+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Log In to post a reply
80 messages
View: flat \ threaded

5993 posts

Re: Radiation.

All very interesting Wracket, but I still feel that Monbriot should be looked at with equal skepticism. Even if Caldicott isn't 100% accurate in her insistence and "facts", even if only say 40% or even 20% of what she says could be considered proven or scientifically accurate, it still leaves a smaller body of evidence that nuclear power is unsafe and other alternatives should be used when possible. It's that "when possible" that I know is also very debatable, and perhaps unsolvable with our thirst for energy and "things".

I mean what would you do if your community was contaminated by radioactive fallout? People who could afford to, would move away, and why not? I certainly would if I could. People who couldn't, would stay and become future guinea pigs.

They talk about the anti-nuke people from the 60's and 70's as though they were sort of ignorant of the current problems of the world, and the urgency of global warming. But I think most of the current situation is the same old issues of cost, convenience, lack of better technology etc. They may not have known the extent of global warming, but keeping the earth cleaner and healthier is and was then the solution that should be strived for. Much talk back then I think was about decentralizing energy, which doesn't necessarily have to translate into dirtier energy.

I'm just as concerned about how we're slowly poisoning ourselves with chemicals, as I am with the nuclear problem. Almost every object in our lives revolves around plastic and other chemicals in some way. We are so happy with all our objects and technology, me included. But they're finding that we all have some of those chemicals in our bodies now. All of us. I mean wow.

The conservatives in my country I think are pretty much head in the sand. They want go with whatever is cheapest, and don't want to think about global warming, the pros and cons of nuclear energy, or whether oil is dirtying up our lives. It always has and will be about cost and convenience for them. As long as the dirty solutions are not in their backyard. They will be happy to look to Mondriot if it means a liberal like Caldicott can be seen as a fool, then they can translate that to something quite unrelated or in their economic interest. Or paint all liberals with a broad brush based on her supposed flaws.

Apr 24, 2011, 19:53


Topic Outline: