Chris..... no one said you were talking about Bombs. We are concerned about the public's views on these things and the 'horror' of a 'bomb' implications confuses people.
You say you are against Nuclear Power. I assume one of your reasons is the potential DISASTER of 'worst case magnitude' disaster, similar to Chernobyl and (if possible) WORSE!
Ok.... before you decide on that, take the alternatives into account. Let's simply take the Chinerse Coal fire generators or even our own Gas Fired and Oil Fired generators. If we tackle the 'worst case' event for those as well......
Well... those of us who fear that conventional generators may increase the CO2 output by enough to tip us into a global CATASTROPHE with the potential of planet-wide flooding leading to BILLIONS of deaths.... then Chernobyl looks like nice 'tea party' as an alternative........
Even uf we ignore the Global Warming arguments but consider the deaths caused by coal fired stations to the miners, the delivery drivers, those killed by the dioxins leaked from the stations, the deaths to the people surrounding the mines and the coal fired power stations etc., etc.... are we THAT far removed from the number of deaths caused by Cernobyl....?
If your objections to Nuclear is becasue we should be reducing our fuel usage of ALL kinds, then we are closer to agreement..... but I still think I prefer Nuclear to Coal, oil or gas for political reason if nothing else.
Ian
|
|