Kem,

The people who present only fossil vs. nuclear are either in the pocket of the m.i.c. or are unconsciously doing PR work for them -- for free.

Progressive politics is about self-determination, civil liberties, generosity, future-thinking and democracy, or it is about nothing at all.

I'm a big fan of solar/wind/hydrogen since they can potentially be decentralized, but I believe also that geothermal hasn't been given the chance it deserves. Many of us don't really live far from an essentially unlimited source of heat: straight down. Unless you are drilling through a water aquifer or venting sulfur/CO/CO2 to the atmosphere, it is possible to pull geothermal off cleanly. Drop down water, get rising steam, turn a turbine, let gravity pull the water back down again, repeat.

If you have a diesel car or truck, they run very well on pure vegetable oil. I've converted 12 vehicles to this. Greasecar was the brand I used. Germany has more advanced single tank technology, whereas this is dual - diesel/PPO/WVO (pure plant oil / waste vegetable oil). Rudolf diesel used vegetable oil early in the development of the diesel. Folks have driven 100,000's of miles on PPO/WVO with no problems. Don't buy the scare tactic that shows a damaged diesel engine from 1890 or whatever - thats not current engines and is bogus. This is a niche area a few of us can exploit for the time being. Restaurants generally have to pay to dispose of this useful source of fuel.

Don,

Good points - our winters her a re gettin warmer, but are just as cloudy. Solar panels in Pittsburgh would be generating nearly nothing 80% of the hours of the year.

And, sadly, in our current economic regime, efficeincy gains, nearly always end up in simply increasing use of the resourse saved by the efficncy gains. Make AC and heat, and lighting more efficient just leads to larger, more brightly lit houses. More efficient cars leads to moving further from work and shopping.

An entirely change in US culture and lifestyle with different priorities are needed. We need replace consumptive-gratificaton with non-consumptive gratification - shopping, and burning IC engines for social, community-building, artistic and cultural activities - which are much more fulfilling anyway.

Hilliary Clinton and others show what absolute ignoramouses they are.

"Clinton said in South Carolina..." . Look at www.drought.unl.edu/dm/DM_southeast.htm and see the drought conditions in the SE. Then Google Drought in US to see those maps. Four SE states have the highest level of drought in at least 1/2 the state and N. Carolina at least 3/4. The rest of these states' areas are also suffering significant drought conditions.

Being from the South, Edwards is probably more familiar with this additional problem with nulcear or in Bushese, nucular power.

Nuclear power requires huge amounts of water to cool reactors. The Germans were faced within the last few years of either frying rivers, destroying their ecosystems or lowering the functioning level of the (reactors) plant. They chose the latter. Meaning that reactors in drought areas would have to fu8nction at a far less than optimum (theres an oxymoron if there ever was one)level.

With all the drought areas of the US, nuclear power contributes even more hazards beyond the ones known 5-10 years ago.

Nuclear is NOT the way to go.

As far as the drink tax, I should add that these rstaurant owners shelled out a lot of money on a very effective campaign - of whipping up public indignancy against the drink tax - it was bizarre - only in Pittsburgh would getting drunk cheaply be sold as a fundamental human right. Polls showed considerable popular opinion against the measure - and at the astroturf was rolled out at the county council hearings. Only the progressive community - the Thomas Merton Center/Save our Transit, spoke in favor of it. Fortunately, our County Council, in spite of possible electoral repeercussions come election day, took a leadership stance and voted for it.

e.m.r.,electromagnet radiation,is the most likely silent culprit if climate change !to even assert that nuclear power is 'clean' is absolute madness and insane.the waste from the plants,cannot be considered small,since there is a shelf life of infinity.if a nuclear plant were to give off even trace amounts of polonium,that is a recipe for disaster.emr's and nuclear power is more craziness from the evil twisted minds of the "architects","the deciders".they can snicker about the poor suckers of france.

Hey opinionated. You wrote:
"If each suburban home was generating its own power — and I don't understand why it can't — the problem would be considerably lessened."

Americans demand central air conditioning. And the sizes of our suburban homes keeps growing. What's the average size now for a 3br 2ba home? 2500 SF or more? It used to be around 1600 s.f. was a standard sized house. Any freed up generating capacity that we get in the form of efficiency improvements is exceeded by the demand of these newer larger homes. There's no way each home will make up any more than a small fraction of their electricity demand.

And I will go on the record here as saying I do not appreciate being forced to subsidize inefficient photo voltaic garbage. They consume too many resources and don't have the efficiency to justify their expense now, or even at $2 per peak watt! Plus, most folks aren't smart enough to put them on trackers to maximize that peak output. Why? Because it costs even more! And don't go telling me their efficiency is going up to 30%, because those are experimental only right now, and in any case, the additional dopants required will take the cost the other way by multiples of the present cost/watt. Just as foolish as ethanol.

Concerning local vs. good of the whole issues... I think this is a complex issue, but we have to learn a balance of centralized vs. de-centralized power. My view is that the 'Federal'/centralized government should only be asssisting the standardization of the universal elements that are helpful to all local entities; local powers then should have full freedom to develop, as long as the Federal standards (simply the collective values - i.e. Constitutional rights, etc) are respected. Our Feds get out of bounds, as we see, when they move off their Constitutional mandates. In the distant future government will be less needed as we all grow up, but.. for some time there has to be repositories of power for our greater good. My political theory in brief.

Paul, I suspect PJD is not the threat you perceive. At least that is not how I read his post. However, I might add another comment about nuclear. I have a science background (so not just baseless here). Note the work of the Rennaissance man Walter Russell, whom Tesla himself said was 1,000 years ahead of his time with his insights. Russell (founder of the University of Science and Philosophy) stated that the use of radioative energy (nuclear) actually has a pervasive 'aging' affect upon the planet, as the materials are not safe to even use extensively on the surface of the planet. I believe we will eventually discover all KINDS of problems with nuclear energy (though perhaps not cold fusion, if it pans out) - many effects not yet understood. For this reason and many others I am dead set against it. Our science is yet in infancy as I see it, and safer is much better than sorrier. Now, James Lovelock- come to your senses man!

Instead of recycling spent nuclear fuel, the US has been using depleted uranium as a weapon against Iraq, Afghanistan etc. and the nuclear particle contamination affects the whole world.

For more details see www.bogusstory.com/iraq_war_picture.html

Mr Bramscher,

Your response, accusing me of being a genocidal fascist, is vile slander. Please apologise.

A small grouping of individuals, should not, by either being in a position of wealth or geography (or often, both), cannot be allowed to impact the welfare of millions. I'll give three examples which you should respond to rather than engage in slanderous attacks.

Wher I live:

1. A few local restaurant owners nearly succedded in practically dismantling public transportation rather than pay a poured-drink sales tax. They believe the chance of a small impact on their profits trump the welfare of the hundreds of thousands who rely on public transit, not to mention the environmental benefits of public transit.
IS THIS JUST?

2. To the east and SE of here, on the Allegheny plateau and in WV, some small groups of (mostly wealthy) homeowners have orgainzed, with some sudccess, to hinder or prevent the development of wind energy - their complaint being principally visual impacts. So, the desires of at most, a couple hundred people, are affecting to some degree, everyone on earth. IS THIS JUST?

3. In the south, from 1865 to 1965, "democratic local control" meant that the white majority made sure black people knew their place in their society through forced poverty and frequent hangings. WAS THIS JUST?

COCO: As for your complaint that the photo of Edwards smiling while on the phone is "contrived":
Maybe you'd have liked it better if he was in front of a Christmas tree with a camera panning a "bookshelf cross" behind him. Now, THAT's contrived.

And as to your comment about what might be ailing Sen. Edwards' wife, this only demonstrates how obviously unread you are. Mrs. Edwards is suffering from incurable breast cancer; she's ok for now with her current treatment, but she can never be "cured" of it.

Give this guy a break. And go catch up on your current events, before posting any more of your hate-filled comments.

France has used Nuclear Power for years and offers the cleanest air in Europe. The issue is waste. France recycles the nuclear waste rather than bury it like it has been the tradition in this country.

Recycled waste is expensive and one reason industry insiders oppose it. Obama notes the problem.

Given the history of corruption in this country the energy insiders no longer hold my trust and I therefore oppose nuclear in the US. Sustanable sources of energy is the only way to proceed, and if the sheep in Congress acted from a place of wisdom rather than corporate handouts, many of our energy problems along with climate change could be impacted.

I believe some of that recycled nuclear waste surfaced after the Boxing Day tsunami.

France also sunk the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior.

Given that it is an autocratic form of energy, cannot be managed or owned locally, a sabotage target, carrying possibility for extreme catastrophe, the waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, its manufacturers are connected to (or synonymous with) the nuclear weapons industries, and we can't seem to manage anything outside of a tightly politicized arena, it is such a small percentage of our current energy needs, shutting down nukes is a no-brainer.

Check this out...it will make nuclear and coal obsolete...cheap solar!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy

Heavily subsidized, nuke power cannot make it without taxpayer money. We pick up the tab on accidents and dealing with the waste after it's transformed from uranium to something unnatural, dangerous and very long lasting.

By the way where was our New Mexico Media when we got a nuclear enrichment plant in SE part of the state? Where was Bill Richardson?

Oh, you didn't hear about that! Neither did we.

It was quietly crammed down our throats; which comes back around to the same scenario so typical when our candidates are bought and paid for. It's time to quit treating the symptoms and start fixing the problem.

We are paying for PR firms to deceive us with phony science and hiding the truth. Of course "No Child left that can Think" will only make the problem worse.

Fucking cowards. It won't be until a plant goes kaflooey and hundreds of thousands are dead that they'll have the courage to admit that none of our traditional power sources is adequate or appropriate to supply a planet with seven billion people on it.

We need sustainable, non-dangerous, non-polluting power. I refuse to believe there aren't such alternatives. If each suburban home was generating its own power -- and I don't understand why it can't -- the problem would be considerably lessened.

Edwards is so phony, I cannot believe Common Dreams would post this as a top story.

He only opposes nuclear power because it will help him steal Kucinich supporters.

Look at Edward's record!! Okay look at his health care plan...
"Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment."

Wake up Common Dreams readers! Edwards is a panderer and a health care FASCIST! Kucinich is the real deal. The Corporate media polls are lying- the same corporate media that pushed the war in Iraq and Iran. Only 10% of caring, intelligent citizens bother to vote in the primaries, which is why it is so important for Common Dreams readers to show up!! Vote your heart- vote Kucinich!

No matter who 'wins' the presidency, they will get nowhere with our corrupt Congress. WE need every day Americans to run for Congress and replace the corrupt bastards club!

http://peacecandidates.com/

The recently passed energy bill does not, in my opinion, make the most efficient use of dollars in our efforts to stimulate new energy efficient technologies, nor the application of those technologies. The reason is the continued centralization of government provided energy dollars in the hands of the few.

Decentralization is the key to energy efficiency, sustainability, and security. Distributing the energy funds to individuals and smaller human scale research organizations will yield more creative and efficient results in a shorter time period than if given to the larger more bureaucratic corporate research organizations.

Corporations are in effect, central planning units, and their efforts will reflect the need for the corporate organization to develop technologies that serve the corporation, not the people. Centralization is mostly a 20th Century business strategy. Decentralization reflects the needs of the 21st Century and is fundamentally more democratic in nature.

Each household or commercial building having it's own self contained solar/wind/and passive solar elements will better serve the needs of the public while simultaneously lessening the meddlesome wealth of the rich and their centralized cash cows.

[T]he once-vilified industry is buoyed by a slate of presidential candidates who seem ready to embrace — or at least consider — a nuclear energy future.

Gee! I wonder how that happened.

The 'greatest democracy on earth' truly is a wonderous thing in its ability to produce such simultaneous re-considerations amongst almost all candidates for the highest office in the land, regardless of 'party' affiliation.

Indeed, it often seems to have remarkably similar effects thoughout the entire body of representatives of "the people" such that one can readily understand why the US is so anxious to export its versions of "freedom and democracy" to others worldwide whose current systems are so much less enlightened.

Good points all. I too believe Edwards is a coward. He has caved in to the insurance industry providing a blank check rather than endorse Kucinich's single payer plan. The single payer plan is good enough for Congress but not good enough for us. Proving the entire system is corrupt and elitist. Furthermore, mandating a plan is a very bad idea. This will only increase hardship on low income families. I am one of those who lives without insurance by choice.

Whatever you want to do that will quickly bankrupt this abattoir is fine by me. Spend a few Billion of our $$ to "start" building glow-in-dark silos - go for it. After the Great Shattering with 50 separate States acting as free agents, I'm sure they will maintain nuclear plants with all the fervor with which they maintain their "New" nu-cu-lar arsenals. My America. Abajaba, Abajaba, Abajaba. Munch. Munch.

You're living in the III Reich 20 minutes before the lights go out.

I agree with those who are wary of Edwards. He is now talking a good "anti-corporate" game, but he's swimming in a huge pool of tainted campaign cash. I agree that Dennis Kucinich is the real deal -- a candidate of real integrity who will stand up to the corporatocracy, starting with Big Pharma.
I've been feeling powerless to help the Kucinich campaign from up here, because as a non-US citizen, I can't contribute to his campaign. But, I've found a way to help:

www.call4dennis.com

I get assigned Democratic voters in New Hampshire and have been calling scores of Granite Staters and urging them to learn more about Dennis. It has cost me mere pennies, and I think I've actually changed (or helped self-educate) a few minds, and have garnered a few votes for Dennis.
I urge all of you out there who profess support for Dennis to get on the blower with people in New Hampshire for him!

Most Democratic candidates are anti-Progressive. :(

The only time Nuclear power is clean is when it is in it's little very expensive very protected steam generated system.
Before it has to be Mine ,Refined, Transported a few times .
Then after the fuel is spent. It has to be stored safely practicaly forever.
The nuclear plants themselves will never be active a hundred years so we then have dismantle them and secure them for more untold years.
I heard one time that they cannot make a warning sign last long enought to warn whoever would might come along to where they bury the nuclear garbage.
And you say The Dems want all this tooooooo?

Some here seem to be missing the point of this article. It's good news. How about appreciating the fact that there is one -- and only one -- "top contender" for president who is against nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a huge public safety issue, and that's why no one will finance or insure a new nuclear plant unless we taxpayers guarantee the loan and assume the liability. Edwards has the nuts to defy corporate America and their PR army, rather than hedge and dance like the others.

Edwards has distinguished himself from the others:

1) He's the only major candidate who abides by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

2) He consistently speaks against undue corporate power (including the insurance and pharmaceutical industries). So much so that, Ralph Nader -- the leading critic of least-of-the-worst politics -- has said he will support Edwards if he continues to do so. Imagine Ralph Nader as head of the EPA in an Edwards administration.

3) Now we learn he's the only major candidate with the intelligence and integrity to come out against nuclear power.

I don't think Edwards is the perfect candidate (far from it), but to me this is another reason to hope he wins Iowa and goes on to win the Democratic nomination.

This is a link to a comprehensive list to Edwards' positions on the issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

I forgot to mention, imagine if the annual "$1 billion in federal research and development spending devoted to nuclear-power research" went to solar power, wind power, and energy conservation research and development instead.

"I mean, we've been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents."

True progressives suspect that Huckabee hasn't a clue about the nuke safety record of the US Navy, nor the fallout on the oceans, he's just another Repuk puking propaganda on the "right wing authoritarian followers", the Los Angeles Times is busily providing the propaganda channel and Common Dreams is taking Repuk donations.

We need a resurgence of the Green Party with a strong candidate , we are all so stuck right now! Remember in school how many times you were all yelled at by teachers to quit daydreaming , when in reality its the healthiest thing we can do. We lack imagination .
We are all seperated from nature , we let large corporations run our lives cause we`re too asleep and brainwashed. But hey, the sun and wind are talking to us , waiting for us to wake up so we can utilize what`s already there. It would only take a couple of states like north and south dakota to set up wind turbines to meet all the electrical needs in the u.s. That`s without even using the potential of solar. We`ve already made a mess on this planet with wars , destruction of our environment from burning fossil fuels, the site of nuclear power plants is an extreme eyesore and potential for huge disaster. I prefer looking at solar panels and watching wind turbines spinning and spinning (and daydreaming at the same time) Our new leaders of the future need to teach people to love our planet and our selves . We seem to have forgotten that this earth is a living entity and if we treat her right , she will treat us right . We are in deep doodoo. Only imagination and realizing our potential for creativity may save the human race.

Those that support renewables from "localist" perspective need to re-evaluate this view.

Wind and solar are only going to be able replace large, full-time electric facilities through the use of a very large, centrally-controlled power distribution network which the ability to shuttle power around from region to region with weather and demand changes.

But, look at the difficulty building new power lines! One can follow the routes of proposed lines across the countryside by the protest signs in the yards.

Wind energy is facing tough localist opposition nearly everywhere it is proposed too. But, ask them about nuclear, and, sitting in their 68F air-conditioned, 4000 sq ft pseudo-rustic clifftop home, a long SUV drive up WV's North Fork Mt, and they will oppose that too!

I give up.

Well, it shouldn't be too hard for any opponents to stop it dead in its tracks. It's only necessary to persuade AIPAC that the mere knowledge derived from increased application of nuclear technology, even within the US, might just possibly lead to its wider dissemination and thus become a threat to Israel's Middle East monopoly on its possession.

If you're impressed by the power of the nuclear industry to change politicians' minds, just wait 'til AIPAC gets to work. The candidates will backtrack and flipflop almost as fast as Pelosi can invent excuses for accomodating the Bush regime's agenda.

PEACE CANDIDATE

look at the photo of edwards. it's so bloody contrived. i don't profess to be knowlegeable about american politics (but ARVY is teaching me) however, it doesn't take a political scientist to see the fake smile on this guy's face............. i certainly wouldn't buy a used car from him.

What's with all the Edwards-bashing here?

Nova Scotian said: "He is now talking a good "anti-corporate" game, but he's swimming in a huge pool of tainted campaign cash." Tainted? Not unless you think trial lawyers who go up against Corporate America on behalf of injured citizens are "tainted" because they take a percentage of the settlements. Edwards is the only major candidate who's taking public funding in this election cycle and NO corporate money. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are all raking in corporate cash. So who's "tainted?"

Peace Candidate claims: "He [Edwards] only opposes nuclear power because it will help him steal Kucinich supporters." Huh? Edwards has been opposed to nuclear plants since the beginning (I know, because this issue is a BIG DEAL to me and I went on his website early on to check it).

Peace C. continues: "Edwards is a panderer and a health care FASCIST! Kucinich is the real deal." Well, I'm for Dennis's Medicare for All, but right now it's Mission Impossible! If you check Edwards' plan carefully, he offers the option to sign up with private insurers OR Medicare. This is the only way we'll get single payer without waiting another 50 years -- in through the back door as one option among many.

Then Huck chimes in: "[Edwards] has caved in to the insurance industry, providing a blank check rather than endorse Kucinich's single payer plan. The single payer plan is good enough for Congress but not good enough for us." Huck, Congress doesn't HAVE a single payer plan. They have a Chinese menu of plans from private insurers to choose from. The big difference is that they don't PAY for most of their premiums; we taxpayers do! And Edwards has added a nifty fillip to his proposal: that if Congress doesn't pass his health care plan in the first session, they will lose their own health insurance (Whoa!). Not exactly subtle -- more like a kick in the head, which is what Congress needs to stop them from sucking up to Harry and Louise again.

It's getting late in the game, and as a way-far-leftie on economic issues -- including trade -- I've concluded that Edwards is my guy, even though on illegal immigration he's not standing up for Americans and legal immigrants (well, one can't have everything). And Peace Candidate, did it ever occur to you that the smile you call "fake" may look that way because of Edwards' anguish about his wife's condition? Have a heart.

peace candidate, your denigration of Edwards is hardly a reason for me to switch my support of him to Kucinich. I admire Kucinich, but I'm not going to vote for him, period. I'm voting in the NH primary for Edwards because he has a fighting chance at winning, and I support his center-left positions as opposed to the center-right Clinton and Obama. And I want to thank the LA Times (and Common Dreams) for distinguishing Edwards as the anti-nuke candidate that he is. There is no such thing as "safe nuclear" and if my tax dollars are going to be spent on energy R&D, I want it spent on making solar and wind cheap and efficient.

If any Iowa caucusers or NH primary voters are reading this, please support Edwards as the electable progressive candidate!

DOOM & GLOOM: I like your points as per decentralization. Another aspect relevant is promoting conservation. Maybe because I am thin in a nation of such grotesque obesity, but whenever I enter a public building, I am amazed by how cold it is. Is there really a need to have AC pumping to make 69 the preferable temperature? So let' em sweat a little! Same with heating. As I mentioned recently, my electric bill was $23 last month. I turn lights out, I only use a small space heater (if needed) in the room I am working in, and appliances are efficient.

I believe we could all scale back a good deal. And as for decentralization, if predictions are correct about fiscal challenges and aberrant weather events, this type of adaptation will be required anyway. Meanwhile, recycle, cut back usage, learn to live simply, and HONOR what is given.

A factor not considered is the number of nuclear plants that will need to be constructed and when they will be online. To replace today's requirements will require hundreds, if not thousands of additional plants, none of which can be available for upwards of 20 years. When they're online, imagine today's waste problems which we cannot solve multiplied by factors of 100. Add to that centralized control away from the power of the people, no competition and you have just another oil monopoly that control bush and cheney now. Fuck them. Renewable resources will not be controlled by abusers of our democracy, because wind, sun, hydrogen and geothermal are available to all. If you don't know of the opportunities that are coming online, find out. Then vote for anyone who is against consolidations of power like implementing nuclear, and who supports development of renewable power.

Here's just a single example worth looking into. I've been looking into an alternate way to air condition my home, since my hoa won't let me have a conventional air conditioner(ponder that). Drilling vertical pipes a couple of hundred feet into the ground (geothermal) will cool, heat and provide hot water for much less cost than conventional sources (higher upfront costs, though). The end result is that you don't pollute, and are not dependent on big oil, or nuclear, or big anything. Consider doing it now!

I can go on and on about this, the new sources of energy coming online. Educate yourselves, and do not give in to the fear mongers that will prevail if they can. They already control almost all presidential candidates. ACT!

I don't particularly like U.S. plurality-take-all elections, even when they're not stolen.

I look at the polls. If two or three candidates are close enough, I vote for the lesser of the two or three evils. If there's no chance of affecting the election I vote for the best guy.

Given the choices of Hill (a moderate Republican complete with corruption), Obama (a Democrat, but pro-nuclear and sometimes looks wistfully at being a Republican) and Edwards (says many right things, should not threaten to sic the IRS on people to pay for a filthy rotten health care system, kind of a war hawk underneath), I'll pull a lever for Edwards. If Edwards bombs, I'll take Kucinich.

Sorry the system is so rotten that I can't vote for your candidate.

ADELETHECZECH

well it wasn't PEACE CANDIDATE who mentioned the 'fake' smile. it was me COCO. so please do tell us what ails mr. edwards' wife. you seem to be in the know.

HUCK

france re-cycles their presidents too

DEATHTOTYRANTS

i'm sure the gulf emirates countries would happily build your nuclear plants within 2 years. they are doing marvellous things with regard to reclaiming the sea out there and building 'worthless' structures.

Are you sick-and-tired of hearing the views of ONLY the "top 3 presidential contenders"?

Kucinich has NOT dropped off the face of the Earth and seems to be the ONLY candidate who for years has NOT been behind the eight ball: Here is the position he has held and continues to hold:

"As the world population soars towards eight billion, critical issues of survival face all of us. Living on a planet of finite resources means that human life can not be sustained indefinitely without careful thought and compassion coupled with political courage.

No candidate understands the precarious environmental perch man sits on more than Dennis Kucinich who has promised:

As President, I will lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments. I will also lead in fighting for clean, affordable and accessible drinking water. I have worked hand-in-hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

Dennis' eloquent, factual challenges to the nuclear industry's attempts to develop a waste site at Yucca Mountain in Utah are well-documented. Here is just a bit of his statement made on April 25, 2002:

"The transportation of this waste would require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainline railroad in the country would experience high-level waste shipments as waste is moved from reactors and other sites in 39 states.

The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 states and many of the major metropolitan areas in the nation, at least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one- half mile of a truck or rail route.

This never-before-attempted radioactive materials transportation effort would bring with it a constellation of hazards and risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. A major concern will be the increased security risk since these shipments represent, in effect, nuclear mobile targets which will travel through some of our most populous and vulnerable metropolitan areas. This committee must understand that high-level nuclear waste will remain deadly for a million years.

If sending nuclear waste down our roads and rails with limited safeguards doesn't bother you, then maybe placing this deadly waste on barges in our rivers, lakes, and oceans will. Due to a lack of rail facilities near several reactors, the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring the 120-ton cask to a train.

Some of these shipments will traverse the Great Lakes; the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin get their drinking water from the Great Lakes, and I venture to guess they will not appreciate the fact that nuclear waste is being shipped across their drinking water. I cannot support any plan that even contemplates shipping highly radioactive waste in the Great Lakes."

Dennis Kucinich has demonstrated that the greatest nuclear threat most Americans face is from the nuclear industry – not terrorists. According to the Nuclear Control Institute more "bomb material [plutonium] enters civilian commerce than exists in all of the world's nuclear weapons." Those who place profits over public safety are a greater danger than any external threats. Of course, the fact that we offer nuclear plants and radioactive shipments as a productive target for those who wish us ill should not be ignored in planning America's energy needs nor the inherent dangers of the plants and waste produced.

The United States under a Kucinich presidency would reverse the unsustainable actions in the following areas:
1) Energy consumption
2) Military spending
3) Economic and tax policy
4) Environmental policy
5) Land and water use

After global warming, water use and availability may be the most important sustainability issue of all. In Dennis' words:

"All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples. There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival. Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets. Water resources shall be protected from pollution. Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life. [I would] recommend a series of declarative sentences which can serve as the basis for a course of action. We shall call these ten principles "Water Marks."

1. All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.
2. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water.
3. There shall be public ownership of drinking water.
4. Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.
5. Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements.
6. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal, or loan forgiveness.
7. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.
8. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.
9. Water resources shall be protected from pollution.
10. Our children shall be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life."..."

Only voting records will reveal the honesty and integrity of the current presidential candidates. Kucinich has NEVER wavered from what he believes!

sun good-nuke bad

NOVASCOTIAN--Thanks for the link. All supporters of Kucinich should take advantage of this opportunity to do something concrete for his candidacy in New Hampshire.

Edwards seems to have the best understanding of global warming, and the most clear policy, but leasdership on this issue means he is going to tell you and me and everyone else we have to cut back, and how much.

I'm pro nuclear, but its really too late for that. We would need a crash program of hundreds of reactors to replace coal and oil, and produce hydrogen to replace gasoline for any chance of having a world that remotely resembles what we have now.

Its too late for nuclear to save the day, and it isn't going anywhere, anyway. Maybe our descendants, if humanity survives, will use nuclear for clean, free unlimited energy as they restore CO2 to preindustrial levels and turn the earth into the garden it should be.

So when we have the mother of all GW years in 2012 or so, complete with 390 ppm CO2, a solar maximum and an El Nino, people are starving, more glaciers are meling, and storms and fires are ravaging the world, will Edwards be the man?

The man who tells us to severely ration all fossil fuels and electricity, halt air travel, close down the steel and aluminum industries, and give us ration coupons for food so that people abroad don't starve. And tells us we have to live this way until CO2 drops to maybe 350 ppm and then only gradually build a new sustainable economy. Will we listen? Will the special inerests run him over?

PJD: Rather than challenging my "locally based economics" viewpoint (which, by the way, I take from the Green TKV, bioregionalism, the early progressive anarchists, and my own observations) -- rather than challenging this -- why didn't you challenge the notion that nuclear power must be an autocratic form of energy?

Why not manage nuclear by local communities? Democratically elected citizens councils and energy co-ops, etc? You seem to tacitly acknowledge that nuclear must remain a national/autocratic/m.i.c. form of energy, and are totally okay with this -- instead taking issue with democratic (and therefore local) due process. Curious.

France was dumping nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean. Greenpeace interfered and French commandos sank the Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbor, killing one crewman. These drums of nuclear waste are corroding and introducing radioisotopes into the ocean food chain, bioconcentrating for thousands of years, producing cancers, leukemias and neoplastic diseases forever.

I would consider voting for Edwards if he agrees to end the WOD and legalize marijuana.

So, I take it someone wants to use nuclear power as a wedge issue to divide the Left. Great idea.

If you take global warming seriously, you have to be open to nuclear power as part of the solution, because for baseload electricity generation (all the time, day and night, wind or no wind) the only viable alternative to coal, right now, is nuclear. India and China and any other growth markets are going to need the nuclear option. The US maybe does not, but if we want to shut down coal plants wholesale we are again going to need nukes.

But for a generation of progressives (my generation and older), opposition to nuclear power became an article of faith. That makes a basically technical issue of safety into a political-religious issue. We should be uniting on basic values, not dividing on issues of identity and commitment to fundamentalist positions which may be out of date.

I have not read all of the posts here, but want to offer a website I was just provided today as it addresses the greater issues of runaway consumerism, especially in the U.S., and the whole cycle that feeds the need for more energy, regardless of its source. Please take 20 minutes and watch/listen to The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard http://www.storyofstuff.com/. It is an education and is worth you time.

peace,
st john

Sorry COCO, you have misjudged him. That's him 100% in that photo. John Edwards cares about everyone and the big business people are scared of him. Edwards is not afraid to admit a mistake, like most politicians are. He isn't perfect, __Who is? Considering all other options, he is the best on the issues and also very importantly, electable. I would like to see him with Kucinich as the team against the Repugs.

I believe either Obama or Hillary would have a hard time against Huckabee, and if the Huckster-to-bee ends up as our president, we may wish Bush was still in office. That's how bad Huckabee is.

A very good post EZEFLYER, the French are insane to do that.

BTW, Google nuclear accidents. Very eye opening, there have been several nuclear subs sunk, don't forget the Russians. And the published informatin that they aren't leaking nuclear waste in the oceans, comes from ___ guess who?

We either begin a massive world wide effort to have clean and safe energy, or we won't have very long to wait for the methane gas to escaspe into the atmosphere. When it does and it will, only the the time when it occurs is argumenative, then these types of discussions will be moot.

That is not my personal opinion, over 2,500, highly qualified scientists have stated that. Some say from five to ten years only before the Arctic methane gas "Burps" into the atmosphere. Google Arctic methane gas and read every article on the first screen. It is most serious.

When do the Dem candidates for President have to disclose who made donations over $100 to their campaign?