Posted on 06/09/2013 10:54:00 PM PDT by presidio9
‘Nobody can look you in the eye and say you shouldn’t be worried” about nuclear energy, says British environmentalist author Mark Lynas in the new documentary “Pandora’s 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.
“There’s 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 I’m having a wobble.”
Who wouldn’t? Nuclear energy isn’t like coal or gas or oil or even wind turbines or solar panels. It’s complicated. To most of us, it’s 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 don’t 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 ...
[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.
Liar.
“I have many gay friends.”
—presidio9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3015104/posts?page=138#138
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.”
—presidio9
Stay down Rock.
“I have many gay friends.”
—presidio9
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.