" I DONT WANT NUCLEAR POWER! "

" The "officials" who have come up with the bogus claim that no one has died due to radiation from the commercial production of nuclear power use fake science and selectively omit facts that would prove this statement false and are not to be trusted! "

" Jfarmer9,

FACT: the cute little letter everyone in Payette got touting the magical environment-saving cheap power of nuclear energy was sent by the company that wants to build the nuclear plant in Payette & make themselves a bunch of money. They carefully worded their "facts" and did not provide sources for their claims or specific names and terms that would make it easy for area residents to do a quick Google search and verify the "facts".

FACT: uh, yeah, people HAVE died at commercial facilities involved in the production of nuclear power! Their specific claim was that no one died in a commercial nuclear power plant in the USA. This eliminates commercial fuel production facilities (in which there have been deaths and improper exposures), transport of new or spent fuel for commercial reactors (in which there have been accidents, including one in Idaho that released radioactive material into the Snake), exposure in commercial labs/test reactors/etc (in which there have been several), incidents that have happened at commercial facilities in other countries (Japan, Russia, Canada), and incidents that have happened in government and military production, etc.
The "improper exposure" label is worthless- that can be interpreted however one likes. Using it the way they did, they want us to overlook the THOUSANDS of incidents (in the US alone!) from the 1960's to now in which radiation has been accidentally or intentionally released into lakes, rivers, the air, pumped underground and lost, etc. By making the interpretation criteria "improper exposure", they can distract against the muddy area of local populations' cancer rates, birth defects, etc... because these results are often in dispute in part because they show up decades after exposure and not all "accidents" are reported.
Narrowing our focus to "commercial nuclear power plants" also happens to undermine the whole claim of it being "safe" because nuclear power is "heavily regulated by the government". How? Because government facilities have more accidents than civilian facilities ... indicating no amount of regulation or direct supervision by officials can prevent human error and faulty/aged equipment. Tobacco, alcohol and firearms are 'heavily regulated' too. Know any underage smokers, people who have died from alcohol or seen any news about a gun "accidentally" discharging and killing a kid? Regulation only works when the rules are followed, and through negligence, ignorance or "acts of god", no situation is 100% safe because of 'regulation'. For a quick list of a handful of accidents in the US (just to get a feel!) see the "nuclear accidents" section on lutins.org - then, using the dates, names & other info, verify the incident using official sources, and you'll see what i mean.

FACT: immediate death as a result of exposure to a lethal dose of radiation isn't the only health concern! Cancer, reproductive damage and terrible birth defects are just as life-changing and horrific as "death". If you've got a strong stomach, google "chernobyl" and select "images". After viewing these kids, say out loud, "Nuclear power stops global warming!" to make you feel better.

FACT: so what if nuclear power does less to contribute to "Global Warming" Than the coal and oil plants Idaho DOESN'T HAVE (we use the less environmentally-impacting hydroelectric dams and wind power, with the exception of TWO small coal plants at sugar factories that generate a minuscule amount of CO2 and SO2)... even if an individual plant never has an accident, even if nuclear plants emit the least CO2 (alongside Hydroelectric and wind, mind you) the methods used in mining and refining the materials needed for nuclear power make a HUGE and LASTING impact on the environment! Do you want to contribute to the death of towns like Church Rock, NM (look it up!) just so a handful of people in Payette *might* get a job driving a bus or sweeping floors in an office? To take from the Global Warming and Anti-War movements, that's a little selfish, isn't it ... to destroy somewhere else just so you can have a few perks?

There is no way of knowing the full impact (good or bad) of any nuclear facility until its built... and at that point, i't pretty hard to reverse course. All I know is that if we DON'T have one built here, we it will be less likely that our grandkids could look like Chernobyl babies- not bringing the danger into town greatly reduces the opportunity for accident. "

" Every property owner or municipality who pumps their water supplies should be very concerned about the prospect of a nuclear power plant anywhere close to them! Where do you think this power plant is going to get its copious amounts of water that is needed to run it? It will be sucked right out of the bottom of your wells and who is more important them or you... by then it is not you! "

" Solar, wind, hydro, even coal don't leave 10,000 year deadly wastes. Show me a realistic discovery to use/dispose of nuclear waste and I'll back the industry. Until then, there are more important issues involved than corporate profits for the next three months. "

" So how is nuclear power cost effective with the .64 high paying jobs? And does any one know what the ratio is for hydro? "

" Will Mr. Burns be there? Lol! Good luck with your radioactive endeavor! You're gonna need it! "

" Tanya Fretwell,

Fact no one has died due to radiation from a commercial production of nuclear power in the Untied States.

Also in this time of double digit unemployment these are some interesting facts that Duke Energy CEO recently was quoted as saying the following:

“In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business–is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business–and we’re installing solar panels–it’s about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you’re wiping off a solar panel, it’s sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation.” _Rodgers

We I say this to all the anti-nuclear naysayers and fear mongers.

Viva the nuclear Renaissance,

Jfarmer9 "

" There is nothing good about nuclear power. All of this new talk about it being "clean energy". There is nothing clean about nuclear power. All of the production involved in deriving uranium from the ground creates exposed radiation to anyone around the mining areas (which are usually Indigenous People, because white people don't want that in there home) Then there is the dumping sites for radioactive waste which again is around Indigenous homelands. These two wrongs do not make a right for nuclear power plants. There is nothing clean about them. NIMBY is the key word of the day on this topic. I don't want this in my back yard. They are ugly and disgusting looking. There is nothing clean about them. Do you know how much money wind generator builders make? Unspeakable amounts! Why bother working in a risky nuclear plant when you can work for real clean money that is incredible wealth. Solar and Wind is clean and cheap. Nuclear power plants leak radiation into the ground and poison anyone who lives near them. There is nothing clean about nuclear power. "

" I hope that Payette imports all the labor to operate this plant....I think I'll be moving away.....HELLO!....Far Away. "

" Why does anyone refer to this guy as a doctor? He is a podiatrist for gosh sakes. That means he probably failed out of medical school or has a foot fetish. He is not an engineer. He is nothing more than some idiot who gains attention by fear mongering. He is the King of the NIMBYs who now according to the article will commute to your backyard in order to spread his word of fear. I would not trust this guy with a bunion let alone advice on how to solve our future energy needs.



He wants geothermal at Yellowstone regardless of the problem of increased seismic activity that geothermal has caused at other sites. I remind the readers that Yellowstone is a super volcano that is several hundred thousand years pass due for a mega eruption. He wants nuclear to be super scrutinized and calls it unsafe based on junk science. Though if his windmills let alone his proposed geothermal had to go through the same scrutiny that nuclear power has to not one wind mill would be built. He is the king of making a mountain out of a mole hill. He sites instances were no one was hurt and says we were seconds away from the end of the world. He will lie incessantly about the costs and safety nuclear power. In fact he will lie about anything in order to promote his planet killing diatribe of anything but nuclear.



This guy is not good citizen to earth but a friend of king coal. In fact I would not be surprised if he is supported by the rocky mountain institute in some financial way. I will say this over and over again when this guy pops his head up that he is not to be trusted. He is in fact quack who deserves all the planter warts that he treats. That if he has any clients at all.



Save the world from the likes of Peter Rickards 250 new nuke plants now,



Jfarmer9 "

" Why does anyone refer to this guy as a doctor? He is a podiatrist for gosh sakes. That means he probably failed out of medical school or has a foot fetish. He is not an engineer. He is nothing more than some idiot who gains attention by fear mongering. He is the King of the NIMBYs who now according to the article will commute to your backyard in order to spread his word of fear. I would not trust this guy with a bunion let alone advice on how to solve our future energy needs.

He wants geothermal at Yellowstone regardless of the problem of increased seismic activity that geothermal has caused at other sites. I remind the readers that Yellowstone is a super volcano that is several hundred thousand years pass due for a mega eruption. He wants nuclear to be super scrutinized and calls it unsafe based on junk science. Though if his windmills let alone his proposed geothermal had to go through the same scrutiny that nuclear power has to not one wind mill would be built. He is the king of making a mountain out of a mole hill. He sites instances were no one was hurt and says we were seconds away from the end of the world. He will lie incessantly about the costs and safety nuclear power. In fact he will lie about anything in order to promote his planet killing diatribe of anything but nuclear.

This guy is not good citizen to earth but a friend of king coal. In fact I would not be surprised if he is supported by the rocky mountain institute in some financial way. I will say this over and over again when this guy pops his head up that he is not to be trusted. He is in fact quack who deserves all the planter warts that he treats. That if he has any clients at all.

Save the world from the likes of Peter Rickards 250 new nuke plants now,

Jfarmer9 "

" I wonder if Dr. Rickards is also against hydroelectric power. Nuclear power is a good option for Payette and Idaho. He talks of the Plant in Ohio which is 40 year old technology. There are power plants all over the world that have operated safely for years. Nuclear power is a much better option than the natural gas fired plant the Id Power just proposed since it does not use an already scarce source of energy causing the price to go up for home heating and other current users. I say send Dr. Rickards home and Build the plant. "