Meanwhile, deadly amounts of radiation are leaking into the ocean, the ground, the air, and workers can’t get anywhere near the problem to even see what is going on.
But a denier will say, “Nuclear power is safe”.
How many people have died from radiation so far?
The disaster that caused this may have killed 25,000 people in a first world country specifically prepared for it. How many of those were killed by radiation again?
Collapsing multi-story buildings probably killed some people. Are those more dangerous than nuclear plants?
No I think you staked out positions were you were young and instead of learning and growing, you defend them to the death. The fact that 3 enormous accidents actually occurred does nothing to change your opinion.No data ,no radioactivity leaking into the environment seems to make you waver.
You put on your blinders and go full speed ahead. That is not reasoning. You are led by some kind of emotional reaction. Nothing slows down your incorrectly held viewpoints. You cede no points ever. It is immature childish prattle you offer.
You’re seriously comparing natural disasters to anthropogenic nuclear accidents? I thought we finally dispensed with that fallacy.
Who me? I used to be anti-nuke. I’m from Hawaii and they are more nuke-afraid there than in most of the country (possibly because most people in Hawaii have never seen much less lived near one).
I educated myself and learned that the pros outweigh the cons, at least in my assessment.
That said, how many people have died from radiation in this situation?
No, silly-billy. Multi-story buildings killed people because of the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.
Nuclear reactors haven’t anywhere near as many people. Does this mean according to your chicken-little reflex that we should outlaw multi-story buildings?
A denier has to ignore the human suffering, the terrible loss of real estate, food and farms, hospitals, resources, all those displaced lives, children and mothers and fathers, huddling in shelters, afraid and unable to return to their undamaged homes, the countless dead rotting in the evacuation zone, the denier avoids even thinking of this, because he has to believe nuclear power is safe.
This makes a nuclear denier beneath contempt.
How many people have been killed by radiation? How long will the evacuation need to be upheld?
As a bonus question, how many people are homeless due to evacuation vs. homeless due to the natural disaster?
I guess we have to find a day when FX is not a fool.
What you are still doing is just setting a pathetic straw man, the consensus that many are reaching that you are just a troll or/and stupid (they are not exclusive) is based also on the idea that you still think that straw man argument has legs.
That a denier thinks his logic and reason are sound, and nothing can sway him, this makes them a true believer.
Meh, you **still **believe that pathetic straw mans can fly here, so yes, there is a believer here alright, but they are not the ones that are calling you a fool.
And the lying shitheel is too stupid to face reality.
It would be wrong to say nothing can sway me. Data, facts or intelligent arguments can sway me. You have provided nothing. You are a child stamping his feet and demanding that he is correct.
Argument via fiat isn’t exactly impressive. Answer my questions or run away like a coward. I’d like the former, but I expect the latter.
It’s not the heat, its the humidity. And it’s the fission, combined with stupidity.
We are all told that nuclear energy is a clean ,safe and reasonable alternative to other forms. We all hear about it and think how great it is.
But a lot of us see the disasters and think that refutes the safe and the cheap. Theses disasters are extremely expensive.
We see radiation spilling into the air and water . That is a horrible blow to the environment ,which negates much of the clean claim.
We see radioactive waste sitting in containment ponds at every single reactor. They are dangerous by themselves. . They are also a potential huge disaster waiting to happen. The tanks are aging and waste keeps accumulating. That is bad.
We see the owner, builders and operators cutting corners to make greater profits. We see that as a disaster in waiting. For some reason we don’t trust corporations to do civic good over profits. Can you imagine that?
Then the regulators get captured by the corporations that they oversee. That happens over and over. Yep, I see that as another problem.
Now the NIMBYs will fight every new plant. I completely understand that reaction.
Construction costs go up 15 percent a year. Add the cost of the new safety measures they will be forced to install, and nuclear is even more unattractive.
I see nothing to recommend nuclear energy . I would prefer the money be put in alternative energy and conservation. How is that going to kill you and despoil your land and food?
Wind suffers from the risk of a windspill and one or more blades flying loose and ruining Bossie’s chance of become an In And Out Burger. It will require, gasp, power lines to move that power. This is technology that is daunting to say the least.
As for solar, consider that the sun is the largest fusion reactor within 4 light years. It can issue a coronal mass ejection that devastates virtually all electronics on earth. If we don’t use it to collect the enormous energy that constantly pours out of it, a CME may never devastate the planet. All we have to do is put out collectors in the form of mirrors and photo voltaic cells and collect that energy. Problem is that the huge fuel industry will be put out of business by these systems that never require fuel. (It isn’t perpetual motion, remember that the sun is burning the fuel for billions of years to come.) We don’t know how long the mirror plants will run, and we do know that photo voltaic cells will at the end of their useful lives produce less electricity than when new.
Haha, I love the myth that oil and coal companies propagate, that it takes more fossil fuel and shit to make a solar collector than you will ever get back from it.
And some people actually buy that.
They also do a good job of convincing idiots that wind power can’t work, or is too expensive, or there isn’t enough wind, or something.
Aren’t you the lying moron who said that for the price of nuclear power you could put enough solar cells to supply Japan’s energy needs?
I assume that you now admit that this isn’t true, right?
Don’t know about Japan, but I bet for the money they spent on the reactors, and the money they spent fighting the reactors, evacuating and housing people, and the money they are going to spend cleaning it up, whenever they reach that point, they could install a lot of solar.
The statistics bear out that Three Mile Island killed plenty. But radiation does not slay a person in their tracks. It can take 10 or 20 years to show up. By then , they may have moved away . They may have died from something else before the impacts are shown.
Are you suggesting no one died in Chernobyl?
Do you imply there will not be deaths in japan?
If so , I can see why you think nuke plants are safe.
http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03242009.html You actually have to track the residents to arrive at the truth.
So, who has died so far? Simple question, but you won’t answer it.
Pike River Coal Mine 2010 29 dead. Are there no coal mine deniers out there? Guess it isn’t sexy like nuclear.
We need at least 29 dead to make it as dangerous as this one incident with coal mining. But you still don’t understand the term ‘relatively’ or ‘in comparison to’ when we are talking about safety do you?