Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bjorn Lomberg on the Necessity of Nuclear Power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:16 PM
Original message
Bjorn Lomberg on the Necessity of Nuclear Power
When parts of Japan were devastated last month by an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, news of the human toll was quickly overshadowed by global fears of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The concern was understandable: Radiation is very frightening. I grew up in Denmark at a time when fear of nuclear power was pervasive.

But our latest nuclear fears have broader implications, especially for energy supply and our desire to shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. At the time of a natural disaster, it is difficult to step back and gain a broader perspective; even attempting to do so can feel crass. But there are some facts that we should not overlook.

During the round-the-clock coverage of the nuclear drama, the specter of Chernobyl has been raised repeatedly. It is worth noting that the worst nuclear disaster in history directly caused only 31 fatalities. The World Health Organization estimates that 4,000 deaths could be linked to the disaster over 70 years, whereas the OECD projects a range of 9,000 to 33,000 deaths during this period. That is substantial. But also consider that, according to the OECD, every year nearly 1 million people die from fine-particle outdoor air pollution. This massive death toll provokes no discernible fear in the developed world, and receives virtually no news coverage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2291121 /

I'm in complete agreement with Mr Lomborg. Let the unreccing begin. (Hey, at least I spell it "nuclear," unlike Dubya. :-))


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:18 PM
Original message
radioactive mutated dupe
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 02:18 PM by villager
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. "...only caused 31 fatalities." Let the spinning/lying begin...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Starting with you, perhaps? Tell us the real number, and don't forget to document your claim.
Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Compilation of Radiation Studies Showing Health Effects:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. No, that is spin. The number you spit on was the direct deaths from the accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. No -- what you snarkily defend and give a pass to is spin. This is a compilation of studies.
Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Read the OP again, and then apologize again.
Lomborg addresses the indirect deaths from cancers, etc.

If those are the figures that you are attempting to discredit, then you need to edit your original response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Nobody can ever convince me it's a good thing. Unfortunately, I have no say
in the matter.

Not going to unrec -- you're entitled to your opinion, and points for the correct spelling (I'm guessing you know how to pronounce it correctly, too!) :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Jezus, one would have to be seriously a fanatic to argue for more nukes
especially now... America needs a lid on crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. An enormous earthquake didn't cripple Fukushima.
More than likely, the tsunami by itself would not have crippled it, either. It was the combination of the two. What is the likelihood of such a confluence of unlikely events happening in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. At DIABLO CANYON???
Which is run by the most henious compnay in the world, PG&E. Which sits directy on an eathquake fault and is a few feet from the ocean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Hm. Okay. I'll give you that one. So, other than that...
Seriously. What kind of a friggin' idiot puts a nuclear power plant there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Not even #1 on the list of most dangerous...
One in NY is the most dangerous. Think aobut how many people live in that EVAC zone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Diablo Canyon: image


Very scenic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. NUKE LOVER!!!!!!!
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 02:27 PM by Turbineguy
YOU JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO DIE DON'T YOU? YOU'RE LIKE ALL THESE OTHER NUKE LOVERS AROUND HERE! SURE, YOU COME ON HERE WITH YOUR CALMING MESSAGE BUT WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE UP TO! YOU'RE A PAID SHILL FOR G.E.! ARNIE IS OUR GOD AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT! WHEN WE TAKE OVER YOU CAN EXPECT TO GET ARRESTED BY JACK-BOOTED THUGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT!@#$*&^%!!!!


Normal programming will resume shortly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. The unfounded paranoia is well dug in.
Post all the facts you want, they don't matter to the 'All fear all the time', brain locked faithful.
Nuclear has a far better safety record than coal, oil, hydro, even solar and wind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Hm. What sort of increased cancer incidence have we had from...
a) catastrophic accidents at wind farms
b) solar generated electricity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. False equivalencies.
The choice is not nuclear or oil/gas/coal. It's nuclear/oil/gas/coal and renewables.

Typical logical reasoning mistake for the nuke porn crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. No. It's all energy. The only way you manufacture a false equivalency is to take nuke off the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. it sounds like the old ''either nukes or dirty coal'' chestnut
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fiorello Donating Member (140 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. Lomborg has no credibility. Favoring nukes may be reasonable, but he isnt
Lomborg ('the skeptical environmentalist') is 'polite', but he's a climate-change-denier, long-time shill for industry, always favored nukes because they're nukes. He only sounds better than our neo-cons because he's from Europe.

In fairness: I haven't read his latest. But I've read too much garbage from him, about climate, about air pollution, and looked behind the surface - it was full of misleading citations - right wing think takes disguised as journals, articles taken way out of context, etc. It's just like I wouldn't trust anything from the American Enterprise Institute, not worth the trouble to fact-check.

George Monbiot (the Guardian) was on NPR a few days ago, he genuinely decided to switch from anti-nuke to pro-nuke, I think he is legitimate.

As for nuclear power in general - the worst thing about it is the nuclear advocates - too much of a history of whitewash. Nuclear power would be safe if the Sierra Club set the safety standards, instead of (for the previous 8 years) bush-hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bennyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
18. Up to 500,000 people have died from Chernobyl....
up to 500,000 people have died because of Chernobyl and counting


http://counterpunch.com/ghosh04112011.html


Lessons From a Meltdown
In the Shadow of Fukushima



-snip-

But as the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl approaches on April 26, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation are being challenged by scientists and doctors citing evidence to suggest that up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the catastrophe, and another 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked to severe radiation exposure in 1986.

In truth, nuclear power and its deleterious effects are a medical problem of vast dimensions - the greatest public health hazard the world will ever see writes scientist and author Dr. Helen Caldicott on her website.

-snip-

Let us be clear: there are billions and billions of dollars at stake for the nuclear industry. The industry will not walk away from that money without a fight.

-snip-
----------------------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. Lomborg is a tool for hire with a history of non-thought
Whether nuclear power is needed or not has nothing to do with his opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
21. He's conning you. Wind is cheaper, unlimited, and the price will never go up!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC