Reply #8: I think the reason that some alt.energy advocates try to keep us focused on the risks of nuclear

[GliderGuider]

Is that they count on that concern to distract us from the fact that fossil fuels are damaging the world thousands of times more than nuclear power ever could, that there is no realistic way out of the fossil fuel trap, and that our most probable reason to stop using FF's is if we run out - with the potential attendant collapse of the entire biosphere due to global heating.

The only way the alt.energy crowd can justify their pusillanimous inaction on fossil fuels is to blow the nuclear boogeyman so out of proportion that it fixates our focus so we don't pay any attentioon to the fossil-fueled man behind the curtain.

We need to shut down nuclear power immediately - not so much because of its inherent danger (though that is undeniable) but so there will be no further impediment to realizing how badly we've screwed the pooch with oil, gas and coal.

Rational risk managers address the risk with the gravest impact first. The alt.energy advocates by and large do not seem to be rational risk managers.

On edit: One other thing. If we try to reduce FF use before eliminating nuclear and before ramping up alt.energy, we will simply increase the pressure for nuclear power to replace coal. If we wait for the elimination of nuclear and the widespread scaling up of alternatives, we will burn way more carbon in the interval. We are definitely caught in the devil's bargain on this one.