Let me answer my own questions, above.

#1.) I think most Obama followers believe him to be AGAINST nuclear power. I’ve heard this from various places, including conservative talk radio shows. Obama frequently sidesteps this issue, and never provides a clear affirmation or denial. He says he is “open” to the idea, but never “for” the idea. He prefers discussing "energy alternatives."

#2.) I think that a lot of Obama’s supporters would, in fact, be chagrined to the point of leaving if they were to learn he was advocating nuclear power, or working to reduce nuclear power standards. This is a VERY visceral issue to a lot of people. Obama typifies the liberal agenda, including anti-nuclear beliefs – so it appears. But that is false, at least with regard to nuclear power.

#3.) The press has suppressed this information because they know it will damage Obama. An image has been constructed that blocks public knowledge of his opinions. The CNN report, alluded to above, also dodged this issue, neither confirming or denying Ed Rendell’s comments. Wolf Blitzer passed, without any substantive comment. The purpose for this? I won't speculate. Might be some bizarre reason, or something mundane. But it is definitely happening.

#

None of this addresses whether the policy of nuclear power is actually good, and what Obama’s motives may be (either because of an altruistic personal belief, or something simpler, such as influence bought by the power companies in Illinois.) In some ways, that isn't material to the discussion of why this lie is being perpetrated.

#

Now, as I'm listening to CNN, Wolf Blitzer just mentioned "skyrocketing oil prices", yet again.

Our future, and nuclear energy's role, is a significant controversy. These particular beliefs of the candidates will have a big impact on our economy and society, depending upon who is elected president. As usual, we are getting an image of the truth, but not the truth itself.

I think the government, the presidential candidates, and the media don't trust us to make up our own minds. (Obviously, no need to underscore that any further!)

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Buck Division]

One more final comment before I move on.

We don’t know anything about any of the candidates, or the government itself. These candidates might as well be virtual images, like something out of “World of Warcraft”, projected on to our TV screens, with just the most vague connection back to the real world.

Our leaders, the candidates, and the news media regard truth and information like some sort of forward transfer function of an elaborate and unstable control system. And the purpose of that control system? To generate money and power for themselves! We listen to their misinformation. We buy the products they advertise, and punch the "correct" hole in a ballot.

The only reason that these conspirators of deceit will even acknowledge truth is that "reality" is some sort of “damper” of this control system. They have to take truth into consideration, as inconvenient as that may be, if they want to achieve their personal objectives as quickly as possible.

What a drag!

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Ya know, I wholeheartedly agree. WHAT A [{censorship police} mother loving{censorship police}] DRAG INDEED!

Waking up and realizing that there's monsters all around you, and realizing that everyone sleeping around you refuses to wake up when you scream for them. I've known some people to get quite agressive when attempting to rouse them from their slumber.

Osama... oh fudge, I mean Obama... is best buddies with the energy corporations in Illinois, and I know from what my mother's friend is going through that the people are the last thing on the energy corporations minds. This guy my mother knows got really severe cancer from working at I believe it was Nicor or ComEd, and there is a big conspiracy because energy companies are cutting all sorts of costs on safety issues, and they (as with this guy) don't take kindly to their employees asking for compensation for getting cancer from the chemicals and the overall hazardous atmosphere that they don't inform their employees about. Not only is THAT an issue, but the guy claims that these energy companies are releasing very deadly chemicals into the air we breathe, the water supply, the food supply, and the soil....

So obviously, if Obama is in the Illinois energy corporations' pockets, look forward to four to eight more years of being poisoned by deadly carcinogens and God knows what else, along with the continual supression and deflection of any and all evironmentally friendly alternative fuel sources.

I'm afraid politics aren't the answer anymore. They are the problem.

The problem with politics is this: IT"S FAKE!

Originally posted by indierockalien
Obama... is best buddies with the energy corporations in Illinois, and I know from what my mother's friend is going through that the people are the last thing on the energy corporations minds.

Great info Indie, especially given that you live in Illinois. So we have a motive for Obama's behavior perhaps -- campaign contributions from the Illinois energy companies. It figures.

Well said. Thanks for the post!

No problem. Wow I was wondering when I'd get a chance to use my "insider" knowledge about the evil energy corporations in Illinois. Yippe! Take that, THE MAN!!!

Okay, just forget about all that stuff I wrote previously.

One question: Did you know that Obama was pro-nuclear power?

(It's kind of a survey. Thanks!)

One question: Did you know that Obama was pro-nuclear power?

Yes. That is the only reason I would prefer Obama being the next president. Go nuclear power!

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

One question: Did you know that Obama was pro-nuclear power?

Yes. That is the only reason I would prefer Obama being the next president. Go nuclear power!

Thanks Dinstaar. Finally, someone answered my question! I guess we have total concensus now. Everyone knows that Obama is pro-nuclear, and that is good stuff. I guess I made a big deal out of nothing, and that's not unusual.

I ABSOLUTELY DO appreciate the comment. At least I have one data point....

(Edit: Fix those darned quotes!)

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Wait, you actually think going nuclear is a good idea? I think it's a very very bad idea. Where is the nuclear waste going to go? What are we supposed to do once the power plants get old and we have Chernobyls happening everywhere? Nuclear power is too unstable, and ya know I'd rather have a bit of smog from other types of power plants then to have all this nuclear waste and radiation leakages and stuff.

Obama is not to be trusted. Vote for him, and you vote for more power to be given to heartless energy corporations and the military industrial complex. Well, vote for any of them, and that's what you get, but if you dig around, there are major reasons why Barack Obama will turn out to be a dud, just like every other person our disinformed misinformed society here has voted into office.

Lemme tell you something. Barack Obama is for anything that puts money in his and his backers' pockets. Most of those things that makes them money are bad.

Originally posted by indierockalien
Wait, you actually think going nuclear is a good idea? I think it's a very very bad idea. Where is the nuclear waste going to go? What are we supposed to do once the power plants get old and we have Chernobyls happening everywhere? Nuclear power is too unstable, and ya know I'd rather have a bit of smog from other types of power plants then to have all this nuclear waste and radiation leakages and stuff.


Obama is not to be trusted. Vote for him, and you vote for more power to be given to heartless energy corporations and the military industrial complex. Well, vote for any of them, and that's what you get, but if you dig around, there are major reasons why Barack Obama will turn out to be a dud, just like every other person our disinformed misinformed society here has voted into office.

Lemme tell you something. Barack Obama is for anything that puts money in his and his backers' pockets. Most of those things that makes them money are bad.

__
I think Nuclear is a good thing, the waste will be disposed of in a manner that isn't airborne such as coal and oil burning plants. Nuclear power was unstable years ago but not with current tech: Look how long it's been in use in the UK. Optimally I would prefer solar and/or wind power-I don't see that happening anytime soon though. Chernobyl happened because the Soviets neglected the facility. Anything which is neglected can turn dangerous if not deadly. In the meantime the air pollution (and water pollution) caused by normal power methods is undoubtedly contributing to cancer and diseases around the world, this is ignoring the whole global warning thing.

The whole attack on Obama for being... a politician, I mean: wow.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s I was an ardent anti nuclear activist. Well that was then.

Nuclear technology has moved on and is a darn sight safer. It's also less harmful to the environment than global warming from coal fired power stations.

I also think Obama is great. he understands the outside world in a way that Dinasours like McCain and Clinton never could.

I also think that this thread and others trying to kick Obama in the shins with tittle tattle are a reflection on the negativity and gutter politics of Clinton and her followers.

Keep it up. It only serves to define the Clinton camp more clearly.

I am for nuclear power, and I like to protect the environment.

Having clean air and water is a wonderful thing.


If you build a nuclear plant safe, maintain it properly, and store the waste in a correct manner ... there is little wrong with it. It is a whole lot cleaner and much more long lasting than a fossil fuel burning plant can and will ever be.


You know what would be a really novel idea? Making use of the nuclear waste as an energy source. Radiation is energy. If some powerful brains really concentrated on it, they would surely find a way to transfer that energy.

The closer we can get to 100% efficiency in our use of anything, the better.

Look at how landfills are now being used as an energy source, when at one time all of that was useless junk. Methane is being harvested, they can be combed through for recyclables and soil. Even some really dedicated green people recycle refuse to make their own fertilizers with compost piles. Anyone who has a fish tank should know that when changing water, use the waste water to feed your plants, like a garden, and they will love it (both the fish having clean water and the plants having lots of nutrients).


I think there is a misconception that young people are against nuclear power. We are against nuclear weapons, like the 10,000+ warheads we have. So if you mean nuclear power as in white power or nazi power or imperialist power ... yes, most are completely against it. Nuclear energy when done properly is the low cost energy source we need.

Coals, oils, and gasses will not last forever, so these power plants will eventually be useless. Nuclear is a good supplement to add to national renewable energy sources like solar, wind, water, wave, and other natural type power plant sources.

Accidental double post

[edit on 10-3-2008 by sy.gunson]

You know what would be a really novel idea? Making use of the nuclear waste as an energy source. Radiation is energy. If some powerful brains really concentrated on it, they would surely find a way to transfer that energy.

It already exists Freethinkeridealist.

Use Google to go and look up Accelerator Driven Reactors (ADS) invented by Carlos Rubbia.

You can feed nuclear waste into them like a blast furnace and fire a proton beam into the core from an accelerator. It burns the waste down to non radioactive elements and renders nuclear waste harmless including radioactive Plutonium, Ceasium, Strontium, etc.

In normal use you would burn Thorium which is much more plentiful than Uranium.

Also you can't use the waste from a Thorium ADS to build nuclear weapons.

If everyone turned away from Uranium to Thorium ADS we could outlaw the peaceful use of uranium in reactors so that no nation on earth would have an excuse to enrich uranium as Iran is doing with an ulterior purpose.

Thanks folks. Very interesting opinion poll. It appears that the pro-nuclear people are making some convincing arguments.

My only question (back on topic) is why Obama doesn't just come out pro-nuclear? It appears like there are many intelligent proponents of this (yes -- and intelligent detractors!) but the real mystery to me is why Obama isn't being honest. He might lose some support, and win others over.

Perhaps we need to have a brave candidate just come out and say that nuclear power is a mess -- very dangerous -- we need it -- and we need to be super safe about its implementation. So let's get started.

I'm not a big enemy of Obama (yet). My expectations are pretty low. This is a debate that needs to occur someplace more public than ATS. (Hey, it's a good start anyway.)

My only question (back on topic) is why Obama doesn't just come out pro-nuclear?

To do so would be suicide. America is afraid of Nuclear power citing 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and radioactive waste as its main ideological front. The real reason (I believe) is the disinfo that the natural resource corporations (big oil etc) have fed the American people for years. After killing off nuclear power we are left with...
1. Remaining on fossil fuels
2. Paying outlandish amounts of money for mediocre energy sources like solar or wind power.

In the future, there will be an exponentially greater demand for energy from all over the world, even as we use it more efficiently. Why can't we call this inevitability and raise nuclear power?