7 ms·
> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima... 100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died b
by gritzko 16y ago
> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima...
100% pure green hysteria.
~10.000 died because of the tsunami.
Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.
- TorbjornLunde 16y agoWe can control whether we use nuclear power or not. Controlling nature is a little harder. (Though I agree that shutting down power plants in Germany right now is illogical.)
- khafra 16y agoThe hysterics don't turn green until they're actually exposed to toxic waste. I think this is plain old hysteria; many environmentalists are all about nuclear power because the alternatives are coal, oil, or hunter/gatherer at 1/1000th the world's current population.
- holri 16y agoThe alternative is to save energy. There is still much to gain with advanced technology. For example we drive all day with vehicels that have an overall efficiency factor of 3%. Huge waste is going on. It's a shame.
- khafra 16y agoIf there were ways to save large amounts while maintaining economic output, people would be doing them and making massive amounts of money from the savings. There are ways to achieve a mean world GDP, or at least a standard of living similar to ours at a much lower rate of single-use resource consumption, but we're at a local optima. Civilization is a greedy search algorithm.
- holri 16y agoIt's a matter of price. Labour ist very expensive and high taxed. Therefore you can get rich by developing technology saving labour. On the other hand energy is cheap, so there is no economical incentive to save energy. Image an opposite pricing. I bet we would have carbon cars weighing 300 kg and with 1l/km fuel consumption. Technologically possible today but not economically.
- Tichy 16y agoWell there is cheap living space available around Fukushima right now. Would you care to move there?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- rglullis 16y agoThe place has been just hit by an 8.9 earthquake and a tsunami. If I had to list reasons why not to go over there, my concern over likelihood of natural disasters is much higher than concern of nuclear accidents. All else being equal, I wouldn't mind moving close to a nuclear plant. The thing is, power plants (in general) are built in less hospitable places. So it's never "equal" to begin with.
- Natsu 16y agoI already live not too far from a nuclear power plant, but I'd rather not live in a major earthquake zone. I mean, this earthquake has already killed thousands (and there will be more earthquakes in the futures). The power plant? I think a few have died from the hydrogen explosions, but none from radiation poisoning.
- BvS 16y agoAlthough I also think it is kind of frightening that some of the old reactors are not safe with regard to a plane crash (or terrorist attack).
- VladRussian 16y agowhat do you want Germany to do about tsunami?
- brazzy 16y agoThe situation in Germany is rather special in that the policy decision being made is to implement the first steps of a decade-old plan for phasing out nuclear reactors, which a previous (social democrat) administration had made and the current (conservative) one had cancelled – a very unpopular decision even before last Friday. So the measures being taken are in fact neither hasty nor unplanned.
- brazzy 16y agoThe situation in Germany is rather special in that the policy decision being made is to implement the first steps of a decade-old plan for phasing out nuclear reactors, which a previous (social democrat) administration had made and the current (conservative) one had cancelled – a very unpopular decision even before last Friday. So the measures being taken are in fact neither hasty nor unplanned.