WHAT YOU NEED

TO KNOW ABOUT

NUCLEAR POWER

Washington Post says "Obama is Right to

Boost the Nuclear Energy Industry;"

RobertDyer.net Says "Post is Wrong to

Not Disclose its Energy Conflict of Interest,

Health Risks of Nuclear Facilities"

Another www.RobertDyer.net Exclusive!!!

Imagine a car company launching a new vehicle that doesn't have airbags. Or a water company announcing it will install lead pipes throughout its system.

The reality is, America has forgotten the Three Mile Island disaster, and has yet to confront the facts about the less-dramatic effects of nuclear power and radioactive waste on our environment and our bodies.

Before you buy into what's being pushed by the politicians who get fat checks from the nuclear industry, I suggest you review my report from December 6, 2007:

http://robertdyer.blogspot.com/2007/12/washington-post-greases-wheels-for.html

My research revealed not only the Washington Post's financial interest in energy, but the effects of the nuclear facilities in our own region on the environment. Especially, the very ill Chesapeake Bay.

You hear much about farmers polluting the Bay, and the claim that there are no crabs or oysters left.

Equally strange, then, that we don't hear much about the 11 nuclear plants that discharge into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These discharges not only affect aquatic life, but can also lead to birth defects in children of mothers who come into contact with that water, as well as to cancer.

Now, doesn't that sound familiar? Remember the "confused gender" fish in the rivers and Bay? And, wait a minute, we just happen to have a 50/50 chance of developing cancer in the state of Maryland according to several studies.

Of course, the causes of cancer go beyond nuclear power. My point is that the claim of nuclear power having no health impact is preposterous.

Furthermore, the politicians are telling us there is no chance of a Three Mile Island meltdown. Okay, so why was it, that when I stayed in a hotel in a city with a nuclear plant, there were instructions in the front of the phone book regarding the "evacuation plan" if the plant were to melt down? That's a real confidence builder!

I guess I'd rather have a nuclear plant than those horrific wind farms and offshore "turbines" that kill and maim wildlife and sea life, close down valuable fishing areas (Martin O'Malley & Co. would probably support that! "Hey you - the taxpayer with the chicken bait on a string catching a crab - you're under arrest!!!") and absolutely, positively wreck, mar, and destroy our priceless coastal views.

But then there is one more issue: the future of energy, and how it impacts American jobs and the American people. There are drawbacks to coal and oil, but - especially now that we know global warming is a hoax, as I and others have said for years - like it or not, they are the near future in energy.

Coal and oil (especially if we finally start drilling our own vast supplies) create and maintain American jobs.

Nuclear reactors may end up being built with Chinese steel. I'll stick with coal.

Coal employs many Americans, in regions where there is little else to work at. Some of those Americans live right here in Maryland, and next door in Virginia and West Virginia. Cut back coal, and you put not only the miners out of work, but the railroaders, too.

Coal, oil, and natural gas offer the most bang for the buck, create the most jobs, and power more homes, businesses, and vehicles than all alternatives combined. Wind and nuclear cannot match that. And coal and natural gas directly decrease our dependence on foreign sources (although some plants do import coal by sea).

Also, you've never heard of a whole city being devastated by a coal or natural gas plant accident, as could happen with a nuclear meltdown.

We in this area are affected by the pollution from coal-fired plants in Alexandria, Dickerson, and Chalk Point most directly. That certainly has a health impact. But I would not suggest we rush into nuclear expansion without fully and cautiously considering all of the negatives.

What do you do with the toxic waste? The Nevada storage facility was canceled, so where does it go?

We need to move beyond the tired, failed "alternatives" like biofuel, ethanol, wind, and turbine power. Solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal all are promising, with far less environmental impact.

But there are future fuels and energies no one is talking about yet in the mass media. That's what we should be working on. In the meantime, our traditional energy sources remain the most affordable and - in very relative terms - safest bet.