It actually doesn't tell you much that any of us couldn't have told them. For example it says:
"Public resistance towards radioactive waste may lead to there being few, if any, acceptable domestic sites on land for storage/burial Governments and the waste managers may have to find alternative ways of disposal."
and: "This could either force the minimisation of use of nuclear resources (therefore driving the development and use of alternative energy sources), or drive companies to dispose of their waste in other locations without public knowledge."
It warns specifically that James Lovelock and other pro-nuclear 'environmentalists' can help swing public opinion.
And that the government should watch out for "increasing membership of anti-nuclear NGOs and other groups; decreasing support for nuclear power plants; and radioactive waste disposal companies unable to find suitable locations due to public outcry" as indicators that they may not be able to reach their nuclear targets.
It therefore advocates "campaigns to educate the public on real risks of radioactive waste; improving management of radioactive waste; and development of new methods for its disposal."
In terms of 'Parallels a number of incidents have occurred when nuclear waste was improperly disposed of in some cases, these incidents involve people being injured or killed due to the release of radioactive contamination."
Well. No-brainer or what?
See: the paper here.
On the same site are a number of other interesting papers on global warming including, bizarrely, "What would Jesus drive?: the birth of green spirituality and creation care".
Perhaps Tony thinks God can save us.
Technorati Tags: Energy; Oil; Environment; ClimateChange; Nuclear;
0 comments:
Post a Comment