5 ms·
So this lovely list of people has a new group: 1) Anti-vaxxers 2) climate change deniers 3) anti-GMO 4) anti-nuclear 5) (new!) chemo truthers Sadly, a lot of t
by option 7y ago
So this lovely list of people has a new group:
1) Anti-vaxxers
2) climate change deniers
3) anti-GMO
4) anti-nuclear
5) (new!) chemo truthers
Sadly, a lot of the population are members of at least one group. Would love to know if the membership numbers of are 1-5 going up or down
- tonmoy 7y agoJudging by the downvotes I assume a few of the people from groups 1-5 are here. There are no scientifically founded reason be be against vaccines/nuclear/GMO, so grouping these things together by the parent comment should not be offensive to anyone
- Ma8ee 7y agoWith a PhD in physics and against nuclear power I’m very happy to downvote anyone that groups that with anti-vaccines. I respect that people might have a different opinion than me about nuclear power, but calling opposing nuclear superstition is just cheap.
- dmytroi 7y agoSome parts of anti-nuclear movement hold a position "ban nuclear no matter what". But for example, what happened in Germany, is nuclear plants being replaced by coal and gas plants. Then discussion moved to if nuclear plant will be replaced by coal plant, is it really that better in the end? When faced that question, it was observed that anti-nuclear movement splits, where one side thinks that nuclear makes sense to stop coal, while another thinks that we must ban nuclear even if whole planet will die from climate change. This is why, at least in Germany, some parts of anti-nuclear movement can be perceived as somewhat radical.
- Ma8ee 7y agoI don’t really care to have the discussion right now. There there are valid arguments on both sides. It’s intellectually dishonest, lazy and counterproductive to groups everyone that you disagree with. That means that you never actually cared to understand the arguments.
- Ma8ee 7y agoYeah, I belong to the anti-nuclear faction. And grouping it with anti-vaxxers is just a cheap rhetorical shot. It’s not that Chernobyl or Fukushima or million of tons nuclear waste that someone else will have to pay for to take care of are products of imagination.
- umanwizard 7y agoThe death toll from Fukushima is in the low triple digits at most. Pollution from coal kills hundreds of thousands of people a year when it's working normally. (This is even if we completely ignore the effects of global warming, whose future death toll is unknown). Nuclear being seriously dangerous because of a few isolated accidents IS your imagination. It's similar to people who refuse to fly, and drive long distances instead.
- Ma8ee 7y agoAnd those accidents didn’t cost any money at all, and if they did, all costs were carried by the owners of the plants. And you believe the fantasy that the only deaths caused by Chernobyl was the firefighters and a few people working at the plant. And as usual, you ignore the question of the waste. And there are other alternatives than coal, which are much more economical than nuclear when each producer carries their own costs, including environmental and insurances. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me about nuclear, but I do have a problem who are so narrow minded and lazy that they group everyone that have different ideas than themselves together.
- option 7y agoLOL, I actually grew up near Chernobyl and my parents STILL work on CHNPP. So I do know a thing or two about the tragedy. One thing for sure is that it is very speculative to assume pretty much any death toll rather then immediate deaths by liquidators right after the tragedy (<100). I am not sure that cancer rates in Chernobyl are greater than average or, especially, near the vicinity of coal/gas plant. And if you really have a degree in physics you should know that nuclear waste is a very manageable problem. Finally nobody advocates about building more ChNPP style reactors - there are plenty extremely safe alternatives. France is a good example on this
- giancarlostoro 7y agoJust an FYI chemo truthers arent that new. They are older than flat earthers which started sprawling fairly recently in the last few years. Given how expensive chemotherapy is can you blame anyone. Theres also another batch anti corn syrup, anti fluoride toothpaste, anti eating meat, anti self driving cars, anti electronical voting, and so on. The list goes on. And on....
- djrogers 7y ago> They are older than flat earthers Umm, no. Flat earthers have been around since long before we’ve even had chemo or known what cancer is...
- giancarlostoro 7y agoWell sure, but as prevalent in the media as recently occurring is what I meant.
- gbear605 7y agoI’m an advocate for nuclear energy, but I acknowledge that there are some strong downsides. Per my analysis, those downsides are worth it, compared to the alternative (millions of death from coal pollution, climate change, etc.), but it’s not the same as people who have a completely wrong belief about things like vaccines, climate change, or chemotherapy. Of course, in some cases even chemotherapy isn’t worth it, such as very old people who would rather not suffer the pain and would rather dir quickly. Also, GMOs are probably not spoken against for the reasons you think. Most anti-GMO advocates (that I know) are advocating against them because of the dangerous business model of companies like Monsanto that sue farmers because GMO seeds blow into the farmers’ fields, not because of mistaken beliefs about the health risk.
- RHSeeger 7y agoEverything anti-GMO I see is about it being dangerous. I'd be fine with complaints about bad business behavior, but that's not what I'm seeing.