Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Does A 180

Posted by Zonk on from the need-just-a-bit-of-radiation dept.

palegray.net writes "Wired is running a story on how Gwyneth Cravens, a former nuclear power protester has changed her views on nuclear power as a viable solution to the world's energy needs. Said Cravens: 'I used to think we surely could do better. We could have more wind farms and solar. But I then learned about base-load energy, and that there are three forms of it: fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. In the United States, we're maxed out on hydro. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear power, and most of the fossil fuel burned is coal.'"

5 of 912 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wind Turbines are the Easy Way by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    Total bullshit. "Environmental types"? I guess you're the other type, who doesn't have an environment.

    Read the link I posted before posting your rightwing talkradio gibberish.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  2. Re:Unfortunately... by aichpvee · · Score: 0, Troll

    1) Who cares?
    2) Who cares?
    3) Who cares?

    Just because we COULD use nuclear does not mean that we should. There's no where to put the radioactive waste and without HUGE government subsidies (no private insurer will cover nuclear power plants) it's prohibitively expensive for the private companies running them and with the subsidies it's outrageously expensive for us to pay for it just to make these greedy assholes richer.

    Nuclear power is NOT the answer, it never has been and never will be. If we can't do better than this bullshit we might as well all just go out back and shoot ourselves because there is nothing left for failure that is humanity.

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  3. Re:And there is still the unsolved issue of... by ergonomia · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, it's safe mkay. Repeat after me, mkay, it's safe. Mkay? Yeah, mkay.

    Well, there is that little thing about the government scientists at Yucca Mountain falsifying information in their reports regarding the dangers of the water supply being contaminated. Don't remember that? Well, let's refresh our memories:

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600119181,00.html/

    And, well, there is that little detail about the waste needing to be stored safely for oh, say, maybe ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! Gosh, that shouldn't be too difficult. Especially in light of the earthquakes around Yucca Mountain. Mkay? Don't recall that either? Well, let's refresh our memories again:

    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/14/yucca.quake/index.html/

    Maybe not so easy to keep safe for a hundred thousand years or so after all, mkay. :-)

  4. Re:And there is still the unsolved issue of... by vandan · · Score: 0, Troll

    When I talk to people about nuclear power, I find that about 1 in 30 or so support nuclear power. I'm pretty sure all the people posting outright lies about safety, and moderating pro-renewable posts down, are paid by the nuclear lobby. Think about it. If you had billions of dollars of profit at stake, and that was in your way was public opinion, you'd pay a SHITLOAD of people to spend all day chasing down online discussions such as this one and fill it with pro-nuclear BS.

  5. Re:Base load? Feh. by stud992O · · Score: 0, Troll

    I admit it: I stud9920 love to suck the cock. What's wrong with that?