Recent comments

Much of what we hear on MSM that isn't actually NEWs is nothing more than opinion and therefore propaganda in my opinion. . . .

Why should it be such a big deal for the government to want their side known - by sharing on the MSM too......

As long as the MSM gives us ALL sides of an issue - that seems fair enough to me......

iqsmith says; "The least potentially hazardous way to create energy for heat, light and transportation is nuclear. It has been decades since the last time there were any noteworthy problems with a nuclear power facility, and current techology is far safer still. Countries like France are doing very well with this source of energy. It produces NO greenhouse gases and most of the fuel gets recycled." Wish it were so but it's not! For me, the known financial and/or waste issues of nuclear fission plants is enough to say -- NO Thanks! However, when you consider Dr. Caldicott's points on the nuclear fuel cycle and its accompanied impacts of fossil fuel use and global climate change its the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned! Worldview with Jerome McDonnell on WBEZ Chicago Public Radio: ‘The Nuclear Landscape’ – Dr. Helen Caldicott Friday, October 12, 2007 [ http://www.wbez.org/Program_WV.aspx?episode=13983 ] [ http://www.wbez.org/content.aspx?audioID=13989 ] (Download = 21.2MB) “We discuss nuclear power, nuclear weapons and their role in the upcoming presidential elections with Dr. Helen Caldicott, a longtime anti-nuclear campaigner and co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility.” – Jerome McDonnell Quotes of Dr. Helen Caldicott starting at: 00:26:22 in the interview… “Ok, so got 103 reactors in America, all of which are getting old and all of which need to be replaced. They produce 20% of the electricity you currently use. If you all stop using your clothes dryers and turned off all your electrical instruments at night you’d probably save 20% of the electricity. In fact, you can save 28% of the electricity you currently use. So you don’t need nuclear power.” (snip…) “Nuclear power itself produces global warming, a large degree of Carbon dioxide because you have to mine millions of tons of Uranium. And you have to mill it and you have to enrich it. Huge amounts of fossil fuel are used. At the moment a nuclear power plant produces 30% the CO2 as a similar sized gas fired plant, but in ten or twenty years as Uranium ore declines in concentration, in the world, a nuclear power plant will produce the same amount of CO2 as a fossil fuel plant. But, you know you may as well have a fossil fuel plant because you won’t produce radioactive waste -- A. B. To have any effect on global warming, with the nuclear industry’s data, which is inaccurate, you’d have to build a nuclear power plant every week for the next thirty years, impossible… C. Nuclear power plants take 10 to 15 years to build. So you are not going to make any impact at all because global warming is upon us now. And we have to stop burning coal – NOW! And we have to stop burning oil – NOW! The Arctic is melting. The Amazon is ablaze. Australia is in the middle of a huge drought we can hardly grow food anymore. What on Earth do we think we are doing driving SUVs everywhere? Where’s the sense of urgency that a doctor has when their patient is in the intensive care unit? We are all now physicians to a planet that is in the intensive care unit. Yet its life and business as normal. Its Nero fiddling while Rome burns.” (Continues…) See Also: ‘Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy’ [ http://www.ieer.org/ ] [ http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/index.html ] “The overarching finding of this study is that a zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power and without acquiring carbon credits from other countries. In other words, actual physical emissions of CO2 from the energy sector can be eliminated with technologies that are now available or foreseeable. This can be done at reasonable cost while creating a much more secure energy supply than at present. Net U.S. oil imports can be eliminated in about 25 years. All three insecurities – severe climate disruption, oil supply and price insecurity, and nuclear proliferation via commercial nuclear energy – will thereby be addressed. In addition, there will be large ancillary health benefits from the elimination of most regional and local air pollution, such as high ozone and particulate levels in cities, which is due to fossil fuel combustion.” Helen Caldicott, MD - Books [ http://www.helencaldicott.com/books.htm ] ‘NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER’ Publisher: The New Press (2006); ISBN: 978-1-59558-067-2 Melbourne University Press (2006): ISBN 0522 85251 3 “In a world torn apart by wars over oil, many politicians are increasingly looking for alternative sources of energy - and their leading choice is often nuclear. Among the myths that have been spread over the years about nuclear-powered electricity are that it does not cause global warming or pollution (i.e., that it is "clean and green"), that it is inexpensive, and that it is safe. But the facts belie the barrage of nuclear industry propaganda: Nuclear power contributes to global warming; The real costs of nuclear power are prohibitive (and taxpayers pick up most of them); There’s not enough uranium in the world to sustain long-term nuclear power; Potential for a catastrophic accident or terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits.”