Been following this thread with interest, and sometimes a little
amusement, I might add.
In general, I agree with the position that nuclear is probably the
best short/medium term solution to providing our energy needs.
But it seems to me that vilifying environmentalists as having done no
good by opposing nuclear power is an inconsistent argument when at the
same time one praises the nuclear industry's safety record. Here's
The current state of affairs, both good and bad aspects, was arrived
at via long series of events. Demands of the market, developments by
industry, regulation and oversight by federal agencies, and yes,
opposition by citizens and environmental groups, all intertwine in a
system of action, reaction, checks, balances, disturbances and
One can't rationally blame environmentalists for all the bad and give
credit to industry for all the good in such a complex situation.
Reality is somewhere in the middle.
If there was no environmental opposition ever, the current state would
be different for sure. But no one can be sure whether or not it would
be better, just different. Once can never be certain about the
outcome of a path not chosen.
Once would like to think that industry, free of oversight and
regulation, would always act in the best interests of citizens. But
history is chock full of counter examples. So when the stakes are
high, as they certainly are here, government watches over industry,
and the citizens watch over government. I for one think that's how it
should work, despite getting out of kilter at times.
It may well be that the balance swung too far toward the nuclear power
opponents in the last 2 decades. That appears to be changing. But
vilifying environmentalists and others who oppose nuclear energy
without recognizing that they have had and should have a valid role in
the system of checks and balances is wrong, IMO.