Ha! Ha! Don't worry about CC's silly digs, hellypelly. She's good for a laugh repeating the same tired old mantras ad nauseam. The planet is doomed! We're all going to die! And Baggy likes nuclear power because her dad helped a couple of Czech students in 1968. Daft to fall back on silly jibes. Only people who don't have a argument do that.
It was reading James Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia" in the year it came out (2006) that made me think again and some more about nuclear power. I hadn't been put off by the increasingly dubious antics of the anthropogenic global warming scam at that time. On p103 Lovelock says:
The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.
Remember, this guy is as 'green' as they come. If you're bothered by anthropogenic global warming (i.e. increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as the main driver of climate change), then it makes quite a lot of sense to look for another source of energy that doesn't add to that problem. As it happens, I'm not worried about CO2 because I think climate is far more chaotic and complex than warmists give it credit for. As it happens, I used to be totally opposed to nuclear power, but I read stuff on both sides of the debate and decided it was worth pursuing (also that it would be pursued anyway; might as well be a realist). I'm still concerned about nuclear waste but it looks as if that will be less of a problem in future.
Hi, carbon, hope you are well. I guess it didn't occur to you that Honsa was happy to eat British lamb because he knew the health scares about radiation were 'bovine manure'? As a nuclear physicist he was putting his mouth where his knowledge was, so to speak.