I always thought nuclear technology, for energy or warfare, was a bad idea. As far as Im concerned, there is no such thing as nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
One, because in our world-conspiracy, nuclear technology (for peaceful purposes. For ‘peaceful’ purposes), is denied to nations (think Iran), because of questionable trustworthiness- This coming from high and mighty, not to mention guilty, US of A.
Two, because of N-tech’s scope for misuse.
And three, because of N-tech’s potential to be hazardous, despite safety measures. All it needs is a tsunami to blow the reactor off the charts.
Japan is reliving pains of historical proportions. Only that this time, it is due to their civilian nuclear energy plants not being able to withstand the recent Sendai earthquake and tsunami.
In these days of energy insufficiency, radical environmentalists go all out in favour of nuclear power. They see it as a suitable compromise, between human supply and human demand, and their own concerns for environmental protection. Nuclear power is said to be a clean source of energy, even considering the dangers of radiation, and the dirty energy that is used to build and run the plants in the first place.
Given all my environmental concerns and activities, I cant agree to this settlement. Charge me with being a radical humanitarian over an environmentalist, but I think it wise to pre-empt problems- nuclear explosions and radiation can lead to irreversible environmental and human damage. Choosing N-tech is going from the frying pan into the fire, from a situation of an energy deficit to a situation of an energy danger.
What swings me away from N-tech is that the dangers are not worth it, given that we are not yet at a Hobsons’s Choice. We have coal. That’s right, I just said we have coal. And I would prioritize coal over living with a millstone around my neck. However I only speak in favour of coal, because policy makers, researchers and developers, haven’t yet found a way to make renewable and clean energy attractive on a large scale. What I truly mean, is that we have the ability to make clean energy more credible. Giving N-tech the kind of importance that environmentalists have given it, is as bad as giving coal the kind of importance that industries have. We are not better than them for having come up with this as a solution to the problem of energy, when it only poses other problems, if not bigger ones.
A note to you if you are concerned about the environment- Do not forget that you are concerned about the environment because at the very bottom of it all, you are concerned about humans. Apart from the fact that there is a public saturation with environmental needs, is the fact that environmentalists turn people off. Environment for environment’s sake is the idealist outlook, and a harder argument for you to sell if you want to gather momentum to the movement. And we are running out of time, that we can all agree on.