Skip to main content

View Diary: Midday open thread (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Look who's referring to "anti-science... (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot, alain2112
    Hidden by:

    ...pollution idealogues."

    Speaking of idealogues, I have noticed that people who know zero nuclear science, the science of Glenn Seaborg, have laid around on their fat asses for decades declaring, without a single shred of evidence, that the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy - that would be nuclear energy - is "dangerous."

    This particular set of "anti-science, pollution idealogues" cannot be convinced that the death of 3.3 million people per year - half of whom are under the age of 5, which translates to 9000 people per day, 377 per hour, 6 to 7 every minute, one every 9 to 10 seconds - is worse than, say, the destruction of four nuclear reactors by a 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tidal wave, which thus far accounts for zero deaths from air pollution.

    An ideologue by definition - I'll cite the OED definition - is:

    A proponent or adherent of a political, economic, or other ideology, especially one who is uncompromising or dogmatic.
    Now, given that in the last 20 years, according to the link to the World Health Organization's website, that air pollution from fossil fuels and so called "renewable energy" (biomass) has killed more people than World War II, and that nuclear power generation in its 60 year industrial history hasn't killed as many people as will die today from air pollution, could we not agree that the squad of scientific illiterates who hate nuclear energy, the form of energy invented by Nobel Laureates like Fermi, Wigner, Chadwick, Seaborg, Bethe and others are, um, "uncompromising and or dogmatic" when they claim that nuclear energy is dangerous?"

    Apparently not.

    You can ask any one of these uncompromising idiots this question, "nuclear energy is dangerous compared to what other form of 10 exajoule per year form of energy?" and get a blank stupid stare.

    How do I know?   Because I've asked the question hundreds of times.

    What we have here is a pot and kettle situation - an advocate of impoverishing the world through endless bull about solar and wind energy, energy that would die in a New York Minute without oil, coal and gas to back it up, and without massive government subsidies on a planet where more than 2 billion people have never seen or operated a flush toilet - complaining about ideologues.

    That's rich, maybe not as rich as a dumbass subsidized millionaire or billionaire driving around in a $80,000 Tesla electric car, but close.

    2012 was the second worst year ever recorded for increases in the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere, as measured at the CO2 observatory at Mauna Loa.

    Heckuva job anti-nuke.   Congratulations.   You must be very, very, very, very, very, very, very proud.

    •  not that anyone reads your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indycam, Just Bob

      self-indulgent rambles, but thank you, as always, for so well representing what nuclear advocacy does to people.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:18:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And thanks for the ideologic response and... (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        ...of course, for recognizing that irrespective of whether or not "anyone reads my self indulgent (sic) responses" that I was in fact, talking to you.

        You remind me of a fundamentalist relative of mine who likes to tell people that "science" has proved that all of the "facts" in the Bible are true, in other words, totally clueless and filled with hypocrisy.

        If you ever open a science book in your pathetic life, I'll be able to tell, but thus far, as usual, for nearly a decade, during which about 300 billion metric tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste were dumped, there's no evidence yet that you have done that simple thing.

        Now, anti-nuke, how about telling us one more time about how you admire the scientific opinion of Jim Hansen?

        Again:   More than 9000 people will die today, January 20, 2013, from air pollution.    Now, clueless one, how many people died from the radiation at Fukushima, the big disaster that your anti-nuke pals burned so much coal, and oil and gas to whine about?

        Have a nice evening.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site