Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
9. very simple statementt
Mon Mar 5, 2012, 11:14 AM
Mar 2012

I make claims that are based on SCIENCE and "not all over the place" ( probably looks that way to those that don't know science )

The point is other nations, France, Japan, UK, Sweden..." either reprocess or have some other nation reprocess.

The USA could do that too.

First, Arjun is NOT a nuclear physicist; he gets a LOT wrong!!!
Although the anti-nukes like what he says; it doesn't make him right.

The fact is that, as Dr. Till states; reprocessing / recycling changes long-lived waste to short-lived waste.

Thanks for pointing out that we could have 200 years of nuclear power without mining any more uranium; using what we have on hand.

No mining disasters, no more radiation for miners that anti-nukes complain about. We could just use what we have above ground
right now for about 200 years with fast reactors.

Thank You ever so much for making an issue of that!!

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»$8.3 B: A Big Price Tag F...»Reply #9