I understand your resistance to regulation. But I just wonder:
We need people to stop accepting being lied to.
Could this be wishful thinking? How would you actually achieve this? To take TFA as an example: how would people ever find out they'd been lied to in this case, without being knowledgable about the workings of computers?
I assume you meant "water prevents dehydration"...? Well, maybe the EU wasn't so stupid there. If you are actually dehydrated (i.e. not just thirsty), then water will not fix the problem. This is why you don't give pure water to a diarrhoea sufferer.
Now of course regulation can be taken too far. But at the moment, the advertising industry has way too much a free hand. Here in the UK, the worst punishment that seems to be handed out is "don't do it again".
You put forth an argument regarding safety of NP and asked "what about it?", I told you I think it's bullshit and argued why, now you fork off about a question of price.
If your best low-risk alternative is prohibitively expensive, it's not much good, is it?
My point is that regarding risks and impact on life of each energy generation technology, intrinsic risks (basically, the worst case) as well as mitigated risks (i.e., the best we can do) need to be properly assessed and compared. Comparing intrinsic risks of coal to mitigated risks of NP doesn't bring much.
So the history of NP up until now is "the best we can do"? Whatever, when you actually bring some facts to the table instead of sitting there calling everything BS we can actually have a discussion.
As many nuclear fanatics on this site, you sound to me as a very angry, choleric person, not as much interested in trying to figure out a rational answer to the specific question of what energy politics would be best for humanity as inn winning a dick contest where "your" technology would so much better than "my " technology. You say "look harder" but it appears to me that dismissing people's concerns about NP as ridiculous would also need some reevaluation, especially in light of recent events.
Stop trying to argue by mind-reading. After a rant like that, I don't know how you've got the nerve to accuse anyone else of being angry.
The page conveniently doesn't mention concentrated solar power, which is obviously the safest and cleanest, if possibly not the cheapest, way of producing usable energy bar none.
You can say that again. $0.12 to $0.18 per kwh? Plus you're comparing a cutting-edge tech, which about half of world capacity installed in 2010 (!), with nuclear technologies that have been around for 50 years.
However the price is high as long as externalities are not considered. The true price of energy generation for humanity once each and every components are taken into account (pollution, accidents, politics, crime, hidden costs) is still to be determined with precision imho. My bet is that on the very long term, i.e., if humanity is to survive a couple centuries, most energy will come from solar. Nuclear power will possibly be part of the mix but not in the form we're doing it today.
This is as clear a case of special pleading as I've ever seen. So your suggested solution is "obviously" better because of something we can't yet calculate. Brilliant.
Nobody would fall from any roof if construction regulations that are enforced with NP would be applied to roofing.
You don't realise how ridiculous this sounds? Chernobyl woudn't have happened if people stuck to regulations. What's your point?
No, it's partisan bullshit, at least in part. We should all aim at the truth, not at advancing our own agenda / pet technology. Renewable energy is not "my tech" like some other asshat said somewhere, neither is nuclear power the devil. I'm simply looking
Look harder. You've spread quite a bit of bullshit of your own.
The fact that it's using figures regarding the Chernobyl death toll that were later admitted as bogus and recanted should ring a bell.
But even if you use the revised WHO figure, the death rate is still lower than all other technologies. So your point, while valid, doesn't change the argument.
Also the notion of counting roof falls as a consequence of solar energy sounds to the very least like an extremely contrived argument to me, if not outright partisan bullshit.
Why? Panels have to be installed in order to be used. How do you suggest that should be done? Not only that, but the blog author suggests ways that the risk from PV installation could be brought down - hardly a partisan attack piece.
However the fact that I'm able to easily spot a few glaring crocks in an argument unfortunately doesn't make me magically able to come with better figures.
And that right there is your problem. You've called bullshit a few times but you don't have any better information yourself, and the "crocks" you think you've spotted are not the big news you seem to think. Maybe that's why it gets "cited by each and every nuclear apologist on Slashdot" - it's a helpful contribution to our understanding of the risks.
And read my other posts, it's not just about money and it's not just about numbers of people dying. It's about not having millions of people have to worry about the nasty shit that is nuclear power and the waste from it.
I've read your other posts. Nowhere have you posted anything to do with risk per unit of electricity generated. And the Inquisitr "article" that you linked to - did you actually read it? No sources or numbers there either. If people have to worry, then could that be because of baseless scaremongering like yours?
Lack of interest, lack of expertise, laziness, you name it. I would love to read some non-partisan assessment of the options regarding energy generation, including an objective estimation of the price and risk of each technology...
Meaning that you haven't already done so? So what was your source for criticising the blog I linked to? If those numbers were wrong, where are your better numbers?
"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27
