2 votes

Ron Paul says that nuclear power is "the safest form of energy we have"

Ron Paul says that nuclear power is the "safest form of energy we have".




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thorium = Safe Nuclear


Did he say this before or

Did he say this before or after Fukushima? My guess he hasn't seen the alternative media coverage.

Ventura 2012

One thing I love about Ron Paul

is he always says what he thinks is the truth, regardless of how popular or well received it is.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Maybe,

but Rossi's E-Cat still holds promise and Thorium delivers Nuclear energy in it's safest form. Not subject to the dangers of our current Nuclear reactors.


http://youtu.be/97GtL98kmPA

Unreal

I find it amazing how people can still advocate Nuclear after Fukushima. The argument is always . . ooh that was just unfortunate and modern tech is sooo safe. But seriously.. no matter how you look at it, you are dealing with radio actives which if / when exposed or unleashed in our environment, kills everything.

There are no %100 fail safes. Why aren't people pushing the alternatives like geothermal and solar etc. I can only imagine it comes down to money. So how much is life worth ?

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

your cell phone is "Radioactive"

and I bet you think that i am just a STUPID Reefer man.

GE built it on the coast. the back up generators were located BELOW sea level.
and your spelling is poor. it is actually.

FUK-U- shima.

all "Nuclear power" is, is a heat source. the rest of the plant works the same as a normal one.

Fristly

I don't have a cell phone, and secondly, who cares about my spelling... what's that got got to do with anything ?

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

I suppose that I was addressing the subject matter...

more than I was the comment. no offense was intended but I can see how it would be perceived that way.

the 3 meltdowns occurred because the generators got flooded, THEN they could not match the power plugs in time to the generators that were brought in.

I read that the generators were below ground, near sea level.... and they flooded? WTF?
an NO! I do not buy the argument that their pressure rating was exceeded.

piss poor design and piss poor maintenance.

my apologies for offending you. mebbe my keyboard needs a breathalyzer?

;)

Is it?

How many people died in Fukishima? How many people die in coal mines every year? If you take half of the money you save by going nuclear, and invest it in better hospitals, saver roads etc, aren't we all better off? I'm all for the nuclear option, until solar becomes cheaper.

Well

I guess it all comes down to statistics, and what hypothesis someone is wishing to promote. Generally someone can provide data to back up any hypothesis by being selective in the fields and criteria for how it is gathered . My feelings on nuclear are based on how volatile radio actives are when an accident occurs, and how long the duration of the damage is.

Coal miners have the choice to enter coal mines ( albeit sometimes not much of one ) but when there is a nuclear disaster it effects everyone. I don't propose to be informed on nuclear, but I've definitely yet to be convinced that it's benefit is anywhere near equal to its risk, especially when there are alternatives.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

If I recall correctly, when

If I recall correctly, when looking at the chemicals in solar panels, they are actually more hazardous than nuclear.

Thorium Breeder Reactor

This is the answer to the question, "what to do with the waste?" and "how to make a more stable platform?"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

I think he has a good point

Yet what do you do with the waste?

I would like to hear his view on this.

Perhaps there are depots near Galveston to dispose of the waste?

donvino

Dr. Ron Paul did NOTHING for his beleaguered delegates.

Dr. Ron Paul got angry when it was suggested George W. Bush was involved in 911 or that 911 was a "false flag," while admitting, to "We Are Change" that he suspected differently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY 52 seconds into the video.

As I have said before, LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor)and "Pebble Bed" reactor technology are as old as Light Water Uranium Reactors. They were discarded because they were ineffective for producing atom bombs. The commercial nuclear industry was too cheap to develop safe technology and the Japanese are suffering dearly for their greed. Greed is the same reason Tesla technology was abandoned, Russo's E-CAT "Cold Fusion" and Solar-Satellite Microwave technology is ignored.

The nuclear industry was wholly government subsidized.

Just like the synthahol industry, it costs more energy than nuclear produces.

And cooling tanks across the country are over-capacity and no one has paid to haul the spent rods away.

Will a new multi-billion dollar program produce efficient energy? Not if the government is involved.

Free includes debt-free!

He had military programming. Big surprise.

He is also against government subsidies. The Nuclear energy industry cannot survive without subsidies.

It's a money loser, and government is the sucker.

Free includes debt-free!

You mean we are the suckers

Since government income only comes from tax payers.

Plus $10 trillion from creditors since 1940.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/index.cfm

We certainly have not been shown a balance sheet for the nuclear industry showing income, operating costs, and projected de-commissioning and disposal costs.

Taxpayers have certainly been ill-informed, IMO.

Free includes debt-free!

you do have a good point.

how far deep does the rabbit hole go?

Ron Paul simply said we are living beyond our means.

I like balancing the budget as a first step.

Free includes debt-free!

yes as we know it but...

nothing is 100% safe.(fukushima)

I agree with him. Oil and

I agree with him. Oil and nuclear are still very high-yielding sources of energy.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Bump... no one has more

Bump... no one has more comments on this most important issue?

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Ron Paul is very wise and I

Ron Paul is very wise and I love him to death (I drive the "Ron Paul Liberty Corvette" almost daily) but he's not infallible. Even so, he does not claim that nuclear power is "safe" only that it's safer than other forms of power generation and statistically he's right up until today. The future still may show that nuclear power is more dangerous than revealed to date. The FUTURE is what concerns me and the fact that nuclear power must be subsidized in order to APPEAR cheap. The cost of decommissioning the plants and storing the fuel for x thousands of years is not factored into the cost of power generation. Sure, maybe someday someone will come up with a solution to this problem but the fact is we don't have any solution to this problem and we keep making more and more waste that we store on site. Not very wise in my opinion. Security of this "waste" is also a cost that is not factored and what if there's a breach of security and large amounts of waste get into the hands of bad guys who kill hundreds of thousands of people with it? Will those deaths be considered caused by the failure of the "security" that should have been a part of the cost of nuclear power or will they chalk it up to the "terrorist" bogyman? I think it's part of the cost of maintaining the security of the waste and any failure of that security means that nuclear power caused those deaths.

I just don't want unneeded fear mongering...

...to end up sabotaging the nuclear industry.

Statistically it is the safest form of energy production....and it will remain so in the future. The Fukushima accident is not as bad as the anti-nuclear activists and conspiracy theorist make it out to be.

Thorium reactors can be built that inherently fail safe, unlike a uranium burning reactor. These reactors can also help us burn up the spent fuel reducing the amount of waste by factors of several hundreds.

The Nuclear Industry has sabotaged the nuclear industry...

with its greed. India is making strides with its LFTR research and Dr. Russo has demonstrated significant results with E-CAT. The nuclear industry is largely owned by the fossil-fuel industry, which has no motivation to make the world a cleaner, safer place. A former head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission held the patent on the "Fukushima-style" reactor. Eliminate the "crony capitalism" and may the best technology win.

Source?

A reliable source and some context on posts is usually helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?