[MRM]

Yup. If it hadn't become political orthodoxy of the left to opose anything with the words "nuclear" or "radiation" in it the environmental movement would have embraced nuclear power years ago. The best argument against nukes is that there is no permanent central storage for the waste. Why not? Because people who opose nuclear power won't allow it. Circular logic.

On a related note, you know why there is a huge movement against "irradiated" meat? because "irradiated" sounds like radiation. So it must be bad, right? If all our meat was irradiated (disinfected using electricity) it would save thousandsof lives per year. There are NO side effects to irradiating meat. But we can't do something that sounds like it is a naughty word.

To be fair, there are other energy sources that can be used. Wind energy can be harnessed and will eventually be valuable. Solar could become economical when and if the industry can ever reach economies of scale so the cost per unit comes down. Geothermal, tide energy, etc., are all pieces of the puzzle. None of them is going tobe the magic bullet that will replace petroleum, but petroleum doesn't do everything alone, either. Our current energy sources are made up from a hodgepodge of different sources. The answe to safe and economical replacement energy sourceswill be as varied.