We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

As global warming continues apace, governments and institutions round the world are grappling with alternatives to carbon-based fuels. A recent study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) shows that nuclear power is a vital one, both effective and carbon-free. Yet this same study shows that Americans concerned about global warming are no more likely to support nuclear power than those who aren’t.

In this article Richard Meserve, who chairs the International Safety Group of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls for a greater public understanding of nuclear energy. But this can only happen, he says, when its advocates make the connection with global warming – something the Bush administration, for instance, has hesitated to do. Publicising the industry’s improved safety record is just as important.

When the risks are weighed up, says Meserve, they lead to a conclusion that some might find unpalatable: that nuclear energy must at least bridge the gap until other carbon-free technologies come along.

Link to full article in Science

Reference: Science 303, 433 (2004)