unclear nuclear
By Di_Hard
- 3600 reads
we'll rack up radioactive waste
costing billions to dispose of
safely. but who has billions to spare
when people are dying now, for lack
of Health Services, Social Care?
Those selling say "Nuclear's clean" -
it's not, the danger's out of sight
and we must be out of our minds
if we love children, want
to provide lives better than ours
when the only renewable thing
with nuclear is the kicked can
do. We think the gun lobby's crazy?
Who demands the right to kill children?
Anyone who wants to be free
from the limits of wind and solar energy
this is from listening to a radio program about the cost of nuclear waste in Britain :
- Log in to post comments
Comments
You've made so many valid
You've made so many valid points here Di. Some are pushing nuclear energy as if it's a risk-free, magic bullet to the energy crisis.
Nuclear is not clean, the risks and long term effects are frightening. We all need to stop being so greedy that's all, correction, not all, the unsung heroes of the environment are the many living without cars, luxuries, air travel, new clothes, food waste, meat, etc etc. The agenda ultimately appears to be one of destruction.
- Log in to post comments
I do remember as a student
I do remember as a student (long ago!) visiting a nuclear facility and being told 'hopefully' that 'we will soon find a solution to waste disposal', and I realised how shaky such a hope was.
However, you can't reverse people's accustomed usage of energy overnight. The strides in getting renewable energy have been actually quite immense, but the reliance on Russian oil has produced a (temporary??) problem, and so there will be pressure to investigate further renewed usage of fossil fuel sources as well, I suppose of nuclear. And the pollution problem for our children will not seem as severe as the bombs and gun-deaths by ill-intent of war or mad indiviuals.
And as I read in a headline yesterday, 'Our selfish dismantling of marriage has left children in a lonely Dickensian hell' with the dwindling of stable family environments. Far worse than children riding family arguments.
So, although your verse is well constructed (and a clever alltierative title!) and raises important issues of trying to protect our environment, the children of our world have other big dangers now as well. Rhiannon
- Log in to post comments
I think that story about
I think that story about marriage was in the Daily Mail. All I can say is that I've been with my partner for over thrity years, we have two children, we're not married and our children have had a very stable family life, no splits or affairs, certainly no Dickensian hell. Among our once married, now mostly divorced friends the story is different, they've gone through splits but kids have been looked after, although not completely unscathed.
More money for social services, schools and family education is what is required. Perhaps that could come from higher taxes, business taxes or even the churches.
- Log in to post comments
I think the article was
I think the article was looking at the country as a whole and the inability of a care system and fostering to cope with the laws and ethos undermining the encouragement to perseverance of family units and support for such that are struggling. Rhiannon
- Log in to post comments
I have read a bit about that
I have read a bit about that time of trouble with social services in your story and Insert's comments, and what you say then and now does highlight that even at their best social services and putting children into care is difficult to do really well and sensitively and with real understanding of the children and adults involved, and the impermanence is a real problem. Better to plough the money into helping faimlies that are struggling as you say. I helped with Home Start for a while where they aim to provide a supporting friend or brevit 'granny'. Partnerships can be long-term and steady, and seem to be being looked on like marriage – maybe it is society again that puts the nervousness about calling it that? Rhiannon
- Log in to post comments
Yes, I read one of the
Yes, I read one of the Sizewell reactors was due to be decommissioned in July but the government are looking to extend its life. The whole "energy security" issue is a bit of a mess and will be difficult for quite a while. Food for thought.
[Should that say "limits" in the last line?]
- Log in to post comments
An attentive caring poem Di
An attentive caring poem Di to the menace that's all around us.
Jenny.
- Log in to post comments
nuclear power has enormous
nuclear power has enormous costs and neglible beneftits, but France gets three-quarters of its energy that way. We can't use it as a quick fix in the global warming crisis, becuase it takes too long to build a reactor. And when we factor in each station needs to make a profit, then we know what happens next. It does make a profit to our cost. The advent of unmetered electricity never happened. Nuclear means weapons. It's that simple. I've little doubt we'll have another nuclear bomb going off, especially since the advent of generals saying they can use they tactically. Ironically, Ukraine had a shit-load of nuclear weapoons on their land, which they handed back to Russia.
- Log in to post comments
Uggly Puggly for Energy
Uggly Puggly for Energy Minister? I'm in....
- Log in to post comments
Hi Di
Hi Di
Very good poem with much food for thought.
- Log in to post comments