Parenti notes that James Inhofe, notorious climate skeptic, complimented Obama on his appointments to the NRC. What is the point of this comment? It's nothing but shameless guilt by association. If Inhofe, a climate skeptic (and genuine fraud we all admit), says something good about nuclear and Inhofe is a climate-change denier, then surely nuclear power can't be any good.
Well, Mr. Parenti, let's try another form of guilt by association. In his letter to Obama, James Hansen notes that "it is essential that dogmatic 'environmentalists' opposed to nuclear power not be allowed to delay the R & D on 4th generation nuclear power." Should we lump Hansen with Inhofe? They're both pronuclear. Maybe we should lump Mr. Parenti with the dogmatic "environmentalists."
Hansen initially thought that renewables other than nuclear could provide required power, but is much less certain of this now and has joined an organization committed to the development of the Integral Fast Reactor: the Science Council for Global Initiatives. None of these citizens and scientists is in the pocket of the nuclear power industry.
Finally, Parenti should have included thoughtful discussion of generation 111 and 1v nuclear plants, plants currently being built or already built.
Parenti should do better research instead of engaging in argument by scary metaphor (zombies! run for your lives).
There are some good books out there for ordinary people (like myself). G. Cravens, Power to Save the World; Tom Blees, Prescription for the Planet. I would most recommend, Mr. Parenti, familiarizing yourself with the debates around alternative energy had at climate scientist Barry Brooke's blog, brave new climate They are really informative. You won't write articles like your last couple again after considering the information here.
Dec 2 2009 - 8:29am