Why do democrats hate nuclear power again?

They have a disposal facility for the US, it's 99.99% secure and safe, they wasted a fortune building it and now it's just laying empty, wasting more money being guarded and powered for no reason. Why not use it?
 
“One change in (legal) notions that would have a most salubrious effect on the quality of the environment has been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’” Holdren said in a 1977 book that he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich.

“In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties,” Holdren added.

According to Holdren and the Ehrlichs, the notion of legal standing for inanimate objects would not be as unprecedented as it might sound. “The legal machinery and the basic legal notions needed to control pollution are already in existence,” they wrote.

“Slight changes in the legal notions and diligent application of the legal machinery are all that are necessary to induce a great reduction in pollution in the United States,” Holdren added.

Holdren, who is the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and President Obama’s top science advisor, made the comments in the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”

Stone’s article -- “Should Trees Have Standing?” -- which Holdren called a “tightly reasoned essay,” was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972.

In that article, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment--indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”
 
They have a disposal facility for the US, it's 99.99% secure and safe, they wasted a fortune building it and now it's just laying empty, wasting more money being guarded and powered for no reason. Why not use it?
Yeah, it can be a museum of multiculturalism .
 
They have a disposal facility for the US, it's 99.99% secure and safe, they wasted a fortune building it and now it's just laying empty, wasting more money being guarded and powered for no reason. Why not use it?
Yeah, it can be a museum of multiculturalism .

It's in the middle of nowhere under a mountain ... wouldn't get much traffic near it even if they did have more than the road leading to it nearby.
 
They have a disposal facility for the US, it's 99.99% secure and safe, they wasted a fortune building it and now it's just laying empty, wasting more money being guarded and powered for no reason. Why not use it?

One leak, one aquifer, hundreds of thousands of people. No quick cleanups.

Our fecal matter is more dangerous than nuclear waste, be serious, fearmongering like this is the reason we are still behind in all technology.
 
They have a disposal facility for the US, it's 99.99% secure and safe, they wasted a fortune building it and now it's just laying empty, wasting more money being guarded and powered for no reason. Why not use it?
Yeah, it can be a museum of multiculturalism .

It's in the middle of nowhere under a mountain ... wouldn't get much traffic near it even if they did have more than the road leading to it nearby.
Perfect for a bailout.
 
Democrats don't hate nuclear power. Considering that less than 6% of scientists are Republican, it's odd Republicans would push a "science" option. Don't they have "supernatural powers"?

It's many times more likely that a nuclear power plant would be designed by Democrats. Isn't that ironic?
 
Democrats don't hate nuclear power. Considering that less than 6% of scientists are Republican, it's odd Republicans would push a "science" option. Don't they have "supernatural powers"?

It's many times more likely that a nuclear power plant would be designed by Democrats. Isn't that ironic?

They would be designed by engineers not scientist they would be built by welders and concrete workers
 
I see they took $2,000,000,000 out of the nuclear energy pool to fund the cash for clunkers extention...my question is why the nuclear power hate? It would get us off coal and stuff. Nuclear waste? Shoot it at the sun once or twice a year. Problem solved.

I'm for that, if you will volunteer to be the pilot...
 
Like any good Marxist, the Dems are doing the heavy lifting of destroying the US economy rendering a Russian nuclear strike irrelevant
 
Democrats don't hate nuclear power. Considering that less than 6% of scientists are Republican, it's odd Republicans would push a "science" option. Don't they have "supernatural powers"?

It's many times more likely that a nuclear power plant would be designed by Democrats. Isn't that ironic?

Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip, Broken record, skip......... Ad nauseum.
 
We need more nuclear power.

Let the building begin now.

As was posted by another poster, we already have nuclear power plants built and being maintained that have never gone on-line, so we would not have to build another to increase our nuclear power output, just activate those setting idle.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top