Economist seeks responses to nuclear energy debate

Time to stand up to be counted

This is to inform you that ?The Economist? is conducting an online debate on nuclear  power ? in which online voting is invited.

Resolved  This house believes that the world would be better off without nuclear power.

WNA?s Ian Hore-Lacy is presenting the pro-nuclear case by opposing the motion that ?This house believes that the world would be better off without nuclear power?. The anti-nuclear case is being presented by Tom Burke, formerly of Friends of the Earth.

The debate can be found at: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/681 

To vote, click on ?Vote Now or Add Your View?.

Closing statements will be published on 13 April, and voting closes on 14 April.

If you vote, remember that the anti-nuclear vote is for the motion, and the pro-nuclear vote is against the motion!

Opening statements

Defending the motion

Tom Burke

a founding director of E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism)

Avoiding the radiological risks associated with civil nuclear power, whether in normal operation or from a catastrophe, is not the main reason the world would be better off without it. Atoms cannot be made to work for peace without making them available for war.

Against the motion

Ian Hore-Lacy

Director for public communications, World Nuclear Association

Despite the media circus regarding Fukushima, which has eclipsed the coverage of 20,000 or more lives lost in a huge and tragic natural disaster, nuclear power remains necessary and virtuous in relation to to sustainability criteria.

& & &

The full text of both opening statements and a moderator message are at the Economist web site for this online debate.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Yiuo/~3/yjrdSgaPX3s/economist-seeks-responses-to-nuclear.html

sun nuclear nuclear imaging services pros of nuclear power calvert cliffs nuclear power plant weak nuclear force