Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Stewart Brand: Why Environmentalists Must Accept Nuclear [View all]FBaggins
(26,910 posts)Jacobsens presentation is halting and uncomfortable
and he's the one who was incapable of dealing with presented facts. Instead he continually returns to imagined facts. He also continues some of his total BS lines of argument like only counting the tower itself for winds footprint (entirely dodging three valid points and the fact that solar's footprint can't play that game) or (better yet) scoring the assumption that continuing nuclear power will necessarily result in a city being destroyed with nuclear weapons (Brand easily demolished that nonsense
but as has been proven here time and time again, thats not hard to do).
The easy win is found in the introductory statement: The more people understand about climate, they more they worry. The more people understand nuclear power, the less they worry. Ill add that the more theyre taught to fear it, the less they understand since the fear is often based on lies (as with the nonsense claims about thyroid issues with children near Fukushima).