2008 Woodie Awards
Energizing our country, threatening others
Jonathan Pearson
Issue date: 2/27/06 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 1
The idea of enriching uranium for nuclear energy, or any other reason, does more than just turn a few stomachs.
Some people believe it is a threat to our national security, with countries such as Iran using this energy to create purported "disastrous" situations that might go against the wishes of the United Nations.
And it puzzles others when they hear our president talk about making it a staple part of America's energy.
Recently, President Bush gave a heated warning - as well as a threat of a military attack - to Iran about their plans to continue an enriched uranium program, regardless of the program's design for "peaceful purposes."
Meanwhile, Bush tells the American public we need to increase our own nuclear energy in order to eliminate our dependence on - or "addiction to" - foreign oil.
"It creates a national security issue and we're held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us," Bush said last week during a two-day trip across the country to talk about energy.
Did I misunderstand that?
What does it matter that we use oil from foreign countries while Iran wants to use an enriched uranium program for nuclear energy? The two do not relate.
Bush is really trying to say Iran has the possibility of being attacked if it continues to use uranium for nuclear energy purposes, yet we're going to set up our own at home because we need to stop depending on outsiders.
Bush is finally right about something: it is time that we had our own type of energy source that will remove unnecessary dependence on other countries.
However, aren't there other, more ecologically sound sources of energy than nuclear power plants? Remember the "China Syndrome?"
During his two-day stint across the country, Bush described using alternative energy sources like ethanol and lithium-ion batteries for cars but fell short in elaborating on a current nuclear energy program.
So where does that leave the situation now? Is there a possibility of another "war" because the president decides to do something that is exactly what we don't want another country doing?
Sounds a little fuzzy.
New sources of energy are vital; in the future oil might not be available due to a catastrophe or scarcity.
Our country needs to invest in these endeavors because it will foster an even greater sense of "security" rather than the one we are all told to fear.
In a perfect world, common sense would always reign supreme.
Too bad ignorance is bliss.
jpearson@unews.com
Some people believe it is a threat to our national security, with countries such as Iran using this energy to create purported "disastrous" situations that might go against the wishes of the United Nations.
And it puzzles others when they hear our president talk about making it a staple part of America's energy.
Recently, President Bush gave a heated warning - as well as a threat of a military attack - to Iran about their plans to continue an enriched uranium program, regardless of the program's design for "peaceful purposes."
Meanwhile, Bush tells the American public we need to increase our own nuclear energy in order to eliminate our dependence on - or "addiction to" - foreign oil.
"It creates a national security issue and we're held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us," Bush said last week during a two-day trip across the country to talk about energy.
Did I misunderstand that?
What does it matter that we use oil from foreign countries while Iran wants to use an enriched uranium program for nuclear energy? The two do not relate.
Bush is really trying to say Iran has the possibility of being attacked if it continues to use uranium for nuclear energy purposes, yet we're going to set up our own at home because we need to stop depending on outsiders.
Bush is finally right about something: it is time that we had our own type of energy source that will remove unnecessary dependence on other countries.
However, aren't there other, more ecologically sound sources of energy than nuclear power plants? Remember the "China Syndrome?"
During his two-day stint across the country, Bush described using alternative energy sources like ethanol and lithium-ion batteries for cars but fell short in elaborating on a current nuclear energy program.
So where does that leave the situation now? Is there a possibility of another "war" because the president decides to do something that is exactly what we don't want another country doing?
Sounds a little fuzzy.
New sources of energy are vital; in the future oil might not be available due to a catastrophe or scarcity.
Our country needs to invest in these endeavors because it will foster an even greater sense of "security" rather than the one we are all told to fear.
In a perfect world, common sense would always reign supreme.
Too bad ignorance is bliss.
jpearson@unews.com
