Dave

Sure - I totally agree with you. Wind turbines would seem to be as useful as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking competition. I think I heard recently that the problem of disposing of nuclear waste isn't half what it's cracked up to be, and that all the stuff that's been created since the start could easily be stored in a deep mine shaft somewhere.

At least, nuclear waste is FAR less harmful than the CO2, SO2, particulates etc. that you get off coal burning and, indeed, apart from the radio-active problem, there IS no polution. The Good Lord gave us radioactive elements so that we'd be able to sort ourselves out once we reached the critical situation we're in.

I do believe that Tony Blair is now looking again at the nuclear option which the UK has abandoned. We used to be a nett exporter of electricity to France - now we import it from them, with their nuclear infrastructure.

Terry

>Hey man, I became a nuclear engineer because end-to-end it's the most environmentally fiendly way to create electrical energy. We have several windfarms out in West Texas. I've driven through them and the ones in Southern California. Lots of people complain about the "visual pollution" they are on the landscape.
>
>>No, I wasn't referring to the fat intake - rather the destruction of the rainforest to create cattle pasture to grow hamburgers on (let alone the fact that these cattle then produde methane). As for aviation polution (I wasn't even thinking about O3 depletion), there's a move afoot in UK to greatly increase the number of wind farms, to attempt to comply with Kyoto (you guys wouldn't know anything about that, of course, thanks to "W" :-) but I read recently that even with them it would only save less CO2 emmissions than 1 Jumbo Jet produces in less than 6 months.
>>
>>We're all doomed, man - we're doomed!