The true story of Nuclear

The Italian government, completely ignoring the will of the people who voted for the abandonment of nuclear power in the 1987 referendum and the continuing opposition to the project of a majority of Italians, unveiled plans to build new nuclear plants in cooperation with France. The sites of course will be militarized and therefore will be difficult if not impossible, to protest.

But just take a ride on the net to see the real face of nuclear power. In France for example this year was broadcast a documentary that demonstrates how the contamination from nuclear waste is widespread in the country, in the silence of the authorities that should avoid it. This would be the country where according to the italian government nuclear has been used for decades and never caused problems. As if they forget not only the contamination of French soil but also the fact that France has for years disposes of its nuclear waste in Africa. One issue on which Italian journalist Ilaria Alpi and Milan Hrovatin were investigating in Somalia in 1993, before being murdered.
But even in Italy about nuclear waste we are not much better: the legacy of nuclear power still plague Piedmont, where there was the central of Vercelli, Campania in Sessa Aurunca, where there was the central of Garigliano, a Caorso, near Piacenza , and other places of Italy, demonstrating that the problem of waste has not yet been solved even for plants that have been disused for more than twenty years. And there is also a joke, because the Italian consumers for years have paid and continue to pay in the light bill the cost of disposal.
Some countries have of course found another way to recycle the waste: the use of depleted uranium weapons which have already been used in Kosovo, where poisoned and killed hundreds of Italian soldiers in Lebanon, in Gaza, in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in many other places about which we might not ever know.
At the same time in France the authorities consider an acceptable level of risk in the management of nuclear power not the absence of damage on the health of their citizens, but a limited number of deaths over the years. An acceptable risk.
This is the reality of things. It's obvious that if all the citizens would know all these informations they would rebel to the construction of nuclear centrals at any cost, rather than accept the risk of dying slowly of cancer over the years.
Because the truth about nuclear power is very simple and incontrovertible. There is a huge production of waste. The waste remains deadly for human life for millennia. They should be buried to great depths but it's never done, because it costs too much. So nuclear has an unacceptable cost.
It's so simple. But there are many economic interests which consider absolutely acceptable the contamination of territories and the deaths of thousands of people, because they will gain an enormous amount of money and all they need to do is just hide the truth and lie well on television.