Nuclear power stations
Nov. 30th, 2005 02:22 pmHave I missed something? Has there been some change in the technology that means that putting new nuclear power stations on a small crowded island that is a target for suicide bombers is a good idea?
Why is it better to make radioactive waste than carbon dioxide?
I thought the whole idea had been more or less written off after Chernobyl.
Why is it better to make radioactive waste than carbon dioxide?
I thought the whole idea had been more or less written off after Chernobyl.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 10:54 am (UTC)It reminds me, to touch on a controversial subject, of a most irritating guy I heard recently, arguing that animal research was actively hindering medical progress, and that if only those pesky scientists didn't insist on torturing bunny rabbits for fun, then we'd have had side-effect-free cures for AIDS/cancer/Alzheimer's/you name it, years ago. I said to him, "Surely in a global capitalist system, multinational pharmaceutical companies are driven primarily by the search for profit. [he nodded enthusiastically.] Clearly, any company that produced a side-effect-free cure for AIDS/cancer/Alzheimer's would rake in profit by the billions. Can you explain to me why the pharmaceutical companies are deliberately eschewing such profits in favour of conducting pointless experiments on animals?" I didn't get a coherent answer to that.
In general I don't believe in conspiracy theories. It may be that a brilliant non-polluting solution to all our energy needs is available, and just being suppressed by the ruthless vested interests of the oil companies and nuclear lobby -- I hope that IS the case! -- but on the whole it seems unlikely to me. :-(
On the other hand I do think less-polluting technologies will slowly get better and better, and hopefully we'll be able to abandon nuclear again one day.
Neuromancer