Bearice, as usual you're off on another screwball tangent. Not only that, but your premise that nuclear energy is unsafe is obviously wrong. The disasters in Japan and at three-mile island both show nuclear to be safe even in the worst situations as long as the design is good. (Chernobyl was not a safe design.) The problem is not safety, but cost. The cost of these clean-up operations is huge and has to be factored into the overall economics of nuclear. We will learn a great deal from this incident in Japan and future reactors will be even safer. The new reactors will use convection driven cooling so cooling will continue even in the absence of external power. More reliable back-up systems will also result from experience in Japan, and better methods of storing spent fuel rods during cool-down will be developed. The design of these plants in Japan was what? forty years old maybe.. and look how safe they have proved to be. We don't know of any deaths yet directly related to the nuclear plants -- there may be some, but contrast that with the safety record of coal and petroleum over the years and its easy to understand why nuclear is superior from an environmental and safety standpoint. The real question is that of economics and that's what will ultimately decide the issue, assuming public hysteria does not rule the day.
You know, in the USA an entire generation of kids was raised eating on uranium glazed dinner plates (the red-orange fiesta ware plates from the 1930's will peg a Geiger counter) and a very limited number of their offspring, so far!, have turned up with three ears.
You know, in the USA an entire generation of kids was raised eating on uranium glazed dinner plates (the red-orange fiesta ware plates from the 1930's will peg a Geiger counter) and a very limited number of their offspring, so far!, have turned up with three ears.