Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
So, in effect, even if the number of deaths is in dispute, the policy consequences [of Chernobyl] have happened nevertheless. In that, anti-nuclear advocates have been a lot more effective than road safety ones;
Well, actually, there is a two-proged PR propaganda campaign by suporters of nuclear energy: a combination of "we must replace gas and coal with nuclear for Global Climate's sake" and "even Chernobyl wasn't as bad as we thought". The policy consequences can easily be reversed especially as a new generation of people who were never aware of Chernobyl become politically active (I was 10 when Chernobyl happened and aware of it, but new 18-year-old voters were not even born when it happened).

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 10:01:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, nuclear is much better than coal, especially the non RBMK variety.

The really hard debate is to get people to admit that we have to actually reduce energy consumption. Dissing nuclear does nothing to help this, it only helps stick with coal by default.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 7th, 2006 at 12:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series