Where and how does antinuclear activism begin?

[kristopher]

Your input is appreciated.

[FBaggins]

1. Looking to overthrow the Obama regime again?

Oh wait... no... it's just "direct action to disarm an apparatus of propaganda by a government", right?

[jpak]

2. When Maine Yankee was built - they told us lots things that turned out not to be true

Then there was Brown's Ferry

Then there was WPPSS and hundred of billions of $$$$$ in cost escalations, cancellations and stranded costs

Then there was TMI

Then Reagan gave spent fuel to the taxpayers

Then there was Chernobyl

The there were the Radiation Exposure Compensation Acts

Then there was Davis Besse

Then there was Fukushima

but I digress

[kristopher]

3. One question: Do you want to do something about it?

[jpak]

4. I've done lots over the years

yup

[kristopher]

5. I have no doubt that you have and your interest is obviously still strong

But that doesn't address the question; what now?

[bananas]

22. The first thing is to look at what's already being done

for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3847014&mesg_id=3847026

IIRC, that was a very nasty fight with legislators yelling at each other, it was a very bad bill, the sleazy pro-nuke Republicans lied about it and called the Democrats liars for telling the truth about it.

[XemaSab]

6. It starts with smoking a lot of pot

and ends with living in your mom's basement? :shrug:

[kristopher]

7. That would make you a long term anti-nuclear activist, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. When renewables, or at least low-CO2 power production takes up so much slack

that we don't see people talking about gas combined cycle plants as making 'renewables possible'.

That would be a start.

[kristopher]

9. Your corporate spin-o-matic seems to have developed a short.

Q: Where and how does antinuclear activism begin?

A: (by the unenlightened Atheist Crusader): When renewables, or at least low-CO2 power production takes up so much slack that we don't see people talking about gas combined cycle plants as making 'renewables possible'. That would be a start.

That is a particularly contorted attempt to say that moving to renewables will entail using dispatchable power sources like natural gas.
So will nuclear, unless that is, you plan on building nuclear peaking plants. You see, when we build geothermal we also have a dispatchable plant, as are the various water based sources, as are biofuel plants, as are biomass plants - and even that blessed canard of the righists works - we can build storage!

Right now we have all of that excess NATURAL GAS capacity because the load shaping capability of the large scale generation twins Coal and Nuclear is very poor. That is the system you seek to preserve.

I say we should change it to one where the supply is far more effectively tailored to the demand and where we have far more local control of what power sources we use. I've had enough of the nuclear priesthood. You guys make the Jonestown folks seem sane.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Gas is simply not a solution.

Long-term, neither is nuclear.

Stop pinning coal on me. I've refuted it enough times, your accusation is quickly becoming an outright lie.

[kristopher]

11. Change requires moving away from centralized thermal; it is as simple as that.

It is an absolute fact that coal and nuclear interchangeable sources of generation within the current technical structure of the grid. The moneyed interests that coal enables is almost identical to that of nuclear. When you promote nuclear power you are preserving that larger system which means you are preserving coal.

Change requires moving away from centralized thermal; it is as simple as that.

PS. You have refuted nothing in relation to coal - ever.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Simply not true.

In my state, Nuclear and Hydro are interchangeable sources of power. We don't do coal here.

Now that we have that out of the way, centralized thermal definitely serves a useful purpose. Did you forget about concentrating solar? Locally it is no good, but east of the mountains, and south in this state, it is quite viable.

Distributed PV/wind and centralized concentrating solar, hydro, and nuclear all serve a purpose. In fact, my state will probably be nuclear free (excepting of course, military reactors in naval vessels) in the next 20 years.

I support nuclear to a limited degree, because an immediate attempt to shitbarn our reactors will result in short-term onlining of carbon based power sources. And when I say support, at least within the context of my state, I mean continue using the existing reactors. We don't have any new ones coming up.


Nationwide, I'm content if more are brought online if it prevents addition of more coal/gas, or displaces coal/gas. However, recent events will leave me with more of a jaded eye toward operator reputation, and safety.

[Nihil]

13. In a similar way to how "Charity begins at home" ...

... anti-nuclear activism begins in the "Back Yard".

:shrug:

The "how" is usually the result of a momentary awakening from
the normal somnambulistic state by a news report of a nuclear
incident somewhere in the world that encourages the individual
to "find out more". After they've read a few more Greenpeace
articles, they sign a petition and go back to sleep again in
the safe knowledge that their activism has saved the world.

To be sure, there are always a few people who will actually
*do* something to protest nuclear power but there is a significant
overlap with the few people who will actually *do* something to
protest coal (burning, mining and dumping), the few people who will
actually *do* something to protest gas (fracking, piping and burning),
the few people who will actually *do* something to protest oil
(drilling, piping, burning), the few people who will actually *do*
something to protect nature (whales, dolphins, tuna, orangutans, ...)
and, in fact, the very very few people who will actually put their
money, their time and their effort into what they believe is the
right thing to do.

This latter (sadly small) group of people are truly to be admired.

[txlibdem]

14. Q: "Where and how does antinuclear activism begin?"

A: When your views are easily shaped by fear and the purposeful talking point messaging of a few who stand to gain BILLIONS of dollars from maintaining fossil fuel use for as long as possible.

The follow-on question: "Where and how does an intelligent,non-biased choice begin?"
A: When people learn that they are being manipulated and say: enough! Then they begin to question the easily refuted lies, distortions and manipulations of the fossil fuel crowd. Once a doubt has emerged about the "Flat Earther" claim that "NOOK-you-LER iz bad all ways" then that person has just taken the first step away from a future dominated by fossil fuels and toward a future that has a chance of avoiding nightmarish global climate catastrophe.

Fossil fuels give us no such chance.

[proverbialwisdom]

15. I'm averse to terms and categories like 'antinuclear activism,' personally.

The health and well-being of their children is the issue for these parents, no abstractions involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/asia/26japan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

May 25, 2011
Angry Parents in Japan Confront Government Over Radiation Levels
By HIROKO TABUCHI

FUKUSHIMA CITY, Japan — The accusations flew on Wednesday at the local school board meeting, packed with parents worried and angry about radiation levels in this city at the heart of Japan’s nuclear crisis.

“Do you really care about our children’s health?” one parent shouted. “Why have you acted so late?” said another. Among other concerns: isn’t radiation still raining down on Fukushima? Shouldn’t the entire school building be decontaminated? The entire city? Can we trust you?

“We are doing all we can,” pleaded Tomio Watanabe, a senior official of Fukushima’s education board.

A huge outcry is erupting in Fukushima over what parents say is a blatant government failure to protect their children from dangerous levels of radiation. The issue has prompted unusually direct confrontations in this conflict-averse society, and has quickly become a focal point for anger over Japan’s handling of the accident at the nearby Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, ravaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

At issue are updated government guidelines that allow schoolchildren to be exposed to radiation doses that are more than 20 times the previously permissible levels. That dose is equal to the international standard for adult nuclear power plant workers.

More at link. <...>

thew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

[proverbialwisdom]

16. Link from http://enenews.com

http://enenews.com/huge-outcry-erupting-govt-is-leaving-fukushima-to-suffer-and-perish-impossible-to-evacuate-fukushima-city-home-to-300000

[proverbialwisdom]

17. Check out the sources cited in this DU thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x295309
And now, Fukushima (Journal of Radiological Protection)
Fri May-20-11 02:18 PM


QUESTION: How can those consequences be defended by anyone aware of them?
ANSWER: They can't.

[Nederland]

18. With a lack of education?

Support for nuclear power is twice as high among people with graduate level education as those with only a high school level of education.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660/Disaster-Japan-Raises-Nuclear-Concerns.aspx

[FBaggins]

21. Ouch!

That's gonna leave a mark.

[miyazaki]

19. Watching crappy Jane Fonda movies?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.