Message from Home

Walking through sunshine chilled blue all around
Suddenly seized seeing mountains death bound
Filled with dark clarity
Forced to hear chime
Feeling sharp happening
Water, air, crime
Decimation, desolation
Desecration so near
Toxic spill, violent pill
Infusing all dear

Scream NO
Silent future reel seems so real
In sunshine I’m present, yet dark danger feel
Facing monster naked eyes cannot see pass
Mutant air surrounds green in sick silent cast
Stealthily slaying life like knife’s slow slash
Invisible death claiming all in its path

Stand here yet there hearing clearly through trees
Request for respect from familiar north breeze
Turn like a compass needle pointing toward home
Receiving perceiving magnet’s message alone
Future cries stop it now
Don’t let clock chime
Grab hands and hold still
To hope there’s still time

Einstein said: "Nuclear power is a hell of a way to boil water."

God bless Helen Caldicott! She's one of my heroes. She's been trying to wake our species up to the profound dangers of nuclear power and weapons for decades and, as far as I can tell from listening to this horrifyingly sobering video, her passion and eloquence on the subject has only intensified over the years and with each new nuclear disaster. Will we ever learn? What will it take? Nuclear power sure is, as Dr. Caldicott quotes Einstein as saying, a hell of a way to boil water:

Helen Caldicott on Fukushima

Nuclear Power is not Green, It's Death

Nuclear power is the opposite of everything the industry's lobbyists sell it as: it is NOT safe, efficient, sustainable and green. It is profoundly deadly, infinitely expensive, disastrous and mean.

If anyone doubts that, consider Fukushima. In a sobering interview on "Russia Today", Professor Christopher Busby of the European Committee on Radiation Risks tells it like it is. He says "we're not being told everything", which is an understatement, and "I think that we're going to get another pack of lies after this, so people should watch out."

I'm providing a link below to the YouTube video of the full interview. It says it all about the nuclear industry. What they define as safe, efficient, green energy, most of us can clearly recognize as death. Judge for yourself and then, please, if you agree that nuclear energy only leads us down a terribly expensive path of doom and death, get active and write to your elected representatives, telling them you don't want taxpayer dollars going to subsidize new nuclear plants, and you do want all existing nuclear plants phased out as we move to solar, wind and other truly sustainable energy sources. Tell them, in the immortal words of an old anti-nuclear slogan that I find myself quoting more and more: solar employs, nuclear destroys.

America is still a representative democracy, even though big business wields tremendous power. If enough voters make enough noise, we can make our representatives take notice. No more Three Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas. We cannot afford it in any way.

Link: Professor Busby discusses Fukushima and the nuclear industry on "Russia Today"

Memo to Obama: we don't need new nukes!

Rant alert!!!

First off, I want to say that a thoughtful, wonderful friend of mine named Wayne is absolutely right:  one can certainly be for or against something without being "in the pocket" of anyone or any entity.  The reason I say, as I recently said to him and in my "Solar Employs, Nuclear Destroys" blog, that Obama is "in the pocket" of Big Nukes, is because of the money trail of contributors to his campaigns, as well as key people advising him and in his administration (see Washington Post article).

And now THIS:  NY Times article: "Obama Lays Out Plan to Cut Reliance on Fuel Imports" (read: Obama tries yet again to spin nuclear power as being a good thing)

When I saw the headline on my Google homepage and clicked on the article, I wanted so badly to think, oh, YAY, kudos to Obama for doing something on climate change.  But I knew better.  I knew what I would find as I read on in the article, based on Obama's past history, ideas and statements on going green, which all seem to emphasize nuclear and "clean coal" (not that there is such a thing as clean coal, but moving along), and the whole time I was thinking "Wait for it...wait for it, you know it's coming..."  Sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes.  He had recently restated his support for more nukes before Japan, but had gone mercifully silent on same since, until now.  He had to find a way to make it palatable to the American people, post-Japan.  That man could sell fish hooks to fish!  Ingenius:  he announces a wonderful new climate change package of ideas and, oh, by the way, nuclear is still a big part of the solution to climate change, and we all want to solve climate change, now don't we, my gullible little kiddies?  Well, "nuclear power doesn't emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere":

Quote:  "The president repeated his assertion that, despite the frightening situation at the Fukushima Daiichi reactor complex in Japan, nuclear power will remain an important source of electricity in the United States for decades to come.  'It’s important to recognize that nuclear energy doesn’t emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,' he said, noting that nuclear power now provides about one-fifth of domestic electricity supplies. 'Those of us concerned about climate change know that nuclear power, if it’s safe, can make a significant contribution to the climate change question. And I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe.'”

Notice that he even has the GALL to imply that anyone who is concerned about climate change is for nuclear energy!  Speak for your own INFURIATING self, Obama!

I'm sorry if the following offends those of you who love the man but, I'm telling you, I DETEST this guy.  Of course, it isn't just due to this, it goes back to so many other things (be glad I wasn't blogging during the 2007/8 primary season and the whole Florida and Michigan delegate mess or there would be no room left in cyberspace due to the sheer volume of my blogs).  The bottom line is that, though I've tried to see what my fellow liberals see in the guy, and I've wanted to see it, I never have, and he just keeps proving me right, not that that makes me happy, believe me.  At this point, I just simply detest him and see right through him.  The detestation took time to evolve, based on his actions and/or lack thereof on various fronts, but the seeing right  through him is something that I always have (since the first time I saw him, giving the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that everyone raved about and thought was so great, but all I saw was a hollow, sloganeering politician versus a substantive leader...and his later "hope and change" campaign proved me right, as it was ALL slogans and no SUBSTANCE...not that anyone would listen to me at the time, but I digress again) and can't believe that all my fellow liberals still do not.  Some do, but most still think the guy parted the Red Sea.  Well, to him I say:  NO NEW NUKES!  We can solve climate change without creating more devastating environmental disasters and human tragedies waiting to happen.  Even if nuclear power plants don't melt down, what are you proposing to do with the nuclear waste, Obama?  WHAT?  WHAT?!  Tell me, damn it.  I'm all ears.

I am SO SICK of big business running/ruining this world!

Color me radicalized anew, and I'm about to read a book I just ordered that a friend told me I have to read, called "The Shock Doctrine", which I'm sure will put me over the top!

End of rant.  As always, thanks for listening.  I know some of you like Obama, but on this issue, look at the money trail and ask yourselves WHY he is so intent on pushing for new nukes, other than that said money trail clearly ties him to that industry?  We do not need nukes to fuel our future, people.  Solar energy IS the future!  Now, I know it isn't quite as simple as that, but almost!  Yes, we will also need wind, geothermal, biofuels, and other sustainable, renewable energy, but solar is the future and can power this world.  We need to INVEST in research and development, and infrastructure!  All it will take is the imagination, vision and commitment to make it happen.

If I have to chain myself to wherever they think they are building new nukes at this point, I shall.  There is one place at which the power company right here in my area is already planning to build a new reactor.  Like I said, color me radicalized anew on so many fronts.  My inner anti-nuclear activist, for so long dormant, has ROARED back awake.  I'm ready to march, shout, chain myself to various and sundry things, dig out my old anti-nuclear buttons, and just generally fight (non-violently, of course) for this beautiful world.

Who's with me?

Solar Employs, Nuclear Destroys

The political slogan in my title is an oldie but goodie.  It is sad that it is still so topical and controversial.  It should evoke a collective:  “Duh, we figured that out decades ago!”, but instead we haven’t quite gotten there yet, and it is still relevant, still a hot-button issue.

Obama’s ties to the nuclear industry are crystal clear and run very deep (see linked Washington Post article below), which is why he continues to push nuclear energy and new nuclear plants, even now, post-Japan, with the same old lie that has always been used to push them, namely the claim that they are “clean”, safe, efficient and sustainable, not to mention affordable.  The reality is that they are none of those things, never have been, never will be.  Just the opposite, they create highly toxic waste that we don’t know what to do with, they are extremely dangerous, and they are very expensive.  We need a president who will promote truly clean, sustainable, safe, renewable energy that works in harmony with nature instead of violating it.  We need a president who will invest in and push for solar and wind.  Instead, we have someone in the pocket of the nuclear industry.  Witness:

Washington Post article (from 3/18/2011) on Obama's ties to the nuclear industry

The nuclear industry has friends in the highest of places and we face an uphill battle as citizens to try to make our voices heard against nuclear energy and for truly clean, sustainable energy like solar and wind.  Yet make our voices heard we must, because, as I’ve said before and will no doubt feel compelled to shout from the cyber-rooftops many more times:  if our wisdom quotient as a species doesn’t somehow catch up to our intelligence and abilities, so that we realize that, just because we can do something (like splitting the atom), doesn’t mean we should do it, we as a species are not going to be sustainable here on our dear planet earth.

We must learn and learn quickly that the yardstick for everything we do should be this:  is it respectful of nature, or does it violate nature?  A species that is violent towards the natural world that sustains it and of which it is a part, cannot continue to live in that natural world indefinitely.  Nature is very tolerant and forgiving, yet it does have limits.  We have violated and hurt our natural world very much already, yet so far it has been very forgiving.  There is mounting evidence, though, that our grace period is nearing an end.  My fellow humans:  let’s use those big brains of ours to choose to evolve, wisdom-wise (wisdom-wise:  now there’s a phrase you don’t see every day).

We as a species have that awesome power to choose.  We can realize things, learn from mistakes and choose to behave in new and different ways.  So let’s stop violating nature.  Of course, I mean let’s stop violating nature in general, but specifically here I am speaking about splitting the atom.  That is not something we should be doing, any more than a two-year-old who discovers his daddy’s loaded gun in a shoe box should be exploring what it can do, what powers it has.  A two-year-old is not meant to play with a loaded gun, they are not equipped to understand what they are handling, they don’t know its violent power.  Similarly, humans are not meant to split the atom—we do not understand what we are doing.  So let’s STOP and instead choose to work in harmony with nature by employing solar and wind energy, just to name two very powerful, promising examples of energy we should be exploring and harnessing, if you go by my yardstick of asking ourselves:  does it respect and work in harmony with nature?  If the answer is no (nuclear energy), we should not go.  If the answer is yes (solar and wind), we should progress!

Make your voice heard:

Repower America

Union of Concerned Scientists

Beyond Nuclear

Greenpeace

Further Reading:

New York Times article (from 3/18/2011) on rekindling the anti-nuclear movement