"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> dlzc wrote:
>>
>>> Until we start recycling nuclear waste into fuels, chemicals, or
>>> pharmaceuticals... it is still just another fossil fuel. That
>>> the "organism" that created it is more than 5 billion years old,
>>> makes it no less "fossil". What it has going for it is no
>>> greenhouse gasses other than water vapor.
>>>
>>> "Alternative source" yes, "renewable source" not yet.
>>
>> Looked at on a large enough time scale, nothing is renewable.
>> The heat death of the universe assures that.
>>
>> As for nuclear waste... best thing to do with it is to reprocess
>> most of it into new fuel, as they do in Europe and as we used to
>> do in the United States until Carter the Nukular Engineer decided
>> we shouldn't.
>
>So you object to someone with knowledge of the field declining to
>subject future generations to one more inherited and unanswerable
>problem?
Well since the issue existed before his education already, he could not prevent it. Indeed he was not born until August 19, 1946. The most he was able to do is delay properly addressing it. Hardly the action of someone in a responsible position with proper knowledge of the science and technique.