It's amazing how much journalists can get paid for being not only irresponsible and ignorant, but for turning logic entirely on its head. Watch how a pro like Nicholas Kristof does it:
It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.How does this stuff get past the editors? A child of five could be taught - without much effort - to understand the logical problem with this statement.
There may be a legitimate argument for a return to nuclear power, but I haven't seen it yet. The facts are these: Radwaste disposal is impossible. Storage is unconscionably dangerous, and reprocessing is both dangerous and astronomically expensive. External costs associated with spent nuclear fuel - which get picked up by taxpayers, or thrust onto helpless countries like Nauru - make it far more costly than anyone in industry or government lets on. If that's "green," by Kristof's standards, I'd hate to see his idea of "unsustainable."