It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep. Ron Paul: Reaction to nuclear crisis 'overblown'

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Source




Much of the reaction to the nuclear power crisis in Japan is "overblown," but the U.S. seems unlikely now to build another nuclear power plant, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Tuesday night.

"My guess is, when the dust settles, it won’t be nearly as bad as some of the scare tactics we have been reading about in the past couple of days," Paul, an advocate of nuclear power, told Fox Business Network. "Nuclear power is very dangerous, but it is also the safest form of energy we have.”

Interesting choice of words there, not too many people die there, very dangerous but safest form of energy, scared to death they are going to quit building nuclear power plants, not as bad as some of those scare tactics.

The way he expresses his opinion, he really undermines this accident. Does it make you wonder, is he a shill or not?




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 




"My guess is, when the dust settles, it won’t be nearly as bad as some of the scare tactics we have been reading about in the past couple of days,"
And what is his guess worth?



"Nuclear power is very dangerous, but it is also the safest form of energy we have.”
Oh yeah, it's much safer than other forms of energy, now name one Paul.


edit on 17-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: add specificity



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Of course he's a shill. Can you name a politician who isn't?

However, on this case, he's not shilling. He's just another politician playing the "spew whatever comes to mind in an authoritative tone and hope for the best" game. Really, nine out of ten politicians only have experience shuffling papers and kissing butt. Ron Paul isn't any expert on nuclear energy, any more than he's an expert on Bavarian poetry forms.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
He was speaking on the information on hand two days ago and obviously we know more now . He was spot on regarding the hysteria here . Hard to believe that there is almost no potassium iodide left anywhere and some of the largest retailers of gieger counters are sold out and none of it will be necessary but feel free to panic .



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Ron PAul is referring to the reaction inside the beltway. He is not speaking of the actual event in Japan.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, and domestic human rights [not civil rights where he has problems] are very good and humane, but his domestic ideas are typical rich man Republican—let the rich do what they want—philosophy.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I think Ron should watch this Video then...Bakersfield Calif. just hit with Radiation Clouds....www.youtube.com...

According to the Black Cat Private Radiation detection Stations..
edit on 17-3-2011 by Caji316 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz



"Nuclear power is very dangerous, but it is also the safest form of energy we have.”
Oh yeah, it's much safer than other forms of energy, now name one Paul.


edit on 17-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: add specificity


He named more than one. Drilling for oil, coal mines, gas explosions.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I hate to say it but these cards are something:




edit on 17-3-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: NRG



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blueracer
 




He named more than one. Drilling for oil, coal mines, gas explosions.
Well lets compare, do you think the Deepwater Disaster was worse than the Chernobyl Meltdown? Does a gas leak/explosion case damage to life over huge areas? And how is it the safest? What about wind and water fueled generators? Solar panels? Or if the world wasn't so god damn broken we might have a machine capable of harvesting zero point energy. We would at least have something better than the obsolete crap we have today.

EDIT: Actually, it's hard to tell if the Deepwater Disaster was worse than the Chernobyl Meltdown imo. That makes normal oil/petrol generators just as bad as nuclear energy generation. Both are terrible in their own way.


edit on 17-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Ok, count all the people that die because of the pollution from coal plants. Oh wait, you can't, because it's not recorded. I'm sure the numbers are very high.

How many nuclear disasters have we had? 3 including japan? Total death toll is nowhere near how many people have died from coal and oil.

But I know nuclear power is the scary boogey man so run and buy your iodine pills that wont do anything in this situation and read about the radiation in the US, even though it's nowhere near enough to be dangerous. You are exposed to radiation every second of every day, it's the amount that's the problem. And the amount in the US from Japan is not enough to be a problem.

But don't listen to me, because I'm not saying anything scary!



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 




How many nuclear disasters have we had? 3 including japan? Total death toll is nowhere near how many people have died from coal and oil.
Deaths can happen without there needing to be a disaster. I'm sure the number of workers that have died from radiation poisoning due to working in nuclear plants is also quite high. Mining is always dangerous, coal or not. Coal and oil are crap, as is nuclear energy. It's all very dangerous.



But I know nuclear power is the scary boogey man so run and buy your iodine pills that wont do anything in this situation and read about the radiation in the US, even though it's nowhere near enough to be dangerous. You are exposed to radiation every second of every day, it's the amount that's the problem. And the amount in the US from Japan is not enough to be a problem.
I completely agree, but a large area of Japan will be affected in the event of a meltdown. This has lead to the evacuation of an entire area. Is that really safe? I am far from some ignorant fool who thinks nuclear energy is the "boogey man", I have studied nuclear physics in school. I just realize how dangerous it is.


edit on 17-3-2011 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join