159 responses to “Ron Paul: Dangers of Nuclear Energy Overblown”

  1. common terry

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. William Roberts

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. dankyblue

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  4. dkr

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  5. F-liberals

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  6. wiiam4

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. natureboy

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  8. natureboy

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    1. RalphFucetolaJd

      @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)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. natureboy

        @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)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      2. natureboy

        @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)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  9. ronW demarco

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

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. natureboyron

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

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. LuMagazine

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  12. RalphFucetolaJd

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  13. polabear001

    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)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. renevers

    Most people cannot estimate the potential of renewables..It is not there
    renowables is 95% hype and 5% substance. It is costly in investment, land use and maintanance and gives negligible and eratic capacity . The capital cost would bancrupt the USA even faster. It is these kind of inpossible dreams that are the part of the root of the economic problem today. Like bio carburants now: those state sponsored cornfields are using up huge area's of the USA, landstock for a small percentage of fuel substitution. If people only would compare these kind of occupied land and the area that is lost by the 2 nuclear accidents. It is already 2 orders of magnitude more area occupied, by senseless biofuell production, than forced nature parks by radiation isolation because of accidents. It is a pity that the average American can't check the information sources on energy for lack of schooling : there is to few technical potential in the population and , good technical educated journalist are rare.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  15. renevers

    Wrong information on Nuclear:
    1. European and existing American nuclear power utilitie companies do not get subsidies; on the contrary, they pay taxes. Unlike solar energy and wind , that take up huge subsudies amouts of tax money for investments and are forcing powerbills higher by obligatory usage and cost distribution over other powersources.
    2. The US is building a nuclear waste processingplant so will be able to convert long lasting primary waste into different fractions: transuranic burnable waste and "lower salts", these lower salts can be vitrified and stored in this form and have a much shorter dangerous storage time than untreated highlevel nuclear waste. In fact it produces valuable nuclear carburants for the future, now .
    If you want to inform yourself about thorium, uranium,reprocessing :it is free, read Wikipedia.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. hateit

      yes..reprocessing.. isn't that mox fuel? and isn't that why more plutonium than necessary to kill every human and other living thing on this planet is now in our environment?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  16. Jay

    I too love Ron Paul, but this future is in renewables. Wind and batteries for households, Offshore Wind and Solar, Hydrogen, Biomass....

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. renevers

    Thorium has not so many advantages over Uranium as people on this forum think , it can enlarge energy stock for ages thats all. The danger over Uranium is overblown. In fact the US had never a serious accident in its nuclear electricity industry. It was more hype than substance even Harrisburg TMI. New generations of reactors are even saver than the existing ones. Accidents as Chernobyl and Fukoshima doesn't even make a dent in the life expectancy of the peoples that got some radiation exposure. It is in the the order of hours and days , not in years, lost. Lack of cheap energy and a following economic crisis can wipe out YEARS of life duration expectancy as is proved in Russia and Argentina in their economic crises from other reasons but comparable. Even in developed societies poverty is the leading indicator for life expectancy reduction.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. hateit

      Sorry bull puckey.. TMI? That is hersheys chocolate.. and their cows were downwind... and they did not throw out the milk.. how many birth defects from pregnant woman that ate it? and as for thorium...hahahah again.. thorium safe? " One myth is that thorium is safe. Thorium-232 has a half life of 14 Billion years (billions, not millions). Thorium-232 is also highly radiotoxic, with the same amount of radioactivity of uranium and thorium, thorium produces a far higher dose in the body. If someone inhaled an amount of thorium the bone surface dose is 200 times higher than if they inhaled the same amount of uranium. Thorium also requires longer spentfuel storage than uranium. With the daughter products of thorium like technetium‐99 with a half life of over 200,000 years, thorium is not safe nor a solution to spent fuel storage issues." http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101 protect your dna...no nuclear power!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      1. natureboy

        @hateit

        We can do better the Nuclear Power. It is just why 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)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    2. hateit

      Sorry bull puckey.. TMI? That is hersheys chocolate.. and their cows were downwind... and they did not throw out the milk.. how many birth defects from pregnant woman that ate it? and as for thorium...hahahah again.. thorium safe? " One myth is that thorium is safe. Thorium-232 has a half life of 14 Billion years (billions, not millions). Thorium-232 is also highly radiotoxic, with the same amount of radioactivity of uranium and thorium, thorium produces a far higher dose in the body. If someone inhaled an amount of thorium the bone surface dose is 200 times higher than if they inhaled the same amount of uranium. Thorium also requires longer spentfuel storage than uranium. With the daughter products of thorium like technetium‐99 with a half life of over 200,000 years, thorium is not safe nor a solution to spent fuel storage issues." http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101 protect your dna...no nuclear power!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  18. renevers

    In France , Russia,Japan and England nuclear waste is processed and the good elements are recovered ,the bad things are concentrated and made into insoluble glass ready for long time storage or disposal. The USA refuses this process out of Jimmy Carters initiated fear of "nuclear terrorism". Reverse this policy and get a new energy policy and get rid of those 450 Bilion a year imports of fossil fuels for the US. Every dime printed in the US is going abroad buying this fuel instead of making US jobs. Ron Paul should only allow nuclear energy and protect it form anti nuclear policy , it is cheap enough by itself. In 10 years the US could recover economically.
    With cheap electricity American industry would be able to compete with anybody in the world even the Chinese.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Sara Wilson

    I've heard about the conversion to Thorium. I can't imagine how many R&D projects there have been out there that would be of more benefit to us than what's currently in use. Too bad we haven't allowed a free market to let them prosper and they sit in the shadows of the military industrial complex collecting dust. Free the Scientists!!!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. 337noname

    Obviously we live a complex world and have build a very high house of cards. My point is Ron Paul ignores that inconvenient truth when it comes nuclear power. His statements on this subject lack consistency with his statements about small government.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. 337noname

    Obviously we live a complex world and have build a very high house of cards. My point is Ron Paul ignores that inconvenient truth when it comes nuclear power. His statements on this subject lack consistency with his statements about small government.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. HamsaTheThird

    Nuclear Waste can be managed and techniques to ensure safety have already been set forth. It is not reasonable to cancel nuclear spending because of an earthquake in a earthquake prone region we should assess natural disaster risks of current plants & any new plants and act accordingly to increase nuclear safety. the message iam trying to hit home nuclear power when it goes wrong its catastrophic but the odds of a accident are more then unlikely with current safety standards

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. mohhamza

    Nuclear Waste can be managed and techniques to ensure safety have already been set forth. It is not reasonable to cancel nuclear spending because of an earthquake in a earthquake prone region we should assess natural disaster risks of current plants & any new plants and act accordingly to increase nuclear safety. the message iam trying to hit home nuclear power when it goes wrong its catastrophic but the odds of a accident are more then unlikely with current safety standards

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. 337noname

    Sorry. If that was true, Ron Paul would be pushing to get big government out of the nuclear power business like his does every other big government program.
    The government insures nuclear power plants because no private insurer will take the risk. The governmnet also has to deal with the waste because of its long life and it's very real danger to life.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. HamsaTheThird

    not necessarily all Govt has to do is outline appropriate waste management standards.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. mohhamza

    not necessarily all Govt has to do is outline appropriate waste management standards.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. 337noname

    Insurance for nuclear power plants and dealing with of the waste of nuclear power are big government run programs that will go on long after we are all dead. Ron Paul is either ignoring the facts or is pandering to his voters.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. 337noname

    Insurance for nuclear power plants and dealing with of the waste of nuclear power are big government run programs that will go on long after we are all dead. Ron Paul is either ignoring the facts or is pandering to his voters.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply