Quote:
Originally Posted by Wobs
Here's a clue from the article:
"I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."
|
I'm not debating greenpeace tactics nor their real contribution to the cause.
I agree that nuclear is safer than coal from a radiation stand point. Actually the new figures put nuclear power at almost 1% of the adverse effects from a coal plant. In fact, solar power is more sensible for an individual housing level. Lower the demand for power by making homes more self contained will help.
I am not pushing a pipe dream. I don't think that solar power is a god send that will make more dangerous powers obsolete. In combination with wind, hydro, and better awareness programs for conservation it can make a real difference. Ultimately, nuclear power is needed both in the UK as well as the States and more of it but like anything else that falls into the realm of green initiatives. Why create more damaging plants than you need? If solar and wind can supplement 10% - 15% (these are arbitrary) then we could keep at least a few plants from being need here in the states.