Anti-nukes use same tactics as Denialists

Anti-Nuke campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott is as hysterically conspiracy driven as global warming denialists. I CRINGED for her in the interview against George Monbiot; she’s up there with THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE AND THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED crowd.

The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nuclear. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Anti-nukes use same tactics as Denialists

  1. tomosk says:

    thanks for both links, I’m impressed by George Monbiot. I think I’m especially impressed by Monbiot because he seems to be able to acknowledge the cockups and acknowledge that things have to be improved, but also to be scientific about the actual effects i.e. reject exaggerated claims *without being defensive or agressive*.
    Unfortunately I dont feel I can trust the nuclear industry or it’s supporters (e.g. in spite of being a fan of the bravenewclimate site, I found it’s reporting of recent events was often biaised and not very scientific. At least there is some debate there.)
    One thing that bothers me (in general with the scientific approach) is the attitude that things have nothing to do with radiation unless proven – OTOH it is totally logical – but I believe the onus of proof should be on the nuclear industry to prove the lack of connection with radiation.
    And finally I think one little clause in the article with the interview sums up a sad fact:
    “often the debate pits one non-renewable energy against another as renewable energy technology and research remains underfunded.”

    • Eclipse Now says:

      One thing that bothers me (in general with the scientific approach) is the attitude that things have nothing to do with radiation unless proven – OTOH it is totally logical – but I believe the onus of proof should be on the nuclear industry to prove the lack of connection with radiation.

      But you would have to agree that just attributing any increase in deaths across the entire Russian and European continent to Chernobyl, without attributing a causal effect, is unscientific propaganda.

      The main issue being lost here is that with nuclear ‘waste’ now able to run the world for 500 years it is far more valuable than gold, more valuable than platinum! In other words, it is in a Corporation’s best financial interest to:

      • Make sure the reactors are built with passive safety so no ‘accidents’ can melt them down, ever! Why? Because they’re lovely saints that have our best interests at heart? NO! Reactors are expensive things to build! It costs too much money to rebuild them!
      • Store uranium and plutonium on site in a secure, safe environment because they are so valuable
      • The one question Helen Caldicott kept avoiding is how is the radiation going to get into the environment in the first place? Gen3 reactors are exponentially safer than Gen2, with passive-safety features that means they can’t melt down, even if the cooling equipment is wiped out by an earthquake.

      Was that the interview where she claimed that we just don’t know what to do with the waste? Every time I hear that I just yell at the TV or computer monitor. It makes me so angry because it reminds me of how dense I was when I thought the same thing about a year ago. That’s the thing that turned me around; that convinced me nuclear power was our best option. The waste just isn’t waste any more; it’s fuel, it’s the solution to peak oil and global warming!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s