The debate over the expansion of nuclear power has been running nonstop for many years. Some of the earliest protests were in the 1950s, and later there were many science fiction movies about the danger of nuclear weapons. A few examples are Dr. Strangelove and The Day The Earth Stood Still. However, it seems that the amount of public debate about nuclear energy is strongly related to whether there has been a recent high-profile incident involving a nuclear power plant. For example, the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979 led to a protest with 200,000 people marching in New York. The protests continued through the 1980s when “Ronnie Raygun” was president and amassing a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. After Reagan’s presidency, however, the amount of protest activity decreased. There was talk of a new ‘renaissance’ of nuclear power, and several plants were in varous stages of development. However, the Tohoku earthquake in March 2011, and the subsequent meltdowns of several reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex, caused many developed nations to rethink their use of nuclear power. For example, Germany decided to shut down all of its reactors by 2022.

I was thinking about this issue the other when I was using my vaporizer and watching The Simpsons. Everyone remembers that Homer’s job was at the nuclear power plant owned by Mr. Burns. Homer was “one of the low-level drones in sector 7-G.” Yet, the show was most definitely not pro-nuclear power. Homer’s constant bungling (along with his friends Lenny and Karl) led to many a near-disaster at the plant. In one episode, a three-eyed fish named ‘Blinky’ was discovered in the river near the plant. 

In any case, the anti-nuclear movement has certainly made great leaps lately. Many countries are now firmly opposed to using nuclear power, and others are reducing their current usage. Currently there is strong opposition among the public of many nations. Another ongoing issue the disposal of nuclear waste. 

I think any of us that have looked into the government budget knows one simple fact.  Either you’re going to be able to afford bombs, or you’re going to be able to afford health care.

I’ve read a few places that the Congressional Budget Office thinks that the Iraq war cost as much as complete health insurance for every America, for an entire decade! What are our policy makers thinking?

I asked my San Francisco chiropractor what he thought about the whole thing.  I thought his response was pretty well reasoned considering where he lives. He said that he understood the need to defend ourselves and our freedoms.  Even in SF which is probably the hub of liberal thought in America, hardly anyone is arguing over the war in Afghanistan.

That being said, there are quite a few questions about the war in Iraq and why it took place in the first place.  He went on to talk about how having health insurance on a national level would certainly help his business, but it would also help give other people the ability to open their own businesses.  He said he has a couple of clients who are trying to live the Silicon Valley dream by starting a tech company, but they can’t leave their day job because of the loss of benefits.

Personally that makes me wonder.  What else are we trading for bombs? Are we losing the next Apple, Google or Facebook?