Kadija_Man said:
I don't think I'd like to live in a coldly rational world. Ever read "Brave New World" by Huxley?
Why does rationality have to equate to cold? Ever read Richard Dawkins?
Describe a well-designed, well-maintained nuclear reactor. However, as we have seen, most of the meltdowns and near meltdowns occurred in older, less well-designed and less well-maintained reactors. Which is why I listed this as a "con".
Apparently not one made by socialists? Also, the Chernobyl incident occurred in a new reactor, reactor #4. Maintenance and design weren't the problem there, it was idiocy. Three Mile Island? That all came down to some workers not fixing something right. Can't blame that on it being nuclear, that's just people being stupid. Oh, and by the way, zero health issues attributed to that one, probably due to radiation not liking capitalists.
This page contains a list of civilian nuclear accidents many of which often because of what could be best described as mere luck did not become much worse than they were.
That page also has a large number of "everything was contained" or stupid operators. Neither of which indicate that nuclear power is inherently unsafe. On the contrary, it means that 1) stupid people should not be given important jobs, and 2) we're obviously doing something right with regards to containment dome design.
Really? That page I linked to up above lists far more serious accidents than you seem aware of.
I keep looking there but I can't seem to find where these are actually serious in terms of health problems. Where are all the people nuclear energy is irradiating or killing?
As ~97% of surveyed climatologists believe Global Warming is real, then I rather think you're on shaky ground there
As the chart I posted shows, the temperature increase is neither uniform nor actually present everywhere, large areas showing a net decrease. That is indicative of neither global acivity nor a uniform warming trend.
However, leaving that aside, as you've admitted, handling matters on a purely scientific basis isn't going to happen so it would be better, would it not, to deal with how they are actually handled?
What kind of stupid logic is that? You're supposed to fix things that are broken, not ignore them because it's the easy way out.
Science as an entity or science as a means of describing reality?
Science as in scientific fact.
You and I, I suspect, disagree over how much Climatology can be trusted. Does that mean you're not acting rationally in that field?]
No, I have scientific evidence to support my idea. Plus I never said that actual climate change itself was entirely asinine.
There are good and bad lawyers. There are good and bad scientists. How does one tell the difference?
You tell by looking at those who are beholden only to scientific fact and not external influence. I can give you an example of a debate where people refuse to accept scientific fact to the tune of billions of dollars if you want!
Well, considering your system has voluntary voting, how can you claim the actual electors are representational of the entire electorate? There is an old saying, "we get the Government we deserve". Very true at the moment downunder, I can assure you! I wonder if the same could be said for your Legislature?
Oh, I do believe we have the system we deserve. I no longer blame the politicians for everything, I choose to blame the people who vote for the idiots.
Perhaps it's simply another example of American exceptionalism. We've just see a very good, albeit perhaps politically dysfunctional government thrown out. The voters got fed up with it's political infighting and showed them the door in no uncertain terms.
We tried to do the same thing. And picked more idiots.
I will not go into bat for fossil fuelled power stations. However, their risks are known and understood. Nuclear power stations' aren't. At the moment we have the largest city in Japan poised to be evacuated if Tipco stuffs up again at Fukashima. You wouldn't have that with an accident at a conventional or alternative power plant, now would you?
That's funny, it seems like you're trying to tell us what the risks of nuclear power are. Are they "understood" or not? Also, you can have accidents that are just as problematic with conventional power usage. Pretending that they don't exist doesn't make nuclear energy more unsafe.
Navy reactors are routinely maintained and replaced with newer, more efficient and safer designed ones on a regular basis. The large, Nuclear Power Plants on land aren't. Which returns to that "con" of mine...
"Regular basis"? You do know that they're replaced when the CVNs or subs are replaced, right? That's not exactly a regular occurrence. But, again, if nuclear energy was just that unsafe, we'd expect to see evidence of that where it's used continuously. Look at France. Only on your list once, and yet they've been using nuclear power for decade, getting something like 80% of their electricity from it. Surely that much usage of something that's so unsafe would result in far more problems?
I won't bother with the issue of what capitalism equal. My viewpoint is well known and I've no desire go down that path again because I fear such a philosophical discussion is upsetting to some here.
That's fine.
With Nuclear Waste, the main issue is it's longevity and the difficulties with storing and protecting it for such long periods of time. Disposal of waste has a poor history, with numerous leaks, damage to ground waters, surface water, etc. You mentioned one yourself, the safe disposal of naval reactors in the fUSSR. Yet the US's record on waste management hasn't been exactly exemplary either.
That poor disposal history, ask yourself: is it due to an actual issue with proper disposal itself, or with the industry not being allowed to do what it says is safer?
