Should we go nuclear and conquer space?

Posted by
Wayne Smith on Jul 08, 2002 at 03:25

I've noticed a gradual political change in recent years. The pendulum seems to be swinging back in favour of nuclear power and I for one am glad. There is no more compact an energy source or clean source of electricity at our disposal and it's time we woke up to the fact. Past policies were dictated by a very noisy minority of ecowackies who had an exceedingly limited knowledge base. Now Europe is reversing it's anti-nuclear stance and building it's first new reactor for 15 years. Not only that but several plants due for closure are expected to have their licences renewed. Practicality has one the day. To meet greenhouse summit quotas these nations have come to realise that nuclear power is the only viable alternative to dirty fossil fuels. Uranium exists in coal beds so it is routinely burned in the furnaces. You are exposed to far more more radiation from living near a coal plant than you would from a nuclear plant. All these greenies keep crying out for some new technology to be invented. Why don't they put down their placards, go back to school and discover some new magical energy source themselves if they are so convinced its easy.
Back in the 50's reactor rockets were built and tested with twice the power of todays best chemical boosters. Again, ecowackies killed progress. I'm glad to now see an opposition arising. Over at they are fighting ignorance with logic. Good luck to them. Sounds like David versus Goliath. Stupidity I am now convinced is the only infinite commodity on Earth. Chemical has been found insufficient as a means of serious manned spaceflight and as a consequence the Space Age died before it had truly begun. So if you ever wonder about what happened to those Moon Bases, manned missions to Mars and Jupiter or other dreams you can thank the envirovandals for killing them off. Their fearmongering has been found lacking in substance and their gutter science laughable in retrospect. Number one argument presented for Cassini was "What if it crashes?". Nasa's response was "I guess we'll have to go pick up the safely encased fuel and use it in another mission.". It's happened before.
Ecowackies still cling to the zero tolerance belief despite lack of any evidence to support their moronic ideas. It's like saying 200 degrees temperature outside will kill you and therefore 20 degrees will kill 10% of your body. This is the current thinking on radiation. You know, the stuff we swim through continuously from radon gas in the rocks and trees, natural potassium in the body and sunshine out of the sky.
Safe dosage estimates are regulated at below the natural background level. Try and figure that one out. In India and other parts of the World this natural level is over 100 times higher than the states and always has been. No ill effect on life there has been found. If dosage is a measure of concentration then how hard is it to spread an exhaust about and thereby reduce it to less than background levels? Research on radiation hormesis seems to show that low doses are beneficial to our health. An increase of 300% in this level would improve our health.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]