The real reason for Nuclear Power

Amongst all the hullabaloo about Nuclear Power, who is asking the questions that should be asked? Such as, 'why is it necessary to spend countless billions on power stations that will last for 60 years (maximum) using a fuel that is similarly limited (possibly even shorter the more other nations go for Nuclear, especially China)?'.

Then there's the issue of the waste produced. And that's the key. Because it's a principal component in Nuclear Weapons. It's far from concidental that in November last year, a month after Blair's Greenpeace-gatecrashed nuclear annoucement, the press carried smaller stories about the Government's quiet intentions to replace Trident, without even a vote on the issue in Parliament.

But there are some honest journalists out there. An article in the New Statesman last week 'joined the dots' on this issue, pointing out that the US and the UK have a history of swapping nuclear waste for use in their respective Nuclear Weapons programmes, possibly in breach of International non-proliferation treaties.

Suddenly, it all becomes clearer. So why aren't Greenpeace et al shouting these facts from the rooftops?