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"

As Fukushima Nightmare Unfolds, Obama Wants to Hand Out 55 Billion in Federal Loan Guarantees for New Nukes

If President Obama is truly concerned with turning back global climate change, he should be investing only in truly clean, green, sustainable, safe, renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal.  Instead, he wants to offer 55 billion dollars in federal loan guarantees to companies to build new nuclear plants.  If the loans are defaulted on, the government would cover up to 80% of the cost.  By “the government”, I of course mean you and I, the American taxpayer.

Consider the following quote from a 4/5/2011 DW-World article (bold emphasis added):

“...as part of its energy agenda, the Obama administration has called for the construction of new nuclear power plants as a way to combat climate change and become less dependent on foreign oil at the same time.  To push utilities to build new reactors, Washington wants to hand out loan guarantees to the nuclear industry totaling $55 billion (39 billion euros) to construct up to a dozen new reactors. Should a plant operator default, the government would cough up up to 80 percent of the loan. Until now, the Energy Department has conditionally awarded only one loan guarantee of eight billion dollars for two reactors.  The administration's nuclear loan plans require Congressional approval. But the chorus of voices calling for a review of US nuclear policy is growing daily.”

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my taxes to go to build new nuclear power plants.  Nuclear energy, despite Obama’s skillful attempts to spin it as being ye olde “friendly atom”, i.e., clean and green, is most decidedly neither, as I have shouted from this cyber-rooftop before.  How anyone can look at what is unfolding right now in Japan, never mind what the world has already experienced with previous nuclear disasters, and say with a straight face that nuclear is “clean” energy, is totally beyond my ken.

There is enough solar energy that could be harvested in Algeria alone to power the entire world.1  And that is just solar.  And just from Algeria.  I’m so sick of the argument that we somehow need nuclear energy, let alone that we need fossil fuel, for that matter.  We need neither and we can afford neither anymore.  We need to transition off fossil fuel and existing nuclear plants, and we certainly do not need new nukes.  What will it take for us to realize this?  What will it take to realize both that renewables certainly CAN meet our energy needs, and that we must commit to that path and invest in it immediately, because the environment cannot sustain the path we are on?

Granted, the infrastructure is not in place, for example in the case of my Algeria reference, to power the whole world with renewables right this very moment, but the potential—the actual renewable energy itself—is there for the taking, all around us!  What say, President Obama, that we take that 55 billion you want to make available to the extremely dangerous, toxic nuclear industry and instead invest it in solar, wind and geothermal right here at home?  We have desert, just like Algeria.  Why not invest in harvesting sunshine, wind, and geothermal instead of investing in something that is proven to produce extremely toxic waste that we can’t dispose of, and is also proven to malfunction in ways that in no way fit any model of acceptable risk-to-reward ratio?  Again, I direct your attention to the unfolding, out-of-control, extremely toxic situation in Japan, that is spreading worldwide as I write this.  And you, President Obama, want to encourage and subsidize MORE nuclear plants?  That is not clean and it’s not green.  It is not facing reality.

We need to move off fossil fuel and nuclear energy with all deliberate speed.  I urge everyone reading this to write to President Obama and to all of your elected representatives.2 Tell them America cannot afford anything about nuclear energy and we certainly don’t want our tax dollars invested in new nuclear plants.  We welcome our tax dollars being invested in a truly clean, green, sustainable future.  Tell them that we must harness and work in harmony with nature, not continue to violate it.  Tell them to invest our green in green:  sun, wind and geothermal, before it’s too late.

1 Lester Brown reference (re my statement that there's enough solar energy in Algeria alone to power the entire world).

2  Find your elected officials at Project VoteSmart

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