It's a nice idea, but folks will never buy into it. No matter how safe you show the design to be, people will scream that such things will kill us all. They don't care about
studies which show radiation isn't nearly as dangerous as previously thought.
Quote:
To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.
Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:
87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.
|
Perhaps some time in the near future, more folks will listen to what
James Lovelock says about nuclear power.
Quote:
|
By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. True, burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide, but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas.
|
I, however, doubt that they will. Instead, they'll continue to believe that humanity will somehow all agree to give up on nuclear power, despite the fact that we've not given up on murder, whaling, or any number of stupid things.
28-April-2008, 09:57 PM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
