Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

More Nukes, Less Kooks

The recent tragedy of the deaths of the coal miners in West Virginia serves as a grim reminder that the production of energy can be a dangerous business. Every year hundreds of people are killed or injured in accidents related to the production and use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use also creates air pollution, acid rain, and other real or perceived (e.g. “global warming”) environmental problems. It seems that a lot of problems could be minimized or avoided by reducing our use of these fuels.

Why then are so many tree-hugger environmentalist types so against the use of nuclear energy? Nuclear energy is clean, efficient, cost-effective, and safe when properly implemented. Unfortunately the influence of environmental extremists (a.k.a. “Environmentalist Wackos”) has permeated government at all levels, making it a regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare to get a nuclear plant on-line. The World Nuclear Association promotes the use of nuclear energy by highlighting the many advantages of this form of energy and debunking many of the myths perpetrated by the liberal mainstream media and environmental extremists. Check out their web site for a lot of good information.

As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, more people have died in the back seat of Senator Teddy Kennedy's Oldsmobile than have died in nuclear plant accidents in the United States, yet hundreds die each year in mining and coal-fired boiler accidents with relatively little outrage from the media or the general public. If even one person had been killed in a nuclear plant accident the mainstream media would have a field day reporting on the dangers of nuclear power. Liberal politicians would jump on the bandwagon and call for increased regulation or an outright ban. The death of the nuclear worker would be portrayed as a by-product of the inherent evils of nuclear power rather than the perspective of a human tragedy as in the reporting of mining accidents.

How many unnecessary deaths and injuries need to occur before nuclear energy is utilized to its full potential?


Blogger James Aach said...

You might be interested to know there is a new techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry, available at no cost on the net. Written by a longtime nuclear engineer, it provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of a nuclear power plant and how an accident might be handled. “Rad Decision” is currently at RadDecision.blogspot.com.

The real world of nuclear energy (good and bad) has never been accurately portrayed in the media, and the public today has a better understanding of the Starship Enterprise than they do of the nuke plant down the street. If we are going to make good decisions about our energy future, it would be a fine idea to better understand our energy present. "Rad Decision" can help with that.

"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand, futurist, tech icon, and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog.

"Very nice, good pace. The tech was good but not overwhelming." - a reader.

Take a look at Rad Decision as you continue to think about energy issues. And if you like what you see - please pass the word.


1/05/2006 12:33 PM  
Blogger Eightgun said...

Here's a thought: the environmental extremists do not consider it important for humans' energy needs to be met. In fact, they don't care whether or not nuclear power would save the lives of human beings. The lives and limbs of their fellow human beings are not top priority for environmental extremists--that place is reserved for the sanctity of Mother Earth.

1/10/2006 8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger