...is to be pro-fossil fuels.
The fact is demonstrated by the failure of so called "renewable energy" - which in the mind of the withered little minds of anti-nukes is listed as "an alternative" - to make even a tiny dent in the accelerating rate of growth of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere.
I referred to a class of mindless, poorly educated people, and if you self identify with that class, I cannot help you.
The text of my post does not mention you, specifically, but simply states:
It would be interesting if one of the assholes worrying about leaks from the reactors at Fukushima could demonstrate that the entire nuclear enterprise, including Fukushima and every other event associated with more than half a century of commercial nuclear power, will kill as many people as will die today from air pollution.
As for rudeness: I am proud, by the way, to be a well known "fan" of nuclear energy, and to be asked, even rhetorically, to "chew on data" by a person who understands, clearly nothing about data whatsoever, and is uninformed enough to assume that a newspaper report is "data." I have spent several decades reading papers in the primary scientific literature of energy, and I don't need directions on how to do that from stupid newspaper reporters or people who confuse stupid newspaper reports with "data."
Now it is true that you cited a newspaper report, and I would suggest that the reporter responsible for it rather has his or head up her ass, but I have not stated that
you are worrying about leaks from Fukushima while 19,000 people die each day from air pollution. If you are, that does nothing whatsoever from claiming that that is, in fact, insane.
By the way, how many newspaper reports were published today about deaths from air pollution? Does the fact that there were no newspaper reports on this subject mean that 19,000 people
didn't die from air pollution?
A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)
Maybe you will announce that
I'm an asshole for pointing this paper assembled by researchers all over the world, but I couldn't care less. I merely note, with unabbreviated disgust, that more recent publications point out that air pollution deaths are
rising not falling.
As for "utopia" I'm not interested in that any more than silly anti-nuke whining crybabies are interested in the contents of scientific journals. I am not here to announce that nuclear power is without risk and perfectly safe 100% of the time for all time. I'll leave that sort of rhetoric for those epidemiologically uninformed hand wavers who demand that low paid Chinese miners eat cadmium to make "green" solar cells that haven't worked, aren't working, and won't work on a scale that matters. These ethical pygmies think it's perfectly OK to assume that what they can't do will be easy for the future generations about whom they have not a whit of concern. What I have said is that nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else, something which it is.
Anyone who can't understand that, is in my view, an asshole, and a dangerous asshole at that, since such ignorance results in huge losses of life that are unnecessary.
The syllogism that you propose that describing anti-nukes as being pro-fossil fuel as being equivalent to "If you're not a Democrat, your a Nazi" is rather extreme, not quite as extreme as pissing and moaning about minor set backs Fukushima while 19,000 people die each day from air pollution, but reflective, nonetheless of a certain quality of the mind.
If there was an alternative to nuclear power, it would have demonstrated, as nuclear energy has done, that it could prevent the dumping of 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide - about two years worth - into the planetary atmosphere, and that it saved the lives of millions of people who would have otherwise died from air pollution.
These facts, as I never tire of pointing out, are reported irrefutably in one of
most read papers written in one of the world's most important environmental
scientific journals:
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
Jim Hansen is no moral lilliputian and given that he has handled
data with considerable expertise in this paper, I'm not sure that he needs to be called out by a witless type suggesting that he or she knows, in fact, what "data" is.
Have a nice evening. It's been a pleasure.
= new reply since forum marked as read
