- 16 Mar 11, 22:33#244469
You're completely missing the point though with your nuclear energy pep talk: if we only invested half the money that goes into nuclear programs, plants, research, disposal, etc., into eco-friendly renewal energy sources instead, we would already be independent from nuclear energy and a huge step ahead towards independence from fossil fuels!
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
Dominic Jones, who's originally from Cornwall, lectures at a university in Sendai. He told the BBC his family are packing their bags: "Amazingly, outside our apartment they're building a new house and the builders came back and started building yesterday, which I thought was a bit crazy. And the Post Office have come round and delivered some parcels. So there is some kind of normality. But I think especially the foreign nationals are very worried about the nuclear situation. And as we have two young children, we've decided that it's best for the children to move back to England temporarily."
Things like this always leave me stunned. The fact that they can carry on so quickly after the disaster is amazing and may well be key to any recovery from these events.
The most worrying thing I'm seeing at the moment is the continuation of aftershocks. Does anyone know how long they are likely to go on for? A magnitude 6.0 aftershock is going to be very devastating on its own, and I believe they've had at least one at that strength already. Efforts will likely be hampered if it goes on for too long.The only solace I take from this is that in all likelihood the nuclear industry will have a bit more difficulty trying to sell us their dangerous poison.
That would be a great shame, to be quite honest. Nuclear energy is by far the best option for the future at the moment, with fossil fuel supplies highly limited and renewable sources not yet being good enough for the levels of energy we require. I find the fear of nuclear energy unjustified. Yes, the current issue with the nuclear plants in Japan is unpleasant and I feel for those affected, but this should not be used as a way of dismissing nuclear energy. What has to be remembered is that these reactors are as much as 40 years old and were not designed for a disaster on the scale of that which they have been subjected to, so the very fact that the workers are even in a position where they can fight to control the situation is nothing short of remarkable in itself.
The future of nuclear power should be much safer, with reactors designed with an extra 40 years of knowledge and experience, as well as (assuming that the research and testing proves successful) the use of a better, cleaner and safer fuel in Thorium. If nuclear fusion can be achieved on the scale required and the methods made commercially viable, then again the dangers could be reduced even further because unlike with fission, catastrophic events like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island will not be possible and the waste fuel from the process will be of a short-lived radioactivity, making it easier, safer and quicker to dispose of correctly.
I don't think that it should be the longest-term plan, but certainly investment in nuclear energy to provide the bulk of our power whilst renewable green sources are perfected is the way to go, in my opinion. The dependence on fossil fuels needs to be broken and whilst it would be brilliant to be able to replace them with renewable green energy sources, on a large scale that is not practical right now.
You're completely missing the point though with your nuclear energy pep talk: if we only invested half the money that goes into nuclear programs, plants, research, disposal, etc., into eco-friendly renewal energy sources instead, we would already be independent from nuclear energy and a huge step ahead towards independence from fossil fuels!
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
