Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

madokie

(51,076 posts)

22. There you go again

Reply to PamW (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 19, 2013, 07:56 PM

Oct 2013

The fact of the matter is Chernobyl has lain waste to a large area of the surroundings including a city of over 50,000 inhabitants.
Cars in todays world is a necessary evil unless you want to go back to beasts of burden.

Fukushima is not even close to being under control and the jury is still out on the damage that will be caused by it. I doubt this will end in a good way.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Japan on gas, coal power building spree to fill nuclear void [View all] GliderGuider Oct 2013 OP

winning! phantom power Oct 2013 #1

No worries, eh? pscot Oct 2013 #2

Japan seems to have had no short term options except to jump from the frying pan into the fire. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #3

There was at least one much better option phantom power Oct 2013 #4

The domain of "short term options" is defined by political as well as technical feasability. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #5

Nuclear isn't at all compatible with renewables. kristopher Oct 2013 #8

So, the solution is...more coal-fired plants? NickB79 Oct 2013 #11

Interesting article from the Grauniad, thanks! GliderGuider Oct 2013 #12

You can build coal plants optimized to support variable generation. kristopher Oct 2013 #13

Where the economics clash, the plants shut down NickB79 Oct 2013 #14

"Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given. kristopher Oct 2013 #15

Its not so much radiation that people are terrified of madokie Oct 2013 #17

We frack here dbackjon Oct 2013 #6

Great example of why spending on nuclear is counterproductive to fighting GHG emissions kristopher Oct 2013 #7

Sure, sure... PamW Oct 2013 #9

That is pretty simplistic thinking that ignores many dimensions of the issue kristopher Oct 2013 #10

You know and I know that doesn't matter to this poster who you are replying too madokie Oct 2013 #18

I don't know about you.. PamW Oct 2013 #20

Pam you can be anyone or anything you want to be, I don't really care madokie Oct 2013 #21

I never understand... PamW Oct 2013 #23

Its the way you present madokie Oct 2013 #25

If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out... PamW Oct 2013 #28

Scientifically WRONG!!! again PamW Oct 2013 #19

There you go again madokie Oct 2013 #22

The animals are doing fine.. PamW Oct 2013 #24

The animals aren't doing fine, thats bullshit madokie Oct 2013 #26

The reason is that animals are thriving... PamW Oct 2013 #29

Mainly because animals have short lifespans NickB79 Oct 2013 #31

You really don't see what you say, do you? kristopher Oct 2013 #27

BAD nonscientific assumption being made. PamW Oct 2013 #30

No DrGreg, I didn't make a bad assumption. kristopher Oct 2013 #32

Lets talk about this a little bit madokie Oct 2013 #16