At 07:47 AM 7/17/01, Andy wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2001, at 20:50, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I'm away from home, surfing the net at night from a customer's
> > location (with permission of course.) So, I will not answer the
> > radiation question in detail. But,
> >
> > "Marc Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I've been following this debate with interest, as I've always
> > >been a proponent of green power and green ways. In the past, I was
> > > >opposed to nuclear power, but reading the facts that Dan has been
> > > >posting has convinced me that, if not green, nuclear is less dirty
> > > >>than
> > >our other current forms of large scale power generation.
> >
> > I appreciate the complement. I think your summation in the last
> > sentence is very close to what I mean by green: it is the most green
> > alternative at the present time. I also think better long term
> > solutions will require fundamental breakthroughs, not just new
> > applicatons of technology.
>
>Sure, IF we make them. What IF we don't? What happens then?
>R&D is important, but we cannot count on it producing in time to
>make a difference...we have to work with what we have now.
>
>Most capitalists dislike that intensely...but hey, it's TRUE.
The problem, though, does not seem to be the capitalists, but the "greens"
who refuse to even consider the best currently-available option but keep
holding out for some unattainable (with current technology) level of
perfection.
-- Ronn! :)
