This message was self-deleted by its author

[NNadir]

10. Is yours? Fries metal? Fries metal? Really?

Last edited Sat Mar 11, 2017, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Try opening a science book.

Fries metal? Oh Jesus christ. How exactly, in purely physical terms, does one, um, fry metal?

I am very much a cheerleader for the nuclear power industry. I'm trying to save lives from stupidity.

Anyone, and I do mean anyone who prattles on endlessly about Fukushima while seven million people um, die each year from air pollution is insulting anyone with a modicum of ethical depth, knowledge and intelligence.

So don't talk to me about being insulting, OK?

I've spent thirty years of my life, ever since Chernobyl blew up, spending thousands upon thousands of hours in university libraries - some of the best libraries in the world, and I really, really, really, really don't want to hear an ethical lecture from someone who thinks one can, um, fry metal.

Here a systematic and pretty much universal account in something called the primary scientific literature of the major causes of risk on this planet:

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.)

Now if you give a rat's ass about humanity, you might access this article - it can be done at pretty much any university library - and look and see where nuclear energy appears in this comprehensive list of pretty much every major risk on this planet.

But you won't do that. Instead you'll offer up stuff like fries metal.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.

And don't talk to me about what is and what it not a joke either. There's nothing funny about people sentencing future generations to death and climate change because they can't open a science book or a scientific paper, like this one, co-authored by one of the world's most famous climate scientists, including an in depth analysis of Fukushima and Chernobyl and comparing them to the lives lost because of the selective attention of poor thinkers.


Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

In any case if you did go to a library and try to find things out, rather than repeating pablum and complaining of being insulted, you would find that deaths from nuclear power don't even compare to deaths from occupation cadmium exposure, not that you give a shit who dies from anything other than nuclear power.

Personally, in my experience, I have never met a rote anti-nuke who has the ethical depth of a turnip, not that I wish to state that I have anything against turnips by making the comparison.

Nuclear power need not be perfect, it need not be without risk, to be vastly superior and safer than everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it fucking is. Got it? No? Trust me, future generations, should they survive the ignorance of this generation will get it and history will not forgive them.

Have a nice day. And don't go near the ocean. It contains 500 billion curies of potassium-40. Every sample of potassium on the entire planet is radioactive, including the potassium in, um, people who would die without it. I include in the list of people who would die those people who get insulted when presented with an argument for basic human decency, without knowing what decency in fact, is.