Osama eyeing nuke plants? CNN seemed to imply that. You decide

[oscar111]

CNN's "in the footsteps of Osama" feature report, Aug. 23, 24.... showed a western reporter who described meeting osama's no. two man...

who said , " before nine-eleven, we considered hitting american nuclear power plants, but we then decided to shelve that plan for now... "

hmmm... "FOR NOW" ? hmmm.

Sounds like they may well STILL be considering that.

Nuclear power's cost must include the cost of the dead bodies after a plant is hit by terrorists.

And, the cost of nuclear wars in the third world.. eg. Iran hits Israel, then the US punishes Iran by nuking Iran, then the clouds of fallout cause cancers in India, Indonesia, and drift over the Pacific to Los Angeles. Just like the clouds of ordinary dust from China.

That is the real full cost of nuclear power plants.

Go solar and wind.

[FloridaPat]

1. If we go solar & wind, we'll have no reason to invade all these countries.

What are you, some kind of progressive liberal?

[NNadir]

2. Actually the only terrorist events on US soil involved oil and fertilizer.

You may not have heard about this, but the difference between North Korea and Iran is well, oil.

When bombs are dropped on people around the world, all of them have been made with oil products.

Nevertheless, without the discovery of a single terrorist act involving nuclear materials, the entire anti-nuclear pro-fossil fuel argument attempt to substitute what may, could or might happen for what is happening with nuclear terrorism.

CNN is an organization that 1) Had Wolf Blitzer carry on about Saddam Hussein and Mushroom clouds. There were no Iraqi nuclear weapons. 2) Carries on incessantly about Iranian nuclear weapons. 3) Just barely cover global climate change, which is a risk to every human being on the planet and not just the victims of a few terrorists. 4) When it does cover climate change always refers to the "debate," about it.

CNN is an organization that panders to fear by using code words like "nuclear." I'll bet they often mention things like "dirty bombs," over there on their network. Of course, what Wolfie and crew don't ever cover is how the alleged terrorists - Jose Padilla types - are going to get near enough to the nuclear materials to transport them without themselves being killed by the radiation. (Most people would regard someone toting around a few metric tons of lead shielding with some curiosity.)

Of course, the American people, not particularly fond of science any more, are led around by the nostrils easily by recitation of the word "nuclear." They were inspired to commit wholesale murder on a vast scale by the mere mention of "mushroom clouds" coming from an oil state - even though the potential for those clouds did not exist at all.

The "cost" of nuclear terrorism has been zero. The cost of oil terrorism, on the other hand, has been much, much, much higher. Maybe we should ban oil first. No?

I haven't noticed that Wolfie Blitzer is particular concerned about the missing Osama bin Laden. If he's having regular conversations with Osama about Osama's plans, maybe he should tell George W. Bush about them, but, I don't think George W. Bush wants to find Osama. But then again I don't watch him except when someone posts a "your tube" link wherein he's "interviewing" Howard Dean by blabbing out White House talking points. To Dr. Dean's credit, he usually fields Wolfie's blabber and blubber pretty well.

[hunter]

3. Ooooooo... Osama..... Nuclear....

I'm so afraid! Only George W. Bush and his friends in the coal and oil industry can save us now! :sarcasm:

Fine, go ahead, oppose nuclear power. But don't get sucked into the fool's game that allows the oil and coal industry to dominate our political process.