Repost for those who missed it... "The Reality of Nuclear Power"

With the continuing nightmare that is Fukushima I think some should read this article on Nuclear byproducts.

Everything I wrote is cited and is best data attributed from the AEC, ERDA, NRC, various other sources from company publications and our own CRC Handbook Of Chemistry and Physics. Version 2011.

The Measure of Safety and Efficiency in any form of Power Generation is not measured Solely on how many have died...so far...there is more to the cost that the public must bear than just someone's death and there is more at stake than a few years of power generated from Nuclear Fission. Power generation as well as in all industries, should be focusing on creating a zero sum damage to the environment and the planet, so that it will be able to sustain life indefinitely...I know some of you are only going to live 100 years and you don't really care what happens after you are dead...

The True Stake, the one Pro-Nuclear and Climate Change deniers tiptoe around is the fact that Radioactivity from a Nuclear Plant explosion or multiple explosions and the tens of thousands of tons of waste we have to store from this method of power generation; once accidentally released, cannot be cleaned up and can potentially over time and dispersal kill all life on this planet, not for a few years, not even for a few hundred years, or even tens of thousands of years but, for 300,000 years or more.


http://drewrichards2000.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/28/6363786-the-reality-of-nuclear-power

how do explain George Monbiot's position? It's not that I agree with Monbiot, I find his optimism about nuclear energy to be baffling so I wonder if you can make sense of it.

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/

This is more of a feeling piece by him rather than an investigative piece such as others he has done in the past...

He claims solar fails in upper latitudes...I would like to see some proof...It might be less cost efficient but that also depends on what form of solar he is referring to now doesn't it.

He claims there are no alternatives...I think I have proved equivocally that that belief is patently incorrect.

So I guess my answer is?

He has been paid to write a puff piece to pay the bills.

This article of his, is nothing like other investigative articles backed with documentation that I have read by him and I am at a loss to explain his reversal of position he takes with no data to back it up.

OF course this article is from two months ago so maybe he would rethink it now after learning about Fukishima's ongoing problems and potential dangers to the West coast of the US...or maybe not....

The byproducts and the long half lives of such. He tends to go after the shorter time frame results - so many killed directly in the one month period after Chernobyl, etc.

As far as I can see, this man was first paid by Big Industry to deny Climate Change, and he is now paid by Nuke Industry to be perennially optimistic about it. And with our Mainstream News in the same employ - that of Big Oil/Big Energy, the MIC, Big Pharma, Big Insurers and the Bankers,. we don't hear much about the reality of the deaths caused by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Fukushima.

I had always thought of him as a credible source so it was confusing to read his glowing remarks about nuclear power. I was actually googling today to find info about radiation, then came back to DU and stumbled across your OP. Very informative. I look forward to reading more posts.