The harm caused by Chernobyl was more a result of the pool handling and maintenance of the plant due to the failings of their communist state, as was seen in many sectors in their countries (that also resulted in suffering and death)

It has been soundly proven by the French, the country that had the most impact on reducing the EUs overall carbon emissions, that the technology can be used without any negative effects, even in disposal.

Yes, it was a disaster waiting to happen when the Japanese built a plant in a tsunami zone with high seismic activity. THIS is the problem, not nuclear energy. Would you prefer the poor in Africa continue to live poverty, burning animal dung and without a viable economy to provide the basic necessities for life let alone prosperity? This is but one example of the human suffering your “compassion for plants and animals” results in.

And compassion for plants? Oh come on. That is ridiculous, religious nonsense. Conservation, smart use of and protection of our resources, vegetable and mineral is needed and laudable but only because they benefits human welfare not some fairy tale woo woo nonsense.

Sorry, I’m not dressed for church. We need science and rationality to deal with these issues not emotional idealism.

The issue is WHERE you build the plants and a seismically active area in area long known for a risk of Tsunami is a very dangerous and poor choice. Besides what viable alternatives are there? Solar and wind are at best supplementary sources and many countries do not have access to enough hydro electric, the development of which is usually blocked by special interest groups. The only other real alternatives are things like coal, which does kill a lot of people and there is no debate on this or other fossil fuels. Natural gas is a fairly clean option compared to most others but there is only so much of it and it requires large transmission pipelines.

The french have made extensive use and derive the vast majority of their power from nuclear. In fact, this was the only reason the EU showed as well as they did on the issue of carbon emissions. They have also shown that the waste can be stored and dealt with in a safe and effective manner.

If anything will cause deaths by nuclear, it will be environmentalists blocking the development of new, meaning safer and more modern plants in better locations and the old ones will become more and more likely to have an accident.

Besides, It is coal that is killing thousands of people every single year directly from its pollution. Lives that could be saved by effective and responsible use of nuclear power, in addition to cleaner air and water but the environmental extremists probably dismiss this because they also see the earth as overpopulated and needs a reduction in numbers anyways. Some of them can show more compassion for plants and animals than they do people and honestly that is truly frightening.

One year climate experts admit that volcanos, forest fires, decay of leaves and other natural sources produce more atmospheric carbon than humans do then they tell us the worst offender is cow farts. They make movies about slideshows about books base on data that turns out to be completely inaccurate.

People are force to use compact fluorescents (that produce light that bothers me and I can’t stand) in the name of being green but they are made with the dirtiest coal power in China then shipped across the ocean. Or economically illiterates in government and in special interest groups either force or bring about legislation meant to “clean up the environment” but all it does is drive industry to nations that have some of the worst environmental records.

In short, if there is any truth to human caused climate change, these well meaning but ineffectual folks are actually making things worse in the big picture. Scientists still cannot prove that any of the warming that they have apparently recorded is not caused by natural and normal environmental factors such as solar activity. The earth has not been a widely hospitable place for people let alone life for the majority of its life supporting existence and has shown severe shifts in temperatures far worse than anything they are projecting.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a clean environment (we drink that water, dammit!) and energy efficiency. I don’t own a car, run a very efficient Mac Mini for my computer and eagerly look forward to LED lightbulbs being affordable but honestly with the religiosity and blind enthusiasm of environmental advocates are actually doing harm to both the environment and the economy (you know that thing that feeds most of the world).

These zealots are repulsive to people they can’t indoctrinate (how many times did your kid or those you know have to watch Al Gore’s stupid movie in school?) and the alarmist and often contradictory press (propaganda) the issue receives has lead me to no longer read the news.

So, if you really care about the planet, don’t how little power your Hulu device is using. It is all just self indulgent garbage meant to make people feel better about themselves and does absolutely nothing for the state of the environment.

A DVR can do things these digital streaming boxes can’t. It records things. If Season 1 of Breaking Bad is available, I can record it and watch it anytime I want. If Season 1 disappears from Netflix before I get around to watching it I don’t have that option, so I don’t think comparing DVR to non-DVR models is appropriate.