Nuclear Power 2346

........... again. The world has been asked to believe nuclear was ok for a lot longer than a decade or two. You want facts supporting that most don't like it? Are there facts showing they do? It's just what seems to me, but my opinion is not determined by mbutt hysteria or whatever, nor by greenie mailbox publicity. I don't chew mung beans for a living as you have buttumed, I work in engineering and like most others who do I know there is an irony in my work. While daily aiding and abetting the growth of the power grid, we are the ones who look for economy, efficiency, safety and better ways to make things work. We know the limitations of engineering and that this shiny faced industry is still subject to such as heat stress, corrosion, software failure, human error. Handling this most toxic material stretches the boundaries no matter how clean its slate is. "Greenies" first warned about the co2 & greenhouse which is now used as the main argument for nuclear... which they also warned about. This industry is closely tied to politics and weaponry. It hasn't solved its waste problem (not when it wants to pay us a fortune to put it down a hole) and it's not stupid to be sceptical. In any case you don't need a good working knowledge e.g. in northern europe to know you've been showered in poo from Chernobl, in Australia from Maralinga but worse than that, lied to about it. (think maralinga is in the past? it's leaking and the people who lived there still can't go back). What do the "fa cts" say about the feasability of Jacarta building a nuclear plant right where they just had a volcano? What did the "facts" say about a volcano happening?