It turns out I may have spoken too soon (and not for the first time). On June 22 in the CT Liveblog, in a posting entitled "Gas and Hot Air," I wondered why no one is talking about nuclear power as a partial answer to the nation's energy woes. Actually, people are talking about it. According to a report in today's Chicago Tribune, fears over global warming are sparking thoughts among environmentalists that maybe splitting the atom is the lesser of two evils, even though storing nuclear waste and protecting against possible terrorist attacks remain issues:
"Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder who has become a fervent nuclear energy advocate and industry consultant, said the industry needs to prepare for such worst-case scenarios, but those shouldn't drive the debate over nuclear energy.
"Moore said his former environmentalist allies, some of whom now deride him as a corporate shill, are stuck in a Cold War mentality that lumps together the benefits and dangers of nuclear technology.
"'You don't ban the beneficial uses of a technology just because that same technology can be used for evil," he said. 'Otherwise, we would never have harnessed fire.'"