largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind th

Nuclear energy got another editorial boost by Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine in its February 27th edition. “Political rhetoric aside, the only real alternative to oil is nuclear power,” wrote Forbes in his “Fact and Comment” section. A photograph of indigents punches up his column, tagged along with the emphatic photo caption: “Without oil the U.S. would have a Third World-like standard of living.”

Forbes complained about President Bush’s now-famous phrase, “addicted to oil,” and editorialized that Bush might have just as well have said, “We are addicted to prosperity, to progress.” Without oil, Forbes believes the U.S. might be as poor as Bangladesh. Forbes also slammed Bush’s mention of renewable programs, such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. Forbes called those programs, “the kind of mostly wasteful and useless programs we’ve been engaging in since the late 1970s.”

The Forbes editor sees no pollution problem with oil, but from where we get it, writing, “Most of the world’s oil is found in troublesome neighborhoods: the Middle East, Venezuela (nor run by a crazed Castroesque dictator) and other unstable, largely undemocratic parts of the world.” The downside for Forbes embracing nuclear energy with regards to that point is one of the more ambitious uranium-producing countries is Kazakhstan. Another place where uranium exploration may pay off is Mongolia. Unfortunately, Mr. Forbes is unaware that Kazakhstan, the world’s third largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind the

would have a Third World-like standard of living.”

Forbes complained about President Bush’s now-famous phrase, “addicted to oil,” and editorialized that Bush might have just as well have said, “We are addicted to prosperity, to progress.” Without oil, Forbes believes the U.S. might be as poor as Bangladesh. Forbes also slammed Bush’s mention of renewable programs, such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. Forbes called those programs, “the kind of mostly wasteful and useless programs we’ve been engaging in since the late 1970s.”

The Forbes editor sees no pollution problem with oil, but from where we get it, writing, “Most of the world’s oil is found in troublesome neighborhoods: the Middle East, Venezuela (nor run by a crazed Castroesque dictator) and other unstable, largely undemocratic parts of the world.” The downside for Forbes embracing nuclear energy with regards to that point is one of the more ambitious uranium-producing countries is Kazakhstan. Another place where uranium exploration may pay off is Mongolia. Unfortunately, Mr. Forbes is unaware that Kazakhstan, the world’s third largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind th

s, such as solar, wind, and hydrogen. Forbes called those programs, “the kind of mostly wasteful and useless programs we’ve been engaging in since the late 1970s.”

The Forbes editor sees no pollution problem with oil, but from where we get it, writing, “Most of the world’s oil is found in troublesome neighborhoods: the Middle East, Venezuela (nor run by a crazed Castroesque dictator) and other unstable, largely undemocratic parts of the world.” The downside for Forbes embracing nuclear energy with regards to that point is one of the more ambitious uranium-producing countries is Kazakhstan. Another place where uranium exploration may pay off is Mongolia. Unfortunately, Mr. Forbes is unaware that Kazakhstan, the world’s third largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind th

Castroesque dictator) and other unstable, largely undemocratic parts of the world.” The downside for Forbes embracing nuclear energy with regards to that point is one of the more ambitious uranium-producing countries is Kazakhstan. Another place where uranium exploration may pay off is Mongolia. Unfortunately, Mr. Forbes is unaware that Kazakhstan, the world’s third largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind th

largest producer of uranium, may not have the kindest, gentlest form of government. Niger and Namibia are also significant uranium producers – backwater areas compared to civilized countries such as Canada and Australia. And who knows what forms of government will emerge, over the coming decades, in these third world nations?

Perhaps Forbes should get behind the exploration and development of U.S. uranium assets. Once the world’s largest uranium-producing country (in 1957 the Atomic Energy Commission had to rein in uranium exploration because “too much” was being produced), the U.S. uranium industry has been held hostage by various environmental groups for the past twenty-odd years. Even in the light of new uranium mining techniques, such as solution mining, also known as In Situ Leach mining, environmentalists still “don’t get it.”

Part of learning about something involves getting your hands dirty in the subject, spending time in the field. That’s the sin many policy makers, journalists and environmental fanatics commit. If U.S. policymakers and the media don’t strongly face up to the dangerous buffoonery of the domestic environmental movement, U.S. utilities may be buying an increasing percentage of non-North American uranium, and from the same kind of unstable and undemocratic foreign locales which Steve Forbes detests.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.