Stewart Brand And Erich Pica Debate Nuclear Power (VIDEO)

UPDATE: Scroll down for highlights from the debate, edited by HuffPost's Ben Craw, with the full exchange available below that.

Is nuclear power the solution to the world's increasing energy demands in the face of catastrophic climate change, or is it an unsafe, unprofitable diversion from truly clean energy? Can we trust the government to regulate nuclear power after the disaster we saw in the Gulf? Should we go with a known non-carbon producing energy source or hope that something better can work on a larger scale? These questions and many others are on people's minds as we think about our energy future and what will lead us away from unsustainable fossil fuels.

Like many energy topics, there are no easy answers. That's why we are inviting two esteemed experts to debate the topic live, and take questions from YOU.

Erich Pica is president of the environmental group, Friends Of The Earth. An expert on energy subsidies, over the last decade he has been involved in the organization's fight to end fossil fuel, biofuel and nuclear subsidies from the government. He has also worked on campaigns for legislative solutions to the climate crisis. Erich will be debating Stewart Brand, co-founder of the Global Business Network and president of the Long Now Foundation. He is the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, and the recently published book, Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary, and is one of the leading environmental voices in advocating for nuclear power.

We are looking forward to an enlightening and spirited exchange between these two very well-informed people. Please tune in November 16th at 2PM EST, 11 AM PST to watch them debate here live.

We are now taking your questions! If you'd like to submit a question in advance on the debate, you can submit it below. Or you can ask a question live here or on twitter during the debate using the hashtag, #hpenergydebate.

WATCH Highlights:

WATCH Full Debate:

Comments

[dbmetzger]

02:13 PM on 12/04/2010

India Now Has 20 Operational Nuclear Reactors
India's twentieth nuclear power plant has become operational at Kaiga, taking the total installed atomic power capacity in the country to 4780 megawatts. Only six countries in the world currently operate 20 or more nuclear reactor. http://www.newslook.com/videos/269594-india-now-has-20-operational-nuclear-reactors?autoplay=true

[steveo777]

03:26 AM on 12/04/2010

I have long been amazed that what I consider to be "basic data" can be so hard to come by. Ask your realtor for a time series of prices in a certain neighborhood, and they will look at you like you are from Mars. Why? Well because this is a good time to sell (insert vacacious reason of whim here) and this is a good time to buy (insert vacacious reason of whim here), so historical pricing makes no sense.

Try to get good data on the indices going back a hundred years....good luck.

Even getting commodity prices is a feat. Wish I still had access to the full on Bloomberg, but alas that is no more. Costs around $30,000 a year, I had it for free.

So here is the project. Search out and upload "Real Data Series" of all sorts, and post them as direct downloads on Hawaii Trading.

You got Data? Send it over, I will post it up. Knowledge can be freedom and power. Let's create freedom and power, for free.

First chart / Excel is by me (Courtesy of the Perth Mint). This chart data is down-loadable in Excel at Hawaii Trading. Within 2 months, my goal is to have 25 spreadsheets with valuable data, available for free.

The Excel format is sloppy, it took me 30 minutes to whip it into this shape as they had odd date formatting.
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/p/real-data-series.html

[aligatorhardt]

01:46 AM on 12/04/2010

I wonder why these two are the experts. It seems that a representative from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission against a representative from the Union of Concerned Scientists or equally credentialed people are needed for this discussion. here we have an activist against a business man, neither came with the facts on their side. Pica is talking assumptions, not facts. He says since we have not had our own super disaster that none could happen. That is possibly just good luck so far, not proof of future events. The environmentalist omits the fact that tritium leaks have been reported at a majority of reactor sites, as he only talks about Chernobyl. Again the assumption that because we don't already have a majority of renewable energy that it cannot be the long term answer, which is like saying our cars cannot transport us this weekend because they have not done so before the weekend. No sense in that. The only thing stopping us from a future of clean, renewable energy is us dragging our feet about establishing that as our goal. Also he leaves out geothermal, tidal power, hydrogen technology and moving water turbines as additional sources of clean and renewable energy sources. Another false assumption is the statement that renewable energy cannot meet large scale installations. There is no reason why large scale systems cannot be used. When you check nuclear facilities around the world, you find most of them to be less than 1GW, with many less than 500KW.

[notright guy]

03:31 PM on 12/02/2010

Lets put all the nuclear waist in Oklahoma, Kentucky and other conservative hotbeds since they are thinking no problem with half life's and isotopes. Just hope those republicans don't frack those sites! Double wammy!

[mcmutter]

10:08 AM on 11/25/2010

France has 93 nuclear power plants - a single design replicated 93 times - run for decades without incident .....

In the USA every nuclear power plant has its own unique design ......

[Genders]

12:09 AM on 11/25/2010

Nukes not needed: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar.

[notpoliticallysafe]

08:06 AM on 11/25/2010

MZ Jacobson debated nuclear energy with Stewart Brand & MZ Jacobson can not be taken seriously. Atomic bomb explosions which MZ Jacobson said or 1979 China Syndrome scenario may make good movies but this is science fiction. The main reasons that time is on nuclear's side esp. since the 2000s is because more people realize that what anti-nuclear people such as MZ Jacobson say is 1970s scifi. As far as renewables powering 100% of planet, nations such as Sweden & Italy repealed their anti-nuclear laws because they understand that this is not possible.

Renewable energies have not replaced fossil fuels. Sure hydroelectric & geothermal must also be used when possible (Iceland is blessed geographically to get 100% of energy from geothermal) & building dams has for the most part peaked out. Finally, Genders you implied in another post that environmental damage such as killing endangered birds & carcinogens from solar panels are Okay. Cars can kill, but good driving greatly reduce this. Windmills & solar panels use more materials than nuclear, uses much more land with more habitat destruction & you less energy from renewables. You can't be taken seriously in that you think environmental damage is Okay when it's done by renewables.

[Genders]

02:23 PM on 11/25/2010

Isn't this comment basically all ad hominem?

[notpoliticallysafe]

06:08 PM on 11/24/2010

Article on why anti-nuclear people are pseudo-environmentalists, click theenergycollective.com/.../are-anti-nukes-environmentalists

It must be said that Arthur Schopeenhauer's saying about truth going through 3 stages holds-1st it's ridiculed, then it's violently subjugated & finally it's accepted as self-evident. The truth about nuclear energy benefiting the environment since the 1970s has been in step 2. Since the 2000s, it's going to step 3-nuclear energy being accepted as benefiting the enviroinment. Sorry for the repetitive posts but what else can we say here which is new?

[theseusofaustralia]

03:17 AM on 11/24/2010

i actually researched this subject and it looks like the best way to deal with the global climate crisis is to implement nuclear energy immediately,cut down on coal and oil and whilst cutting down begin doing research on how to make these technologies cleaner i.e. clean coal, ethanol blend etc. As coal/oil is being cut down as well as being made cleaner, then research into wind, solar and energy need to get more funding to make the process more efficient at getting energy. then eventually when clean energies such as solar and wind are more efficient, the coal/oil industry can be gotten rid of completely (except maybe for plastics and other stuff) and nuclear energy use can begin to decline whilst the world implemements clean energy like wind solar etc.

[Genders]

03:51 PM on 11/24/2010

I have actually researched it and I come to the opposite conclusion. rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio fuels can supply the world's energy cheaper, faster, clean, safe and forever, nukes can't.

[notpoliticallysafe]

05:37 PM on 11/24/2010

You may think so, but not in reality. The whole idea of sun, wind & water for erngy have been around since time started & they're not so efficient. Denmark gets 18% of it's energy from windmills. The rest of it comes from fossil fuels. When they've studied windmills, they have found plenty of birds & bats getting killed such as barotrauma. You keep pushing windmills & solar as though they provide all the electricity that we need, but what you're writing about isn't supported by facts.

[Kevin Ware]

02:01 PM on 11/23/2010

The nuclear weapons industry produces 99% of the nuclear waste in this country. Energy only 1%

Keep this in mind when you scream "Waste! Waste!"

[Genders]

03:48 PM on 11/24/2010

I don't believe you. prove what you claim.

[Genders]

12:55 PM on 11/23/2010

Nuclear power suffers from critical unsolved problems: Proliferation, terrorism, accidents and waste. rooftop Solar, offshore wind and waste bio char fuels can provide all the energy and fuel the world needs. Note these green techs uses zero land or even negative land by avoiding dumps. Green energy is already cheaper enough about 6 cents per KWH or less, and getting cheaper. Note Nuclear power does nothing for fuels, while Waste Bio char does. The nuclear industry spend million, hundreds of millions on PR, biased think tank, and lobbying. It's quite clear they cannot be trusted, they use deceptive spin all the time. Now of course they say the Anti nuclear power are the the big conspiracy, as if the Anti Nuclear folks had any money. The American fools voted for the GOP, I suppose they can be fooled into nuclear power too.

[notpoliticallysafe]

01:42 PM on 11/23/2010

Genders, you're copying & pasting the same 1/2 scientific claims again & again which has been debunked. Perhaps you & ALVDH along with other anti-nuclear posters should say that environmental damage, killing endangered species & hazardous wastes are Okay when they're done by renewables such as windmills (which kill birds) & solar panels (which contain hazardous wastes).

Whether you like it or not Genders, nuclear power is not going away. You can repeat the conspiracy accusations of any1 who supports being nuclear being a paid shill. But if that's true, guess that means the environmental groups who went from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear such as Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Stephen Tindale of Climate Answers (former Executive Greenpeace Director 2000-2005) must have been paid by the nuclear industry to change their views after many years. Nations which repealed their anti-nuclear policies of the 1970s & 1980s such as Sweden, Italy, etc. have done so because they realize that what you wrote is just 1/2 science & repeating the same thing again & again doesn't make it fact. You don't have any basis to support your conspiracy theory.

[Genders]

03:06 PM on 11/23/2010

I wrote that entirely from scratch, how about you? You repeat the same disproven junk all the time, but boy do you complain if someone else post the truth over and over again.

[aligatorhardt]

01:58 AM on 12/04/2010

You are making assumptions not supported by any reference. The EDF does not support nuclear power. Bird death studies have shown fewer bird deaths from wind turbines than collisions with houses. Solar panels do contain some poisonous material, but that is a one time exposure during manufacturing, followed by 30 years service without exposures, then PV solar panels are 90% recyclable. Compare that with nuclear power were mining activities, transportation of fuels, waste management and radiation leaks expose large numbers of people with super long lasting effects.

[notpoliticallysafe]

01:57 PM on 11/23/2010

You're copying & pasting the same thing which has been scientifically debunked. It's predictable that you would use the conspiracy theory of the nuclear industry buying people to change their views. Guess (this is repetitive) that means the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) must have been bought off as they changed their policy in the 2000s from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear. Guess that also means Stephen Tindale of Climate Answers & former U.K. Greenpeace Exec. Director (2000-2005) who changed his view from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear was bought off by the nuclear industry.

Whether you like it or not, nuclear power isn't going away & saying the same things again doesn't change it. Nations such as Italy who repealed their 1987 anti-nuclear law in 2009 & are now working with France to build new nuclear powerplants did so because they understand that nuclear energy is beneficial. You keep talking about windmills & solar, but as written, those are intermittent & perhaps you think environmental damage & killing endangered species are alright when done by not so green renewable energy sources. We're being repetitive, but you're not saying anything new & more environmental groups such as Wildlife Habitat Council, the EDF, etc. support nuclear powerplants.

[Genders]

03:10 PM on 11/23/2010

You are spamming.

[notpoliticallysafe]

04:30 PM on 11/22/2010

Anti-nuclear posters really must think that we're conspiring here. I just learned that I'm a paid nuclear industry shill. Anti-nuclear posters rerun the same 1/2 scientific sites, but the truth is that govt. who have repealed their anti-nuclear laws of the 1970s & 1980s have done so because they understand that what the anti-nuclear groups say can not be taken seriously.

Speaking of censorship & illegal activities by anti-nuclear groups, when anti-nuclear groups can't discuss the issue they've committed crimes such as hack the website of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy in 2004, among other things. But again, time is on nuclear energy's side. Polls have shown that more people support nuclear power than they did during the 1970s & 1980s. Guess the nuclear industry must be conspiring by paying people to support nuclear powerplants.

[notpoliticallysafe]

07:30 AM on 11/22/2010

When renewable energies such as solar & windmills don't provide enough energy, other sources have to be used. Solar & windmills require so much land with intermittent energy & with rising energy demands, they're unable to meet them. This requires fossil fuels-coal & natural gas & thus coal ash radiation.

Nuclear powerplants by using less land & more energy can replace more of the coal plants. Hydroelectric & geothermal must also be used when possible such as Iceland. The radiation & meltdown fears that the anti-nuclear posters keep raising has been debunked as science fiction for the most part. Saying the same scifi again doesn't make it fact.

[forest4]

10:55 AM on 11/22/2010

A new problem for nuclear power is the Stuxnet virus, or something similar. How can the nuclear industry insure that a foreign power doesn't sabotage one of our plants with a virus/worm designed to blow them up or at least render them inoperative?

[willr]

11:32 AM on 11/22/2010

The Stuxnet virus is not strictly a nuclear power plant issue. It is an issue for any large industrial computer user that uses SCADA. Stuxnet also targets only certain hardware used within a SCADA system (SCADA = Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition).

SCADA systems are used to control and monitor industrial processes. SCADA is used by most if not all electric generators where they are nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, natural gas or coal. SCADA is also used in the chemical and petroleum industries.

[deezus]

01:48 PM on 11/22/2010

Easy solution: don't use Microsoft operating systems :P

[alvdh1]

01:43 PM on 11/22/2010

notpoliticallysafe,

The radiation & meltdown fears have been totally debunked????????? You conveniently just throughout the National Academys of Science and every other reputable health organization with a a few key strokes. Now, politicallysafe is the main purveyor of nuclear, biological and medical science. He, without a shred of proof, has assured you that all you now have to do is trust the nuclear industry to protect you for a profit. He is a paid shill who will resorrt to any lie and defame any character in order to get his paid shill paycheck.

Did you see all of the evidence he posted above to prove his point? This is how nuclear hucksters work to spread disinformation, lie and defame.

Post your curriculum vitae so that we can see how little you actually know about medicine, biology and chemistry.

[nuclearISFreedom]

05:13 AM on 11/22/2010

Wow, how tiring this has become. When Mr.Pica was addressed with the question of how do you respond to the energy deficit that solar and wind will present, he couldn't hear well. The same general anti-nuke attacks, so little fact, still clinging to the public brainwashing.......so highly toxic, trucks "spilling" waste, major meltdowns. These events Mr.Pica dreams up do not happen, have not been happening, aging reactors are monitored, upgraded.

Mr. Brand, you need to make a youtube video addressing the points in this interview thoroughly. This interview should have been filmed, and then posted, or a phone interview to get excellent quality. This was a horrible quality.

Mr.Pica, you should go ask the people who live near coal pits, coal removal, gas compressor stations, gas fracking, 6000 trucks a day filled with fresh water speeding through their communities, breathing in benzene from the compressors, staring at stadium lights 24/7, not being able to sleep, having millions of gallons of frack fluid sit in plastic pits leaking, ask these people if they would like a nuclear power plant to replace that, that can not meltdown, that emits steam, and has a micro foot print, compared to gas, oil, and coal.

If you personally had to live next to coal, oil, or gas production and distribution.......sleep, eat, drink, and breathe in these locations, you would be begging for nuclear power for heat and electric. Begging. WindSolarCantDoITAtAll

[alvdh1]

11:16 AM on 11/22/2010

nuclearlsfreedom,

The only brainwashing going on here is the nuclear propaganda from the nuclear power industry who can only survive on the ratepayer and taxpayer dole. Without it massive government subsidies, nuclear is and has been dead on arrival. This is an entirely separate discussion from the fact that nuclear is neither green nor safe. The absoulute greenwashing of the technology the nuclear propagandists is a massive disinformation campaign conducted by those who stand to profit the most on the backs of ratepayers and taxpayers. You are a sim-pleton by even bringing into the arguement the destructive role coal plays as if the president of Freinds of the Earth supports coal which he clearly does not. This not an either or debate fella, but this is the role of the nuclear sychophants to make the case as a distraction from the inherently dangerous toxicity of radiation. Which also incleudes the burning of coal.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=323

[maslin]

12:40 PM on 11/22/2010

There is one - exactly one - low carbon energy technology proven to replace fossil fuels at sufficient scale that it could seriously impact emissions and other noxious effects of fossil combustion.

It starts with 'nuclear'.

[nuclearISFreedom]

01:09 PM on 11/22/2010

Nuclear is green, is safe, and is American. We all know it's just a matter of time before natural gas and coal infuriate enough of the general population to usher in the renaissance. At the rate gas is moving through previously unspoiled areas, both in terms of environment, and in terms of previously naive swaths of population who never had to worry about their energy productions consequences, nuclear will be coming online amazingly fast. When people oppose gas, they look to wind and solar, then they get to the point where they realize that destroys the earth and will not provide the massive power we need. They will also see how nicely wind and solar dovetail with Un-natural, UnAmerican gas due to load balancing. The US is the relative hold out, the Chinese will put us to shame, and all who support nuclear will point to them as the model.

As for the simpleton comment, that violates this website's policy, as well as every other pet name that is used to address people.

[aligatorhardt]

02:11 AM on 12/04/2010

Let's ask these people if they would like a quiet, pollution free, fuel free with no transportation of fuels for 30 years, no mining, no drilling, no security risk, solar power installation with power storage for off time leveling. You pretend that only some of the choices are avaiIable for power generation when solar, wind, geothermal,tidal, wave power, moving water turbines, biofuels, hydrogen are all possible sources of electricity.

[Time Before]

05:33 PM on 11/21/2010

Money Is the Real Green Power:
The hoax of eco-friendly nuclear energy

Nuclear advocates in government and the nuclear industry are engaged in a massive, heavily financed drive to revive atomic power in the United States—with most of the mainstream media either not questioning or actually assisting in the promotion.

“With a very few notable exceptions, such as the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. media have turned the same sort of blind, uncritical eye on the nuclear industry’s claims that led an earlier generation of Americans to believe atomic energy would be too cheap to meter,” comments Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The nuclear industry’s public relations effort has improved over the past 50 years, while the natural skepticism of reporters toward corporate claims seems to have disappeared.”

,
The Times has showered readers with a variety of pieces advocating a nuclear revival, all marbled with omissions and untruths. A lead editorial headlined “The Greening of Nuclear Power” (5/13/06) opened:


New Boo: Chernobyl death toll 985,000, from cancer


The book also scores the position of the IAEA, set up through the UN in 1957 "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy," and its 1959 agreement with WHO. There is a "need to change," it says, the IAEA-WHO pact. It has muzzled the WHO, providing for the "hiding" from the "public of any information"unwanted" by the nuclear industry

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=141

[notpoliticallysafe]

07:34 PM on 11/21/2010

The article of the nuclear industry conspiring & buying off people is expected by anti-nuclear groups when they can't come up with scientific facts. Guess that means that the Environmental Defense Fund's President Steve Cochran must have been bought off by the nuclear industry to change their policy from anti-nuclear to neutral & pro on nuclear. Guess that means Stephen Tindale formerly of Greenpeace U.K. (2000-2005) who used to condemn nuclear energy for many years must have been bought off by the nuclear industry given that in 2009, he changed his view to support nuclear energy & form the group Climate Answers.

The nations which have repealed their anti-nuclear policies after many years have done so because they understand that nuclear powerplants benefit the environment when done properly, in addition to other energy sources such as geothermal. The conspiracy theory you wrote can't be taken seriously.

[Time Before]

09:23 PM on 11/21/2010

Well I think you need to write a book with those words but first you need to read one!

Next, the old tactic of calling something a conspiracy theory to nullify it -please!

Also, anyone who has been around knows how power works - forget not Nixon, Bush, the FBI under Hover, and the cigarette companies - cherry picking the information.

Read the book and Read Hofman where they tell if writes anything again they will get him,,and they did in ways and others.

Your talking Trillions of Dollars for free - tax payer money - think Wall Street



The ICRP and ECRR models
ICRP is a physics-based
system which dilutes
average energy
(Joules) into a mass
(Kg) of tissue (water)
to obtain a quantity
“Absorbed Dose”.
It ignores chemistry, cell
biology and
physiology and
ignores effects at the
DNA.
ECRR is a chemistry/
radiobiology/
physiology and
epidemiology based
system. Ionization
density at the DNA cell
target is assessed on
the basis of
radionuclide affinity for
DNA and behaviour.
Doses are adjusted by
weighting factors

[alvdh1]

12:06 PM on 11/22/2010

notpoliticallysafe,

The last thing your nuclear sychophantic bunch wants to discuss is science. Especially as it pertains to the biological effects of ionizing radiation or long lived radionucleids. When presented with scientific evidence, the best the pro nuke folks can do is deny it or dismiss it because you really have nothing to do with science as opposed to the full time job of greenwashing your pernicious technology.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=323

http://www.ieer.org/latest/nasrecapr.html

http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./

http://www.nature.com/bjc/index.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364264/

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n9/abs/6603403a.html

http://www.ccnr.org/bcma.html#lung

[notpoliticallysafe]

02:08 PM on 11/21/2010

To the anti-nuclear posters, let me repeat that whether you like it or not, nuclear energy isn't going away. The anti-nuclear movement was the strongest during the 1970s & 1980s but esp. since the 2000s, time is on nuclear's side. Nations such as Sweden, Italy & Spain have repealed the anti-nuclear laws that they passed during the 1980s. Italy & Sweden are planning new nuclear powerplants while Spain is extending the life of their existing nuclear powerplants. Germany's 2001 anti-nuclear law is being reviewed & has it been repealed? While some of us do work for the nuclear industry the repeated conspiracy accusation of any1 who supports nuclear must be a paid shill becomes dull, as does more on politics & little on science religion that to be an environmentalist you must be anti-nuclear.

Norris McDonald President of Afro-American environmentalists was 1 of the 1st to support nuclear energy. Environmentalists who support nuclear energy are no longer in the fringe. Mainstream enviormentalists such as the Environmental Defense Fund with Steve Cochran as President changed it's anti-nuclear policy to 1 favoring nuclear energy, more environmentalists support nuclear energy. There are posters who have said that they used to be anti-nuclear, but now support nuclear energy. There are people who've left Greenpeace & the Sierra Club because they disagreed with their views against nuclear energy & found the 2 groups to be a joke. Stephen Tindale Greenpeace UK director (2000-2005) now supports nuclear energy & has founded Climate Answers.

[Time Before]

10:38 PM on 11/21/2010

Finally
It is now clear to all that the
current ICRP radiation risk
model is incorrect and as a
result of its use, millions
have died and proposals to
build nuclear sites on the
Baltic will result in more
deaths. It is up to us all to
see that this situation, the
biggest public health
scandal of history, stops
now.

How is it possible that these levels of
exposure, lower than natural background
radiation are causing cancer?
The current radiation risk model, employed
by all governments, is wrong.
This model was developed by the
International Commission of Radiological
Protection (ICRP) in the 1950s. It has
been overtaken by scientific evidence.
It has been supplanted by a new model,
that of the European Committee on
Radiation Risk, the ECRR



Again I love you using coal. That just brings the message home. And the energy waste and consumption. Death with out accountablity !Like NP

We shut down NP in the 1970's and will be done again for reasons Humanity and or rights- all life!

[notpoliticallysafe]

07:04 AM on 11/22/2010

Again, time is on nuclear's side & since the 2000s environmental groups who used to believe what you have written here the 1/2 scientific claims are changing their anti-nuclear policies to 1 favoring or atleast neutral. You can repeat the same things but that doesn't make it science.

What you overlook is that the nations who repealed their anti-nuclear policies had passed them during the 1970s & 1980s when anti-nuclear sentiment was the strongest. Also you didn't shut down nuclear power during the 1970s completely. You & others who are anti-nuclear when you can't come up with science, make conspiracy accusations that the nuclear industry must be buying off environmentalists. BTW, in the future you'll see nuclear powered ships as shipping companies are looking to cut down fossil fuels. You can call it evil all you want, but whether you like it or not, nuclear power isn't going away.