Ron Paul: Dangers of Nuclear Energy Overblown




Date: 03/15/2011



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

159 Comments:

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gWSeiUxr_8

    they deleted THE YOUTUBE for a reaSON.

    ‎"im scared to death they are goning to stop building nuclear power plants here."

    leaving the waste for the next 100,000 years is the "free market" ?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Hey Ron, you scare me on this. Many of us feel that nuclear energy is something that should never been used. Are you aware of the potential damage that could occur due to solar flares which are do to have any time over the next few years.. After watching video, I'm not too sure how sharp you on the environment and theh dangers to nuclear energy!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Hey Ron, you scare me on this. Many of us feel that nuclear energy is something that should never been used. Are you aware of the potential damage that could occur due to solar flares which are do to have any time over the next few years.. After watching video, I'm not too sure how sharp you on the environment and theh dangers to nuclear energy!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  4. You say 14000-18000 US Citizens have died from Fukushima? That is simply not credible. These comments are completely overestimating the dangers of nuclear energy. Yes, there is a potential for disasters like Chernobyl, but Fukushima and Three Mile Island actually serve as evidence that US-designed reactors maintain containment, even during pretty bad accident scenarios. If anything, the lesson here is that nuclear power is not that dangerous.

    Seriously, no one died from Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear power accident in US history. Compare that to coal mining deaths, and you see that building new nuclear powerplants would save lives. And it's not like you have to choose between green energy and nuclear: we should be pushing for both to replace coal ASAP. Even reducing energy use and using every available alternative to fossil fuels, it would still take decades to reduce carbon emissions to sustainable levels, and possibly happen too late to reverse global warming trends before the Arctic ice feedback loop screws us all...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  5. You know what the largest problem with nuclear power is? We don't get to utilize it to its full potential because you fucking ignorant liberals. Go look up what led to the events at Chernobyl. Then go look up how many people have suffered harmful effects from radiation at TMI or Fukushima. After all of that go look up how many people are killed from drilling for oil, mining coal, fossil fuel and coal emissions, etc. Go look up some fucking facts on how things work then kill yourselves because you're all a bunch of liberals and ruin everything anyway.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  6. he never said he was a scientist and he didnt list anything that was a debatable fact. He just gave his oppinion and for that you call him ignorant. being birthed as a baby doesnt make your points automatically valid

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. We can do better then Nuclear Power. It is just to dangerous and expensive . There are better options we have, for example Geo Thermal Energy, Solar Power and Wind Power. We can even use the Oceans Tidal flows to create power.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  8. Hey Ron Paul, tell that to the 14000-18000 US Citizens that have died as a direct result of Fukushima in the weeks after the accident.

    http://www.freepeoples5thestate.com/2011/12/videos-14000-us-deaths-tied-to.html?spref=fb

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    • @natureboy I think you are being unfair to Dr. Paul. The video on this posting was made just shortly after the earthquake in Japan and before anyone really knew the scope of the disaster that was was brewing.I think he has a better record on environmental issues than you might think. His positions are consistent from a libertarian perspective.

      Here is what Wikipedia says about his position on environmental matters:

      Environmental-related legislative activities

      Paul is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition.[232]

      In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[233]He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13]Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13]He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[234]He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13]He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27]He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another $2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[235][236][237]

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @RalphFucetolaJd

        I hope he makes a revised policy statement on nuclear power in light of

        what as happen in Japan. I do like Ron Paul for the most part. But think

        he was dead wrong when he made this statement on nuclear power.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      • @RalphFucetolaJd

        I hope he makes a revised policy statement on nuclear power in light of

        what as happen in Japan. I do like Ron Paul for the most part. But think

        he was dead wrong when he made this statement on nuclear power.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  9. Did is one thing that Ron Paul is dead wrong on.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Did is one thing that Ron Paul is dead wrong on.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. This was back in March... I wonder if Ron Paul still beleives what he said here, 7 months later, now that we know Fukushima is far worse than we were lead to beleive, and getting worse every day.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  12. I've supported Ron Paul for decades. The central legal and ethical problem with nuke power is that, like vaccines, it is an uninsurable risk! Public companies cannot invest shareholder money in such risks, so Congress, ever supine to their crony corporatist owners, took away our right to redress for foreseeable harm from both. Without that govt intervention in the market, there would be no nuke power to generate ionizing radiation toxins (and no vax toxins either!). The market has spoken through the insurance industry, but Congress decided to socialize the risk to protect crony profits. There are steps people can take to minimize the harm: http://tinyurl.com/naturalhealthsolutions Dr. Paul needs to consider why the market rejected nuke power and why the statists imposed it. Nonetheless. I still say: Ron Paul 2012!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  13. this man doesn't believe in evolution so it makes sense hes this ignorant about physics and nuclear power . birthing babies doesn't make you a "scientist" as he has claimed about himself before.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 × = thirty five

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>