Skip to comments.How they learned to stop worrying and love nuclear
Posted on 06/09/2013 10:54:00 PM PDT by presidio9
Nobody can look you in the eye and say you shouldnt be worried about nuclear energy, says British environmentalist author Mark Lynas in the new documentary Pandoras Promise, which opens Friday.
Lynas is shown putting on a hazmat suit and visiting the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, where three nuclear reactors melted down completely in 2011 after being ravaged by an earthquake and a tsunami. A huge area was evacuated due to the fear of radiation poisoning and cancer.
Theres no other energy source that can do this, Lynas says, referring to the fallout. As his radiation detector beeps madly, he says, I would say Im having a wobble.
Who wouldnt? Nuclear energy isnt like coal or gas or oil or even wind turbines or solar panels. Its complicated. To most of us, its opaque. And from the lonely bald man in Sector 7G on The Simpsons to The China Syndrome, the no-nukes movement and many environmental groups, the anti-nuke camp blasts us with the notion that nuclear power plants are going to give us cancer, poison our water, create demon mutant fish and, every so often, melt down catastrophically as thousands, maybe millions, die or are seriously sickened. Most of us simply dont follow nuclear power closely enough to have an informed opinion about it. So we let the culture do the work for us.
And the culture is unanimous: Nuclear power is scary.
But we love our iPhones, each one of which (when you account for the harvesting of the materials that went into it, its production, the servers that feed it, etc.) uses as much energy as a refrigerator. The rich world keeps consuming more energy, and hundreds of millions in Brazil, India and China are joining the global middle class. Worldwide, energy use is projected to
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Since this is Commiefornia, the “activists’ have been licking their lips waiting for a reason to pounce.
It seems like yesterday when I watched them building the #2 and #3 Reactor Containment Domes, or as us locals refer to them, the perfect pair.
The future of nuclear power is LENR.
Well I have nothing against coal but when was the last time Germany was hit by magnitude 9 Earth quake and 30 foot tsunami wave in the same day?
It seems a bit of an over reaction.
I never thought I ‘d see the day when so called “enviromentalists” would accept reality and reason.
I disagree with Monbiot on one aspect. Fukushima had a big impact on the local population. They had to evacuate, and many may not be able to return for several years.
However, the nuclear industry has been given a huge case of lessons learned, without anyone dying.
Here in the US nealy every utility is investigating and implementing alternate cooling sources. The program is called FLEX, and it is huge. Each plant is identifying local, alternate cooling sources, and how the plant will have to operate with these other non-optimal water sources. They are also identifying, and purchasing, portable deisel generators that can be made available to a plant within a matter of hours.
Well these were second Gen plants, all the first and second gen nuclear plants need to be phased out for the safer 4th gen plants.
The real solution is Thorium plants with some 4th Gen breeder reactors to ‘feed’ the Thorium plants.
Until someone solves the Fusion Problem. Lockheed Skunks works thinks they will have a Fusion reactor ready to go by 2017. If they are correct the rest is mute.
Among other things I accept that nuclear power is the obvious best answer to the necessary evil fact that ALL energy sources change the enviorment. Including wind power.
Also not a point.
You're two for two on this thread.
If they can just get it to work.
>>Also not a point.
And now you’ve got two.
Hey...is there a hockey game about to break out here?
All I know is some wierdo ramdomly appeared on this important thread to talk about typos. Make sense of it if you can. I can not.
I agree with you, but the opposition to nukes is religious-like, as with the AGW fans. There are promising plans like the Thorium or pebble-bed reactors I’d like to see more press for. Not going to dismiss LENR out of hand either, I just want to see what develops.
When I explained the actual death figures at Three Mile Island, Cherynoble, and Fukishima to my liberal co-workers, at first they refused to believe me. But they generally listen to me, because I pick my spots and respect their opinions, no matter how wrong they are. So when I came back at them with hard numbers, from sources they respect (the NY Times, for instance) they began to see things differently. The fringe benefit of dealing with liberals this way is that they begin to wonder what else they don't have the whole story on.
All I'm saying is that when you are dealing with people who have been brainwashed into believing they have to be obsessed with CO2 levels in order to be good citizens, this is a natural place to start.
[important thread to talk about typos.]
Words, and they way they’re used (or mangled), mean things, Socrates.
Your inability to spell environmental laughably undermines your blathering attempt to establish credibility as a nuclear enviornmentalist[sic]. It is similar to the effect rendered upon Jimmuh Carter’s credibility as a nuclear engineer whilst muttering “nucular” at Three Mile Island.
But that effect is miniscule compared to that manifested by your having chosen a large circle of homosexual friends — which utterly defiles and ABOMINATES any attempt to establish your “conservative” credibility.
Shouldn’t you be over on DU with Tinky Winky and the other “conservative” enviornmentalist[sic] Socratic Judas Goats?
If I spent ANY time thinking about you, other than in responding to posts you send directly to me, it would be a realitively simple exercise to read your past posts and find a similiar typo. I know this because I have been down this road with lonely people such as yourself in the past. I have pretty much seen everything in the 15 years I have spent on this website.
And, no, I don't have a "circle" of homosexual friends. I have many, many friends. Rougly 2% of the adult population of this country is gay and I would say that my social circle reflects that demographic.
>>And, no, I don’t have a “circle” of homosexual friends.
“I have many gay friends.”
This is not something that embarasses me, but I would not call that small percentage me "circle" of friends. Perhaps the word means something different to you than it does to most people.
I read just fine, Liar.
I have many gay friends.
Stay down Rock.
I have many gay friends.
Of course you do.
That’s why your “conservatism” is only “fiscal” — just like the other RINOs riding in the Log Cabin GOProud Jackwagon.
You might have a point if I had any use for the so-called Log Cabin Republicans or GOPrproud. You asked me if it was possible for a homosexual to be a conservative president. My actual answer was "There is no law against it, but I doubt he'd win the nomination."
You, on the other hand have denounced fiscal conservativism repeatedly.
It's not an either/or prosepect dumbass.
there is not a single mainstream conservative you can name who will state that it is impossible for a gay person to be conservative.
Is it impossible for an unrepentant homosexual to be a Christian Conservative POTUS?