Sunday, October 14, 2007

Others Fighting No Nukes Crew

Shortly after we posted a video response by Elizabeth King to a new appeal from the "No Nukes" crew, we saw a number of other folks hop onto YouTube to post their own responses. One person posted the audio of a Dennis Miller interview with Dr. Patrick Moore. Someone else posted a clip from Penn & Teller's Showtime program on nuclear energy. But best of all, a computer science student posted a point by point counter to the original video:



It's always good to find out that you're not alone out there. In the meantime, be sure to stop by the YouTube page where the original "No Nukes" video is hosted and be sure to leave a comment.

UPDATE: Rod Adams recorded a video of his own.

1 comment:

gunter said...

A couple of points in response to the spin from this anonymous “environmentalist.
On the difference between nuclear "subsidizes" and "loan guarantees" --- the United States Office of Budget and Management has identified that there is at least a 50% chance that the nuclear industry will default on these loans. Given a history of more than $150 billion in stranded investments in cost overruns and abandoned nuclear projects the risk of default is even higher. This is more appropriately a government “give away” or a “bail out” program to a 50-year old and aging industry that still cannot stand up on its own two feet.
Contrary to his claim that the reason for nearly half of the nuclear construction projects being abandoned or “going belly up,” it was not public legal challenges to safety and environment problems. Wall Street continues to recognize that the real reasons were industry financial miscalculations on capital intensive construction costs and industry’s failure to meet construction deadlines; both of which still plague the new construction projects in Finland, Taiwan and Japan today.
Regarding the claim that “the barriers to waste disposal are political” we need remember that it was the politics of the nuclear industry Political Action Committees that got Congress that singled out Nevada in 1987 as the only site that would be characterized for a deep geological repository. A scientifically-based process would have continued the characterization of multiple geological sites and mediums. However industry and congress abandoned the scientific process due to the firestorm of public opposition created by broader Department of Energy searches among a dozen sites in states east of the Mississippi River where the brunt of nuclear waste is being generated. It is a foregone conclusion that should broader searches resume for another or more nuclear waste sites, nuclear power generation will become more unpopular. Thus, continued pressure to not only open Yucca Mountain but lift the scientifically modeled caps on the amount of nuclear waste from 70,000 to 135,000 metric tons or more to be stored in this volcanically and earthquake active site makes its ultimate operation ever more dubious.