Ralph Nader: US Playing Russian Roulette with Nuclear Reactors

skip · Mar 18, 2011

Former presidential candidate and consumer advocate, Ralph Nader has weighed in on the nuclear energy debate with a scathing criticism of US political inertia when it comes to dealing with our nuclear power issues.

Here is a transcript of what he said on Democracy Now:

Ralph Nader said:

The Japanese disaster has ended whatever nuclear renaissance is being considered here in the United States. The problem is that people have got to get more involved, because the government and the industry will defend nuclear power in the United States to the last mutation. They are representing a closed, monetized mind that does not have options for revision, which true science should provide for. Secretary Chu, Energy Secretary, has refused for two years to meet with the leading critics of nuclear power, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Friends of the Earth and other groups. He has met with nuclear business interests regularly, and he has written articles touting nuclear power.

What we’re seeing here is 110 or so operating nuclear plants in the United States, many of them aging, many of them infected with corrosion, faulty pipes, leaky pumps and combustible materials. These have been documented by data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assembled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Indian Point, for example, is a plant that presents undue risks, in the opinion of the Union of Concerned Scientists, to millions of people in the New York City greater area. And it is unevacuable if there’s an accident. You’re never going to evacuate a population of millions of people, whether it’s around San Onofre or Diablo Canyon in Southern California or Indian Point or Davis-Besse near Toledo and Detroit or any of the other endangered nuclear plants.

Why are we playing Russian roulette with the American people for nuclear plants whose principal objective is simply to boil water and produce steam? This is technological insanity. It presents national security problems, for every nuclear plant is a prime target. It affects our civil liberties. It endangers our workers. It is an industry that cannot be financed by Wall Street because it’s too risky. Wall Street demands 100 percent taxpayer guarantees for any nuclear plant.

So I suggest that people listening and watching this program to pick up the phone and dial the White House comment number, which is (202) 456-1111, (202) 456-1111, and demand the following: that there be public hearings in every area where there’s a nuclear plant, so the people can see for themselves what the hazards are, what the risks are, how farcical the evacuation plans are, how costly nuclear power is, and how it can be replaced by energy efficiency, by solar energy, different kinds of solar energy, by cogeneration, as Amory Lovins and many others, Peter Bradford, have pointed out.

We must no longer license any new nuclear plants. We should shut down the ones like Indian Point. How many people know that Hillary Clinton, as senator, and Andrew Cuomo, as attorney general, demanded that Indian Point be shut down? That doesn’t matter to the monetized minds in Washington, D.C. We also should prepare a plan where, apart from the aging plants, which should be shut down, and apart from the earthquake-risk plants—should be shut down—for the phase-out of the entire industry. We’re going to be left with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years, for which there is no permanent repository. This is institutional insanity, and I urge the people in this country to wake up before they experience what is now going on in northern Japan: uninhabitable territory, thousands dead, hundreds of thousands at risk of cancer, enormous economic loss. And for what?
Click to expand...

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/18/why_are_we_playing_russian_roulette

midgardsun · Sep 2, 2011

Quake risk to US reactors higher than thought

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The risk that an earthquake would cause a severe accident at a U.S. nuclear plant is greater than previously thought, 24 times as high in one case, according to an AP analysis of preliminary government data. The nation's nuclear regulator believes a quarter of America's reactors may need modifications to make them safer.
Click to expand...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Quake...tml?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

scratcho · Sep 2, 2011

The $. Always the $.

midgardsun · Sep 3, 2011

after earthquake in Virginia reactor:

(CNN) -- Twenty-five of 27 spent-fuel storage casks at a Virginia nuclear plant were shifted between 1 and 4 inches during last week's 5.8-magnitude earthquake, officials said Thursday.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/01/virginia.quake.nuclear/

Cloaking Device · Sep 3, 2011

Yes but coal is also incredibly dangerous not in a 'they might explode' way in a 'they will slowly choke us all to death' way

The US needs to develop alternative energy quickly, but there is not some 'safe option'

Why can't the US build nuclear power stations in north Canada where there is so much uninhabitable land?

midgardsun · Sep 3, 2011

Cloaking Device said:

Why can't the US build nuclear power stations in north Canada where there is so much uninhabitable land?
Click to expand...

Lets see what the Canadians on the forum think about that idea

btw: you also have a good idea where to store the radioactive waste? North Pole?

Cloaking Device · Sep 3, 2011

midgardsun said:

Lets see what the Canadians on the forum think about that idea

btw: you also have a good idea where to store the radioactive waste? North Pole?
Click to expand...

Mexico

Cloaking Device · Sep 3, 2011

But the point I was making is that coal isn't really a safe option...

midgardsun · Sep 3, 2011

We are just wasting too much energy with our degenerated way of life. Using way less energy we get from plants, sun, water, wind and other are the only real alternatives
Uranium is a fossil fuel and is no alternative.

Cloaking Device · Sep 3, 2011

midgardsun said:

We are just wasting too much energy with our degenerated way of life. Using way less energy we get from plants, sun, water, wind and other are the only real alternatives
Uranium is a fossil fuel and is no alternative.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if it was a choice of coal or nuclear I'd choose nuclear...

it isn't ideal

midgardsun · Sep 3, 2011

If you had to heat your house and I give you the choice to use either coal or uranium what would you choose as being safer, also consider that you would be responsable to take care of the waste for some thousand years?

Cloaking Device · Sep 3, 2011

i'd just pay a company to pipe energy into my house like we do, if it was a choice between how they got the power to do this i'd say nuclear

Log in or Sign up

Ralph Nader: US Playing Russian Roulette with Nuclear Reactors

skip Founder Administrator

midgardsun Senior Member

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

Log in or Sign up

Ralph Nader: US Playing Russian Roulette with Nuclear Reactors

skip Founder Administrator

midgardsun Senior Member

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

midgardsun Senior Member

Cloaking Device Member

Useful Searches