Last edited Sun Feb 5, 2017, 08:35 PM - Edit history (1)
...only connected to indoor air pollution.
I often advise people holding this morally awful view to enter a good quality academic library and actually find out what is what, but some of the people I so advise are clearly not competent to read an academic paper of any kind.
Their brains, from what I can tell, are filled with concrete.
It is unsurprising to hear such a person commenting like this: "Right now, today, the brains, have no idea of how to deal with Fukushima, same as they didn't know what to do with Chernobyl."
This statement comes from a person who has never, obviously, opened a science book in his life, and therefore is unacquainted with what technical people, scientists and engineers -who, by the way are more than their "brains" - do and do not know.
The matter is simple arithmetic. The reactors at Fukushima - as opposed to the 20,000 people who died in the tsunami from, um, living in coastal cities about whom morally vapid anti-nukes couldn't care less - and Chernobyl combined, didn't kill as many people as will die this afternoon from air pollution.
This means, for anyone who has a decent sense of risk, would recognize that it would be wise rather than spend billions of dollars chasing after every radioactive atom at Fukushima, to spend billions - trillions of dollars - to fight air pollution.
How many lives were saved per dollar by the Chernobyl sarcophagus? How many lives might have been saved if the same amount spent of the sarcophagus were spent on providing decent sanitation for some of the 2.4 billion people who lack it?
The moral problem is that the uneducated intellectual weaklings who oppose nuclear power have in the bizarre calculus that any death from radiation is billions of times worse than all other deaths.
This is not only stupid, it's evil.
It's interesting that the assholes holding to this very, very, very questionable rhetorical nonsense love to rail about me but they care not a whit for the rest of humanity. They're trumpian in their outlook, with their heads so far up their asses that the shit will never get out of their eyes.
But I will say this; these asses are correct about one thing. I am in fact, bitter, very bitter. Nuclear power, were it not demonized by the uneducated and the stupid, might have saved many of the 70 million lives lost to air pollution since 2007. It breaks my heart, and yes, makes me very bitter. As it was for John Donne, "Every man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.."
As for indoor vs outdoor pollution, and the stupid claim that indoor air pollution has no bearing on nuclear energy, this is also pig headed indifference.
Indoor air pollution is connected to human poverty, and human poverty is connected to a lack of access to clean energy. India and China know something about human poverty, even if lime brains in the West don't. This may be why their scientists and engineers are building more nuclear reactors than anyone else on the planet. A person with an electric hot plate won't be burning biomass, including dung, with a little coal thrown in, to cook his or her food.
I wrote at length on this relationship here: Current World Energy Demand, Ethical World Energy Demand, Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come. I strongly suspect that what I wrote is over the tiny little heads of some of the people who burn gas and coal to rail here that an atom of cesium from Fukushima might end up in a tuna fish can in Ohio.
One can wallow all one wants in open contempt for intellectuals, but basically, we don't give a shit what blockheads think.
Have a nice Sunday.
= new reply since forum marked as read
