<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nuclear Power &#8211; Japan and Vermont</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/nuclear-power-japan-and-vermont/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/nuclear-power-japan-and-vermont/</link>
	<description>For a thriving New England</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:21:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Kaplan</title>
		<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/nuclear-power-japan-and-vermont/#comment-744</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Kaplan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clf.org/?p=3364#comment-744</guid>
		<description>Professional &quot;risk communicator&quot; David Ropeik offers an interesting perspective on nuclear safety and relative risk at http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=beware-the-fear-of-nuclearfear-2011-03-12 - it is hard to argue, as a matter of straight fact, with his observation that far more people die every year from emissions from coal burning than did from Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters. 

But the larger question is whether the risks posed by current nuclear technology, either our current plants or the very similar plants proposed to be built, are worth incurring.  We need to stop the insanity of burning coal to generate electricity - but that doesn&#039;t mean that all alternatives to it are good.  And events in Japan should cause those who promote nuclear as an alternative to pause and at least think again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professional &#8220;risk communicator&#8221; David Ropeik offers an interesting perspective on nuclear safety and relative risk at <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=beware-the-fear-of-nuclearfear-2011-03-12" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=beware-the-fear-of-nuclearfear-2011-03-12</a> &#8211; it is hard to argue, as a matter of straight fact, with his observation that far more people die every year from emissions from coal burning than did from Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters. </p>
<p>But the larger question is whether the risks posed by current nuclear technology, either our current plants or the very similar plants proposed to be built, are worth incurring.  We need to stop the insanity of burning coal to generate electricity &#8211; but that doesn&#8217;t mean that all alternatives to it are good.  And events in Japan should cause those who promote nuclear as an alternative to pause and at least think again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>