"You have perhaps heard of the precautionary principle.
Nuclear energy currently violates that principle.
Unless someone determines how to undo the spent fuel and all the adjacent objects/materials/water/whole towns made unusable by nuclear energy, it remains dangerously irresponsible to advocate for nuclear energy.
Please answer that problem first." DC
On 5/3/2014 2:28 PM, Ariana wrote:
Hello Mr. Curtis,
I would like to let you know I am a huge fan of the Green Party as well as your platform for Secretary of State. However, I would like to bring up one point concerning the shut down of nuclear power plants that you are advertising in your mission.
The creation and use of nuclear energy revolutionized the way we look at the future of our planet. Without the damaging effects from fossil fuels, we might be able to prevent or even reverse the damage we have done to our planet. That said, nuclear energy, as any graduate student such as myself will learn in a chemistry program, is over 8,000 times MORE efficient than fossil fuels (ie. uranium vs oil). Making it your mission to shut down nuclear power plants might be the easy way out, but not effective or true to your own party beliefs or goals. Burning fossil fuels expends an enormous amount of waste, but it goes into the air rather than than into a storage facility in the ground. Choosing a better way to produce energy has its own set of obstacles that we should be trying to overcome, not put a stop to.
Thank you for your time. I hope you will take this information into consideration, as it reveals how much your platform not only contradicts your beliefs, but also the beliefs of the Green Party.
Graduate Chemistry Student
California State University, Long Beach