Thanks for the link, guest. You're right. Most of us are not scientists. But as the lead story in your link proves, science doesn't make the decisions. But an informed and vocal populace can strongly influence choices over time. If we don't start asking questions among ourselves, and weighing what might be acheivable, realistic goals geopolitically, then the science will always take a complete back seat to the politics and power brokers. Many of us baby boomers have strong anti-nuclear biases that certainly made sense given our experiences and what was known and theorized about radiation dangers at the time we formed those biases. There are new issues, now, and new information emerging and it would behoove us to begin anew forming our opinions and biases about those incomplete and partial remedies and solutions that may actually be attainable outcomes on a large scale.

That smaller scale that you speak of (assuming it is the same guest) will occur at the point, probably inevitable, when earth's resources simply will no longer be sufficient to sustain us. The walls WILL come crashing down. As that point is approached, the increasing scarcity of resources will lead to wars that destroy infrastructure and return societies and cultures throughout the world to pretty primative, but sustainable levels for those few people left standing.

Oops. I really drifted here. It is all tied up together though. That day can be delayed, though, and thoughtful people who realize it is time to reeducate ourselves can help wit that.

Janie

Janie