There has been much talk of Nuclear Energy as a sensible substitute for fossil based fuels. While the argument that this approach is non-polluting may make sense from the point of view of carbonization, another potentially even more egregious form of contamination results from radio-active waste, the byproduct of nuclear power plants.

Decades have passed since the first power plant of this type went on line, and no viable solution for the storage of this contaminant has yet to emerge.

Industry spokespersons have long touted nuclear energy as cost-effective when compared to fossil based fuels, but their conclusions fail to consider the cost of decommissioning a plant when it has reached its maturity.

Recent studies have revealed that greenhouse gasses resulting from nuclear power may be even higher that those produced from the burning of natural gas. latest findings

Some nuclear plants may be forced to shut down due to scarce water resources, or severe weather conditions. Read the article appearing in a August 11, 2011 VisionsGreen story.

Finally, the danger from a nuclear accident puts millions at risk. While coal, the cheapest and next most dangerous fuel from its long term effects, poses no equivalent immediate threat.

Radiation Leak Reportd At San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station 45 miles from San Diego

Nuke Plant Shut Down 100 Miles from Chicago

The Case for Moving
U.S. Nuclear Fuel to Dry Storage

Hanford: Contaminated US Site
Faces Catastrophic Consequences

Nuclear Leak Radio-active Brine Leak in Germany

Where the nuclear plants are
located within the United States?

Chernobyl - Still being "cleaned up"

List of Nuclear Power Accidents by Country

Lobbying for Nuclear Power in the U.S.

U.S. Nuclear Reactors Are
Past Their Expiration Date