Originally Posted by Botnst

I have corresponded with Patrick Moore on a listserver. He is a efefctive writer and talker. That's okay, but he doesn't recognize that talking and writing are not the same as thinking. Moore is a collector of small facts to make big generalizations. Thus, he has changed sides from Greenpeace to industry, but uses the same methods. Those methods are: Bad science and a loud voice. I don't care if you're working for industry or environmentalism--stick with the truth when you speak to the public, not just that portion of the truth that supports your side. And that is Patrick Moore, then and now.

I like nukular power just fine. It gives abundant, very clean energy and will provide power for a long time to come. There are useful waste disposal methods available.

What I would really lik eto see is reprocessing of nuclear weapons fuel into nuclear power fuel. We have something like 10K nuclear bombs under the control of the USA. Why? Wouldn't 5,000 be an embarrassment of riches? I think Eisenhower once said that 100 nukes would be plenty. Imagine 100 nukes. So okay, Eisenhower lo-balled it. Lets go for 1,000. That would allow us to destroy any country on Earth. That should be plenty. Then we could start burning the bombs as fuel.

Oh yeah, lets retire a bunch of aircraft carriers, submarines, and bombers. They were built to destroy the USSR. I kind of hate to break it you to suckers (I mean taxpayers), but the USSR doesn't exist, which means the reason for that vast array of weaponry doesn't exist. And don't even tell me we need 12 carrier battle groups to protect us from Bin Laden.