Monday, May 14, 2007
Anti nuclear industry beating an old drum about fuel storage accountability
The anti nuclear industry is beating an old drum about fuel storage accountability
Friday, April 27, 2007 @ Atomic Insights
The post discusses the case of three nuclear plants that reported that they could not successfully account for 100% of the fuel material that had passed through their plant. The author however feels that this issue is justg an old political drum being beaten.
Read the full story and the author's response here @ Atomic Insights
Friday, April 27, 2007 @ Atomic Insights
The post discusses the case of three nuclear plants that reported that they could not successfully account for 100% of the fuel material that had passed through their plant. The author however feels that this issue is justg an old political drum being beaten.
Read the full story and the author's response here @ Atomic Insights
Labels: nuclear, opposition, problems
PermaLink - Anti nuclear industry beating an old drum about fuel storage accountability posted by Ecacofonix : 4:52 AM
0 Comments
Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy
Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy
The author speaks about the pseduo-scientific arguments used by some of those opposed to nuclear energy. According to these anti-nuclear advocates, "Nuclear fission is apparently bad because splitting atoms is in conflict with all Life because it is destruction not construction".
Of course this is all utter trash; if someone is opposed to nuclear energy (or for that matter opposed to anything), he or she should be able to put forward objective and pertinent arguments. In the case of nuclear energy, both in public forums and sometimes even in scientific forums, what we hear are random thoughts from folks who are scared of the unknown.
As the author says in the post, what is wrong with splitting? "Natural radioactive decay, the kind of decay, which fuelled the primordial vents from where life first sprang, is the destruction of atoms. Metabolism is the destruction of all sorts of molecules."
Fair enough...
Read the rest of the post from here @ Freedom for Fission
The author speaks about the pseduo-scientific arguments used by some of those opposed to nuclear energy. According to these anti-nuclear advocates, "Nuclear fission is apparently bad because splitting atoms is in conflict with all Life because it is destruction not construction".
Of course this is all utter trash; if someone is opposed to nuclear energy (or for that matter opposed to anything), he or she should be able to put forward objective and pertinent arguments. In the case of nuclear energy, both in public forums and sometimes even in scientific forums, what we hear are random thoughts from folks who are scared of the unknown.
As the author says in the post, what is wrong with splitting? "Natural radioactive decay, the kind of decay, which fuelled the primordial vents from where life first sprang, is the destruction of atoms. Metabolism is the destruction of all sorts of molecules."
Fair enough...
Read the rest of the post from here @ Freedom for Fission
Labels: nuclear, opinions, opposition
PermaLink - Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy posted by Ecacofonix : 4:49 AM
0 Comments
Thursday, March 29, 2007
To Save Earth, We Need a Freeze on Biofuels
If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
George Monbiot, March 29, 2007
"Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose.
It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks," says George Monibot in this interesting opinion piece
Read the full article from the Guardian here @ ZNet Science
George Monbiot, March 29, 2007
"Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People - and the environment - will lose.
It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow - it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be "decarbonising" our transport networks," says George Monibot in this interesting opinion piece
Read the full article from the Guardian here @ ZNet Science
Labels: biofuels, biofuels-problems, opposition, problems
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
