Create your own social network with a free forum.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore!. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post ) Add ReplyCreate New TopicCreate New Poll

 Obama in pocket of nuclear industry, (see linked article)
hangingchad
Posted: Mar 21 2011, 08:49 AM
Quote Post


Gore aficionado since 1988


Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Member No.: 232
Joined: 19-June 04



Obama’s ties to the nuclear industry are crystal clear and run very deep, 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 they are none of those things, never have been, never will be. Just the opposite, they create waste that we don’t know what to do with, they are EXTREMELY dangerous, and they are very expensive. We need a president, a LEADER, 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:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/oba...Lu8r_story.html
Send PM
Top
Wayne in WA State
Posted: Mar 21 2011, 10:32 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3834
Member No.: 1466
Joined: 14-September 06



If we are serious about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and fighting climate change, I think nuclear power cannot be ruled out if it is done with a great deal of care and safety. Countries like France think nuclear should be part of the mix. For perspective on Japan, over ten thousand people have been killed by the giant earthquake and tsunami, no one to my knowledge has been killed by the nuclear incident.

I think we need to make a massive push for solar, wind and geothermal energy there is no doubt. At the same time I'm not ready to shut down electricity from nuclear power, especially if the short term alternative is burning coal.

ducking for cover now..

Send PMSend Email
Top
Texan for Gore
Posted: Mar 21 2011, 11:29 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4501
Member No.: 2253
Joined: 20-March 07



Even though the majority of deaths in Japan have been because of the earthquake and tsunami, it seems that the radiation threat would have more of a long term threat, healthwise, and has the potential to kill lots of people. And while it's been argued that nuclear plants are perfectly safe under normal circumstances, it just seems too risky in cases of natural disasters, plus having to worry about where to store the waste.

I don't know how long it takes to make a nuclear power plant, but my question is, why can't the focus initially be on solar and wind to start off with? I mean, how much energy can nuclear sources provide versus wind and solar sources and wouldn't it be more practical to start off building wind farms, going solar, etc., than to build nuclear power plants first, THEN go to wind and solar. Plus, I could see excuses being made to delay going to wind and solar, by making statements that the nuclear plants are serving the purpose, so there is no need to go to something else.

You know, it's hard to imagine that we didn't have electricity at one time. My boss, who is my age, says she can remember when our own town didn't have electricity. I really don't remember that. Maybe it was the folks on the outskirts of town who didn't have electricity. But I remember we used to have this place that sold blocks of ice for "ice boxes." And now here we are, our elected officials, willing to use nuclear energy despite it's potential for disaster. :?:
Send PMSend Email
Top
hangingchad
Posted: Mar 21 2011, 02:48 PM
Quote Post


Gore aficionado since 1988


Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Member No.: 232
Joined: 19-June 04



QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Mar 21 2011, 10:32 AM)
If we are serious about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and fighting climate change, I think nuclear power cannot be ruled out if it is done with a great deal of care and safety. Countries like France think nuclear should be part of the mix. For perspective on Japan, over ten thousand people have been killed by the giant earthquake and tsunami, no one to my knowledge has been killed by the nuclear incident.

I think we need to make a massive push for solar, wind and geothermal energy there is no doubt. At the same time I'm not ready to shut down electricity from nuclear power, especially if the short term alternative is burning coal.

ducking for cover now..

Well, I only have a few nanoseconds before my co-worker calls and says "Let's go", and I have to log off, so no need to duck, you lucky duck! :Y:

That said: WHATCHU TAWKIN' 'BOUT, WILLIS? The extreme dangers inherent to nuclear power are no way worth it. HC has spoken!

As for TfG's post: sing it, sister. I'd rather revert to candles and rising and setting with the sun than having nuclear energy.

Check out my latest blog (via the link at the bottom of my posts). I've linked not only the article I linked about Obama being beholden to Big Nuke (as he is, imho, to Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Coal...anything Big, he seems beholden to it, far as I can discern, but moving along), I've linked an article at the end about the resurgence of the anti-nuclear movement. Perhaps that is a silver lining to the terrible, terrible, epic tragedy in Japan.

This post has been edited by hangingchad on Mar 21 2011, 02:48 PM
Send PM
Top
earthmother
Posted: Mar 21 2011, 10:06 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



Chad, before you're so quick to dis Obama for supporting nuclear energy, remember that our man--OUR MAN--supports nuclear energy because it's an available technology that can immediately halt our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm not saying I agree with his position; this is one place where I don't. I think we don't yet have answers to many of the problems with nuclear energy, including what to do with the inevitable nuclear waste, how to keep fissionable material out of the hands of terrorists, and better guarantees that nuclear plants are safe from the threat of natural disasters as well as man-made ones. But my point here is that you're very quick to criticize Obama for this, despite the fact that it is the same position Gore takes.
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
Texan for Gore
Posted: Mar 22 2011, 09:19 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4501
Member No.: 2253
Joined: 20-March 07



I think there's probably a good many of our politicians who support nuclear energy, unfortunately. I wonder if Gore has changed his stance on the issue at all, especially given what's happened in Japan.

One thing that seems to be problematic is that so many of our officials do seem to be in the pockets of things like oil & gas, dirty coal and nuclear energy, etc. I wish if they're going to be indebted to somebody, it was those in the wind and solar business. At least that would be healthy and safe for our environment. <_<
Send PMSend Email
Top
Wayne in WA State
Posted: Mar 22 2011, 10:14 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3834
Member No.: 1466
Joined: 14-September 06



I'll just say that because someone, a politician or a regular citizen, holds a position that you or I disagree with does not mean that they are 'in the pocket' of anyone. It may well be they sincerely hold a different point of view. From what I have read Gore doesn't see nuclear energy as the whole answer, or the main answer to our energy problems but he has said he sees nuclear energy as part of the answer. So do I. Research into safer and more economical forms of nuclear energy deserve major support. I've checked my pockets and I can assure you they have not been lined by corporate lobbyists.

(Posted Image)
Send PMSend Email
Top
Texan for Gore
Posted: Mar 22 2011, 11:02 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4501
Member No.: 2253
Joined: 20-March 07



Wayne, I would never suspect your pockets were lined by corporate lobbyists. :lol:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I don't have that same level of confidence when it comes to politicians. And I'm not picking on anyone in particular here. There's just too much indication that politicians are indeed heavily influenced by the corporate interest. That's just one of my pet peeves. And I guess what irks me about that is that they make decisions that affect our lives everyday. Yet we have very little say in what they're doing.

There may be valid arguments in support of nuclear energy, but imo, it's just not worth the risk. It's like watching the Earth bursting at the seams. Everytime there's a major catastrophe, like the Gulf oil spill or this threat of nuclear disaster in Japan, I think this will get people's attention and they will realize that we need to start making the move to more safer forms of energy. But there still seems to be just as much resistance to clean energy as there ever was. :?: It just boggles my mind. :wacko:
Send PMSend Email
Top
earthmother
Posted: Mar 22 2011, 02:37 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



Obviously Gore doesn't think nuclear is the whole answer, and he may well have changed his tune a bit lately, but clearly his whole thing is that we need whatever we can do to get off fossil fuels, and if that means nuclear, well, so be it. Not sure that's a smart approach, but since he says we're facing an emergency situation with global warming, I guess he thinks it's worth the risk.
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
Patsy
Posted: Mar 24 2011, 11:22 AM
Quote Post


GSC Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 804
Member No.: 122
Joined: 18-June 04



I do not believe in his heart of hearts that he really likes nuclear power. He stopped a plant from being built in Portland TN, and when he was in power, he would not let trucks of nuclear waste pass through TN, now with Alexandra in contol, we are the passageway to the west. Gore said that it would take only one mistake or accident to turn TN into another Russia. I think that he realizes that he has to give a little to get alot for his green energy.
Send PMSend Email
Top
Texan for Gore
Posted: Mar 24 2011, 02:01 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4501
Member No.: 2253
Joined: 20-March 07



I kinda thought that too, Patsy, that Gore figures he had to give a little in order to make headway in going green. And if he stopped a plant from being built in Portland, TN, that tells me he's not completely at ease with the idea of nuclear power.
Send PMSend Email
Top
earthmother
Posted: Mar 24 2011, 02:36 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



I seriously doubt Gore likes the idea of nuclear power and the harm it can do. But I think he sees it as the lesser of two evils since he believes that global warming is literally going to do in the planet. My opinion, though, is that nuclear has the potential to do the same thing. But I guess from Gore's point of view, one's a sure thing that's going to happen, and the other is just a possibility.
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
hangingchad
  Posted: Mar 30 2011, 02:44 PM
Quote Post


Gore aficionado since 1988


Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Member No.: 232
Joined: 19-June 04



Rant alert!!!!

I've been wanting to come back into this thread for a long time, but again, my internet access is super dicey to non-existent, so I haven't had a chance. Well, my boss just left (yay!) and I just read something INFURIATING on the net, so that combo has led me back, finally.

First off, I want to say that 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 Obama is "in the pocket" of Big Nukes, if you will (just made that phrase up), is because of the money trail of contributors to his campaigns, as well as key people advising him and in his administration. Again, see my original link.

And now THIS:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/us/31obama.html

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 LEADING, for doing something, on climate change. But I KNEW. I knew what I would find as I read on in the article, and the whole time, I'm thinking "Wait for it...wait for it, hangingchad, you know it is coming." And sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes!!!!! He had just stated his support for more nukes before Japan, but has gone silent since, until now. So 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, btw, 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?

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.”


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

I'm sorry to all of you who love the man but, I'm telling you, I DETEST this guy. I just simply detest him and see right through him and always have 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 tragiedies waiting to happen. Even if they don't melt down, what are you proposing to do with the nuclear waste, Obama? WHAT? WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell me, d*amn it. I'm all ears.

I am SO SICK of big business running this world, 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 still like Obama, but WHY is he so intent on pushing for new nukes, other than the money trail that 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, will will also need wind, geothermal, biofuels, and other sustainable, renewable energy, but solar, in the future, can power this world. We need to INVEST in R & D and infrastructure!

If I have to chain myself to wherever they think they are building new nukes at this point, I shall. And there is one place that the power company right here in my area is already planning to build a new reactor, so that's my first stop. Like I said, color me radicalized anew on so many fronts, and my inner anti-nuclear activist, for so long dormant, has ROARED back awake.

Just saying.

This post has been edited by hangingchad on Mar 30 2011, 02:46 PM
Send PM
Top
hangingchad
Posted: Mar 30 2011, 02:49 PM
Quote Post


Gore aficionado since 1988


Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Member No.: 232
Joined: 19-June 04



P.S. D*mn, I'm good. I might have to turn that last post into a blog.

Oh yeah.
Send PM
Top
earthmother
Posted: Mar 30 2011, 06:22 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



QUOTE (hangingchad @ Mar 30 2011, 07:44 PM)
And sure enough, Obama is USING climate change to justify building more nukes!!!!! He had just stated his support for more nukes before Japan, but has gone silent since, until now. So 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, btw, 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?

Chad, I guess you didn't read through this whole thread because I said something a while back that might have made you have a slightly different attitude than what you're saying here. Or maybe not. But would you be so quick to dis Al Gore for the same thing you're all over Obama for? Gore has been on record for years as favoring nuclear power as a way to get off fossil fuels because it's technology we have now, it's relatively inexpensive, and it can help stop climate change NOW. This is one thing I vehemently disagree with Gore about, but this is, or at least has been, his position. And I don't see you taking him to task for it. In fact, I think that if you did disagree with Gore on that position, you'd do it a lot more respectfully than the way you're treating Obama.

Essentially, Obama is adopting Gore's stand on this. I've known you long enough to know you're not a hypocrite, so, would you yell at Gore for his position the way you have at Obama? Just know that they are both saying exactly the same thing with regard to this issue, and if one is wrong, then the other one is, too, and Gore deserves as much of your ire as Obama does. Are you going to give him a talking to?

Having said all that, I've missed you, and it's good to see you here. Hope you'll be able to post more. :good:
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Environmental Issues | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2  Add ReplyCreate New TopicCreate New Poll



Paid for and authorized by the © Al Gore Support Center 2002-2005, Inc.
Please Read Our Disclaimer

A Stiles Design Creation © 2005

Site Meter
Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive