Poll: Just six percent of scientists are Republican

Before you get all smarmy about it, you might consider that most scientists get their funding from the government, and its usually Democratic administrations with their spending agendas that make the biggest increases in the budgets of all government departments (except of course DoD), including the NIH and NSF. They're just looking to where their patrons are. Scientists also tend to be very secular in their personal outlook, as scientific training is dominated by an antipathy to religion. I have a PhD in Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry and I have known scores of them; a good percentage were secular humanists, in practice if not in profession. As I am sure you are aware, the Democrat party seems to be the haven of the secular crowd. Those scientists I have known who do profess a religious belief are also often very private about it. Finally, academic departments of any kind are as rife with personality and politics as any other human organization, as is the society of scientists as a whole. Expressing deeply held religious beliefs openly can damage one's career.

In short, it is a mistake to assume that one poll on the political views of scientists represents any proof of anything concernng the relationship between intellectual rigor and religious belief, which is really your point with the seed right? Democrat=intellectual, Republican=militant, fundamentalist, ignorance?

I find the poll hard to believe. Yes, I think there is a bias towards liberalism in the sciences but it doesn't seem that skewed to me. Then again, I work with a mixture of engineers and scientists and I have worked on defense-related projects.

Guessing, I would have said Republican scientists were in the 10-20% range, with most being towards the liberal end of Republicanism.

Yes, I think there is a bias towards liberalism in the sciences but it doesn't seem that skewed to me.

Rather than a bias towards liberalism in the sciences, I think there is a bias toward science in liberalism. And a corresponding bias toward religion in conservatism. Conservatives will believe things without evidence (hence the appeal of Rush Limbaugh). Liberals do not take things as a matter of "faith." They need proof.

Doesn't surprise me a bit. The Republicans don't believe in science and the scientists don't believe in Republicanism.

I think there is a bias toward science in liberalism. And a corresponding bias toward religion in conservatism

I guess it depends on what flavor of Conservative and Liberal one happens to be.

Many conservatives (the George Will, William F. Buckley, Rockefeller types) tend to believe in science to the extent of using microeconomic theory to support their ideology and refine their political positions. They arrive at their positions via data, not faith.

Religion, especially much of Christianity, is Liberal. At least when it comes to loving one's neighbor, turning the other cheek, giving to charity, caring for the meek. A good example in the political arena would be Jimmy Carter.

I guess both these examples would be considered "old school" in the current climate.

Anyway, the numbers seem a little off to me. I wonder if they polled a truly representative cross-section of scientists - including those in industry.

jaywow67

Republican=militant, fundamentalist, ignorance

You got that right.

__________________________

I guess this fella here was an ignorant, militant fundamentalist:

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
http://www.nbra.info/

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that @!$%# preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

tangojones

After plodding through the long post as to why Dr. King was a Republican, you ( and the article ) ignore the glaringly obvious: The south had been traditionally Democratic for decades, if not over a hundred years, and racism was an entrenched social fact. To put forth the idea that Martin Luther King would somehow, abide with what the Republican party of today ( we ARE discussing today's reality I assume ) practices, is another in an all too long list of half truths and outright lies put out on a regular basis by conservative extremists.

What's next......J.F.K. wasn't really a WWII hero??

you ( and the article ) ignore the glaringly obvious

It would only be glaringly obvious to people like yourself, who childishly distort the tenets of conservatism, which have remained largely unchanged to this day. I hardly think MLK would be a proponent of mass abortions of babies or unfettered illegal immigration. I'm sure he would've marched against many of today's liberal socialist policies that have had such a damaging effect on American society, and in particular, blacks.

BTW don't post entire pieces. Link to it.

Fair enough, thanks.

Only 6% of scientists are dumba$$ Republicans? Wow, I didn't think that the percentage was so high!

It makes sense. Scientists are underpaid.

Very few scientists are billionaires. Only billionaires usually benefit under Republican policies, so why would anyone with any level of intellect be a Republican?

A majority of scientists are dependent on the federal urinary gooberinmint for their subsistence; the same as welfare recipients. I would be curious how engineers would poll. Many of us carry advanced degrees and work in the private (real world) sector.

Great job, Jay.

theman

I would be curious how engineers would poll. Many of us carry advanced degrees and work in the private (real world) sector.

all you have to do is read the poll. (for any true scientist the answer was easy to find) Only 10% of scientists in the private sector identified themselves as republican, 37% indep. and 47% was democratic.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

I work with both engineers and scientists, most with advanced degrees.

Based on the relatively large group that I interact with, the engineers do tend to be more conservative than the scientists. It is the subject of a lot of good-natured joking between the two populations.

The differences between the two populations go deeper than that. The engineers are always complaining that scientists are a little too prone to running off and looking for new solutions to solved problems. We scientists tend to accuse the engineers of stodgy adherence to the "book" without sufficient thought to how to make the solution better.

For us all it creates a healthy tension between innovation and reliable known solutions. Our products are better for the creative tension.

I didn't scroll down.

At least that helps explain my perception difference with the poll. I've spent most of my time with scientists in the two areas that have the most Republicans. That, combined with a healthy mix of engineers probably means that my co-workers are 10-20% Republican.

I'm an engineer now in Silicon Valley, but have been in departments through out America.

I am confident this poll is very close or dead on for scientists.

I also agree private sector engineers have slightly more Republicans, but are still overwhelmingly democrat as a whole. I would wager 20% or less Republican and the rest indep or dem.

I was watching a program yesterday on one of the history channels and one of the speakers intimated about something very similar,the point was that if you have a population that is intelligent,healthy andthe most important NOT fearful of the government, you find it extremely difficult to control that population and bend them to a certain groups ideology, like one that seeks control by means of myth building and myth believing. The Republicans as a whole seek to destroy intelligence in the population,except those who are close to the center politically and those who seriously uphold the separation of church and state because they know that it is most important to the prosperity and good welfare of all Americans. Last week the Gov. of Texas appointed a woman by the name of Dunbar who is a rabid frothing mouth anti-science,anti-fact and claims that the education system in Texas and the US is un-Constitutional.Perry appointed her to head of all things...the state board of education!!Tell me you people on the right! is this logical? Why in the sam-hell would you put some one in charge of a system that is so important to the mental welfare of millions of Texas schol children?..Why?...to brainwash these children and to keep them stupid and totally ignorant of the REAL world around them! I think that if she gets the position that the good people who work in these state offices should walk out in protest of the imminent destruction of GOOD education in the Proud state of Texas. Here in Ohio we have the common sense to keep these people who think like her out of such positions, sometimes the do infiltrate the system but they are always hoist by their own petards of false morals,ignorance and hatred of the factual world and are eventually thrown out of office or prosecuted out.

I left out an"o" in school! even I get vaporlocked sometimes...

tangojones - There is a huge difference you seem to have overlooked between people like Senator Byrd and the others you mentioned (Lott, Thurmond). The difference is in learning that you were wrong, admitting it and changing your ways. Very big deal. How could you leave that out or overlook it? Selective memory?

I wonder what a similar poll would reveal about scientists who are christians? It brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain, "A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and turned out for what he knows."

It is obvious to me that the GOP has no interest in new technology unless it can be used to kill lots of people, make gi-normous personal fortunes, send people to jail for sinning (as opposed to actual violent, abusive or fraudulent acts), protect corporations which destroy people and lay waste to our ecosystem, etc.

It is my sincere hope that the GOP Party is over!

MatB #1.10, & 1.12

Maybe you should have debated the story of J.F.K. with the men who served on the P.T. boat with Kennedy. All involved substantiated the facts as reported. Two ( at least ) road in J.F.K.'s innaugural parade in a model of P.T.109

Nice try in rewriting well known and documented history.

What's next.......R.F.K. was really a mob boss??

tangojones #1.13

Well, there you go again...... ( toddles head with a rosy cheeked grin )

I never ever tried to make the case that Dr. King was a liberal Democrat.

When you put forth the idea that Dr. King was a Republican conservative, you should have had at least one fact to base your claim on.

Keep dreamin'.

This is to the post far above about why MLK was republican. This used data as far back as mid 1800s. You should know that Lincoln's Rep party was more an ancestor of the modern Dem party than the Modern GOP. There have been numerous name changes on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and neither have anything to do with current parties. MLK was most decidedly not at all Republican by modern terms. You just read a bad article!

Here in Ohio we have the common sense to keep these people who think like her out of such positions, sometimes the do infiltrate the system but they are always hoist by their own petards of false morals,ignorance and hatred of the factual world and are eventually thrown out of office or prosecuted out.

Exactly! thats why we rank higher in our HS graduation rate than texas.

JFK was a good swimmer. like a fish, just not a good PT boat skipper. Ted Kennedy drank like a fish, but couldn't swim enough to save his date, but was a good accident scene skipper.

Let's deal in fact, shall we? I suggest reading the book "P.T. 109" By Robert ballard. A well researched and acclaimed body of work that details the accounts regarding Captain Kennedy and crew's experiences during the time in question.

Ballard devotes enough of the book to address the less than honorable attacks on J.F.K's reputation to dismiss them as the gutter trash they are.

I'm sure Captain Kennedy "let" his cruiser get rammed to make himself a hero.

To quote an old colleague of J.F.K.'s: I knew Jack Kennedy.....I worked with Jack Kennedy.....Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.

MatB......You're no Jack Kennedy.

Denying he deserved any medal is typical of a hero, isn't it. The accounts of the men who WERE THERE all say the same thing: Captain Jack Kennedy was the man who saved their lives. If you were to read the book, you would know how the P.T. boats and crews operated then, but it's apparent you don't know.

I think you just can't stand the idea that J.F.K. was a true American hero. Funny, he never used the P.T.109 incident in his campaigns for public office. I guess they just don't make em' like that anymore.

You know we can debate semantics but with the wealth and power of the Kennedy family had even back then he could have easily gotten out of serving, or he could have gotten an easy office position, or he could have served the reserve state side (ala Bush Jr). However he served this country as combat solder.

That says something about the man right there.

Unfortunately, this is a chicken or egg questions...

Republicans will claim that "liberalism" in science is why our society has a "bias" toward belief in evolution and global warming.

Democrats will claim that this is evidence that "liberals" are more open-minded and less bound to dogma, and are therefore free to find objective "truth".

Of course there is no absolute answer. It's a matter of whether you believe in Fundamentalism or science.

I believe in God, but I don’t believe that religion needs to exclude the principles of science. Science and religion can coexist. It all depends on how absolute and literal you are in your beliefs.

Of those polled I would like to know how many were government or academic -vs- private sector scientist. Without the benefit of a poll I would guess the numbers would show 6% work in the private sector. Think about it!

MatB

You mean to say he wasn't as heroic as YOU see him. You're not speaking for everyone else. I mean, that would be stupid.

DWF

OK. I've thought about it.

Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.

Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.

Do you base this on anything other than a childish seethe. Your double digits are showing!

C'mon, DWF. A childish seethe? I'm so hurt.

Robert B

why are we not surprized that only 6% of republicans, are scientists, non of them either, have graduated in National economy :D

Demoness.

In my experience, engineers are much closer to 50-50, if not more conservative than liberal. Many of these people would not say that they are Republican, but would say they identify with conservative. This applies to not only people I knew in college, but also those I work with. So it is closer to being equal numbers of people who are quite intelligent and educated, who are liberal or conservative.

Democrats are over 15 times more intelligent than Republicans.

Because scientists are the only intelligent ones in the world? People with engineering degrees, or MBAs, or Economics degrees, or etc... obviously do not count as intelligent, because those groups surely have more than 9% identifying as conservative.

Real fact's

People with real national economy skills and polit science,

Are not really political, they are server's of people, in power and usually goes, with a conservative fact-um, "there own opinion is superior".

Now it's just a question, for them to sell that same idea, to the front person, there can be a politician, but in most cases, are chairmen of the board, in huge corporations.

Or they own there own profitable business and stands out, far beyond any cooperated business, if you wanna feel better, about someone considered stupid, in GOP when he was the VP, of the country, he looked like an idiot to many, just is, he are in business, smarter than many, "Dan Quale".

Demoness.

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. If you could clear up what you are saying that would be fantastic.

I was merely trying to point out how the seeder and the majority of posters seem to think this study shows that only 9% of all of the intelligent people in this country hold conservative view points, and that this is an incredible exaggeration.

Real Facts

OK, I thought it was to me, just let it pass.

Demoness.

Wonder if those 6% scientists are the ones the oil companies paid off to say global warming doesn't exist.

4% are the ones paid to say global warming doesn't exist.

2% are the ones paid to find reasons birth control should not be used.

Oh I forgot the intelligent design scientists. They must be part of that 6% too.

Wow. Reading these posts by you libs is pretty funny. I'm beginning to think that you actually believe that republicans and conservatives don't believe in science. Do you realize how stupid you all sound making those comments? Really, get a grip. lol.

MatB,

You will get a lot better response if you quit talking short and VERY broad generalities, and give a concrete example of democrats shoving either nuclear power or medical science aside.

Mat,

You might try loosing the one-liners some uneducated right wing nutjob told you and actually get involved in a conversation.

Many of us are well educated, and are active in the fields you appear to want to talk about. You might make a few points and ask some interesting questions if you tried, but what you are doing now is neither interesting nor very entertaining.

Mat-

You are tossing around a lot of wild assertions but you have not backed any of them up with a single fact.

How are the Democrats shoving aside nuclear power?

How are the Democrats oppressing medical science?

What do you call shoving nuclear power and medical science aside

How exactly are they shoving aside medical science? What cure or procedure that I know about do they reject for non-scientific reasons?

Science deals in theory, not fact. The people that oppose nuclear power do it because of scientific reasons. They cite scientific hypothesis concerning nuclear waste health/ecosystem contamination concerns about when opposing nuclear power. There are opposing hypothesis that those in favor of nuclear power use to debate their side of the issue.

Also, if you we're really so well educated, you wouldn't be here.

As in exist?

Dear Mat -

I am a democrat, I value ecology along with my husband who is getting his Master's in environmental science. We are both pro-nuclear power for energy use along with diversifying with other sources. As are many of our colleagues.

When used along with other varying energy sources and not relied on as an only source, the waste can be easily contained and maintained.

What do you call shoving nuclear power and medical science aside?

Dang the problem with generalizing is you are usually wrong.

Actually, there are many people who are for nuclear power...until the Powers-That-Be state where the nuclear waste is going to be buried. Then everyone cries "Not In My Backyard!"

Democrats are against medical research? Do the words "Stem Cell Research" mean anything to you? Dems are only against Big Pharma because Big Pharma does not want single payer health care. They are in it for the money, not the humanitarianism. It's a good thing none of those lobbyists have to take the Hippocratic Oath. I would looooove to see Asclepius @!$%#-slapping in the hiz-ouse!

We actually live right in the middle of one of the two test sites for the first nuclear bomb testing. And there's a handful of nuclear power plants here. There's a lot of old stuff here, a lot of nuclear stored fuel. No glowing, no hairless mutants, but with the negative advertising, people's fear wins out - oil company's win - people loose. Earth looses.

We were pushing for the storage site at Yucca Mt, but it was unsuccessful in the end. So many jobs were lost.

They are in it for the money, not the humanitarianism.

At the end of the week, do you expect a paycheck for your work, or would you be satisfied with a pat on the back and a "thanks for being a good humanitarian, Al"?

Without the profit motive, "big pharma" goes out of business, and we all lose. I'm not suggesting there is no room for humanitarianism, but we need to be realistic. When you factor in R&D, the cost to produce that first miracle pill is usually many millions of dollars. There's no getting around it. They have to pay all those good "democrat scientists" and researchers. You know, the "smart ones" I've been hearing about on this thread. I know most of you libs can't make the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living, but follow it to it's logical conclusion. Remembering this simple formula will be helpful:

Profit: good - Communism: bad

They have to pay all those good "democrat scientists" and researchers. You know, the "smart ones" I've been hearing about on this thread. I know most of you libs can't make the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living, but follow it to it's logical conclusion.

If it's the democrat scientists that are getting paid, and it's the democrats, who are the liberals - it's true, I always hear them linked - then it seems to me the libs are making the connection between profit motive and improved standard of living quite easily. They are the ones with the big jobs, the big brains, the scientific understanding, they are the ones who... also, won the big elections.

It just might be the out of date mythical conservative republicans that aren't getting all this important teaching that's going on here. hmmmmm? Remembering their own concepts, updating them, and bringing it all forward, might be helpful.

No crime in humanitarianism at all and believing that we can have both and striving toward that.

The problem with nuclear power is one of fuel. Setting everything else aside, including waste, there just isn't enough uranium in the ground, and definitely not enough in the ground in this country, to solve our energy needs. You've heard of peak oil? Even with out rather light usage of atomic energy, we only have enough proven reserves for the next sixty years. And that's without swapping all the coal plants out for nuclear.

Sixty years.

That's why scientists aren't really all that excited about fission power. It is not a long term solution. It will be hard enough converting off of fossil fuel, so we only want to do it once.

Fusion, on the other hand...

Sorry repeat post - my first one wouldn't post then they both did.

That's why scientists aren't really all that excited about fission power. It is not a long term solution. It will be hard enough converting off of fossil fuel, so we only want to do it once.

That's why we can't rely on one kind of power source ever again - like we've done with fossil fuels. It's foolish. We need to diversify - nuclear, wind, fusion, tidal, solar, etc... Use them all for our benefit.

Nuclear energy probably does have a future in "clean" energy, either long-term or as a "bridge" source.

The issue of waste storage is not going to go away and will continue to be a "hot button" issue. Liquid Sodium - Thorium fueled reactors offer some interesting advantages but the "full up" technology, including on-site reprocessing is immature. Interestingly, the liquid salt reactors could "burn" the spent rods that are accumulating at EVERY current nuclear reactor facility, and reduce the waste stream significantly. Interesting reading at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

I'm waiting for the StarGate team to find a Naquada Generator. Or the secret to Zero Pont energy!

Check the wikipedia on 'peak uranium'. Yes, there's tons of uranium ore in the ground, but that does not equate to tons of refined, reactor grade uranium fuel. We have, at present usage, sixty years of proven reserves. That's including the mines you've seen.

But even if you wish to argue anecdotes vs statistics for the amount of remaining uranium, the fact remains that it is, in effect, a fossil fuel. All the uranium in on planet was created in one or more supernovae before the planet was formed. Most of it fell, or oozed, to the planet's core. The little that is left in the crust represents a fixed quantity. Once it is gone, it is gone*.

Atomic fission, like coal, gas and oil, is an energy dead end. Eventually, and far, far too soon for comfort, we'll run out. And then we'll have to convert everything again.

_______

* Or, at the very least, will take vastly more energy to create more of

Also people call nuclear energy a "Clean Fuel" source when in fact it could not be farther from the truth.

Nuclear Waste is by far the most hazardous form of energy byproduct out there. compared to the time it takes for the environment deteriorate the waste to the point it is harmless is astronomically higher than even Gas or Coal.

All the people clamoring for the idea of more nuclear reactors would balk at the idea of the waste being dumped in their state let alone their home towns.

From Wikipedia, the current conventional resources is enough for 60 years, and a doubling in price would make about ten times that much available. There is also three times as much thorium as uranium and the use of thorium opens some interesting opportunities.

As always, waste is the biggest problem although thorium cycle solves a big part of that problem.

Sorry JoMan I have to disagree with you.

I think it was waffle who said there is not enough uranium. I said there needs to be diversity in energy sources. We haven't had any trouble around here getting fuel for our nuclear bombs (in the past), and plants that were started in the 40's.

I think he is under the assumption that there needs to be as much uranium as in ratio to fossil fuel to make as much usable energy - that is just not so. Also out of that just the tiniest waste pellet is the result from such huge amounts of energy made. It is a very resourceful power. Sorry if I did not make my self clear.

Still there is no reason to only rely on one source of energy - we need to learn from our past and diversify. Not only for ecology reasons, but economic. One of the biggest problems now for the U.S. is our their soul reliance on oil. It makes us slaves to our own needs and other countries demands. Let's try to stay out of another rut like that.