Ludwig

>> Population stabilisation is an essential part of this. Nuclear power has no place in it. <<

Makes no sense to invest in an energy source that is so fraught with dangerous side effects, not the least of which is the disposal of spent fuel rods.

Part of the raft of solutions, including action on unmitigated human breeding, is research into wind (whether the turbines are a health hazard and how this can be solved), step up investment into solar (which continues to advance its technology), further investment into thermal and hydro.

We do not need nuclear, while there are other options just waiting for the vision, interest, investment and the resultant job opportunities. Where can workers in fossil fuel industries find new jobs? In renewable fuel industries - Duh!

REACTORS WOULD BE PANACEAS IF THEY WEREN'T SO DANGEROUS

- terrorists or disgruntled reactor operators will appreciate blowing up MODERN reactors.

- and also there is War - a sequence 2,000 lb laser guided bombs aimed at a reactor may make life 50 km around brutal and lingering. Just imagine an Osirak style bombing raid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera - but this time on a live fissioning reactor.

The destructive power of fast-fission nuclear weapons correlates with the slow-fission nature of nuclear reactors. A matter of degree but very significantly on a highly elevated scale of danger and RISK.

Pete

Poirot,

By under control, I mean that they are sealed and no longer contaminating the environment.

As for their danger, coal fired boilers have emitted far more low level radiation in their ash into the air than nuclear reactors ever have. The difference is that there is no hysteria around this process.

Pericles they initially covered up the Fort Calhoun melt down and now admit that Fukushima is many times worse than they were reporting.Do what's you definition of cover up?

Pericles,when I read rubbish I ignore it.When you view something as nonsense,you go to great lengths to discredit the author with very little substance in your attack.Ad hominem doe not make an argument.

That's truly hilarious, Arjay.

>>Pericles,when I read rubbish I ignore it<<

No you don't.

You believe every single word of the rubbish that you read, and promptly regurgitate it on this forum.

But there is a serious point to be made here about your accusations of ad hominem. The quality of the source is becoming a matter of critical importance, given the manner in which we have become increasingly selective in the way we "read the news".

In the days when we had less choice, it was patently obvious. People who only had Pravda or Izvestia to read, would see the world differently to those who had La Stampa, or FAZ. Today we have an order of magnitude more sources to choose from, at the click of a mouse.

And what do we do with that massive increase in volume? We become self-selecting. Rather than be involuntarily "fed" the news straight from the Supreme Soviet, we choose to focus on the publication that meets our personal foibles and prejudices.

That, in short, is why I consider that a reference to the origin of your "information" is at least equally as important as the information itself. Examining the organ's credentials can be useful in determining whether or not there is likely to be a scrap of truth in it.

And, out of interest...

>>Pericles they initially covered up the Fort Calhoun melt down and now admit that Fukushima is many times worse than they were reporting.Do what's you definition of cover up?<<

Who are "they" in this sentence? And which "meltdown" at Fort Calhoun was initially covered up?

Ludwig, sad as it may be, I think you need to replace your screen name. the Ludwig bit is not doing you or your credibility much good at the moment. Not that you had much cred. to start woth but this is not helping