You don't appear to think at all when it comes to this subject. That you talk about absurdities like perpetual motion machines and free lunches as prerequisites for accepting that nuclear power is safe just shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is.
You still set the bar at 'completely harmless' - which is unachievable; The bar should be set at 'better than the alternatives' - which nuclear achieves by between two and three orders of magnitude over coal.
Of course some people die due to radiation; and some of those are even in the nuclear power industry. But PER UNIT of energy generated, nuclear kills and injures FEWER people than ANY OTHER OPTION.
It doesn't need to be perfect; it still beats ALL THE OTHERS - even BEFORE you consider greenhouse gas emissions.
Your position on this issue is untenable; it is unsupported by the facts; and it gives the lie to your claims to care about Global Warming. Your OP compared the tragic deaths from terrorism with the vastly more tragic consequences of Global Warming; THE EXACT SAME REASONING leads inexorably to support of nuclear power over other electricity sources. But while you realise that over a hundred victims of terrorism don't outweigh the vast number who might suffer from climate change, you seem to think that ONE GUY - "one of our Conservation Society Presidents" - outweighs every single human on the planet.
Your reasoning is desperately flawed here, and it beggars belief that you can't see it even while you are in the process of pointing out the EXACT SAME FLAW in the arguments of the fossil fuel lobby.
This is some kind of connection you think is there telling you that I can't be right without YOU BEING WRONG.
Could you re-phrase that in English? It doesn't actually make any sense as written.
People who desperately crave things often find any opposition to their cravings "desperately flawed."
I noticed that. You should take that self-awareness and act upon it.
I remind you it is YOUR DESPERATION and you assumption you must be right that is the only desperation operating here.
Oh, I see. You are just having an emotional rant. I guess insight was too much to expect.
You sir are spoiled and unable to face the truth that we need to consume LESS of the stuff you think we need to consume.
You sir, clearly know fuck-all about me; and you don't seem inclined to try to find out; which renders your opinion less than compelling..
You keep stating that there needs to be sacrifice zones created for your idea of civilization to continue to exist.
I have never once used the phrase 'sacrifice zones', and have no idea what it is supposed to mean - if you mean that everyone has to compromise to survive, then that's bleeding obvious. If that's not what you mean, then you need to be a LOT clearer in your communication if we are to discuss anything rationally.
Your ideas start with the sacrifice and
end with it too.
I have no clue how you could possibly reach that conclusion from anything I have written.
There was a cancer cluster in a water district and it was traced to the public water supply.
That's a shame. Does it have anything to do with generating electricity from the fission of uranium and/or plutonium?
The lady who I knew from there was the president of our conservation organization. It wasn't JUST ONE GUY. It was one health conscious woman in a whole community also being hit with cancer.
I stand corrected. Was it hundreds of people? thousands? Do you have a link to news coverage of this mass outbreak, and to the research that demonstrated from where it arose?
Nuclear pollution from power generation is a serious problem with or without Fukushima-like events.
Citation needed.
Nuclear power represents unacceptable risks and that has always been what is wrong with it.
But for some reason, you are unwilling or unable to show that unacceptable risks exist. Bear in mind, that risks we are already accepting elsewhere that are mitigated by nuclear power need to be exceeded, for the risk to qualify as 'unacceptable' - it is acceptable for one person to die in order to save ten thousand, unless you are morally bankrupt.
Because it does not contribute greenhouse gasses does not make it safe.
No; Because it is SAFE makes it safe. Because fewer people die or are injured or fall ill because of it than because of the alternatives - that's what makes it safe. The fact that it doesn't produce greenhouse gasses is just a pleasant by-product (and one that you correctly point out is a high priority for our future)
The nuclides produced in a nuclear reactor can have half lives of thousands of years.
Indeed. Some even have half lives a million times longer than that. So what? Are they going to climb out of the abandoned uranium mine where they are being stored, creep into town and murder you in your bed? Naturally occurring nuclides have various half-lives too.
What I was talking about with free lunch and perpetual motion machine I was pointing out that you have no sense or capacity to understand frugality. You feel entitled to use huge blocks of energy for an entire lifetime and leave behind wastes others will have to cope with.
Do I? More so than you? How could you possibly know that? I assume you are not posting from a clockwork computer, connected to a data centre powered by the captured and recycled farts of kale munching hippies?
The free lunch is on someone else or perhaps the environment elsewhere as a whole as in Global Warming. You just don't want to admit that we will have to decrease our level of destruction of ecosystems on this planet and that means you and me.
On the contrary; I ABSOLUTELY demand that we MUST decrease our level of destruction of ecosystems on this planet. Where we differ is that you can't seem to grasp the very clear fact that swapping coal power plants for nuclear is a good way to start to achieve that.
You choose to attack me an my thinking without thinking too much yourself. Sorry about that.
You should be sorry; You are clearly capable of reason, and on this topic, you choose not to do it. That is far more reprehensible than simply not thinking because you lack the ability to do so.
