Get E-Mail Updates

Persistent Efforts to Counter a Persistent Nuclear Threat

A generation has now come of age now for which "Fall Out Shelter" signs are nothing but rusty remnants of a time long past. Young people who have no memory of the Soviet Union and who were never alive when the Berlin wall stood cast their ballots in a Presidential election. For them, the "Cuban Missile Crisis" is a paragraph in a history book and the entire Cold War just a few pages.

This however, does not erase the bitter irony that President Obama spoke to in Prague yesterday, "Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

Past Presidents have taken strides towards disarmament; historians tell us that Reagan was constantly haunted by the threat. I know that President Obama feels a personal burden about the threat that nuclear weapons pose to our world. This is why I hope and pray that the vision he declared without equivocation comes quickly to pass, he said, "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

He went on to recognize that we are still a long way off and that, "This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence." The progress that has already been made through patience and persistence is evident in this young generation that has not grown up with the same prevailing fears that many of us who came to age in the Cold War have. While the fear is not as palpable, the threat is still real and the progress that will be made will greatly depend upon generations uniting to remove this blight from our planet. The challenge is before us and the uphill battle will continue for as the President said:

Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve.

But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 4:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: justintime

04-07-2009 @ 3:13am

DR. STRANGELOVE: or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1964, Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-bound ex-Nazi nuclear war expert: a pastiche of ex-Nazi scientists such as Wernher von Braun; nuclear strategists such as Herman Kahn; and particularly Edward Teller, "father" of the hydrogen bomb.

George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson, loosely based on Air Force General Curtis LeMay.

Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper, a paranoid ultra-patriot .

Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber's commander.

When you watch Dr. Strangelove, you sense the dark humor behind the atmosphere of nihilism and doom that permeated the Cold War years. If I let my guard down it all comes back to me.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 2:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: justintime

04-07-2009 @ 3:13am

DR. STRANGELOVE: or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1964, Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-bound ex-Nazi nuclear war expert: a pastiche of ex-Nazi scientists such as Wernher von Braun; nuclear strategists such as Herman Kahn; and particularly Edward Teller, "father" of the hydrogen bomb.

George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson, loosely based on Air Force General Curtis LeMay.

Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper, a paranoid ultra-patriot .

Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber's commander.

When you watch Dr. Strangelove, you sense the dark humor behind the atmosphere of nihilism and doom that permeated the Cold War years. If I let my guard down it all comes back to me.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 2:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 5:35pm

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons-especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons-to commit such crimes.

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2314-2315
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

Retired U.S. Military Leaders Join Nation's Clergy In Call to Ban Nuclear Weapons.
Joint Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Statement Signed by Military Professionals and Religious Leaders.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/armsjoi...

by: SisterMarie

04-06-2009 @ 6:06pm

I belong to that generation of school children who practiced preparing for a nuclear explosion by crawling under our desks and assuming the fetal position. I pray that we may realize some progress in gradually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 6:45pm

Congratulations to Obama for taking this issue head on.

I'm old enough to remember fall out shelters and classroom nuclear war drills, where we were told to get down under our desks, as if nuclear war was like an earthquake or a hurricane.
We weren't fooled by these pathetic measures, we had all seen newsreels of nuclear explosions and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The standard joke was, "In the event of nuclear war, get under your desk, grab your ankles and kiss your *** goodbye."
Having been through this, it was impossible for me to take seriously Homeland Security honcho Tom Ridge, his color coded alerts and his recommendations to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape.

On a related topic, nuclear power:
New information is surfacing about the seriousness of the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster - a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant -- which resulted in the cancellation of future nuclear power plant projects.
It was far worse than the government admitted at the time.
Personal injury lawsuits were dismissed by courts favoring nuclear power.
The Price-Anderson Act exempts nuclear power plant operators from financial liability for future nuclear power plant disasters.
Remember the Chernobyl disaster?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is distributing 9 million potassium iodide tablets around U.S. nuclear plants, as a precautionary measure in the event of another nuclear disaster.
The Yucca Flats Nuclear Depository project is located over an earthquake fault zone and will probably not be built.
Nuclear Power is not cost effective when decommissioning costs are factored in.
These plants are only good for about 40 years after which accumulated radioactivity renders them too dangerous to operate.

Yes, I know other nations have embraced nuclear power as 'clean' energy.
But many think it's a bad idea, not worth the costs and the risks, especially when other cost effective alternates exist, such as wind electric and solar electric power.

If we're going to pursue eliminating nuclear weapons, we should also eliminate nuclear power from our energy planning.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 6:46pm

I remember looking out the window while crouching under my desk during one of those drills thinking, "This is supposed to protect me from what?"

My wife is 14 years younger than I am and didn't grow up as I did under the specter of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's one of the interesting dichotomies between our views of the world and the people in it.

It's hard to explain the effect of learning as a child that everything you know could be completely destroyed within a matter of minutes.

Maybe that plays a role in my fear of bringing a child into this world.

by: squeaky

04-06-2009 @ 8:15pm

I just finished teaching about nuclear power in my Earth resources class. I was a kid when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened, so their memories are still etched in my mind. In a discussion with students related to whether they thought nuclear was something we should actively pursue, most of them thought we should.

It has clear advantages, and our safety measures are far improved since (and because of) the TMI event. However, even though the risk of nuclear disaster is very low, in the event something did happen, it effects people over huge areas and for many years to come. Most students didn't seem concerned about that, though--either because of this strange faith that safety measures will not fail, or because they don't see the environmental effects as any more serious than our current environmental effects from extracting and burning fossil fuels (indeed, there are many lakes and rivers which are unsafe to fish because of mercury levels in the fish).

If the same question had been asked 20 years ago, the response would have been far different. It is amazing how quickly our memories fade, not only because we are temporally separated from the event, but generationally as well.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 9:24pm

The response of your students gives me concern, squeaky.
I wonder if it's not just the generational gap but also the propaganda effort mounted by the nuclear power industry.
There are many independent studies highlighting the capital intensiveness of nuclear power, its essential government subsidy, its negative net energy yield and the lack of a nuclear waste disposal plan.
The nuclear fuel cycle feeds into nuclear weapons capability.
Radioactive waste is the essential ingredient for dirty bomb terrorism.
Is nuclear power really "clean"?
I don't think so if you consider thermal pollution of rivers caused by water cooled reactors.
The deal breaker for me is that it doesn't pay back economically.
I think it's misinformation keeping the fantasy of nuclear power alive in the face of its inescapable drawbacks
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nu...

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 4:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: canucklehead

04-06-2009 @ 10:50pm

Squeaky - guess what our government is proposing after National Geographic's recent exposure of the environmental impact of the Alberta Tar Sands? bye bye hydrocarbons, hello nuclear energy!

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 11:33pm

Hey canucklehead,

Although your Candu reactor is better technology than most of our current plants, it's still dangerous and a net energy loser..
You've been selling them to China.
If one of them melts down, I'll get the fallout here in Washington State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_Rea...
The ACR-1000 has been submitted as part of Ontario's request for proposal (RFP). Bruce Power, which has acquired Alberta Energy, is also considering it for deployment in Western Canada. The province of New Brunswick has accepted a proposal for a feasibility study for an ACR-1000 at Point Lepreau.

The wind potential in the Canadian prairie will be much more cost effective to develop than tar sands or nuclear. Both tar sands and nuclear require vast quantities of water and attendant risk of contamination.
Our Montana Governor wants clean coal plants -- highly questionable environmentally.
Wind power is a much better plan, in my opinion.
I do wish someone would figure out how to prevent migratory birds flying into the turbines.

So why does Canada want to spend your tax dollars on nuclear power?
I think this is another nuclear power industry subsidy.
I would challenge their cost effectiveness.
It won't pencil out.

by: BlueDeacon

04-07-2009 @ 1:32am

I actually studied nuclear physics as a pre-teen and learned that, considering the amount of nuclear particles given off in an attack, such measures would have been ineffective anyway. I wasn't born when those "duck and cover" commercials were made; when I did I thought, "This is ridiculous." Years later, however, I also learned from a friend who was a Soviet expert that the Soviets were more afraid of the U.S. than vice versa.

by: canucklehead

04-07-2009 @ 2:42am

Personally, I think they're blowing smoke to keep the regulators somewhat distracted. Two days after Suncor announced a $3 billion acquisition of Petro-Canada, the small print revealed that Suncor has just been slapped w/ a few environmental fines. But what's millions when you're making billions, right?

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 5:35pm

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons-especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons-to commit such crimes.

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2314-2315
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

Retired U.S. Military Leaders Join Nation's Clergy In Call to Ban Nuclear Weapons.
Joint Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Statement Signed by Military Professionals and Religious Leaders.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/armsjoi...

by: SisterMarie

04-06-2009 @ 6:06pm

I belong to that generation of school children who practiced preparing for a nuclear explosion by crawling under our desks and assuming the fetal position. I pray that we may realize some progress in gradually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 6:45pm

Congratulations to Obama for taking this issue head on.

I'm old enough to remember fall out shelters and classroom nuclear war drills, where we were told to get down under our desks, as if nuclear war was like an earthquake or a hurricane.
We weren't fooled by these pathetic measures, we had all seen newsreels of nuclear explosions and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The standard joke was, "In the event of nuclear war, get under your desk, grab your ankles and kiss your *** goodbye."
Having been through this, it was impossible for me to take seriously Homeland Security honcho Tom Ridge, his color coded alerts and his recommendations to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape.

On a related topic, nuclear power:
New information is surfacing about the seriousness of the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster - a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant -- which resulted in the cancellation of future nuclear power plant projects.
It was far worse than the government admitted at the time.
Personal injury lawsuits were dismissed by courts favoring nuclear power.
The Price-Anderson Act exempts nuclear power plant operators from financial liability for future nuclear power plant disasters.
Remember the Chernobyl disaster?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is distributing 9 million potassium iodide tablets around U.S. nuclear plants, as a precautionary measure in the event of another nuclear disaster.
The Yucca Flats Nuclear Depository project is located over an earthquake fault zone and will probably not be built.
Nuclear Power is not cost effective when decommissioning costs are factored in.
These plants are only good for about 40 years after which accumulated radioactivity renders them too dangerous to operate.

Yes, I know other nations have embraced nuclear power as 'clean' energy.
But many think it's a bad idea, not worth the costs and the risks, especially when other cost effective alternates exist, such as wind electric and solar electric power.

If we're going to pursue eliminating nuclear weapons, we should also eliminate nuclear power from our energy planning.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 6:46pm

I remember looking out the window while crouching under my desk during one of those drills thinking, "This is supposed to protect me from what?"

My wife is 14 years younger than I am and didn't grow up as I did under the specter of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's one of the interesting dichotomies between our views of the world and the people in it.

It's hard to explain the effect of learning as a child that everything you know could be completely destroyed within a matter of minutes.

Maybe that plays a role in my fear of bringing a child into this world.

by: squeaky

04-06-2009 @ 8:15pm

I just finished teaching about nuclear power in my Earth resources class. I was a kid when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened, so their memories are still etched in my mind. In a discussion with students related to whether they thought nuclear was something we should actively pursue, most of them thought we should.

It has clear advantages, and our safety measures are far improved since (and because of) the TMI event. However, even though the risk of nuclear disaster is very low, in the event something did happen, it effects people over huge areas and for many years to come. Most students didn't seem concerned about that, though--either because of this strange faith that safety measures will not fail, or because they don't see the environmental effects as any more serious than our current environmental effects from extracting and burning fossil fuels (indeed, there are many lakes and rivers which are unsafe to fish because of mercury levels in the fish).

If the same question had been asked 20 years ago, the response would have been far different. It is amazing how quickly our memories fade, not only because we are temporally separated from the event, but generationally as well.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 9:24pm

The response of your students gives me concern, squeaky.
I wonder if it's not just the generational gap but also the propaganda effort mounted by the nuclear power industry.
There are many independent studies highlighting the capital intensiveness of nuclear power, its essential government subsidy, its negative net energy yield and the lack of a nuclear waste disposal plan.
The nuclear fuel cycle feeds into nuclear weapons capability.
Radioactive waste is the essential ingredient for dirty bomb terrorism.
Is nuclear power really "clean"?
I don't think so if you consider thermal pollution of rivers caused by water cooled reactors.
The deal breaker for me is that it doesn't pay back economically.
I think it's misinformation keeping the fantasy of nuclear power alive in the face of its inescapable drawbacks
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nu...

by: canucklehead

04-06-2009 @ 10:50pm

Squeaky - guess what our government is proposing after National Geographic's recent exposure of the environmental impact of the Alberta Tar Sands? bye bye hydrocarbons, hello nuclear energy!

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 11:33pm

Hey canucklehead,

Although your Candu reactor is better technology than most of our current plants, it's still dangerous and a net energy loser..
You've been selling them to China.
If one of them melts down, I'll get the fallout here in Washington State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_Rea...
The ACR-1000 has been submitted as part of Ontario's request for proposal (RFP). Bruce Power, which has acquired Alberta Energy, is also considering it for deployment in Western Canada. The province of New Brunswick has accepted a proposal for a feasibility study for an ACR-1000 at Point Lepreau.

The wind potential in the Canadian prairie will be much more cost effective to develop than tar sands or nuclear. Both tar sands and nuclear require vast quantities of water and attendant risk of contamination.
Our Montana Governor wants clean coal plants -- highly questionable environmentally.
Wind power is a much better plan, in my opinion.
I do wish someone would figure out how to prevent migratory birds flying into the turbines.

So why does Canada want to spend your tax dollars on nuclear power?
I think this is another nuclear power industry subsidy.
I would challenge their cost effectiveness.
It won't pencil out.

by: BlueDeacon

04-07-2009 @ 1:32am

I actually studied nuclear physics as a pre-teen and learned that, considering the amount of nuclear particles given off in an attack, such measures would have been ineffective anyway. I wasn't born when those "duck and cover" commercials were made; when I did I thought, "This is ridiculous." Years later, however, I also learned from a friend who was a Soviet expert that the Soviets were more afraid of the U.S. than vice versa.

by: canucklehead

04-07-2009 @ 2:42am

Personally, I think they're blowing smoke to keep the regulators somewhat distracted. Two days after Suncor announced a $3 billion acquisition of Petro-Canada, the small print revealed that Suncor has just been slapped w/ a few environmental fines. But what's millions when you're making billions, right?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 5:35pm

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons-especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons-to commit such crimes.

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2314-2315
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

Retired U.S. Military Leaders Join Nation's Clergy In Call to Ban Nuclear Weapons.
Joint Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Statement Signed by Military Professionals and Religious Leaders.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/armsjoi...

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 5:35pm

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons-especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons-to commit such crimes.

"The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2314-2315
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chp...

Retired U.S. Military Leaders Join Nation's Clergy In Call to Ban Nuclear Weapons.
Joint Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Statement Signed by Military Professionals and Religious Leaders.
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/armsjoi...

by: SisterMarie

04-06-2009 @ 6:06pm

I belong to that generation of school children who practiced preparing for a nuclear explosion by crawling under our desks and assuming the fetal position. I pray that we may realize some progress in gradually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

by: SisterMarie

04-06-2009 @ 6:06pm

I belong to that generation of school children who practiced preparing for a nuclear explosion by crawling under our desks and assuming the fetal position. I pray that we may realize some progress in gradually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 6:45pm

Congratulations to Obama for taking this issue head on.

I'm old enough to remember fall out shelters and classroom nuclear war drills, where we were told to get down under our desks, as if nuclear war was like an earthquake or a hurricane.
We weren't fooled by these pathetic measures, we had all seen newsreels of nuclear explosions and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The standard joke was, "In the event of nuclear war, get under your desk, grab your ankles and kiss your *** goodbye."
Having been through this, it was impossible for me to take seriously Homeland Security honcho Tom Ridge, his color coded alerts and his recommendations to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape.

On a related topic, nuclear power:
New information is surfacing about the seriousness of the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster - a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant -- which resulted in the cancellation of future nuclear power plant projects.
It was far worse than the government admitted at the time.
Personal injury lawsuits were dismissed by courts favoring nuclear power.
The Price-Anderson Act exempts nuclear power plant operators from financial liability for future nuclear power plant disasters.
Remember the Chernobyl disaster?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is distributing 9 million potassium iodide tablets around U.S. nuclear plants, as a precautionary measure in the event of another nuclear disaster.
The Yucca Flats Nuclear Depository project is located over an earthquake fault zone and will probably not be built.
Nuclear Power is not cost effective when decommissioning costs are factored in.
These plants are only good for about 40 years after which accumulated radioactivity renders them too dangerous to operate.

Yes, I know other nations have embraced nuclear power as 'clean' energy.
But many think it's a bad idea, not worth the costs and the risks, especially when other cost effective alternates exist, such as wind electric and solar electric power.

If we're going to pursue eliminating nuclear weapons, we should also eliminate nuclear power from our energy planning.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 6:45pm

Congratulations to Obama for taking this issue head on.

I'm old enough to remember fall out shelters and classroom nuclear war drills, where we were told to get down under our desks, as if nuclear war was like an earthquake or a hurricane.
We weren't fooled by these pathetic measures, we had all seen newsreels of nuclear explosions and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The standard joke was, "In the event of nuclear war, get under your desk, grab your ankles and kiss your *** goodbye."
Having been through this, it was impossible for me to take seriously Homeland Security honcho Tom Ridge, his color coded alerts and his recommendations to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape.

On a related topic, nuclear power:
New information is surfacing about the seriousness of the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster - a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant -- which resulted in the cancellation of future nuclear power plant projects.
It was far worse than the government admitted at the time.
Personal injury lawsuits were dismissed by courts favoring nuclear power.
The Price-Anderson Act exempts nuclear power plant operators from financial liability for future nuclear power plant disasters.
Remember the Chernobyl disaster?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is distributing 9 million potassium iodide tablets around U.S. nuclear plants, as a precautionary measure in the event of another nuclear disaster.
The Yucca Flats Nuclear Depository project is located over an earthquake fault zone and will probably not be built.
Nuclear Power is not cost effective when decommissioning costs are factored in.
These plants are only good for about 40 years after which accumulated radioactivity renders them too dangerous to operate.

Yes, I know other nations have embraced nuclear power as 'clean' energy.
But many think it's a bad idea, not worth the costs and the risks, especially when other cost effective alternates exist, such as wind electric and solar electric power.

If we're going to pursue eliminating nuclear weapons, we should also eliminate nuclear power from our energy planning.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 6:46pm

I remember looking out the window while crouching under my desk during one of those drills thinking, "This is supposed to protect me from what?"

My wife is 14 years younger than I am and didn't grow up as I did under the specter of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's one of the interesting dichotomies between our views of the world and the people in it.

It's hard to explain the effect of learning as a child that everything you know could be completely destroyed within a matter of minutes.

Maybe that plays a role in my fear of bringing a child into this world.

by: neuro_nurse

04-06-2009 @ 6:46pm

I remember looking out the window while crouching under my desk during one of those drills thinking, "This is supposed to protect me from what?"

My wife is 14 years younger than I am and didn't grow up as I did under the specter of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's one of the interesting dichotomies between our views of the world and the people in it.

It's hard to explain the effect of learning as a child that everything you know could be completely destroyed within a matter of minutes.

Maybe that plays a role in my fear of bringing a child into this world.

by: squeaky

04-06-2009 @ 8:15pm

I just finished teaching about nuclear power in my Earth resources class. I was a kid when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened, so their memories are still etched in my mind. In a discussion with students related to whether they thought nuclear was something we should actively pursue, most of them thought we should.

It has clear advantages, and our safety measures are far improved since (and because of) the TMI event. However, even though the risk of nuclear disaster is very low, in the event something did happen, it effects people over huge areas and for many years to come. Most students didn't seem concerned about that, though--either because of this strange faith that safety measures will not fail, or because they don't see the environmental effects as any more serious than our current environmental effects from extracting and burning fossil fuels (indeed, there are many lakes and rivers which are unsafe to fish because of mercury levels in the fish).

If the same question had been asked 20 years ago, the response would have been far different. It is amazing how quickly our memories fade, not only because we are temporally separated from the event, but generationally as well.

by: squeaky

04-06-2009 @ 8:15pm

I just finished teaching about nuclear power in my Earth resources class. I was a kid when Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened, so their memories are still etched in my mind. In a discussion with students related to whether they thought nuclear was something we should actively pursue, most of them thought we should.

It has clear advantages, and our safety measures are far improved since (and because of) the TMI event. However, even though the risk of nuclear disaster is very low, in the event something did happen, it effects people over huge areas and for many years to come. Most students didn't seem concerned about that, though--either because of this strange faith that safety measures will not fail, or because they don't see the environmental effects as any more serious than our current environmental effects from extracting and burning fossil fuels (indeed, there are many lakes and rivers which are unsafe to fish because of mercury levels in the fish).

If the same question had been asked 20 years ago, the response would have been far different. It is amazing how quickly our memories fade, not only because we are temporally separated from the event, but generationally as well.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 9:24pm

The response of your students gives me concern, squeaky.
I wonder if it's not just the generational gap but also the propaganda effort mounted by the nuclear power industry.
There are many independent studies highlighting the capital intensiveness of nuclear power, its essential government subsidy, its negative net energy yield and the lack of a nuclear waste disposal plan.
The nuclear fuel cycle feeds into nuclear weapons capability.
Radioactive waste is the essential ingredient for dirty bomb terrorism.
Is nuclear power really "clean"?
I don't think so if you consider thermal pollution of rivers caused by water cooled reactors.
The deal breaker for me is that it doesn't pay back economically.
I think it's misinformation keeping the fantasy of nuclear power alive in the face of its inescapable drawbacks
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nu...

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 9:24pm

The response of your students gives me concern, squeaky.
I wonder if it's not just the generational gap but also the propaganda effort mounted by the nuclear power industry.
There are many independent studies highlighting the capital intensiveness of nuclear power, its essential government subsidy, its negative net energy yield and the lack of a nuclear waste disposal plan.
The nuclear fuel cycle feeds into nuclear weapons capability.
Radioactive waste is the essential ingredient for dirty bomb terrorism.
Is nuclear power really "clean"?
I don't think so if you consider thermal pollution of rivers caused by water cooled reactors.
The deal breaker for me is that it doesn't pay back economically.
I think it's misinformation keeping the fantasy of nuclear power alive in the face of its inescapable drawbacks
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/02/nu...

by: canucklehead

04-06-2009 @ 10:50pm

Squeaky - guess what our government is proposing after National Geographic's recent exposure of the environmental impact of the Alberta Tar Sands? bye bye hydrocarbons, hello nuclear energy!

by: canucklehead

04-06-2009 @ 10:50pm

Squeaky - guess what our government is proposing after National Geographic's recent exposure of the environmental impact of the Alberta Tar Sands? bye bye hydrocarbons, hello nuclear energy!

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 11:33pm

Hey canucklehead,

Although your Candu reactor is better technology than most of our current plants, it's still dangerous and a net energy loser..
You've been selling them to China.
If one of them melts down, I'll get the fallout here in Washington State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_Rea...
The ACR-1000 has been submitted as part of Ontario's request for proposal (RFP). Bruce Power, which has acquired Alberta Energy, is also considering it for deployment in Western Canada. The province of New Brunswick has accepted a proposal for a feasibility study for an ACR-1000 at Point Lepreau.

The wind potential in the Canadian prairie will be much more cost effective to develop than tar sands or nuclear. Both tar sands and nuclear require vast quantities of water and attendant risk of contamination.
Our Montana Governor wants clean coal plants -- highly questionable environmentally.
Wind power is a much better plan, in my opinion.
I do wish someone would figure out how to prevent migratory birds flying into the turbines.

So why does Canada want to spend your tax dollars on nuclear power?
I think this is another nuclear power industry subsidy.
I would challenge their cost effectiveness.
It won't pencil out.

by: justintime

04-06-2009 @ 11:33pm

Hey canucklehead,

Although your Candu reactor is better technology than most of our current plants, it's still dangerous and a net energy loser..
You've been selling them to China.
If one of them melts down, I'll get the fallout here in Washington State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_CANDU_Rea...
The ACR-1000 has been submitted as part of Ontario's request for proposal (RFP). Bruce Power, which has acquired Alberta Energy, is also considering it for deployment in Western Canada. The province of New Brunswick has accepted a proposal for a feasibility study for an ACR-1000 at Point Lepreau.

The wind potential in the Canadian prairie will be much more cost effective to develop than tar sands or nuclear. Both tar sands and nuclear require vast quantities of water and attendant risk of contamination.
Our Montana Governor wants clean coal plants -- highly questionable environmentally.
Wind power is a much better plan, in my opinion.
I do wish someone would figure out how to prevent migratory birds flying into the turbines.

So why does Canada want to spend your tax dollars on nuclear power?
I think this is another nuclear power industry subsidy.
I would challenge their cost effectiveness.
It won't pencil out.

by: BlueDeacon

04-07-2009 @ 1:32am

I actually studied nuclear physics as a pre-teen and learned that, considering the amount of nuclear particles given off in an attack, such measures would have been ineffective anyway. I wasn't born when those "duck and cover" commercials were made; when I did I thought, "This is ridiculous." Years later, however, I also learned from a friend who was a Soviet expert that the Soviets were more afraid of the U.S. than vice versa.

by: BlueDeacon

04-07-2009 @ 1:32am

I actually studied nuclear physics as a pre-teen and learned that, considering the amount of nuclear particles given off in an attack, such measures would have been ineffective anyway. I wasn't born when those "duck and cover" commercials were made; when I did I thought, "This is ridiculous." Years later, however, I also learned from a friend who was a Soviet expert that the Soviets were more afraid of the U.S. than vice versa.

by: canucklehead

04-07-2009 @ 2:42am

Personally, I think they're blowing smoke to keep the regulators somewhat distracted. Two days after Suncor announced a $3 billion acquisition of Petro-Canada, the small print revealed that Suncor has just been slapped w/ a few environmental fines. But what's millions when you're making billions, right?

by: canucklehead

04-07-2009 @ 2:42am

Personally, I think they're blowing smoke to keep the regulators somewhat distracted. Two days after Suncor announced a $3 billion acquisition of Petro-Canada, the small print revealed that Suncor has just been slapped w/ a few environmental fines. But what's millions when you're making billions, right?

by: justintime

04-07-2009 @ 3:13am

DR. STRANGELOVE: or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1964, Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-bound ex-Nazi nuclear war expert: a pastiche of ex-Nazi scientists such as Wernher von Braun; nuclear strategists such as Herman Kahn; and particularly Edward Teller, "father" of the hydrogen bomb.

George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson, loosely based on Air Force General Curtis LeMay.

Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper, a paranoid ultra-patriot .

Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber's commander.

When you watch Dr. Strangelove, you sense the dark humor behind the atmosphere of nihilism and doom that permeated the Cold War years. If I let my guard down it all comes back to me.

by: justintime

04-07-2009 @ 3:13am

DR. STRANGELOVE: or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1964, Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Starring: Peter Sellers as Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-bound ex-Nazi nuclear war expert: a pastiche of ex-Nazi scientists such as Wernher von Braun; nuclear strategists such as Herman Kahn; and particularly Edward Teller, "father" of the hydrogen bomb.

George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson, loosely based on Air Force General Curtis LeMay.

Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper, a paranoid ultra-patriot .

Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber's commander.

When you watch Dr. Strangelove, you sense the dark humor behind the atmosphere of nihilism and doom that permeated the Cold War years. If I let my guard down it all comes back to me.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 2:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 2:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 4:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.

by: letjusticerolldown

04-07-2009 @ 4:26pm

I will be all for the CONSIDERATION of nurclear power when the government decides it can responsibly govern its usage.

Right now we cannot control our appetite for nuclear weapons and we cannot control our abstinence of responsibility for even handling nuclear waste. We cannot control our appetite for proliferation when, and with who, we want it. We cannot control our appetite for 'playing around' with nations who can't even identify where their weapons are.

And we all play around when we tolerate a government that does not govern.

We are the ones with the gun aimed at the head of humanity and planetary life.

Maybe this is a path of patient perseverance. But it will never be taken until we as a people and governing representatives say we will put the gun down. The first step is nothing more or less complicated than that.