also, nuclear power uses a lot of carbon based fuel in the cycle of mining to decommissioning. i have read that it uses nearly 70% as much as burning fossil fuels do so i am not convinced it is the best strategy.

renewables are the way forward and the amount of R&D money that goes to them is pitifully small compared to other kinds of generation.

I was surprised you posted my comment - however, one cursory look at your site did reveal the ‘no we can’t do that’ type of ill-informed criticism.

For example, on the issue of securing the future energy supply that our advance societies need, you argued that ‘just in case the phoney debate in this country is starting to swing you toward thinking nuclear power is a good idea and not at all like nuclear weapons, here is a short documentary about Chernobyl 20 years after it happened.’

So there we have it, no need for our society to develop nuclear power for the future, all we need do is watch a documentary about Chernobyl and we will see the error of our ways.

However, the Chernobyl accident is no real reason why we in the advanced West can’t have nuclear power. Indeed, why should the entire World hold back the development of nuclear energy because of the death of 56 people?

56 is the official death toll from the disaster, but from your perspective, those deaths mean we should not dabble with the messy business of nuclear science. Of course those deaths are regrettable, but they should not be used as an argument against developing nuclear power in the future.

I wonder if the real reason folks don’t rise up against these disgusting “Leaders” is because they just can’t believe anyone could be so inhuman as to commit such atrocities knowingly..? Well, I hope that’s part of it, anyhow. Otherwise we really are a far more malevolent species than I could ever bring myself to acknowledge.