Scientists Criticize Nuclear Plants Over Safety

March 11, 2013

  • March 11, 2013 at 2:04 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m sure along with being against nuclear power which is one of the most abundant and least polluting forms of energy known to man that these scientist are against oil, gas and coal which spew CO2 into the atmospehere, wind power due to the noise and danger to birds (and for those who live on Cap Cod will also ruin their pristine view), are against hydro power as it floods nature areas, against geothermal as they worry about causing earthquakes and only support solar panels where we now get something like 0.01% of our current energy, as long as they are not placed in environmentally sensitive areas like the desert where most of the sun falls. If these guy had their way, we’d all be living in caves, at least all of us who are not them as they and Al Gore would continue to live in their energy inefficiant mansions getting whatebver form of energy that would be commercially available.

  • March 11, 2013 at 2:30 pm
    Nan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is interesting that most of these nuclear plants were built with a 40 year life span but the NRC is giving many of them 40 year extensions. This is probably because they have never put away the money for decommissioning so they kick the can down the road for future generations to pay for and address. Radiation does not go away very quickly and the health effects can be devastating. Many of these issues were documented during the building of Seabrook. The biggest issues during the construction was the cutting of corners and graft to make money. Even a potentially “safe” energy source can be deadly when human greed gets involved.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*