Trinitat and nuclear power

Good morning people!

Sorry about the misleading title. Just to clarify: the Trinitat Chapel is (probably) NOT powered by nuclear energy.

Did you have a nice weekend? I did. Yesterday, aka the "first day of my healthy lifestyle and diet ha ha", I joined the "secta's" organised hike up to La Trinitat, which was lovely and came to an end much too soon for my liking.

I can't believe this is the only photo I took, hauntingly similar to one I took last year. Did anyone else take photos?

Really, it was nice: a day out enjoying nature and spring, doing exercise, eating outdoors, having the time to talk to people nice and relaxed instead of always being in a hurry, seeing old ex-students again...

But now, Monday again, with the usual obligations, my online course to do (today's the deadline), classes to prepare, writing tasks to correct, meals to prepare, etc, etc, etc.

But as usual I'm glued to the computer, this time researching nuclear energy, as lately people have given me some really scary looks when I've said I'm in favour. Yesterday I'm pretty sure that they were eying the cliff and toying with the idea of giving me a swift push.

So today I'm reading about the arguments in favour and against nuclear energy, apart from the usual "prophecy of doom" scaremongering that we hear all the time from environmentalists*.

I've read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2259986/, and this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html and this http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12746129 and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2011/03/is_japans_fear_of_radiation_wo.html

and this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842 ("We should stop running away from radiation")

These pages deal mostly with the arguments for and against nuclear energy.

Then with increased interest I've read about how nuclear energy could be used more efficiently and a lot more safely, if this theory can be put into practice: http://www.evworld.com/currents.cfm?jid=84 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Now THAT would be a way forward, because, let's face it, we ALL want an endless electrical supply for all our gadgets, even though we moan about our electricity bill.

It's just that I do have a lot of faith in science and I like the idea of progressing, finding a way forward, not backwards to candles and horse-drawn carts like the Amish.

(Remember that people used to think that travelling above 25km/h would kill you!)

There's only ONE thing that got my attention in one of the articles, and made me think "hmmmm, that's true, and very worrying." and that's the possibility of nuclear plants being targetted in a terrorist attack. I think that would be the only thing that would make me change my mind. One thing is an accident, which obviously could and can happen, which is why there's such a strict protocol. A completely different thing is somebody actually wanting to cause harm...

... which kind of brings us back to the human race and how nice animals are, really, doesn't it?

Well I can imagine your opinions on this but let me have them anyway.

Or we could have a class debate: everybody against me...

*I have nothing against environmentalists, in fact I actually used to be a member of Greenpeace. However I just don't find them so convincing anymore, maybe it's all those beards, and some of them come across as a bit fanatical, which is always scary.