Skip to main content

View Diary: Photo diary: the Legacy of Chernobyl (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You want to play this game... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    means are the ends

           The NYT had an excellent editorial today that talked about how nuclear was better than carbon-based power, he even talked about exelon's triitium spill.  Look, I don't really appreciate you putting words in my mouth, or the troll ratings for expressing a different opinion.  What I said: nuclear power is safer than carbon-based power.  Carbon-based power is causing global warming, but nuclear power is not.  With the proper government regulation nuclear power is safe.  I'm not saying there aren't problems.  But how do you expect to get power?  I don't see you volunteering to give up electricity, or boycotting power companies using nuclear power.  I think that alternate forms of power are just great, but it is going to be a slow transition.  I'm so glad that you can use google.  Very impressive.

    •  As long as we don't (3+ / 0-)

      have a way to deal with the radioactive wastesafely and long term , nuclear energy is not safe.  It is a waste of resources to go down that road. Waste problems need to be solved BEFORE we generate a massive amount of it.  

      A making left overs into depleted uranium weapons is not a disposal solution.

      As far as the claim that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming...
      Consider that in most places  nuclear powered subs has been intentionally sunk, or nuclear warheads "lost" there are "dead zones" in the oceans.  I know dead zones have been attributed to agricultural run off,  but I find the correlation interesting, and worth studying..(though the military industrial complex would undoubtedly fight that kind of study.
      And unfortunately one of the proposals to

      What do dead zones have to do with global warming?  Phytoplankton are the life forms that fix the carbon in CO2, absorbed into the oceans, and then release oxygen.. Killing those microscopic plants stops that important cycle so the carbon isn't "fixed" and the CO2 continues to build up, or gets turned into acid and changes the ph of the oceans... dissolving the reefs... Which are the nurseries of the oceans... for plankton (phyto and zoo) and many of the fishes...


      "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

      by ilyana on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:17:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Carbon based power is filthy because (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      no one is enforcing any regulations to make power plants clean up their act.
      E.g. they are fighting Gov. Schwarzenegger tooth and nail here in California, against any new regulations. We know what a great track record the Bush administration has in this area, with withdrawing from Kyoto.

      I have had recent exchanges with scientists in the energy field, who assure me that nearly all contaminants and pollution can be scrubbed from power plant emissions, if the proper equipment were installed and maintained. But they don't do it. Too expensive!!

      Highly paid lobbyists are going around shilling for the nuclear industry with their shiny new talking points. Just cause they say it, doesn't mean that it is true.

      And the idiotic ease of using Google is precisely my point. Anyone, you too, of course could easily check to verify some of these talking points. It is so ridiculously easy! It's not impressive, it's a cinch. Why people don't do it, I don't know.

      I remember lots of people saying with complete assurance how we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, and how quick and easy the war would be, and how we knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I could use Google News, and because of that, I knew it was all lies. Because I did use it, to dig beyond the headlines.

      I think that putting money into nuclear power, as the article from Britain points out, will rob us of money that we desperately need for solving alternative energy and conservation problems, and finding rrea, long term solutions.

      Why aren't we insisting on better mileage for cars? Now there's something that would really help with global warming.  Why have we dumped Kyoto?

      I am trying to show that other countries have tried nuclear power, and it hasn't all worked out wonderful as lobbyists now are insisting. My tone was snarky, but I am deadly serious. If things are so wonderful in the world on nuclear power, how come I, with my puny Google skills, can find numerous new articles every single  day that directly conflict with the same talking points I keep hearing over and over and over.

    •  And furthermore, I would give up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      electricity to prevent further use of nuclear power. But it won't come to that.
      However, I think the nuclear industry is disingenuous. This is not an either/or forced choice scenario. Just because global warming is horrible, doesn't mean we have to choose to make more messes. There are rational, scientific approaches that could have been used, and have been rejected all down the line as too expensive. Everyone has big, low mileage SUV's. Power plants avoid upgrading (or maintaining) emmision control equipment. The list goes on and on.

      And those new nuclear industry lobbyists are neither of them truly concerned in the least with global warming, as far as I can tell. As for Patrick Moore,

      In 2006 he addressed a Biotechnology Industry Organization conference in Waikiki saying,....that global warming and the melting of glaciers is "positive" because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.

      And Christine Whitman  was the head of EPA when the US pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, IIRC. And did nothing tangible to deal with CO2 emissions, did she?

      So their crocodile tears about CO2 and global warming are, to me, not credible. They make great theater for the environmentalists they appear to hold in complete disdain.

    •  And you did not address any of (0+ / 0-)

      the points I made in my cursory Google News search. Are they not credible?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site