Re: Nuclear energy - safe?
LOL! Gotta love some of the euphemisms that are being bandied about here re: nuclear energy.
In the meantime, none of the pro-nuclear energy proponents have been able to address the very real issue I brought up in post #9. What the heck are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that continues to accumulate, even as we speak?
Ignoring the issue doesn't make the problem go away, alas.
I'm realistic enough to know that with nuclear providing about 20% of this country's electrical needs, it is not an energy source that can be completely shut down tomorrow. But to expand its use with no firm plan on how to handle waste disposal is just plain ludicrous.
Morally, I find it shameful. The people of today enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, while leaving it up to their children and grandchildren to be burdened with the problem of handling the radioactive waste.
And please,.... spare me the speech about science coming up with safe and peaceful ways to re-process the waste. I've been hearing that same, hollow claptrap from nuclear reactor applicants for over 30 years. It's like a chronic smoker developing emphysema, but continuing to smoke anyway because of a fervent hope that a cure will be found before he dies. Some plan, huh?
Even if the hurdle of NIMBY politics can be overcome to create a permanent storage site for waste, the capacity for such repositories won't be infinite. This will be an ongoing issue and concern.
Until a plan is developed on how to permanently deal with nuclear waste, I say that there should be a moratorium on the building of all new reactors. In addition, aging plants should not have their operating permits extended, particularly if they no longer have the means to safely store depleted rods.
Remember folks: Japan's radiation threat is coming from spent nuclear rods that were supposedly tucked away safely in storage pools.
I repeat: Ignoring the issue of dealing with nuclear waste does not make the problem go away.
LOL! Gotta love some of the euphemisms that are being bandied about here re: nuclear energy.
In the meantime, none of the pro-nuclear energy proponents have been able to address the very real issue I brought up in post #9. What the heck are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that continues to accumulate, even as we speak?
Ignoring the issue doesn't make the problem go away, alas.
I'm realistic enough to know that with nuclear providing about 20% of this country's electrical needs, it is not an energy source that can be completely shut down tomorrow. But to expand its use with no firm plan on how to handle waste disposal is just plain ludicrous.
Morally, I find it shameful. The people of today enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, while leaving it up to their children and grandchildren to be burdened with the problem of handling the radioactive waste.
And please,.... spare me the speech about science coming up with safe and peaceful ways to re-process the waste. I've been hearing that same, hollow claptrap from nuclear reactor applicants for over 30 years. It's like a chronic smoker developing emphysema, but continuing to smoke anyway because of a fervent hope that a cure will be found before he dies. Some plan, huh?
Even if the hurdle of NIMBY politics can be overcome to create a permanent storage site for waste, the capacity for such repositories won't be infinite. This will be an ongoing issue and concern.
Until a plan is developed on how to permanently deal with nuclear waste, I say that there should be a moratorium on the building of all new reactors. In addition, aging plants should not have their operating permits extended, particularly if they no longer have the means to safely store depleted rods.
Remember folks: Japan's radiation threat is coming from spent nuclear rods that were supposedly tucked away safely in storage pools.
I repeat: Ignoring the issue of dealing with nuclear waste does not make the problem go away.
Comment