Start A Petition

10 Persistent Myths About Nuclear Power


World  (tags: Nuclear Power, Nuclear energy, nuclear reactors, environment, myths, facts )

Anna
- 3013 days ago - onlinedegree.net
The ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan has remained a top headline for two weeks, evoking memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Accompanying it is the revival of the decades-old argument about the safety or lack thereof of nuclear power.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Rajee Seetharam (138)
Friday March 25, 2011, 1:35 am
Noted and thanks.
 

NICKY MELVILLE (119)
Friday March 25, 2011, 1:58 am
ANNA... there is something going wrong with my coputer today. I just can't get into the site to read the whole article. Sorry! This has happened on other posts. I just wanted to comment ( and of course, it may not be relevent to this article, as I can't get into it, but, when I heard a talk on the radio yesterday that was discussing the safety of nuclear plants and the recent disaster, the speaker said that since these reactors had been built, there were now much more sophisticated safety features, so that from now on any reactor that was built, would be almost totally safe, as there would be in-built safety devices specailly for earthquakes etc. That seemed fairy reassuing, until they admitted that about 40 percent of reactors in many countries were of the old TYPE, which did not posssess the new technology!... Not very reassuring! Of course, here, in Australia, they have the perfect and rather predictable place to dump the nuclear waste.... on Aboriginal land! Some of the Aboriginal people are HORRIFIED, but some say they want it, as they will be some bompensation!
 

Trequl M (170)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:20 am
Noted with thanks.
 

Vukan Simic (121)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:53 am
Very interesting, thanks!!!
 

Sharon Balloch (127)
Friday March 25, 2011, 3:20 am
That was an education.. thanks so much..
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 3:44 am
noted & saved the article. TY
 

wolfNoFwdsPls a (135)
Friday March 25, 2011, 3:58 am
imh(but not totally UN-educated)o: *bullshit* arguing (propaganda)

 

Carol H (229)
Friday March 25, 2011, 4:43 am
noted, thank you Anna
 

John Y (67)
Friday March 25, 2011, 6:25 am
Thanks Anna.
 

Laverne Wallace (59)
Friday March 25, 2011, 6:40 am
noted
 

bj. shaw (61)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:01 am
Nothing I did not already know, I am not anti nuclear energy I do however believe that nuclear energy should be 100% transparent with all data about containment leaks. Plants should not be built in endangered echo systems areas prone to natural disasters, on or near fault lines or close to settlements these all tend to be Ignored by companies and governments.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:40 am
Thank you. These are some of the point I try to stress when I tell people that the US needs more nuclear power plants. People look at me like I'm crazy when I mention these facts.
 

Anna S (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:52 am
Anna (or anyone) where did the article originate?
 

Anna S (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:57 am
It is well known that nuclear power production creates the deadliest and longest living wastes known to man. The technology to safely dispose of this waste has yet to be developed and it is becoming increasingly clear that safe storage is simply impossible to achieve.

Nuclear plants only seem safe because government safety standards and Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight have been too lax. There are problems at U.S. nuclear plants just about every day, ranging from incidental to serious.
 

Michael MacDonald (27)
Friday March 25, 2011, 10:33 am
this site lies it's ass off
I know quite a bit about the field
and for example..
they're criticism of wind power is not relevant
because we environmentalists have already realized that OFFSHORE wind farming is the way to go and is much safer than any other kind of energy.

The article outright lies about the risks of nuclear power.
A spend nuclear fuel rod alone lasts so long that we have to store them for hundreds of years.
how is that not a problem?

the environmental impacts of nuclear power are in the long term for when incidents like this happen.
How can you outright say that nuclear power is safe while we are witnessing how it isn't.

This is just a big sell for nuclear power, because they are seeing that people are realizing that it's not safe.

Use your brain people.
this is obviously bullshit.
 

Michael MacDonald (27)
Friday March 25, 2011, 10:35 am
I love how people who aren't even experts in the field get taken more seriously when they are only speculating on non-factual information.

 

Michael MacDonald (27)
Friday March 25, 2011, 10:37 am
nuclear power may be safer in the job hazard sense,
but in no way is it environmentally safe

the article was using job safety information to divert people from the real point which is long term environmental impact.
 

Natividad P (104)
Friday March 25, 2011, 12:51 pm
Noted. Thank you Anna
 

Christine A (57)
Friday March 25, 2011, 1:39 pm
---- Gee, Sounds like the 'echo' of 'Monsanto' telling us how 'safe' genetically modified foods are!!
Irrespective of how marvelous nuclear power is perceived to be, by some, I simply cannot be convinced that the 'benefits' can outweigh the most prominent fact that is: - There is no known 'safe' method to dispose of nuclear waste! - What happens to it now? - where does it go when it is 'stored'. How long does it have to be 'stored' before the radioactivity is gone? What do we do - shoot it into space when there is nowhere else to store it? If there is an earthquake of other natural disaster to disturb where it is stored, what happens then? How can ANY energy source be considered when there are such vital questions to answer re its safety. The so called 'dangers' of other energy sources pale by comparison. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand re this issue. What do we do - leave the burden of disposal for our children and grandchildren to solve? - What a great inheritance!
 

. (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:02 pm
You can't tell me the exhaust that billows daily from these plants are environmentally safe.
 

Sheila D (28)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:13 pm
I'm sure all these points are true; however, it's also true that nuclear power isn't completely safe and uranium does take a long time to "cool off". Maybe these things are changing, maybe not. Noting that some of our nuclear plants are situated on fault lines doesn't make me trust the process all that much. Unfortunately, there are too many people in charge who are more interested in profit over safety.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:30 pm
This sounds like an ad for nuclear power. I don't care how much they try to convince us that it is safe, it only takes 1 Chernoble or Japan to turn that zero number of deaths into thousands or more dead. Also, while future technology may reduce waste, the nuclear waste we have now is overflowing. Plus, the more nuclear waste, the bigger chance it will fall into the wrong hands.
I'll stick with wind and solar and bio-fuels.
 

Roger G (148)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:32 pm
yep France has 80% nuclear electricity and is the Western Europe country that is contributing less to atmospheric pollution because of it... Wish the USA and China did the same... in fact China is going to build hundreds of nuclear plants and one of the many reasons for this decision is to lower atmospheric pollution !
 

Stäni Steinbock (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:36 pm
Why do you even direct your readers to such nuke-propaganda sites?
Disgusting!
 

Dianna M (16)
Friday March 25, 2011, 2:45 pm
I have my doubts about the truthfulness of this article--but then, I had my doubts about the commercials insisting that "high-fructose corn syrup is BETTER than sugar"--not to mention the "the New York Times reporters are the best--and there's just no debating that!"

Wait, what? The NYT is owned by Rupert Murdoch?

High-fructose corn syrup is BAD for you?

Well! Maybe I'm not so dumb after all.
 

Eileen P (74)
Friday March 25, 2011, 3:21 pm
Who wrote the article, and why we ask? For what purpose? Lets have science to back up the statements, proof, evidence, statistics.
 

Paul McCarthy (3)
Friday March 25, 2011, 4:12 pm
I, for one, don't like these new video ads that play when you come to these pages now It appears you can't stop the ad from playing either. Who's collecting the income from airing these ads?
 

ewoud k (68)
Friday March 25, 2011, 4:18 pm
This article is written by, or at least based on "information" fournished by, the CASEnergy Coalition, a (republican lead) pro-nuclear energy coalition that has as it's goals:
quote "The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) supports the increased use of nuclear energy to ensure an environmentally clean, safe, affordable and reliable supply of electricity. Nuclear power enhances America’s energy security and economic growth, helps attain cleaner air and improves the quality of life, health and economic well-being for all Americans." unquote.

This article can therefore not be considered as something neutral or unpartial.

Anyone who follows the news on the Japanese nuclear accident will be able to discover the "mistakes", and "untruths" stated in this article.These "myths" are only "myths" if you're willing to believe it are "myths".

Explain to the few surviving Chernobyl liquidators that their collegues died of something else than irradation, explain to all those nuclear-industry workers that their cancers are caused by something else than their job, and afterwards take a look in the mirror and say to yourself that you spoke the truth...no, you'll not be abkle to do this.

As long as nuclear energy works well, and as long as you don't take in consideration the waste problem, it's great, ok, but when something goes wrong.... AND THIS HAPPENS EVERY WEEK, not to say every day.

This article is cheap, non-disguised propaganda.
 

Brad Kraus (6)
Friday March 25, 2011, 4:44 pm
Sounds like propaganda to me, and just who is CASEnergy Coalition?
 

bb s (1)
Friday March 25, 2011, 4:48 pm
Are you out of your f'in mind!!! The amount of life lost both human and animal from Chernoybol is more than all other forms of energy from the past to end of time. The cost of land taken out of use both in Ukraine and Japan far exceeds any benefit from nuclear in the past or for ever. I can not believe people are so stupid. We now see a little water can take out a reactor, it's a myth to think a jet liner can't???? A disgruntled employee can take a reactor out killing and poisioning thousands. As happened on 9-11. Four or five jetliners attacks on strategic locations can make 90% of the continental USA uninhabitable in a week.
 

Pamela V (3)
Friday March 25, 2011, 5:30 pm
This is BULLSHIT propaganda! If nuclear power is so safe and efficient, why won't Wall Street touch it with a 10 foot pole? It has to have government guaranteed loans backed by taxpayer money; OUR MONEY! WAKE UP PEOPLE; USE YOUR BRAINS!!!
 

Norm C (74)
Friday March 25, 2011, 5:45 pm
I'm just going to refute the most obvious lies in this propaganda. I'd also like to point out that this bit of PR nonsense dean't actually and honestly deal with the dominant objections to nuclear power electricity generation. It sets up a number of non-issues and pretends that protestors are all worked about while ignoring the real problems.

1. Extremely safe. Well, that depends a great deal on what you're talking about. As far as nuclear accidents are concerned, yeah, kind of. They are extremely safe until they are not. The problem is that when an accident occurs, and one or several will, the consequences can be extraordinarily deadly to an awful lot of people. Chernobyl killed tens to hundreds of thousands and maybe millions thru cancer deaths. That is whole hell of a lot more than wind farms or solar will EVER kill. It's even a hell of a lot more than failed hydroelectric dams will EVER kill.

How much potential for lethal damage are you willing to accept for the mundane task of boiling water?

Then there is the environmental damage in the mining and processing of the ore. None of the proponents of nuclear power ever talk about this. And the damage is often extraordinary, turning the vacinity into a no-man's land.

6. Plants don't pollute. Well, only if you don't count raising the temperature of the cooling water source or making the cooling water radioactive (depending on the type of reactor). They most certainly do pollute, and this is in addition to the pollution caused by mining and processing.

7. Use environment efficiently. Since when is physical size of the footprint of the plant the determinant of efficient use? This is a strawman. Efficient use would also include pollutions and long term waste remediation, just to name two. Since we do not have an effective waste disposal technology for spent fuel rods, soil, air, water or other contaminated materials, how on earth can anyone claim that this is efficient? By the way, how would you drive a car or ride a horse between all the buildings surrounding a nuclear reactor? How would you get access to it? You can do all that on a land-based wind farm and do the same with a boat in a water-based wind farm.

8. Reducing waste. NOBODY ever said you couldn't REDUCE the waste. Of course, we have no technolgy to do that today. The problem, as everyone knows, is safely STORING it. The length of time it takes to allow the radiation to decay to the point of no longer posing a danger by prolonged exposure is tens of THOUSANDS of YEARS. The best storage solutions currently practical are only good for a couple HUNDRED years.

10. Cost. The primary cost that none of the industry PR liars talk about is liability insurance. There is not a single private insurance company that will insure the design, construction or operation of a nuclear power plant. The risk potential is far too great. The government has to do it by creating an artificial limit of the liability of the project for a catastrophic accident. Without that government sleight of hand, no, zero, zip reactors would EVER be built. The only way they can be built is to waive a magic wand and exempt them from responsiblity for their actions.

Nuclear energy is tantamount to an oxymoron.
 

Lionel G. (4)
Friday March 25, 2011, 6:12 pm
This story is garbage. Why spread the pro-nuke propaganda on Care2? Nuke power was supposed to be too cheap to meter. It's the most expensive energy there is. Every step in the nuclear fuel cycle from mining the uranium to reprocessing the fuel to storing the waste is hazardous to human life and health. Cancer rates rise along with proximity to a nuclear reactor. If you think anyone can truthfully guarantee that nuclear waste will be safely stored for 50,000 years, I have a bridge to sell you.
 

Timothy V (4)
Friday March 25, 2011, 6:24 pm
Recent reports from the plant, on the release of radio active particles into the environment at many thousands of times the usual background, cannot be viewed with anything but alarm. When we consider the effects of dispersal by wind and weather and the deficiencies in monitoring, it is likely that this is an under estimate of the extent of the problem. That elevated levels were detected 100 miles out to sea soon after the event and radio active iodine at twice the permitted level despite the sources being to the south away from the prevailing wind, dilution and treatment and a half life of about a week are further indicators that contamination and leakage were much more serious that initial official reports indicated. Engineers and scientists directly involved are still not sure of the exact nature of the damage or the cause of these levels. They are no doubt doing their best but so far it has been very hit and miss with secondary consequences to the very brave workers on site (two of whom have already been admitted to hospital with the effects of exposure and there will undoubtedly be more.) and to the general environment and economy of the region. The spraying of sea water and latterly fresh water, though essential, has probably added to the pollution problem from steam and run off to land and sea, the quantities and effects as yet undefinable. For many years to come, produce from the region will probably be avoided. Finally, as so often happens, dose is compared with background radiation in support of reassurance but as you are aware the effects of cosmic radiation are quite different to an alpha or beta source when consumed or breathed in. Nor should we confuse acute and potentially lethal doses with the longer term somatic and genetic consequences to a population so exposed. The problem with the nuclear industry, huge costs relating to decommissioning or disaster are seldom factored in to the equation.
 

Past Member (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 6:45 pm
Noted, thanks Anna....but I don't believe one word of it.
 

Edgar Zuim (47)
Friday March 25, 2011, 8:01 pm
Nothing against the nuclear plant. Is it safe? Maybe.
The airplane is considered a safer form of transportation, but when a crash happens, many people die (in some cases hundreds of people). We must take great care where to build a nuclear plant, as in the case of an accident, an entire population could be decimated. We can not forget the Chernobyl accident - operational failure or malfunction of equipment?
 

F. Chard (0)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:18 pm
I don't know who got to you, but this article is virtually all misleading, unfactual, industry propaganda and horsecrap. I am very disappointed to see this kind of stuff appear in this venue. If I had the time, it would be a very simple task to slice this article to pieces, however, that would require another entire article, and I don't have time to write it.
Nuclear energy has NEVER been able to support itself. It is monumentally wasteful and unimaginably dangerous (Chernobyl is estimated to be responsible for approximately 1 million deaths and has made uninhabitable an area comparable to the size of New Hampshire, not to mention various other extensive damages to health, ecology and economies.)

Just ask yourself, if nuclear energy is such a safe endeavor, why then is it considered "uninsurable?" Why have only taxpayers been left to be responsible for the massive costs incurred in the event of a catastrophe? Why is financing for nuclear projects only possible when backed by taxpayer guarantees? Dig a little deeper; it only gets worse. It is a foolhardy activity in which all the profits (Which are enormous) are privatized, and which all the risks are nationalized. Bottom line: We DON'T EVEN NEED IT!
 

Colleen L (3)
Friday March 25, 2011, 9:52 pm
I'm not going to BS anyone, but after reading a lot of the posts, I'm confused about the whole situation. I went to the site and it says one thing, yet others have stated it's not.
I've always thought it was unsafe. I have to do some more searching on it for sure.
Thanks Anna
 

Hartson Doak (39)
Friday March 25, 2011, 10:12 pm
Wow! Doe this smack of the official industry line of BS. I worked within the industry for 15 years. I worked at one of the 2 utilities that went bankrupt because of the construction costs in building and not even finishing the plant. The environmental costs in digging uranium out of the ground is never included in the total cost figures. Without government handouts the industry would suddenly come to a stop. The costs are too high without the support.
 

Dave Colorado (11)
Friday March 25, 2011, 10:53 pm
The deadliest lies are lies of omission. The most powerful propaganda weapon is SILENCE.

Here's what 'everybody' is 'forgetting' (omitting):

Nuclear FISSION is bad (it's toxic, very limited, difficult to control, and an abomination to all life forms, and good for the bottom line of the military-industrial-intelligence-media-security complex).

Nuclear FUSION is good (it's clean, virtually limitless, 'easy' to control, natural -- it's how the Sun works!)

The false belief that it's fission or nothing is depriving this planet of a solution to most of its energy, economic, and ecological concerns -- an it's that 3rd concern that makes it a crime against not just humanity but against all of Earth's living creatures to continue to hide this truth. Nuclear fusion could save this planet, and We The People, though that might not be so wonderful for the powers that be, the uncaring greedy mother-earth-raping 'owners' of this planet...
 

Dennis F (1)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 12:17 am
This article seems to be paid for by the nuclear industry - tell the people in Japan about how safe it is to live near nuclear power plants - sure, it doesn't happen often, but when it does - also, many of our nuclear plants were built in areas they THOUGHT were not prone to earthquakes, and now we know they are prone to very bad earthquakes, and San Onofre was only designed to withstand a 7.0 earthquake.
To me,nuclear power is just too arrogant on our part to think we can control it - we don't even know for sure how we will safely store the waste.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 12:40 am
Please sign my petition on Care2: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/help-stop-profanity-in-american-films/
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 12:41 am
Please sign my petition on Care2: http:/www.thepetitionsite.com/1/close-nuclear-power-plants-worldwide/
 

. (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 12:57 am
We need energy. And nuclear is an overall good way to obtain that energy. We don't yet have the ability to fuel our world on 'green' technologies and every conventional technology has its own drawbacks.
 

Rossy Osborne (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 2:03 am
I just wish someone would tell the truth inclusive of the whole picture of Uranium and Nuclear plants!

I find the no deaths bit too much to swollow....?
Yep in a building no-one died...but many died in hospitals from their work within the nuclear plants.

Get real people, just count the many thousands that this stuff has killed that we know about.
What of the others we don't hear about?
What of the waste that is still dumped?
What of the years of ongoing that Japan is desperately having to deal with?
What of the marine and animal life yet to suffer?
What of those precious souls in Japan who are already infected by this?
These are not no-ones, they are humans!
 

Tinkie K (71)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 3:28 am
Nuclear energy is dangerous - the myth makers or the nuclear energy promoters are trying their best to deceive the public .... again.

http://www.helencaldicott.com/
http://www.psr.org/
http://peaceandhealthblog.com/2011/03/21/the-nuclear-chain-splitting-atoms-hairs-and-personalities/
http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/03/24/radiation-from-fukushima-reaches-sweden/
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-22-germanys-solar-panels-produce-more-power-than-japans-entire-fuku
 

Jesica De Beer (2)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 4:53 am
Nuclear power is BAD and we have to get rid of it or loose our planet.
 

William Y (54)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 7:28 am
Nuclear power is safe as long as humans don't put their "hands" into it.
The fault of all nuclear problems is totally human caused, even the problem in Japan, which is building a nuclear plant close to the ocean and close to a plate boundary, making it a disaster waiting to happen.
 

Edward M (8)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 8:02 am
It would indeed be a marvellous replacement for all other forms of power but the waste problem has never really been fully addressed.
Nuclear power should always be in public ownership as the involvement of private enterprise always fails the vital test of health and safety when the bottom line comes into the reckoning and, unfortunately, it always does.
 

ewoud k (68)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 9:29 am
In other words Wiliam, you're saying that the only safe nuclear energy is the nuclear power used by the stars (and thus, our sun).

As even without making mistakes, the waste still is a major problem.

And as for the damage done to people: what about the healthproblems caused by uranium mining?
 

ewoud k (68)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 9:32 am
CASEnergy Coalition = Clean and Safe (sic!) Energy coalition.

According to their web-site they promote nuclear energy:

quote unquote.

Not very objective.
 

Glenda J (158)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 1:54 pm
thanks for sharing
 

Mariam O (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 1:56 pm
At first I thought this article was going to debunk all the myths put out by the nuclear industry, but clearly I was horribly wrong. Fortunately, there are already a number of great comments, especially everything noted by ewoud k. Thanks for your making these valuable contributions.
We wouldn't even need to have this debate if as much time and effort were put into realistic alternatives (and to reducing energy use) as is commited to the nuclear industry.
 

Warren Webber (26)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 9:30 pm
There's another piece this article forgot to mention about nuclear safety- one that should be learned from this Japanese fiasco: plants should NOT be built on known fault lines! If China wants to build more plants, maybe they should stay away from the area that had that big quake three years ago.
 

danny m (1)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 10:12 pm
If you believe the information in this story, I will be glad to sell you some ocean front property in Arizona.
 

Anna S (0)
Saturday March 26, 2011, 11:22 pm
"We need energy. And nuclear is an overall good way to obtain that energy. "

Dear Lindsay,

Do you have a viable solution for storing the massive toxic waste created by nuclear reactors? I'd love to hear it.
 

Shirley S (187)
Sunday March 27, 2011, 12:11 am
Who can believe governments talk on the safety of nuclear power.
 

Asdas S. (0)
Sunday March 27, 2011, 12:37 am

Why pay high costs for Cable TV for the sports games?
If you have a pc and internet, s*a*tellite tv software is your best bet!
You can watch thousands of LIVE worldwid TV stations including NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX.......... you can watch NFL,MLB, NASCAR, NBA, UFC ,NHL,Golf, Soccer etc.in comfort and quality on your PC.No matter where you are. Just small one-time fee, no more than $50 for lifetime.
You can get it here
www.top-tv-review.com
Hope this can help you save money.
 

Douglas K (134)
Sunday March 27, 2011, 3:07 pm
This just isn't true according to the movie "Uranium, Is It A Country". I mean they took radiation levels at uranium waste dumps, uranium transport trucks in motion on highways, showed uranium tailings dams from decades ago left open to the public unfenced and unremoved, plus various other facts of uranium production and enrichment.
 

Ronald N (3)
Sunday March 27, 2011, 6:14 pm
Obviously, this is a pro-nuke site and after the Three Mile Island, Hanford,, Chernobyl and now Fukushima incidents, we are supposed to believe all is safe. This is not to mention the Russians who have an old submarine fleet in the Arctic Ocean that has unspent fuel rods waiting for a disaster to happen. Unfortunately folks love to make up stories that help the industry. Don't worry there will be countless people with money that will fund these pro-nuke sites. They made plenty off of the subsidization of our taxpayers dollars, and now they want to villainize and destroy sustainable forms of energy. Why don't you mention the half life and decay of plutonium, uranium 235, radioactive strontium, cesium and iodine. These are deadly poison. So far, we have Mark 1 reactors ready to be re-lincensed and approved by our government who favor the subsidization of these reactors. However, think again, even Wall St. doesn't like nuclear energy. They think it is too costly (outrageous costs out of the pocket of American citizens) and the dangers aren't worth the investment. It's about greed and centralized, monopolized energy.

Even Kurosawa, the Japanese filmaker knew about the dangers of nuclear energy. About 50 years ago he created to short films that sadly, mirrored the Fukushima Dai-Ichi disaster. Only in this movie the eruption of Mt. Fuji caused the destruction of energy reactors as people ran for their lives. Another short film was on greed and the aftermath of the nuclear disaster. Truly, Kurosawa was way ahead of his time as even the politics fifty years ago are identical to todays problems. I hope the Japanese people dig out these movies and watch them!
 

Ellyn S (48)
Sunday March 27, 2011, 6:16 pm
Quote from article YOUR RINGS OF EXPERIENCE, by Kryon through Lee Carroll, July 12, 2008, found in the Sedona Journal of Emergence, October 2008, page 6:

"You have many ways of creating power. One of the most complex and difficult to understand and build is the nuclear power plant. When you are finished with a five-year construction project, all you have is an expensive steam engine. For all nuclear power does is create heat. This creates steam to drive a generator in circles, which then creates your electricity. it is, therefore, a glorified steam engine.

There is another glorified steam engine called the magma of Earth. Everywhere that you drill gets hot. The further you go down, the hotter it gets. Did you ever think about that? If you want heat, all you have to do is drill for it. Now this is difficult because you have to go down a long way. it becomes more difficult because there are byproducts that are involved that complicate the safety and viability. The technology must be developed to tap the heat, to make a steam engine that is forever. Start by building these holes in the hot spots. The hot spots are defined as those places on the Earth where the magma is close to the surface. How about starting at the Pacific Rim, for instance? This is where all the volcanoes are and where many of your largest cities are. You will find all the power you need to create steam is right below your feet. Is it worth it to invest in this technology? That's up to you. How much longer do you wish to extract pieces and parts of the Earth, burn them up and put them in the atmosphere? Now what is that worth to you? So again we say, as clear as we've ever said it to you from the other side of the veil, that these power sources have always existed. They exist for you to create electricity to power your cities, to power your vehicles, and it has always been a free source ready for you to invest in how to capture it."
 

Animae C (509)
Monday March 28, 2011, 6:41 am
THIS IS A JOKE.... RIGHT?!?!?
 

Steve S (10)
Monday March 28, 2011, 9:18 am
Anna. I hope it's a fat check you are getting from the Nuclear Industry.. NEVER read so much baloney in all my life. You really should get out more girl !!! As if the Nuclear Industry is going to tell all of us the truth, about leaks and accidents. NO MENTION in your all so warm little posting about the FACT that the waste we are left with is DEADLT to every living thing on the planet and that we ALL have to pay to store it and keep it safe for thousands of years into the future. And as for them being safe from terrorist attack .. Next, you'll be telling me that it is totally impossible for a handful of men to hijack commercial planes and fly them into mainland U.S. buildings killing 1000s of innocents .. Nuclear Power is SAFE .. WHOOOPS !!
 

Sheryl G (359)
Monday March 28, 2011, 8:32 pm
I agree with Steve.....you better be getting paid big time to promote this garbage. In this day and age with all that is known about this subject and you would promote this? I'm aghast, completely taken aback that so many on the comments think that nuclear power is so wonderful too. I suggest that you might all want to check out this site, http://www.beyondnuclear.org/, at least check it out.

I agree with Sioux, this is like a bad joke, and a horrible news story to put on a site called Care2 that is suppose to be about GREEN NATURAL CLEAN living. There is nothing about this article that promotes it. I've never asked or demoted a story on here since I've been on Care2.....but this one deserves it and I will.

Bad enough a story like this would be promoted anywhere but to be found on Care2 is despicable. Thanks Ewoud for pointing out the obvious that This article is written by, or at least based on "information" fournished by, the CASEnergy Coalition, a (republican lead) pro-nuclear energy coalition.

Care2 is promoting this story front page....suggested reading
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/10-riskiest-nuclear-power-plants-in-america.html

or how about this story:
Chernobyl Cleanup Survivor's Message for Japan: 'Run Away as Quickly as Possible'
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/
 

Melody Aragorn (135)
Tuesday March 29, 2011, 1:56 am
Great article thanks for the smell of roses but what about the thorns??Why is it that the ones who pay the price are the ones who have no say at all??

For the ones who see good in Nuclear power can choose to live next to the nuclear reactor in faith that nothing would ever happen and that it would be used for the good, for a safer cleaner environment... blah blah ... the same goes for the investors and the ones who work on this mess..

I as a part of life respecting the lives who have suffered and paid with their lives, in all my sanity for life choose to say
Ban Nuclear Energy for the after affects no man would even be alive to see!!! For my world as a part of life I say ban this stupidity!!
Whatever we have today whatever we get to see whatever lives we have left have been without this disaster lets keep it that way!!
 

William Ford (1)
Friday April 1, 2011, 10:36 am
Need to improve with stupidiyt.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.