Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Radiation.
Log In to post a reply
80 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Radiation.

wracket wrote:
hito wrote:
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").

The USSR obviously never achieved anything like communism is the purest sense, but the number of millionaires/billionaires post-perestroika has nothing to do with how the USSR was run. It has everything to do with how the privatization of state industry was carried out (under the watchful eye of guys like Anatoly Chubais, who would take a political slap on the wrist but then rise up to claim some of the top corporate slots for himself, of course) and how the desperate and uninformed populace was duped into giving up their equity in these state industries for a tiny fraction of its already deflated face value.

hito wrote:
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.

Yes, businesses do tend to look to maximize profits. That's why for so many industries, with nuclear perhaps at the top of the list, it is important that we give a true economic incentive to the private sector to conform. We should never "trust" any private company when the results of that private company's mishaps could impact others (even their own employees).

hito wrote:
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.

Nuclear waste is potentially very bad news indeed, which is why we have to address this aspect. If we can't, well then maybe nuclear energy just isn't a viable option. But we have not fully explored the possible solutions, so to do so based on this alone would be premature.

As for uranium mining, yes, it is potentially very problematic for the surrounding area indeed. But here's a dirty little secret--nearly all mining is just as dangerous as uranium mining. And I'm not just talking about walls collapsing and that kind of danger, as the very kind of waste you are talking about (radioactive mill tailings) is produced is comparable amounts in gold mining, copper mining, chromium mining (just to name a few). So again, this goes more to the urgent need to rethink our entire way of regulating the mining industry (particularly in placed like Africa, where there is virtually no regulation) than as a condemnation of the nuclear power supply chain.

hito wrote:
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.

If you are referring to my post in response to cyberpainter, I'm afraid you missed the point. I was asked what I would do it warned of a fallout in my area. I said I would leave. (As I would if I were warned of a hurricane, etc.) And I acknowledged that not everyone in that area would be as able to just pick up and leave as I would.

hito wrote:
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.

Does the ubiquitous presence of lies and liars among mean we should stop seeking the truth? Of course not. Does it mean one should result to lying to counteract the lies which are being spouted in disservice to one's personal interests? I should hope not (but maybe I'm naive).

If big business is infused with our political structure and our media (and I'm convinced it is), does that mean that there can be no more public discourse through the traditional means? Has our potential to exist as individuals and control our own destinies been manipulated beyond the point of no return? Are we sheep just obediently rounding the bend, hoping a corporate nail gun doesn't await us on the other side? Is there any point in going on? Should we just end it all here and now, for SBJ's sake, give me the gun, give me the fucking gun, I'm going to take a few of those ominous suits out with me!?

Er, that's one path. Another path is to admit that there are a lot of people trying to distort reality and, in this age of information noise, it is harder than ever to make sense of it all. But let's try to at the very least demand the scientific method of our scientists, to ask reasonable and level-headed questions when the answers we've been given don't seem to add up (and to educate ourselves sufficiently so that we're capable of the basic addition to begin with), shall we?


I think I agree with most of what you say.

I wasn't criticising you with the accident analogy. I have heard it a lot since the Tsunami. People saying things like "we don't stop driving cars because of crashes". I think it is a poor analogy, that is all. No swipe at you.

As for your last comment, I think I said it all in my original post (4). I prefer honesty.

I do think you need to look at your stance on this issue. Although you are expecting honesty of HC and putting her under the spotlight, you have to consider the effect of doing this to her. What is the message that nuclear supporters get when you attack HC. I think you are being pretty tough on her and other nuclear opponents whilst being very optimistic about nuclear potential. Editing by omission is certainly one of HC's crimes but it could also be one of your own. Many people say they are just scrutinising a person which, whilst true, also means they don't scrutinise others.
Having said that, none of us are immune from this. I myself am being more critical of your stance because I oppose nuclear and have not criticised CP because her opinions are closer to mine on this matter.

Apr 26, 2011, 10:26



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: