Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| May 22 2008, 11:59 PM EDT (current) | karlbach | 2 words added, 3 words deleted |
| May 22 2008, 11:31 PM EDT | karlbach | 7 words added, 4 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
 from Wired Magazine The NEI is “...the propaganda wing and trade group for the American nuclear industry [which] spends millions of dollars annually to engineer public opinion.” -- Dr. Helen Caldicott Check out these great blogs for more details:  | Protesters in the 70's stopped the proliferation of nuclear power plants in the US. Now, with the looming global warming crisis, nuclear is back in fashion. The narrow focus on CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions as the only real environmental impact to be concerned about has made them look appealing to some. But what about the other enormous environmental impacts they might have? How do you justify a power source that leaves behind a waste product so toxic that even 500 generations from now (much longer than recorded human history) this waste will be around to haunt the inhabitants of our planet? Not to mention that when they fail, they fail big. Remember Chernobyl. Post any information you have on thenuclear subject.energy RMI (The Rocky Mountain Institute) has done some good research on the cost benefits of various sources of energy. Nuclear ends up being the loser in the study. Why? Because this is one of the few reports that actually factors in the storage and processing of the waste, costs that are conveniently left out by the NEI (the Nuclear Energy Institute) and Bechtel corporation, who is primed to receive billions of dllars in federally-funded contracts to build the plants. Here's the report by RMI:  |
