3 ms·

>Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if

by kmfrk 16y ago

>Sadly within a few weeks, armies of anti-nuclear campainers, writers, and politicians will have jumped on this and pumped it so through the roof that, even if everything in this article is correct most people won't listen. NYT, Guardian, Spiegel, Mother Jones, The Atlantic (every online publication there is), every news TV channel (except Al Jazeera). Greenpeace are all over the place with their campaigning. The hysteria isn't imminent - it's happening right now. If people don't fight the campaign to stop nuclear energy, the factoids are going to dominate the discourse in many years to come.

nakkiel 16y ago
I deeply agree with that. At the same time, I believe it's time to forcefully put other energy sources to use, make them work and more generally give them their chance. I'd go as far as saying this would draw a lot of economical activity world-wide and get us out of the economical crisis for good. In a way, I see this event as an opportunity. It's just been demonstrated that Nuclear Energy is safe enough (at least, that's how I see things) but I still believe we deserve greener energies.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  Hang on, I'm confused. If you think nuclear energy is good, why should the others get a chance? Surely we should go with the best option (which obviously includes diversity, but ought to have the overall best as its main component.) I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a playground. Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. Our way of life depends on energy, and just hoping other sources will work out seems naive at best.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. I think we'll run out of economically extractable ore deposits of nuclear fuels a little before Sol goes supernova. Perhaps that's it. Also, unless he edited, he said that Nuclear was "safe enough" not that it was the best option. Even if it were the best primary option I wouldn't want to rely on it exclusively; personally I consider that "renewable" sources are better. Fusion would appear to be the best if we can get it to work effectively but I'd still look to diversify to some extent.
timr 16y ago
"If people don't fight the campaign to stop nuclear energy, the factoids are going to dominate the discourse in many years to come." I don't think it's fair to characterize the opposition's arguments so flippantly (as "factoids"). I'm far from an opponent of nuclear energy, but there are a lot of damned good reasons to be contemplative about a system where one bad day can injure thousands of people, and simultaneously make thousands of square miles of land unfit for human habitation for hundreds of years. We (humans) seem to have a remarkably bad ability to correctly estimate the likelihood of "improbable" events. When that unfortunate trait crosses with the potential for out-sized, long-term impacts on the environment, it's right to be wary. It isn't totally irrational to argue that an extremely conservative position on risk is appropriate in that situation.
- serichsen 16y ago
  That was a pretty bad day, right? However, no armageddon has occurred.

by kmfrk 16y ago

nakkiel 16y ago

I deeply agree with that. At the same time, I believe it's time to forcefully put other energy sources to use, make them work and more generally give them their chance. I'd go as far as saying this would draw a lot of economical activity world-wide and get us out of the economical crisis for good. In a way, I see this event as an opportunity. It's just been demonstrated that Nuclear Energy is safe enough (at least, that's how I see things) but I still believe we deserve greener energies.

Robin_Message 16y ago
Hang on, I'm confused. If you think nuclear energy is good, why should the others get a chance? Surely we should go with the best option (which obviously includes diversity, but ought to have the overall best as its main component.) I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a playground. Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. Our way of life depends on energy, and just hoping other sources will work out seems naive at best.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >Solar power will not get a complex if nuclear is chosen instead. I think we'll run out of economically extractable ore deposits of nuclear fuels a little before Sol goes supernova. Perhaps that's it. Also, unless he edited, he said that Nuclear was "safe enough" not that it was the best option. Even if it were the best primary option I wouldn't want to rely on it exclusively; personally I consider that "renewable" sources are better. Fusion would appear to be the best if we can get it to work effectively but I'd still look to diversify to some extent.

timr 16y ago

"If people don't fight the campaign to stop nuclear energy, the factoids are going to dominate the discourse in many years to come." I don't think it's fair to characterize the opposition's arguments so flippantly (as "factoids"). I'm far from an opponent of nuclear energy, but there are a lot of damned good reasons to be contemplative about a system where one bad day can injure thousands of people, and simultaneously make thousands of square miles of land unfit for human habitation for hundreds of years. We (humans) seem to have a remarkably bad ability to correctly estimate the likelihood of "improbable" events. When that unfortunate trait crosses with the potential for out-sized, long-term impacts on the environment, it's right to be wary. It isn't totally irrational to argue that an extremely conservative position on risk is appropriate in that situation.

serichsen 16y ago
That was a pretty bad day, right? However, no armageddon has occurred.