirely consistent with what people in southeast South Carolina would want to hear.
What I object to is using 9/11 as a bench-mark and being non-committal on the provision of federal subsidies to nuclear energy.  Electricity is nice, but there's no question we in the U.S. are wasting much more than we need to.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:17:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"familiar with the questioner" (0.00 / 0)

Do you think she stages her forums?

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:25:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response. (0.00 / 0)

All I know is what she said about her expectations for the questioner's husband.

I do know that the campaign generally has special meetings with significant people before-hand and some of those people seem more likely to be called on.

The lady who asked the question about the carbon tax in this video
http://www.youtube.c...
is an old friend of mine.  She's a long-time opponent of nuclear power.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 13:45:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People who are called on (0.00 / 0)

Name someone who has been at a "meet & Greet" and then been called on during a question and answer session.

---

by: calvin @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 21:41:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point. (0.00 / 0)

And the point of naming names would be what?

---

by: hannah @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 18:29:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Talk is still cheap (0.00 / 0)

> So we need to resolve problems with the NRC, as well as questions of cost, safety, proliferation and waste, before we go forward with nuclear power.

Still sounds pretty nebulous to me. Why not say straight out I don't support nuclear power? Why not straight out say, I will do whatever I can to prevent the NRC from granting new licenses or the renewal of licenses? I don't care who's the candidate is but you can't have it both ways. She also says she's concered about the saftey of nuclear power plants. Who isn't?

I live on the outskirts of the Vermont Yankee evacuation zone and I can tell you right now there won't be a lot of people who'd believe her. I don't know what to say about the Portsmouth crowd other than if people don't raise a stink, doesn't mean they necessarily support or agree Clinton's position.

Here's a more revealing observation according to Ari Berman in The Nation:

Following the '06 elections, Entergy unveiled a new slogan, "Right for New York," citing Indian Point as an asset in the fight against global warming. Hillary has called for an "independent safety assessment" but has declined to join Governor Eliot Spitzer and twelve members of Congress in urging that the plant be shut down. Entergy, founded in Arkansas, was a major supporter of Bill Clinton in the 1990s and contributed generously to Hillary in 2000 and 2006.

Anyone who contributes serious cash to a campaign makes it less likely she'll side with concerned citizens about nuclear power. I'm not falling for that anymore.

I want honesty backed up by action not nebulous nuances. Voters are sick and tired of that and it's the same ole same ole coming from the triangulator.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 07:33:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A couple of points: (0.00 / 0)

1)  The construction of a plant and the processing of the fuel requires more energy (conventional) than the plant is expected to produce during its normal life. 

2)  The energy associated with the maintenance and disposal of the waste is not factored in.

3)  The reason no plant has been built since 1979 is because the markets were unwilling to provide financing.

4)  Subsidies for new plants, or at least to guarantee their loans, are already in the budget, but can be removed because they haven't been spent yet.  (Who voted to approve the appropriations bills containing these subsidies?)

5)  When the last plant was being planned, electricity consumption was assumed to increase 7% a year ad infinitum--effectively doubling every ten years.  That hasn't happened.  Projected growth in consumption is now in the range of 1.5% per year.  (Is this the consequence of greater efficiency, industrial collapse, the transfer of manufacturing overseas?)

6)  The U.S. nuclear industry seems wedded to using concentrated uranium.  Canada is experimenting with something else.  It's my hypothesis that the selection of the lethal stuff is based on the ability to then make the argument that production of nuclear fuel needs to be controlled by a cartel that will set the price for the rest of the globe.  At present, the members of that cartel are the U.S. and Russia and the Russian corporation is a subsidiary of USEC.  Of course, I may be wrong.  Indeed, I would love to be wrong.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 16:00:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, and Obama on nuclear energy (0.00 / 0)

Here's another good YouTube on the following candidates and their representatives on nuclear power.

"Looks like" Edwards checked out OK, but I'm still not sold on him.

Tom Daschle represented Obama? Wow. At least it wasn't a homophobic gospel singer!

In the meantime, check out the following site for news and commentary on the nuclear energy industry.http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 23:02:55 PM CDT

Strike Three (0.00 / 0)

"Tom Daschle represented Obama? Wow. At least it wasn't a homophobic gospel singer!"

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 10:32:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama picked the wrong man (0.00 / 0)

Obama says he's a man of change, but the person representing him was a Democrat that many in political blogopsphere is trying to replace: a cautious, hawkish, pro-corporate, don't-rock-the boat because our pollsters said so Democrat. The fact that he was the Senate Minority leader and South Dakotans DID NOT re-elect him in 2002 also IMO speaks millions. They picked the wrong guy who represents the wrong values of the Democratic Party and I just think that's another gaffe of many for the inexperienced Obama campaign.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 12:52:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

stop (4.00 / 1)

Tom Daschle was a great Democratic senator, which was why the Republicans poured so many resources into beating him.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 13:00:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying he's done bad things... (0.00 / 0)

He's accomplished some great things in the Senate but he also represented the part of the Democratic Party, many in the progressive blogosphere want to do away with (see the reasons above).

Just before he left office he supported the 2003 energy bill and said he would oppose any filibuster to quash it. Go ask Markos what he thought about that. At least John E. "Thanks Dad" Sununu had the gall to vote against it! That piece of legilsation was one of the worst of the Bush Administration's tenure. It ranked right up there with his 2001 tax cuts. What does Daschle do? He votes for it!

Let's see, he voted with the GOP on the Partial Birth Abortion Bill. He supported the Defense of Marraige Act and denounced the Massachusetts Supreme Court on it's ruling that gays and lesbians should not marry. TRULY dispicable! How about the famous H.J. Res 114 on authorization of force against Iraq? Oh yeah! There's more but I'll spare you the details.

He represented the Democratic Limp Leadership Committee. He was a Terry McCaulife Democrat. These are the Dems many of us are trying to get rid of because they have weakened the party over the long run. We need more fighting Dems. We need more Dems that don't do backroom deals and instead dig in their heels and fight for citizen interests, not big business, agri-business, or the fat cat special interests. Daschle was one of them.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 13:34:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"do away with"? (4.00 / 2)

Who made you the judge of who gets to be a Democrat? 

One of the things I like about the blogosphere is that it does not march in lockstep; it invites debate and dissent. Or don't you think that is a good thing?

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 14:14:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cutting words (0.00 / 0)

When you do such good service to the broader vision of the party, I feel bad that I have taken up arms against your pick. I take no joy in the trounce.

From what I can gather, Ex-Granite Stater has only an interest in pushing buttons and screaming from the wilderness.

As we say in Centerville, "that's good lookin' out, Kathy"

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 14:45:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: Kathy and SGS (4.00 / 1)

I think debate and dissent is a good thing. I never said otherwise. Howevera as I said above, I do not want the DLC Dems running this party. I do not want Dems that are weak-willed, corporate influenced, war hawkish, that compromise citizen interests at the expense of backroom dealing, and make policy decisions by what their pollsters say is safe. Daschle represented that faction of the Democratic Party many bloggers are actively trying to change. He's right up there with Joe Lieberman in my book. That is not the kind of party (or representatives of my party)  that I (and many many others) do not want to represent us and IMO, I find this to be the norm rather than the exception.

On a sidenote, you speak well of Daschle but what do you have to say about his stances on some of the big issues we care about? The 2003 Energy Bill? Authorization of the war in Iraq? Same Sex Marraige? Why was Daschle on the wrong side of these major issues?

> From what I can gather, Ex-Granite Stater has only an interest in pushing buttons and screaming from the wilderness.

With all due respect, I think that's an inaccurate portrayal of me. I'm a Democrat wanting to see Dems take more strident and clear cut stands when it comes to economic and social justice issues. I want to point out these discrepancies with the Democratic candidates for president because it's keeps them honest, puts them under the microscope, and holds their feet to the fire. That's our job as voters who authorize them to represent us. That's NOT pushing buttons SGS. That's having an honest (and sometimes uncomfortable conversation) about a candidates inconsistencies, half-truths, and sometimes even hypocracies when it comes to politicans who represent us. I think that can stimulate a healthy discussion (provided that person speaks from a sober perspective of course, which I AM TRYING to do).

 

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:03:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who do you support? (0.00 / 0)

Or are you a purist that cleans from the outside?

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:14:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As I said (4.00 / 1)

I don't have a particular favorite but I am a Democrat wanting to clean the party from the inside. I also consider myself a Democrat wanting to get the issues we face right and not keep going down the same road, using the same solutions that get us nowhere and give us status quo policies. None of those candidate represent that. It should be a citizens party not a Republican light party.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:28:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More to say (0.00 / 0)

Kucinich is the one that closely represents my ideals but I have a hard time supporting a progressive who voted for No Child Left Behind.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:31:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Naderite? n/t (0.00 / 0)

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:32:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Neither (0.00 / 0)

Hard to describe but I have one foot in democratic party activism (pushing the party to a more progressive platform based on citizens interests) and one foot in social justice activism. I'm not a fan of third party candidacies. Not because of Nader but because I think we can move the party more to the left to the days of the mid to late 60s and I think third parties don't work. This party needs to embrace the anti-war movement not shun it. This party needs to embrace the impeachers not to shun them. This party needs to embrace environmental, racial, and social justice, a foreign policy based on peace, etc. I guess the best Democrats that I can identify with are the late Bob LaFollette and Wayne Morse.

But at the same time, I have a problem with many activists for not seeing the big picture on issues. For them it's all about obtaining power without seeing the big picture of how things work in Washington. I see a lot of ignorant stubborn social justice activists out there and that frustrates me and why people tend to look down upon activists. That nitwit at the University of Florida who got tazed is a good example.

So I'm trying move the party and coandidates to the left but at the same time, these movements are engaging in things the Dems won't and that frustrates me.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 16:58:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a better description (0.00 / 0)

A "Democratic" Naderite and influenced more by journalists rather politicians such as Seymour Hersh, John Pilger, Amy Goodman, Frank Smyth, Matt Taibbi, and Robert Fisk. I'd also throw in Chomsky and Edward Said but I wouldn't consider them journalists.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 17:36:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's be realistic (4.00 / 1)

Any source of energy that is created at home is part of the solution. All options need to be on the table. For me, this has little to do with fossil fuels or greenhouse gases... it has everything to do with being energy independent. What we need is a NASA-esque program dedicated to total energy independence. The results of such a program will be new industry opportunities for the U.S, no more funding the terrorists, and a highly educated populace. How about a 'New Deal-esque' infrastructure building craze? Hydroelectric and wind farms. It's all part of the solution. For me, getting all upset about nuclear power doesn't make much sense when a more pressing problem is continued funding of terrorist states as a result of our lack of energy independence... but that's just me ~

---

by: nhveedub @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 06:37:56 AM CDT

Moving It Over (4.00 / 1)

I'm commenting more on NH Ex-Pats thread here, but it's beginning to look like an ee cummings poem form wise.

Historically, change in the US has come about by a combination of agitators or purists and compromisers. This happened with the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, and the long forgotten struggle for a 40 hour work week. Change needs single issue agitators to come about. At the same time, it does us no good to subject every politician to a litmus test of purity. They all fail, because nobody is perfect in everybody's eyes. Then the "purists" get cynical and don't participate, which is the worst thing that can happen.

Also, having worked for progressive causes over the years, I have seen how holding everybody up to impossible standards strengthens the opposition. I remember being in groups where everybody just accused everybody else of being a "this-ist" or a "that-ist" or a "blank-o-phobe" (or talking to one). It took time and energy and meanwhile, Gingrich, et.al took power and led to the mess we're in now. Divide and conquer worked wonders for the Romans.

We need to have our eyes open, but constant criticism and tearing people apart is not useful to the change we want to see, IMHO.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:23:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Suggestions? (0.00 / 0)

Point taken. I don't mean to be a snark or anything but I do write with some energy and passion and it come out on the keyboards. This is blogging. It's no different than from any other political blog out there.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm trying to be a purist. I want to uncover uncomfortable truths about the candidates that want to represent us. I don't necesssarily consider it criticism but rather uncovering discrepancies in their campaign promises, what they say, and what they actually do. It's called citizen journalism and as a citizen it's my job to hold them to the light.

Criticism is healthy and engaging in ideas in also part of that social change you want to make in the world. It's not just social action that counts it's also the thinking.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 08:57:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nuclear is not sustainable... (0.00 / 0)

...nor is it safe. I live near Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in southern Vermont and I agree with you on your observation. But I know and many others in my community would agree with me that nuclear should have no part of our sustainable energy future. Come and talk to people who live in the evacuation zone, who know first hand what it's like to have a power plant in your backyard, who know about the technology, and you'll get a different story why would should move away from this source of energy. It has its plusses (less carbon emissions) but it's negatives outweigh the positives: terrorist attacks, health risks, no place to put the waste, and the waste doesn't go away. Not to mention should an evacuation take place, after September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, and these recent fires in southern CA, I don't necessarily trust government officials to be competent in providing an organized, effecient, and effective evacuation. So those are my minuses of nuclear power IMO.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 09:07:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you agree with Hillary? (0.00 / 0)

"It has its plusses (less carbon emissions) but it's negatives outweigh the positives: terrorist attacks, health risks, no place to put the waste, and the waste doesn't go away."  NH Ex-Pat

That's what Hillary said when she spoke in Portsmouth last spring. However, she also pointed out that much of the rest of the world is planning to greatly increase its use of nuclear power -- even though we haven't solved the problems.

It's in our own interest to solve the problems with nuclear waste and nuclear security issues because what other countries are doing will impact us whether we like it or not.

Hillary has also said quite clearly, that she doesn't believe we need to turn to nuclear power to gain energy independence in an environmentally and economically sound way.

I recommend that you read the speech I mentioned above.  You could learn a lot.

---

by: calvin @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 11:00:10 AM CDT

No, I don't (0.00 / 0)

Nuclear power should not be a part of our energy solution. As I said, the negatives outweigh its positives and should not be followed through on. I want to hear Hillary say, 'nuclear is not a part of my energy future, I will not consider it for future use, and will not grant any more licensures (or relicensures) for nuclear plants.'

She let Indian Point off the hook with her "independent saftey assessments." What makes me (or any of us) think she's going to give the nuclear power industry a hard time, especially since she's pocketed Entergy money in the past? Any bold move on her part and Entergy will take their money elsewhere. Hillary won't compromise that and like her husband, she is not the kind of person that stands on principle but rather on political expediency and triangulation. Hillary doesn't stand for me.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 12:19:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Irrational Fear (0.00 / 0)

I think I understand why most people are afraid of Nuclear Power. It is all very scary stuff. However, there is a point where our collective ignorance of the technology compounds rational concern and we end up with this monumental, "not-if-it-produces-the-last-gigajoule-of-energy-on-EARTH" mentality.

Having some formal training in Chemistry and a laymans knowledge of Radiation, I can only summarize my view as one of "a healthy respect."

The scince and technology alone is exceptionally valid, IMO. Unfortunately, we as a race of beings are not ready to wield the power of the atom. We are not ready to wield the power of many scientific frontiers, yet we do on a regular basis. Work with genetics, biological vectors and with conventional and radiological weaponcraft should give one pause as to what we, as humans, could accidently do to the world and the life on it.

My final vote is that nukes are OK, but not today. First I would prefer a massive shift on gluttonous consumption of raw materials and energy resources so that humans can develop a more sustainable existence. Once we get that far, in maybe 200 years, we should then consider wether nuclear power has a place in the world.

Of course few people care about 200 years from now, unless it can be used to validate their irrational fear of something right now.

In summary, my mother taught me, never say never.


SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 17:32:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come to Brattleboro SGS (0.00 / 0)

Come on out to Brattleboro, let's go look at the Vermont Yankee facility and we'll talk to the folks at the New England Coalition and Nulcear Free Vermont. it may not change your mind in the end but I do think it/they will explain a lot better why this can't be part of our energy future.

We're not reactionary energy extremists. A lot of us living in the evacuation zone, educate ourselves on the danger of this technology, it's unsustainability, and why we can't go forward with it. If you've lived near a nuclear plant, perhaps you'd view this technology with the same amount of skepticism.

Just a thought.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 09:47:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I ain't crazy (0.00 / 0)

That facility is old and the regulatory environment inhibits upgrades.

I know a couple of Health Physicists that are OK with the technology and one of them works for the EPA.

For now, I ain't taking no chances!

I just won't say NEVER.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:18:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK. (0.00 / 0)

IMO, any energy source that comes with a required evacuation plan is not worth continuing.

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:27:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]