|
It is easy to find scientific information about nuclear energy. The scare stories just don't hold up. I understand why people would be scared of it, but they have been fed misinformation for 30 years. Chernobyl, Cheney, "too cheap to meter", and and other hot-buttons are pushed over and over.
And the "heavy financing" of pro-nuclear information is utterly dwarfed by corporate greenwash. If you watch Keith Olbermann, you will see several advertisements for "green energy" between the erection medicine and Dennis Hopper Ameriprise ads.
There are actual problems with nuclear development that need to be addressed: mainly high initial start-up costs, proliferation, and the need for tight regulation. But what people fear is not a technical problem in a properly implemented nuclear fuel cycle. In fact, there are few problems remaining except for human error and political/financial corruption.
Selective attention and concern are also too common. Coal contains 5-40 (avg. 14) parts per million of radionucleides, mainly uranium and thorium. In one year, a gigawatt coal-burning plant puts an average of 50 tons of the stuff into the air. And there are thousands of coal plants in operation. It is estimated that, yearly, there are 500,000 to 2 million deaths from the NON-radioactive output of coal, plus about 2000 deaths of miners. Yet it barely raises an eyebrow.
Seawater, likewise, contains an average 12 PPM of U/Th material. It can be extracted, and within two to four years, these methods will be competitive with uranium mining.
There is a corpus of hundreds of thousands of pages of anti-nuclear writing, most of it repetitive, with which to bury all other voices, and a number of anti-nuclear activists share the zeal of anti-choice activists. It would take much more writing from me to properly make the case. So I will urge you take a look at the issue yourself, dispassionately. Avoid ALL propaganda, pro- and anti-. Seek conflicting points of view, again from all sides. You may still oppose nuclear energy, but you will be informed. And while I advocate for nuclear energy, having a well-informed society is a much higher priority. Any particular "flavor" of energy has its risks and rewards, but intelligence is an absolute benefit.
--p!
PS: It usually takes about ten minutes for someone to accuse me of being a "paid shill". I am currently disabled, bankrupted from medical expenses, and on Social Security. So if you DO know anyone with deep pockets looking to make me a paid shill, please pass along my username so they can contact me by e-mail. My rates start at $65 per hour but I give substantial volume discounts.
And yes, I DO strongly support the development of all other newer forms of energy generation, particularly tidal and deep geothermal. I worked for a solar/wind start-up in 1979. It isn't a matter of either/or, but of both/and.
|