The earth is flat, and nuclear power is cheap and safe.
Mitra - Natural Innovation: The earth is flat, and nuclear power is cheap and safe.
May 12, 2005
A long time ago, Friends of the Earth had a T-shirt that said, "Pigs can fly, The Earth is Flat, and Nuclear Power is Safe".
Now, once again we are being asked to consider Nuclear Power as a cheap, safe way to stop us cooking the planet through Global Warming. Have we forgotten the long and hard road to put an end to this crazy idea.
Before the nuclear industry claims it is safe, and the cheapest way to counter global-warming, I'd suggest that we ask them whether ....
a) Everyone who mines Uranium for the west has health coverage, i.e. what exactly is being done about all the people who have been damaged by the mining process, typically in countries (or parts of countries) where life can be treated as cheap.
b) how exactly do they plan on on looking after the waste, and has the cost of looking after it until it is no longer dangerous been factored into the cost.
c) who is providing an insurance policy on the potential damage should one of the reactors fail, and are they still hiding behind US legislation which limits their liability (I forget the name of this)
Then, and only then, should we even start to consider claims of safety and cheapness for nuclear power.
(I'd appreciate links to the issues behind each of these points).
The only safe Nuclear Power is 93 million miles away, the sun, so lets figure out how to harness that.
May 12, 2005
A long time ago, Friends of the Earth had a T-shirt that said, "Pigs can fly, The Earth is Flat, and Nuclear Power is Safe".
Now, once again we are being asked to consider Nuclear Power as a cheap, safe way to stop us cooking the planet through Global Warming. Have we forgotten the long and hard road to put an end to this crazy idea.
Before the nuclear industry claims it is safe, and the cheapest way to counter global-warming, I'd suggest that we ask them whether ....
a) Everyone who mines Uranium for the west has health coverage, i.e. what exactly is being done about all the people who have been damaged by the mining process, typically in countries (or parts of countries) where life can be treated as cheap.
b) how exactly do they plan on on looking after the waste, and has the cost of looking after it until it is no longer dangerous been factored into the cost.
c) who is providing an insurance policy on the potential damage should one of the reactors fail, and are they still hiding behind US legislation which limits their liability (I forget the name of this)
Then, and only then, should we even start to consider claims of safety and cheapness for nuclear power.
(I'd appreciate links to the issues behind each of these points).
The only safe Nuclear Power is 93 million miles away, the sun, so lets figure out how to harness that.
posted by Marcel at 7:44 AM
1 Comments:
a) CANDU--decreased mining because of recycling of waste and production of fuel
b) CANDU--recycling of waste and production of fuel
c) There's thousands of lawyers lining up to sue anyone who builds a new nuclear power plant. No insurer in their right mind would cover that. Oh, and Price-Anderson Act, BTW.
Post a Comment
<< Home