Skip to main content

View Diary: Banning Oil:   Dimethyl ether, Hydrogen, Nuclear Power and Motor Fuel for Cars and Trucks. (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, I *don't* like your support of nuclear (0+ / 0-)

    energy, and do not appreciate my well-thought-out, fact- and reality-based opinions dismissed as

    irrational and...predicated on a kind of dangerous selective attention wherein a segment of the public refuses to do what should be simple comparisons.

    This could, in my view, fairly describe you and the pro-nuclear lobby. You describe some interesting trees, there, but the forest is 100,000+ years of toxic radioactive waste for short-term gain.

    And this from a person who is against private vehicles for transport.

    •  Whatever. I stand by my comments. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I still believe that the opposition to nuclear energy is irrational and based on selective attention.

      I'm sure you didn't like it when I said it, but it needs to be said in the face of what may be millions of years of destruction to habitats from fossil fuels.  I'm still far less than impressed.   In fact, reasonable arguments are made addressed by stating likes and dislikes, but by appeal to the facts of the situation.   For example, are you claiming that global climate change will go away in less than 100,000 years or is your evocation of "100,000 years" arbitrary?

      I certainly think it is arbitrary, and I believe it is a perfect example of selective attention.   Note that in citing this, I don't address my personal opinion of how I feel about you.    Fossil fuels do have wastes associated with them.

      I have not seen one anti-nuclear argument that does not attempt to view nuclear power in isolation from its alternatives.

      Speaking of forests, the forest in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is still alive, and many rare species found no where else in Europe are now found in it.

      On the other hand, forests around the world are being decimated by climate change induced droughts, the expanding range of forest pets, and drought related fires.   This is all involved in uncontrolled fossil fuel wastes.

      I have shown in many places that advanced fuel cycles could, in less than 1000 years, easily make the earth less radioactive than it has been in it's entire history, beginning with a nuclear supernova many billions of years ago.   That you assert that some 100,000 years is involved or that it is about short term gain is, in fact, arbitrary and ill-informed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site