Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
I spent six months studying the issue. I was a member of Greenpeace at the time. I read the studies in the university library. I started out wanting to demonstrate the crisis Greenpeace and others alerted me to. Getting the details, I found out that my Greenpeace magazine was telling the truth that there were tons of waste, and they were telling the truth that nuclear waste was very dangerous. I was disheartened to learn that the dangerous waste was NOT the kind that there was a lot of.
Back then I also repeated the Greenpeace line that in twenty years California would be underwater from global warming. That was in the early 90s. Apparently I was wrong because California is still here.
|
Once again, any links to back up your claims (like the ones i have provided) would be appreciated.
It has nothing to do with Greenpeace or global warming etc. and everything to do with the facts which validate the grim reality of high level nuclear waste being generated in very large quantities every year and the lack of safe storage for this waste.
It's a ticking time bomb.
It also doesn't help when you have countries like Japan who get the bright idea to make a nuke plant in the ring of fire...
It's created a major disaster which has now spread beyond 100 miles from the site on land and thousands of miles in the ocean, and it will continue to do untold damage for many years to come.
So in conclusion, trying to promote nukes as "cleaner" than solar is ludicrous at best.
It has already been proven that the emissions/pollution from the manufacturing of solar panels is far less per output than fossil fuel production, and far better than nuclear power production on both a safety and environmental level.
.