Although many people might find them counter-intuitive, all of the above statements are correct. Beginning with the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima in August, 1945, and due largely to necessary secrecy continuing through the end of the Cold War in 1989, numerous misunderstandings and misconceptions have become paradigms of public understanding with respect to nuclear power plants. These misunderstandings and misconceptions have resulted in a common phobic bias which may be termed the Hiroshima Syndrome. The above statements are but the tip of the iceberg. With the ominous threat of global warming now looming over us, we need to utilize the only large-scale form of electricity production which leaves no carbon footprint; nuclear. Before the nuclear power option can become a viable alternative to burning fossil fuels, all aspects of the Hiroshima Syndrome must be exposed and corrected in the public mind.

In the aftermath of Three Mile Island’s meltdown accident in 1979, the terms “nuclear” and “environmentalist” became mutually exclusive in the mind of the American public. For the most part, they still are. As we will see in the course of this website, what’s appropriate for the environment must include the large scale production of electricity from the splitting of atoms. If what’s most natural to the world around us is the most appropriate environmental option for electricity production, then nuclear becomes a central environmentalist's focus. "Nuclear" and "environmentalist" should be correctly understood to be mutually agreeable terms. Radical? Absolutely! A flight of fancy resulting from a warped use of facts? Absolutely not! The truth about nuclear energy is mostly not what has been believed by the public, news media, and most of the non-nuclear scientific community over the past six-plus decades. It’s time to set the record straight, and attempt to halt America's contribution to global warming, before it's too late. (For site topics, use the menu at the left)

For a Greener Planet