Skip to main content

View Diary: Hansen: Nuclear power has prevented 1.8 million deaths (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  THANK you! that is the point i was trying to make (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie, Sandino

    as well.

    and the airplane analogy is absurd.

    a plane crashes - several hundred people die - the wreckage is cleared - life rebuilds with little impact other than sorrow.

    a nuclear plant has a major issue - for example, chernobyl is still totally uninhabitable 25 years on and will be for perhaps hundreds of years to come.

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:26:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Roadbed Guy

      people do live and work there, Chernobyl that is.  

      Since we're discussing land issues as opposed to deaths, global warming is expected to have an affect on where people can and can't live in the next hundred years.

      •  Yes, after the local government spent (0+ / 0-)

        20 years unsuccessfully displaying the horror of it all to the international community in hopes of $$s being thrown their way, they shifted gears and decided that the place was safe for both tourism and habitation.

        go figure.

        •  oh HELL no, they didn't! the people who (0+ / 0-)

          returned to chernobyl are mostly older women and their families who didn't want to leave their ancestral homes - and they returned DESPITE being told by the government that they couldn't.

          Three months after being relocated, she returned with her husband, her mother-in-law and a handful of other members of their collective farm. When government officials objected, she responded, 'Shoot us and dig the grave; otherwise we’re staying.’

          Hanna was among some 1,200 returnees, called 'self-settlers’, most over the age of 48, who made their way back in the first few years after the accident, in defiance of the authorities’ legitimate concerns. For despite the self-settlers’ deep love of their ancestral homes, it’s a fact that the soil, air and water here in what is now known as the Exclusion Zone, or Zone of Alienation, are among the most heavily contaminated on earth.

          Today 230 or so self-settlers remain, scattered about in eerily silent villages that are ghostly but also somehow charming. About 80 per cent of the surviving self-settlers are women in their seventies and eighties, creating a unique world of babushkas, to use a Russian word that means 'grandmother’ but also refers to 'old countrywomen’.

          please, before you make such a wildly inaccurate statement, check out the facts first.  and... read the entire article.  it is a wealth of knowledge about the spirit of these women - one of whom has thyroid cancer.  fortunately, the government gives them a stipend and medicines and health coverage.

          sheesh! THIS is a thriving town?  

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:15:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you are kidding, right? you DO know why (0+ / 0-)

        "people" are "living in chernobyl?

        it isn't because they have resettled. it is because the cleanup is still going on - workers are allowed in only two weeks at a time due to the high radiation - and they are there to repair the sarcophagus that contains the spill is cracking - it will take 80 million to repair it

        this article on the site "english for beginners" sums up what is going on in simple terms.

        and THIS article from the telegraph tells exactly WHO has returned and why - it is a good, but sad read on the babushkas of chernobyl.

        your somewhat flippant comment

        people do live and work there, Chernobyl that is.  
        doesn't begin to depict the tragedy of an area that received 400 times the radiation of hiroshima - and the tragic impact on the lives of the people who lived there.  trying to equate this to global warming doesn't work - and your attempt at minimizing the impact of such a horrific disaster is counterproductive to ALSO working to alleviate global warming.

        these are not competing disasters (MY disaster is worse than YOUR disaster... neener, neener, neener!) - they are SIMULTANEOUS disasters and all need addressing.

        as long as there remains the "one solution only will work" attitude, we will only have arguments, not solutions.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 12:05:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site