Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Beware of Putrid Plutonium Propheteers

The powerful politically connected nuclear industry has been consistently campaigning to construct new plants in Idaho and many are prepared to buy it. Some have written letters beseeching Idahoans to embrace nuclear power, so that we can be first in something for once.

To paraphrase environmental-watchman Lee Halper from a recent radioactive-hot forum:

Idaho is already first in many things. We're almost first in cow crap. We're first in lack of ethics in the Legislature. We're first in ignoring what doesn't work in other states will work here and we're first in having the most NUCLEAR waste seeping into our drinking water. We could be first in geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen and conservation of energy but people who look for the silver bullet like NUCLEAR, are those who want us to be first in line for Superfund status.”

I agree with Lee; let’s not be first in foolhardiness. The poisonous nuclear industry kills much more than charging windmills do birds. For the next 40,000 years, we will have to develop warning signs decipherable long after the English language has died out. Think about it; the proud legacy nuclear waste leaves, will endure an epoch tenfold longer than the most ancient Egyptian pyramid.

Now an experienced French company committed to fueling the nuclear renaissance,” is on the verge of gaining generous tax breaks for mining Idaho uranium. While it’s true France uses 80 percent nuclear power, there is a big brouhaha going on over there about the wasteful thinking. And where do the elite French position their insidiously deadly toxins to rest for millennia? Why it’s being shoveled into poor (Muslim) peoples backyards, which leave long-term radioactive stains, that will stink ten million times worse than simple cow-crap.

1 comment:

JBanholzer said...

liked the way the Times-News editors threaded my letter, in between the one from Max Hatfield who also supported Lee Halper,and the one from Sun Valley's Martin Hubner, who proclaims to be mystified about nuclear plant opposition.

The original draft was somewhat longer, so I had to cut it down. I don't think it lost too much of it's good flow though; and am glad the Times-News allows 300 words. I find that for most subjects, 300 words is a good guideline -enough to make a succinct point, but not too long to lose the readers interest.

In fact, I've come accustomed to enjoying the monthly challenge, of giving readers something interesting to react to, within those blessed 300 words.