Originally from: coleen
Hi Jane
I know that there is a lot of opposition to wind farms (might feel the same if one/several were planned on my back doorstep) but surely they are a lot less damaging than nuclear. I think the main problem with wind farms is where they are situated. I cannot understand why they have to be put on the edges of national parks or in areas to cause nuisance to local people etc etc. We have plenty of sites where they would cause hardly disturbance why not use these.
I know they say they kill birdlife (but that argument does not stack up) our waterways and seas are dying because of what is tipped into them. Radioactive waste is also killing of the food chain – so it's a double whammy really. That's without what it is doing to us?
I am against nuclear because we are just being 'greedy/selfish' and leaving one big mess for future generations to have to deal with. We cannot dispose of the waste we have already...why create more. The cost of disposing of the waste costs more than producing the stuff. The size of the underground storage facilities at Rigg (near Sellafied) are enormous ...and growing all the time.
Some years ago Rigg was part of a geological survey costing millions It was hoped it could be the dumping ground for 'non' low grade waste. (I believe they have something similar in Sweden). The bed rock was not suitable. The villagers breathed a huge sigh of relief. Imagine sitting on that time bomb!
So all of this waste is still sitting there (growing daily) in containers – waiting to find somewhere to spend it days. Can we really bury this so far below ground and say it will be safe. The climate is changing! What about earthquakes?
Not sure what the real answer to our energy problem is, but surely it cannot be more nuclear. Man seems good at solving the immediate problems – but not at the long term consequences both for us – and future generations.
Coleen
Digg
reddit
Google Bookmarks
Yahoo! My Web
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
livejournal
Facebook
BlinkList