Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (356723)	11/1/2007 1:37:40 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575946

Ted, I don't disagree with you but between the fear of a meltdown and what to do with nuclear wastes Life is full of risks. We manage them, minimize them. As far as nuclear waste, generally, people are uniformed about the fact that the wastes are only the result of a given level technology at the time fuel is used. It can extract, that can extract only certain percentage of the energy. As the technology improves, there will be less and less of the waste. And what was a waste yesterday may become new fuel today or tomorrow. The more money that goes into nuclear energy and related R&D, the less waste there will be, and times that the waste will remain radioactive shortens by orders of magnitude. While you blame the environmentalists, I think a lot of the blame lies with American leaders and gov't officials during the Cold War. In the schools, kids were regularly reminded of the threats that nukes posed the world with graphic films that showed the results of nuclear meltdown or nuclear winter after a nuclear war. While it is difficult for an educated person to be oblivious to the destructive power of nuclear weapons, I would not paint gov't officials with a broad brush. Nuclear plant = nuclear weapon only as much as electric chair = electric shaver. Yeah, there is a remote possibility that a person can get electricuted while shaving, I don't think people will stop using electric shavers or hair driers. Speaking of which, it would not surprise me if the number of people who got themselves electricuted in their bathrooms did not exceed the number of people who died in nuclear accidents. Maybe you are speaking about political leaders who fell for anti-nuclear propaganda. They were few, and far between, even among Democrats - none among Republicans There was a particular group of anti-Reagan anti-nuclear activists in the 80s who did more than a fair share of anti-nuclear scaremongering. Anti-Reagan Hollywood carried their banner. Their biggest triumph was a made for TV movie "The Day After": imdb.com But you have to put it in context. The context was entirely political. Reagan was about to install medium range nuclear missiles in Europe (Pershing) to counter similar missiles Soviet Union was installing / upgrading (SS20). At the same time Soviet Union started an unprecendented propaganda campaign against the US missiles, in order to split Western Europe from the US, with all of their front organizations in the West working in overdrive. The "The Day After" was just Hollywood doing its part in the propaganda war - for the bad guys. BTW, the nuclear industry has been talking about greenhouse gasses longer than anyone. Of course they did so for a self serving reason, but they have been vindicated after all. Joe