Skip to main content

View Diary: Japan, nuclear industry and risk communication: where is the TEPCO chief? (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  too funny (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Magster

    chile wasn't an earthquake, no causality in germany, and an earthquake in sonoma- how unheard of!

    so, you have scattered circumstantial evidence while i cite actual scientific studies, and dozens of documented cases of nuclear industry lies and cover-ups. do keep trying.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 07:58:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK, I believe we've come full circle . . . (0+ / 0-)
      dozens of documented cases of nuclear industry lies and cover-ups. do keep trying

      again, since the nuclear power industry has been so freaking corrupt and incompetent - yet has been by far the safest of any major (e.g., coal, natural gas, or hydroelectric) generation method - just think if they did it right!!    Dare I say France might be an example of that?

      •  ah- the hedge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman

        major, as in heavily subsidized and couldn't survive without it. maybe we should make solar and wind major. but i'm guessing you haven't read jacobson.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:03:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Was this rhetorical? (0+ / 0-)
          maybe we should make solar and wind major?

          Yeah, sure if there was any way (politically speaking, the technology seems to be in place) to do this - absolutely, it should be done ASAP.

          However, at present wind and solar remain boutique sources of electricity.

          I suspect we totally agree that ramping up these sources of energy as fast as possible is what absolutely needs to be done - my solution would be to transfer 75% of the military budget to that (which is absolute fantasy, of course!).

          Where we seem to disagree, however, is that you wish to do this to phase out something relatively safe (nuclear) instead of something really (coal) or moderately (natural gas) dangerous . . .

          •  given the cost, the risk, (0+ / 0-)

            and the overall inefficiency, and given that clean renewables can carry the load by themselves, i see no reason to sink more money into a failed technology.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:14:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  if it is so safe why can't nukes get insurance (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, mimi9

        companies to cover them 100% in the event of an accident.

        Are insurance companies part of the anti-nuke conspiracy too?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site