3 ms·
Michael Shellenberger is obviously pro-nuclear lobbyist, just look at the list of his articles, they're 100% all pushing the same narrative. That, on it's own,
by ivanhoe 7y ago
Michael Shellenberger is obviously pro-nuclear lobbyist, just look at the list of his articles, they're 100% all pushing the same narrative. That, on it's own, wouldn't be a huge problem, other energy options certainly have their share of equally zealous lobbyist - but I have a serious problem with his style of cherry-picking proofs and presenting them as conclusive and indisputable. You can't debunk an official position of a big organization like WHO just by quoting a single scientist who disagrees, scientists disagree all the time. And another big problem I have with his texts is his seemingly complete lack of any empathy for victims of these accidents. He's pushing this "well, shit happens, people die all the time" idea, treating it all like statistics, but completely ignores the fact that just because some firefighters die on duty here and there, doesn't mean it's OK to sacrifice 28 peoples' lives like Soviets did. Also not all deaths are the same, so you can't really compare it like that. Don't know about you, but I'd certainly rather die in a car crash, than die an agonizing death of radiation poisoning or cancer. It's one of the ugliest deaths IMHO. Even if you want to be purely pragmatic, again, these deaths take longer and cost much more so you can't just sum them all up like it all has the same impact on the society. Not to mention statements like "it is an easy cancer to treat, only 1% dies", like it's nothing to be diagnosed a freaking cancer, undergo radiation and chem therapy and all that shit. He's totally ignoring all the fear and uncertainty and emotional pain it brings, and then the actual pain from treatments, and how much it all costs and what this does to the whole family of the patient. Cancers are one of the most destructive diseases from the social perspective. This is what freaks people out about radiation, as well as the fact that effects are so long lasting and hard to fix. I'm personally not against nuclear power, I think it's very smart option worth considering, but IMO this is a wrong way to push for it. We need less propaganda and politics bullshit and more serious scientists dialog...