Nearly 20 years after the huge accident at the Chernobyl, a new scientific report has found its aftereffects have not proved as dire as scientists had predicted. NYT
Robert Polidori's photographs of Chernobyl – which sould be available in a mini-slideshow here – are quite intense; and I'd heard, about a year ago, that someone was running bike tours (!) of the areas near the reactor... But watch this recent news be taken up rather quickly as "great news" for the nuclear industry...
I agree with gmanaugh that the news is good for the nuclear industry. I have long believed that nuclear power, especially in America, is an underappreciated power source and in this ever-tightening energy crunch we need to be open to new and (in this case) old technologies.
Well... I don't know if I'm saying that America needs to embrace nuclear power, but I *am* saying that this is good news for the nuclear power industry (with a slight note of sarcasm). I'm still on the fence, you could say - well: I am, frankly, on the opposing side of the fence about whether or not America needs to 'go nuclear'. If it turns out that long-term nuclear side-effects aren't as bad as the global chaos that the oil economy has put us all in...? Then we'll see. Maybe nuclear power, in that case, will turn out to be a safer, cheaper, more realistic energy alternative? Only time will tell - very, very long amounts of time, as the radioactive half-lives tick-tick-tick away... into centuries and centuries... and new species appear... and others die away... continents form... glaciers melt... very, very long amounts of time.
Sep 6, 05 10:10 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
3 Comments
Robert Polidori's photographs of Chernobyl – which sould be available in a mini-slideshow here – are quite intense; and I'd heard, about a year ago, that someone was running bike tours (!) of the areas near the reactor... But watch this recent news be taken up rather quickly as "great news" for the nuclear industry...
I agree with gmanaugh that the news is good for the nuclear industry. I have long believed that nuclear power, especially in America, is an underappreciated power source and in this ever-tightening energy crunch we need to be open to new and (in this case) old technologies.
Well... I don't know if I'm saying that America needs to embrace nuclear power, but I *am* saying that this is good news for the nuclear power industry (with a slight note of sarcasm). I'm still on the fence, you could say - well: I am, frankly, on the opposing side of the fence about whether or not America needs to 'go nuclear'. If it turns out that long-term nuclear side-effects aren't as bad as the global chaos that the oil economy has put us all in...? Then we'll see. Maybe nuclear power, in that case, will turn out to be a safer, cheaper, more realistic energy alternative? Only time will tell - very, very long amounts of time, as the radioactive half-lives tick-tick-tick away... into centuries and centuries... and new species appear... and others die away... continents form... glaciers melt... very, very long amounts of time.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.