> 
> Chernobyl tragedy - April 26, 1986 - 20 years ago today... 
> Has it been that long?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2006/chernobyl/default.stm
> 
> -- Mark
> 

And the grass is still growing around the site, the deer come and graze, and
have babies, the trees are growing... The local villagers are (now) dying at
normal rates. 

Yes, thousands died. Between 4 and 90 thousand depending on who you listen
to. And if we build more plants, even though they would undoubtedly be safer
than the horrible design of Chernobyl, it is entirely possible that another
failure could happen and thousands more could die. But it is a drop in the
bucked compared to the millions who have died as a result of our use of
fossil fuels. Look at the number of deaths due to pollution from oil and
coal burning. Think about global warming (unless you are still one of the
nut cases that deny it exists). New Orleans alone. Add in the thousands who
have died in wars to protect our supply of oil. All the 9/11 deaths. All
from oil.

Nukes are our best hope for the future.

The danger of nuclear power, while certainly serious, has been massively
over stated.  Perhaps by vested interests who decided that other sources of
energy would be more profitable for them? How many people have been injured
by a well designed nuke plant? Um... That would be... ZERO. Three Mile
melted down and no-one died. Same basic class of failure as what happened at
Chernobyl. If you build them right, they are much less likely to be unsafe.
On the other hand, the damage of using coal and oil is inherent in the
source (Strip mining / OPEC) and in the process of using it (burning with
air).

The FOUNDER of Greens Peace just released a statement that he now supports
nuclear power as a more environmentally friendly source of power than coal,
oil or even hydroelectric. With age comes wisdom.

France is installing several new atomic power plants rather than depend on
OPEC. 

I would be pleased to host one in my town or back yard assuming it would
remove the areas dependence on fossil fuels.

People need to pull their heads out of the emotional fog at look at these
issues with reason.

Spent fuel goes back in the earth where it came from and is, obviously, less
energetic than it was before. It may be breaking down faster and therefore
be more radio-active, but it will be active for a shorter period of time and
so contribute less destruction to the environment. It doesn't need to be
stored at a cost of billions. It needs to be chopped up and spread out over
the area where it was originally mined. Or dropped in the ocean. For pete
sake, its radiation, we get it from the sun, from the earth, from the water,
everywhere. It just isn't that big a deal. Manage it, deal with it, get over
it.

Or keep breathing poisoned air and deal with the storms, rising oceans, and
OPEC.

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist