Pages

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Sun and wind are best for us

It’s disconcerting to read Rep. Mike Simpson touting the most dangerous element under the sun (Idaho Statesman, May 31) as the best green option in the energy debate. Mr. Simpson says, “France learned long ago that nuclear energy is safe, abundant and cheap.”

While it is true that France uses over 80 percent nuclear power for electricity, there is a big brouhaha going on over there, about some enormous problems this has wrought. For instance, where do you think the elite French are trying to lay their insidiously deadly toxins to rest for millennia? Why it’s being shoveled into poor peoples backyards, of course. Much like the Three Mile Island skeleton core transported to radiate here in meager Idaho’s National Lab.

While he claims, nuclear energy is safe; perhaps Mr. Simpson does not realize that a uranium leak last summer in one of France’s nuclear plants, led to a fishing, swimming and well-water drinking ban in two Vaucluse rivers. How would he feel if we found ourselves forced to forbid recreational boating, fishing and simple splish-splashing in our Snake?

At the conclusion of Rep. Simpson’s argument he asks, “Who wants their grandmother’s kidney dialysis machine to rely on wind energy on a calm day or solar energy when the sun is not shining?” This is preposterous fear mongering. Naturally, concerned relatives would want reliable backup generators available for such important concerns. And, currently some inspired scientists are developing innovative products that run off both solar and wind power, and only need charged every four days.

Instead of greenwashing Grandma with putrid plutonium promises, perhaps she would rather see us funding her grandchildren’s colleges with more research and development departments to augment what safe, abundant and inexpensive sun and wind can generate for us, and the lifesaving machines we rely upon.

No comments: