Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  *facepalm again* (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman
    You mean the outrage over subsidies given to nuclear power while hydrocarbons get a free ride insofar as no one considers their lack of payment for the damage they cause a "subsidy"?

    BWAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THAT is simply too idiotic for words.

    In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

    So I'm guessing you're between 15 and 19 years old.  Young enough to know everything.

    Am I correct?

    •  Very good insult! (0+ / 0-)

      Just kidding, it was rather sophomoric itself, probably exemplifying the "it takes one  to know one" meme . . ..

      In any event, and I'll type slowly so you get it, coal & diesel release fine particulates into the air that cause 500,000 deaths a year in the USA (I posted the link for this for you already).

      Let's say that the cost of health care for these people -estimated very conservatively - is $20,000 each.  

      Hence, the cost is $10,000,000,000 a year - roughly the same as some of the figures I've seen anti-nuke folk claim that the nuclear power industry is subsidized each year.

      I'm just saying that because the coal industry DOES NOT pay for the health care costs they impose on others - some might regard that to be a subsidy.  If you work for Big Coal of Big Diesel, I imagine one would be of a different mindset.  

      •  *and yet another facepalm* (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PreciousLittle, mattman

        Let me say this as slowly as I can (I understand that you're not terribly bright).

        I worked for environmentalist groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club since the late 70's.  We have been fighting the coal industry that entire time.  We have fought to repeal all their subsidies; we have fought to increase the clean-air standards for their emissions (and shut down plants that don't meet the standards); we have fought their entire "clean coal" line of bullshit; we have fought to have them pay EVERY FUCKING DIME of all the costs they have externalized onto society.

        Read that paragraph again.  Read it twice.  Have an educated person explain what all the big words mean.

        Your entire argument is "coal is bad (no shit, Sherlock), AND IF YOU'RE AGAINST NUKES IT MEANS YOU'RE FOR COAL AND WANT TO KILL US ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

        It is an idiotically stupid argument, which is laughably untrue on the very face of it. And arguing it makes you look like a dipshit buffoon.

        If you still can't grasp any of this, let me know and I'll try to explain it again using smaller words.

        Idiot.

        •  Interesting . . . . (0+ / 0-)
          I worked for environmentalist groups like Greenpeace

          How's that "let's ban chlorine" thing working out for you guys?   Gawd, I still start giggling when that comes to mind.

          •  not even an apology, huh (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattman

            I can understand though why you don't want to admit what a buffoon you've been.

            Oh, and nice subject change.

            Did you know manufacturing chlorine produces carbon?  Do you want to kill us all with global warming? Do you work for the coal companies?

            (snicker)  (giggle)

            •  You want an apology (0+ / 0-)

              for what, exactly?

              But I do find it high comedy that you dis an article in Nature yet work for an organization that is so scientifically illiterate have actually proposed banning chlorine.

              How is that even remotely possible - were you planning to off-source the entire ocean to the moon?

              Funny, funny stuff.

              •  it's not an article in Nature, you buffoon (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattman

                It's a goddamn Opinion piece.

                Do you understand the difference?

                BTW, I'm not joined at the brain with Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or any other organization, and I'm not responsible for what they do any more than they are responsible for what I do.  I have had (and still do) plenty of disagreements with all of them, on a variety of issues. I work with them on the things we agree on, and I ignore them on the things we don't.

                The environmentalist movement is not a church. We don't excommunicate people for heresy. (shrug)

                That's probably a bit hard for you to understand.

                And no, I didn't expect any apology from you. People like you never apologize--mostly because they can never admit they were wrong.

              •  btw . . . (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mattman
                proposed banning chlorine. How is that even remotely possible - were you planning to off-source the entire ocean to the moon?

                I'm not at all surprised that you are too stupid to know the difference between industrial chlorine and ocean water.

                But next time you go off on one of your anti-carbon rants, how about you explain to me what you plan on doing with all those carbon-dioxide-emitting trees and plants.  Ship them all to Venus?

                Idiot.

    •  an aside . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mattman

      Since so many pro-nukers (well, the uneducated and uninformed ones, anyway) seem to be mouthing the same basic "if you're against nuclear, that means you support coal and want to kill us all with global warming ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!" argument, it would seem to me they're probably all getting it from the same place.

      I wonder where?

      •  Obama is expressly pro nuclear power and pro coal. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, mimi9

        FWIW Lenny, in my experience, I have noticed that the president's most dedicated young supporters often accuse anti-nuclear folks of being closet supporters of fossil fuel.

        However, they don't usually accuse us of being "pro-coal" -- because,  well, that would be a slight to the president and his oft-stated support of so-called clean coal. Instead, they tend to accuse us of being "for big oil". It's a dead giveaway.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site