There was one poster (I think jaagu?) who was staunchly against nuclear power - and most of the rest of the posters would disagree, pointing out that nuclear power was an alternative to fossil fuels.

I'm thinking salaryguru. But maybe you're right. He had worked in some capacity for someone concerned about nuclear waste. He used to bring up the point that the waste can last for thousands of years, and any marking we make indicating "danger" or "radioactive" -if the marking lasts that long- may not be understood by whomever is there in several thousand years. A skull and crossbones may mean nothing to the people at that time, for example.

And it's a legit point. I'm still in favor of nuclear power. France (in particular) has shown how it can be done. For example, adopt one design and build several of them; as opposed to in the US every reactor has a different design...one of a kind.

The former head of Greenpeace (forget his name) a few years ago came out in favor of nuclear power. As I recall, he was prioritizing anthropogenic climate change as among the greatest threats to humanity, and wanted all fossil-burners retired in favor of nuclear.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.