steelviper

So there's this article in the Washington Post, by some guy named Patrick Moore who apparently helped found Greenpeace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Very interesting. Very very interestng. It's about nuclear reactors. It talks about the 3-mile island incident. What a respectable guy . It's hard for me to think that I'd like this guy because he co-founded Greenpeace, but hey, even he admits to falling for all the myths that were flying around during the Cold War, and I commend him for it. Yay!

Thank goodness they're still working on it. Nuclear fusion rules.

I pretty much signed up so I could get this out. The ITER that greenpeace is protesting is easily the best solution we have for alternative fuel and for power. The article about it states information that pertains to fusion reactors and it is evident that whoever wrote it didn't even bother to research nuclear fusion.

 The article states that nuclear fusion will give off harmful radioactive waste. Sadly this is not true since fusion is a clean process that uses tritium and deuterium, not plutonium and uranium.

 It also says that this mythical "nuclear waste" that it produces would be used to make nuclear weapons. As mentioned above, this is not possible. They pretty muched based all of their arguements off of fission reactors.

 A single fusion reactor would be able to power 1/3 of the US for a virtually infinite amount of time, because once the reaction is able to sustain itself, it can last for as long as we wish for it to operate.

 The fact that greenpeace opposes it shows how informed they are of some of the issues they protest against, and shows their unwillingness to do actual research on it As far as I can tell, some idiot probably saw the word "Nuclear" in the name and went nuts because they don't know jack about anything in nuclear fusion. What a great uninformed organization.