UN IPCC report on global warming - is nuclear the way to go?

I would say, emphatically, yes. I'm very pro-nuclear.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel created in 1988 by the United Nations, has released its report which states that human-produced greenhouse gases are a major cause of global warming and that we must look towards alternate energy sources to avoid accelerating the warming that we're seeing.

I'm a mineralogist. I understand the very efficient process of metamictization and the conversion of primary minerals to clays. Clays trap radioactive particals very effectively. Nature is very, very efficient in dealing with nucleides. I've also worked in materials science - I understand the process by which new materials are developed to trap radionucleides.

I fully support nuclear energy - all aspects of it. Mining is done robotically for the most part, in order to keep humans safe from the hot ore. Deep rock storage of wastes is the way to go and if you know the mineralogy behind it, it makes perfect, SAFE sense. I would have nuclear waste in the old mine shaft behind my house, no problem. Well, maybe not here in Ottawa because all the rock around here is softrock, but definitely back in Sudbury!!

But I have a scientific awareness. A high level of science literacy if you want to put it that way. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island - yes, definitely a concern, but both incidents were isolated. The major issue behind implementing more nuclear reactors in Canada is public perception. Public ignorance actually. Nuclear energy has a scary reputation to those who don't know the science behind it.

Science communication again. The general public needs to be shown how to reason their way through this issue, not simply be bombarded by fear-mongering, anti-nuclear groups.

Nuclear scientists and politicians have to do better at explaining the reality behind the whole nuclear industry, from ore extraction to the production of energy to waste disposal and everything in between. It's important. We have to stop being dependent on fossil fuels and move into a more stable, clean energy source. I say this even though I have good friends who work in the petroleum industry, am involved with groups who are funded in part by petroleum company money. But those sources of power, they have to go the way of the dodo.

Wind, nuclear, tidal. They all have their pros and cons, but at some point we have to decide how to weigh those pros and cons against the destruction of our planet that is looming just over our shoulder.

To come back to the dodo... I bought a copy of "Flock of Dodos - The Evolution - Intelligent Design Circus" the other day, including the public screening rights. I'm hoping that we can organize a screening evening as a fundraiser for the science fair. Also going to show it at work for a friday afternoon movie social. Evolution versus intelligent design. There IS NO DEBATE. Not to anyone with a grasp on real science anyway. ID is not science. They have yet to publish anything that demonstrates that they are using the scientific method in their 'research'. Unfortunately, what they do have going for them is a large bank account and extensive PR resources.