Reply to comment
What to do?
February 7, 2006 by Anonymous, 3 years 41 weeks ago
Comment id: 1384
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
1000 years? The fuel for current, inherent safe, reactors will last more like 100 years (or less) for a full switch. Experimental breeding reactors are more expensive and more polluting and much more expensive. And they do not exist yet in quantity.
Moreover, when decommissioning is accounted for, a real cost, nuclear energy becomes very expensive. Radioactive materials are dangerous to your health.
And the waste problem is actually NOT political. Except if you believe the world can end after you are gone.
Windscale (or however it is called currently) has dumped more than 1 cubic meters of plutonium in the Irish sea. The outlet of the Le Havre plant has been closed to the public because the area has become highly radioactive. The plant itself cannot be approached without protective gear anymore.
Really only a limited option.