Is it, though?Originally Posted by Mac76
I think you’re doing a Wengerbabies and mixing up some incidents with statistics.
I mean, flying is dangerous in the sense that there are obvious dangers. But those dangers are managed with safety measures which means it’s statistically extremely safe. Which doesn’t mean there are never plane crashes, but they are statistically rare.
if a plane goes down then maybe a couple of hundred people die (whic is very bad obv) but a nuclear accident has massive sconsequences which can be very widespread depending on random factors like wind conditions
read this about Chernobyl "Millions of acres of forest and farmland were contaminated, and, although many thousands of people were evacuated, hundreds of thousands more remained in contaminated areas. In addition, in subsequent years many livestock were born deformed, and among humans several thousand radiation-induced illnesses and cancer deaths were expected in the long term."
https://www.britannica.com/event/Chernobyl-disaster
only because of a lack of investment due to governments not setting a comprehensive renewables strategy, you're buying all the right-wing bullshit which sees renewables as 'left-wing' because they link them with climate chage, whic of course they hate and therefore deny the exstence of because it interfers with their free-market philosophy
I suspect you don’t know much about the history of using Nuclear power otherwise you wouldn’t be using Chernobyl as your sole argument for being against nuclear power) but you’re not stupid enough to think you can credibly shoe horn this into a left wing/right wing dynamic. No matter how much investment you put in, it doesn’t change the fact that these alternative forms of energy are massively inefficient and are completely dependent on location for viability. And when you can easily predict that human energy consumption will increase not decrease, that just doesn’t work.
A right wing argument is about maintaining the status quo and downplaying the effect of man made climate change. What I’m saying to you is that there is only one sustainable pathway away from fossil fuels and many ardent environmentalists are coming round to the same idea.
Chernobyl is not an example of the inherent dangerousness of nuclear energy, it’s the inherent dangers of a secretive, totalitarian state. Now if your political views were aligned with that of NQ I could even appreciate your concerns. But nuclear is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, now arguably fission is an inefficient way of deriving energy and turning it into power but that’s why the funding and research is going into fusion which will be the energy game changer.
so is Japan a "secretive, totalitarian state"...?
https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident
or the UK? (actually we could argue about that one)
https://www.britannica.com/place/Cumbria
and how about all the near misses: https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ents-list-rank
No it was a result of a freak external natural disaster and the Uk generally doesn’t get Tsunamisso is Japan a "secretive, totalitarian state"...?
https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident
or the UK? (actually we could argue about that one
https://www.britannica.com/place/Cumbria
and how about all the near misses: https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...ents-list-rank
And despite this Japan has already conceded that it needs to restart the Nuclear energy program it wound down as a result of Fukushima in order to make it compliant with the Paris Climate treaty.
And all the near misses are a rounding error compared to the anoint of nuclear power plants that operate on a constant basis without incident.
But if you want to put all your eggs in one basket of expensive, inefficient resources that despite your oft stated left wing credentials will do more to create wealth gaps than any economic policy be my guest. As long as you and people like you who don’t think before they wear their beliefs on their sleeve are no where near decision making it’s ultimately irrelevant
Me I’ll choose the sustainable path thanks. Bloody hell the way you go on, you’d think I was advocating fracking or something
Ultimately as I’ve already stated, fission is just the short term stop gap prior to the development of fusion which has already gone from a theoretical to a practical possibility.
I think you’re missing the point a bit.
My point is something can be dangerous, or have dangers, and that doesn’t make those things unsafe. The dangers just need to be managed. Sure, there have been “incidents”. But overall the safety record of nuclear power is good. The effects of fossil fuels on the environment and air quality, and the associated health effects of that, is far worse.
I’m not convinced renewables are efficient enough to be “the solution”. Cold fusion would be the ideal, but that’s been talked about since I was a kid and has never quite happened.
Utterly bollocks that this was considered racism. Don’t get me wrong protester has every right to ask him about taking money from a human rights abusing regime but I’m not buying go back to Bahrain as racism…that’s where the guy is from.
I was invited to some training on "micro-aggressions". I politely declined. A mate is also in the public sector and he did it. He said that most of the things that were deemed as such seemed pretty reasonable to him, including the classic "where are you really from". Of course, context is key. I mean, it wouldn't be the first thing I say to a person of colour, but in the context of getting to know someone I probably would ask about their heritage - as I would a white person if I detected an accent I couldn't place. I reckon I'd have spent the whole training session biting my tongue, so probably best I didn't join
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote