You joke, but I have seriously considered publicly taking positions to which I am in reality opposed just to take advantage of that kind of reaction. I used to think it was a reaction to me personally, I now suspect it’s the effect of political “teams.”
Can you quote the part where it says there has been a meltdown? Not maybe or feared or possible, but actually happened.
Don’t give us a google dump and then expect us to sort through it. A simple quote will suffice.
And you are correct on this one… How?
Once again, your assumption that liberals are against nuclear power or that they prefer coal plants is a silly one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=520154&highlight=reactor+meltdown
The risks of nuclear power have been minimized for the three years I have been posting at the SDMB. While it might actually be possible for a pebble bed reactor to not melt down, people pointing that out fail to point out that the mechanism an experimental one in Germany got stuck in such a way that it might partially melt until the container broke and the pebbles spilled all over the floor not near enough continue reacting. If such an event happened, then it would be an event that could be totally contained. If you believe them. Because these people are wrong so often and minimize what can happen, I don’t trust them at all.
One thing I have been wondering over a bit. Socialist parties in Denmark, and the rest of the EU I think, have started to call themselves red-green. Nice marketing strategy perhaps, but perhaps also not so good for the environment. If they are successfully in convincing the voters that one side of the political spectrum has patent on being environmental friendly, then I think it will do the environmental cause no favours.
No. The first article says there is a likely partial meltdown. If you can’t read a newspaper article that’s your problem, not mine.
Can you give a current citation that says there are no meltdowns? Because if you can, it’s not current anymore.
:rolleyes:
Besides just being another example of “cite by dump” (can you even point to an specific poster saying that no risks were there? You are also moving the goal posts there) You are still just relying on innuendo and no evidence at all.
In Denmark the pro/anti nuclear debate was for decades split down nicely across the middle. To the left: against. To the right: for.
No less silly than “conservatives are against renewable energy”
You keep using that word: “likely” as “happening”.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sorry, Denmark is not the world or the USA.
And I still would doubt that all of them are like you describe.
As mentioned before, it may be in Denmark, but this is mostly an American forum.
Over here the leadership and almost all Republicans are proud of opposing green jobs or renewable energy as there is absolutely no reason to use them :rolleyes:.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/22/ny-times-on-the-dirty-energy-party/
Sorry, the USA is not the world or Denmark.
And you of course know almost all Republicans, because if not you’d be silly to paint with such a wide brush.
:dubious:
You ask conservatives why they resist new forms of energy. Heck, one of the biggest, and bloated liberals; the late Ted Kennedy didn’t want wind farms off the coast of Massachusetts. How does that fact stand against your argument? :smack:
Ah, that old line. An argument which very conveniently means that no one can criticize the Republicans for anything whatsoever. Yet somehow when it comes to bashing liberals or Democrats, it isn’t necessary to know every single one personally to criticize them.
We just built a large solar array in my town and they’re having a terrible time getting it to work at night.
Seriously, conservatives don’t have a problem with any form of energy that is cost effective. I personally don’t want to live within a mile of a conventional wind turbine because they’re obnoxious but I’d LOVE to see them off the shore of the great lakes. I’d also like more (smaller) vertical wind turbines utilized on buildings. I’m also eagerly awaiting advances in solar cells and battery technology so that they are cost effective. THERMAL solar power plants are at the point where they should be expanding on the west coast.
I’d rather see new coal plants with scrubbers for the short term (next 50 years) to give us the electricity needed for electric cars. I suspect battery technology will catch up shortly.
And don’t forget “partial”.
Second Stone: I don’t need to prove a negative. You have not provided evidence that a meltdown has occurred. I suggest you take your arguments, such as they are, to the thread where this particular topic is being discussed. You’ll find plenty of knowledgeable people there who can educate you.
Did you read the article? All the republicans in the commission voted to ignore the science.
More worrisome, virtually all the new elected Republicans in the recent mid term elections also deny the science.
Quoth The Second Stone:
Nah, plenty of folks understand nuclear power just fine, and for the folks who don’t, the solution is to educate them, not to give into their ignorance. But you know what people don’t understand? Death. Our own mortality. That’s what’s facing the Japanese people right now, and 99.9% of it has had nothing whatsoever to do with the nuclear reactors.
So they should just accept this new method of inflicting cancer? Statistically it all works out provided that they have government health care, which they do. But in the US our system is that the party responsible for causing an injury pays for its consequences. That is nearly impossible with respect to cancer: you’ve socialized the major company losses, but without proof that the cancer was in fact caused by exposure to radiation caused by your power plant explosion and release of radiation the millions it may require to treat it fall on the individual. But if those poor people would just die already without anyone whining, then nuclear power and its risks and fallout would be okay. Do I have that right?
Or is it that the nuke plants troubles are the least of the peasant’s immediate worries?
Exactly. It’s nuclear energy, perhaps with some input from renewables; or civilization suffering major damage or outright collapse from either running out of energy or reliance on coal leading to massive global warming and the resulting famines and floods. Even if the scaremongers were right about how bad nuclear power is, it is still better than the alternatives. Renewable energy just isn’t enough to do the job, and coal is too destructive.
And if people go your way, then they’ll find out what being a real, literal peasant is like as civilization collapses into preindustrialism.
One thing I dislike about renewable energy is the hand-waving away of the environmental impacts it has. Like all pieces of a puzzle, it needs to be carefully balanced with what it can provide and at what costs, both economic and environmental.