But there is no solution to global climate change either, and it could turn out to be an even longer term problem than nuclear waste. Many experts are suggesting that climate change will result in mass extinctions, possibly including man.
I am not suggesting that nuclear energy is the solution, only that the alternative is not as rosy as you make it sound. Robert Mowbray Tropical Forest Ecologist -------------- Original message from Geoffrey Patton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: -------------- > Certainly, it was people consuming in an uncontrolled manner that increased > greenhouse gases - not environmentalists concerned about radioactive waste. > > Trading one long-term mess for an even longer-term mess is irrational. There > still is no solution to radioactive waste. > > We're talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of contamination, > rather than just the centuries involved with global climate change. It comes > down to externalization of costs and how long before that piper returns to > collect his due. When will we learn? > > Geoff Patton > Wheaton, MD > > Paul Cherubini wrote: > I don't believe I've heard anyone mention nuclear energy > in the carbon offsetting discussion. > > The other day on another forum Professor Bruce Walsh of > the University of Arizona offered this insight: > > "Is global warming a serious enough of a problem for us to > go nuclear? Remember, the folks that shut down new nuclear > power plant constructions made a major contribution to > increased greenhouse gases." > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > --------------------------------- > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
