the nuclear debate

An anonymous respondent rightly questioned yesterday whether my knowledge about the nuclear debate is up-to-date. I guess I am no nuclear physicist!
Whether this also means I am not entitled to enter the debate....as that respondent suggests....is in itself debatable. Part of my contention would be that there should be debate, not merely assertion that because we are in crisis we should therefore allow nuclear energy.
There are in my mind (and in the minds of many others) sufficient unanswered questions about nuclear power, the disposal of waste, containment of the inevitable accidents, the effects on those who live close to power plants etc. etc. etc....these are scientific unanswered questions.

But there are also questions about public administration of nuclear energy. The Sellafield experience would suggest (and bear in mind that it has been there since the 1940's) a couple of questions about public administration. The other "big ones"--Three Mile Island, Chernobyl---point to similar questions:

• There are questions we would ask now, and conditions that we would impose in hindsight that simply were not envisioned when the program was first begun (I think my anecdotes highlight this)
• A culture of secrecy pervades nuclear power production which has done nothing to make this experience safer, and left a general public unsure about what it might have been exposed to.
• There is no doubt that there are important safety questions to be addressed. It would seem to me that the onus of proof of safety lies with the promoters of nuclear energy.

Frankly, I am open to being convinced. I am not open to being told I have no right to ask questions or that I am not allowed to enter a debate.