"charlesb" wrote:

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. (snip)


If that is true, why are there tons of nuclear waste stored around the
country at weapons labs, weapons factories, power plants, and so on? Instead
of being reprocessed, must agree the stuff will end up being stored in
underground containment facilities - facilities to be maintained for many
decades or even centuries (at taxpayers expense, I should add).


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.


Look, I'm not defending fossil-fuel generator plants. All I'm saying is
that nuclear power plants are not a good alternative to fossil-fuel plants -
the problems are worse (and potentially catastrophic).


(snip) Of the available alternatives, nuclear is the cleanest
and safest by far, and its continued development will eventually
lead us to fusion power. (snip)


It's only cleaner and safer if you ignore the waste and mining issues, and
the potentual for personnel mistakes, design flaws, environmental risks, or
parts failure. It is absurd to believe Three Mile Island will be the only
serious incident, or the worse incident to ever possibly happen.


(snip) 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. (snip)


Which is exactly why nuclear power continues to lose supporters and this
country continues to move away from nuclear power.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/