Conspiracy Against Nuclear Power In USA

reply to post by Bluess

You provide an excellent and thoughtful post, Bluess. I don’t know if I can convince you of my position, but I am going to give this a try. Actually, the position you state is almost identical to the position I held just a few weeks ago, before I started this extended rant. So I am hopeful that we can achieve common understanding.

#

Let me first address the discussion about Chernobyl, which you cite in your post. (I started this thread discussing Chernobyl in my original post, and still find myself with much to say about it!)

I will agree completely that Chernobyl was a horrible accident. I blame the ex Soviet Union for this profoundly stupid, horrific, and unnecessary catastrophe. But as I investigated Chernobyl, I became quite puzzled by what I was learning. Specifically, I began understanding that Chernobyl was not as horrific, by a long shot, as what people were saying about it. Although this is no consolation for those who were actually hurt (and there were many) it is WRONG to say that Chernobyl was some sort of apocalyptic event in human history, even to rank it next to major earthquakes and fires.

The story of Chernobyl is verifiably over exaggerated. I contend it has been done to manipulate us, induce fear, and block progress that is both needed and critical to our success as humans.

In my previous post (and also in the post by PhloydPan) there are various articles cited which provide evidence that the health problems related to Chernobyl, unknown at the time of the accident, appear to be less severe than anticipated. See this article for a starting point. For example, it was originally assumed that 5000 people (some estimated as many as 100 thousand people) would die as a result of Chernobyl. It appears now that only 200 deaths or so can be directly attributed to Chernobyl, a number that the larger estimate makes trivial (much to the detriment of the poor families actually affected.)

www.world-nuclear.org...

Some exaggerated figures have been published regarding the death toll attributable to the Chernobyl disaster. A publication by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) entitled Chernobyl - a continuing catastrophe lent support to these. However, the Chairman of UNSCEAR made it clear that "this report is full of unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments," and the 2005 report also repudiates them.

So I want to get to the main point you are putting forth. Can a nuclear meltdown truly destroy an entire region of the planet, create decade or centuries long pain and misery for thousands or millions of people? Are we putting at risk the earth, air and waters of our planet? Is this really inevitable, if we continue on this path?

I’ve presented a fair amount of evidence that the answer is NO. This is disinformation. It is a malicious distortion.

I would like you draw an analogy between nuclear power, and common fire. Most of the arguments you can make about nuclear power also apply to fire. An out of control fire blaze can destroy huge regions of this planet. People can be hurt and badly disfigured by burns. Death by fire happens all the time. And theoretically, a single fire can burn down an entire city. (It has happened before!) Fire poisons the air and water. It creates toxic smoke, and changes minerals into poisons.

I am telling you something true here. Fire is deadly. It must be respected. And if you want to be disturbed for a long period of time, visit the burn ward at a children’s hospital. IMO, there is nothing more horrifically disfiguring than someone who has been badly burned; I honestly think there is nothing sadder or tragic, including death.

To consider that we abandon fire is ridiculous, of course. It has been with us before recorded history. We have learned to be careful about fire. I would submit that we can exercise the same care with nuclear power. Actually, I would suggest that nuclear power is even safer than fire – it is not going to be turned over to common people like matches and BIC lighters. People are not going to have nuclear power in their houses.

Nuclear disaster is not inevitable. We should not let over exaggerated fears paralyze us in pursuing its safe use, because the benefits we can receive from nuclear power are a powerful remedy for our troubled energy concerns. We are being manipulated by false information away from a better reality.

I don’t know if I changed your mind at all, Bluess, but I wanted to give you a careful and considered response. I appreciate your post and any further comments.

reply to post by PhloydPhan

Thank's for the update Phloyd. As before, you provide excellent information and insight. You make several points that I will reinforce and address below.

(1) Brainwashing. Let me make clear that it is ME, and not you, making the argument that the public is being brainwashed by exterior forces, manipulated for a particular reason. If I understand your contention, from your previous post, you are basically saying some people are easily self-deluded. I will go further and say others are actually deluding people, for self-serving ends. That is my central argument and question post in my opening post. I did not mean to imply that was your position. I have yet to fully establish that premise, except by inference. (I am still working on it.)

(2) Toxicity of Plutonium. As you say, there are various isotopes that are more toxic than others. You make a good point that weaponized plutonium is highly toxic. However, the public has been deceived into thinking that all plutonium is deadly. A similar thing has occurred with anthrax, a common and potentially deadly (but usually benign) bacteria, which can be weaponized to make something really dangerous to humans. I think the parallel between plutonium and anthrax is valid. The are both things worthy of attention and concern, but not worth panic and nightmares, at least in their unweaponized and common forms.

(3) Bad mouthing western media. Here you and I are going to have a major departure of opinion, because I think there is no excuse for how the media over-exaggerates and frightens people with sensational and slanted stories. Too often the media is a malevolent force that distorts our entire lives, leaves us perpetually ignorant and confused, just to sell advertising space. I will concede that the ex-Soviet Union was a closed box. But there was widespread panic over Chernobyl in the late 1980s. It was caused by irresponsible journalism. The media stories planted seeds of misinformation that persists today. I think people are gullible by nature. We place our trust in news organizations to help gauge and determine the truth. That trust is sorely and irresponsibly abused over and over again.

(4) Increased Cancer in Sweden. Great article! Although there doesn’t appear to be complete agreement that measurable levels of cancer have occurred, due to Chernobyl, I think this is probably authentic. In all my arguments, I don’t want to understate (by constantly speaking of “over-exaggeration”) that Chernobyl was a non-trivial event. Chernobyl was responsible for a lot of damage. But, I just don’t want to go the other way, and make it seem apocalyptic. I will research this article in more detail later. Thanks for this valuable information.

Your posts and participation in this thread have been extremely helpful to me. As you can see, I have become quite fanatical about this during the last 48 hours, and you have offered a sound and steadying perspective on this issue. I truly appreciate it, Phloyd!

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by mikellmikell

Thanks for the post Mikell. You commented on how you can’t convince people that nuclear power is safe. You make some good points at demonstrating how irrational this is, via personal experience and observation, which is always the best testimony.

Until a few weeks ago, I was convinced nuclear power was about as dangerous as anything could be. I remember once standing outside Three Mile Island, when I was living in Pennsylvania, and shuddering. I wanted to leave the area! There were two large cooling towers. One tower was operational. The other tower would not see daylight for ten thousand years. In that second tower, in the permanent darkness, was the nearest thing to hell on earth – something so perilous and deadly that it had to be permanently sealed off from the living world, for no less than one-hundred generations of humanity.

www.nrc.gov...

I actually feel foolish, thinking about that now. It was pure imagination and melodrama. Not one person was actually hurt at Three Mile Island! And now my contention is – how did humanity get to this state, where we are paralyzed by extraordinary and irrational fear? Is this natural? How and why was this dread induced?

reply to post by Zaphod58

Thanks for the update Zaphod. I was looking for other ATS threads on this subject, which you had previously mentioned. I couldn't find them, so your reposting of these articles on natural radioactivity and coal is great.

This information is extremely helpful in establishing perspective. Radiation -- sounds so scary to so many people. Good stuff! Denial of ignorance.

BTW, check back in the thread for my earlier (and more lengthy) response to you, regarding your first post to this thread.

Get your hands on the HBO documentary about Chernobyl. You will see that they are still covering things up in good old Soviet fashion. It is still a ticking time bomb should the roof collapse on pile of plutonium still there. They still operate the nuke plants there because they have no money for anything else and the people were forced to work under the Soviets. If there was a bad thunder storm at Chernobyl they could have a radiation release on a huge magnitude.

Chernobyl is being dealt with in a manner that will render it safe. And it's not at the point where a "thunderstorm will cause it to collapse" yet. More fear mongering at its best. Yes the structure is crumbling due to the radiation, but it's not even close to the point where it's going to collapse if there is a storm. They awarded a contract to build a metal shelter over the entire facility last year. It will take five years to build and then they can dismantle the reactors. The facility was closed down as well.

The authorities in Ukraine have approved a giant steel cover for the radioactive site of the world's worst nuclear disaster - Chernobyl.

Ukraine has hired a French firm to build the structure to replace the crumbling concrete casing put over the reactor after the 1986 accident.

The casing project is expected to cost $1.4bn (£700m).

It will take five years to complete and the authorities say they will then be able to start dismantling the reactor.

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by kattraxx

I've been working my way through this thread (in my crazy and fanatical way) with a definite goal of reaching your post, Kattraxx. I think your post is a great contribution to the discussion, and I've been giving your statements a lot of thought. It is an excellent set of new links, and new ideas.

#

Mismanagement of the nuclear power industry: this is a major part of the story I haven’t really considered. Can we really trust government to do the right thing? I can cite France (as I have before) and look at the success stories of Nuclear Power, and then assert that we have nothing to fear based upon all the positives. Is this accurate? Perhaps all the fears associated with nuclear power are simply ways of reducing the power of government, and the consequences of corruption. Of course, if you fear government (and you have reason to, for sure) then certainly you have to minimize the potential for government screw-ups. For example, I can argue all day that handguns are safe. But I assume I am talking about guns in the hands of safety conscious people.

Perhaps we can’t go forward with nuclear power because government is not trustworthy to regulate and monitor power industries. But if that is the case, rather than arguing about intrinsic deadliness of nuclear power, we should be arguing good government. So I still contend that there is a conspiracy of misinformation regarding nuclear power. Perhaps that is occurring to subvert the larger argument that government is hopelessly corrupt and unaccountable.

#

You make the point about alternate energies, such as wind and solar and geothermal, as possible ways to solve our energy crises without using nuclear power. This is really an important suggestion to me, because if your assertion is really true, this thread is over and I will pack up. If this is true, you have rendered the discussion about nuclear power moot, and I will be happy to move on to other topics.

However, I suggest that this idea of using solar, wind, and geothermal power as a way of achieving energy independence is NOT economically possible now or in the foreseeable future. Please don’t get me wrong! It would be ridiculous not to pursue these exciting research avenues. I am not suggesting we ever shut down Hoover dam, and replace it with nuclear power stations! In fact, given time, these technologies (or others) will replace nuclear power, which I am not suggesting is a permanent solution for humanity. At heart, I am a believer in the green movement.

But consider the following. It is one of the articles that was instrumental in me formulating my opinions on the practicality of alternative energy sources:

www.tysknews.com...

The Golden State has over 100 windmill facilities generating 1,400 mw, 3 percent of the state's capacity. It has 43 geothermal sites generating 2,500 mw. It has the world's largest complement of solar-electric cells, generating 413 mw. It gets 30 percent of its power from hydroelectric dams (more than half of them out of state). It has 56 more renewable-energy projects generating 1,100 mw on the drawing boards—including plans to burn methane for electrical power at nearly every landfill in the state. (Each new windmill and landfill adds about 2.5 mw.) Altogether, California gets 12 percent of its electricity from small-scale renewables—more then ten times the average for the rest of the country.

Yet California has the nation's only energy crisis. The state must import 20 percent of its electricity, most of it from hydroelectric dams in Oregon and Washington and coal and nuclear plants in Arizona and Nevada.

The above is one of various articles I came across, but it is one of my favorites, and you may be interested because it discusses California. I think it is trustworthy and balanced, because it is actually an article about the famous environmentalist Amory Lovins. Yet the article illustrates a hard reality, which is that alternative energy does not provide the punch we need.

This country requires a lot of electricity to keep going. I find it to be a mind-blowing amount! Specifically 3,163,737 thousand-megawatt hours, in 2007!

www.eia.doe.gov...

In order to achieve that type of power, we have to burn an entire forest of coal, build special train tracks to carry it to our furnaces and carry out the resulting slag.

The only thing I see that can match the ability of coal to provide our massive electricity requirements, at this moment, is nuclear power. And when we introduce the concept of nuclear power to this problem, we actually find a very economical and scalable solution that will allow EVEN MORE power to be generated than we are creating now. Such power looks sufficient to run electric cars, for example. If we want to have electric cars, this may be our only alternative, if we are not too paralyzed by fear to go forward.

#

You make a couple of other statements in your post, Kattraxx. I will spare you yet another boring repetition of my position regarding Chernobyl being misrepresented. Also, and I will refer you back in the thread to my earlier responses regarding nuclear waste disposal.

Regardless, good discussion points, Kattraxx. The link to the Chernobyl pictures you provided is fantastic. Great links, and forceful argument. Thanks!

reply to post by Sky watcher

Good post Sky Watcher. I will try to dig this HBO show up somewhere.

I am sure there are still plenty of problems at Chernobyl and we haven't seen the last of this. The old Soviet Union is a wreck, and probably will be for a long time. Let’s hope it does rain too hard in northeastern Ukraine. It is disheartening, but I am optimistic.

Also, see the “A Chernobyl Diary”, for some great pictures that tell an amazing story.

www.iaea.or.at...

In particular, there is a reference in the above website that the sarcophacus could collapse in a heavy snow fall. I personally have my doubts about a lot of the diary. The reality of the pictures doesn't seem to match up with the sensationalism of the text, IMO. Still, and interesting read.

mnaybe they dont want nuclear reactors powers because remember that movie where the guys are on the sub with the nuclear bomb and stuff and the smacks his head off a desk i think it was shawn connry in red oktocber

reply to post by Sad Face Stan

An interesting theory Sad Face. I will have to give that some consideration.

Hmmm. Hmmm.

No. I don't think that is it. But anything is possible.

Edit: Thanks for the thought!


[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Conclusion: The Conspirators Revealed

Throughout this long set of posts today, I have alluded to “conspirators”. I am not sure who these people are, or what their purpose is or has been. It is a question I have asked over and over again during my many posts above.

Now, I will try to answer that question myself.

This is speculation, but I think it explains a lot. For those of you still questioning whether an actually conspiracy even exists: you will reject this speculation, of course. But I want you to consider, what is rationality? How do you know truth? What forces limit and manipulate us? More pragmatically: why is the price of gasoline so high? Please see the following link. All further information here comes from that location:

F. William Engdahl: Taking the Bloom Off the Nuclear Rose

First, the natural target of suspicion for the source of conspiracy would be the green movement and its leaders. Many people will wrongly jump to this conclusion. It is obvious that the green movement has been an instrument of the conspiracy. They have promoted irrational fear of nuclear power, exaggerated the dangers. A few of them may have promoted their lies knowingly, but with altruistic (albeit misguided) intentions of stopping nuclear weapons proliferation. They did this deceitfully, but their intentions were probably good.

I don’t think you can actually say that the green movement is responsible for pulling the plug on nuclear electric power. Rather, I suggest that the actual conspirators were those that the green movement actually opposed! Specifically, and with great irony, I refer to the oil and energy companies, including those specific individuals usually identified as the proponents of the New World Order.

#

The oil and energy companies, in 1970’s began to increase the price of oil by 400%. This was the historic oil shock of the 70’s. It was the start of a dramatically shift of energy control from the USA to more international power centers.

Beginning in the 1970s, an awesome propaganda offensive was launched in select Anglo-American think-tanks and journals, intended to shape a new "limits to growth" agenda, which would ensure the "success" of the dramatic oil shock strategy. The American oilman present at the May 1973 Saltsjoebaden meeting of the Bilderberg group, Robert O. Anderson, was a central figure in the implementation of the ensuing Anglo-American ecology agenda. It was to become one of the most successful frauds in history.

The energy companies knew that such a dramatic hike in oil prices would drive people to look at other energy alternatives, including electric cars. They looked for practical ways to preclude that from happening. The way to combat this would be to eliminate the ability to create enough electrical power generation to make electric cars competitive. So they poisoned the idea of nuclear power in the minds of people. It was not the liberal green movement, but the conservative think-tankers who put the breaks on nuclear electric power. And they did this strictly for profit and control.

The Stockholm 1972 conference created the necessary international organizational and publicity infrastructure, so that by the time of the Kissinger oil shock of 1973-74, a massive anti-nuclear propaganda offensive could be launched, with the added assistance of millions of dollars readily available from oil-linked channels of the Atlantic Richfield Company, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and other such elite Anglo-American establishment circles. Among the groups, which were funded by these people at this time were organizations including the ultra-elitist World Wildlife Fund, then chaired by the Bilderberg's Prince Bernard, and later by Royal Dutch Shell's John Loudon.

The specific names of two lead conspirators: McGeorge Bundy and David Freeman. Together, they wrote a Ford Foundation study, titled, “A Time To Choose: America’s Energy Future”. This document would have far ranging impact. It was the start of a course change, away from nuclear electric power generation, which has lasted 30 years.

For the first time in American establishment circles, the fraudulent thesis was proclaimed that, "Energy growth and economic growth can be uncoupled; they are not Siamese twins." Freeman's study advocated bizarre and demonstrably inefficient "alternative" energy sources such as windpower, solar reflectors and burning recycled waste. The Ford Foundation report made a scurrilous attack on nuclear energy, arguing that the technologies involved could theoretically be used to make nuclear bombs. "The fuel itself or one of the byproducts, plutonium, can be used directly or processed into the material for nuclear bombs or explosive devices," they asserted.

That last point is important, and it is something I haven’t addressed anywhere. Can you make nuclear bombs from nuclear power plant fuel? The fact is, nobody really knows, because this is naturally classified to the maximum. Many people have speculated on this, but I won’t trust anyone who says they can affirm or deny this fact. My speculation: you could make a dirty bomb from this fuel, but to make a fissionable or two-stage bomb would be very unlikely.

Please note the time frame. The anti-nuclear power movement was born during the early 70’s, right after the end of the Vietnam war. The start time for this movement coincides with the above information. During the next decade, there was plenty of justification for that movement, first with Three Mile Island, and next with Chernobyl. I submit that neither of these two incidents was as apocalyptic as commonly represented to be. These events received much more attention than warranted, because it served the interests of the green movement, which was empowered by the oil and energy executives during the 70’s. All this – so that the price of energy could be dramatically increased by narrowing the supply.

#

It has been an interesting Sunday, researching this information, and composing posts to all the good ATS responders. As promised, I’ve replied to everyone who posted on this thread. (I can't promise I will maintain that responsiveness!) I will now let this thread sit a while, and finish off with some closing thoughts in a few days.

Thanks for reading!

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Here's some food for thought for you buck.

Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace had done a complete reversal on his position on Nuclear Energy. Here's a couple of his comments from the article.

Going back to the early days in Greenpeace in the 1970s and 1980s, we were totally focused on nuclear war and nuclear testing in the Cold War. We failed to distinguish between the beneficial uses of the technology and the evil uses of the technology.

It became clear to me that there was a logical disconnect. The people who were most concerned about climate change were most opposed to nuclear power. Greenpeace is against fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power. Those three technologies produce over 99 percent of world energy. What kind of a path to a sustainable future is that?

WN: Nuclear energy contributes about 20 percent of total electricity produced in the United States. How high would you like to see that contribution go?

Moore: We'd like to see 50 percent by the end of the century, maybe even more. But for now, the objective should be doubling the number of nuclear plants in operation.

There is some talk of Dr. Moore being a paid shill for the industry but it is an interesting part of the debate on Nuclear power. He spoke at a University in my city last week. Unfortunately, work kept me from attending. I did listen to him on the local talk radio and he had some interesting things to say.

Great thread. Lots of good information.

Radiation has alot to do with the decaying of your cells in your body when you die.

I'd guess that dehydration, germs and insects have more to do with it, myself... in fact, www.deathonline.net... seems to agree.

As to the OP, I'd agree that there is a lot of disinformation regarding nuclear power generation, but I'd like you to consider that this disinformation would be coming from the opposite side of the fence (literally!) from the power companies.

Epilogue: My Final Comments

I want to write a final conclusion, and explain why I consider this to be a critically important topic.

Earlier, I wrote an ATS thread on The Most Psychopatic Weapons System Ever Invented, which elaborated on the dangers of nuclear power. It was a somewhat dark thread. In that thread, I outline the horrific destructive powers of nuclear weapons and discuss other devices of war.

In that thread, I speculated what it must be like for the weapon designers, how they must have had a psychotic element to conceive of such horrible weapons. I speculated: What kind of psychopaths must these engineers and scientists have been?

But, as I investigated further, I began to understand something. Nuclear power, contrary to what is hammered into the public (hammered into me) is not bad at all. There are actually great and misunderstood blessing in nuclear power. And suddenly I had insight: the weapon designers hadn’t been focused on the killing aspect of nuclear power, but just the POWER itself, and certainly this power could free humanity instead of destroying it.

I pictured a scientist, watching the first detonation of the MK-41 three stage nuclear bomb, with a 20 Megaton blast radius. What was he thinking? I would guess that part of him must have felt awe at human potential. I will bet anything: he felt that this power could be used for the good of mankind, and not relegated to its destruction. That scientist probably watched the detonation of his horrific design with altruism, and hope for mankind.

This good and altruistic aspect of nuclear power has been STOLEN FROM US. The reason? For the personal profit of the energy corporations, as I outlined above.

We have been denied access to a vast power that could transform our society in ways we have often dreamed of, but not been capable of achieving. We have been denied virtually free transportation. The power to turn deserts into gardens. The power to create new tools to liberate us. To create undersea cities. To make new materials and processes that advance civilization and ease human suffering.

It has all been denied us, in order to enrich a selected few.

I suggest, as a final argument to anyone who says that nuclear power is too dangerous; to anyone who says that all it takes is one slip to precipitate disaster; to anyone who says we should leave these dangerous nuclear forces alone…

I ask: what about the 50,000 nuclear weapons currently on this planet? Why are we denied the benefits of nuclear power, but still are forced to coexist and embrace the dark side of this power?

It is because of our irrational induced fear. We are afraid to step forward, and we therefore face the possibility of dying in our place, never to be liberated.

We have the power to reject that proposition. Please think about that.

A Postscript To My Epilogue:

I was just reviewing this thread: Environmentalists In Bed With Oil Companies and it has some interesting pertinence to this thread. It has provoked me to add this update:

#

I met a young woman the other night at a party. She was from the Ukraine. Over a pleasant dinner, this topic came up (naturally, given the conviction I feel for the topic.) I launched into my discussion about how Chernobyl was a big lie. How it was an outrageous exaggeration.

I should have been more cautious. Within 30 seconds, I realized that I had committed a social mistake of the highest order. It ostensibly ruined the dinner party.

This woman turned to me, blanched. Her eyes narrowed, and in a cute Ukrainian accent she began ripping me apart. Chernobyl was a horrible disaster! The Russians had ruined the Ukraine forever. How dare I speak about it otherwise?

And as I started to defend myself, this woman began to actually cry! She personally knew someone – a friend! Her child had been born with a severe birth defect, directly attributable to Chernobyl! I was unfeeling and insensitive! It was me that was the liar!

I was at a loss for words. I apologized and tried to change the subject. But it was too late. The conversation had seriously marred the dinner party, along with any hope that this woman might accept me as her friend.

#

So where is the truth?

All I can say is that truth actually exists. We have to guess at what it may be. The truth doesn’t care what we believe – it resides outside of personal opinion. And we take the facts that we have at hand – the statistics – the logic – the various pieces of the puzzle. We try to synthesize some answer that conforms to reality, and use that answer to govern our future actions.

I would say, as callous as this may appear to you, and to the young woman from Ukraine, that EVERY BIRTH DEFECT THAT WILL EVER OCCUR AGAIN in that region of the world will be blamed on the Chernobyl disaster, whether it is true or not. That is the way people think.

I couldn’t possibly say that to this young Ukrainian woman, or comment further after what she said. But human history has been changed over and over again by misconceptions – ideas about disease, and technology, and superstitions that are not based on reality, and that actually DISAGREE with and refute reality.

It is our major limitation as mortal humans that we can only make guesses in an attempt to avoid pain and death. In doing so – over and over again it has been proven – we insure more pain and death to ourselves and others. I have to stand by my original opinions, expressed here.

Fears about nuclear power, which have caught on like a psychotic wildfire, were perpetrated by those positioned to profit from its wholesale rejection by society. I am sure that is true. The damage that this lie has wrought on our society, our economy, our future, may never be fixable.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by Buck DivisionI'm just getting started in this topic but need to make sure we have all the ducks lined up as ducks and not monkeys,

It was not the liberal green movement, but the conservative think-tankers who put the breaks on nuclear electric power. And they did this strictly for profit and control.

from www.hno.harvard.edu...

McGeorge was appointed - without having ever taken any course in political science - a lecturer in the Department of Government; he taught U.S. foreign policy. In 1951, he received tenure, and published a defense of Dean Acheson's foreign policy, The Pattern of Responsibility. Bundy was a liberal Republican, shocked by conservative attacks on Acheson. He was made chairman of the Government Department in 1953.

Note McGeorge Bundy was not only a Liberal he served in the JFK Administration as the NSA Advisor, so lets not cast aspersions which are easily refuted. ie Liberals no matter what party affiliation have equally been involved with conspiracies




[edit on 4-3-2008 by Eagle1229]

reply to post by Eagle1229

First, replying to Eagle (who I am afraid is long gone, but to whom I owe a response) I agree that this is not a conservative vs liberal issue. It is simply a matter of fact vs fiction. It is not a matter of intelligence or how well informed you are -- or even how trusting you are. People operate within the sphere of their senses. People can use this human limitation to lead or mislead others. In the case of nuclear power, as a viable energy source, I believe we have been mislead.

#

Second, there is a great contemporary thread on geothermal power here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So much of what I've said in this thread directly applies to geothermal power. Why has it been foresaken? To answer that, I think you need to look at who stands to profit from not having cheap energy. (This point is so obvious!) EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE with everything I've said here about nuclear power -- why don't we have widespread geothermal power? It is the least offensive form of power imaginable. But it is unimplemented at any important economy of scale.

I wanted to send this thread back into the "Recent Posts" list. If anyone is interested in discussing or debating, I will respond to all posts!

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]