Skip to main content

View Diary: Fukushima Daiichi: a nuclear power disaster that keeps on giving (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nobody sane and who can do arithmetic thinks (7+ / 0-)

    that nuclear power is going to replace fossil fuels. Ever. Even if you build another 3,000 instantly, for free, which ain't gonna happen either.

    What you are arguing for then, is not the health issues from nuclear replacing, or banishing, the health issues from fossils, but the addition of one curse to the other, here on real earth.

    A body has to have shit for brains; be so full of contempt for humanity they think other people can't add; just be fucking insane; or intellectually dishonest to talk of nuclear as a replacement for fossil. Not to say any one option excludes the others. (Note: Honesty, intelligence, and reason are not on that menu, however.)

    The US Department of Energy group released a study showing that renewables have 5% of the carbon emissions of coal.

    It's obvious you don't care so much about fossil fuel problems as you do about defending the lunatic and corrupt nuclear industry, or you'd be pushing for renewables instead of nukes. The fossil/nuke false choice argument is just a tactic numbnukes use to cloud the issues. A dishonest one at that.

    Since the renewables can't destroy the habitats for tens of thousands, even millions of humans (and most life) in a day's time...

    adds no radiation to the amounts already present (and yes inhaling Cs-137 is ADDED to, doesn't replace the banana/spinach/jet flight/chest x-ray, even if you pretend otherwise)...

    nor will they leave problems de-commissiong expense and problems; nor waste; for our great-great-grandchildren to deal with. (Not to mention creating more jobs, getting people more self-sufficient, etc)

    As to WHO: many of the prime authors of, say, the recent "Preliminary Dose Estimation from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunamii" are pro-nukers, make their living from the nuclear industry; and nobody NOT ONE CRITIC of the industry is involved, ever, in anything they publish on the topic.

    On May 28, 1959, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, never rescinded wherein they unequivocally granted the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA, who serves to advocate for the industry. The IAEA stated mission: ''The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.''

    If anyone thinks the WHO is an objective source on nuclear power, I have some energy too cheap to meter to sell them. All they have to worry about is the insurance, and guaranteeing my costs in supplying the stuff. (Ask TEPCO and Japan what that means, eh?)

    Those who don't depend on an income from, or have an identification with, nuclear power (and who can do arithmetic) see that the spectacular failure rate of nuclear has been on average once every 10.3 years. (The not so spectacular failures are constant and on-going.)

    And a major nuclear disaster ever 10-20 years is what we should reasonably expect:

    Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 to 20 Years, European Study Suggests

    ScienceDaily (May 22, 2012) —
     ...Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter.

    Which cities/parts of nations would you like to part with every 10 years or so, all ye nukenits?

    Of course in the USA as we push our reactors past the 40-years they were built for into 60 years, and even 80 is being discussed, I'd think the frequency will increase. Who owns a car that's in better shape in 50 years after 30? Not the way of material objects, even if the Nuclear Safety Fairy casts spells.

    I once read a complete imbecile, or maybe a compulsive liar, or maybe just a severe nutcase, who wrote that Fukushima proves that nuclear power is safe!!! HaHaHa. Can you imagine?! And rain coming from the sky proves that rain doesn't come from the sky, I suppose.

    Your nuclear hobby-horse is dead. Stop beating it. We're going to kinetic energies, like it or not, and there ain't no stopping it.


    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:29:10 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  DITTO x 1000's of other people who agree with JimP (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tinfoil Hat, PreciousLittle

      Thanks for shining a bit of welcome SUNSHINE today on this ongoing horror show.

      Seriously, what kind of people are these that have no heart or soul?  

      I waste my breath even saying words about them anymore... time for 99% of the rest of HUMANITY to stand up against this poison and work for a better future for all, while we still can.

      As Albert Einstein wrote after the war ended, in his 1946 book Out of My Later Years:
       “If I had known the Germans would not succeed
      in constructing the atom bomb,
                     I never would have moved a finger.”

      Einstein went on to describe atomic energy as
                         “a menace.”

      Guess Einstein "woke up".
      When will you?
      "crickets"
      •  RG, do you have a list of anti-nuke scientists? (0+ / 0-)

        A list that's inclusive of prominent scientists from yesteryear, and today, who are critical of the nuclear power industry and/or nuclear weapons?

        It doesn't get any bigger than EINSTEIN being opposed to the "menace" of "atomic energy".

        Still, it might be satisfying to have an extended list to lob at pronukers who propagate the notion that all critics of nuclear power are haters of science. I doubt they completely believe their own hyperbolic rhetoric on that point -- unless they are both deluded and pronuke in extremis -- in which case, nobody of sound mind is reading their comments anyway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site