4 ms·

The point you are missing is that these articles create a bias against nuclear power, but by rights there should be a deluge of articles documenting the ongoing

The point you are missing is that these articles create a bias against nuclear power, but by rights there should be a deluge of articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal. But there are not. And the result is that people have developed a fear of nuclear power while having an undeveloped fear of coal power. Coal is not the only alternative to nuclear, certainly, but coal has absolutely replaced some nuclear power around the world. And that's a tragedy because it represents people taking the wrong lessons to heart, being motivated by fear of the unknown, and making choices that lead to more tragedy and death, not less.

gggmaster 11y ago
Then what you can do is writing articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal (though I think there's already many), rather than dismissing others' work.
notahacker 11y ago
In fairness there's no shortage of articles on climate change calling out fossil fuel burning, and literally nobody advocating coal as the miracle energy source of the future (notwithstanding the fact that plenty of coal plants are being built in rapidly-industrialising countries with scant regard for the environment) I'll grant that perhaps too much of the criticism of coal power links it vaguely to global climate change rather than specifically to the effect of exhaust gases and coal dust on people living downwind of the plant, but I think that obsession with massive future change rather than respiratory diseases and cancers of today is a more general problem in environmental reporting.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  IMO, that has always been the problem with environmental issues. For the past thirty years or so everything has been focused on this massive yet fuzzy future catastrophe rather than the real, specific, less "critical" damage being done now. Thing is, addressing the latter will pretty much address the former as well. Activists insist on framing their message in terms of the former, though, even going so far as to claim focusing on immediate local effects is "missing the big picture".

gggmaster 11y ago

Then what you can do is writing articles documenting the ongoing tragedy of using coal (though I think there's already many), rather than dismissing others' work.

notahacker 11y ago

In fairness there's no shortage of articles on climate change calling out fossil fuel burning, and literally nobody advocating coal as the miracle energy source of the future (notwithstanding the fact that plenty of coal plants are being built in rapidly-industrialising countries with scant regard for the environment) I'll grant that perhaps too much of the criticism of coal power links it vaguely to global climate change rather than specifically to the effect of exhaust gases and coal dust on people living downwind of the plant, but I think that obsession with massive future change rather than respiratory diseases and cancers of today is a more general problem in environmental reporting.

vonmoltke 11y ago
IMO, that has always been the problem with environmental issues. For the past thirty years or so everything has been focused on this massive yet fuzzy future catastrophe rather than the real, specific, less "critical" damage being done now. Thing is, addressing the latter will pretty much address the former as well. Activists insist on framing their message in terms of the former, though, even going so far as to claim focusing on immediate local effects is "missing the big picture".