Charley,

I do hope you lobby hard for tough environmental regulations for ALL power plants, and for upgrading the older ones. Otherwise I might suspect you are just anti-nuclear, and NOT anti-environmental impact.


In fact, ALL sources should be looked at- THE ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE. I hear too many people who do not understand the impact of lead poisoning talking about how clean hybrid and electric vehicles are. The fact that the batteries have to be produced, and disposed of at end of life seems to have slipped their minds.

Nuclear, when designed correctly, is FAR safer than the present plants that they would replace: Look at the number of people killed mining coal vs the number killed mining uranium. You keep talking about accidents- They should be looked at, but you ignore the KNOWN deaths due to conventional plants, and make wild claims ( without supporting numbers) about nuclear ones.

Will there be accidents, YES, IN ALL CASES!

Should we not use any power at all, then, to avoid those deaths?????

And what will that cost in lives lost?


A byproduct of nuclear power are radioisotopes. I presume that, since there is a chance of the reactor making them having an accident, you are against their use?

COST/BENEFIT analysis, not unsubstantiated claims, should be used for ALL decisions