I for one am pro nuclear BECAUSE I am an environmentalist - I feel it is statistically far less damaging than coal and oil. As far as I'm concerned, a radiation leak in a desert area 100,000 years from now would be a good thing since it would only modify life in a habitat that we have too much of.
I was taught while growing up to believe the technologically correct thinking of "Nuclear power would be great - but the waste problem makes it bad"
I feel that the "no nuke kooks" are not really against pollution - they are really against technology and corporations. They carry signs "split wood, not atoms". I would hate to see my state of Pennsylvania return to using wood for energy. My life has been negatively affected by the people who used wood for power 150 years ago! - that's right, when I go hiking in Pa, it bothers me to see very few fully mature trees - this is because the whole state was pretty much clear cut 150 years ago. Lower tech societies destroy the earth - that's why ancient cities can be found - they killed the land and had to move on. Primitive life is horrible. Of course the no-nuke-kooks give no thought to the fact that societies cooking on wood have a huge increase in respiratory disease or that burning coal and oil creates all kinds of acid rain and is likely screwing up our weather. A recent 13 year study concluded no increase in cancer deaths in the Three Mile Island area - the main stream media won't mention that or the annual 10's of thousands of extra fossil fuel related deaths (that's far more every year than as a result of the Chernobyl accident).
Here's something the press is unlikely to report: The biggest radiation waste abusers are coal power plants. Coal includes large quantities of polonium, thorium, and uranium - when they burn it, much of that goes into the air. But plenty more is left in fly ash piles just siting around the plants. There is a scam where this stuff gets made into building products. I may add that you could not legally bring coal power plant fly ash or any derivative materials into a nuclear power plant because it would exceed legal limits and set off detectors. Our government has vastly inconsistent standards applied to health threats that end up costing us all a lot of money. To the kooks, that waste is perfectly OK because it comes from a process that is low tech.
The world consumption of energy is going up (while we are choking on the fumes) and the energy reserves are going down. Actually, we should stop burning oil altogether because it is too needed to directly manufacture raw materials. To me, it is a crime against future generations to not wean ourselves off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It's time that the people learn that the real agenda of extreme greens is not the earth, it is bashing the big corporations which create jobs and impeding scientific and technological advances.
Eric Krieg eric@phact.org
are there forms of free energy?
I got the following response from Fred Mitchell: - he runs a great skeptics email list
Eric, I am in full agreement with you. I visited
the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant,
and the waste that the plant produced for
a number of years was stored in a small
area, waiting for the political issues of
disposal to be worked out. Nuclear waste
is deadly, but on a volumetric basis in comparison
to coal and oil, it is MUCH to
be preferred! I'd like to see a coal burning
plant store its fly ash on site for
ANY length of time! :-)
Yes, we must wean ourselves off the dependence
on fossil fuels such as oil. We
should do nuclear now, since that technology
is proven and works. Then we should
launch a massive program to find ways to
make solar energy viable. I think on an
individual basis, solar energy can work well
with regards to heating and powering
the home. Perhaps when I build my new home
in the future, I will make use of the
very latest the solar technologies have to
offer. If I can do a viable solar
powered home in New England, no one else
has any excuses!!!!
In the mean time, I look eagerly towards buying
my first electric car. Before I
purchased the Lexus, I looked for on in earnest,
only to find out that they were
only available on a trial basis in certain
parts of California and Nevada-- using
"old-style" lead-acid batteries for storage.
There are a number of newer and much
more efficient battery technologies available
-- why they went with lead-acid is
anyone's guess. Even fuel cells would be
ideal.
I want to buy, but the technology is not available yet. :-(
-Fred -