Why does Obama support nuclear energy?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Obama's 2nd-Top Contributor: Exelon Nuclear Power Firm

Exelon Nuclear, a business unit of the Illinois-based Exelon Corporation utility company, operates the largest nuclear fleet in the USA and its nuclear reactors represent about 20 percent of the U.S. nuclear industry's power capacity. The CEO of Exelon Corporation, John Rowe, also took home an annual salary of $11,815,176 in 2006, according to the www.aflcio.org web site. But in a February 17, 2006 letter that's posted on the Nuclear Energy Information Services watchdog site (www.neis.org), NEIS's director noted that "recent news accounts of radioactive tritium leaks at Exelon's Braidwood, Dresden and now Byron nuclear reactors finally expose nuclear industry claims of nuclear power being `emission free' as utter nonsense," yet Exelon "aspires to build new reactors, and extend operating lifetimes for its eleven old ones."

Coincidentally, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' site, the second-largest individual source of contributions to U.S. Senator Barack Obama's 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign is the Exelon Corporation. So far, $159,800 in campaign contributions have gone to Obama's campaign from either individuals or committees affiliated with the Exelon Corporation.

www.bostonnow.com

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,707 • Replies: 36

No top replies

Thanks for these valuable informations.

You only forgot to name the other candidates and especially the other party Exelon Nuclear spends money to. (Mostly done by EXELONPAC, EXELON Coporation Political Action Committee.)

0 Replies

Knowledge is a wonderful thing! Cool

0 Replies

Walter, you repeat a common mistake of European non-native speakers of English--"informations" is something you will never hear a native speaker say Information is singular and plural.

**************************************

Why does Obama support nuclear energy? Just to piss Miller off . . . as if she needed an excuse to hate him.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Walter, you repeat a common mistake of European non-native speakers of English--"informations" is something you will never hear a native speaker say Information is singular and plural.

Thanks - I suppose, it has a lot to do with that
a) we have that word in plural
and b) it is of Latin origin.

0 Replies

We don't allow no Latin here--99% of the time, them Latins is illegal immigrants--just ask Cjhsa.

0 Replies

I know.
On the other hand: why couln't the singular datum immigrate but the plural data?

0 Replies

Most 'Mericans don't even want to see 'em . . . never mind date 'em . . .

0 Replies

I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste but when fossil fuel increases global it becomes more the question of the lesser evil.

Besides, when you look at the technology developed the last 50 years it almost becomes likely that we'll find a cheaper way to send the depleted waste into space, where it will be a mere drop in the ocean of radiation.

Some people fear another chernobyl or three mile island but that is, today, about as likely as a meteorite destroying earth. And far less likely than massive global warming.

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote:

I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Coolwhip wrote:
I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

It really isn't accurate to call the detritus 'waste.' It's very potent stuff. We just don't have a good use for it at the moment.

It's the same sort of thing that spawned the plastics industry - something had to be done to the waste from making gasoline...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

engineer wrote:
Coolwhip wrote:
I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

It really isn't accurate to call the detritus 'waste.' It's very potent stuff. We just don't have a good use for it at the moment.

It's the same sort of thing that spawned the plastics industry - something had to be done to the waste from making gasoline...

Cycloptichorn

So do you support the building of more nuclear power plants?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
engineer wrote:
Coolwhip wrote:
I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

It really isn't accurate to call the detritus 'waste.' It's very potent stuff. We just don't have a good use for it at the moment.

It's the same sort of thing that spawned the plastics industry - something had to be done to the waste from making gasoline...

Cycloptichorn

So do you support the building of more nuclear power plants?

Yes, and I always have done so.

I think the technology is quite a bit safer then it used to be; and the radiation leaked by Coal plants is quite high by itself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
engineer wrote:
Coolwhip wrote:
I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

It really isn't accurate to call the detritus 'waste.' It's very potent stuff. We just don't have a good use for it at the moment.

It's the same sort of thing that spawned the plastics industry - something had to be done to the waste from making gasoline...

Cycloptichorn

So do you support the building of more nuclear power plants?

Yes, and I always have done so.

I think the technology is quite a bit safer then it used to be; and the radiation leaked by Coal plants is quite high by itself.

Cycloptichorn

Then that is one thing we agree on.
I grew up 10 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear power plant in Oceanside Ca,and nobody ever worried about anything happening.
Nuclear energy is the safest,most economical way to provide power to cities.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
engineer wrote:
Coolwhip wrote:
I never really understood why nuclear energy is so "evil". Granted it leaves some large amounts of toxic waste ....

Nuclear Power doesn't generate "large amounts" of waste. The entire waste from a power plant running for 30-40 years can be stored safely in a swimming pool, with no other pollution at all. Of course, lots of plants means lots of swimming pools, but that's true of any power source. Over the next twenty years, nuclear power is the best bet to contain global warming. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but it's definitely better than fossil fuel power generation.

It really isn't accurate to call the detritus 'waste.' It's very potent stuff. We just don't have a good use for it at the moment.

It's the same sort of thing that spawned the plastics industry - something had to be done to the waste from making gasoline...

Cycloptichorn

So do you support the building of more nuclear power plants?

Yes, and I always have done so.

I think the technology is quite a bit safer then it used to be; and the radiation leaked by Coal plants is quite high by itself.

Cycloptichorn

Then that is one thing we agree on.
I grew up 10 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear power plant in Oceanside Ca,and nobody ever worried about anything happening.
Nuclear energy is the safest,most economical way to provide power to cities.

Absolutely. It's quite understandable why people are cautious about it; it's dangerous stuff, and the word 'nuclear' brings images of bombs into people's head. But honestly, the technology has improved slightly over the last few decades...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

When I was a Staff Scientist at the Argonne National Labs in Illinois, we were requried to routinely submit samples of blood and urine for analysis because of the numerous cases of adult onset leukemia on the premises.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

When I was a Staff Scientist at the Argonne National Labs in Illinois, we were requried to routinely submit samples of blood and urine for analysis because of the numerous cases of adult onset leukemia on the premises.

Quote:

Radium as an Experimental Therapy for Treating Mental Disorders

Quote:

Miller, C.E., R.J. Hasterlik, and A.J. Finkel. The Argonne Radium Studies: Summary of Fundamental Data. Chicago: Argonne National Laboratory and Argonne Cancer Research Hospital. ANL7531 and ACRH106.

EDITED

Quote:

When I was a mental patient codenamed KAK at the Argonne National Loony Bin in Illinois, we were required to routinely submit samples of blood and urine for analysis because of the experimental therapy with radium.

0 Replies

A whiff of Abuzz and a hearty Hi-ho Silver!

Who is that massed mystery poster?

0 Replies

Hi ho backatchya, Setanta, and I'm one of the former impersonees.

Her antipsychotics stopped working again you can tell online when she starts making typos, whatch her posts.

Maybe she'll resurrect the moslem guy ralph-7 (sp) or the old new haven personalities Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

When I was a Staff Scientist at the Argonne National Labs in Illinois, we were requried to routinely submit samples of blood and urine for analysis because of the numerous cases of adult onset leukemia on the premises.

I spent 2 years living and working within 100 feet of a nuclear power plant and except for a radiation dosimeter we all had to wear,we didnt undergo any other special testing and we werent required to submit blood and urine samples for testing.

0 Replies

Why does Obama support nuclear energy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know