|
RSH Data and Documents Nuclear Technology Data and Info Sources |
James
Lovelock (Author of the GAIA Hypothesis): states that "Nuclear energy is essential to
the future of the earth's population," in his new book "Homage to GAIA"; He addresses the lack of radiation hazard in his book, "Ages of Gaia" 1988 extracted [external link]; In his Preface to Bruno Comby's "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy," he also reports that large natural radiation sources are not hazardous. See also a Feb 2004 article on wind power vs. nuclear power. "Senator Pete Domenici, at the Gordon Research Conference-Nuclear Waste and Energy, August 6, 1998, notes that radiation dose standards based on the LNT overestimate risk, and effects based on LNT are used to frighten the public. He further discusses many issues on the benefits and need for resurgence of nuclear technology." Solar Power: Assessing the Consequences: Fires in Mexico - and the US, by Jim Muckerheide, May 29, 1998. See the extent of smoke from the air from fires burning in Mexico, for weeks; the weeks of fires in central Florida. Imagine personally depending on solar power. Imagine also: a major volcanic eruption, like Krakatoa in 1883, and Tambora in 1815, producing "the year without a summer." Consider the potential for the most monumental disaster in the world of your grandchildren dependent on solar power. Discussions
of Nuclear Power Should be Based in Reality, by Dr. Theodore Rockwell, March 16, 1998, The Scientist.
Speculation is our business, but when people ask us about a technical matter, they deserve
an answer that has real-world meaning, not a hypothetical argument. Since most
non-scientists don't flit so easily from the hypothetical world to the physical world, we
should be clear when we do. We should distinguish between real and hypothetical
deaths. We should not justify 9,000 annual food-poisoning deaths and tens of
thousands of air-particulate deaths by claiming we have avoided hypothetical deaths that
might result from irradiating the food or replacing coal-burning plants with nuclear. We
are told to choose between wrecking the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels at
current rates or wrecking the economy by drastically reducing our energy usage. We don't
even discuss the option of using nuclear power to produce as much energy as needed without
creating pollution or economic disruption. We decide not to build another nuclear power
plant because "we haven't solved the waste problem." How many people do we save
by not adding to the nuclear waste? None. External Links
|
RSH > Nuclear Technology Sources-Links
[http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Common Footer.html]06/14/06