5 ms·

Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsa

Nuclear power and GMO crops have the same issue for liberals like me: when they fail, they fail in catastrophic fashion. We've already had Cherynobol and Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. To paraphrase badly, liberals opposed to both are concerned about Black Swan events. Your assessment of the risk and that of those of us who are a bit more "reactionary" are just different, but it doesn't mean that we willfully misrepresent the science.

LargeWu 16y ago
Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.
- locopati 16y ago
  There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
  - LargeWu 16y ago
    There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?
yummyfajitas 16y ago
...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
- crpatino 16y ago
  >>> Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems ... If you think about it, that's pretty scary. Even if the science behind this is fully understood and the engineers flawlessly put alarms, locks and backups for every possible failure mode, it only takes one idiot manager to overrule them all and have the safety systems turned off. Makes you wonder about all those other things you are told "cannot possibly go wrong"...
brc 16y ago
Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented, catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go unnoticed. Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-since modified from their original native or wild source. The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions. What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't worry me one bit. Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do. Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary position.
- gaulinmp 16y ago
  ~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.
potatolicious 16y ago
We are a long way from Chernobyl, the state of the art in nuclear power generation is not at all the same. Pardon the snarkiness a little bit, but your fear nuclear power because of catastrophes like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is about as rational as my fear of flying because jetliners in the 50s weren't very safe.

LargeWu 16y ago

Chernobyl is ancient history when it comes to nuclear technology. Pretty much all of the problems with catastrophic failure of nuclear power plants have been solved, yet many on the left still oppose it, almost out of tradition, rather than because of any compelling scientific argument.

locopati 16y ago
There's also a distrust of the companies that would run such operations, seeing as the Republican party is often anti-regulation/oversight. A bad combination when it comes to nuclear power, imho.
- LargeWu 16y ago
  There are plenty of power plants presently operating quite safely under the current regulatory scheme. Can you point to any specific concerns you have, or is this just FUD?

yummyfajitas 16y ago

...fail in catastrophic fashion...Monsanto's "Terminator" seeds getting out into the wild. And the catastrophe was what, exactly? It was so minor that I must have missed it. Incidentally, I don't believe your fear of catastrophic failure is the real motivation. I believe it's a post-hoc rationalization. My reasoning? There has only been one serious nuclear accident ever, and it was caused by deliberate negligence [1]. Various socialist policies, when carried out by people being deliberately negligent or malicious, have failed far more catastrophically than Chernobyl. Yet most liberals don't tend to oppose them. [1] Go read about it. Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems (which would, if left active, have shut the reactor down safely). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

crpatino 16y ago
>>> Seriously, they deliberately operated it way outside of the known to be safe parameters, and turned off all the safety systems ... If you think about it, that's pretty scary. Even if the science behind this is fully understood and the engineers flawlessly put alarms, locks and backups for every possible failure mode, it only takes one idiot manager to overrule them all and have the safety systems turned off. Makes you wonder about all those other things you are told "cannot possibly go wrong"...

brc 16y ago

Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. One easily prevented, catastrophic failure with relatively minor flow-on effects is not enough to fear nuclear power. Regular power sources drip-feed death and destruction on a regular basis, but because they don't all happen at once, the numbers go unnoticed. Similarly, anti-GM crops is circular logic. All food products we eat are long-since modified from their original native or wild source. The struggle within science to find a place for the bible within the geological record has been going on for at least 2 centuries. As such I don't see the problem being resolved anytime soon. Some of the towering giants of science have bent themselves out of shape trying to retro-fit biblical tales into natural history, and that doesn't invalidate their other contributions. What I'm saying here is that holding an irrational position on evolution doesn't necessarily devalue a scientists value, as long as they aren't primarily studying evolutionary-related fields. If the person who comes up with a cure for cancer doesn't believe in evolution, personally it wouldn't worry me one bit. Of all that, I do think the Republicans have a problem with religious beliefs taking over the party. I don't know of any other major conservative party in the world which puts things like evolution in question the way they do. Although I suspect it's not endemic within the party, the moderates within the party should be doing more to establish a more mainstream view as the primary position.

gaulinmp 16y ago
~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational. Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.

potatolicious 16y ago

We are a long way from Chernobyl, the state of the art in nuclear power generation is not at all the same. Pardon the snarkiness a little bit, but your fear nuclear power because of catastrophes like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is about as rational as my fear of flying because jetliners in the 50s weren't very safe.