Comment 45700

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 14, 2010 at 12:10:00

So far, the entirety of all fuels every consumed by the nuclear station is still located on-site and is not anywhere close to full capacity, that is how very little fuel a nuclear reactors requires.

A truly terrifying point. We still have no real plan for dealing with this waste. And one plane crash or cruise missle would turn a waste pile like this into a cancer epidemic. You cannot say the same of any part of a windmill.

And as for mining Uranium, there really isn't a single kind of extractive industry I'd be more hesitant to live by, including Tar Sands. Yes a wind farm requires Iron and Copper, but so does a Nuclear Reactor (and probably more of them), so that's a moot point. Windfarms do not require fuel, reactors do.

I have a lot of friends and family who live around Elliot Lake, so don't tell me there's no harm from Uranium mining. The cancers, the contamination - it's not something any of us would want to be anywhere near. And these sites have disasters all the time, with tailings ponds full of toxic, radioactive water bursting into nearby waterways.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds