TV Schedule

365 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power


  3. covelogibbs
  4. related topics
"In the beginning was the will to destroy. The main motive in
developing nuclear technology was to optimise a bomb with a
destructive potential which put everything known before it in the
shade. Death and destruction have been accompanying not only the
nuclear bomb since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also the commercial
use of nuclear power. This technology cannot be controlled, and dozens
of accidents have again and again proven its destructive nature. Every
fire from a cable, every burst pipe, can within minutes make a nuclear
power plant into a nuclear nightmare. It was only a question of time
before this would actually happen. It finally did, at 1.23 a.m. on
26 April 1986"

Excerpt from Greenpeace's 365 Reasons to oppose nuclear Power
covelogibbs

5 responses // 365 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power

  • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-83646512276274...
    60 Minute’s segment on Nukes
    I agree nukes are very dangerous, but here is an interesting take on the subject
    Frobot
  • no nuclear anything
    lfm
    • lfm
    • 11 months ago
  • http://www.etcgroup.org/gallery2/d/1037-2/nano-hazard_s...
    NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES
    NO NUKES IS GOOD NUKES
    Thanks for the link Frobot, but I don’t buy it.------------- Generating electricity with nuclear power is like cutting butter with a chainsaw! ---------------Why would you want to do that? “Two years ago there were zero plants on the drawing board, today there are 15 companies with more than thirty commercial reactors planned” That doesn’t sound like progress to me, that sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. The statement that one could be educated into being comfortable with nukes is absurd, as education would create exactly the opposite effect. Also, suggesting that the reason France built reactors and we stopped was because France loves technology is ridiculous. After all, does anyone really love technology more than Americans? How about using technology to build some carbon scrubbers or something that pulls the CO2 out of the atmosphere? That may sound far fetched and outlandish, but not as outlandish as building more nuclear power plants. Bush’s pushing a nuclear revival is about as smart as bush pushing democracy in Iraq (read: not smart.) Also, what are 30 nuclear power plants built over the next 20 years going to do to offset global warming? Not much, as MIT has already announced that 1,500 new nukes would be needed by 2050 to offset global carbon emissions. That would be something like one new nuclear reactor coming on line every 15 days! I'm so sorry for you France, but one must only look to your neighbors in Spain to see another way (read: nuclear power bad, wind power good.) The other Achilles heel of nuclear power, besides the waste and potential terrorist threats, is the subsidies. Write your public officials and tell them "NO NUKES", we don't want to pay for it, and not just "not in my backyard", but in no ones. Invest heavily in and subsidize appropriate technologies now! P.S. Get ready to protest nuclear power plants again.
    covelogibbs
  • http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,...
    On The Road To Ruin
    On The Road To Ruin
    Not only that, covelogibbs, there is precious little usable uranium left. Uranium production peaked in 1981 and the supply is running out.

    I have read other papers which predicted that we have only 12 years of usable uranium left if we don't build new nuclear plants, and even fewer years if we do build more plants.
    Vierotchka
  • http://www.mareinitiative.com
    And there are indeed much better solutions here...
    Sun energy of 120 nuclear power stations !
    Enki

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.