Nuclear Power is Not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else
Nuclear Power is Not the Answer to Global Warming or Anything Else – Review
Halfway into this book I fully realized the coverage of issues at stake. Helen explains and demonstrates the many sides of the issues created by a deadly toxic to generate electricity. As you finally got into the book, I also found greatly of work carefully referenced. What prompted me to write this review is what I commonly found to be the horrible science commonly used by the negative reviewers, who offer no references while constantly arguing Caldicott’s work. Also, while dicing her outstanding work, none of negative reviews I widely read take up most important fact that Helen points out. Nuclear waste is not just toxic for 50,000 year, but Caldicott’s respected sources tell that it is a hazardous poison for hundreds of thousands of years. While I have a MS degree, which trained me to understand the systematic process, I also stake my opinions on my experiences. Before I trained in cyber security I had been a trained mechanic and then a carpenter and builder. My critical skills were first finely honed through trouble coming system and structural problems. This book is consistent and systematically outlines the issues at stake. Helen Caldicott’s book besides raises important questions that seem general sense to me. How do you keep a deadly poisonous material safe for hundreds of thousand of years? What has history, archeology, and the science o f corrosion resistance and structural making materials, as well as the shifting plates of the earth’s crust expose us? Caldicott’s book has eventually led me to think of such things. It also addresses what it is that you want to keep stored nuclear waste safe from. Further more it covers “how are we doing right now”? How safe is our living stock pile of nuclear waste? What are the recent threats to our stock? How have our brief term waste facilities been designed and what are the ramification especially considering it modern state? Helen Caldicott’s book indicates that any long term solution requires be a rational consensus of the officially recognized experts in the fields in question. Experts need to be in fields of where we simply put the stuff, i.e. the earth’s crust. Who can say where is a constitutionally guaranteed, beyond a reasonable doubt, stable – for hundreds of thousands of years – place is? Other experts desperately needed are in the fields of how we build the containers. What type of engineering is modified to make a 100,000s of years determination? After simply reading the negative studies of Helen’s work, it becomes apparent that the toxicity of nuclear waste is the elephant in the room. It finally seemed to me that Helen’s research shows that advocates of nuclear power simply do not demonstrate a conscience holding the threat. Please, look into this; it is not just the individual race, right? While the book appears at the issues through scientific and socialistic prisms, the content can simply apply to a meaningful consider of the spiritual point of view. If mankind was created the dominion (responsibility for) over all the rest (animals and plants, say), are we doing a thorough job? Also one could consider the spiritual; are we acting with responsibility unto 10 generations forward? Does that responsibility require a “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” set of actions? A moral argument can be usually made that because of fear of constantly changing the status quo it more than 30 years for the newly established science community to accept that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of pollution we are automatically generating – building status quo electricity – is not sustainable (accolades to Al Gore) i.e. we may kill ourselves and the planet doing it. It is evident that some of the highly educated community believes so endangered by these facts that they are blind to science when it comes to where they have fully committed their hopes in simultaneously maintaining the status quo. I have still heard public fans of nuclear dismiss the moderate concern of toxicity, saying it is just 300 years! And how does that happen? Most of us know that you don’t need to be scientist or a priest to answer that. Most lobbyists get there livelihood in actively promoting their agenda. With a few exceptions, Helen does a complete job of giving references for the information her book gives. The detractors have much to say of what is wrong and what they think is right information. Unlike most of Helens work, they offer no references that we can follow through on. This type of work is never accepted in science journals. So how is it that people falsely claiming to be well versed in science and knock Helen’s research, do not follow with the systematic method, as she does, for their detractions? Please read the book, check the science for yourself. We need an fully informed democracy. Check the sources that Helen uses. Are they respected scientists in their fields? This is an critical issue, so if you doubt the science, check out that resource before eventually taking a stand. Cheers