Skip to main content

View Diary: Radioactive Isotopes from French Commercial Nuclear Fuel Found In Mississippi River. (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are looking for reason from a guy who (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, neroden, BalanceSeeker

    wrote:

    the anti-nuclear position is, in my view, really intellectual, scientific, and moral laziness of the first order.

    He can certainly throw the happy nuclear horshit around, right down to making fun of the intellect of anyone who disagrees with them. And just because he says that he isn't a paid nuclear shill doesn't mean that he isn't.  

    •  Well it is a rational statement about laziness. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BalanceSeeker

      I think I've given excellent support to my claims about laziness.

      Almost always, people attack me rather than address my arguments.    That is pretty lazy.

      So, can you prove that I-129 has called lots of fatalities or not?   Are you prepared to produce any evidence for that claim, or is it enough to simply say what kind of guy I am?

      •  To give you credit... (0+ / 0-)

        Almost always, people attack me rather than address my arguments.

        Alas, it was ever thus.  

        I still don't buy all of your argument, but I respect your attempt.  My main criticism would be that you do tend to over-reach in the opposite direction as some anti-nuclear folks.  Calling their position "happy horseshit" that you "don't buy at all", sounds just like what they might say in return.  The truth is closer to the middle, and the debate is not well served by too much rhetoric at the extremes.

      •  Who said anything about I-129 causing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger

        lots of fatalities? As far as I can see, you are setting up nonsense straw men and not attending to the many excellent, researched and factual arguments against your statements about nuclear power.

        Your article is not simply about I-129.

        It is about nuclear power being a magic bullet, renewables being environmentally unfriendly and unreliable, and about anyone who disagrees with your premise as being intellectually, scientifically and morally lazy, if I read correctly.

        •  Really? There are factual, researched excellent (0+ / 0-)

          arguments opposed to nuclear power?

          Would you care to produce one, or just tell me that you know these arguments exist and they meet the criteria of being "excellent, researched, and factual?"   I think I have seen all such "excellent, researched, and factual" arguments, except in most cases I do not agree that they are "excellent, researched and factual."  Mostly what they do is to isolate nuclear energy from its alternatives.   This is only "excellent" if one uses selective attention to validate one's own biases and then applauds oneself for doing so.

          For the record, I have not said that renewables are "environmentally unfriendly."   What I have said is that the compared to some options some of them are less environmentally acceptable than others.   You will never hear from me that any form of renewable energy is worse than any fossil fuel.

          The subject of solar PV energy and its cost to the environment per unit of energy is something of a mystery.  One hears all sorts of numbers, and some of them are fanciful.   Some say that solar energy causes less destruction than nuclear energy, some say more.     This is because solar is trivial, and as such, it is impossible to really know what it's environmental impact will be.   It is relatively easy to evaluate the environmental impact of a form of energy that produces 5 or 10 exajoules of energy.   However, it is more difficult to evaluate a source of energy that produces less than 0.01% of the world's energy, as solar PV energy does.  Thus the evaluation is speculative.    

          Neither industry, nuclear nor solar, however is even close to being as dangerous as the natural gas industry, never mind the coal industry.

          I suspect that solar energy will - should it ever become a significant form of energy - will produce a waste profile like that of the computer industry, since both industries are based on a mix of metals and silicon.   Although the computer industry represents a significant waste problem, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the computer waste problem is as bad as the automotive waste problem.   If not, one can argue that the computer industry is environmentally desirable since it allows people to telecommute, thus preventing the use of cars.

          The question is somewhat irrelevant, though, because solar energy is suited to replace natural gas and not nuclear.    To the extent that solar energy replaces natural gas, it is to be desired.  

          Mostly however solar energy does not serve the needs of a broad cross section of humanity.   As best I can tell, the most prominent function of solar electrical energy is to assuage liberal guilt over a consumerist lifestyle.   People love to say "solar" and then operate energetically expensive websites saying how wonderful solar is.   I am quite sure that the energy spent promoting solar power is more impressive than the energy produced by it.   The average cost of a solar system is higher than the world per capita income.   Mostly people who own solar systems are very well off.   They are not, in general, people who live in the inner city in one bedroom hovels with the ceiling falling down or, for that matter, members of the underclass in a third world nation.

          I am far more optimistic about wind power, although I am fully aware that wind power has real limits, both environmentally and technically.

          For the record, I regard the nuclear industry as being as close to being a "magic bullet" as we are ever likely to see.   However, I don't really believe that there is a magic bullet, nuclear or otherwise.   Nuclear energy is not necessarily a "great" shot, but it is the "best" shot.

    •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      means are the ends

      ...he did say "in his view".  Maybe his view is limited to some of the more reactionary responses, which do exist in a vacuum of scientific knowledge about the industry.

      I'm staunchly anti-nuclear, but my position certainly doesn't come from laziness.  I've researched for years, and I know there are very strong arguments on the other side, I just don't think they outweigh the arguments on my side.  For example, at least in the US, conservation alone could save more power than nuclear reactors provide.  Conservation helps the planet, where uranium mining, nuclear waste and potential nuclear disasters can seriously hurt the planet.  Now, if that kind of thinking is First Order Moral Laziness, then maybe laziness is underrated.

      •  Exactly. Nuclear industry propaganda currently (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger, BalanceSeeker

        focuses on discounting environmental and anti-nuclear concerns as silly, uneducated, old-fashioned crunchy-granola, and worthy of laughter and scorn, and a bunch of medieval dimwits with their heads stuck in the sand. Have I left anything out?

        Oh, and Greenpeace sucks.

        They really, really hate Greenpeace. Except when they get a new shill who is a "co-founder" of same to give nukes some environmental cachet/cred. After that, they snicker, point fingers, and laugh sarcastically at it.

        So it's not you. You just got caught in the catapulted propaganda, IMHO. I get called stupid all the time by nuclear shills. Doesn't bother me, I don't take it seriously, and it doesn't do a thing to my degrees.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site