"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"charlesb" wrote:

Keep in mind the fact that fossil-fuel burning plants pollute
while working perfectly. Unlike the nuclear plants, they
don't have to wait for an accident in order to cause a
problem.


Most would consider the massive amounts of nuclear waste (from spent
fuel,
contaminated building materials from closed plants, and so on) a
"problem."
People over many generations will have to deal with those waste products.
And, of course, this environmental polution is far worse than anything
generated by fossil-fuel burning plants. So, your claim above ("unlike the
nuclear plants...") is patently false.

Nope. The nuclear plants do not necessarily have to pollute in any
significant way, as there are effective, economical methods for containing
and reprocessing nuclear waste. Once you burn fossil-fuels though, you have
instant pollution injected directly into the atmosphere and the process
continues to generate toxins as long as the burning process goes on. They
end up everywhere.

Shut the fossil-fuel burner down, and it takes a number of years for the
pollution it has already produced to become absorbed into the general
environment. It doesn't just go away, it gets spread around, absorbed, and
dissipated. That would work just fine if there was just one or two
fossil-fuel burning power plants, but the unpleasant fact is that there are
thousands of them around the world. The third-world countries especially
like the "let's burn something" level of technology, because it is something
that they can readily understand, despite being protien-deprived as children
and not having much by way of an education.

Strictly speaking, there is no pollution-free method of obtaining
significant amounts of power. Of the available alternatives, nuclear is the
cleanest and safest by far, and its continued development will eventually
lead us to fusion power. Of course there will always be mindless
chicken-little bleating from those who obtain the latest scientific facts
from Mother Earth News, Cosmo, or the National Enquirer, but if you discount
this fruitcake element, you'll find that most people in the U.S. are
intelligent enough to understand the issues, and can make informed, rational
decisions if you give them half a chance.

Yes, there is a vocal minority who are convinced that the sky is falling.
The fact that they get together and agree among themselves does not mean
that their hysteria has any basis in fact. It really only means that though
they may be wigged out, at least they are not lonely. Taken out of the
context of their conspiracy of agreement and placed within a population of
normals, they sooner or later find that they are not so sure that the sky is
falling after all. - Except for the hard-core wiggees of course, whose only
hope would be some form of shock therapy.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL