What I would like to know is what peer reviewed science has been done on the issue of nuclear waste and its safe containment? Already I see waste containment itself as necessary, but also good money after bad. The fact that it is going to cost $16 to $24 billion dollars just to build such a site is staggering. To me, nuclear is still nasty. Just because there is no Co2 emissions, all of a sudden, nuclear is sexy again.

What I want to know is what peer review scientific bodies like AAAS and NAS have to say about nuclear waste, nuclear power and containment of waste? What guarnatees are there that this waste will not render the planet uninhabitable? What about future generations?

They will have to deal with the sorry mess we have made by starting up nuclear power in the first place. Pandora's box has been opened and sadly, we are now committed. It is my personal opinion, which is shared by organizations like greenpeace, that throwing more money into nuclear is short sited. Renenwable and safer forms of energy like Wind and Solar, as well as tidal power are much less dangerous to us and future generations.

So, where is the peer reviewed science behind this? Is there any peer reviewed science on the safety of nuclear power and waste? Specifically, the two most credible scientific bodies on the planet are the ones we need to here from. AAAS and NAS.

Have some feedback for us?

Send Feedback