I have read through the chain of messages and the article it follows. I hate to ask this, but are we not quite pessimistic? No offense meant, but there is one thing I've noticed here. Neither the so called 'retired expert' author(no offense/disrespect meant) nor the esteemed persons who have commented on it, have touched uopn the topic 'If not Nuclear Energy, then what?' We can blindly say tht the deal is harmful and that we dont need it. But what about the Energy crisis? The population of our country is increasing alarmingly. Neither you are nor I am ready to cut down on Petrol and Diesel consumption by reducing car/bike rides. No industry is reducing its power requirement. No family is switching off and saving valuable power. How do we, in future, power all this? Even as one source of energy - Oil has become more costly, the prices of every commodity and everything imaginable has increased. Our country is losing valuable foreign exchange paying for the Oil price rise. When a single energy source can cause this kindof damage and when the requirement will NEVER decrease, are we not supposed to look for alternate sources or energy? All the developed nations and many of the developing nations are already utilising this source fervently. Where do we stand?
