Ron Paul: Dangers of Nuclear Energy Overblown

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo


Actually he isn't... so much for not watching the video

Did anyone actually watch the video? It doesn't seem like it.........

You all are being fooled yet again, and Ron Paul is just telling the truth like he always has, too bad no one will listen to him.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Ron Paul starting to smell like corruption. Toshiba designed one of blown nukes. They plan to build 2 in Texas.

Did you watch the video?

Second line.

Ron Paul shows his true colors?? I am wondering if any of you taking the opportunity to slam Ron Paul actually watched the video. All he is saying is that the reaction is overblown. There are protest going on calling for a complete stoppage of Nuclear Energy Plants. That is pretty extreme and I would say an overblown reaction.

Lets say the year is 1908... the Model T Ford has just been released. There are 3 accidents in one day. Now people protest that we should stop building cars because they are dangerous. Would you call that an over reaction? I sure would. This is no different. Crying out that we should get away from Nuclear energy at this point is an over reaction. In the video Ron Paul discusses 3 incidents. Chernobyl- Which he says people still do not know the full effect of. 3 Mile Island- which did not turn out as bad as many thought it would. And now Japan which no one knows the full extent of what we are dealing with yet.

So is the reaction "overblown"? I would say yes. You can not buy iodine anywhere, Alex Jones is now selling some on his site, you have Youtube videos being put out daily about a radiation cloud coming over the Pacific and killing people. I don't think calling the reaction "overblown" is too far off the mark here considering no one knows the full impact this will have yet or even the full extent of the damage.

reply to post by Finalized


What a surprise, you came back at me with the old "the system is corrupt and broken so it should be done away with", that seems to be the only answer from you Libertarians. I completely agree with you about the revolving door between industry and government and the unreliability of our official which results from this. Regulation of industry in principal should be effective. The factors making it ineffective need to be addressed and done away with. The regulators are meant to prevent misconduct. There's not much point punishing a corporation after a catastrophe when it could have been prevented by active monitoring by an independent third party.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Good Luck with your candidate Ron Paul. He clearly has a balanced and well thought out opinion when it comes to an industry that could end all life as we know it. Deregulate... let the courts punish all responsible for the next catastrophe .

reply to post by ModernAcademia


The not so funny thing is that unless Dr. Paul has a stockpile of food to last a lifetime... chances are he will actually be eating his words.
X 2

I love Ron, but I think he'll lose a lot of support with this comment.

I still love him, but I do think that nuclear power has to be dealt with a lot more carefully.
Like putting it on the coast on a fault line...not so smart.
Using old designs and plants with problems...not so smart.
It can be a great source of clean power....or a great source of pollution.
then there is the waste- I doubt that many of us are really equipped to make the call- Dr. Paul included.

reply to post by hadriana


I think any of us can make the call that this technology is totally reckless. Handing over billions of taxpayer dollars to people who will live out their lives with no consequences and everything life has to offer in exchange for nuclear waste that will need to be physically managed by humans for several millenniums. There's NOTHING clean about this source of energy.

Originally posted by Flighty
I love Ron, but I think he'll lose a lot of support with this comment.

Only if people are too foolish to read beyond the headline and understand what he's actually saying.

Of course, now that I think about it, I suspect that's a lot of people. SO, you're right.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Care to elaborate on what he's actually saying?
Line2

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Care to elaborate on what he's actually saying?
Line2

I could elaborate, but even better! you could watch the video for yourself! It's in the OP! No need to thank me.

reply to post by AeonStorm


Not worried in Alberta? Ever heard of a Chinook? That warm air cruises right past Japan on it's way to the coast before it pops over the mountains to dry out, then back down. There is a big Pacific system headed for Alberta tonight that will dump a pile of snow in the southern half of the place. As a "Pacific" system, I wonder where it picked up all that moisture?

reply to post by brocktoon


The levels of radiation, by the time they reach an area like Alberta, will be hundreds if not thousands of times lower than anything any rational person needs to be concerned with. Rational being the key word, Im sure.

and just think 2 yrs ago I thought Ron Paul
was the savior we needed for America.

Sorry Ron, but as time goes along
you prove more and more, you are
no different than the others.

if you think Fukesheima is bad,
just wait til Ron Paul ends the EPA
and institutes a free market and see
how much info you're gonna get
on a disaster like this.

Ron wants Nuclear Energy and wants
it deregulated by way of free market.
Thank you Ron, you just doomed us all.
No thanks bro

reply to post by boondock-saint


So you support the concept of the EPA?

Just seeking clarification.could have sworn ive seen you argue against the idea of government oversight by way of the EPA in the past.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I'll base my response on my post grad science degree, and what I have seen personally and been told in Ukraine the last three years I have been doing business there. If anyone else decides to do otherwise, that's fine by me. I'm not out to make an impression as to my rationality to strangers on an internet forum.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


How ironic you would end your baseless claim that "the levels are too low for concern" with an emotive attack questioning anyone who disagrees rationality.

Originally posted by brocktoon
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I'll base my response on my post grad science degree, and what I have seen personally and been told in Ukraine the last three years I have been doing business there. I'm not out to make an impression as to my rationality to strangers on an internet forum.

Your last sentence is contradicted by your first sentence. Saying you don't need to impress me with any fancy evidence, while trying to impress me with claims of grad degrees that have no necessary relevance to the claims being made is not evidence. Show me evidence that radiation levels in Alberta will be of a concern. Not just vague claims to a grad degree (and in what?, I might add. Literature? )