Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George Monbiot: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love 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 » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:59 PM
Original message
George Monbiot: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work.

<snip>

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro...


The above was from a few days ago (March 21st). Mobiot has a follow-up now:
The double standards of green anti-nuclear opponents
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/201...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. i'll take fossil fuels over radiation any day of the week
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Far more people are going to suffer due to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels...
...than will ever be affected by excessive radiation poisoning.

That is a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why are those the *only* choices? Why is it that we see green energy dismissed out of hand as crazy
talk? I don't like those choices - we need to move to green energy now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnakeEyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Because green energy is unable
to meet all of our energy use right now. Name which green energy source can do this? Can't say "Well, let's do all of the above" as even all of the above will not meet our energy use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I'm not convinced by that assumption.
Perhaps, you can direct us to some credible source that makes that argument - this usually centers on peak load conditions in some areas - in sufficient detail so we can make up our own minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thunderstruck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Your argument is misleading.
One green source to replace all of our energy use right now is not in the offing, and not even proposed. The idea that we can't do anything (which you imply) unless one green source will "meet all of our energy use right now" is a misdirection. False panic, and a rhetoric-determined demand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zoeisright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. BS
Jumping to conclusions. The statement, "But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel" is not true. And since the rest of the page depends on that statement, it's blatantly false.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
4. I generally agree with Monbiot, but not in this instance. However,
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:58 PM by ixion
I do see and understand his point. The flaw in his premise is that we MUST generate the equivalent to what we're generating now.

That is where I beg to differ. We need to rethink the way we consume energy all the way around, not just at the production level. We need to encourage home owners to retrofit their houses with hybrid renewable systems. We need to encourage energy-saving lifestyles and technologies.

It's not about a single point of production. It's about changing the way we live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. +1,ending suburban sprawl is a key,people will have to learn that a gas car is not a right, nor is
unfettered access to non-stop (or nearly so) consumption of wasteful levels of electricity.

I am afraid that the US will go into multi-variate spasms coming to grips with this fact, especially economically, culturally, and militarily. Petrol is over $9 US a gallon here, and yet we are trodding on, due to a superior public transportation system and excellent efficiency standards. Can the same be said of America? Not a good prospect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Will the area around Fukushima be closed to human habitation for millenia, or just centuries?
I'm jus' sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. Orwell once said, "Only an 'intellectual' could say something so utterly stupid."
Same industry false dichotomy: "nukes or more coal." Intentionally blind to the alternatives of renewables and conservation. These just don't enter into the false choices and framing about nuclear power that are being presented by Mobiot and similar "newly converted" propagandists for the industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. Good article. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Sure, some people will die from increased radiation levels, but *probably* not you
So what's the big schmeal? And, if you're that susceptible to radiation poisoning, toughen up! Geez louise, you want us to rubber-coat the planet for you, you delicate little flower? Dang, we oughta send George over to clean up the whole Fukushima plant with a bottle of Pine-Sol and a Scrunge. He'd put those nuclear plant workers to shame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
14. Relative number of deaths per watt of electricity produced by energy type.


Via Seth Godin (http://goo.gl/Ns8Qc ), Next Big Future (http://goo.gl/JLDAN ), and IBM (http://goo.gl/YeQFm ).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. By way of explanation...
The super-simplistic visualization was produced by Seth Godin. Click through the Next Big Future link for detailed discussion, and the IBM link for a more comprehensive and interactive visualization.
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 Fri Oct 24th 2014, 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion 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