A little too brief

I think I was a little too brief in my last post on my anti-nuclear stance.
Yes, I am completely against nuclear energy, but not just because the waste is deadly for millions of years.
Just like the rest of our main energy sources, a lot of super-wealthy people get paid a lot of money to produce nuclear energy.
I would like to know how many lobbyists there are fighting for nuclear energy vs. how many lobbyists there are fighting for clean energy. I wish ther were people throwing millions of dollars at lawmakers to build clean energy plants. Nuclear plants cost a bundle, so much that new ones aren't being built very quickly, but clean energy plants have to cost less than a nuclear plant!

Nuclear energy is just so dangerous and deadly. I don't understand why anyone could be for something so deadly, even if it produces a lot of energy.

Not only is nuclear generation and waste deadly to us, it is also deadly to our land. This is our only planet to live on - for the foreseeable future at least. There is no where else to go. So why would we choose to ruin it?

I could ask similar questions about energy from oil, but at least the effects don't last for, well, forever.



http://www.aei.org/article/101759