Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Going Nucular?

Despite the title, this post isn't about Bush's propensity to mispronounce words. Nor is it about the final report from the Iraq weapons investigator, which found no Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's not even about the "nuclear option" on ending filibusters over judicial nominees in the Senate. Instead, I wanted to pass along an interesting editorial from this morning's Washington Post, which argues that nuclear must have a place at the table when discussing future energy supply. Though it's not something I've given much thought, I have to admit that the arguments being offered up appear to be well thought out, and have a certain appeal. While I would prefer that energy consumption be reduced so that both fossil-fuel emissions and nuclear waste be kept to a minimum, I do recognize that without a dramatic change in prices, or the discovery of a viable large-scale renewable energy source, that won't happen. But in truth I don't fully know the risks involved with nuclear, with either nuclear weapons or nuclear waste. After reading the editorial, it seems like I should start educating myself on this subject.

1 comment:

scott said...

The biggest risk with nuclear weapons, as I understand it, is that the cause a really big and destructive explosion.