Of course, the increased interest in nuclear energy excites attention in parts of the United States where mining represents a substantial share of the local economy. An editorial in The Mountain Mail ("The Voice of Salida and the Upper Arkansas Valley" - Salida is in southern Colorado) supports nuclear energy from exactly this viewpoint:
In southern Utah, uranium mining firms are quietly pursuing mining claims on federal lands.
Just west of Marshall Pass in Saguache County, a Seattle company took control of mineral rights near the former Pitch uranium mine, which operated in the early 1980s but closed shortly thereafter.
The stone of the nuclear renaissance produces interesting ripples.
On a different note, the editorial notes that the Democratic presidential candidates (and Nader, of course) have downplayed nuclear energy and comes close to taunting them for it.
The candidates would rather promise increased ethanol production as a means of reducing reliance on foreign oil. They fail to mention the subsequent increases in costs for everything from bread to milk and hamburger - which Americans are already seeing at grocery stores.
It's all more good news, of course, if you're Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Among other oil exporting countries, they no doubt are laughing on their way to their banks.
The language here is troubling, especially the talk radio tactic of creating demons to personalize an argument, but it's an interesting change in rhetoric. The quiet defense of nuclear energy found in most editorials and op-eds contends here with muscular, even aggressive, language. Depending on one's perspective, this approach either broadens the discussion beyond establishing the bona fides of nuclear energy or bypasses logical argument in favor of a visceral response.
Comments