RSH_100w.gif (2252 bytes)

RSH >  Nuclear Technology Sources-Links

RSH Data and Documents

Nuclear Technology Data and Info Sources

External Links

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
Home of the Pro-Nuclear Space Movement. "Anyone interested in the exciting and rapidly growing science of space flight and nuclear applications to it is welcome to visit our newly created website. All welcome regardless of opinion. Nuclear power is the next logical step forward. RTG's are already commonplace in satellites and reactor rockets would demonstrate more than double the performance of outdated chemical boosters. Essentially airline like access to space.
     Nuclear power is real.
Antimatter engines, Beamcore fusion drives and Warp travel are science fiction. They were "just around the corner" in our great grandparents youth. They aren't coming. Nuclear power can give us bases and cities out to pluto and beyond."

 


RSH > Nuclear Technology Sources-Links

[http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Common Footer.html]

06/14/06