I invite you to fuck right off as well.

Sorry. I am from Texas and I don't quite understand how to "fuck right off".

Maybe I am getting sick because the air down in Houston is so bad because of all the gas and oil that we are burning and using around here.

Personally, I think the right thing to do is have a serious carbon tax. However, if you think that limiting or reducing or eliminating nuclear power is the right thing to do then we would have far more expensive oil and gas. We would have far more green house gases. We would be doing far more to support countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

I would rather make the US a better place than make Tehran a better place but I realize other people feel differently.

We should really have a forum for this. See http://hechtmail.com/node/862

For the non-telepathic.

I assumed and now I am wrong. Just wait until the beauty of the podcast.

As soon as you get the van and take me to Vancouver!

"YOU" You who? I love you

Rob, we have nuclear plants. Should we close them all down? What do you think we should do ROB?

"Please stop"? You might not have posted such a proposal as shutting down the plants, but you did say just that in a phone call earlier.

I believe you want to shut down the plants. Did I assume that? If you don't want to shut down the plants, you need to educate me on what you are saying.

"Rob talks a good game, but doesn't want to admit he wants to pull the plug on all nuclear generation plants."

I was never asked the question, much less provided an answer. Please stop.

"It would seem his position is pro-war and anti-energy."

You guys need a lesson in citing references.

See, ONE of the problems here is that YOU are violating the very axiom that you purport to be exposing. That is, YOU are sending up sophomoric red herrings, and pretending that they somehow fit into a coherent pretense. Then you say I'm the one that's naive. Furthermore, you both are falsely attributing conclusions/claims to me that I have not made. Please stop.

The difference between the words "fuck" and "bitch" is the same as this disagreement. Rob talks a good game, but doesn't want to admit he wants to pull the plug on all nuclear generation plants. Even though we couldn't even do it in this country let alone the world. It would seem his position is pro-war and anti-energy.

"If you want to live in the real world then you need to admit that not all the answers are so simple and pure."

How's this for pure and simple...

I invite you to fuck right off as well.

"Rob, I am very disappointed in your posts."

Well, I invite you to fuck right off.

Rob, I am very disappointed in your posts. To review, you, ROB, posted an article that said the no-nuke crowd could not have screwed it up as much. Whecht stated the fact that we are still using nuclear with these issues. Is that not a problem ROB? To clarify, how are we going to stop using nuclear power?

You need to believe that posting on hechtmail.com will change the world.

Clearly this site needs an editor ROB. The position is open.

First of all, the order of the responses are confusing.

Second of all, you can bitch about all the problems of nuclear power all you want but it doesn't change much of anything.

I assume you can agree that we need to use electricity.
So where do we get that electricity?
Coal?
Nuclear?
Hydro?
Natural Gas?
Oil?
Solar?
Wind?
Some other way?

I know, we all should conserve. Yeah, blah blah blah

Oh no, I am scared of nuclear power. What if it explodes? Where do we store the waste? What if North Korea, Pakistan or Iran get weapons grade plutonium?

#1) It won't be good if it explodes. Chernobyl was a disaster. It killed a bunch of people? How many people? Was it more or less than die in auto accidents in the US in a single month? I really don't know. Should we make everyone drive 25 miles an hour to reduce auto accidents?

#2) Where do we store the waste from military operations? It seems that having double or triple the waste isn't going to make much of a difference. Of course, we could disarm and then we could kowtow to the North Koreans.

#3) It would be terrible if those nasty countries got the bomb. I think we should pay more for electricity because I am scared of President Kim.

If you want to live in the real world then you need to admit that not all the answers are so simple and pure.

"So Robby, what is the point?"

The first point is that you should be asking whecht that question.

I do need to ask. Do you want us to have radiation or green house gasses? That seems to be the choice. Am I wrong? Please bless this site with your insight and patience for those who have less knowledge than yourself.

If you have to ask...

So Robby, what is the point?

"France gets a huge portion of its electricity from nuclear power."

uh-huh...

"Japan gets a huge chuck from nuclear power."

...so?

"The world is heating up because we are burning too much coal."

...and?

"Nuclear power doesn't give off green house gases."

Good Lord.

Don't get me started.

If you think our health care system is crazy just imagine trying to explain it to a college educated Japanese woman who is caught in the middle of "the greatest health care system in the WORLD!!!!!!!"

Both those countries have some form of national health care. Not that it is related to the debate.

France gets a huge portion of its electricity from nuclear power.

Japan gets a huge chuck from nuclear power.

The world is heating up because we are burning too much coal.

Nuclear power doesn't give off green house gases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html?pagewanted=1&em

Highlights!

"In an unusual state foray into nuclear regulation, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 Wednesday to block operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant after 2012, citing radioactive leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials and other problems."

"...the Vermont senators voiced frustration over recent leaks of radioactive tritium at the 38-year-old plant as well as the collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and inaccurate testimony by the plant’s owner, the Louisiana-based nuclear operator Entergy."

"Plant officials had testified under oath to two state panels that there were no buried pipes at Vermont Yankee that could leak tritium, although there were."

"“If the board of directors and management of Entergy were thoroughly infiltrated by antinuclear activists, I do not think they could have done a better job of destroying their own case,” said one senator, Randolph D. Brock III, a St. Albans Republican who cast several votes friendly to the plant."

"...senators cited estimates of over $1 billion for decommissioning the plant, although only about $450 million is on hand for the job. Tritium leaks could raise the bill, they said."

"Many opponents in Vermont worry that (a company proposal to spin off the reactor and five others) would allow Entergy, based in New Orleans, to avoid legal liability for any problems at the plants and that a spinoff could be detrimental to the state."

Is this the time to remind everyone that I was a PRO nuclear power protester?

Yeah, the nuclear industry (and their boot-licking syncophants) are all "sunshine and blue skies" about their false idol. But when the total stream of production is brought into the conversation (from start to "finish" - such that it is), including what the industry calls "externalities", a lot of paper shuffling, arm-waving, and histrionics ensues.

Um, have you heard of the "Bloom Box"?

OK, then. I guess we've covered it.

Storage of it in the ground. It is not with out safety issues. The larger issue is the NIMBY. Who wants to store nuclear waste? Not me!

Disposal?

Oh, you're referring to "storage".

Yeah, what about it?