as an artist, i'm all for pretty, but still...
those pix of deformed kids....is 'ugly' enough of a description?
methinks the chief cognitive challenge is to wrap your head around the idea that we're entitled to use energy the way we do...
as nuts as imagining we could eat the way we do at xmas each and every day of the year, trash our health with autism, birth defects, cancer, diabetes, obesity (all diseases of 'civilisation'), and then whine about how the medicine is the wrong colour.
make that 'snivelisation'!
finding the support for nuclear power as strong as it is on a 'lefty' blog such as ET, is already startling to me.
....and makes me wonder how difficult the transition will be, when such intelligent people as the posters here can read dodo and deanander, and still refer to aesthetics as prime amongst concerns, subjective as they will always be anyway.
seems that only jerome has a clue as to what lies ahead, apart from the two diligent posters who have taken the time and trouble to present the other side of the coin, and i infer that even he is willing to endorse nuclear as a solution, stopgap or otherwise.
i can only react as a semi-informed sentient being, skin crawling at the prospects, but info such as dodo and deanander have so generously provided more than seal the deal for me.
i notice a conspicuous absence of comments on this thread.
could it be that others are re-assessing their positions on this ghastly, (possibly final) solution?
god, i so hope so...
if we don't get it, who will? ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
could it be that others are re-assessing their positions on this ghastly, (possibly final) solution? god, i so hope so...
Me too. I realize they aren't in denial about the situation as much as they are simply wieghing all the practical alternatives out there. But it's still a bit too realpolitik for me... And I think it is for the vast majority of people. There is something to be said for horror...
On the topic, I once read a novel, "The Sky Unwashed," about the accident, written from a very personal perspective, which brings the reality of the accident home as well, or better, than statistics trying to assess the big picture. Also, there is a travel narrative written by a man who hitchhiked across Russia (!), "Siberian Dawn," which goes into some detail about the distressingly high radiation levels throughout Siberia, defunct nuclear reactors, and the lives of the people who live with this reality. No Chernobyl, but it gives you a bit of perspective if you're thinking that the dangers of Chernobyl are some kind of anomaly. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
the pronuke camp has valid points to make, in that public fear of active isotopes is exaggerated compared to fears of more prevalent and imminent risks of daily life. miscalculation of risk is one of those persistent error problems, about which I've read and written a it in my time. but the irrationality of some people's fears doesn't automatically guarantee the rationality or "cost-effectiveness" or manageability of the technology.
we might be scared of being bitten by a mad dog because the dog is possessed by devils, dogs are unclean animals and accursed of God, and if we are bitten the dog's devils will enter our soul and condemn us to Hell (not to mention a painful death) -- besides it is a black, hairy, ugly dog and scary-looking. the irrationality of this colourful belief system is undeniable, but that doesn't make the dog's bite harmless; we may very well get rabies or tetanus and die anyway :-) The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
