2 ms·

You seem to believe that I think we shouldn't use nuclear. What I'm saying is that bad arguments and ideological blinders from some people on the pro nuclear si

by jshen 16y ago

You seem to believe that I think we shouldn't use nuclear. What I'm saying is that bad arguments and ideological blinders from some people on the pro nuclear side is not helping the case for nuclear power. On the first day when they say things like, "these reactors have a containment dome and there is no way for it to get out of the containment dome", then it does in fact get out of the containment dome, it discredits those people. When those people then claim that science is on their side, and I'm a luddite or something ... it's annoying. You can't treat this like a football game where you're on the pro nuclear side and everyone else that is pro nuclear is on your team.

tptacek 16y ago
That's a fair critique. I probably am polarizing this discussion, and I'm sorry for that. But the points you're making are straightforward to knock down: fossil fuel power generation, which has a worse track record than nuclear, is also deployed and maintained by commercial interests; and, "front loaded" or not, fossil fuels are doing more damage to the planet. Those aren't random things I brought up; they're responses to arguments you've made.
- jshen 16y ago
  This is the 'rabid' I'm talking about. I have never once said that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear. You however insist on projecting that view onto me, and arguing with a strawman. Why? Because I've asked some questions and pointed out one flaw I think exist in a commonly used argument for nuclear power. If someone like me is trying to make sense of this stuff by participating in a discussion and asking questions, someone like you comes along and decides that I'm on the opposite side of some fight from you. Despite the fact that I'm not. I'm on neither side, and am trying to reason about these issues, and I found one argument unconvincing. Now I'm your enemy apparently, and you're "knocking down" my points, which I don't even have.

by jshen 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

That's a fair critique. I probably am polarizing this discussion, and I'm sorry for that. But the points you're making are straightforward to knock down: fossil fuel power generation, which has a worse track record than nuclear, is also deployed and maintained by commercial interests; and, "front loaded" or not, fossil fuels are doing more damage to the planet. Those aren't random things I brought up; they're responses to arguments you've made.

jshen 16y ago
This is the 'rabid' I'm talking about. I have never once said that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear. You however insist on projecting that view onto me, and arguing with a strawman. Why? Because I've asked some questions and pointed out one flaw I think exist in a commonly used argument for nuclear power. If someone like me is trying to make sense of this stuff by participating in a discussion and asking questions, someone like you comes along and decides that I'm on the opposite side of some fight from you. Despite the fact that I'm not. I'm on neither side, and am trying to reason about these issues, and I found one argument unconvincing. Now I'm your enemy apparently, and you're "knocking down" my points, which I don't even have.