"Disaster Proves Nuclear Power is Safe"

[marions ghost]

OK I know this is South Carolina, but here's an opinion piece by Clint Wolfe that appeared in the Greenville News today. All the lies that fit, they print apparently. Don't worry, be happy. It's fine for the nuclear industry to cause the damage that TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi has, and will, cause. No big deal.

These Nuclear Industry people are just not rational. :shrug:

"Disaster Proves Nuclear Power is Safe"----------

"...the bad news is that this seemingly incredible sequence of events really happened, resulting in enormous human suffering from the effects of the quake and the tsunami. With respect to the very serious situation with the nuclear reactors, some countries are hesitating in their headlong rush to employ nuclear energy. Although the initial reaction of two utilities in the process of building new nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia is to carry on, they will be undoubtedly slowed by insistence on incorporating Japan’s lessons learned (something the nuclear industry does as a matter of routine anyway). Anti-nuke forces will seize the opportunity to insist on obstructing new construction.

So now you’re waiting for the good news, right? The good news is that the bad news relative to the reactors’ performance wasn’t all that bad. Although the quake and the tsunami apparently took more than 25,000 lives and left hundreds of thousands homeless, the events at the nuclear plants have thus far killed no one and the human health effects are likely to be minor to nonexistent.

George Monbiot, an avid British environmental activist, has recently proclaimed that, because of Fukushima, he now supports nuclear power. He reasons that, if 50-year-old technology absorbed the brunt of these brutal natural disasters without resultant loss of life and posed no more risk to human health than is apparently the case, the technology must be very safe.

(snip)

It has been obvious to those trying to present a factual representation of the real risks of energy alternatives that anti-nuclear forces’ portrayal of nuclear energy and its risks are based on myths, superstition and a proclivity for liberal use of misinformation and falsehoods. They also are prone to resorting to trying to discredit pro-nuclear advocates without engaging them in a discussion of the facts. They question the credibility of advocates who may have, or at one time had, a connection to the nuclear industry. It’s sort of like saying, “Because you are or once were a teacher your opinions on education should be discounted.”

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110425/OPINION/304250001/Disaster-proves-nuclear-power-is-safe