Reply #12: No, he isn't.

[kristopher]

There are 4 factors that have to be addressed: cost, safety, proliferation and waste. Mininukes was looked at by MIT in their 2003 assessment of nuclear technologies, and when evaluated on those 4 problems, it was dismissed not being a viable option in comparison with GenIII reactors.

Now that Gen III has failed, all you prove by trotting out worse technologies is that you don't understand the issue.

I'd urge you to start reading some literature from "antinuke" groups like Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists. There has also been a lot written by Amory Lovins that addresses the shortcomings of nuclear. I say that because the information you are using to base your beliefs on is almost certainly produced by the public relations department of the nuclear industry's lobbying groups like the World Nuclear Association and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Would you give information from the Petroleum Institute the same trust you give that from the nuclear industry?