Mark Bittman writes at the NYTimes:
There is a new discussion about nuclear energy, prompted by well-founded concerns about carbon emissions and fueled by a pro-nuclear documentary called “Pandora’s Promise.” Add a statement by James E. Hansen — who famously sounded the alarm on climate change — and, of course, industry propaganda, and presto: We Love Nukes.
Before we all become pro-nuclear greens, however, you’ve got to ask three questions: Is nuclear power safe and clean? Is it economical? And are there better alternatives?
No, no and yes. So let’s not swap the pending environmental disaster of climate change for another that may be equally risky.
Maybe to follow up they should have someone who usually writes about the safety of large industrial sites doing a piece about what foods he/she likes.
Seems like a stupid decision on the editor’s part to publish this!
The question should be, what happens when (not if) something goes wrong? The Fukujima reactor plant was most likely not well-designed. It is certain, though, that the contractors’ workmen were not all highly skilled in reactor construction (the clue? Lots of tattoos, a few missing fingers, …)
At the other end, France is still nuclear-powered, generating enough energy that the y can sell it to the timid Germans (there’s a switch!).
And there are new reactor designs – pebble-bed, thorium &c.
We should be building more smaller reactors (1 or 2 per state), not fewer bigger ones, which when (not if) there’s a problem, it takes out a large area.
You can thank government for all problems with nuclear.
This is why i dont cook my food with waves. Plenty of potential energy bit i think it will make the food wet.
That is why I don’t have a uranium cook stove. Plenty of heat but I think it makes the food unhealthy.