2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

 I was listgening to your broadcast about nuclear energy this morning.   I was not suprised about the lack of openness the proponents of nuclear energy had on your show.  One of the things that we need to understand about nuclear energy is obviously the waste.  The main problem that I have with the waste is that it takes many thousands of years to get down to acceptable levels.  And to this day, we really don't know that much more than we did thirty years ago, for example.  So I think that it would be extremely beneficial for the proponents to enlist some scientific studies about today's nuclear power, who has it today, and find a way to make it so that the power companies can be held accountable if an incident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl happens again

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context