Join DFH's United Against Toxic Waste Like Glenn Beck
By Nicole Belle Thursday Oct 25, 2007 11:30am
Download | play 
Download | play
Glenn Beck: "The reality is that no one, not one person, has ever died as a result of nuclear energy in this country."
Um, that is just so not true. CNN will never be "The Most Trusted Name in News" as long as they keep this idiot dissembler on their network. Not only is nuclear energy not safe, it's far from clean, or cheap & efficient , despite what Beck and Inhofe claim in this segment.
If you're already a dinosaur, or on your way to becoming one like me, you may recall Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) and their 'No Nukes' concerts 28 yrs ago. Well, they are back, and Glenn Beck and global warming denier and big oil puppet Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) aren't happy about it one bit. Glenn Beck went on a childish rant Thursday against the cast of celebrities, or "hippie singers" as Beck calls them, including such greats as Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Pearl Jam, Melissa Etheridge... aww, hell I can't begin to name them all here, who have lined up in opposition to the atomic power industry obtaining government loan guarantees to build new nuclear reactors here in the US. Their website is NukeFree.org , Find out why nuclear energy is NOT the answer and learn what is to combat our global warming worries and our future energy needs, and you can help by signing their petition.
They've also put together a great new music video. It's a remake of Stephen Stills' "For What It's Worth." Check it out:
Login or Register to post comments.
Idiot.
He's recent convert to Mormonism. Does that tell you everything you need to know about this moron?
Sue him.
People have died in their nasty little nukes. Find the surviving family members and have them front a law suit. Find a tricky dicky lawyer and drag him into court with defamation or some other shit. Just attack that idiot. He won't stand up to it like O'Reilly. CNN isn't going to bat for him. And they will can him when real pressure is applied.
Sue him over every effing lie he tells. Somebody get on this, pronto.
JackMormon @ 2:
Nothing is recent about this idiot's conversion to moronism.
Oh wait ...
there's no need to post the clip in its entirety...it's too much to take. one of the worst things I've seen and heard in a long time
shut up
heh...
quality debate
from CNN
heh...
how about the 500,000 year half-life of nukular waste?
I'll start with that!
JackMormon @ 2:
yeah! he did it for the wives, I'm sure.
Nicole, as much as Beck was wrong about nobody ever dying because of nuclear radiation, you are waaaaaay off base when you denounce nuclear energy in general.
Why do you fear technology so much? Nuclear technology raises people's standard of living and helps with all sorts of things like medicine, transportation, nano-technology, and many other things. To denounce nuclear technology like you do reminds me of those people in the dark ages who, when confronted by scientists with simple chemical reactions, they ran away in rabid fear thinking these chemists were witches. It is really sad that there are still people today who distrust new technology.
If it weren't for the environmentalists, we would have had nuclear energy as an energy source by now, which would have decreased our dependence on foreign oil, which may have stopped the war in Iraq. If this is true, then nuclear energy would have saved the lives of millions of Iraqis. Are you saying that a few deaths in the US and Russia from nuclear reactors is enough reason to let MILLIONS die?
Go back to the stone age where you belong, you obviously do not belong in the 21st century.
Come now. The question is not, "is it safe or clean.", the question is, is it safe(r), clean(er), then coal and oil. With the vast amounts of energy a first world country requires, nuclear power is a vital necessity. Japan and France make extensive use of it, and the USA creates 20% of its energy with it. Is there a certain amount of danger associated with it, yes, but to make a complete ban of it and switch back to coal because we all love our internet and internally heated houses, is to create even more pollution.
Beck is annoying. Inhofe is a friggin criminal.
Dump the waste in his backyard.
Doesn't the co-founder of Greenpeace favor nuclear energy?
glenn thinks they should just "shut up and sing".
i never understood that. They're american citizens first. Just because they make music they forfeit their right to speak out??? What other jobs cause American citizens to forfeit their rights to participate in this democracy?
Every American is born with the right to petition their government, to protest their government, to participte in demonstrations...but if you're a singer, or you work in "hollywood" with your "hollywood values" you forfeit your citizenship???
How about a website for beckfreetv.org?
Seriously.
What the hell is this guy doing on CNN?
Isn't there some way people can get a clear understanding on how this joker got his job?
Normally I agree with what I see here, but this time you're pimping a site thats pure FUD. I don't have a problem with solar power, far from it, I just don't think alarmism is the best way to spread the gospel. Science, cost analysis preferably done by those with a clue, now thats the way to influence intelligent people.
Is he really that stupid?? He's also a disgusting condescending individual. I can't stand to watch him.
We do need more nuclear engery. It does not matter if Beck is right or not it is something that needs to be done.
J @ 10:
Nuclear is not a vital necessity. Nothing says that Nantucket Sound couldn't be filled with turbines and that Nevada couldn't be covered with PVs to replace the long-term hazard of nuclear by products, and then you'd say that we can't live without wind and solar.
Inhofe: "there is clean coal technology now"
One can speculate what reasons are behind Inhofe´s words, but the people who elect a spermstain like this to office have to be among the most ignorant bunch of biowaste on the planet.
BTW, the US does need nuclear energy in the nearest future. The way Glenn Beck argues for it though must be putting a lot of people off the idea :p
Nicole, as much as Beck was wrong about nobody ever dying because of nuclear radiation, you are waaaaaay off base when you denounce nuclear energy in general.
Why do you fear technology so much?
Why should we fear radioactive waste? If you're asking that question you need to go work in a Leukemia ward for a while.
If you follow the links, you may notice that there have been 0 fatal accidents since 1986. Working at a nuclear power plant is safer than pretty much any other job. You can't link honestly link nuclear weapons with nuclear power. It's possible to do one without the other. This is complete FUD.
Triple Lei @ 13:
Yes he does, and he also says that the green movement (who are the ones against ALL technology) are not actually about saving the world, they are a self-serving political movement and are destructive to everyone's lives.
Glenn Beck is an idiot, and ultimately solar is definitely the way to go, but I can't stand the left's knee-jerk reactions to nuclear power. I'd much prefer the "dangers" of nuclear power over coal or oil. They just don't compare.
Though I think Mr. Beck should apologize for his outright lie that no one in the United States has ever died during a nuclear reactor accident, I am a supporter of nuclear energy. We have come a long way with the technology and if we are going to get off our dependency on fossil fuels, we need alternatives, and nuclear energy is a good alternative.
I also think, we should be investing in solar farms, especially here in overly sunny Arizona.
Okay... I am okay with Nuclear Energy. I think that Wind driven, small-armed turbines in streams, and solar will do a whole lot better in the future, but I can deal with Nuclear Energy fine.
I just think Glenn Beck is the worst possible face for ANY Cause.
Okay, well after Coulter...
J
J @ 10:
You could not be more wrong, and no one is arguing to "switch back to coal"
Try clicking on a few links. Nuclear power is NOT "a vital necessity"
It's a load of crap. The biggest most toxic crap and highest valued terror target on the planet. You can't protect it, no insurance company will touch it, the first nuclear waste from 50 years ago has yet to find a safe place for disposal, when you factor in capital costs (which Inhofe ignores) it's at least 3 times as expensive as any other source of power per KW/hr. It's rediculous on a whole scale of reasons.
Well, the dillema with nuclear power is the long start of time. Nuclear power plants take a bit of time to build, and the interim would be solar and wind. The problem with solar and wind is that they are determined by the weather, and solar plants in the south would not do so well in New England, and wind plants wouldnt do so well where there is low wind areas. Nice thing about nuclear power plants, once they get built, is that they dont have that problem.
Nuclear energy may have its problems (many of which are because innovation and development in the industry in the industry have been impeded by years of anti-nuke hysteria and NIMBYism), but it is far better than the only viable alternative; coal-driven plants. Coal plants release *more* radioactivity into the atmosphere, pollute more, and generate wastes that are harder to deal with and far greater in volume.
Glenn Beck is a lying weasel who is wrong about how many people have died in nuclear energy incidents, but even a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day.
johnx @ 22:
Oh please. I don't fear nuclear waste anymore than I fear toxic waste, or raw sewage, or any other hazardous chemical used in our economy.
Are you saying that the world will be able to find energy sources other than nuclear power once the oil is gone? Don't fear nuclear energy, it is primitive to do so. Europe and Japan use it extensively. It is actually very safe.
To all you nuclear energy advocates:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE?
Wait for someone to enrich it for weapons?
I'm all for nuclear energy....just don't build one in my backyard. I'm sure Beck wouldn't mind one in his neighborhood. I'll start the petition to have one built in his 'hood.
Now I don't agree with Beck on the subject, but demonizing nuclear energy is just as full of misinformation as advocating its purported absolute safeness. No form of energy generation is completely safe. All have substantial downsides. Whether it
be damning rivers for hydro power or land blight for solar farms (not to mention the manufacture of those solar panels), not to even begin on coal power. It's about progress. Steps must be taken to address the downsides. Nuclear plants tend to be safer and clearer then other types of power plants. But innovation in the states has stagnated. This is not Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl. What this is a simple lack of understanding about basic scientific principles. Wastes can be minimized and if protocols are followed it can be beneficial and relatively safe. From breeder reactors (which convert most of there waste to fuel) to advances toward fusion reactors, there are advances that have much smaller foot prints and possibly less ecological short comings then what we are doing now. Knee-jerk reactions are not the best way of handling this topic.
Now it bears repeating. I am not saying it is completely safe, But no advance is ever completely safe. Every energy generation method known to man is dangerous in one way or another. It's all about refining what we know and making it as safe as we possibly can.
justabill @ 28:
I skimmed them. USA requires vast amounts of energy, and switching off oil requires *something*. I dont see wind or solar producing the levels needed, for reasons stated above.
Wag, seemingly good argument, but how about covering all the byproducts of nuclear power; hell, nuclear anything. Environmental, health, cost, safety, current knowns about the energy as opposed to what was known since it's inception, and the pros-cons compared to all alternatives. Labeling someone a Luddite, and the inference was certainly there, is a straw man argument at best. Two questions: Are you at all involved with the energy industry or an offshoot and did you just come up with the off hand link to medicine technology and leave out nuclear weapons on purpose? I thought so.
It's amazing how fast the AEI trolls respond to a post like this.
They must have a team like Romney does set up.
Mitt Romney Monitors The Internet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afsbeH9_XSU
johnx @ 32:
Whats the problem with that? It puts them to use, and doesnt leave them in your background for the radiation to kill you.
Louis Slotin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
5 seconds.. 5 seconds to educate himself and he doesn't even respect his audience enough to do that.
Ricky @ 17:
Did you bother to follow the links. Especially let's look at the nuclear accidents. There is NOTHING safe about Nuclear power. NOTHING. It is dirty and inefficient. It's a goddamn expensive way to boil water, and that's all.
Call me when fusion becomes viable. Or better yet, let's put all that effort into developing solar and wind, which don't require us to figure out how to store filthy spent fuel. Also have you done the math on the supply? I have read in the past that if we went completely Nuclear today, we would reach Peak Uranium in about 25 years. Doesn't sound like a strategy with a whole lot of depth to it, except to enrich people who are, once again, squatting at the spigot of a natural resource waiting for a fucking handout for being in the right place at the right time.
That's what really bothers the energy industry about wind, solar, and geothermal. They can't use the "invisible hand" to shut off the fucking SUN.
The problem with nuclear is the same as oil it is a finite resource and will be depleted within 50 years, so then what?
First thing I read on the nukefree site: "Nuclear power makes global warming worse"...what bullshit. This issue is like most....it forces a choice between evils: oil keeps us dependent on the middle east, and pollutes like mad....nuke scares the shit out of everybody, and has long term waste issues....OF course I wish everything could be powered by sun wind and rainbows, but until then, nuclear power IS a great alternative to oil until technology makes the other sources more viable. Glen Beck is irrelevant to the issue.
What a waste of a fine song!
Bonnie Raitt was tolerable on her debut and debut only.
J @ 35:
WOW. That is some LAZY thinking.
ckerst @ 41:
Id like your source for Peak Uranium, please. That not withstanding, it gives us breathing space for setting up energy sattelites. History is all about stop gap measures.
J @ 38:
"Whats the problem with that?"
No, it just kills and maims and causes birth defects for hundreds of thousands of years to our soldiers and the populations they spew the crap at.
DEPLETED URANIUM: DIRTY BOMBS, DIRTY MISSILES, DIRTY BULLETS
http://sundaymag.ca/index.php?id=64
Wait a minute......We can build nuclear reactors so that we can produce nuclear energy but Iran can't?
Since nuclear power plants generate very little electricity without fuel (aka uranium) and the fuel comes from mining, which has obviously claimed more than one life, Beck's facts are wrong. However, I could deal with factual inaccuracies (since they seem to be the norm, not just from Beck, but from the MSM in general, politicians, etc.) if Beck weren't the totally offensive twit he is. It's like he has some horrible neurological disorder.
Did Glenn Beck start the SoCal fires?
How can we find out?
johnx @ 32:
Depending on the type of reactor, you can recycle almost 97% of the waste from a standard reactor, and reuse it as nuclear fuel.
As to that remaining 3%, well we would have to come up with some sort of plan for dealing with that. But surely that must be better then 40% ish waste from coal or oil that is kicked into the atmosphere. Not that radioactive waste wouldn't be an issue, but currently sulfates and nitrates seem to pose a greater risk to our ecology.
IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 47:
They're Muslims, silly. No Nukes For Muslims. Didn't you read the sign?
-amused- No arguments here from DU. Nasty things. When you say enrich them for weapons, do you mean DU, or do you mean the actual nuclear devices that annihilate cities?
Wag @ 31:
What are you going to do with the waste? I'm sure that acid rain and burning rivers give you absolutely no cause for concern as long as the economy is going well - nuclear waste is in a class of its own. I know of no other toxic chemical that can kill for 20,000 years. Why did Japan just lie about that reactor leak? What of the deaths due to radiation poisoning and subsequent cancer after Chernobyl?
slippytoad @ 51:
I have no problems with them switching over to nuclear power. They prolly see the Peak Oil better then us.
johnx @ 53:
Do we really want to play that game? Lets look at the current death toll from oil and coal mining. Nuclear power has caused less death and causes less pollution.
johnx @ 22:
The connection b/t radiation and leukemia is far from a proven fact.
The Beaver only does childish rants. The guy has issues...telling the truth is the least of them.
Note to the Beav: Take your Ritalin!!
J @ 55:
No one is arguing for coal. You are arguing against a strawman of your own making.
nuclear troll
AbbeyHoffmansGhost @ 36:
All your points are noted. It's so boring that you accuse me of being in the energy industry. I am not, nor is that important anyway, for my judgement would not be compromised. If I worked in the auto industry, which I did at one point, I did then I still now, abhor the pollution cars make. My judgement is not that cars are awesome just because I worked in the car industry.
Also, your points about the waste. Nuclear waste can be handled easily, just like all our garbage. The key is to let people do what they want and if there is a need for something, like garbage dump sites or nuclear waste sites, they will be created. The only thing we all have to worry about is that property rights are respected, meaning waste must not interfere with other people's lives. That's it. If this principle is followed, then nuclear waste would be no more of a problem in a modern society than poop. Of course nuclear waste will be handled differently than human waste, but this is not the point. The point is that humans are smart enough to handle nuclear energy. We have already proved that.
Anyone who says humans cannot handle nuclear energy must speak only for themselves because those who CAN handle it should not be stopped from handling it just because of some freaked out monkey people. We should not live by standard of idiots, we should live by the standards of the smart people. Smart people came up with nuclear energy in the first place. If humans can come up with something THAT sophisticated, we can easily handle how to use it safely, as we have been doing now for the last 50 years.
That website which is posted "nukefree.org" is the most insane reference used to back one's argument that I have seen in a long time. Nukefree.org? Hahahahaha...they are nothing but a bunch of whacked out mountain gorillas who are afraid of their own shadow.
J @ 45:
Heard of TEH G00GL3S? Jesus people are lazy. Some suspect that we are already at Peak Uranium. In fact, there's a graph here which shows what looks like a fukkin' peak to me.
Wag @ 9:
Who are these all powerful environmentalists that often get blamed for impeding progress?
Do you want a terror target like that near your house?
jafari @ 20:
I agree...most of the nay sayers for Solar and wind, or any other clean alternative enrgy source, are on the payroll of the coal, or nuclear industry...their lobbyists sway politicians to keep them in business...businesses that care ONLY for short term profit, not long term sustainability...
As for Beck...that man is a fucking moron...will someone PLEASE staple his lips shut?!
I live next to about 40 colleges, 35 million people, and a whole row of weapons labs. If the bomb drops, Im the first to go.
No fear mongering plz, justabill.
Glenn Dreck is an absolutely worthless slime.
liberalNmoderation @ 63:
Please, no strawmans. Im a fan of the alternate energies, I just point out building enough to sustain our energy use would be unlikely. Hence my interest in nuclear plants, danger notwithstanding.
Charles @ 61:
They are VERY powerful people nowadays. They are virtually everywhere. They have strengths not in terms of dollars but in numbers. Remember when Bush wanted to drill for oil in Alaska? He was shot down almost immediately. Who shot him down? Those who are influenced by the environmentalists, or the environmentalists themselves. I am actually not sure just WHO they are, but they are definitely influential, or else we would be drilling for oil in Alaska!
PS Bush is insane
J @ 64:
No strawman arguing then. Nuclear power sucks, and no FRICKIN way in hell should our Congress let slide a bill the Republicans passed without debate that subsidizes 100s of billion of tax dollars to a nasty industry like nuclear power just because it's unfeasable cost-wise without it.
The Dems better fricking undo that sorry piece of crap ASAP.
Omaigah. I swear it looks like Jackson Browne had Botox. Yecch!
Wow, if you dare point out that solar panels with current tech produce hazardous chemical waste on production, you're a lobbyist? New one for me.. Where's my goddamn check...
Wind? Great stuff, but you can't put it everywhere... Same with geotherm and hydro...
But it doesn't matter to the 'HATE NUCLEAR, MUST HATE NUCLEAR' crowd. They see a few pounds of extremely heavy metal that must be handled with care, and flip out. They pretend depleted uranium is highly radioactive(It's not; it's dangerous mostly because if it's vaporized and breathed in, you get metal in your lungs. Metal in lungs bad, whether it's uranium or iron), they pretend Chernobyl was not caused by the most incompetent bunch of all time(I include Bush; Bush never turned of all the safeties of a system and drained the coolant).
But hey. Don your tinfoil hats and hate some more. Perhaps you can pretend something other than U-235 fission can produce up to 8.9^10*13 Joules per kilogram. I bet you think a fusion plant would go up like a bomb too...
justabill @ 68:
Of all the things to undo from this administration, that would be the last on the list. France has 80% of their power coming from nuclear power, and Japan has 40% - even with all that, Godzilla remain in the movies. I think your dangers are overstated, when both of these countries have made nuclear power their priority for decades.
Nuclear energy is NOT the answer for all the reasons you listed, as well as for this one: it takes TREMENDOUS amounts of water to cool nuclear power plants, and pumping in that water, and cooling it, requires lots of energy.
So it's not an efficient power source in terms of water resources.
Graffiti Grammarian @ 72:
Please, run the numbers, show me it's no efficient. I suspect you won't. Mostly because you've no idea how.
raymond @ 42:
Its not bullshit. You need to mine the uranium, which is tough to do with hand tools, so you're going to use lots of fossil fuels up front.
No insurance companies will cover a nuclear site.
If there is a release to the public, which has happened lots of times, you are shit out of luck.
And a terror attack on one is exactly what people should be talking about before they let billions of our tax-dollars get wasted on building one of these go up near their house.
justabill @ 28:
Your argument loses steam when you misspell ridiculous as rediculous.
If you do not know how to spell common words or at least use a spell checker, then intelligent people will ignore your comment.
Why any news organization would give, to steal a line from the movie Office Space, "a no talent ass-clown" like Beck any sort of forum is beyond me. Enough said!
Yeah, let's stick with the status quo. Spending TRILLIONS in the middle east to tinker with the balance of power there just enough so we can get our black gold has been working great. Fuck the environment. Screw nuclear. Too scary.
How long have you been working as a troll for the nuclear power industry J?
First let me just say that Glenn Beck is a tool.
Not that I've said that. Let me also say that I'd rather see nuclear plants built, and lots of them. Radiation is easier to deal with than global climate change. Meanwhile, we should also build windmills, and lots of them.
johnx @ 74:
Where do you think all the steel for windmills and the silicon for solar panels comes from? The magical environmental fairy?
You have to mine for steel and silicon, so your argument is bullshit as well.