Categorized | Suffolk Close-up

Tags :

Obama Nukes

Posted on 25 February 2010

Nuclear power opponents on Long Island are outraged at President Barack Obama’s change of position on nuclear power. Long critical of atomic energy, Obama spoke in his State of the Union speech of “building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” and last week announced $8.3 billion in federal government loan guarantees to construct new nuclear plants, to increase, he said, to $54.3 billion.

“It’s not true that nuclear power is safe and clean — it contaminates the Earth and all living things,” declared Peter Maniscalco of Renew Community Earth last week. “Nuclear power is a zombie energy technology that they they’re trying to prop up, something that doesn’t make any sense. No private investors are willing to invest in this technology; they know it’s far too risky.”

Mr. Maniscalco of Manorville said he had wanted to vote for consumer advocate Ralph Nader for president in 2008 but finally balloted for Mr. Obama “thinking he would gain a wider plurality and that would be in the best interests. I wouldn’t vote for him again, obviously.”

Terence O’Daly of Quogue, author of the award-winning website on nuclear technology,, said: “President Obama’s decision means that taxpayers are now going to bail out a failing nuclear industry despite its poor track record and the fact that none of the problems associated with nuclear energy have been solved…It’s a deadly gamble we simply cannot afford,” stated Mr. O’Daly, a Long Island University professor.

Candidate Obama not only was negative about atomic energy but—unusual for a politician—indicated a detailed knowledge of its threat to life. As he told the editorial board of the Keene Sentinel in New Hampshire in 2007: “We dislike the fact” about nuclear power plants that they “might blow up…and irradiate us…and kill us. That’s the problem.”

Yes, that’s the big problem with splitting the atom. Using the perilous process of fission to generate electricity with its capacity for catastrophic accidents and its production of highly toxic radioactive poisons, called nuclear waste, will always be unsafe. And it is unnecessary considering the safe energy technologies now available, solar, wind and other clean sources.

Why has Obama changed his stance? Consider his two top aides: Rahm Emanuel, now Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, who as an investment banker was in the middle of the $8.2 billion merger that created Chicago-based Exelon. With 17 nuclear plants, it’s the biggest nuclear utility in the nation. David Axelrod, a senior Obama advisor, was an Exelon consultant. Candidate Obama received sizeable contributions from Exelon executives including John Rowe, Exelon president and chief executive officer.

Forbes magazine, in its January 18 issue, in an article on Rowe and how he has “focused the company on nuclear,” displayed a sidebar headlined, “The President’s Utility.” It read: “Ties are tight between Exelon and the Obama administration,” noting the contributions and featuring Emanuel and Axelrod.

Consider Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary of the Department of Energy. He typifies the religious-like zeal for nuclear power emanating for decades from scientists in the U.S. government’s string of national nuclear laboratories. He was director of one of these, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Established in World War II’s Manhattan Project to build atomic weapons, the laboratories after the war began promoting civilian nuclear technology – and have been pushing it unceasingly ever since. It’s been a way to perpetuate the vested interest that had been created. Dr. Chu, like so many in the national laboratory system, minimizes the dangers of radioactivity. If they didn’t if they acknowledged how life-threatening the radiation produced by nuclear technology is, their favorite technology would crumble.

Mr. Obama has desperately needed information from those knowledgeable of the dangers of nuclear power—but their access to Obama has been blocked in recent times while the nuclear proponents have done their work in getting him to change position.

Mr. Obama’s change is especially meaningful here, for it was in Suffolk County that LILCO planned to build seven to 11 nuclear power plants—with the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 1 the first. Long Island was to be turned into what the Atomic Energy Commission (succeeded by the DOE) called a “nuclear park.” Long Islanders and their representatives became educated about nuclear power and stopped Shoreham and ended that multi-plant scheme. In the process, LILCO was eliminated. Does Mr. Obama have the wisdom and courage to hear from scientists and energy experts who can refute the pro-nuclear arguments that have apparently influenced him?

Be Sociable, Share!

This post was written by:

- who has written 3074 posts on The Sag Harbor Express.

Contact the author

4 Responses to “Obama Nukes”

  1. jfarmer9 says:

    According to the EPA there are 25,000 Americans who die every year due to particulate pollution alone caused by ‘King Coal.’ There is no way anyone who as any creditability can say that without Shoreham Nuclear power Plant the Northeast relies less on King Coal to power their electrical needs. That being said I would like to ask all those who opposed Shoreham nuclear power plant exactly how many Americans do they think they are responsible for killing?

    Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,


  2. Craig Nesbit says:

    Nuclear opponents have long been given to hyperbole, laced with religious zeal, as they try to explain what they are against. They rarely are willing to say what they are for. The truth is, all forms of energy have advantages and disadvantages. The only question is, which do you prefer? Wind energy sounds nice until the wind stops blowing, then you are either left in the dark or must burn fossil fuels to replace it. Solar energy is a little more predictable, but far more expensive, is available only half the time and not useful in many parts of the country. Coal is dirty and contributes mightily to human greenhouse gas inputs, but we have hundreds of years of domestic supply. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal and can be turned on and off rapidly, but it nonethless is a fossil fuel, produces significant amounts of carbon and is given to wild price swings based on variables as chanegable as the weather — and including the weather. Hydroelectric is probably the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity, but there are very few, if any, places left in the country where a new generating facility of any impact could be built. Nuclear energy is safe and reliable, and doesn’t produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and while it has its radioactive waste that must be managed carefully, there isn’t very much of it. If a person used nothing but nuclear-generated electricity for his or her entire life, the total waste from that power would fit in a 12 ounce soda can. Switch to coal and that person’s electricity waste would weigh in at more than 70 tons of solid stuff (not to mention the tons of carbon dioxide) all of which is lofted into the atmosphere.

    So which is it? We know what you are against. What are you for?

  3. Devin-Weiss says:

    Barack Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” features a appealing title. It has a taste of bravery mixed confidently. There’s nothing Pollyanna concerning this. I will possibly not support every part he says, but he’s our president, as well as for me, he creates belief. That will do more for a country than any number of backroom deals. Hope gives us energy, and energy sustains us through trying times. Boy, we’ve had them. I’m from West Texas, and I did not vote for Bush. When McCain ran against Obama, I used to be a citizen of Arizona, but I gave audacious hope a chance. The fight for progress and laying the foundations of prosperity will not be over. I have seen the quips of those who don’t believe Obama is capable of it. But step back a moment. Would anyone have most of us fail just to tarnish the star of an incumbent for whom they didn’t vote? Trying to keep our priorities straight, let’s work together with our president and build our future.

Leave a Reply

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off-topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Terms of Service