+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

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

1745 posts

Re: Radiation.

This certainly has developed into an intellectual debate. Good stuff.

My take on it is as follows:

1. In a capitalist society, private industry will always try to socialise the losses. Given that, nuclear accidents will continue to happen (if anyone wishes to raise the idea that the USSR was communist; it wasn't. It was a dictatorship with many monopolistic businesses. For proof, check the number of millionaires post "communism"). It is no good pointing the finger at businesses that cut corners as that is what will always happen. If businesses (even one) cannot be trusted then there should be no nuclear energy.

2. Nuclear waste is bad news. The plants themselves are a hazard when it comes to disposal. The waste from production is frightening. The waste from uranium mining is terrible. How bad is debatable but only between hideous and horrendous. It is not remotely safe.

3. Comparing nuclear accidents to car crashes, cyclones, storms, even oil spills is a bit rich. Nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of years and kills those that try to clean it up.

4. There are many vested interests in this matter. I always oppose dishonest debate whether it be for the side I support or not. Unfortunately, in western society, liars are often allowed to spout lies and have their views published. I would hazard at a guess to say that 95% of the lies that are disembled and supported are backed by big business dollars. I assume HC exaggerates to compete with this financial might and I sadly think that only weakens the anti-nuke case. Nonethless, I understand why she does it in a world of lies.

Apr 25, 2011, 04:27


Topic Outline: