Interest in following the Yucca Mountain issue has declined from last year.

• Large majority of voters (88%) believe it will be built.
• Voters are more likely to show support if it can be proven scientifically safe than they were in 2002.
• Additionally, voters are more open to arguments that building can bring millions into Nevada.
• Other arguments for building are generally losing traction, with voters more or less accepting Yucca Mountain than agreeing to the rationale to build it.
Power Engineering - Survey shows Nevada residents are resigned to use of Yucca Mountain

Bermuda Triangle mystery solved? It's a load of gas - www.theage.com.au

Based on the OP, I don't believe there is a single scientist, paid by government, corporation, or independent, that denies that we are at an extremely high level of CO2 compared to historical records.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

The problem is there are ways to deal with the waste.

Moreover, it makes no sense to be against nuclear waste storage when we allow coal burning to pump tonnes of radioactive pollutants into the atmosphere every year. Nuclear waste is at least easier to sequester, can be stored in durable containers, can be transported in nearly impenetrable containers, and produces no greenhouse gases.

Nuclear waste can also be reprocessed, reducing the waste by over 90% and then transmuted into valuable products for hospitals et al.

The danger of nuclear waste is overblown, really. Nuclear energy is by far one of the safest, cleanest sources of energy. With the Global Warming and energy crises looming on the horizon, we best get cracking with new reactors. We need at least 400 to be energy independent.


If you enjoy your modern way of life and don't find the Amish lifestyle appealing, you'd better get over the Nuclear Boogyman.

To be fair, nuclear is not the only possible solution. So if you're scared of "the Neclear Boogyman" there are always other options.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Aside from going Amish, what are they?

Hydro, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Bio-fuels that recycle CO2.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Hydro dams rivers and destroys fish habitat. Solar displaces farmland. Geothermal is only useful where it's available, which is few and far between. Biofuels aren't widely available either, and they are inefficient, and as we see with corn, raise food prices.

Most of the alternative energy harvesting techniques are useful, but only as supplementals. Even if we reduced consumption, we would still need heavy hitters, and that's where nuclear comes in.

I think it is really sad the environmental movement didn't latch onto Nuclear, because the atom really is our friend. It's very environmentally friendly. Wind is incredibly inefficient, and it requires vast amounts of land. It would take hundreds of giant windmills (maybe more) to provide the quantity of energy in a single nuke plant, and even then, windmills are far less reliable.

I dispute the claim made in the title of this thread because it's impossible for scientists to go back 650,000 years and measure the CO2 levels. Computer models and extrapolations prove nothing.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."