Skip to main content

View Diary: The News About Fukushima Always Gets Worse (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Look past the all the red herrings (0+ / 0-)

    Just stick with facts. Zero deaths. Radioactive contamination in the Pacific is back to where it was pre-Fuku. Apparently, standards necessary to reach "greatest environmental catastrophe ever" have dropped a lot lately.

    Meanwhile, coal kills 750,000 each year just in China. Worldwide, fossil fuels kill millions each year. The moral high ground clearly goes to the pro-nukes, who aren't helping kill millions with fossil fuels. And yes, I already know the anti-nukes try to handwave away their body count with "But I support renewables!". I suppose it helps them sleep at night.

    I'm also amused by the way the "corium meltout!" CT refuses to die, despite having zero evidence to back it up, and with all the actual evidence contradicting it. Birtherism is a more sensible CT than that. If anyone disagrees, please explain the lack of massive contamination with Uranium, Plutonium and non-soluble fission products, something that did happen at Chernobyl and would have to happen following a full-blown containment breach.

    •  Ay yi yi (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, Joieau, Sandino

      Stop already.

      There is no moral high ground to having 400+ nuclear power plants seeded around the world, each one representing a good chance of horrific environmental devastation.

      •  Their 'moral high ground' (3+ / 0-)

        isn't the 340 or so antiquated rustbuckets from the last generation still waiting to melt down and blow up, it's the 2,000 to 4,000 new nukes basically just like the last nukes they claim are absolutely necessary to stop global warming. By 2050.

        ...to which the austerity-addicted Masters of the Capitalist Universe laugh heartily, while investing in wind and solar and tidal and mini-hydro...

        Dreams can die hard. Nightmares can become Zombies.

    •  Bogus statistics (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, Joieau

      Your claims for coal's mortality rate are fabrications based on epidemiological inference. When you accept those techniques, then the death toll from operating nukes and the massive accidents becomes substantial, though religiously ignored by nuktopians and plutonium apologists.

      •  Worse, they're the same people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino

        who dismiss offhand any and all epidemiological 'inferences' of harm - deaths and dire illnesses - caused by nuclear disasters and even the normal operation of nuclear plants. Of which there are many.

        I guess they'd have to be highly tolerant of cognitive dissonance in order to 'believe-in' nukes in the first place, so probably see no problem at all with asserting epidemiological inferences in one sentence while dismissing them in the next.

        Should tell us something about how smart these people aren't.

      •  If you can't prove cause and effect, don't cite it (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site