5 ms·
While it is true that there are many people attempting to call the crisis "over" without adequate evidence that this is the case, I think it is equally obvious
by icarus_drowning 16y ago
While it is true that there are many people attempting to call the crisis "over" without adequate evidence that this is the case, I think it is equally obvious that there are many people who are doing the opposite: namely, attempting to make the case that the crisis is far worse than the incomplete facts indicate.
I applaud your more measured approach, but I must say that, as someone who has read most of the stories and comments regarding this topic that have hit the front page, I do feel that you are decidedly in the minority. There are plenty of people rushing to call this a horrendous disaster, who are privy to the same limited information, and who are likewise doing very little to contribute to the discussion.
- jedsmith 16y agoI mostly agree, but we have to assume the absolute worst and be rewarded with good news, rather than assume everything's fine and be surprised when a large number of Japanese citizens get thyroid cancer. Even though I think "oh my God, Chernobyl!" is uncalled for at this point, the fact is that the limited information doesn't change that we might be in a horrendous disaster (and arguably are). The information we do have tells us it's bad; the information we don't have doesn't tell us how bad.
- sigstoat 16y agounless we're nuclear engineers, there is nothing we can do about the situation besides donate to relief organizations. with no productive actions to take, why should we assume anything?
- gnosis 16y agoThere are productive actions you can take to try to prevent this from happening again: 1 - work to close existing nuclear plants 2 - work to make sure no new ones are built
- orangecat 16y agoAlso, we can solve traffic fatalities by getting rid of cars.
- gnosis 16y agoThat might not be a bad idea. Not only would there be far fewer fatalities, but we'd be much less reliant on fossil fuels. That, in turn, would not only forestall global warming, but possibly prevent some of the "hard crash" scenarios that could happen on the way down from the oil peak. Unfortunately, getting rid of cars would probably be much harder than getting rid of nuclear power plants. So I'd vote to start on something that's realistically accomplishable in the relatively near term: get rid of existing nuclear power plants, and keep new ones from being built.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- julsonl 16y agoSo how do I expect to travel 30 miles to work again? Bike my way there?
- gnosis 16y agoJobs would necessarily have to be much closer to home. The onset of global warming and the oil peak are starting to prove that building economies around suburbs, highways, and long commutes is unsustainable anyway. See this great documentary, "The End of Suburbia": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug
- jedsmith 16y agoEven though this is a Fairly Bad Thing, I think crafting an anti-nuclear agenda out of it is a poor move for society as a whole. Nuclear power has overwhelmingly been shown to be safe, and something can be safe and have unexpected Big Deals at the same time. That's a non-binary attitude that this polarizing subject doesn't exactly favor, as shown by this thread in numerous places. I mean, that's part of being human, isn't it? Nuclear power is safe. Humans build nuclear power. There will always be a human element...