+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Log In to post a reply
80 messages
View: flat \ threaded

183 posts

Re: Radiation.

I think the rise of techniques for the extraction of fuel from shale, and the vast coal reserves still untapped should ensure there are other means of destroying the planet over the next decades besides nuclear power.

And as Wracket mentioned, the increasing use of Thorium in reactors, plus increasingly sophisticated methods of recycling the waste will reduce the risk over time.

Once the fuel has been cooled, which happens fairly rapidly, it poses very little threat under current storage protocol, but poses a lot of political inconvenience.

I have it on good authority that Fukushima was never close to Chernobyl in terms of the scale of danger it represented -Chernobyl exploded; Fukushima's cooling systems and backup merely failed -no comparison, basically.

Monbiot is probably right, in my opinion, to stay nuke; he is a highly credible, independent and knowledgeable source with long-term involvement in the green movement.

That's my two pence' worth, anyway.

Apr 25, 2011, 20:54


Topic Outline: