rationalskepticism.org

The reality is that this is a non-trivial issue but that a far more important one is that most of the politicians and public servants who have looked at the numbers properly have concluded that nuclear power is a bad idea.

no - they are spineless and as ill informed as you are.

France, Ontario, Japan all have solid, safe and cost effective nuclear programs and China thanks to it's command economy is just getting on with building.

It's NIMBY plain and simple.....even the founder of Greenpeace got fed up with the lies and misdirection and flat out wrong headed idiocy of the tree huggers and is now a nuclear lobbyist.

Dr. Barry Brook is first a foremost a climate scientists, so is James Hansen = they and others who most of all understand the risk coal represents have looked the alternatives and on a science and economic basis realized there is only one alternative to coal for an industrialized society and that is nuclear.
Barry has no economic interest whatsoever nor does Hansen or the others. They recognize where true risk lies and that is in NOT deploying reactors quickly to eliminate coal stations.
They are scientists - as is Patrick Moore - they know the risk the planet is under from carbon use as fuel......you clearly do not.

France understood that a while ago.

Nuclear is expensive, a large part of that expense can be laid directly at the door of fear mongers like yourself.

Nuclear could have moved forward far faster and be in a cookie cutter stage were it not for irrational fear of radiation - which health experts rate as the most negative outcome of events like 3 Mile Island - the fear itself.

Did you actually look at this chart?
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

People in this forum generally are well informed and have a science or engineering base and some even have worked with the nuclear industry.

Notice the numbers and then ask yourself why they overwhelmingly support nuclear power.

Then go inform yourself.

Moore in his own words....

Patrick Moore, avid environmentalist and co-founder of Greenpeace, makes the
case for nuclear energy.

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That conviction inspired Green-peace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of US hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.

Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels while satisfying the world’s increasing demand for energy.

Today, 441 nuclear plants operating globally avoid the release of nearly 3 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions annually—the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 428 million cars.

My views have changed because nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels while satisfying the world’s increasing demand for energy. —Patrick Moore

To reduce substantially our dependence on fossils fuels, we must work together to develop a global nuclear energy infrastructure. Nuclear energy is clean, cost-effective, reliable and safe.

In 1979 Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon both won Oscars for their starring roles in “The China Syndrome.” In the film, a nuclear reactor meltdown threatened the survival of an entire city.

Twelve days after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at ThreeMile Island sent shivers of fear through the country.

At the time no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story. The concrete containment structure did as it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. While the reactor was crippled, there was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers.

This was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States. There hasn’t been a nuclear plant built since.

In the USA today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering 20% of America’s electricity. About 80% of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them. That high approval rating doesn’t include the plant workers who have a direct personal interest in supporting their safe, well-paying jobs. Although I don’t live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.

I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists and thinkers in changing my mind on the subject. James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory and leading atmospheric scientist, believes nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue and holistic ecology thinker, says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. The late Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends
of the Earth UK, was forced to resign when he penned a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter. Such opinions have been met with inquisition-like excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull481/htmls/nuclear_rethink.html

the anti-nuclear priesthood.

ain't that the truth - no science just plain fear mongering.......just sub in nuclear hell visions for fire and brimstone....

The nations most responsible for C02 emissions are ALL nuclear powers - yes it will cost money - there is no choice in the matter or we will continue to burn all the coal reserves and do damage to the ecosphere that will not reverse for 100k years.

Already we have altered the climate a couple thousands years out....if we burn it all the place will be unrecognizable in another millenia and perhaps unliveable.

If we continue BAU even by the end of this century the changes will be catastrophic and we begin to see the signs now.

But your ilk have blinders on to that.....just completely irrational fear of something you clearly, patently do not understand.

Think about why the 80% flat out support in this forum and ask yourself why - and then ask them to inform you